Call the bluff of the Muslims

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Dec 28, 2010 at 06:24

It was a very fascinating debate, and Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes were awesome. I myself juxtapose Islam and it's laws and values to the Democratic ones. Because when I find something I am against I for myself have to find as good as possible the opposite of it which then is what I do want to promote in it's stead. In this way the idea and practice that I am opposed to has actually helped me to become more aware and purposefull.

Daniel pointed out that "the inequality of men-women and Muslim-Non-Muslim got to go". Furthermore Muslims are on default loyal to the Ummah, it seems to me. So against the total Ummah, so from all Muslims who do not deny being primarily loyal to it, we can demand reciprocity in treatment of Minorities; the same rights Muslims get from infidels in Democratic countries, Infidels should get in Islamic countries from Muslims. But when Muslims prefer loyalty to Democratic Nations and it's laws, clearly over and above contradicting Islamic laws and interests, then these Muslims now have the burden of proof, in declarations and actions, it seems to me.

Daniel sais that if "Islamism", which is what he really vehemently opposes, could come up in his lifetime, so it can come down too. And so some other interpretation/ version of Islam can come up. Daniel says that it has to rise from within Islam. But I suggest that it for now can already be formulated by CIEX (Critical Islam Experts) in such a way that it still can represent a part of the Muslims, but also meets crucial demands by Islamwise Democracy-loyalists, including reciprocity-demands worldwide.

Writing of Islamid (IslamInDemocracy) reformed movement, provides clarity from what Democracy-loyalists want Muslims to follow, while still being Muslims, still adhering to un-changed but now differently interpreted texts. It can be an updatable, so interactive and getting ever clearer. And membership of this ISLAMID can be on condition of adhering to a precise list of laws, values, choices in controversies etc.

Saying that this is impossible in Islam is missing the point. The point in writing Islamid, and being willing to negotiate about it, until at least some (especially female) Muslims can embrace it, is about the utmost important accountability-holding, and choice of all Muslims.

And it is about calling the bluff they and Islam-defenders now pose in answer to exposure of Islamic texts and behavior by CIEX like Spencer and Pipes. Islam-apologists always use very vaque, multi-interpretable texts and many non-Islamic influences on people's behavior in order to: Deny the now hugely documented Islamic incompatibility with Democratic laws and values and anti-democratic influence.

Well, if that denial really had substance, how then could they indefinitely keep resisting proposed precise reforms in Islam-Interpretation (not texts) that provide clear accountable guiding texts for followers that indeed are perfectly compatible with the democratic system.

Writing our own reformed Islam and fine-tuning it in response to all what Muslims and Islam-apologists have to say will call their bluff and force them to admit that they really want to replace Democracy with an Islamic system. And that admission could finally make it a logical acceptable/ even desirable goal for majorities in Democratic Nations to stimulate the migration of Islam-loyalists to Islamic countries and Democracy-loyalists to Democratic countries.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".