sum wrote:I am not averse to your suggestion re flogging but as there is no public flogging in the West it would be a little awkward to introduce it "out of the blue" without an opening.
If you ask a Muslim if they believe "adulterers" should be flogged gives them just two options:
Answer in the negative in which case they are denying the word of Allah which makes them de facto apostates - which can then be pursued.
Answer in the positive which shows they are not "moderates". It also opens the way to questions as to what would happen if kafirs tried to physically interfere with the carrying out of this commandment of Allah.
As I said, unlike verse 9:5 and other "fighting" passages it is impossible to cross reference this verse with other verses to claim that it is limited to those who attacked the Muslims first, fought them for their faith, drove them from their homes, assisted others in driving them out etc etc. You put a big ad in the paper quoting the violent verses you are just going to get a counter ad putting those verses "in context" which will satisfy a lot of casual non-Muslim observers - particularly leftists who are most eager to be so satisfied.
There is no mention in the Koran that the guidance, in part, is only for the time of Muhammad.
However, it is quite clear that, although the Quran reads in the present tense, it was allegedly revealed at a particular time and references events in that time. Passages speaking to the "wives of the prophet" clearly cannot be applied today.