I would also just like to say that I personally wouldn't approve of the third question:
This is because the religion of Islam has been ordained and perfected by Allaah, so it is irrelevant as to what any creation personally feels about them. Human beings have only so much a capability to comprehend and understand; God, on the other hand, has infinite wisdom and knowledge with which He prescribes rulings that might be seemingly senseless to some individuals but nevertheless facilitate the best outcome. Perhaps it is in this context that some of the responses would be given.
That is certainly not the context in which my reply was given. As the purpose of the thread is to effectively ask non-muslims, i.e people who do not believe that "the religion of Islam has been ordained and perfected by Allaah" (or even believe there is a God at all), why they are not muslims, that objection makes no sense at all in this context regardless of your personal belief.
It also overlooks the point that I made earlier, that "perfected" or not the Qur'an and Hadith are interpreted in different ways by different muslims in different places; I gave an example earlier regarding women's education. It is some of those
interpretations (which are made by people, not God) that make non-muslims uncomfortable, hence not only is the question non-offensive in this context, it is essential.
I doubt this will have changed your mind, but at least I hope I've given you a plausible alternative
It didn't, as I said I've seen them all before. They are certainly alternatives, and have been frequently argued throughout history, but I simply do not find them remotely plausible ones in the context of a God with the characteristics He is supposed to have. It would be straying off topic to explain why here (this isn't another 'does God exist' thread), but I have done so elsewhere.
One thought springs to mind though, in view of my response to Muhammad. Presumably the application of free-will applies just as much to those scholars providing Qur'anic and Hadith interpretations as it does to everybody else. Doesn't that open at up least the
logical possibility (it's clearly not a very likely one!) that every single one of those interpretations might be not only wrong, but actually evil? It would certainly seem to suggest that at least some are likely to be both.