Calling Islam clear is a compliment, calling it vague, multi-interpretable is the real insult

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Dec 4, 2015 at 19:21

Jaladhi, thanks for honouring me with a reply. There is so much ground to cover on this topic. I endeavour to study, understand your standpoint well. You say that throughout the Islamic world, throughout History. the leadership, the people that count, that they found Islam clear, preached and practiced it in only one dominant way.

It seems then, that the protestations of peacefulness, innocence, neutrality and beneficial effects of Islam are at best mis-interpretations or at worst deceitful lies. And that Islam must be seen as a CLEAR anti-Democratic Ideology. It is also aggressive, mighty and expanding. Therefore it is a grave threat. I almost 100 % agree with that!

But ... our target group should IMO be the majority of non-Muslims in Western countries. If we are Democratic we need a majority. Minority decisions are useless.

And .... I put it to you that you are more complimentary to Islam than I am! You judge Islam to have high CLARITY, I give it no such status;

Islam is a mess, a hotchpotch. David Wood in one of his video's ridiculed the "appalling, poor communication skills of Allah" through Mohammed, Quran, Hadiths, Sira. Muslims hold that Allah gave them instructions, therefore dared not change these instructions in 1200 years, and Allah NEVER bothered to update! How CAN Allah's instructions be clear, complete, comprehensive, updated, singularly interpretable? No! Islam is demonstrably ridiculously unclear IMO.

Mordechai Kedar the other day in a column in Israel National News also described how Muslims cherrypick and choose like from a Smorgasbord from Islam, what it is they like and can use best.

You know who CAN be admirable clear? Us, Pro-Democracy citizens. Because we CAN and DO update OUR ideologies.

Another point; Begin PRO Democracy need not be the same as Anti-Islamic. Oh, it is fine if you are both at the same time. But when you ditch a Pro-Democratic strategy solely because it is not anti-Islamic enough that may mean we lose an opportunity to defend/ save democracy long term.

I am heart and soul PRO Democracy, for the whole century. But being Democratic I need the majority! And the majority of non-Muslims MAY accept the "Islam-is-vague" standpoint whereas this majority MAY NOT accept the the "Islam-is-clear+anti-democratic+grave threat".

Why? Because "Islam-is-vague" seems to give Muslims an honourable enough way out, something the majority seems hell-bent on giving them (because they by now know so many very nice "innocent" Muslims!).

"Islam-is-clear-anti-democrat+grave threat" seems to leave only the option of confrontation and eventual expulsion, which our majority is not now seemingly ready to accept.

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".