Stung

Madeleine Bunting has been stung. Someone implied that she only appreciated Islam's tolerance of diversity because I was a Christian and the Qur'an explicitly recognises this as an Abrahamic faith of the book, as it does Judaism. The post argued that mine was a sort of - "I'm alright then" response. That was a complete misreading of what had impressed me.

She doesn't say who this someone was, or provide a link to their remarks, so it's impossible to comment on the specific remarks, but I posted this in the comments on the general subject.

One clear demonstration that the Qur'an doesn't extend its (limited) endorsement of diversity beyond Jews and Christians is the praise offered for the judicial murder of calf worshippers, for no other crime than following a different religious practice (2:54).

The text specifically says that this murder was required by God before he would forgive the Jews for worshipping an idol. If Mohammed (or God, the hypothesised author, or the seventh century collating committee) had had any intention of distancing himself from that bloodstained Jewish and Christian tradition, he could easily have rejected it there, yet he did not.

Alternatively, one can compare 2:62, 5:69 and 22:17. The text in these verses is very similar. The difference is that 22:17 is the only one of the three which also refers to polytheists, and it's also the only one where the reference is to God's judgment, not God's forgiveness.

With regard to the imagined forgiveness for atheists, one only has to point to the simple fact that the much vaunted 2:62 limits the divine dispensation to 'any who believe in Allah and the Last Day’, combined with the many, many vitriolic descriptions of the torments awaiting for unbelievers in the afterlife. Despite attempts to argue to the contrary, a close reading of the text shows that in most instances it is the twin 'crimes' of polytheism and unbelief that require the human bonfires.

I think you are influenced by the fact that it would be wonderful if the Qur'an was on Sardar's side, because his version of religion is so much more humane and thoughtful than the illiberal alternative.

Unfortunately it is not, or at least is not so unequivocally. It is fact a mixture of the sublime, the banal and the horrific, like the Bible. It may be possible to draw inspiration from specific sections of it, but the perfection claim is only tenable by stepping carefully through the text, clinging to the ennobling verses whilst stepping carefully round the moral atrocities like a computer game of Minesweepers.

Which analogy works on another level. Because the claim is that the book is perfect, by definition that means it should be defensible in detail as well as in total. Step on one unexploded verse, and for the perfection claim it's game over.

That would be a great result for secularism, but also for religion. There is actually no hypothetical reason why world religion has to be disfigured by misogyny, homophobia and the stench of burning flesh. Many religious people are working very hard to move away from those traditions. It’s just that the ancient grimoires stand in their way.

All that’s needed is a little perspective. Simply redefine the books as humanity reaching out to God, rather than God handing perfection down to humanity, and there is no problem. The sublime bits remain sublime, whilst the mines are defused by historical perspective.

Those of us who disbelieve would still disagree, but the discussion would no longer be about defending civil rights and basic human liberties.

It kind of turned in the typing, from a specific discussion of the post into a more general statement on the whole topic. Although that wasn't my original goal, I decided it worked in the situation, and left it as it was.