Inevitable confusion

Submitted by Denis MacEoin (United Kingdom), Aug 29, 2007 at 12:57

Banning the Qur'an is a non-starter, given the havoc that might ensue. There are far worse books on sale everywhere, and as you say, this would ban inspirational passages along with the rest. I think what the would-be banners really want to do is draw public (and governmental) attention to some of ther realities of the Qur'an's contents. Many of the Medinan passages are genuinely offensive, and not a few would fail any test for hate literature if their identity were kept secret.

There certainly has to be an opening up, a forum within which those who claim that the Qur'an preaches sweetness and light may be brought face to face with texts showing it does not. Within the Muslim community itself, something more profound has to take place. Intelligent Muslims must address the issues that reformers like Fazlur Rahman have tackled over the past few decades, specifically in the area of tafsir and neo-tafsir. Yes, you are urged to slaughter the infidel, but, no, a modern exegesis does not let you do that: military jihad must be consigned to history. Similarly for passages about women, Jews, and anything else that stands in the way of Muslims becoming fully integrated members of Western societies, or Muslim states playing a full role within the community of nations.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".