Frank wrote on Jan 26
th, 2019 at 11:21am:
Auggie wrote on Jan 26
th, 2019 at 11:12am:
Any religion or idea is capable of reform. Change will only come. Unfortunately such change usually does not come about by peaceful means.
The Koran is the masterpiece of guidance and knowledge bestowed upon humanity by the Almighty.
It cannot be modified in any way whatsoever. It is the final book. The commandments of the Almighty are entrenched in the Koran which provides for a complete way of life. Asia Bibi, for example, was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan NOT because they threw out the sharia rules on blasphemy as outdated or irrelevant in a modern society but simply because the prosecution did not prove that the blasphemy occurred. In other words, there is not one iota of moving away from sharia law and its demands in relation to punishing blasphemy by death. Sharia rules are completely unchanged in 11400 years because the Koran's guidance is unmodifiable. For Muslims, its forever Groundhog Day of 8 June 632 AD.
The Bible sanctifies the butchering of women and children as noble acts of faith. Oh yes it does. For centuries such butchering was sanctioned by the church as noble acts of faith. And yet, you would be the first to argue that Christianity has got over that and 'reformed'.
There is nothing in Islamic doctrine that should act as an impenetrable 'never ever' road block to muslims behaving both civily and keeping in faith with their religion. Even if you insist there are specific doctrinal passages that make slaughtering innocents a compulsory act of faith (ridiculous, but I'll humour you),
there's no reason why it can't be bypassed, ignored or rationalised into something more compatible with civil society. The truth is most muslims do it anyway, and on the other side of the coin, the jihadis bypass ignore or rationalise specific commands to not be intolerant butchering thugs. If Christians can get past specific doctrinal commands to punish and/or revile homosexuals and look upon women as subservient, inferior beings who must not be heard in public - into a religion that officially embraces gay rights and women's equality - then I don't think its a stretch for muslims to get over some pretty vague and ambiguous doctrinal references that allegedly condone slaughtering innocents on the basis of personal beliefs as an act of faith. For one thing, they can instead emphasise the decidedly *NON* vague and *NON ambiguous commands to accept and embrace freedom of thought in 2:256 and 18:29.
Would it be fair to describe you as a hypocrite for suggesting Muslims ignore those parts of the Quran they feel uncomfortable with? Or are you only suggesting that non-Muslims ignore them?