Sarah,
I
will try to address most of the main points of your response, but first I would
like to comment on this:
“I
want you to help me understand why my Islam and your Islam are so different.”
Well,
as a non-Muslim I didn’t have an Islam, but rather I have a view of Islam which
tends to focus on the problematic aspects. You seem to focus more on the good
aspects and the good interpretations of the verses etc., whereas I (being a
critic) focus on the negative aspects and the harsh interpretations. But I
suggest that everyone who is interested in this should address the problems in
Islam. I think everyone ought to have an interest in this.
"Greetings
my new friend!
I
was actually referring to these rules of war:
"Stop,
O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield.
Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate
dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm
to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful.
Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass
by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them
alone""
This
is attributed to Abu Bakr, a “rightly-guided” caliph according to the Sunni.
Some of the rules he cites are consistent with what Muhammad is reported (in
the Hadith) to have ordered. However, the problem is in the exceptions and the
inconsistencies when we look at the Quran and other parts of the Hadith. The
early Islamic scholars were also confronted with these apparent discrepancies. Hence, they had to come to resolutions, judgements as to what was deemed
right in specific cases. For example, they would have to reconcile the above
statements with these:
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, 4321 (also
4322, 4323).
It is reported on the authority
of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when
asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the
night raid, said: They are from them. {also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 52, Number 256}
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664:
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub: The Prophet said: Kill the
old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.
Subsequently...
Al-Ghazali (d. 1111), a revered Sufi theologian and Shafi'i jurist, claimed that in jihad
"...one may use a catapult
against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and
children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them." (33).
Likewise, Averroes (d. 1198), the Maliki jurist and
philosopher, wrote
"Most scholars agree that
fortresses may be assailed with mangonels, no matter whether there are women
and children within them or not. This is based on the fact that the Prophet
used mangonels against the population of al-Ta'if." (34).
A lot of these issues are discussed in more detail here. In line with the above jurists' opinions, see
this jihadist justification for the attacks on the Twin Towers on 9/11 here:
(citing the late Sheikh Hamoud Al-Uqlaa
Ash-Shuaibi of the Arabian Peninsula)
"As for those who say that the people inside the
Twin towers were ‘innocent’, Sheikh Hammod had this stark warning:
"Whoever says that there are 'innocent victims'
without any differentiation between their categories, must accept that he is
accusing the Prophet (SAWS) and the Companions and those after them that they
killed ‘innocent victims’, according to them! That is because the Prophet
(SAWS) used the Catapult in his war against Ta'if, and it is the nature of the
Catapult that it does not differentiate between its victims." "
Also see discussion of the doctrine of tattarrus, an exception, which allows
jihadists to use women and children (including Muslims) as human shields. Here
is an example from the Taliban. For more information on tattarrus, see this and this.
Regarding
mutilating dead bodies, after the Battle of Badr, Muslims mutilated bodies by
dragging them and throwing them down a well. Also, worse, mutilation is
Islamically permitted in the process of killing, such as in beheading, stoning,
and crucifixion (5:33; note crucifixion may occur during or only after the person
has been put to death—as I understand it Saudi Arabia does the latter when it
uses crucifixion) involve the mutilation of bodies. It is also reported in
Tabari, vol.8, that Muslims ripped an
elderly polytheist woman (Umm Qirfah) in half by tying her two legs to camels walking in
opposite directions. Recently the Taliban did the same to a man (who taught at
a girls’ school) by tying him to two motorcycles.
Regarding
cutting trees, this is permitted in the Koran itself:
59:5
(Shakir) “Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, It
is by Allah's command, and that He may abase the transgressors.”
There
may be differences in circumstances, but jurists interpreted that cutting down
trees etc. was permissible. Also note that Muhammad’s example conduct was used
as a precedent, including his threats to destroy the vines of the people of
Ta’if while the Muslims under his command were beseiging them. Thus the Hidayah
states here
(scroll down to jihad ):
"...If
the infidels, upon receiving the call [to embrace Islam]*, neither consent to
it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call
upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the
assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the
infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the
Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do. And having so done, the Muslims
must then with God’s assistance attack the infidels with all manner of warlike
engines (as the Prophet did by the people of Ta’if), and must also set fire to
their habitations (in the same manner as the Prophet fired Baweera), and must
inundate them with water and tear up their plantations and tread down their
grain because by these means they will become weakened, and their resolution
will fail and their force be broken; these means are, therefore, all sanctified
by the law..." [here, scroll down
to jihad]:
*
[Brackets added].
"Fight
in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for
Allah loveth not transgressors. - Quran 2:190"
Right,
but what is meant by “fight,” and “transgress limits” ? Such verses must be
interpreted in light of other verses such as those in Sura 9 (9:12-14; 9:5,
9:29), as well as in light of Muhammad’s example. Muhammad ordered the deaths
of two singing girls who had sung mocking lyrics about him. Such people could
only have the chance of being forgiven if they embraced Islam:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2678:
Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi: The Prophet
(peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four
persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred
territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of
al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.
That
is confirmed in Ishaq’s Sira, The Life of Muhammad, pp 550-551 (Guillaume’s
translation). It is also reported in Tabari. There are some variations in the
story, but the consistent aspect is that in each version Muhammad orders the deaths
of the singing girls.
There
is also the issue of surprise attacks:
Attack on the Mustaliq:
Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:
Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in
reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without
warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the
places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children
were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that
Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Attack on Khaybar:
Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4437:
"It has been narrated on the authority of Anas
that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) raided Khaibar. One morning
we offered prayers in the darkness of early dawn (near Khaibar). Then the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) mounted (his horse). Abu Talha
mounted his and I mounted behind Abu Talha on the same horse. The Prophet of
Allah (may peace be upon him) rode through the streets of Khaibar and (I rode
so close to him) that my knee touched the thigh of the Prophet of Allah (may
peace be upon him). The wrapper got aside from his thigh, and I could see its
whiteness. When he entered the town, he said: God is Great. Khaibar shall face
destruction. When we descend in the city-square of a people, it is a bad day
for them who have been warned (and have not taken heed). He said these words
thrice. The people of the town had just come out from (their houses) to
go about their jobs. They said (in surprise): Muhammad has come. We
captured Khaibar by force."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number
512:
Narrated Anas: "The Prophet offered the Fajr
Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar!
Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight),
then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the
inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had
their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was
amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but
later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her
'Mahr.'"
"Islam
has first drawn a clear line of distinction between the combatants and the
non-combatants of the enemy country. As far as the non-combatant population is
concerned such as women, children, the old and the infirm, etc., the
instructions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are as follows:
"Do
not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud). "Do not
kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are
sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).
During
a war, the Prophet saw the corpse of a woman lying on the ground and observed:
"She was not fighting. How then she came to be killed?" From this
statement of the Prophet the exegetists and jurists have drawn the principle
that those who are non-combatants should not be killed during or after the war."
I have already shown some
exceptions to this. And again, what is “fighting” in Islam? Ibn Taymiyyah wrote
that
"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as
women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes,
they shall not be killed unless they actually fight with words and acts. Some
jurists are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground
that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children
since they constitute property for Muslims." [Ibn Taymiyya.
al-Siyasa al-shariyya. (Translated by Rudolph Peters, 1996). Jihad in Classical
and Modern Islam. (pp. 44-54; see p. 49). Princeton NJ. Markus Wiener
Publishers.]
Note “fight with words”. The severe penalties for blasphemy in Islam are
well-known, up to and including death. This is still the case today in many
countries.
"The
Prophet (peace be upon him) also prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied
or is in captivity."
Where
is the reference for that claim? Anyways, that is not true, if you believe the
story of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza males who were over the age of
puberty (Ishaq, pp. 461-469). Also consider this:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 632.
Narrated Abu Burda: […] Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a
chained man. Muadh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He
was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said,
"I will surely chop off his neck!"
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.
Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What
is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam
and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down
unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.
Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58 (also see Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number
4490):
Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe)
of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle
was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some
employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By
Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in
their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.'
As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips,
and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks
to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'"
The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him,
he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the
cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh
asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and
became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa
requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till
he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such
cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed,
and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night
prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will
reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
In
reference to your post:
Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 731:
Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid: The Prophet said, "If a
slave-girl (Ama) commits illegal sexual intercourse, scourge her; if she does
it again, scourge her again; if she repeats it, scourge her again." The
narrator added that on the third or the fourth offence, the Prophet said,
"Sell her even for a hair rope."
To
be blatantly honest, I don't know what to make of that whatsoever. I have been
instructed, as I also instruct others, to not put as much importance on Hadith
as the Quran. As Muslims, we know all text can be altered during the course of
time, except for the Quran. But seriously, I don't even know what that's
supposed to mean. I hate translations. They come out weird sometimes. A prominent
guideline for Hadiths is if it contradicts something from the Quran, it's
probably not genuine.
That
translation is clear enough, and as I said that hadith is considered sahih and
mutawatir http://hadith.al-islam.com/Bayan/. Also, you have cited Hadith evidence above for the war rules.
Therefore you cannot simply reject this hadith on those grounds. (You could
reject it on other grounds, but that is another matter). This hadith is not
contrary to the Koran; whereas the statement from Abu Bakr which you cited
earlier about not damaging trees could be seen as contrary to the Koran (59:5).
The hadith says to give the slave girl who commits illegal sexual intercourse the
penalty for fornication, which is flogging. Flogging is in the Koran (24:2) and
is discussed in sahih Bukhari and sahih Muslim, where the difference in
penalties for adultery vs fornication are shown.
"Most
importantly, Muslims are NOT allowed to kill Kafars." By the way, I meant
they're not allowed to kill people for being kafars.
Not
so. Apostates are disbelievers and they are killed for that according to
classical Islamic law, the Hadith, and arguably the Koran with some
interpretations.
Several
countries still kill apostates today, and everywhere there are some Muslims who are fearful of
leaving Islam publicly. About one third of British Muslims think apostates
should be put to death [see polls and survey links in our Resources in this Forum, or search a major university libary], and an additional unknown percentage probably think
apostates should be punished in other ways.
Also,
according to classical Islamic law, non-Muslims (primarily the adult males) were to
be killed in jihad if they refused to accept Islam or else the terms of the
dhimma under Islamic rule (9:29). According to 9:5, polytheists were to be
killed if they refused Islam, refused to be exposed to Islam, or were not protected
by treaty. (According to some scholars, 9:5 abrogates all treaties between
Muslims and polytheists, e.g, see Ibn Kathir’s commentary).
This
is all based on the theology in the Koran. Allah kills whole townships, whole
generations of people because they disbelieved. According to the Koran, Allah
will destroy everyone on the Last Day who is not a Muslim.
Perhaps
fact was too strong of a word. As you can imagine, I was quite eager to
post. It's just that a lot of the things that you and the rest of the posters
on this forum having been complaining about, aren't a part of the Islam I'm
familiar with. We could argue back and forth about what the Quran says and what
it means. Like I mentioned before that extra-marital relations (including rape)
aren't allowed in Islam. I can quote stuff too...
[5:5]
…….. You shall maintain CHASTITY, not committing adultery, nor taking secret
lovers. Anyone who rejects faith, all his work will be in vain, and in the
Hereafter he will be with the losers. [24:30] Tell the believing men that they
shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their
CHASTITY. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do.
[24:31] And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their CHASTITY.
In
addition to condemnation of the sexual crime involved in rape as we can see
above, God strongly condemns the oppression element of rape in the strongest
possible language. God, in the Quran, describes oppression as "worse than
murder." This puts rape among the worst crimes committed by a human being
in the sight of God.
[2:191]
…….. OPPRESSION is worse than murder. See also, [2:217]
1.
The Quran does not say that extramarital relations are not allowed for Muslim
males. Verses 4:24, 23:5-6, and 70:29-30 clearly give them permission to have
sexual relations with ‘those whom their right hands possess.’ Muslim males were
permitted to have sex with non-Muslim female captives and slave girls. Even
Muhammad had slave girls (33:50-52). Muhammad gave his men permission to have
sex with non-Muslim women captives as a reward for jihad fighting. This is
shown in the hadith:
(Sahih Muslim) "Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO
HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES
OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE
BECOMES CAPTIVE"
Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of
Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and
encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken
them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their
husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding
that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands
possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda
period came to an end).
Sahih
Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We
went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured
some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was
pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's
Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not
to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of
Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."
[My note: Muhammad is saying it is better for them not to do coitus interruptus (Muhammad dislikes it but they are not forbidden from it). They are not forbidden from having sex with the women].
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
"Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id,
did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He
said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent
Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our
wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we
decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing
the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we
said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not
ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It
does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up
to the Day of Resurrection will be born."
2.
Allah (Quran) and Muhammad obviously did not include under the category of fitnah
(oppression/persecution, trials, testing, etc.) the act of raping the
non-Muslim female captives and slave girls. That was clearly permitted as the
above ahadith show. There is a distinction that is introduced by Islam’s focus
on adultery and fornication. If a Muslim (believing) woman is forced to have
sex, then she is absolved, forgiven, of the crime of adultery or fornication on
the grounds that it was against her will. That is not quite the same concept as
rape, the way we think of it in modern times. When the Muslim men were having
sex with those non-Muslim female captives and slaves, it was clearly permitted,
otherwise Muhammad would have had them executed or flogged and banished for at
least a year. But those men got no penalty. On the contrary it was considered a
reward for them. And what they were doing, according to how we (modern
humanity) would classify those above descriptions from the hadith today, it was
rape. In that context, those women would not voluntarily have sex with the men that had killed their husbands or adult male family members.
"I'm
not sure how many quotes we're supposed to have per subject, but I'll just use these
for now. You can look up others saying the same thing on your own if you want,
but there's no way you're going to convince me that Islam allows rape."
It’s
not me that would convince you. The evidence would convince you once you look
at it. Even some modern Muslims admit that Islam originally permitted rape.
Take a look at the evidence on Rape in Islam in our Resources section in this forum. Some Islamic clerics still think rape is excusable, if the woman was not
dressed according to strict dress codes.
"Seriously,
it doesn't matter how many quotes, how many websites, or how many books we have
backing a piece of information. That's not what I want to talk to you about. I
want you to help me understand why my Islam and your Islam are so different."
Obviously there are differences in
interpretation, and as I said as a (non-Muslim) critic I look at this material
differently than you. You seem to be averse to looking at the problems. But you can’t base an honest opinion on not
wanting to look at certain information that is important to a sound conclusion.
A sound belief system should be able to stand up to critical scrutiny. In
science we reject ideas that don’t stand up to critical scrutiny—as we should.
“I
was raised as a Muslim at first in New York, and then in Egypt. I've been
around many other Muslims. I was taught that everyone is responsible for their
own sins. Meaning, if I'm a ***, that's my problem and no one else's. I have to
answer to God for it. I'm aware of the punishments prescribed in the Quran for
certain sins, like being stoned to death for committing adultery. That's a good
one to use as an example.”
Stoning is not explicitly in the Quran. Yes the Quran says many times it confirms what
came before it (and that includes the Torah, which does have the death penalty
by stoning for adultery). There is also the threat of death penalty (slaughter)
that could be interpreted to apply to adulterers as one of the groups of people
mentioned in 33:60-62. However, stoning for adultery is well-established in the
Hadith. Muhammad even made the Jews stone their adulterers, even though the
Jews did not believe they should practice that.
“According
to what I've been taught (as well as every Muslim that I know), if I commit
adultery, being stoned to death will rid me of that particularly large sin, but
it's up to me whether or not I go through with it. My family or community has
no business taking it upon themselves to do anything about it. This sin is mine
and it affects no one but me.”
Do
you believe all that? Of course it is wrong for one partner to cheat on the
other, but does that really deserve the death penalty? And what about
pre-marital sex between two consenting adults? Where’s the sin/crime in that?
There
are plenty of Muslim women who are subject to the death penalty for alleged
sexual impropriety, just look at Iran, for example.
"Of
course things are a little different with sins where you're wronging someone
else..rape, murder, theft, things like that require punishment by some sort of
judicial system.
Another
thing I was taught was to not to try to convert other people to Islam. I was
told forcing Islam on people is wrong. I am, however, required to answer any
and all questions people have about Islam if they wish enlightenment about it."
The
Quran tells Muslims to establish worship and spread the message of Islam. If
you convert a non-Muslim to Islam and they remain a believer, in Islam that
means you have saved their soul. Da’wa requires persuasion but
no real force, but if that doesn’t work there is also fighting jihad against those who oppose Islam. One must
distinguish between the substance of a policy and what people tend to say about
the policy. For example, the Koran says Allah is merciful, but also says he burns and tortures the disbelievers in hell-fires. So it is said that he is merciful, but obviously his policy is not merciful for the disbelievers. Likewise, Muslims will say that Islam forbids forced conversion. They will
cite verses like 2:256, ‘no coercion in Islam.’ However, verse 8:39 says fight
them until there is no more fitnah and all religion is for Allah. This is also
shown in another sahih, mutawatir hadith, in which Muhammad is reported to have
said ‘I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no God
but Allah and his prophet is Muhammad.’ This played a major role in the
development of the concept of jihad in Islamic jurisprudence. In addition,
apostates according to Islamic law are required to convert back (i.e., revert)
to Islam. If an adult male apostate does not convert back after having been
given a chance to repent, he is killed. According to some schools, the adult
female who does not convert back, when given a chance to do so, is also put to
death; whereas in other schools the adult female is punished in other ways
(such as being held in jail) until she returns to Islam. That all qualifies as
forced conversion.
“Here's
where my problem is. Those things that I just mentioned are beliefs shared by
every Muslim I know.”
Ah,
wait. Please be careful, especially if you are writing a paper. You must be
careful with your statements about facts. How certain are you? Did you actually conduct a detailed
poll/survey on every Muslim you know, asking them very specific questions,
using very precise, unambiguous language? And what makes you think the Muslims
you know are the same as the Muslims you don’t know? Have they all studied the Koran closely and have understood it? Would they give the same
answers if they were responding anonymously instead of to someone who knew
them? You have to turn to survey and poll data to find out what large numbers
of Muslims actually believe or claim to believe.
“So,
can you explain to me why there are Muslims killing people for not following
Islam, why women are being stoned and beaten for not wearing hijab, and Muslims
blowing themselves up left and right? No Muslim that I know has been able to
give me a sufficient answer. If we follow the same book, why are they getting a
different message than us? You seem to be well informed of different Islamic
perspectives. Have you any idea why this is?”
There
are different interpretations. The Muslims with the hard-line interpretations
are winning in those situations. They are increasingly winning these days. The
Saudis are funding the hard-line clerics. The Islamic revival seeks to rid the
Islamic countries of western or other non-Muslim influences and return to more
traditional Islam—and that means harsh punishments for violating dress codes. In
addition to that in any group (religious or non-religious) a herd mentality can
develop, i.e., conformity, where if some of the influential people believe
something and accept it then others want to go along with it and don’t want to
oppose it. Also, once harsh rules are established, such as harsh rules against
apostasy and blasphemy, it becomes much more difficult to advance a more
moderate interpretation, due to fear of being labelled an apostate or a blasphemer.
"P.S.
Are you interested in seeing my paper when it's done?"
Sure. Post it in the forum or give us a link to it if you publish it elsewhere, and when it's done and we’ll discuss it.
-Arch