Major Stephen Coughlin on Abrogation

The Center for Security Policy hosted a Defeat Jihad Summit in Washington D.C. today. Among the speakers were Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Representatives Steven King and Mike Pompeo, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard, and Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin.

The video below shows Maj. Coughlin’s brief but comprehensive explanation of the Doctrine of Abrogation as practiced in Islamic law. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for excerpting this clip:

Watch the full six-hour video here.

The more lengthy explanation of abrogation below is adapted from previous briefings by Maj. Coughlin. As always, his material is scrupulously sourced.

The Doctrine of Abrogation

At the very pinnacle of Islamic law is the Koran, which is the uncreated word of God as revealed through his prophet. Every word in the Koran comes from God himself, and is inerrant. Yet the Koran sometimes contradicts itself. These seemingly intractable differences are reconciled through the doctrine of “abrogation”.

So what is abrogation?

This is what Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has to say about abrogation in Islamic Jurisprudence:[1]

The law was laid down in the period of the Prophet (peace be unto him) gradually and in stages. The aim was to bring a society steeped in immorality to observe the highest standards of morality. This could not be done abruptly. It was done in stages, and doing so necessitated repeal and abrogation of certain laws.

As you can see, Nyazee acknowledges that the Koran contradicts itself. Upon discovering this fact, someone who knows very little about Islam might say, “The Koran contradicts itself. Doesn’t this mean it’s broken?” But it is well understood in Islam that the Koran contradicts itself. This fact is explained, and taken into account. There are methods for dealing with it.

This becomes significant when non-Muslims approach a Muslim cultural expert or “moderate” to ask about certain verses of the Koran that are cited by radicals to justify their violent jihad. The cultural expert or “moderate” will respond with something like this: “You (infidel) must read from the entire body of the Koran to understand the true meaning. Those radicals cherry-pick from the back of the Koran.”

With this reply the cultural expert gives the impression that he does not agree with the radicals, but he never actually says that what they cherry-pick is wrong.

So what is the Koranic basis for the doctrine of abrogation?

It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages. (Qur’an 17:106)

Concerning this verse, the Qur’an commentator Yusuf Ali says:[2]

The marvel is that these parts, revealed at different times and in different circumstances, should fit together so closely and consistently as they do. All revelation is progressive. The previous revelations were also progressive. Each of them marked a stage in the world’s spiritual history. Man’s mind does not take in more than his spiritual state will have prepared him for. Allah’s revelation comes as a light to illuminate our difficulties and show us the way in actual situations that arise.

Here’s another verse covering the same subject:

When We substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages — They say, “Thou art but a forger”: But most of them understand not. (Qur’an 16:101)

And once again, a comment by Yusuf Ali:[3]

The doctrine of progressive revelation from age to age and time to time does not mean that Allah’s fundamental Law changes. It is not fair to charge a Prophet of Allah with forgery because the Message, as revealed to him, is in a different form from that revealed before, when the core of the Truth is the same, for it comes from Allah.

The final Koranic verse on progressive revelation:

None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Qur’an 2:106)

Thus we have three different citations from the Koran in which Allah says he reveals things in stages, and that with each stage he abrogates the previous stages. We would expect — because it is the uncreated word of Allah — that what was said later would overrule what was said earlier. And any Islamic law which did not reflect this fact would be suspect.

That means that if the radicals are cherry-picking chronologically from the back of the Koran, they are correct.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Anyone who looks at the entire body of the Koran to get its true meaning is actually not oriented on the legal parts, because it is weighted, just as our legal system is weighted to recognize the most recent precedent.

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee has this to say on the principle of naskh:[4]

The literal meaning of naskh is canceling or transferring. In its technical sense it is used to mean the “lifting (raf’) of a legal rule through a legal evidence of a later date.” The abrogating text or evidence is called nasikh, while the repealed rule is called the mansukh.

In Outlines of Muhammadan Law, Asaf A.A. Fyzee remarks:[5]

The Koran according to this theory is the first source of law. … It is for this reason that the verse of the Koran (ayat), although only a few of them deal specifically with legal questions, are held to be of paramount authority. In interpreting the Koranic verses, one important principle has to be observed. Some verses are deemed to be the abrogating (nasikh) verses and some to be the abrogated (mansukh) ones. Generally speaking the earlier verses are deemed to be repealed by the later ones.

Thus, because the later Koranic verses are always considered to be the valid and binding points of Islamic law, it becomes important to arrange the Koran chronologically. When the Koran is arranged that way, it is divided into the early, middle, and late Meccan periods, and the Medina period. Surah 2 is generally understood to be the first surah of the Medina period. Surah 9 is the penultimate surah of the Koran, and 5 is the last surah of the Koran. However, there is some disagreement among scholars about the ordering, and different orderings exist. Some authorities name 110 as the final surah, rather than 5, and some say 9 is the last.

What is important in this context is the general agreement that Surah 9 is the last to talk about jihad, 5 is the last to talk about relations with non-Muslims, and 3 is understood to come after 2. All four schools of Sunni Islamic are in general agreement on abrogating/abrogated texts, and on the major issues they are in general agreement.[6] 75% of Sunni Islamic law is recognized in common across all four schools.

So a Muslim jurist does not read Islamic law and decide what is or is not abrogated. These issues have already been decided. If you are a Hanbali, or Hanafi, or Shafite, or Maliki Islamic scholar, you will refer to your school’s books on abrogated texts. No one can become a judge unless he knows them by heart.

How are the surahs in the Koran arranged? When you open the Koran, you see Surah 1, which is very brief, and serves as an introduction. Next comes Surah 2, which is the largest surah in the Koran, about 150 pages long. Surah 3 is the second largest, Surah 4 is the third largest, and so on. It becomes obvious that when the scholars constructed the Koran, they put the introductory surah first, but after that the Koran was ordered by the size of the surahs, from the largest to the smallest chapter. It is not arranged chronologically.

When you look at the entire body of the Koran, the Meccan period seems much bigger than the Medinan period. But surahs 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 — all from the Medinan period — comprise about 80% of the Koran, while surahs 109, 112, 113, and 114 — from the Meccan period — occupy less than entire pages. In other words, the number of a surah does not refer to its order in the chronology, but to its size.

Islamic law is entirely derived from the Medinan period. Anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject that was said in the Meccan periods. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period overrules anything said in the earlier part.

Whenever a “moderate” finally concedes that there is such a thing as jihad, he will quote Surah 2 (with some support from Surah 8), because the first jihad was mentioned in Surah 2, and can reasonably be expected to be defensive jihad. But remember: the last surah that talks about jihad is Surah 9.

So how does this affect our understanding of Islam?

Surah 2 says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold. (Qur’an 2:256)

Virtually any Westerner who knows anything about Islam has heard this. But what most people have not heard is this:

Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter (Qur’an 3:85)


Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is of them. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust. (Qur’an 5:51)

So who are the unjust, besides the Christians and Jews? The Muslims who take Christians and Jews as friends.

As you can see from the chart, Surah 2 is abrogated by Surah 3, which is abrogated by Surah 5. This means that 5:51 is the final word on how a pious Muslim must regard Christians and Jews.


1.   Imran Asham Khan Nyazee, Islamic Jurisprudence, (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2003), 319.
2.   Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2317.
3.   Yusuf Ali, Qur’an, Comment 2140.
4.   Nyazee, Jurisprudence, 318.
5.   Asaf A. A. Fyzee, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 4th ed. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1974), at 19-20.
6.   Keller, Reliance of the Traveller, vii.

31 thoughts on “Major Stephen Coughlin on Abrogation

  1. “Instead of a perpetual and perfect measure of the divine will, the fragments of the Koran were produced at the discretion of Mahomet; each revelation is suited to the emergencies of his policy or passion; and all contradiction is removed by the saving maxim, that any text of Scripture is abrogated or modified by any subsequent passage.” (Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 5, Ch. L, pt. IV)

    • So in the 18th century, essentially the same thing was written as is spoken now…. Were Gibbon, Ben Franklin, Churchill and others all erroneous “Islamophobes”, with only the likes of Karen Armstrong and Barack Obama “enlightened” enough to make a sound judgment?

      • I remember Tommy Robinson being on TV once doing an interview and he mentioned what Gladstone said about the Curry-Anne and the reporter nearly pooped her pants – total panic stations!

        As Jones once said to Captain Mainwaring … they don’t like it up ’em!

  2. I have argued in my modest little e-book The Cameron Analysis that David Cameron’s own statements about Islam only support the conclusion that some Islamic teachings are peaceful. Using Cameron’s own logic, it can also be argued that some Islamic teachings are not peaceful. What can the devout Muslim do when he finds himself in such a pickle … why, he can apply the traditional Islamic principle of abrogation of course! I cite Professor William Montgomery Watt as a respected source in my e-book & show that, if this is all correct, it is not a surprise to see devout Muslims murder an infidel soldier on the streets of London, cite surah at-taubah as their inspiration, & then tell the judge at their trial that no matter what he said, their actions were not a betrayal of Islam at all.

    Some Islamic teachings are peaceful. Some Islamic teachings are not peaceful. And devout Muslims use the principle of abrogation to decide which teachings they are going to follow.

    We need to start pushing this every chance we get. It’s a simple idea at the end of the day & it can undermine a lot of the nonsense we hear from the traitor class.

  3. “The late William Montgomery Watt, formerly of Edinburgh University, is a recognized authority on Islam. In his highly regarded biography of Muhammad, he explains that the Koran is not arranged in chronological order, and the traditional way of making sense of it is to employ the Islamic principle of abrogation.

    When anyone reading the Koran comes upon two Islamic doctrines which contradict one one another, that contradiction can be resolved by running an abrogation ‘app’ within the mind of the reader. This intellectual software treats the Koran as an external source of information and accesses it the same way any application accesses a file, taking each verse as a record with a compound key of two integers, the number of the surah and the number of the particular verse. The app checks the fields holding the dates when the verses were supposed to have been spoken by the angel Gabriel, and the verse with the most recent date is declared authoritative.

    The teachings of the Koran can therefore be sorted, not according to any objective moral values, or a doctrine’s utility at any given moment, or whether it is peaceful in nature or not, but according to the dates when Gabriel is supposed to have revealed those teachings to the world.”

    McAvelly, by Nick (2014-12-23). The Cameron Analysis (Kindle Locations 151-160). Kindle Edition.

  4. Is there a link to “the chart” referred to in the last paragraph of the text? Or am I simply unable to see it?

    This is very important & interesting information on abrogation.

    Can anyone guide me to the Surah(s) discussing the doctrine of taqiyya? (The doctrine which permits Muslims pretty much to lie to “infidels” without limit if the lying “protects” Islam.)

    Thank you.

    • I’m trying to find the chart. I wasn’t able to lay my hands on the graphic before post time last night, so I went ahead without it.

  5. My point, which I have made in the other thread, is that we can’t sit around waiting for the traitor class to come to their senses. That is never going to happen. We can’t expect their lies and fallacies to be exposed by the gentlemen of the press, because that is never going to happen. And what we have been doing is clearly not being effective enough – so we have to start trying to do something else.

    One thing we can all do, as individuals with limited resources, is develop weapons that completely destroy the favourite lies and fallacies of the traitor class. We can set up our own Iron Dome that is able to track the Kassams fired by these anti-intellectual terrorists and shoot them out of the sky.

    We are, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, in a war of attrition. We need to start degrading the enemy’s capabilities & maybe, just maybe, we’ll get lucky one day & not only score a hit & take out one of their Kassams, but start a chain reaction, blow up their armory & maybe take a few of them out at the same time.

    If we don’t start firing back & taking the other side’s missiles out – they’re going to keep landing & we’re going to keep taking casualties.

    I for one have had enough.

  6. The basis for Taqqiya is found in a hadith. Bukhari Volume 5, Number 369 Part 248.

    “(369) Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’
    Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’
    The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’

    • Ah. Thank you so much! I don’t have any of the hadith volumes available (there may be no end to them…). I do have an English-language Koran/Quran–not sure which is the “authoritative” transliteration from the Arabic, not being literate in any language which uses the Arabic alphabet.

  7. The Christian is caught in the dichotomy of Loving your Neighbor and Defending your Family. When confronted by this hate-bred religious system the default position is to go to Jesus Christ Who stated that He would never leave or forsake us. The fallback position is to grab whatever will serve as a weapon to defend your household and most importantly your wife and children from being raped and/or brutalized.
    The church where I fellowship has been praying for the persecuted Church for at least six months every Wednesday night before the Mid-week Service and we are beginning to see from fruit. However, this we know, Jesus Christ has seen all these goings-on and is about ready to intervene in a mighty way on behalf of the Jews, particularly when they are overrun by the Muslim hordes from southern Russia y’all, Iran, Turkey, Libya et al as per Ezekiel Chapters 37, 38, & 39.
    Sadly, nowhere is it written that this divine intervention will bring the traitor elites and the rest of the world to repentance. It only gets better when some upstart lays claim to what God had done to protect His people. In short, all that we read of is taking place with the acquiescence, if not outright support and patronage of the world’s elite who so blinded in their greed and lust for power that they cannot see the end their deeds are taking them to. The scene at Barad-Dur in the final episode of the Hobbit where the Nine mortal kings greedy for power are but Sauron’s chattel comes to mind.
    So the Elite and Islam are laying claim to that which is not theirs, the Earth, its resources and its people which are the creations and the loving handiwork of Almighty God.

    • As for the Quran being Allah’s uncreated word, the Mahomet got the name wrong. The Word of God is named Ya Shua and was in the beginning with God. That alone renders Islam an apostate and heretical cult.
      Scimitars for this infidel anyone?

  8. If you wanted to establish a political party for your friends: desert thieves, perverts, pedophiles, hit-men, rapists, and hypertestosterone alpha-males…you would structure it exactly like Islam.

    First of all, you would treat women like inferior pets. No reasonable thinking!
    Then you would tell everyone that they can’t quit or even question.
    And that what you say is the word of god. Ooooo!
    And you would entice them with stories of virgins in heaven if they died for you in battle; and then you keep yakking about how good death is compared to life.
    And you give them a slice of the loot taken in wars and tell them they can go crazy with lunatic behavior after a victory. Let it all hang out with your id.
    Then you require that they lie about everything embarrassing to the group and use deceipt to fool the suckers. Up to 10 years of deceipt shot.

    It’s perfect. A recipe for the Bloods and Crips…to start a political movement. Call it a religion so that people honor and respect you.

    • You nailed it! Islam appeals to all of man’s worst vices: the total and complete worship of self and the gratification of all evil desires.

    • Let me stick my neck out in this discussion and say that, when I taught 7th-grade World History (pre-9/11), I pointed out to my students that Islam–as unbelievable as it may seem–represented an *improvement* in the status of women vs. their status pre-Islam.

      My class was taught in a private school, although I hold a valid credential for World History among other subjects. I never said or taught anything in World History there that I wouldn’t have said at a public school. There were only 10 students, all male. These boys/young men (depended on the day of the week at that age!) showed their knowledge of the situation and their developed sense of justice and fair play even at that age as the shock of my statement staggered them.

      “It was an IMPROVEMENT?!” “What did they do before that?!” and the universal “WHAT?!”

      Let us look at the ways in which Islam–if practiced as told to us in the West–improved the status of women when it was “revealed.”

      1) Women were now admitted to have a soul.
      Prior to Islam, in the tribal/animistic belief system, animals and women had no soul; only men did.

      2) Men were now limited to *only* four wives, and concubinage was abolished.
      Prior to Islam, a man of means could take as many wives and/or concubines as he wished and discard them at will. One of “my” boys asked, “What’s a concubine?” I asked him if he had ever heard of King Solomon. “Oh, yeah, he had lots of wives and–” and cut himself off. The eyes of the other students lit up with recognition, too. Harems are an ancient Mideastern cultural feature, it seems.

      3) The children of a wife were now legally the heirs of their father, the man to whom their mother was married when they were born (one reason Islam is so weird about virginity, honor, and all that–inheritance of a man’s property, in addition to control of women).
      Prior to Islam, a man could have a 20-year marriage with a woman, producing X children, and then cast her out and disinherit their children. Islam said he could NOT cast her and her children out. Provisions were made for divorce, and the children were made their father’s legal heirs. Even girls had *some* claim on their father’s inheritance, quite different from previously.

      4) The first wife a man married was *supposed* to be asked if she consented to further wives her husband wished to marry. If we extrapolate from polygamous Mormonism–and the fundamentalist strain of it still practiced today–this consent was rarely sought. But there was a subtle recognition that the status of “first wife” was worth something.
      Prior to Islam, no wife had any standing and, of course, concubines were little more than political/tribal hostages who lived and died at their “owner’s/captor’s” pleasure.

      My students were even more appalled after I gave them these four points of improvement in the status of women post-Islam vs. pre-Islam. As the boys/young men were only 12 and 13 (one of them was 11), I refrained from discussing honor killings, the requirement that rape be witnessed (!) by four men or else it would be considered voluntary adultery/fornication, and other related topics. I had full confidence in the 11th-grade Western Civilization instructor that he would cover these subjects quite well when the students were 16 and 17.

  9. Fantastic stuff. I have been hoping to find exactly this lately. If there is a graphical representation, that would be even fantasticer.

  10. I stayed up late and watched four-and-a-half hours of the DJ Summit. I was riveted.

    Coughlin, as always, was stellar. In addition to the sections of his comments discussed here, his revealing of the “concrete” nexus between the left and Islam chilled me to the bone; we all know they work together against their common enemy, the West. But he cited one mechanism in particular: Soro’s Article 19 in league with the OIC’s UN 1618 — hidden from public awareness — needs immediate bull-horning across the internet and airwaves. It criminalizes speech “offensive” to Muslims through the authority of the UN and treaties — by changing the legal meaning of “incitement;” and how many of us know that “offending” the prophet of Islam — according to their own book — is punishable by death. Charlie and his colleagues found out.

  11. “and they say….
    “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies]”
    “Lo! thou art but inventing.”
    “You are only a forger.”
    “(Muhammad), you have falsely invented it.”
    “You (O Muhammad SAW) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar).”
    Koran 16:101

    The Koran is “true … universal and trans-time” (Ahmad Saad, North London Central Mosque), “valid from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Sharia law).

  12. Without a clear understanding of ABROGATION, Western editors, journalists, clergy, politicians, artists and business leaders have NO HOPE to understand Islam. They are all assuming Islam is based on a clear linear thought, but it isn’t.

    Islam is based on contradiction and the contradiction is always bouncing back and forth like a ping-pong ball!

    Why will Western leaders not act responsibly and read knowledgeable analysts like Major Coughlin who have done all the homework for them?

    • It’s obvious why not. Because the elites already have their pet beliefs about Islam and aren’t about to admit they’ve been had. Look, they’re like the boss at work, they tend to get very upset when you tell them something they’ve been promoting for several decades is not only wrong but will eventually kill them.

      They’re more likely to fire you. They don’t like the bearers of bad news – they take it personally.

      Some are just abject fools who like to play with fire like the young American woman who was murdered in Syria. By most accounts, she was a Marxist do-gooder from a nice home who had no clue how the real world operated and paid with her life by taking a walk around Aleppo during the fighting and was never seen again. People like Cameron, Kerry, Clinton and others remind me of her. They don’t know and don’t think.

      • I think it’s more sinister than that, why the elites permit the insinuation (a slow winding, worming, or stealing in) of an ideology that seeks to first undermine and then utterly destroy Western Civilization: they have the same goal.

        • They don’t have the same goal IMO. The elites are using the Muzzies and 3rd worlders to get rid of the only group that could overthrow them – the white middle class.

          It’s my view that the elites want to go back to a some sort of feudal system where they are on top permanently.

          The mistake the elites are making is that they think they can control Muslims once they achieve their goals.

          They are dead wrong. The Muzzies aren’t bright, but they are born predators and know weakness when they see it. They are using the elites and when they’re done the elites get their throats slit along with their white indentured servant class.

          • Feudal society was of the West.
            The “elites” and Islam do have the same goal: the destruction of Western Civilization and with it every trace of Christendom.
            I disagree with you.

    • I would say that islam is based on expediency rather than contradiction. Early in the history of islam, when mohammed and his followers were relatively weak, he preached tolerance and peace. Later, after his movement became more powerful, he switched gears and preached intolerance, violence and conquest. Although islam’s goal — worldwide domination — is ever fixed, its means of achieving that goal change with the circumstances.

  13. Also highly recommend the study and bookmarking of:

    PSA by Major Stephen Coughlin (retired), Weaponized terms of Jihad to begin to grasp the Orwellian nature of ‘islam-apologist’ terminology.

    To Our Great Detriment” Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad by Stephen Coughlin, Major, Military Intel, USAR NDIC Class 2007

    As well as this essay by Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the study of Political Islam:

    dualism of Islam

    “dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith). . . .Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later).
    The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of
    contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by
    resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes
    the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be
    the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is
    “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is
    the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the
    contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse
    is used.”

  14. Also highly recommend the study and bookmarking of:

    PSA by Major Stephen Coughlin (retired), Weaponized terms of Jihad to begin to grasp the Orwellian nature of ‘islam-apologist’ terminology.

    To Our Great Detriment” Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad by Stephen Coughlin, Major, Military Intel, USAR NDIC Class 2007

    As well as this essay by Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the study of Political Islam:

    dualism of Islam

    “dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos starting with its foundational declaration: (1) there is no god but Allah and (2) Mohammed is His prophet. Therefore, Islam is Allah (Koran) and the Sunna (words and deeds of Mohammed found in the Sira and Hadith). . . .Our first clue about the dualism is in the Koran, which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later).
    The insight into the logic of the Koran comes from the large numbers of
    contradictions in it. On the surface, Islam resolves these contradictions by
    resorting to “abrogation”. This means that the verse written later supersedes
    the earlier verse. But in fact, since the Koran is considered by Muslims to be
    the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is
    “better,” but the earlier verse cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. This is
    the foundation of dualism. Both verses are “right.” Both sides of the
    contradiction are true in dualistic logic. The circumstances govern which verse
    is used.”

  15. Isn’t it about time you cowards who call yourselves journalists remembered what your duty is, in a free a democratic society? It is to inform the public – and the only way to understand the koran is to understand the principle of abrogation – this means that the intolerant, violent verses in the koran over-ride any so-called ‘tolerant’ verses that were supposedly dictated to Mahomet at the beginning of his prophetic career.

    Run that video and explain the principle of abrogation to your readers. Do your [redacted]->freaking job you cowardly scumbags.


    Entered the above comment on the latest jihadi porn video/article at the DM.

  16. Contrary to a few posters I don’t think the elites as such, exceptions noted, are/were trying to overturn and destroy Western Civilization. Yes I think leftism led them to bring in, “understand” Islam, and change society but then they realized they created a Frankenstein monster that they can’t control. So now they are trying to appease it, hold on to power. Of course since these Frankensteins can not only kill but vote, politicians are now beholden to them. So of course they use each other.

    Now a guy like Obama, yeah he really has it in for America. And he is much more favorable to Islam then he is to democracy. So I give you guys that.

    What gets me is the lemming Swedes. And even now the Swiss. Some case can be made for those leaders and the destroying Western Civilization theory I suppose, but maybe a bigger case can be made for mass psychosis.

Comments are closed.