Games Muslims--Even "Moderate" Ones--Play

Here's the thing about "moderate" Muslims such as Raheel Raza: one applauds them for their courage in standing up to their fanatical by-the-book co-religionists. At the same time, however, one is flummoxed by their refusal to acknowledge the Koran--and Islam's founder--as the source of their religion's supremacist doctrines. Here's what I mean. It's from Raza's condemnation of Pakistan's blasphemy laws and appears on the IPT site:

However, the concepts of blasphemy and apostasy are definitely not supported by the Qur'an, which clearly indicates "there is no compulsion in religion." The historical connection of blasphemy and Islam is post-Mohammad. After Mohammad's demise, some tribes who had paid allegiance to him and accepted Islam reneged, and said that their contract was with Mohammad. Now that Mohammad was no longer alive, some of them wanted to revoke their membership in the 'Muslim' club and not offer the same allegiance to the current ruler. The ruling religious leadership got terrified that they would lose power, people and money so they implemented a law (yes the blasphemy law) stating that turning back from Islam would make them liable for death, so they had no choice but to stay. Later, blasphemy laws morphed into something even more sinister and complicated as it is practiced today.

Alas, that "no compulsion in religion" line carries little weight because it was abrogated by later utterances:

The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was “revealed” at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.

But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur’an – and verse 2:256 in particular – because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier ones that may be in contradiction (Qur'an 2:106, 16:101).

Muhammad’s message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn’t have an army and was trying to pattern his new religion after Christianity. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last “revealed,” and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

How can "moderate" Muslims hope to amend their religion when they can't even come to terms with what's in its core texts?