Bill Maher: Islam is inherently worse than other religions.

[Kidlicious]

Anyone who has ever used the term "leftist" cannot possibly have a triple digit IQ.

You white knight Sa
ddam lovers?

[Fake Boris]

Isn't there any school of Christian law that professes love of the other?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is there anything in Islam that says the Hadith forbidding apostasy is obsolete? Are there any schools of Islamic law that do not condemn apostasy?

Or in an apples to oranges comparison, are there scholars of Islam who believe the Hadith is not binding. The answer is yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Hadith#Criticism_of_the_Hadith_by_Muslims

Ghulam Ahmed Pervez (1903–1985), a close friend of Muhammad Ali Jinnah the founder of Pakistan, was a noted critic of the Hadith and believed that the Quran was sufficient for Muslims to understand and practice Islam, but with the important caveat that the Quran had to be studied using the appropriate rules and conventions of the classical language in which it was revealed. He also rejected the arbitrary authority of the clerical establishment and deemed them counter-productive. He claimed that translations and commentaries of the Quran do not accurately reflect the meanings of the original Classical Arabic language and accused the clerical establishment of depriving Muslims of the real message of the Quran intentionally to serve their own self-serving purposes. A fatwa, ruling, signed by more than a thousand orthodox clerics, denounced him as a 'kafir', a non-believer.[11] However, he continued his research and work in Pakistan, having gathered an appreciative audience. The organization which he founded Tolu-e-Islam continues to expand the base of his ideas. His seminal work, Maqam-e Hadith argued that the Hadith were composed of "the garbled words of previous centuries", but suggests that he is not against the idea of collected sayings of the Prophet, only that he would consider any hadith that goes against the teachings of Quran to have been falsely attributed to the Prophet.[12] He was also against mystical interpretations of Islam which relegated Islam to the private sphere, as he believed Islam was not actually a "religion" to be practiced individually and based in a dogmatic blind faith. Pervez argued that since God requires certainty from believers and certainty can only be achieved by reason, therefore true Islam is actually inherently opposed to Religion, an argument he elaborated in his scholarly work "Islam: A Challenge to Religion".[13]

Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–1898) is often considered the founder of the first movement to begin challenging the traditional schools of thought within Islam seriously and systematically. He is noted for his application of "rational science" to the Quran and Hadith and his conclusion that the Hadith were not legally binding on Muslims.[14] His student, Chiragh ‘Ali, went further, suggesting nearly all the Hadith were fabrications.[14]

Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), a prominent philosopher and poet, was known to be in opposition to the hadith as a source of law.[15]

The 1986 Malaysian book Hadith: A Re-evaluation by Kassim Ahmad was met with controversy and some scholars declared him an apostate from Islam for suggesting that "the hadith are sectarian, anti-science, anti-reason and anti-women".[14][16]

Recent critics of Hadith consider it as the main ingredient that forms the follower-followed relationship between the ordinary Muslim—whom the through study of the large literature of Hadith is beyond their available time budget—and the minority of Hadith experts or scholars.[17] Quran warns about the follower-followed relationship in its general form:

When those who have been followed disassociate themselves from those who followed [them], and they [all] see the punishment, and cut off from them are the ties [of relationship],[18]

Considering Hadith as an essential part of Islam results into the modern follower-followed relationship where the common Muslim trusts the expertise and honesty of the minority of Hadith experts and blindly follow their judgment of what is right and wrong (which is supposedly stems from the Hadith literature that common Muslim does not have the time resources to investigate).[19]

Muslim critics of the hadith, Quranists, reject the authority of hadith on theological grounds, pointing to verses in the Quran itself: "Nothing have We omitted from the Book",[3] declaring that all necessary instruction can be found within the Quran, without reference to the Hadith. They claim that following the Hadith has led to people straying from the original purpose of God's revelation to Muhammad, adherence to the Quran alone.[4]

Within the Hadith, Muhammad is reported to have forbidden his followers from writing down anything he said, with the exception of the Revelation he received from Angel Jibril, the Quran.[6][7] After Muhammad's death, Umar is also reported to have stated that he had desired to write down a collection of the prophet's sayings, but refrained for fear of the Muslims choosing to abandon the teachings of the Quran in favour of the Hadith.[8]

Early in Islamic history, there was a school of thought that adhered to the view that the Hadith were incompatible with Islam, but it receded in importance after criticism by al-Shafi'i.[citation needed]

Recently, the Pakistani judiciary has played down the importance of the Hadith compared to the Quran in its court rulings, pointing to theological reasons.[1]

And here is the wiki link for Quaranism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

[Felch]

Quranism is a tiny minority within Islam, outside the Sunni/Shia division, and absolutely heterodox. In your own quote, Ghulam Ahmed Pervez was declared a kafir by over a thousand orthodox clerics. It's like if somebody was talking about Christianity not in terms of Catholicism or mainstream Protestant thought, but in Gnostic or LDS terms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean like when Martin Luther was booted from the Church catholic over his ideas on Sola Scriptura (which Quranism basically is), among other things?

It isn't as if Christians didn't get into the apostate killing business after all (heck you don't even have to go as far as the Inquisition, St. Augustine was all for suppressing the Donatists - heresy isn't exactly apostasy, but they are opposed for the same general reasons). Obviously, they must have thought those Deuteronomic Codes were justifying their behavior.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, here's the point - There are texts in Christian Scriptures as well as Islamic Scriptures that folks can use to justify killing apostates. Indicating that theologians indicate that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament Laws with the Grace of God is somewhat irrelevant as Church leaders (who were the only ones who could read Scripture for a long while) used OT texts to justify apostate and heretic hunting. It is not unheard of for folks to use the Old Testament to justify the unjustifiable - ie, killing homosexuals due to provisions in Leviticus. In the same way, people in the Islamic world use sunnahs in the hadith to justify killing apostates, and those states who are richer and more advanced are far less likely to proscribe death for apostasy or believe it merits any temporal punishment - as the numbers obviously show. To attempt to ascribe blame on the religious texts of one religion, while ignoring the religious texts of another religion simply because that religion is your own is the height of intellectual dishonesty and if you continue to engage in it, I will simply treat you as how I treat the king of intellectual dishonesty (aka, Ben) and ignore you, at least on this.

[Kidlicious]

Did you miss the point that Quranism isn't Islam?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I'm laughing at the fact that you, who often presents ridiculous claims as facts while providing no support, demand such from others. Do you seriously fail that much at reading comprehension that you understood that from my post?

I'm amused by your defensiveness. You seem perfectly ok to let people slide when it supports you, and relentlessly attack me. Others might suggest that has something to do with bias and prejudice.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well there are Koranic verses prohibiting both suicide and murder. Seriously, it's fine if you'd like to actually engage him in a debate over the nature of the Koran but for the love of all that is holy can you rise above such obvious penny ante BS. The terrorist organizations themselves have provided the verses and the interpretations they use if an honest textual debate is indeed what you are after.

I'm more interested in the verses that Imran believes represents 'true' Islam and state why the terrorists are wrong about Islam itself. Imran made a statement, let's see how he chooses to defend it.

[Ben Kenobi]

4) Lebanon. The Lebanese civil war was fully wished by the US. Lebanon, a relatively liberal and tolerant place, but very diverse in religion, was evolving towards a democratic and secular regime that would put an end to religious quotas in elections. Israel and the US feared that such a revolution would snowball into pan-arabism, and entertained to **** the country over.

As opposed to say, France and their cluster**** colonialism there and in Algeria?

[Ben Kenobi]

There are texts in Christian Scriptures as well as Islamic Scriptures that folks can use to justify killing apostates.

Curious. Imran - you stated, specifically, that Islam itself states that suicide bombing is wrong. Now you're backpedalling by stating that 'some folks, but not real Islamists' interpret passages in the Koran to not only justify suicide bombing but killing apostates.

people in the Islamic world use sunnahs in the hadith to justify killing apostates, and those states who are richer and more advanced are far less likely to proscribe death for apostasy or believe it merits any temporal punishment - as the numbers obviously show.

Oh, really? So the solution is relatively rich Islamic states no longer engage in Jihad?

Your statement is facile, and dangerously, dangerously, wrong. Islam has been wealthy. Extremely wealthy in the past. It used to be richer than Europe, and the problem is - Imran - they still engaged in the same nonsense with Jihad against the infidel. Why did they get so rich? Because they were able to plunder and tax the **** out of their slaves. Why did they fall behind - because they were no longer able to plunder the infidel. Once that stopped, Islam retrogressed to what we see now. Islam hasn't advanced, they are still living in medieval times. Surely you can agree that ISIS is attractive to muslims who believe that they are commanded - by god himself to slay the infidel.

I see it. It's right there in Islam. The scriptures say that they will be blessed that they will get 72 virgins, and more importantly if they die in the great cause of slaughtering other people in the name of their 'god'.

Now - I challenge you, Imran - to show if your 'moral equivalence' is true - to find an equivalent of the 72 virgins in Christian scripture. Anywhere!

I treat the king of intellectual dishonesty (aka, Ben) and ignore you, at least on this.

Right, because ignoring me, makes the facts go away. The problem is the same as it was in the 7th century. The problem isn't wealth, colonialism, etc. The problem is Islam.

[ZEE]

Ben Kenobi you have crossed the line.

Get ready for your 6-month ban.

[Felch]

You mean like when Martin Luther was booted from the Church catholic over his ideas on Sola Scriptura (which Quranism basically is), among other things?

It isn't as if Christians didn't get into the apostate killing business after all (heck you don't even have to go as far as the Inquisition, St. Augustine was all for suppressing the Donatists - heresy isn't exactly apostasy, but they are opposed for the same general reasons). Obviously, they must have thought those Deuteronomic Codes were justifying their behavior.

St. Augustine cited Luke 14:23 to justify coercing the Donatists. Deuteronomy was never brought up.

So, here's the point - There are texts in Christian Scriptures as well as Islamic Scriptures that folks can use to justify killing apostates. Indicating that theologians indicate that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament Laws with the Grace of God is somewhat irrelevant as Church leaders (who were the only ones who could read Scripture for a long while) used OT texts to justify apostate and heretic hunting. It is not unheard of for folks to use the Old Testament to justify the unjustifiable - ie, killing homosexuals due to provisions in Leviticus. In the same way, people in the Islamic world use sunnahs in the hadith to justify killing apostates, and those states who are richer and more advanced are far less likely to proscribe death for apostasy or believe it merits any temporal punishment - as the numbers obviously show. To attempt to ascribe blame on the religious texts of one religion, while ignoring the religious texts of another religion simply because that religion is your own is the height of intellectual dishonesty and if you continue to engage in it, I will simply treat you as how I treat the king of intellectual dishonesty (aka, Ben) and ignore you, at least on this.

My religion does not expect me to follow the Deuteronomic Code. Deuteronomy is a part of Scriptures for historical purposes, and is not meant to be applied to daily life. Christianity has excluded it since the time of the Apostles, as shown in the New Testament. It was not used by Church fathers as justification for executing heretics. Executing heretics was just something they took for granted. St. Thomas Aquinas rationalized killing heretics using only Galatians.

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Unless you can find some example of a Church father who actually based his arguments on those sections of Deuteronomy that you love to cite, please stop bringing it up. It's not relevant, and never has been to Christianity. The contrast with how the Hadith are applied in Islam is striking. The Sahih al-Bukhari is a key text in Islam, recognized as authoritative by Sunni and Shia alike. Your harping on a part of the Bible nobody cares about and saying it's equivalent to Hadith that all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence regard as essential is classic intellectual dishonesty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because no one in modern times has ever used the Old Testament as a determination of what should be allowable, you know like using Leviticus to deny rights to homosexuals... Or mandating the 10 Commandments be put in public areas... Yep, everyone treats it as simply for historical purposes (which I don't think is the right way to treat it anyways - I mean do you read OT passages and sing the Psalms during service simply for historical reasons?)... This is a silly argument, Felch.

[Felch]

Aside from the Ten Commandments, the Catholic Church doesn't give a **** about Deuteronomy. When the Church condemns homosexuality, it is on the basis of New Testament Scriptures, not Mosaic Law. The Old Testament is read during Mass in order to give context to the New Testament readings. The priests either ignore the OT or talk about it historically. I've never heard a priest say that we are expected to obey any part of Mosaic Law, aside from the Ten Commandments (which are regarded as a part of natural law).