My aim is getting to a majority of Democratic Citizens to hold Muslims accountable for religious choice

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Dec 13, 2015 at 00:26

Hi, Michael S.

Good that you were able to interact cordially with Muslim citizens. Yes, some of them are devout and may have good, desirable traits, being serious, moral, spiritual. Good of you to try to estimate what and how they think, considering their history in the process. We can very much use this experience and knowledge for new policies.

But my primary aim was finding a way to persuade a 51 % majority of Western Democratic Citizens to come to holding Muslims (esp. our Muslim citizens) accountable for choosing the version of their religion. It seems obvious no majority will ever condemn the whole Islam (Although I read in IsraelNatNews that Japan seems to keep Islam very much at arm's length).

But neither can maybe 30 to 45 % of Dem.citizens accept Islam totally unqualified, it seems. I have this compromise and it is based on the concept that Islam is VAGUE, not CLEAR. While Democracy, our creed, can be very clear indeed and beat Islamic theory soundly in that respect.

Quran-Hadiths-Sira must have been completed, collected when? Say 850 AD? Those can be considered original Islam and we may humor Muslims calling them Divine and essential. But Muslims simply must admit, if they are honest, that TAFSIR since 850 is manmade!

Quran-Hadiths-Sira can then be considered vague, obsolete, incomplete, irresponsibly multi-interpretable, and in effect understood by a far too large part of Muslims worldwide as violent and supremacist anti-Democratic, Hostile to us. And manmade Tafsir can be viewed as only part of the possible interpretations of QHS. We can concede that so many other Muslims, including the nice, peaceful Muslims we love, have a RIGHT interpretation of QHS, because the very VAGUENESS of QHS allows their interpretation too.

Now, again, it is not my aim that Muslims adopt this idea, but that a majority of Democratic Citizens becomes convinced that Islam is irresponsibly multi-interpretable. And that that must be combined with holding Muslims accountable for their religious choice, that is their interpretation of Islam.

The way out for Muslims is to declare themselves Democratic Muslims and that they are prepared to be well monitored and yes, segregated from the other Muslims, on Democratic conditions, which are at least partially controllable, although deceit remains a huge problem.

But, once the Democratic conditions are clearly broken, legal consequences should ensue, including nudging to migration to Islamic countries.

In my scheme the West need no longer uncritically tolerate the clearly intolerant, but also no longer the too irresponsibly vague neutral Muslims. Only Democratic Muslims can be allowed to immigrate, including for marriage, and they must be on lifelong probation.

But my scheme requires Democratic Citizens to focus not primarily on being anti-Islamic, but primarily on being Pro-Democratic. This then requires Democratic Citizens and Muslims alike to become experts on the Essential Democratic Rules, Tenets, Values and talk extensively about THEM. Now, we see that both groups talk about Islam's tenets and values and history and inclinations of it's followers all the time.

I know my scheme seems far from foolproof, it's just that we should focus on what we are FOR, as well as on what we are AGAINST. Not just on what we are against. FOR should trump Against among us. (On the Muslim-side FOR certainly trumps AGAINST).

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".