For all of that bluster, they don't have to look too far, or esoterically in the Koran for their excuses to hate, and kill Jews. It's there, and as straight forward as it gets.
Unfortunately, it is used and acted upon by a violent minority.
Once I'd checked that Paul Moulden had opened a chippy (had to look), your reply got me thinking: has anyone ever decided that a passage in a sacred text 'is as straightforward as it gets'' and repudiated it?
Qur'an 4v34 is just such a passage because it appears to sanction domestic violence.
I have pages and pages of exegesis on it. Understandably Muslim feminist writers aren't impressed, and a mate of mine got treated to a 20 minute disquisition on this
āyah when he interviewed Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad up at Oxford University. The Shaykh is also known as Tim Winter and is the brother of the sports writer Henry Winter.
But in her unflinching opposition to the passage, the Muslim feminist author Amina Wadud wrote, 'I have come to say 'no' outright to the literal implementation of this passage.' She continues, 'this verse, and the literal interpretation of hudud (penal code) both imply an ethical standard of human actions that are archaic and barbaric at this time in history.'
This is the only example of a Muslim scholar rejecting some of the Qur'an that I know of.
But a lot of (usually educated) European Muslims are also repelled by the notorious hudud punishments and do not identify with them in any way.
Meanwhile, in Christianity, there's Richard Holloway, the former Bishop of Edinburgh. He reckons that if a passage in the Bible looks like it's a load of bollocks, you should just ignore it. While still in post, he wrote this book:
Of course, that didn't go down well and he eventually left the Church in disgust at its homophobia.
Just thought it was worth a mention.
