The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . .
You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses.
What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.
I've addressed the Qur'anic perspective towards vioence before, that part of this guy's attack is stale indeed. But what interests me is his call for moderates to renounce the Qur'an. Let's play with this idea for a moment... he makes an analogy between written Qur'anic verse and the theologic interpretation that led to the Crusades.
Well, moderates have already been repudiating violent interpretations of the Qur'an. For 1400 years. If, however, he wants to assume that the interpretation is intrinsic to the text (ie a declaration by moderate Muslims that "verses xx:yyy are no longer applicable"), then he should also be calling upon all moderate Christians to repudiate the Bible.
The real issue is whether interpretations are the target, or something much more basic.