Yes, Andrew, I’m certain we’re all grateful to have you as our rock against the tide of political correctness, especially after reading post upon post which you entitle “Quoting the Koran” even as you studiously avoid actually quoting the Koran, and in which you rail against “[me], and others like [me], [who] continue to put too much emphasis on some of the darker sections of the Koran” [emphasis in original] – while you yourself — thumbing your nose at those pesky PC police – emphasize “that there’s plenty of savagery to be found in the Old Testament too.” What courage!

Your presumptions about how I “apparently” see the Muslim faith are off-base. I plead guilty to viewing Islam as a dangerous belief system. I would say the same thing about any belief system that was invoked with regularity to justify atrocities — especially if, when I checked the doctrinal sources on which the invokers purported to rely, it turned out that they say exactly what the invokers claim they say.

But I can take that position without having to believe “that Islam must principally be seen through” a perspective that emphasizes the Koran’s troubling injunctions. (Emphasis in Andrew’s original.) I am not a Muslim or a religious scholar. By neither belief nor academic pursuit am I obliged to come to a judgment about how Islam, the comprehensive belief system, should “principally” be seen. Far more than Islam, I am concerned about my country, my love ones, and the world — a world that includes hundreds of innocent Muslims whose lives jihadist terror has claimed. As a result, the darker scriptures are my principal concern, whether or not a scholar or believer would deem them Islam’s principal feature. My primary interest in Islam lies in understanding why it is used to rationalize barbaric behavior. I don’t much care about it otherwise.

That why inescapably comes down to the darker tenets you mention. It includes not only what those tenets specifically command but the overall ethos they easily lend themselves to – an ethos in which free will is diminished, Muslims are deemed superior to non-Muslims, men deemed superior to women, and “the other” is dehumanized (dehumanization being the only good explanation for how humans can justify indiscriminately slaughtering fellow humans).

There are at least two schools of thought about how we should deal with those noxious tenets. The first says: Highlight the positive aspects of Islamic thought, gloss over the incendiary ones, and hope that, over time, the incendiary ones will fade away. The second holds that the best way to marginalize the incendiary aspects is to call attention to them and force people to take a stand about them. That way, so the theory goes, we get a better sense of who the truly dangerous people are (i.e., those who, when pressed, won’t reject the incendiary stuff) and we induce true moderates to develop a coherent case for why the troublesome scriptures either don’t mean what they appear to say or are no longer viable or authoritative – a case that has a chance of persuading not the editorial board of the Washington Post but hundreds of millions of Muslims.

Truth be told, I would far prefer the first approach. I don’t want Islam to be my business. Since most Muslims I know are good people, I’d much rather accentuate the positive.

Unfortunately, (a) people are being killed, so there is urgency to the problem and we can’t wait around until such time – if ever – as radical Islam recedes on its own; (b) these verses that Muslims are acting on to kill are authoritatively (in Islamic tradition) taken to be divine commands, so we can’t responsibly ignore them; (c) because we have, nevertheless, ignored them, we have permitted many people who are not really moderates, and who make excuses for jihadists, to pose as influential moderates; (d) we will never sort the real moderates we should be helping from the poseurs undermining humanity’s cause unless we highlight where each Muslim stands precisely on these problematic scriptures; and (e) since non-Muslims do not have influence (and, in fact, have a negative influence) over Muslims when it comes to how Islamic scripture should be construed, we need to tee up these verses – which, again, are being used to justify barbarity – so that real Muslims, not conservative American commentators, can undermine them in a way that is convincing for Muslims … not for us, who need no convincing.

Like you, I want the moderates to win. I’m not convinced that the situation is beyond salvaging – although, unlike today’s western Pollyannas, I don’t pretend to be convinced that Islam is essentially good. On that score, I’m glad you brought up the concept of interpreting legal principles. Again, I think it demonstrates how wrong you are.

It is certainly true that judges (and the rest of us) must construe the Constitution and statutes. But when judges do that in a way that invents things the text does not support, most people think that is illegitimate, even if they grudgingly accept it. And when judges look at a clear clause like, “[n]or shall [any state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and purport to “interpret” it as if it said, “Any state may deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws if the Supreme Court decides society would be better that way,” that is illegitimate. Even if the public does not rebel over it, it promotes disrespect for the law and harms the reputation of the Court.

The challenge for moderates is to be seen as legitimate versus the fundamentalists. If I were a Muslim, I doubt the organic Koran would have much more appeal for me than the purportedly organic Constitution does. When the Supreme Court does its organic Constitution routine and makes a ruling that flouts what the Constitution actually says, I think that is illegitimate. I accept our system, and thus I consider the Supreme Court’s pronouncement to bind me. But I still find the ruling illegitimate, and I deem it in play (and hope it will be corrected) the next time the Court considers a related issue.

I respectfully suggest that if you’re going to tell people that a verse in which Allah says beat your wife really means don’t beat your wife, you’re going to be at a distinct credibility disadvantage when competing with fundamentalists for Muslim hearts and minds. It will not be enough that the Washington Post agrees with you. You’ll have to come up with a sound reason why the words mean something other than what they say. Otherwise, some Muslims will act on the words … while you and the Washington Post wait for everyone else to evolve.