The problem in identifying a good descriptive term underscores that fact that non-muslims really don't know exactly where the dividing line is between so-called "good" muslims and "bad" muslims.
That's a very good point.
Also, most people don't understand the intellect-respecting nature of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, as compared to the intrinsically closed nature of the Qu'ran.
What I have in mind here is the gradual, insight-by-insight and step-by-step nature of Biblical revelation, based on the extraordinary depth of God's respect for human freedom. You can see this clearly if you compare the Bible to the Koran. The differences --- they are fascinating--- point to the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian interaction between Divine truth and human intellect.
According to Islamic historians, Mohammad repeatedly went into a trance state and started reciting he-knew-not-what. He became a ventriloquist's-dummy, possessed or coercively controlled by a spiritual entity who dictates, dictates, dictates. Each and every separate phrase in it is held to be unalterable, even technically un-translatable (because Allah spoke Arabic!) and true like a snapshot, that is, complete in itself.
The Bible, by contrast, was written by 40+ human authors over a span of 1,000 years, on three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa) in three languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), in the words of the authors themselves ("The Word of God in the Words of Man").
This was based not on puppet-like possession and ventriloquism, but on a quirkier, more interactive thing called “inspiration,” employing the human writers' own intelligence, vocabulary, memory, imagination, cultural resources, and individual personalities. It's held to be true, but not in the manner of a series of snapshots-from-heaven, but in the manner of a movie. It tells a story which progresses.
Read the Koran. You'll find it lacking in thematic or narrative coherence. It has a garbled, fragmentary feel. On the other hand, the books of the Bible --- which you might expect to be a bit choppy, considering their scattered provenance --- paradoxically, start from multifaceted points of view, and develop inexorably toward the same culminating truths.
But note the different deities’ stance on human freedom. One crushes it. The other develops it. One says “Submit.” The other says “Look. Listen. Think.”
Here's an interesting note: the typical Islamic stance toward the Koran is rote memorization. The Typical Jewish stance toward the Torah is commentary ("Talmud.") The word "Muslim" means "one who has submitted." The word "Israel" means, literally, "one who wrestles with God."
How does this apply specifically to moral guidance? To put it briefly, with the Bible you have to look at the whole of Salvation History --- the whole "movie" --- to grasp its meaning and properly interpret its parts. The old and reliable principle of exegesis is, "Let Scripture interpret Scripture" --- in other words, let the clearer or later parts govern the interpretation of earlier or more obscure parts.
Furthermore, Christians would insist that the New Testament is the interpretive key to the Old Testament. And the Church (which Christ said would be guided by the Holy Spirit) is the key to the New Testament.
As a 2006 A.D. Christian, I rely on two millennia's worth of wrestling and commentary since the beginning of the Church. A lot of things have become clear because of this tremendous and brilliant resource of thinking-with-the-Church. This makes sense to me.