yes
Actually, based on numerous other posts in other threads, he is not only an unbelieving literalist, but he believes that only literalists are legitimate believers.
Right. You can’t say the Koran or the Bible are moral books if you have to ignore large sections of the book.
I’m glad you have the ability to reject a large % of what your faith teaches, but many others do not and the fact that the beliefs and directives are so malevolent is a problem.
Leaving aside the conflation of hostility to Israel and anti-Semitism, I’m not sure why a Frenchwoman of Moroccan descent is “in no position” to criticize anti-Semitism because of the actions of non-Moroccan Arabs and other Muslims.
For that matter, France has a long history of anti-Semitism but I don’t see you saying because of her French citizenship she can’t criticize anti-Semitism.
For that matter, Canada was infamous for refusing to admit Jews during WWII so by that standard you’re in no position to lecture her about anti-Semitism.
I’ve yet to find an oracle of perfect wisdom. If a book or person can give me a snippet of enlightenment, I’m thrilled.
You’re ignoring the fact that ALL practicing Muslims ignore a huge percentage of what their faith teaches.
To give a clear example, you’ll notice how radical Muslims regularly use the term “Kufar”(unbelievers) to refer to Christians and Jews, yet it’s made repeatedly clear in both the Quran and numerous hadiths that Christians and Jews are very much NOT “unbelievers” because of course Christians and Jews do believe in Allah.
For those who don’t know, Allah isn’t the name of God in Arabic.
It simply means “the God” in Arabic.
In fact, while they try to avoid using the phrase “Allah”, Christian Arabs do sometimes use the phrase.
For that matter, they have to because the Quran and the hadiths(even those nearly universally recognized) are often contradictory.
Similarly, all Christians and all Jews ignore parts of their holy scriptures they don’t like.
On another note, the disagreement isn’t between those who interpret the Quran literally and those who don’t, but how it’s interpreted.
What most of the people don’t seem to realize, including those who seem to claim they’ve read it is that it’s not in chronological order and parts of it have even been abrogated and parts of it are clarifications of other parts of it.
If you want to understand Muslims, honestly just about the worst thing you can do is pick up and try and read the Quran.
How can the book be considered a moral authority if you have ignore large parts of it? I can pick up a book on philosophy or self improvement and apply the parts I wish, disregarding others. But your book is, supposedly, the word of god. How can god be wrong?
People’s can misunderstand God. Eyewitness testimony of ordinary events of this world can be unreliable, nevermind encounters with God. When I tell my cat to get off the couch, he thinks I’m saying, “Blah, blah, blah,” or perhaps, “Stay just where you are, O superior being.” God may have similar problems communicating with us.
1- God, being infallible, would have no trouble communicating with us
2- How is someone supposed to misunderstand “you can keep non muslim women as your sex slaves and have sex with them whenever you want”
Getting back to the OP, the Atlantic Monthly recently published an article which gives an extended account of an opponent of radical Islamism holding discussions with the radicals:
You’ll see that, while author Graeme Wood makes clear to them his views are different, he doesn’t try to reason with them.
One problem with such reasoning is that, even if the radical isn’t a top Koranic expert, he knows a heck of a lot more about how to interpret Muslim religious texts than almost any non-Muslim. So, from the radical’s point of view, Valteron may have helped prove the ridiculousness of liberal interpretations of Islam, and how much they are loved by the religion’s opponents. I’m not saying Valteron did that, but that’s a more likely scenario than turning a radical into a moderate.
The only realistic purposes of internet discussion with people you disagree with are to better understand their POV, to clarify your own, and, if possible, to have fun.
I thought he gave a consistent answer to this in parts quoted in the OP. He’s against it. There’s no hypocrisy, in that he’s against treating true and false religions the same. By itself, that’s not extreme. Presumably this is why the UK guarantees a fairly small number of of seats, in the House of Lords, to its state church. Folks there thought the true religion should be given a leg up. While I’d prefer they took away those reserved seats, I don’t find it horrendous. Similarly, I don’t have a big problem with a country having Islam as its state religion, if done in a moderate way. There’s no logical reason why every country has to have a first amendment, or why every country can’t favor Islam. Mr. Radical is right about that.
Would you want to live in a country without the first amendment?
Not sure about the phrase “your book” since that’s true of all Holy books and while I’m a Muslim I’m not a practicing one.
Anyway, I’m a bit astonished that you’ve gotten this far in life without realizing that consciously or not Christians, Jews, and Muslims all only follow parts rather than all of their holy Books but that’s true of all.
As to how one can disregard parts of the Quran, because quite simply the Quran states that God can change his mind and therefore when passages are in conflict the newer surah abrogates the older one.
Of course, it’s not always clear which surah is newer and which is older because the chronology of the Quran was lost long ago.
If your point is that the dogma behind such beliefs doesn’t stand up to too much scratching below the surface, then you’re quite right and I’m a bit surprised that you’re treating it like a great shock since it’s something most people discover the first time they encounter a dogma they haven’t been taught to revere.
Anyway, if you’re looking for people to convince you that the Quran is the final, complete, uncorrupted word of God, you’ve come to the wrong place.
Are you under the impression that the Jewish and Christian Bibles don’t have passages on the treatment of slaves that clearly support the practice?
The answer is of course that most Muslims pay no more attention to this passage than Martin Luther King did to the portions of the Old Testament that set down rules on how to beat slaves and just who much damage could be done to them.
Most people seem to do and don’t complain.
Ask our European and Canadian members.
1- Why would a being with perfect knowledge change his mind???
2- It is hypocritical, for example, for a christian to say Homosexuality is wrong, according to the bible, but then to give very little money to charity, when Jesus says to try and be perfect is to sell all of your possessions and give the money to charity.
3- Your admittance that people don’t follow all of the book, even if you seem to think it is some kind of justification, is not justification. Hypocrisy is the result of applying the parts you like and ignoring the parts you don’t.
4- I don’t know the Koran but the little bit I do know from complied lists of “evil things in the Koran” well lets just say, if even HALF of the stuff on the list is a true depiction of the text, it makes me shudder and affronts my sense of morality to an extreme degree.
5- You seem like a decent guy. Intelligent. Personable. Why not reject a text that is so obviously flawed instead of trying to defend and minimize it’s objectionable content.
6- Whatever good you see in Islam, can you not derive the same good things in your own life, independent if your own thoughts, from Islam or from any external code of morality?
Which is why I do not bother to engage in argument with you over your uninformed beliefs. 
I’m not a fan of either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Just because they did something wrong is not a valid reason for Mohammed or his followers to do so. I am kind of surprised that you would think such a comparison was worth mentioning in a reasoned debate.
I’m not sure what you meant by your comments about Europeans and Canadians.
The text of the Koran says, specifically, you can keep non muslim women as sex slaves and have sex with them whenever you want. That’s what it actually says. Calling me uninformed is proof that you know slavery is wrong, you know you can not defend the text, and so you choose instead to call me “uninformed”.
Not necessarily. Suppose there is, somewhere in the text, a law that says, “You must follow every law in this book without any exception.”
Suppose that this specific law is one of the ones someone chooses not to follow.
That isn’t hypocrisy at all. It’s perfectly self-consistent.
I know a good many Jews who don’t pay a lot of attention to the Kosher laws. If a nice ham-and-cheese sandwich is set in front of them, they’ll nom it right down and be entirely happy with that. This may make them less-than-fully observant, but it does not make them hypocrites, unless, at some other time, they declared, “All Jews must follow all the Kosher laws.” Since they have not made that declaration, they aren’t hypocrites.