69 million page views

Islam is irresponsibly vague and thus not clear

Reader comment on item: Why the Paris Massacre Will Have Limited Impact

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Nov 15, 2015 at 07:08

The way out of this denial is to compromise on the assessment of the nature of Islam. Muslims will never admit that Islam is unclear, vague, incomplete, obsolete, multi-interpretable. But of course in a peaceful good way. Strangely enough, so many counterjihadists agree on the clarity of Islam, only they see Islam as all bad.

The counterjihadists are loath to even compromise and consider Islam unclear, and multi-interpretable. But when they would do precisely that, they would give many Muslims the excuse they need to separate from fellow Muslims. I mean so many fair-minded Westerners could then see that both the nice muslims they know AND the very violent anti-democratic Muslims both have valid interpretations of Islam, precisely because Islam IS multi-interpretable.

We seem not to be able to convince the mentioned professionals of the clear bad nature of Islam. But even they cannot deny the clear bad interpretation of Islam by hundreds of millions of Muslims and many very violent anti-democratic terrorists. Which interpretation and practice of Islam is coming from their (violent anti-democratic Muslims) own mouths and writings.

But this finally means that Muslims can be held accountable for clinging to Islam, because a majority of Westerners can then see Islam as irresponsibly vague and prone to anti-democratic violent interpretation even if it can still be argued that the nice peaceful Muslims also get it right with their interpretation. But even with their blameless interpretation of Islam,

They still indirectly support the bad Muslims, and therefore it should be demanded that they qualify their Islamic religion with democratic conditions, thereby separating themselves irrevocably from the "bad Muslims".

And if the "nice Muslims" refuse that, then yes, by all means, let us curtail total freedom of religion and let us discriminate on basis of religion (which is a choice, not an accident of birth), especially when it comes to immigration. Discrimination that is now unthinkable, unlawful.

Do people catch my drift?


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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)