Christianity may have moved on in general but there is no shortage of Christans ready to pull it backwards if they ever get their hands on the levers of powers. Fanaticism is not the property of any one religion.
I take it you have not heard of Hadiths and Tafsir … basically, there is a tradition of interpretation of the Koran that has always existed and goes back to the very beginnings of Islam.
Suffice it to say that Daesh’s interpretations of the text are far from the mainstream of Islam. 
[QUOTE=NB]
I can’t imagine that such a moderate reading will have any effect on the group itself and won’t teach moderate muslims anything other than what they already know.
Are the quotes in the letter actually from the Koran? And can ISIL in response not simply dig up quotes from the book itself that suits their purpose and thus play a game of infallability “top trumps”.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they can: A response to the open letter written to the Khalifah Al-Baghdadi (Part 1 – Hijrah) – Abul-Khattab Al-Janubi
A longer point by point response:Debunking The Letter Of The Wicked Scholars To Amirul Muhmineen – Part 1 By Shaikh Abdullah Faisal
The letter is obviously well intentioned, but it is a mistake to consider it an actual objective refutation of the scriptural justifications that ISIS uses for it’s savagery, rather than the ad hoc, stop gap measure that it is.
The Koran orders the “faithful” to slaughter anyone who they can’t convert.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Seriously, can’t you find a source that’s just a little less unabashedly biased and hateful?
If it is in there, it only shows that the radicals have plenty of inspiration for their Quran too. What do moderates do with scriptures such as those? Whether it’s moderate or radical scholars, I imagine each group can probably do with the Quran, what Christians and other religious groups can also do with their holy writs; each can justify basically any cause getting it to say whatever they would like for it to say by proof-texting select scriptures promoting their point of view, while ignoring other scriptures which would advocate the exact opposite, also probably claiming the other side has misinterpreted the true meaning.
They’ve been denouncing it for awhile.
Beyond that, yeah, you’re right that such quotes probably aren’t going to change any ISIS/DAESH member’s moods, but why is that remotely surprising.
Is there anyone so stupid that they think that the Crusaders who engaged in widespread mass murder had never read the Sermon on the Mount?
On the contrary, they could probably all quote it verbatim in multiple languages.
People who think that differences between Muslims and Christians are due to passages in the text tend to be overly deterministic.
“objective refutation”?
what does this even mean in the context of the theological texts… in any religion?
Other than we see you are the apologist for the Takfiri murder theological point of view.
Something that made some sort of logical sense would be a nice start. One can objectively prove lots of things about theological texts, ie we can objectively prove that the Koran contains many references to the Arabian pennensula. But we can’t objectively prove that it does not support ISIS’s actions.
Oh is that right? Now merely noting that a point of view exists is being an apologist for it? LOL nice response! It’s especially ironic after I have pointed out to you that this letter you are referring to actually praises ISIS ("fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad.” ) and agrees with their goal of establishing a caliphate. But I guess for you a response that scolds them for attacks on Muslims is sufficient.
Oh my what insight… of banal non relevance.
Sane and non-deranged people of ordinary intelligence can read the letter and understand it is trying to be genuinely convincing rather than acting like the crazy street preacher screaming at the sinners that they are Evil Evil Evil.
I find the letter pragmatic in trying to actually achieve an effect rather than playing to the already convinced, a [practical and rational approach… in contrast with other practices pretending here.
Quoted for emphasis!
But really, it seems to be all the rage with those attacking religions for any reason. They tend to take the text totally literally and point out how contradictory, crazy, or evil the text is.
Which may well be true, but it is not a good attack on the religion - most of which have evolved quite sophisticated systems of commentary, interpretation and analysis that make the religion actually practiced far more, and quite different, from that contained in the original text.
There are of course exceptions - literalists of various stripes do exist, and they tend to be noisy. Thus you get the odd phenomenon of modern-day anti-religious types insisting, along with the fundamentalists, that the (often deeply unpleasant) fundamentalists represent the “true” interpreters of the religion, rather that the (often far more humane and admirable) mainstream, because their vision is a simple-minded application of the text - often, cherry-picking the very nastiest bits for emphasis.
You know, the ‘banal non relevance’ thing I could let slide as attacking the post. But the ‘Sad and non-deranged’ bit is really attacking the poster.
Warning issued. Don’t do it again.