content of poster
The problem with judging any given book or scripture only on its morals and laws is that morals and laws in general are far from universal. For example, something that may seem like a harsh punishment in one culture is considered soft in another. Limited polygamy might seem like an unreasonable restriction in a society that relies on marriage as means of social security for women and practices unlimited polygamy. To them monogamy might seem like madness, especially to the women who rely on polygamy for security. The self styled ‘civilized free world’ is itself constantly changing its moral and ethical stance on many things. Things that were bad ten years ago are acceptable today and vice versa, yet some spokespeople for the values of the ‘free world’ talk about their morals and values as if they were some sort of divine writ, which of course they are not. In fact the opposite is true.
The point here is that the biggest problem that people tend to have with Islam is actually not really a valid criterion by which to judge it. Rationally, one should take the position that if one can establish convincing evidence of a book’s divine origin, then one should accept that the Creator of us knows what is best for us. In fact, it is quite likely that humans would choose morals, laws and values that they feel comfortable with rather than those which are actually good and beneficial for them, or that some humans (like those with authority and control) devise a system and moral order that keeps them in power! The fact is, there are many things that are good for us that we don’t like and many things we like that are actually bad for us. So we should put this issue of the so called incompatibility of Islam with modern life aside as a red herring (or perhaps as another man in red underpants!)