Laika:
Muslims much more likely to claim extremists misinterpret their scriptures then say they're wrong
Well color me confused. Are we supposed to kill apostates yes or no?
If it is not wrong to kill apostates then what is misunderstood?
Consider yourself colored Bohm, et al. ; )
The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims think the Quranic text concerning infidels and apostates applied only to a specific time period in history, just like Xians claim that the Old Testament rules applied only before Christ (thereby absolving Jehovah of things like genocide).
Interesting factoids from my Islamic law notes addressing why there beliefs vary so dramatically among Muslims:
Of 6,200 verses in Q, only 350 relevant for law—Vikor, p. 33
Of the 350, only 180 are qati (absolutely certain—not open for debate)
Rest are zanni (probable/assumed, but disagreement on how they should be understood).
Need to know Arabic to interpret; words change meaning, also implied v. allegories
E.g. need to perform new ablution before prayer if “touch women.” Shafii=literally, Hanifi=merely an allegory for sexual intercourse.
A secondary complicating belief is that of abgrogation in which a later verse given later to Muhammad abrogates a verse given earlier. The rules for abrogation are as follows:
Abrogation
Q can abrogate a later Q
An H never abrogates a Q
H can abrogate a H (hadith)
Q never abrogates the S (sunna)
But might be Hadith of uncertain origin (uncertain)
Replacing the rule but not the text
Theory: God revealed an intermediate rule first. Later replaced with a different verse; text of first verse still part of Q.
Replacing both rule and text
When verse says no longer do X, but do Y, the X behavior could not have been only what M told them because that would be sunna, and sunna can’t replace Q. so X must have been based on a verse no longer extant.
Only Q can replace Q