I will try to somehow portay the issue but I will first base it on a historical context. So please bare the next few lines.
From the "The Theology of Unity"
A brief throw-back on the first Islam:
Islam reproves the slavish imitation of the ancestors that characterizes the leaders of the religions. with their instinct to hold timidly to tradition-sanctioned ways, saying, as they do: 'Nay! We will follow what we found our fathers doing.' (Surah 31.21) and 'We found our fathers so as a people and we will stay the same as they'. (Surah 43·22.) So the authority of reason was liberated from all that held it bound and from every kind of taqlid enslaving it, and thus restored to its proper dignity, to do its proper work in judgement and wisdom, always in humble submission to God alone and in conformity to His sacred law. Within its bounds there are no limits to its activity and no end to the researches it may pursue.
The friends of truth are those 'who listen to what is said and follow Its better way.' (Surah 39.18.) as the Qur'an has it. It characterizes them as those who weigh all that is said, irrespective of who the speakers are, in order to follow what they know to be good and reject what gives evidence of having neither validity nor use. Islam threw its weight against the religious authoritIes, bringing them down from the dominance whence they uttered their commands and prohibitions.
The Prophet's day passed-he who was men's recourse in perplexity and their lamp in the darkness of doubt. His two immediate successors in the Caliphate devoted their span of life to repelling his foes and ensuring the unity of the Muslims. Men had little leisure at that time for critical discussion of the basis of their beliefs. What few differences there were they took to the two Caliphs and the Caliph gave his decision, after consul tation, if necessary, with the available men of insight. These issues, for the most part, had to do with branches of law, not with the principles of dogma. Under those two Caliphs, men understood the Book in its meaning and allusions.
Troubles & Forgeries: Sectarianism and Traditionalism.
So the case remained until the events which resulted in the death of the third Caliph-a tragedy which did irreparable damage to the structure of the Caliphate and brutally diverted Islam and the Muslim people from their right and proper course. Only the Qur'an remained unimpaired in its continuity. As God said: 'It is We who have sent down the Reminder and We truly preserve it' (Surah 15.9). And thus the way was open for man to transgress the proper bounds of religion.
Events took their subsequent course. Some of those who had pledged allegiance to the fourth Caliph broke their fealty. Civil war ensued, issuing in the hegemony of the Umayyads. But the community had been sundered and its bonds of unity broken. Rival schools of thought about the Caliphate developed and were propagated in partisanship, each striving by word and act to gain the better over its adversary. This in turn gave rise. to forgeries of traditions and interpretatIon, and the sectarian excess brought sharp divisions into Khawarij, Shi'ah and moderates.
Throughout the period of the rule of Marwan's sons no effort was made to regulate the issue or to get people back to first principles and bring them to a common position. Individual idiosyncrasy had free play, though 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz gave directions to AI-Zahra to record the traditions he had come by and he was the first tradition-collector.[The Context of the creation of Hadiths]
Consequences remained until this day
They persisted on this tack until their sects multiplied apace. The 'Abbasid rule, then in the prime of power, helped them and their views prevailed. Their learned scholars began to write books. Whereupon the adherents of the schools of the early masters took up their challenge, sustained by the power of con viction though lacking the support of the rulers. The early 'Abbasids knew the extent of their debt to the Persians for the successful establishment of their power and the overthrow of the Umayyad state. They relied strongly on Per sian collaboration and brought them into high positions among their ministers and retainers. Many of them thus came into authority without any part or lot in Islam religiously, including Manichee sectaries and Yazidis, and other Persian persuasions, as well as utterly irreligious people. They began to disseminate their opinions and by attitude and utterance induced those to whom their views were congenial to accept their direction.
SE Islam: misuse of up/downvotes, contradictory answers and unreasonable speculations
Now looking at these two questions.
This one received plenty of upvotes and quiet "vague" answers. A random how to perform Stoning
While this one received nothing but downvotes, no answer and some vague speculating comments (along with a little bit of grudge) Origin of Stoning questioned
Not to mention the plenty of contradictory answers within SE Islam. Such as:
- Is Music Haram or Halal ? Where the most upvoted answer itself doesn't provide a definitive answer, because it is based on unreasonable speculations by many "scholars" that base themselves on "Traditionalism".
- In the contrary, I would answer that very same question with the following answer in Is it halal to work in a Motel ? using simply the Quranic backed Reason such as highlighted in the "first Islam" part.
Now the reason why SE Islam is doomed to fail is because it doesn't hold any position. It is in the middle of a sandstorm where barely anyone can see. People with reason would find many answers here outrageous, while others, who are used to "Listening" and "Following" will feel indifferent about it.
This also leads to the random usage of the "upvote/downvote" system. Perhaps, in Stackoverflow, it makes sense, but in SE Islam, it doesn't. Not the way things are at the moment.
Concequences ? More questions that aren't even remotely religion based. Contradictory answers. Speculations here and there. Failure.
I recommend reading this a couple of times before attemtping to answer or comment.
Bonus (Do not answer)
What are all these accretions to their religion, when all the time Muslims have the very Book of God as a balance in which to weigh and discriminate all their conjectures and yet its very injunctions they abandon and forsake?
If Islam really is so solicitous for the minds and hearts of men, why today in the opinion of so many is it somehow beyond the reach of those who would grasp it? If Islam welcomes and invites enquiry into its contents, why is the Quran not read except by chanting and even the majority of the educated men of religion only know it very approximately?