Nor would the christians interpreting the bible to be a nice little old peaceful book change the fact that Jesus specifically says that he's not there to replace the rules of the old testament,
I've been through this time and again. The original followers of Jesus were all Jews. What we know as "Christianity" is essentially the brainchild of Saul of Tarsus (St Paul) who claimed a divine mandate to bring the gentiles into the worship of "The Christ" and is in its very fundamentals based on a rejection of the applicability of Mosaic law and Jewish dietary and other practices like circumcision to non-Jews. Secondly, the example of Jesus refusing to sanction the stoning of a female adulterer itself provides a powerful theological justification for Christians to eschew such barbarities. Likewise his words regarding "bringing the sword" can be validly interpreted metaphorically since Jesus did not actually get round to using the sword - even if that was his intention - and went to his death without a struggle thus providing a powerful theological justification for out and out pacifism. Contrast this with Muhammad who ORDERED the stoning of some Jewish adulterers and whose sword was very real indeed.
and we know what the old testament ACTUALLY SAYS.
Indeed we do. So why has the US never experienced the sort of problems from resident and non-resident Jews that it has from Muslims? Why are there not a plethora of "Islamist"-like Jewish groups in the west proclaiming their desire to bring the USA and other countries under the eternal laws of Jehovah as handed down to Moses?
What the Qur'an actually says is irrelevant,
It is relevent to the fact of whether or not Islam per se is "just another religion" whose followers should be permitted to build a triumphalist edifice near the site of a devastating jihad attack - which is rather like former SS men building a Nazi "monument to peace" in London which was bombed to rubble by the Luftwaffe.
as mental gymnastics has to be done to make it compatible with secular values, it's what other religions have done and albeit it being intellectually dishonest, it's still the way forward.
Again, Christians do not need to engage in "mental gymnastics" to make their religion "compatible with secular values". "Mental gymnastics" has yet to prove itself to be the "way forward" for Islam.
You must understand that from such ridiculously inconsistent books such as the Qur'an and the Bible, there is no way to interpret them.
You mean it's not possible to interpret passages like:
As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement. (24:2)?
So can the the idea that the Qur'an has never been abrogated be objectively seen by an impartial observer to be ridiculous. Doesn't stop them from believing it.I'd prefer a bunch of intellectually dishonest cunts who accept secular values rather than a bunch of literalist goons who preach bronze-age nonsense.
So would I. However, why does it logically follow from the possibility of the existence of such people that Islam per se is not necessarily a supranational political entity responsible for the 9-11 jihad attacks and therefore a manifestly triumphalist edifice should necessarily be permitted near the site of those attacks on grounds of "constitutional rights"?
Topic: Ground Zero Mosque being Called "Cordoba House"