quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101
No where in the Quran does it say that the punishment for apostasy is death. The Hadith does support the killing those who apostatize, however it is second in authority to the Quran.

Capital punishment applies in the case of a person who meets any of the following conditions:

1 – The apostate. The apostate is one who disbelieves after being a Muslim, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6524.
Source (one of several): https://islamqa.info/en/20824

quote:

Greta75

No authentic Islam scholar in the Muslim world would agree with you that Hadiths come second to the Quran. You cannot understand the Quran without the Hadith. They go hand in hand. Quran has vague verses. Hadith explains more indepth how to interprete the verses in the Quran by giving examples. This is exactly why, moderate muslims who desperately want to ditch the hadith and discredit it, because from the beginning of time of Islam. There has been no room for different interpretation. Thanks to the Hadith. It's not like the bible where it is the ONLY book, Quran has a secondary official books that tells you exactly how to interpret it correctly and the Hadith is where all the real nastiness starts. And for them to have more peaceful interpretation of Islam, new school Muslims wants to discredit the authenticity of the Hadith but you can't come in much later in life, in the long history of practising Islam and then decide, the hadith that has from the beginning of time been revered as THE guide to interpreting the Quran correctly and suddenly denounce it to the Muslim world as false and inaccurate! It might work convincing lefties. But not the Muslim people.

The best part is, all the hadiths are ranked according to how authentic and accurate the information are. They are annointed as super authentic officially! The top 3 ones.

And, find me a Muslim country in this world who does not punish apostasy? There is none. Not all of them is death, but it is against the law of ALL Muslim countries, and if there is no death, there is imprisonment.

Malaysia constantly have this fights, where one parents is Muslim and one parent is Hindu for example. And the child wants to convert to a Hindu. The law tells him. Sure, then face the death penalty. And they never win it. As in successfully win conversion. In the end, they battle, and lose, and give up and decide to value their life. In Malaysia, they make it super strict. If your mother or father is a Muslim, You're a Muslim whether you like it or not. Period. And that's a super moderate Muslim country.

The battle is so bad to the extent where parents battle at courts, IF their son died, and one wants to bury them Hindu way, and the other wants to bury Muslim way. And Muslim way always wins.

And worst of all, they have religious police that patrols and enforce sharia laws, even in the most modern cities like Kuala Lumpur. If you are a non Muslim, there is nothing to worry about. But if you are officially recognised by the country as a Muslim, because one of your parent is a Muslim. IF they caught you just holding hands with a woman. You must produce a marriage certificate, or you are screwed! It's jail term! Immediate arrest.

They raid hotels too and check on Muslim couples.

The oppression is soooo terrible. It just sickens me to hear the left defending this disgusting religion day after day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101
It sounds like the Hadith is the equivalent to the old/new testament. Authenticity aside, they are interpretations of the word of god that came hundreds of years later. The Bible, and its old testament, has had its fair share of violence. How can you seriously defend the Hadit's teaching over the old testaments? You can't have it both ways. Why can't moderate Muslims ditch the Hadith, but Christians can ditch the old testament and establish a slightly less violent new testament? Seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101
As far as the Hadith..it's considered to the second hand accounts of the prophet Muhammad, is it not? And the Quran is considered to be the literal word of God (Allah), right? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-quran-sharia-and-hadith

It sounds like the Hadith is the equivalent to the old/new testament. Authenticity aside, they are interpretations of the word of god that came hundreds of years later. The Bible, and its old testament, has had its fair share of violence. How can you seriously defend the Hadit's teaching over the old testaments? You can't have it both ways. Why can't moderate Muslims ditch the Hadith, but Christians can ditch the old testament and establish a slightly less violent new testament? Seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101
As far as the Hadith..it's considered to the second hand accounts of the prophet Muhammad, is it not? And the Quran is considered to be the literal word of God (Allah), right? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-quran-sharia-and-hadith

It sounds like the Hadith is the equivalent to the old/new testament. Authenticity aside, they are interpretations of the word of god that came hundreds of years later. The Bible, and its old testament, has had its fair share of violence. How can you seriously defend the Hadit's teaching over the old testaments? You can't have it both ways. Why can't moderate Muslims ditch the Hadith, but Christians can ditch the old testament and establish a slightly less violent new testament? Seriously?

The old testament is a different material from the New Testament.

Quran = Allah's words
Hadith = Gives more indepth historical details to the circumstances surrounding as to why Allah said those things in the Quran, in relations to what incident, or what situation

Hadith is a Guide to understand Allah's correct interpretation.

Compared to

Old Testament = What happened in the older times of Christianity
New Testament = Jesus time

Two completely different things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blank101
As far as the Hadith..it's considered to the second hand accounts of the prophet Muhammad, is it not? And the Quran is considered to be the literal word of God (Allah), right? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-quran-sharia-and-hadith

It sounds like the Hadith is the equivalent to the old/new testament. Authenticity aside, they are interpretations of the word of god that came hundreds of years later. The Bible, and its old testament, has had its fair share of violence. How can you seriously defend the Hadit's teaching over the old testaments? You can't have it both ways. Why can't moderate Muslims ditch the Hadith, but Christians can ditch the old testament and establish a slightly less violent new testament? Seriously?

I really hope you're not accusing me of being a lefty. You may not like the "oppressiveness" of Islam, but you don't speak for everyone. All I've done is provide an objective opinion.

quote:

In Islam, the sacred text called the "Hadith," which is Arabic for "narrative" or "report," is a record of Islamic tradition: it is a record of the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions. It is the second most important text in Islam next to the Quran. Although not regarded as the spoken Word of God like the Quran, the Hadith is an important source of doctrine, law, and practice.

It is "revered in Islam as a major source of religious law and moral guidance" and has been studied in Muslim religious colleges since the Middle Ages by both male and female scholars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Not quite.
The old testament was compiled from older Jewish texts (mostly the Torah, and it's illuminating to compare a Biblical old testament to that to see what's been altered), at the same time as the new testament was assembled from the four gospels that contradicted each other the least and all of Paul's horseshit. You just need to look at the apocrypha to see how much stuff was considered unbecoming for the official bible, and there's stuff like the Book of Enoch that didn't even make it into the Apocrypha.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

True, tough there's plenty of alleged "Christians" who seem a lot more interested in the few lines of Genesis and Leviticus they can use to justify their prejudices than anything Christ had to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

No, not illiterates.
In those days, the only people able to actually write were usually highly educated scholars and clerics.

Not sure where you get the remotest idea that they were written by illiterates.

quote:

What lines and what prejudices?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

True, tough there's plenty of alleged "Christians" who seem a lot more interested in the few lines of Genesis and Leviticus they can use to justify their prejudices than anything Christ had to say.

Oh really? What lines and what prejudices?

quote:

When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. (Lev. 19:33-34, NRSV)