I don’t understand your response to (2). I don’t understand the connection to religious Jews. Can you please elaborate what you meant? As for the remark about the Hadith and Jews, I have no idea where this came from. Was it relevant to our conversation? Am I missing something?

About what is strict and what is not strict, okay. Pretty much just like conservative versus liberal Christians and Jews. Nothing different. Only a handful of countries enforce fatwas as law, and these are by far the exception.

(2)“They believe Jesus is the messiah and that he will return for the final religious war.” Are you serious? They know that religious Jews that follow the Old Testament and the Talmud do not follow in that Jesus was the savior at all. So they are not going to be saved because of this denial? Yes, or no? “As for the Hadith, they do not have the same status as the Qur’an” That is important to know. I suppose the Hadith is a little less tolerant of the Jews. Is that safe to say?

(3)“I don’t understand your last paragraph really. When you said “strict” Islam, I thought you were referring to the Salafis, which are literalists. But of course there are people that are socially more conservative in the schools of thought, and those that are more liberal.”

Now you understood what I was saying. Strict had nothing to do with either Salafis and Wahhabis or the four major schools of thought, but not allowing liberalism into the modern Islamic way of life. In fact, there are many things today that did not exist during the 7th Century, and therefore, IMO, one cannot read into any law of that time and append it to a new thing today. I thought the Ayatollah ( Of Iran in the late70s-80s) calling for the ripping up of linoleum from kitchen floors because the stuff was not around during the 7th century was a bit to ‘strict.’ This is what I was getting too about strictness. Do you understand? I’m well aware now of many schools of thought, some literalists and some not, but being strict in the sense to apply to things that never existed before to the 7th century laws are a bit confusing to most people including modern Muslims.

(1) Salafis say that they rely only on the Qur’an and Hadith. That means that they go directly to the source, make their interpretations, and generally disregard those belonging to others. Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali are all the mainstream “schools of thought” in Islam, which started before Ibn Taymiyyah, the Salafi, came onto the scene. Those four could be considered real salafis in the strict sense that they are early Muslims. The Salafis today and of Ibn Taymiyyah’s sort reject the schools of thought because they think that the individual begins to put faith in the person rather than the texts. They would call it heresy to follow a school of thought, and, indeed, frequently tried to assassinate those who lead them.

(2) As for your interpretation of Islam, it’s pretty much way off the mark. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, and that truth is contained in the Qur’an, and that belief in god is salvation. They believe Jesus is the messiah and that he will return for the final religious war. As for the Hadith, they do not have the same status as the Qur’an, but are often used as a way to interpret the Qur’an. For example, if there is an ambiguity in the Qur’an, scholars generally study the Hadith to see if there is anything that Muhammad said or did that would incline for one way or another. Often, scholars have conflicting views, and they mutually agree that it is possible to follow either one as long as an individual is consistent in methodology.

(3) I don’t understand your last paragraph really. When you said “strict” Islam, I thought you were referring to the Salafis, which are literalists. But of course there are people that are socially more conservative in the schools of thought, and those that are more liberal. It is an individual property. As for which is the purer Islam, that is not for me to judge, and not really something I care about. Probably the most “liberal” thread in Islam thought is Sufism (Tasawwuf), which is based in the four Sunni schools of thought, and also in Shiite theology, but is wholly rejected by the Salafis and Wahhabis, who consider it a heresy punishable by death.

So basically the only real relevance to Islam is that Muhammad is the last prophet and through his words ( Qu’ran only) - Muslims reach salvation with Allah. The a’hadith consist of Muhammad’s words, but were all recorded by the people who knew him and not necessarily – Muhammad, in fact not at all.

So is it safe to say that both Hanafi and Salafis remain both ‘strict ‘versions of Islam? Is there such a thing as a liberal version of Islam. I know plenty of liberal versions of examples of Christianity. Also, can Hanafi and Salafis both be called ‘ pure Islam?’ This will help me better understand how to communicate correctly when speaking on these delicate issues. Thanks for the help.