I'm assuming OP was addressing the difference between religious rules and purely cultural traditions.
Many muslim-majority countries suffer from traditions that have been mixed up with religion (things like female circumcision in Mauritania or Egypt, preferring male children to females in some muslim Asian countries, all type of pagan rituals/"sorcery" in Morocco, etc.). Those things are in direct contradiction with the most common/popular interpretations, and yet people will present them as being linked to Islam (quite hard to find a commonly accepted interpretation of the Quran asking women to be circumsised, or allowing people to adore saints and "cast spells")
It's a matter of belief. I made the assumption that those people "probably don't care", implying they probably don't believe that something like that's a sin. When you don't believe in it, you're not a Muslim. If they still believe in it and yet do it, it's a major sin indeed, and they are still Muslims. But Muslims possibly bound for hell.
'Killing the infidels' isn't a requirement of action nor are you bound by belief to do so to be a Muslim. Can you cite a full Surah from the Qur'an where this is unequivocally required of Muslims, under all circumstances?
Religious interpretation or exegesis in Islam dates back to the dawn of the religion. It is complex and relies on carefully reasoned precedent.
It's interesting that casual critics of Islam and Muslim extremists (mostly influenced by Wahhabist Saudi thought) take the same amateurish approach to interpreting scripture, by de-contextualising random passages, throwing away exegesis and going for "aha!" moments to justify their positions.
Exactly. Literal reading of sacred texts isn't exactly the answer to dealing with the incompatibility of religious dogma with modern secular western values.
I agree with you, there are so many places in religious texts where we would be ridiculous and possibly have some evil agenda to read the text literally. But in other places, we have 'proof' (if you will) from the "Sunnah" (way) of the last Islamic Prophet regarding those exact things, so there's no debate nor room for interpretation. For this particular point, we have too much "proof" (in the same regard), so that's why there's no room for interpretation here and the question of reading things literally is irrelevant.
One of the theological cornerstones of Islam, is that the Quran is the perfect, direct and unalterable word of Allah.
If you have faith in Allah, if you truly believe that he is the author of this world, and if you accept Muhammad as its prophet. Then, I genuinely wonder what room is left for compromises. How do you interpret "Kill the apostates"? How can you, in good faith, pretend it is an allegory?
This is what Islam requires from its followers: blind and complete trust. It is not only a sacred book. The Quran is a civil code that aims to regulate every minute of the lives of its adherents. And let's stop kidding ourselves. It is not a peaceful religion either. Islam has conquest and expansion ingrained in its DNA. The Muslim world is extremely orthodoxical. There are peaceful Muslims living in the West. They are peaceful in spite of their holy book, not because of it. Those individuals should be celebrated.
We're asking a violent bedouin who lived in a pre-medieval era to share our hierarchy of values and ethical system. This is anachronistic and cannot end well. Muhammad was not a hippie. He was a warlord.
You linked to an article where half the "arguments" made are either valid but are disjoint with the mainstream schools of Islam (in face, that they all live in the West is a good hint that they would probably be considered apostates elsewhere - I counted one Ahmadi). Anecdotally, none of them either published or studied at Al-Azhar.
The other half are just threats.
So, really, I'm quite disappointed because I am looking for someone to contradict me.
>Quite a few intelligent people disagree with you.
