We need a big reaction, but part of it is declaring Islam irresponsibly multi-interpretable

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Dec 21, 2015 at 21:22

Michael S, thanx for reacting so detailed, I enjoyed the history + was open, learned from, thought about your reasoning.

Logically you are puzzled by my seemingly impractical suggestions. This is because they are only "baby steps" in a whole comprehensive strategy.

My emphasis is not on only blindly accepting self-declared Democratic Muslims. Rather, it is on what we are FOR + consequently on what they are or could be against. And on our right to defend what we are FOR in our own nations. When we in this context establish + show how multi-interpretable Islam is or seems to be, or is pretended deceitfully or ignorantly to be, then we can:

Hold Muslims in Democratic Nations finally reasonably accountable for belonging to an organisation with a multi-interpretable ideology that is very dangerously massively interpreted in a supremacist, violent, anti-democratic, hostile way.

Thank you again.

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".