Not sure reading the Koran, in itself, is sacrilegious. If the reading is part of the sermon (uh, “homily”) and accompanied by a lesson, it’s part of the teaching authority. But what I gather here is that the reading is added to, or substituting for, the usual selections from the Old & New Testaments. Fr. Pfleger indeed. Jokes like this empowered Bishop LeFevre.
Personally as a Catholic I go to Mass to hear the word of God and readings from the Bible. I don’t want or need to hear from the Koran for any reason. Its just a bunch of PC BS. It needs to be nipped in the bud.
Of course it isn't. It is basically an outgrowth of some late gnostic gospel, with Jesus (Isa) and Mary (Marium) playing an imporant role. It does deny the Resurrection though:
[4.155] ...We made with them a firm covenant.
[4.155] Therefore, for their breaking their covenant and their disbelief in the communications of Allah and their killing the prophets wrongfully and their saying: Our hearts are covered; nay! Allah set a seal upon them owing to their unbelief, so they shall not believe except a few.
[4.156] And for their unbelief and for their having uttered against Marium a grievous calumny.
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.158] Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[4.159] And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.
(The Women)
It is what it is: an early medieval para-Christian piece of wisdom literature. Those who know Arabic say it is beautifully written.