I wasn't clear what I meant by Islam as a whole with you, but I have explained it earlier in this thread. Islam is comprised of two thaqalayn or 'weighty things', which make up the 'rope of god'. These are the Quran and Ahlulbayt. The Quran alone only provides half of islam, and this half is not functional alone. This is according to hadith al thaqalayn, which is found in both sunni and shia books, but not explained in great detail by the sunnis, whose scholars prefer to relate a narration they themselves consider weak which reports 'quran and sunnah' rather than 'quran and ahlulbayt.'.
When you're talking about this 'perfect final message', you refer to the Quran - I don't. I refer to this two-part rope mentioned by Muhammad. The Quran is only perfect as a part of this message - I have never made the claim that it is perfect alone. I am aware that other muslims don't agree with me - you're talking to me, not them.
When I said, 'Islam doesn't need to be coherent' I meant that there doesn't have to be a single recognised correct interpretation. Incoherence, as in 'not consistent', as in 'different people say different things'.
When I was talking about the positive effects of Islam, I wasn't talking about the religion revealed by muhammad, but by the overall message of the entirety of the prophets from before him, who the Quran says have been sent to every people. We don't know all their names, there's apparently been tens of thousands.
'Are these positive effects, the thousand year history of Islamic slavery, sex slavery, imperialism, colonialism, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, childhood indoctrination, child marriage, oppression of homosexuals and apostates etc, etc,'
No, they aren't. This is the legacy of the so-called muslim caliphate. I don't agree with any of those things.
When I said that other interpretations are fine, I assumed that you'd infer I'd meant the ones that aren't interested in killing each other for their beliefs or lack of them. I don't claim that that path to whichever interpretation is 'true' Islam is clear, because the historical waters have been muddied by certain hadith writers, which has put everything into disarray. People of different interpretations should be cooperating with one another in discussion to either discern the truth of islam, or discover together that it should be discarded - producing a situation conducive to learning and spreading education, not violence. If sunnis want to consider me a non muslim, fine. Just don't hurt or hate people for being shia.
The spread of ideas like the welfare system, encouragement of hygeine, women's rights and etc started with Islam, though not necessarily during or after Muhammad. The first welfare system was the zakaat + khums system, for instance, and respect for gender equality was enshrined by every religion I have studied that appears to have basic theological and social principles in common with that of Muhammad's teachings, such as ancient vedic religion, zoroastrianism, some native american religions, and others.
Poverty is a human injustice. Nobody is naturally impoverished - there is always a system which is, through intention or not, oppressive, which results in the creation of poverty. The ideas of zakaat and khums, if implemented properly, would eventually eradicate it. While of Islamic origin, I don't consider it to be a solely religious or even islamic idea - just that Islam called for it.
A justly intended interpretation is one that is followed because someone's conscience tells them that it's the right way to ensure that nobody is persecuted or oppressed.
The method of prayer doesn't matter in the bigger picture picture. Sincere worship, honesty and justice are necessary. Worship is beneficial in that a person can't be arrogant if they sincerely believe that only god knows all the faults of others. The reason why 'allahu akbar' is so sacred is because it enshrines humility towards other humans because of the existence of an incomparably greater God. I am not saying that atheists and agnostics can't be humble, I am saying that this is a method by which to gain humility.
I'm not a gnostic theist. I don't claim to know that Islam is correct for sure. I do think that a certain interpretation has potential as a beneficial system. But, the point I tried to make before is that it doesn't need to be implemented, only discussed. So long as a few aspects of it can penetrate into policy and philosophy, it will have done good.
Also, the whole flogging thing was only a rule of deterrent. It'd never happen, because nobody (at least in those days) would have sex in front of three people willing to report them. I don't think that rule is applicable anymore for obvious reasons, like cameras. It's up to individual muslims not to have sexual relations that they consider unlawful, and to educate themselves for the reasons why they are.
To clarify again, I think that 'real' Islam, or at least what I think it is, is a perfect system. Not that this interpretation is going to be clear to everyone. According to shia narrations, it was going to get murky until the 12th imam arrives anyway, so we can only try our best to do the right things right now.