Challenge Muslims on the clarity or lack thereof of it's holy texts

Submitted by Demsci (Netherlands), Jan 10, 2016 at 12:04

Yes, Charles Martel, your points are very valid. And yet ...

what can be the message of democracy-supporters in relation to Islam? They can point to the difference between their own clear + updatable Most Important Guiding (MIG) texts, as in our laws, values, tenets, compared to the MIG-texts of Islam, which are Quran-Sira-Hadith (QSH).
They can point out to Muslims a few facts:
1. The tafsir, you know, explanation of QSH, came later than QSH + are definitely manmade, so not necessarily authoritative. So for instance is it really necessary to follow Al Ghazali, that arch-enemy of progress? Or the schools of thought: Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki + the shiite mahdab?
2. Look at what interpretations of QSH, or lack thereof float around among the 1.6 billion Muslims. Is that NOT proof of multi-interpretability?! Look at what the apologists, both Muslims + Western "sycophants", are saying. We may conclude they are lying, but still their contradicting messages point to the conclusion that QSH, Islam, simply is too unclear, incomplete, multi-interpretable.
And inevitably so, because it does not get updated by the only authority that can do it; Allah. Only fallible humans can now update it's interpretation. But we can point out that manmade updates don't count, just as manmade laws don't count for Muslims (when in contradiction to so-called divine laws).

In other words, let us not be so shy as not to comment our own conclusions about the pathetic unclarity + 1000 year obsoleteness of QSH, which is the Islamic theological essence. Let us utilize this very unclarity, multi-interpretability. And therefore the POSSIBILITY of better interpretations!

I did try saying this to Muslims + you know what their most common reaction was? That OTHER texts, laws etc are unclear etc. too! You know, the well-known Tu Quoque-defense. But from that you notice that many Muslims have no adequate defense against the conclusion that Islam is unclear, incomplete + multi-interpretable.
Because their only defense that works would have to be that Islam is more clear than all other texts, or as clear as the clearest existing texts. For if God only is as good as what humans can produce, what is the point of Him intervening at all?

I hope you 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".