True they have different ones, however it gives each sect a sense of understanding of the Quran, without Hadith and Tafsir, Islam can’t be practiced. Thats why I was saying you need Tafsir and Hadith to understand the Quran to practice Islam. Which was my point the whole time which you seem to have missed.
Yes and meanings of the Quran can’t be understood without Hadith and Tafsir, for example no compulsion in religion can be interpreted in many different ways without Tafsir or Hadith it would be impossible to truly understand it. So far you haven’t refuted anything.
It’s not my writing I posted a link to an article. So far I lost the point of this discussion, based on our previous posts you seem to have no knowledge what’s so ever on the Bible. The Bible allows a person to divorce their spouse if they’re unbelievers. If a spouse beats their husband or wife it would make them hypocrites and unbelievers thus allowing divorce. Don’t bother replying to my posts anymore since this is growing to be ridiculous.
Accessing to Tafsir Ibn Kathir no compulsion in religion was only for a certain time before it was abrogated, without this Tafsir we wouldn’t understand the context of no compulsion in religion.
Because I already put it up multiple times and you refused you could have easily gone back and saw the link. P,ease quote the verse. I’m not attacking Islam, I’m telling the truth about it.
Wahhabis don’t exist, it’s a name used by Shias and Sufis to discredit the more conservative group of Muslims called Salafis. Ibn Taymiyyah is respected by many Sunnis as a great scholar of Islam. Islamophobia is also a myth, much like how Jews still pull on the Anti Semitic card every time someone points out something wrong about Judaism.
Greek text the word “depart” (chorizo) means “to place space between, to separate” and it was one of the standard terms for legal divorce in the first century. When applying 1 Corinthians 7:15, the key question is not “Who walked out?” but “Who caused the separation?” Would it be sensible to say that David was the sinful rebellious one when he left Saul’s court? No, he left because of Saul's abuse. David left, but Saul was the cause of his leaving. If we translate the word chorizo as “separate” we see this more clearly: if the unbeliever separates, let him separate. The unbeliever is doing the separating; the believer is commanded to let it be done. This tells the believing spouse (and the church) to allow the marriage to be over, because the unbeliever has destroyed the covenant. It permits the victim of abuse to take out a legal divorce. Let there be chorizo = let there be separation = let there be legal divorce, because the word chorizo means both separation and divorce.It is in the same I Corinthians 7 which your author is trying to make say the opposite:
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Yeah, just like you were saying the truth about the Bible.
I don’t do that, the anti Christ is only one person, a group of people can’t be the anti christ. However I’ve been called anti Semite (even though I am a Semite) simply for criticizing Judaism. There are people who hate Jews don’t get me wrong, but you just can’t use the term Anti Semite. As Jews aren’t the only Semites.
If I hate Jews I’m an anti Jewish person not an Anti Semite. If I hate Muslims I’m anti Muslim not an Islamphobe. Since to be a phobia something has to be scientifically tested to prove it’s a phobia.
