Two Incompatible Islams
When you listen to modern Muslim apologists speaking to Western audiences, you hear about an Islam that's peaceful, tolerant, egalitarian, and compatible with liberal democracy. Women are honored, violence is defensive only, apostates are free to leave, and jihad is primarily an internal spiritual struggle. This sounds wonderful—there's just one problem: it contradicts 1400 years of Islamic scholarship.
Classical Islamic scholars—the authorities Muslims traditionally revered as understanding Islam correctly—taught something very different. They taught offensive jihad, mandatory death for apostasy, wife-beating, inequality of women, slavery, and many other doctrines that modern apologists desperately try to reinterpret away.
We face a simple question: Who should we believe? Modern apologists trying to make Islam marketable to the West, or centuries of Islamic scholars who had no need to make Islam palatable to non-Muslims?
The Classical Tafsir Tradition
For over a millennium, the authoritative way to understand the Quran was through tafsir (exegetical commentary) written by respected scholars:
Tafsir al-Tabari (10th century): Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari's massive commentary is considered one of the most comprehensive early tafsir. It includes narrations from early Muslims and linguistic analysis.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (14th century): Ismail ibn Kathir's tafsir is perhaps the most widely respected in the Sunni world. It's still published and studied extensively.
Tafsir al-Qurtubi (13th century): Al-Qurtubi's commentary is comprehensive, covering legal implications of verses in detail.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn (15th-16th century): A more concise but widely-read commentary by Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli and Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti.
These scholars agreed on disturbing interpretations modern apologists now deny. Let's examine specific examples.
Example 1: Offensive Jihad
Modern Apologists: "Jihad is defensive warfare only. Islam only permits fighting in self-defense."
Classical Scholars:
Ibn Kathir on the Sword Verse (9:5):
"This honorable Ayah was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, 'It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.' ... Therefore, no idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety since Surah Bara'ah [Surah 9] was revealed."
Ibn Taymiyyah (13th-14th century), one of Islam's most influential scholars:
"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."
Al-Shafi'i, founder of one of the four Sunni schools:
"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organized a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a valid excuse."
The Reliance of the Traveller, authoritative Shafi'i law manual:
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion."
Classical consensus: Offensive jihad to expand Islamic territory is obligatory. Modern apologists: Jihad is only defensive. Who's right?
Example 2: Apostasy Punishment
Modern Apologists: "Islam gives freedom of religion. 'No compulsion in religion' (Quran 2:256) proves this."
Classical Scholars:
All four Sunni schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) mandate death for apostasy. This isn't fringe opinion—it's unanimous (ijma).
Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i law):
"When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed." — o8.1
The Hedaya (Hanafi law manual):
"The apostasy of a Mussulman is considered a heinous crime punishable by death."
Ibn Kathir on "no compulsion in religion" (2:256):
"Others said that it [2:256] was revealed and later abrogated by the Sword Verse [9:5]."
Classical consensus: Apostates must be killed. Modern apologists: Freedom of religion is Islamic. Contradiction.
Example 3: Wife-Beating
Modern Apologists: "The word 'daraba' in 4:34 doesn't mean 'beat'—it means 'separate from.'"
Classical Scholars:
Ibn Kathir on Quran 4:34:
"[Allah said] 'beat them' means, if advice and ignoring her in the bed do not benefit, beat her in a way that does not cause injury or leaving marks."
Al-Tabari:
"Men who have wives from whom they fear disobedience should admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then beat them."
Every classical commentary interprets "wadriboohunna" as physical beating. They only debate how hard (no broken bones, no facial marks, etc.). None say it means "separate from them."
Classical consensus: Husbands may beat disobedient wives (within limits). Modern apologists: The verse doesn't mean beating. Who rewrote Islam?
Example 4: Abrogation
Modern Apologists: "Peaceful verses still apply. The Quran doesn't contradict itself."
Classical Scholars:
The doctrine of abrogation (naskh) is foundational in traditional Islamic exegesis. As-Suyuti compiled an entire treatise listing abrogated verses.
Classical scholars identified 124 verses abrogated by the Sword Verse (9:5) alone, including:
- "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)
- "To you your religion and to me mine" (109:6)
- "Pardon them and overlook" (5:13)
Ibn Salama's list (classical scholar) includes hundreds of abrogations.
Classical consensus: Later violent verses abrogate earlier peaceful verses. Modern apologists: Abrogation doesn't apply or doesn't matter. Revisionism.
Example 5: Women's Status
Modern Apologists: "Islam honors women and gave them rights 1400 years ago."
Classical Scholars and Jurisprudence:
Classical Islamic law establishes systematic inequality:
- A woman's testimony equals half a man's (Quran 2:282)
- A woman's inheritance is half her brother's (Quran 4:11)
- Husbands may beat disobedient wives (Quran 4:34)
- Men have authority over women (qawamah) (Quran 4:34)
- A man can marry up to four wives; women can't practice polyandry
- Men may divorce unilaterally; women need grounds
- Women need male guardians' permission for marriage (various hadith)
These aren't modern innovations—they're codified in 1400 years of Islamic jurisprudence across all four schools.
Classical consensus: Women are subordinate to men in Islamic law. Modern apologists: Islam promotes gender equality. Contradiction.
The Pattern: Modern Revisionism
On virtually every controversial issue, modern apologists contradict classical scholarship:
| Issue | Classical Consensus | Modern Apologists |
|---|---|---|
| Jihad | Offensive warfare to spread Islam | Defensive only, internal struggle |
| Apostasy | Punishable by death | Freedom of religion |
| Wife-beating | Permitted (within limits) | "Mistranslation," doesn't mean beat |
| Slavery | Permissible, regulated | Islam came to abolish it |
| Women's rights | Systematically unequal | Islam honors/liberates women |
| Abrogation | Violent verses abrogate peaceful ones | Doesn't apply or doesn't matter |
| Dhimmi status | Jews/Christians subjugated, pay jizya | Interfaith harmony |
This isn't minor reinterpretation—this is creating a new religion that contradicts traditional Islam.
Why the Shift?
Why do modern apologists contradict classical scholars? Simple: to make Islam marketable to Western audiences.
Classical scholars had no such incentive: They wrote for Muslim audiences, had no need to appeal to non-Muslims, and could honestly state what Islam taught without fear of "Islamophobia" accusations.
Modern apologists face different pressures: Living in or appealing to Western audiences, they must make Islam compatible with liberal values (human rights, equality, freedom). So they reinterpret Islamic texts to align with Western sensibilities—even when this contradicts 1400 years of scholarship.
This is understandable as a PR strategy, but it's intellectually dishonest. You can't claim traditional Islam while rejecting what tradition actually taught.
The Ijma (Consensus) Problem
In Islamic epistemology, ijma (scholarly consensus) is a source of law. If early scholars reached consensus on an issue, that consensus is binding.
Modern apologists face a dilemma:
Accept ijma: Then you must accept offensive jihad, apostasy punishment, wife-beating permission, women's inequality, etc.—because these had consensus.
Reject ijma: Then you undermine Islamic epistemology. If consensus can be wrong, on what basis do you know anything about Islam? Hadith authentication relies on scholarly consensus too.
Modern apologists try to have it both ways: appealing to tradition when convenient (e.g., on worship practices) while rejecting tradition on controversial issues. This is inconsistent.
Questions to Consider
- If 1400 years of Islamic scholars taught offensive jihad, who should we believe—them or modern apologists?
- Why do all four schools of law mandate death for apostasy if Islam teaches "no compulsion in religion"?
- If "daraba" in 4:34 doesn't mean "beat," why did every classical scholar interpret it that way?
- Can Muslims reject scholarly consensus (ijma) on controversial issues while accepting it on other matters?
- If traditional Islam is wrong on major issues, how do Muslims know what's correct?
- Are modern apologists reforming Islam or just lying about what it teaches?
Conclusion
Modern Muslim apologetics contradicts 1400 years of Islamic scholarship on virtually every controversial issue. Classical scholars taught offensive jihad, apostasy punishment, wife-beating permission, women's inequality, slavery permissibility, and abrogation of peaceful verses—doctrines modern apologists now deny or reinterpret beyond recognition.
This creates a problem: either traditional Islam is correct (and modern apologists are dishonest), or traditional Islam got it wrong for 1400 years (which undermines Islamic claims to preserved truth).
Modern apologists want both: to claim Islam is an unchanged, preserved religion while simultaneously rejecting what that religion actually taught for its entire history. This is intellectually incoherent.
If Islam needs radical reinterpretation to be compatible with modern values, that's admission the original message was problematic. Better to be honest: Islam as traditionally understood is incompatible with human rights, equality, and freedom. Either reform it explicitly (which requires rejecting tradition) or admit what it actually teaches.
What you can't do—what's intellectually dishonest—is pretend Islam has always taught what modern apologists now claim while 1400 years of scholars said otherwise.
Related articles: The Context Defense, Mistranslation Claims