For all its importance to Muslims, the Qur'an has not been methodically explained to a wide non-Muslim audience. Considering the cherry picking done by non-Muslims and Muslims alike, an objective public reading doesn't sound like a bad idea. The online magazine Slate ran a blog series by Jewish columnist David Plotz covering the Bible that was largely successful (if uncontroversial) due to the genuine sense of introspection and a reasonably objective approach.

It is perhaps that sense that Muslim writer and "cultural critic" Ziauddin Sardar hopes to provide as he begins "blogging the Qur'an" on a weekly basis in Britain's Guardian newspaper and website. Before people think that the blog series will be a fawning exercise in hyperbole, Sardar is well known for his "scepticism" as outlined in a range of books including the wonderful Desperately Seeking Paradise. It is the kind of approach that promises to be influential to the people who need it most - Muslims who interpret the Qur'an in a way that exacerbates the clash with modernity and non-Muslims who do the same. Both groups are sympathetic enough to Sardar - to his humility and to his constructive critique - to grant him a willing ear.

It should be noted that Sardar has been beaten to the punch by Islam critic Robert Spencer, who started blogging the Qur'an on a weekly basis in May of last year. Looking at his latest entry, you'll find a surprisingly sedate description of the selected verses scattered with varying degrees of misinterpretation (it's not "up to Allah who believes and who doesn’t," Robert... it's that humans have been given free will to choose their destiny). Still, the idea of explaining the Qur'an in depth to an audience that is already predisposed to despise it is not a very efficient use of influence.

Interestingly, the public commentary will be limited to selected e-mails and responses from Sardar rather than the mudslinging comment threads found on Islam-related blog entries on the Guardian's Comment is Free website. Those (on both sides) who relish the sport of verbal jousting will have to resort to substance, honesty, and patience in their interactions. Letters to the editor in the Internet age? Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[Zia Sardar is speaking on a panel discussion this Friday at the City Circle in London this Friday on the Pakistan crisis.]

Mr. Amanullah: On 9/11, and in the immediate aftermath, I was proud of my country because there were no counterattacks against Muslims. I was proud of the fact that our leaders stood up and announced that Islam is a "religion of peace." I, along with the vast majority of Americans, simply assumed that Islam was just another religion - i.e., be nice, don't lie, cheat or steal, pray once in a while.

In the months and years following 9/11, I've been doing my own independent research on Islam, and I have discovered, much to my surprise, that Islam is NOT "just another religion." Islam is unique in many respects, but most importantly, I sincerely believe that anyone who reads the Qu'ran from the perspective of "I believe this is the immutable word of Allah/God" will inevitably exhibit a range of pathologies that do not fit within contemporary Western society. To insist otherwise means that you: 1. Have not read the Qu'ran; or 2. You are part of the large group of Muslims who feel that it is their duty to cover-up the "bad" parts of the Qu'ran from the infidel.

Robert Spencer will someday be viewed as a hero - the lone Westerner who dared to understand the Qu'ran and the Hadith, who dared to research Islam with a critical eye, and who exposed what he found to the rest of humanity.

Your glib dismissal of one of Mr. Spencer's statements (regarding free will) is, according to Mr. Spencer, wrong. Of course, Mr. Spencer quotes directly from the Qu'ran as well as other historic sources to buttress his argument (as he always does.) I invite you to read Mr. Spencer's rebuttal (at http://www.jihadwatch.org) and to provide a counterstatement (but please, adhere to the same level of discourse as Mr. Spencer, i.e., references are required.)

Thanks.

Mr. Amanullah,

Robert's specific response to your erroneous statement is found below:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019497.php#comments

As is typical, you refute a point by Spencer with absolutely no references to support your claim, whereas Robert has substantiated his with , yeah you guessed it, the Qur'an and Islamic sources like the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs and Ibn Kathir.

How can you expect anyone to take your words seriously when this is what you consider intellectual debate.

Do you dare care to respond, Sir?

Robert allies himself with the extremists in their common interpretation of Islam being a religion of endless conflict. I am working to promote in my own way a practice of Islam - regardless of the differences of opinion within it - that is respectful of others and exists peaceably within pluralistic societies, Muslim and non-Muslim. I stand by my opinion (as does Zia Sardar, who agreed with my stance about free will on his blog today), but I also choose not to let myself be distracted from this important work by either Robert or the extremists.

So thank you for your comments, but that's all I'm going to say about this.