What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[Belz...]

This is a very common mistake, equating the Old Testament to the Koran and claiming "Christianity is no better". Setting aside the historical fact of which of these two civilizations enabled you to speak freely to criticize it and developed the medium to send this message around the world in a blink of an eye for the time being

It was western secular liberalism that brought this, somewhat inspired by earlier, non-Christian philosophies. Let's not give credit to the wrong ideologies, here. You're comparing the cultures of the west vs those of the middle-east, not Christianity and Islam.

Here's the catch you probably won't address at all: New testament does not endorse violence, only the Old testament does that.

Yeah except for the bit where Jesus says he came to bring a sword and to set family members against one another.

Europe overtook China by large margins because of fundamentally good policy choices it made in the centuries prior. It wasn't an accident of geography or of foreign invaders or devastating wars and civil wars - England in particular had more than its' share of those and yet it was one of the main drivers behind the technological revolutions that changed the face of Europe and the world, especially from 17th century onward.

It's not just policy choices, though. Geography and random events and disasters had a lot to do with Europe's success by affecting its options of policy choices.

 

[A'isha]

It's not just policy choices, though. Geography and random events and disasters had a lot to do with Europe's success by affecting its options of policy choices.

For a good explanation and exploration of this, I recommend Ian Morris' Why the West Rules...for Now over Diamond's work.

 

[McHrozni]

Because most terrorist groups have very specific goals they're trying to accomplish with their terrorism, rather than being part of some kind of "clash of civilizations". Why would terrorists in the Congo, the CAR, or even Mali attack the US?

Why wouldn't they? The exact same 'logic' as you apply to Islamic terrorists who attack Europe and USA would apply to them as well. Except that it doesn't happen.

Movements that combined Northern resistance to Southern economic domination mixed with weird ideas of Islamist "reform" began in Nigeria as soon as independence happened - the violent extremist Maitatsine movement founded by Muhammed Marwa that began in the 60's combined appeals to the urban poor and indigent with a rejection of anything outside the Qur'an, from wristwatches to bicycles to the ahadith (Marwa later rejected even Muhammad and declared himself to be a prophet). Elizabeth Isichei even called it "a revolt of the disinherited".

In other words, the group appeared about four decades prior to becoming Boko Haram in 2002, was created solely due to Islam and their only reason for the existence of the group was Islam.

I fail to see how any of that supports your hypothesis of Islam being a benign random variable.

I deleted the rest which was getting outright embarrassing for you. Do try to analyze what you're saying from time to time, you'll find that your preconceived notions about Islam are wrong more often than not.

For one thing, it's only been in the last hundred years or so that the modern tactics and techniques of terrorism has been possible. For another, there have always been Jewish resistance and underground movements, especially during the Nazi years, carrying out bomb attacks on troop trains and arson attacks on cinemas.

Bomb attacks on troop trains who fight a war against you are the very anathema of terrorism. They're a legal and legitimate way of defending yourself and/or your country.

Resistance and underground movements are not, by themselves, terrorist organizations.

Except we do.

You say this after hand-waving away evidence Islamic terrorist attacks account for several times what they should, if Islam was a random variable. Now you acknowledge it. Horah!

Do try to spare a thought about what you're saying from time to time. It'll save you a lot of time and embarrassments such as these.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It was western secular liberalism that brought this, somewhat inspired by earlier, non-Christian philosophies. Let's not give credit to the wrong ideologies, here. You're comparing the cultures of the west vs those of the middle-east, not Christianity and Islam.

The culture of the Middle-East is intrinsically linked to Islam to a great extent. Western culture was intrinsically linked to Christianity until about 200 years ago. The connection has since weakened, but it still exists.

Yeah except for the bit where Jesus says he came to bring a sword and to set family members against one another.

The passage orders Christians to treat all Christians as their own family and to love Jesus more than their parents. It doesn't give any advice as how to treat non-Christians. You can make a conjecture that this means it is fine to treat non-Christians poorly, but that's a conjecture and interpretation.

Contrast this with:
Koran 2:193: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and worship is for Allah (alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (polytheists, unbelievers)

Clearly the verse instructs the faithful of how to act against non-Muslims. Fight them until they either die or convert. All interpretation about this verse A'isha will undoubtedly yap about is that it was only meant for a certain group of non-believers. Even the best interpretation of this verse and the worst interpretation of the Bible verse above don't show Islam as better than Christianity.

It's not just policy choices, though. Geography and random events and disasters had a lot to do with Europe's success by affecting its options of policy choices.

No, it's policy choices that made the difference. What you describe is events that led to those policy choices happening. There indeed was some element of chance, but chance mainly affected in which microlocation the events took place (e.g. Florence instead of Genoa) and when the events happened (e.g. reformation in 1517 and not in 1515). At most chance could explain why England and the Netherlands raced ahead and not say Italy (-ian states) and Denmark, and it could explain why they raced ahead in 17th century and not the 18th. That's the maximum effect chance had on the matter.

McHrozni

 

[LSSBB]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the passage seems to be geographically limited to one specific area of the world and does not, in fact, call for the destruction of all infidels, just the ones residing in Israel.

This is awful by modern standards, yes, but you sought out to prove the call was to destroy all infields everywhere. If the best evidence of that is a passage that calls for the destruction of all infidels in Israel I call this evidence of your claim being a false equivalence.

McHrozni

That's your interpretation.

 

[A'isha]

Why wouldn't they? The exact same 'logic' as you apply to Islamic terrorists who attack Europe and USA would apply to them as well. Except that it doesn't happen.

They have no reason to attack Europe and the US, because their concerns don't involve Europe and the US.

And you dodged my question. What reason would terrorists in the Congo, the CAR, or even Mali have for attacking the US, when their concerns and goals don't involve the US?

In other words, the group appeared about four decades prior to becoming Boko Haram in 2002, was created solely due to Islam and their only reason for the existence of the group was Islam.

They appeared four decades prior to Boko Haram, were focused on socioeconomic concerns, and calling them "created solely due to Islam and their only reason for the existence of the group was Islam" is rather odd considering they rejected all the ahadith right from the start and by the 70's rejected even Muhammad and declared a new prophet in his place.

I deleted the rest which was getting outright embarrassing for you. Do try to analyze what you're saying from time to time, you'll find that your preconceived notions about Islam are wrong more often than not.

You barely have even a superficial knowledge of what you're talking about, so you have to snip out everything I said rather than actually address it.

Bomb attacks on troop trains who fight a war against you are the very anathema of terrorism. They're a legal and legitimate way of defending yourself and/or your country.

And attacks on cinemas? I notice you left that out.

You say this after hand-waving away evidence Islamic terrorist attacks account for several times what they should, if Islam was a random variable. Now you acknowledge it. Horah!

Do try to spare a thought about what you're saying from time to time. It'll save you a lot of time and embarrassments such as these.

You say that if Islam was a benign random variable, we'd see the disaffected youth conducing terrorist attacks in the name of a lot of different things, with Islam being a factor in only very few of them, and I point out that that's exactly what we do see, and you somehow think this means I just "acknowledged" that Islamic terrorist attacks account for several times what they should if Islam was a random variable?

Do you even read your own arguments before you try to make them?

 

[A'isha]

That's your interpretation.

I like how mocks me for pointing out interpretational context in reading the Qur'an, shortly after insisting that you have to read the Bible based on interpretational context.

No double standard there, nope!

 

[LSSBB]

That's your interpretation.

To be clearer: what counts is that a Christian could selectively use the Bible to persecute non-Christians, using such a passage as quoted. If you are a Christian who doesn't interpret it that way, your interpretation doesn't matter, nor does mine - even as a Christian.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify persecuting and even attacking non-Christians? Yes.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify peaceful co-existence? Have Islamic folks done the same with the Koran? I do believe the answer is Yes to both. Therefore, the text is not the issue. It is the individual and how they interpret their faith.

 

[A'isha]

Have Christians used the Bible to justify peaceful co-existence? Have Islamic folks done the same with the Koran? I do believe the answer is Yes to both. Therefore, the text is not the issue. It is the individual and how they interpret their faith.

Indeed. My cousin, who has a degree in shari'ah and often gives the khutbah at his mosque, recently challenged the leaders of mosques and Islamic organizations around the country to put up signs and notices on their grounds and on their websites wishing Happy Easter to their Christian friends and neighbors, the way churches sometimes post congratulatory messages for Ramadan or Eid, citing Q 4:86: "And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely God takes account of all things."

 

[Vixen]

To be clearer: what counts is that a Christian could selectively use the Bible to persecute non-Christians, using such a passage as quoted. If you are a Christian who doesn't interpret it that way, your interpretation doesn't matter, nor does mine - even as a Christian.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify persecuting and even attacking non-Christians? Yes.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify peaceful co-existence? Have Islamic folks done the same with the Koran? I do believe the answer is Yes to both. Therefore, the text is not the issue. It is the individual and how they interpret their faith.

Overly simplistic. The Qu'ran is legalistic, it revolves around rules and laws (not dissimilar to the OT/Torah). It has had rules added, revised and taken away by Muhammed's 'companions' and over the centuries numerous scholars have interpreted the rules. (For example, nowhere did it say women should wear the hijab.)

Christianity is 'by grace', not 'law'.

One of the rationales of declaring a 'caliphate' (kalifer) in that region, is because the fundamentalists, following Baghdadi believe they can bring about the apocalypse in that region, some believing the capital will be Raqqa.

They welcome war and conflict. They are trying to cause it.

Islam is inherent to the violence. It preaches that Muslims must never rest until everybody has forcibly become one of them.

Of course, the middle class Muslims are horrified by such sentiments, but fact is, that is the ethos that is at the core of Islam. The Arab countries surrounding Israel will never be at peace with Israel for that reason.

 

[LSSBB]

Overly simplistic. The Qu'ran is legalistic, it revolves around rules and laws (not dissimilar to the OT/Torah). It has had rules added, revised and taken away by Muhammed's 'companions' and over the centuries numerous scholars have interpreted the rules. (For example, nowhere did it say women should wear the hijab.)

Christianity is 'by grace', not 'law'.

One of the rationales of declaring a 'caliphate' (kalifer) in that region, is because the fundamentalists, following Baghdadi believe they can bring about the apocalypse in that region, some believing the capital will be Raqqa.

They welcome war and conflict. They are trying to cause it.

Islam is inherent to the violence. It preaches that Muslims must never rest until everybody has forcibly become one of them.

Of course, the middle class Muslims are horrified by such sentiments, but fact is, that is the ethos that is at the core of Islam. The Arab countries surrounding Israel will never be at peace with Israel for that reason.

That's your interpretation. Are you a legal advisor to would-be oppressors? You can make your own interpretation as complicated, or as simple, as you desire.

My point still stands, what counts is that both texts have been used for justification - by their adherents, and those who would oppress them, in using their own texts against them.

 

[Vixen]

That's your interpretation. Are you a legal advisor to would-be oppressors? You can make your own interpretation as complicated, or as simple, as you desire.

My point still stands, what counts is that both texts have been used for justification - by their adherents, and those who would oppress them, in using their own texts against them.

It was helped formed by an interesting book I read on the Islamic State:

The Way of the Strangers – Encounters with the Islamic State by Graeme Wood.

There is no doubt that various doctrines have been used for ill. However, the issue in that region is specifically to do with ISIS, the bastard offspring of Al-Quaeda. Simply saying, ah, but the Christians...

It is quite wrong.

 

[A'isha]

It has had rules added, revised and taken away by Muhammed's 'companions' and over the centuries numerous scholars have interpreted the rules. (For example, nowhere did it say women should wear the hijab.)

Which is what makes it rather difficult to make blanket statements about what "Islam says".

One of the rationales of declaring a 'caliphate' (kalifer) in that region, is because the fundamentalists, following Baghdadi believe they can bring about the apocalypse in that region, some believing the capital will be Raqqa.

They welcome war and conflict. They are trying to cause it.

That's ISIS' goal, yes. Most Muslims rather disagree with that, which is why the overwhelming number of people fighting ISIS are other Muslims, not non-Muslims. This whole thread was started, in fact, to talk about the retaking of Raqqa and Mosul by Muslim armies fighting against ISIS.

Islam is inherent to the violence. It preaches that Muslims must never rest until everybody has forcibly become one of them.

ISIS' version of Islam does. But their version of Islam is far from universal.

Of course, the middle class Muslims are horrified by such sentiments, but fact is, that is the ethos that is at the core of Islam. The Arab countries surrounding Israel will never be at peace with Israel for that reason.

A look at the history of Jerusalem and the Levant shows that to be incorrect.

 

[A'isha]

It was helped formed by an interesting book I read on the Islamic State:

The Way of the Strangers – Encounters with the Islamic State by Graeme Wood.

There is no doubt that various doctrines have been used for ill. However, the issue in that region is specifically to do with ISIS, the bastard offspring of Al-Quaeda. Simply saying, ah, but the Christians...

It is quite wrong.

More Muslim scholars have condemned ISIS' interpretation than ISIS has fighters.

 

[LSSBB]

It was helped formed by an interesting book I read on the Islamic State:

The Way of the Strangers – Encounters with the Islamic State by Graeme Wood.

There is no doubt that various doctrines have been used for ill. However, the issue in that region is specifically to do with ISIS, the bastard offspring of Al-Quaeda. Simply saying, ah, but the Christians...

It is quite wrong.

I am not saying 'ah, but the Christians', I raised my point in response to your claim making other religions an exception, despite the existence of similar movements in the past in Christianity.

 

[McHrozni]

That's your interpretation.

No, that's what the texts actually say. You can twist their meaning by ignoring bits and pieces I suppose, but calling that interpretation is just wrong, IMHO.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

They have no reason to attack Europe and the US, because their concerns don't involve Europe and the US.

And you dodged my question. What reason would terrorists in the Congo, the CAR, or even Mali have for attacking the US, when their concerns and goals don't involve the US?

I have no idea, but the real question is why their concerns and goals don't involve the US in the first place?

They appeared four decades prior to Boko Haram, were focused on socioeconomic concerns, and calling them "created solely due to Islam and their only reason for the existence of the group was Islam" is rather odd considering they rejected all the ahadith right from the start and by the 70's rejected even Muhammad and declared a new prophet in his place.

Yeah, sure.

Movements that combined Northern resistance to Southern economic domination mixed with weird ideas of Islamist "reform" began in Nigeria as soon as independence happened - the violent extremist Maitatsine movement founded by Muhammed Marwa that began in the 60's combined appeals to the urban poor and indigent with a rejection of anything outside the Qur'an

They abused poverty to further their Islamist agenda. Poverty is a tool of Islamists, not the other way around.

And attacks on cinemas? I notice you left that out.

It depends on a case by case basis. They could be terrorist attacks, it depends on the clientele of the cinema. If the overwhelming majority of clientele at the time of the attack was the uniformed military, police, secret police, Nazi politicians and the like, the attack is a perfectly legitimate form of self-defense. If it was something else then it is an unjustifiable terrorist attack. Did you have a point to make?

You say that if Islam was a benign random variable, we'd see the disaffected youth conducing terrorist attacks in the name of a lot of different things, with Islam being a factor in only very few of them, and I point out that that's exactly what we do see, and you somehow think this means I just "acknowledged" that Islamic terrorist attacks account for several times what they should if Islam was a random variable?

And yet every time you quote actual statistics you don't make up on the spot to defend Islam, this assertion of yours is defeated. If this assertion of yours had any semblance of reality I might agree with you. It does not, so I do not.

Do you even read your own arguments before you try to make them?

Don't judge others by yourself, A'isha. Most people aren't like you.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

ISIS' version of Islam does. But their version of Islam is far from universal.

The texts their 'version' is based on however are universal down to the last letter though. All Muslims agree the texts that gives the basis for all things ISIS are holy, some of it is seen as the literal word from God.

The only difference is that other Muslims reject part of those teachings while claiming to adhere to them in full, using all sorts of weird twisting of meanings and opinions of long dead 'scholars', whereas ISIS takes it as it is and does as those texts say.

That's the difference between an Islamic radical and a moderate Muslim, and that's the reason why Islam itself is the problem and that's the reason why the solution is never more Islam.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

To be clearer: what counts is that a Christian could selectively use the Bible to persecute non-Christians, using such a passage as quoted. If you are a Christian who doesn't interpret it that way, your interpretation doesn't matter, nor does mine - even as a Christian.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify persecuting and even attacking non-Christians? Yes.

Have Christians used the Bible to justify peaceful co-existence? Have Islamic folks done the same with the Koran? I do believe the answer is Yes to both. Therefore, the text is not the issue.

The conclusion does not follow from the text above. It ignores many variables, namely:
1. How often was the Bible used to justify a peaceful co-existence?
2. How often was the Koran used in the same way?
3. How often was the Bible used to justify persecuting and even attacking non-Christians?
4. How often was the Koran used in the same way?

These are not binary variables, how often they were used matters a whole lot. There is, of course, more:

5. Does an objective reading of the Bible, to an unburdened observer with no special agenda, give the impression the book can be used to justify non-Christian?
6. Is the same true for the Koran?

How the religion is used presently and how it was used in the past is only a part of the story. What the events were based on is another part of the story. The passages in the Bible all speak of events in a certain time and place, there is no universal mandate for wanton bloodshed and mayhem, it is strictly limited to one region. This is not surprising, because Christianity is based on Judaism, a non-proselyting religion. The Koran, on the other hand, is supposed to be universal and applies to all people, everywhere. This is not 'interpretation', this is the content of the texts. Of course even this is not the final chapter in deciding whether the texts themselves are problematic or not:

7. The Bible has an Old testament and the New testament, the latter supersedes the former. Is there justification for blood and violence in the latter? Some would say yes due to a verse in the gospel of Matthew, but understanding that verse as a call to bloodshed and violence against all things non-Christian is indeed interpretation, which also happens to be at odds with the rest of the section.
8. The Koranic equivalent goes from calls to peace to calls for violence, and explicitly says contradictions within are resolved by figuring out which verse came out later.

It is easy to use the Bible to justify peace and coexistence and it is difficult to use the Koran in that way. It is also difficult to use the Bible to justify wanton bloodshed and mayhem, but trivial to do so with the Koran. The fact this can still be done in both cases in no way disproves the Islamic texts themselves to be the problem.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

I have no idea, but the real question is why their concerns and goals don't involve the US in the first place?

You're still dodging the question. Why do you think that terrorists everywhere should have goals and concerns that involve the US?

Movements that combined Northern resistance to Southern economic domination mixed with weird ideas of Islamist "reform" began in Nigeria as soon as independence happened - the violent extremist Maitatsine movement founded by Muhammed Marwa that began in the 60's combined appeals to the urban poor and indigent with a rejection of anything outside the Qur'an

They abused poverty to further their Islamist agenda. Poverty is a tool of Islamists, not the other way around.

Nope. The Maitatsine movement remained a "revolt of the disinherited" throughout its history, with the religious aspects (that got further and further from recognizably Islam as the movement developed, culminating in the rejection of Muhammad completely and Marwa declaring himself to be the True Prophet) being secondary to the socioeconomic concerns.

In fact, the one thing that all the movements that arose out of Northern Nigeria had in common was not their religious ideologies, but their socioeconomic concerns. As are all those other terrorist groups, both Islamist and non-Islamist, who (despite your claims) commit more terrorist violence in the poorest nations on Earth than terrorists in rich Western nations do.

It depends on a case by case basis. They could be terrorist attacks, it depends on the clientele of the cinema. If the overwhelming majority of clientele at the time of the attack was the uniformed military, police, secret police, Nazi politicians and the like, the attack is a perfectly legitimate form of self-defense. If it was something else then it is an unjustifiable terrorist attack.

These targets were in occupied countries, not Germany, and included attacks on unemployment offices (frequented by the occupied, not the occupiers) and theaters where pro-German propaganda films were being shown to the occupied by the occupiers.

Did you have a point to make?

Yes. That you not only have little actual knowledge of the things you're trying to talk about, you keep doubling down on your arguments even when you're shown time and time again that they're wrong, based on incorrect assertions, or both.

And yet every time you quote actual statistics you don't make up on the spot to defend Islam, this assertion of yours is defeated. If this assertion of yours had any semblance of reality I might agree with you. It does not, so I do not.

I've cited all of my sources. Meanwhile, when I asked you to back up your unsupported claim above, you first attempted to dodge it by asking me to quote what claim I was referring to, and when I did exactly that you snipped it from your reply and apparently decided to pretend that you never even made the claim in the first place.

The only difference is that other Muslims reject part of those teachings while claiming to adhere to them in full, using all sorts of weird twisting of meanings and opinions of long dead 'scholars', whereas ISIS takes it as it is and does as those texts say.

Which is just more of your interpretation of what the texts "actually" teach.

Then again, considering that you have zero clue how Muslims (from ISIS to modernists) actually cite both the text and "opinions of long dead 'scholars'" (Salafists love them some Ibn Taymiyyah, a scholar who died nearly a thousand years ago), your complete lack of understanding of how abrogation works, and your total unawareness that jihad an-nafs was and is a very real thing, your credibility when it comes to judging the existence, much less the validity, of interpretations of Islam leaves very much to be desired.

The passages in the Bible all speak of events in a certain time and place, there is no universal mandate for wanton bloodshed and mayhem, it is strictly limited to one region. This is not surprising, because Christianity is based on Judaism, a non-proselyting religion.

Are you actually trying to argue that Christianity does not claim to be universal and for all people everywhere (thus justifying its common historical practice of wanton bloodshed and mayhem in its spread), because Judaism was a non-proselytizing religion?

7. The Bible has an Old testament and the New testament, the latter supersedes the former.

Nope. The Old Testament gets cited all the damn time by modern Christians. Including in actual judicial decisions from my State Supreme Court using it to justify anti-gay laws in the US and even the possibility of the death penalty for homosexuality:

"Our cases have held consistently and frequently that Alabama is a common-law state.   See, e.g., Louisville & N.R.R. v. Cook, 168 Ala. 592, 53 So. 190 (1910);  Hollis v. Crittenden, 251 Ala. 320, 37 So.2d 193 (1948);  State v. Taylor, 415 So.2d 1043, 1047 (Ala.1982).   Our jurisprudence explains that old English statutes are a part of the common law.   The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which amend the law and are applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law.   See, e.g., Nelson v. McCrary, 60 Ala. 301 (1877);  Clark v. Goddard, 39 Ala. 164 (1863);  Carter v. Balfour's Adm'r, 19 Ala. 814 (1851).

Homosexuality is strongly condemned in the common law because it violates both natural and revealed law.   The author of Genesis writes:  “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;  male and female He created them․ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife;  and they shall become one flesh.”   Genesis 1:27, 2:24 (King James).   The law of the Old Testament enforced this distinction between the genders by stating that “f a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.”   Leviticus 20:13 (King James).

From the passage in Leviticus 20:13, the early western legal tradition garnered its laws on homosexuality.

[...]

The State may not interfere with the internal governing, structure, and maintenance of the family, but the protection of the family is a responsibility of the State.   Custody disputes involve decision-making by the State, within the limits of its sphere of authority, in a way that preserves the fundamental family structure.   The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution.   It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle."

Which was written in 2002, by the man who is Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court today (they finally suspended him without pay last year, but he still holds the title and position until his elected term runs out in 2019 and he's appealing the suspension).

Is there justification for blood and violence in the latter? Some would say yes due to a verse in the gospel of Matthew, but understanding that verse as a call to bloodshed and violence against all things non-Christian is indeed interpretation, which also happens to be at odds with the rest of the section.

Which is yet another double standard on your part, considering you decided to completely ignore Q 2:190 and Q 2:194 when you picked out Q 2:193 above. You pick out single verses from the Qur'an and ignore any and all original context they have, but you insist that Bible verses have to be read solely in the fashion and in the context that you choose.

8. The Koranic equivalent goes from calls to peace to calls for violence, and explicitly says contradictions within are resolved by figuring out which verse came out later.

Ah, more of your complete nonsense regarding abrogation.

Ironically, despite your slur above that moderate Muslims "reject part of those teachings while claiming to adhere to them in full", it's your mangled version of abrogation that actually involves rejecting big chunks of the Qur'an while pretending that it's adhering to them in full. The difference between the moderate interpretations and your interpretation is that the moderate version rejects far less of the text than you do.

It is easy to use the Bible to justify peace and coexistence and it is difficult to use the Koran in that way. It is also difficult to use the Bible to justify wanton bloodshed and mayhem, but trivial to do so with the Koran.

Even the people at Skeptics Annotated Bible know better than that. They take a pretty dim view of Islam and the Qur'an, but they sure don't apply the double standard you do when it comes to the Bible.