What is the True Islam…???

a reply to: Christosterone

Never mind that Christianity came about hundreds of years after the fact at the edge of Constantines (remodeled Roman Empire) sword - Sure there are no politics in Christianity

a reply to: Joecroft
I'm a bit lost as to the line of your questions now .
As I stated initially, there are as many interpretations of Islam as there are adherents. The only sense of "True Islam" we can get would be from hearing what a person says they believe Islam to be (for example, "The Quran alone!" or "The Quran and XYZ Hadith!" or "The Qura and ABC Hadith!", and seeing if they are consistent in that. Hence the examples I gave in my initial post and my sticking to what is explicitly written, like if someone says they're followers of the Quran, and yet believe in honour killing, they're applying their belief system inconsistently, because such do not exist in Islam.

Another example being when you started talking about Quranic punishments for not wearing the hijab, specifically asking for that thing, i.e. punishments in the Quran, for not wearing the hijab. I know I'm getting repetitive here, but my point was simply...it doesn't exist.

That there are many interpretations that exist, I never disagreed to. I was simply answering your questions as you posed them. It seems you are attempting to go somewhere with the line of questions, perhaps you can reach the end and make your point, or ask THAT question?

originally posted by: Joecroft
Ok, there’s no true Islam according to you…


BUT, you also stated this…

I'm not sure I'd go to the extent that EasternShadows did, but I think you missed the "anymore"s in the inital statement made by them.

a reply to: Hecate666

originally posted by: Hecate666
The only 'true' islam is not what is written in the koran but what is taught to the people by the imams and what self policing does in islamic communities.

It doesn't matter if the koran would be the wisest book ever written, if there are imams that teach from 'the wrong side of the koran'.

The function of an imam is to lead the masses in (the ritualistic) prayer congregation. They give sermons on fridays and on holy days, but other than that, Imams don't really "teach" anything.
People often get the mistaken impression that since Islam is an organised religion, it has an organisation: nothing could be further from the truth. There is this idea of "the religious elite trying to suppress the common people through religion", but that doesn't fit with Islam, because it doesn't have a religious elite. Aside from some Shia sects, there is no equivalent to priests, to popes, etc.

originally posted by: Hecate666
As to those that constantly go on about christianity being exactly the same.
It's not at the moment. It would be if we let the nutters run the roost [like in islam] and spread hatred and oppression legally and with god's blessing [like in islam].
Fortunately in the west, because of the backing of secular governments and the right for Atheists to exist and voce their rational thinkings , christians can't go 'full mental retard' on us [compared to islam].
But they would try and slowly grow [like islam]. At the moment they are held back by a majority of moderates who were able to hear both sides [unlike in islam].

I agree that "But Christianity is the same!" is not often a useful statement in these situations (unless the argument being made is that Islam is uniquely suited to spreading hatred and oppression), but why are you comparing western christianity with Islam? Why not compare all christianity as a whole, at which point we get brutality against women, killing of homosexuals, burning of witches, extremist fundamentalism, and even inter-regional terrorism (since most of Africa has not got as much oil and such resources, few have bothered attacking them, and thus that terrorism hasn't spread to other countries).

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Originally posted by TheConstruKctionofLight
About as silly as asking what is true Christianity - depends on what sect cult or church you worship with

Yes, posters keep saying there are 1000’s of different views etc…but I’m interested in the reasoning behind those specific (albeit differing) truths…and why “they” (mainly Muslims) believe it’s the true version…

Posters keep stating that there are 1000’s of truths, which appears to go hand in hand with the mind-set of “why even bother discussing it”…or seeking some truth on it…

And actually, asking what the true Christianity is…(to oneself) and researching, studying, and reading the different theological viewpoints etc...and having debates/discussions, is way to try to get closer to the truth on the subject…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: EasternShadow

Originally posted by EasternShadow
What is the true Islam??

If your question is about today Islam, then you will never get your answer. There are numerous Islamic schools and branches around the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

Each claims represent true ( intrepretation ) Islam. Each has their own thought and may likely contradict with each other ( although they do share some similiarity in general principle ). Generalization in Islamic laws such as this make no sense.

Originally posted by EasternShadow
"True" Islam doesnt exist anymore. Just like Yeshua's "Christian".

There is no such thing as "true" religion anymore.

Ok, there’s no true Islam according to you…


BUT, you also stated this…

Originally posted by EasternShadow
The only true Islam is the one that Muhammad recite aloud ( Quran )
…
…

…???



- JC

True Islam died with the death of Muhammad and all of those who witness him. No one is left to verify Muhammad teaching.Therefore, True Islam doesnt exist anymore. What remains Islam today is his corrupted translation and intrepetation of Quran and Hadith.

a reply to: Joecroft

originally posted by: Joecroft
but I’m interested in the reasoning behind those specific (albeit differing) truths…and why “they” (mainly Muslims) believe it’s the true version…

Well, since you specified, history lesson incoming.
In the centuries following the death of Muhammad, the religion spread far and wide. With it, the scholars of the religion.
Now along with the Quran itself, the teachings of Muhammad (in the form of Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet) were left behind. These were collected from the first-hand and second-hand (mostly oral) accounts. Since we're dealing with people here, some of those accounts contradicted each other in some things, either implicitly or explicitly. Thus grew the field of Hadith scholarship, where authenticity of a hadith was investigated by various means (whether it contradicts the Quran, whether some person in the chain of narration was deemed untrustworthy, etc.).

Now people would come to these scholars on matters of Islamic Jurisprudence, and the scholars would make rulings based on the Quran, (whatever they had of) the Hadith, and their own judgement. Since there were many scholars all over, there were many different rulings. These scholars (and the framework of their rulings), didn't negate or consider followers of other rulings "false" or non-muslims (aside from very few fringe groups), they just had different judgements.

Some time in the middle ages, all these schools of thought were restricted and combined, and less than 10 remain now. These "madhabs" are mostly drawn along geographical lines today- i.e. someone is born in South-East Asia, it'll be likely they're from the hanafi madhab.
Again, aside from a few fringe groups (the more extremist Salafists, for example), none of these groups question the Islamicness of these other groups, just their rulings. And the rulings too are on such things as whether ablutions while wearing socks counts, or whether shrimp are halal for muslims to eat.

So what you might take as a confusingly cavalier approach to searching for the "true Islam", muslims take as "Unless they're explicitly contradicting the Quran, it's not my place to question the Islamicness of this person", because "takfir", declaring someone a kafir, or denier of the truth, is not a thing done lightly in Islam.

a reply to: Joecroft

I used to be a Christian - until I started to question the validity of some basic tenets like the Trinity.

Singapores ruling Govt actions against the opposition party is still continuing. What better way to silence your opposition than to use laws based on theological laws.

www.smh.com.au...

Bangkok: Malaysia's former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has filed a new legal challenge to his five-year jail sentence on sodomy charges that are widely seen as politically-motivated. Mr Anwar's conviction in Malaysia's highest court in February 2015 barred him from running for office, in a crushing blow to the country's opposition alliance that has since splintered.

a reply to: Joecroft

.and having debates/discussions, is way to try to get closer to the truth on the subject…

You will usually get the truth that you expect, in other words depends on how well you brainwash yourself. Even now although I lean towards re-incarnation I still see it as a trap.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Originally posted by TheConstruKctionofLight
About as silly as asking what is true Christianity - depends on what sect cult or church you worship with

Yes, posters keep saying there are 1000’s of different views etc…but I’m interested in the reasoning behind those specific (albeit differing) truths…and why “they” (mainly Muslims) believe it’s the true version…

en.wikipedia.org...

It's a good start for you to do some basic introduction into Islamic schools and branches. It also explain their origin and history.

originally posted by: Joecroft
Posters keep stating that there are 1000’s of truths, which appears to go hand in hand with the mind-set of “why even bother discussing it”…or seeking some truth on it…

And actually, asking what the true Christianity is…(to oneself) and researching, studying, and reading the different theological viewpoints etc...and having debates/discussions, is way to try to get closer to the truth on the subject…


- JC

Yes, and all those researcing, studying and reading the different theological viewpoints only lead to fragmentations of ancient puzzles. The source of religion. None are complete and 100% credible. Both genuines and hoaxes. You are welcomed to try to piece the puzzle together. But the truth is, the true meaning of religion is already lost in time.

a reply to: EasternShadow

www.amazon.com...

The writing is fairly polished, so much so that history and sociology buffs can easily become so caught up in Bramley's take on the events, the newsmakers and the intrigue of the past that we almost find ourselves losing sight of Bramley's central premise, the remarkably subtle thread he weaves through every page of every chapter: that we hapless homo sapiens are being used and always have been -- that each of these seemingly unrelated events and persons were and are, in fact, critical pieces of a master plan orchestrated by aliens. Or 'gods' if you prefer the vernacular of those who worship them. He seems to believe, in a nutshell, that a band of extraterrestrial tyrants whom he calls the Custodials landed here eons ago with self-serving and nefarious intentions in mind. They wasted no time in eliminating the early humanoid primates they didn't need and enslaving the rest of us. And over the ensuing millennia these mysterious other-worldly wizards have methodically and repeatedly pitted humans against humans in bloody wars and painful conflicts in a clever ploy to keep us weak and under their command. That tactic and their rule over us continues today, as profoundly as ever. Indeed, no significant event throughout the course of human experience, Bramley suggests, happens by sheer accident without the Custodials behind the curtain pulling the levers. The book is detailed, so it's not a quick read; but I found it to be a fun read. But do his arguments hold water? I invite you to be the judge. Even as an amateur student of history myself, however, I must say I learned a lot along the way. Not about UFOs but about mankind and the way we think.

Its quite a good read.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: EasternShadow

www.amazon.com...

The writing is fairly polished, so much so that history and sociology buffs can easily become so caught up in Bramley's take on the events, the newsmakers and the intrigue of the past that we almost find ourselves losing sight of Bramley's central premise, the remarkably subtle thread he weaves through every page of every chapter: that we hapless homo sapiens are being used and always have been -- that each of these seemingly unrelated events and persons were and are, in fact, critical pieces of a master plan orchestrated by aliens. Or 'gods' if you prefer the vernacular of those who worship them. He seems to believe, in a nutshell, that a band of extraterrestrial tyrants whom he calls the Custodials landed here eons ago with self-serving and nefarious intentions in mind. They wasted no time in eliminating the early humanoid primates they didn't need and enslaving the rest of us. And over the ensuing millennia these mysterious other-worldly wizards have methodically and repeatedly pitted humans against humans in bloody wars and painful conflicts in a clever ploy to keep us weak and under their command. That tactic and their rule over us continues today, as profoundly as ever. Indeed, no significant event throughout the course of human experience, Bramley suggests, happens by sheer accident without the Custodials behind the curtain pulling the levers. The book is detailed, so it's not a quick read; but I found it to be a fun read. But do his arguments hold water? I invite you to be the judge. Even as an amateur student of history myself, however, I must say I learned a lot along the way. Not about UFOs but about mankind and the way we think.

Its quite a good read.

Thank you. I'm familiar with the idea that extraterrestial visit the ancient culture and considered "god(s)" by ancient people. I'm skeptic, but I will love to look into Bramsley's suggestion.

Thanks again.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: Joecroft

originally posted by: Joecroft
but I’m interested in the reasoning behind those specific (albeit differing) truths…and why “they” (mainly Muslims) believe it’s the true version…

Well, since you specified, history lesson incoming.
In the centuries following the death of Muhammad, the religion spread far and wide. With it, the scholars of the religion.
Now along with the Quran itself, the teachings of Muhammad (in the form of Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet) were left behind. These were collected from the first-hand and second-hand (mostly oral) accounts. Since we're dealing with people here, some of those accounts contradicted each other in some things, either implicitly or explicitly. Thus grew the field of Hadith scholarship, where authenticity of a hadith was investigated by various means (whether it contradicts the Quran, whether some person in the chain of narration was deemed untrustworthy, etc.).

Yes, and Ali's Followers ( The Shia ) rejected Abu Bakar and Uthman's authority over Quran's authencity. The backbone of modern day Sunni's Quran. It's a good start to understand why the authencity of the so called "Uncorruptable" Quran beome questionable. You can dismiss such alterations as minor and neglectable. But not me. Such tampering has cause the first branching of Muhammad's teaching. I do not defend the Shia. But I do question moral integrity or political agenda of the Sahaba ( Muhammad's companions, specifically Abu Bakar and Uthman ).

originally posted by: babloyi
Now people would come to these scholars on matters of Islamic Jurisprudence, and the scholars would make rulings based on the Quran, (whatever they had of) the Hadith, and their own judgement. Since there were many scholars all over, there were many different rulings. These scholars (and the framework of their rulings), didn't negate or consider followers of other rulings "false" or non-muslims (aside from very few fringe groups), they just had different judgements.

Presicely. Those different judgements affect how Islamic countries passes their sharia laws which is misleading the weastern into thinking all the islamic laws are the same.

originally posted by: babloyi
Some time in the middle ages, all these schools of thought were restricted and combined, and less than 10 remain now. These "madhabs" are mostly drawn along geographical lines today- i.e. someone is born in South-East Asia, it'll be likely they're from the hanafi madhab.
Again, aside from a few fringe groups (the more extremist Salafists, for example), none of these groups question the Islamicness of these other groups, just their rulings. And the rulings too are on such things as whether ablutions while wearing socks counts, or whether shrimp are halal for muslims to eat.

PLUS the ruling of the salafi's ISIS that slavery is acceptable and Sex is "Ibadah" ( Prayer ). See..? How easy it is for the extremist Salafi to intrepret Quran and Hadith into their ruling? Sure, they are the minor fringe of naughty muslim.. who cause the middle east world into chaos.

originally posted by: babloyi
So what you might take as a confusingly cavalier approach to searching for the "true Islam", muslims take as "Unless they're explicitly contradicting the Quran, it's not my place to question the Islamicness of this person", because "takfir", declaring someone a kafir, or denier of the truth, is not a thing done lightly in Islam.

The same reason why muslim world cant declare ISIS as "Kafir" and the western continue to recognise ISIS as Islam.

Everything you write is agreeable. I only expanded your arguements into cause and effect.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Yes, and Ali's Followers ( The Shia ) rejected Abu Bakar and Uthman's authority over Quran's authencity. The backbone of modern day Sunni's Quran. It's a good start to understand why the authencity of the so called "Uncorruptable" Quran beome questionable. You can dismiss such alterations as minor and neglectable. But not me. Such tampering has cause the first branching of Muhammad's teaching. I do not defend the Shia. But I do question moral integrity or political agenda of the Sahaba ( Muhammad's companions, specifically Abu Bakar and Uthman ).

Such tamperings? Aside from a very tiny minority of scholars, the Shia and Sunnis have no quarrel or argument against the authenticity of the Quran. Both accept the same Quran. There's no such thing as a "Sunni Quran". The only differences with regards to the Quran is that the Shia disagree with the Sunni viewpoint that the Quran was compiled after Muhammad's death. They believe the compilation existed before.

originally posted by: babloyi

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Yes, and Ali's Followers ( The Shia ) rejected Abu Bakar and Uthman's authority over Quran's authencity. The backbone of modern day Sunni's Quran. It's a good start to understand why the authencity of the so called "Uncorruptable" Quran beome questionable. You can dismiss such alterations as minor and neglectable. But not me. Such tampering has cause the first branching of Muhammad's teaching. I do not defend the Shia. But I do question moral integrity or political agenda of the Sahaba ( Muhammad's companions, specifically Abu Bakar and Uthman ).

Such tamperings? Aside from a very tiny minority of scholars, the Shia and Sunnis have no quarrel or argument against the authenticity of the Quran. Both accept the same Quran. There's no such thing as a "Sunni Quran". The only differences with regards to the Quran is that the Shia disagree with the Sunni viewpoint that the Quran was compiled after Muhammad's death. They believe the compilation existed before.

This is an example of evidence that Quran has been altered.

'Sahih Al Bukhari-Kitab Al'

Tafseer Bab- وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى "

The Hadeeth saying some words added in the Quran "Narrated Ibrahim:

The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them: 'Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said, "I testify that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

'And by Him Who created male and female.' but by Allah, I will not follow them."

Note: The Present Quran consist the Ayat like this "وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى" But Sahabi of Ibn Masud And Abu Darda reading it as والذكر والأنثى and taking vow that he will not read the ayat with extra words.

For more details:

www.shiachat.com...

a reply to: EasternShadow
You (and then me in response to you) were speaking about differences between a Shia and a Sunni Quran, something which does not exist.

Until the completion of the Quran by Muhammad, many things were added, and possibly removed. It was a living book, constantly updated. I don't quite see the point you are trying to make. And your source is a chatroom?

a reply to: Joecroft

Here is your answer



Notice when he asks the question do you agree with the death sentence for adulterers, everybody agrees?

The point brought out here is that these are not radical Muslims they are normal Muslims that believe that this law should be applied though the whole world, not just Muslim countries and that is the big issue.

Just remember that absolute end game here for them....and it is as that those laws be applied around the globe in every country, that isn't fake news you heard from him directly and you saw everybody put there hand up in agreement.
You want to watch this and still be in denial, and say it's oh it's just a few, what percentage of those people put there hands up 99%. Including the segregated females in the back of the room.
If you can watch this brief video and still come away thinking this ideology is not a threat to modern civilization then your cognitive dissonance is very strong.

I say this,
Keep your Sharia law in you own countries, it's not civilized to kill homosexuals and adulators, because you think it's wrong. The bible says it's wrong BUT God gets to judge them not us, we certainly are not authorized to kill sinners that practice these things.

a reply to: babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi
I'm a bit lost as to the line of your questions now

The questions have gravitated towards being about a belief in a punishment for not wearing a hijab, versus no punishment for not wearing a hijab…and which one is the true interpretation of Islam and the reasons why…

I get the fact that you don’t believe there is a punishment in the Quran for not wearing a hijab, because, as you stated, it’s not written anywhere in the Quran…which is a fair point to make…

But the Muslims who take the opposite view, must surely be aware that there are no such verses contained within the Quran about punishment etc…but because they have interpreted not wearing a hijab as possibly leading to great sin, they have made it a Law to wear one…and with Laws, come some kind of punishments…

So essentially what we have here is two opposing Islamic perspectives on the Quran, in regards to the hijab…

The question I last asked you was; “what makes you think you are believing/following the true version…in regards to the hijab issue…?”, maybe you have already answered it by stating, “it’s not written anywhere in the Quran”, unless there’s something else you wish to add…

Originally posted by babloyi
As I stated initially, there are as many interpretations of Islam as there are adherents. The only sense of "True Islam" we can get would be from hearing what a person says they believe Islam to be (for example, "The Quran alone!" or "The Quran and XYZ Hadith!" or "The Qura and ABC Hadith!", and seeing if they are consistent in that.

Yeah, that’s what I’m looking for…”what a person says they believe Islam to be”…

So do the Hadiths play a part in your understanding and belief around the hijab issue…?

Originally posted by babloyi
Another example being when you started talking about Quranic punishments for not wearing the hijab, specifically asking for that thing, i.e. punishments in the Quran, for not wearing the hijab. I know I'm getting repetitive here, but my point was simply...it doesn't exist.

Yes, but like my example of the Trinity, something doesn’t have to be explicitly written, for it not be part of someone's belief or interpretation of a religious text. Case in point, being the example you gave, for those who believe not wearing a hijab can lead to great sin etc…

Originally posted by babloyi
That there are many interpretations that exist, I never disagreed to. I was simply answering your questions as you posed them. It seems you are attempting to go somewhere with the line of questions, perhaps you can reach the end and make your point, or ask THAT question?

“line of questions”…you’re not on trail here, you know…lol

The questions are about me getting someone's perspective on “their true” version of Islam…

I’m not trying to lead anyone to a specific destination, just too hit them with a “KABOOM!!!, you missed THIS!!!” lol…line…

The only place I’m leading anyone, is to get their opinions on why they think “X” belief is the true one, including any reasoning's and interpretations which go along with it.

Originally posted by babloyi
I'm not sure I'd go to the extent that EasternShadows did, but I think you missed the "anymore"s in the inital statement made by them.

I don’t miss anything, ever lol…

He also said “The only true Islam is the one that Muhammad recite aloud”…what Muhammad recited is in the Quran today, so how could he also say that "True" Islam doesn't exist anymore.”…surely it must still exist, even if he thinks/beliefs no one is actually following the true version of it today…I hope that make sense…

To be honest, his initial post was slightly confusing…but as you can see, his reply has cleared things up…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

What is the True Islam…???

One must KNOW Islam... and once that has been done, the answers are there.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You mean the bible didn't just fall out of the sky?!?!

Lol

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Joecroft

Here is your answer

Notice when he asks the question do you agree with the death sentence for adulterers, everybody agrees?

The point brought out here is that these are not radical Muslims they are normal Muslims that believe that this law should be applied though the whole world, not just Muslim countries and that is the big issue.

Just remember that absolute end game here for them....and it is as that those laws be applied around the globe in every country, that isn't fake news you heard from him directly and you saw everybody put there hand up in agreement.
You want to watch this and still be in denial, and say it's oh it's just a few, what percentage of those people put there hands up 99%. Including the segregated females in the back of the room.
If you can watch this brief video and still come away thinking this ideology is not a threat to modern civilization then your cognitive dissonance is very strong.

I say this,
Keep your Sharia law in you own countries, it's not civilized to kill homosexuals and adulators, because you think it's wrong. The bible says it's wrong BUT God gets to judge them not us, we certainly are not authorized to kill sinners that practice these things.

You mean like the end game where Jesus returns and leads his followers in a way to kill all the unbelievers????

Oh we can't forget that he is then going to capture and torment the souls of every unbeliever for all eternity..

You know, because God is love....

If the average Muslim was a terrorist we could have to bang out our shoes and check the toilet before taking a dump , to check for terrorists..

There are over a billion of them....

There is even less consistency between Muslims than there is with Christians, because their is no figure head...

There is no pope..

Any cleric who wants to can decide that he is the one who really knows what Mohammad wanted.. Exactly like every pool pit preacher thinks he knows more than every other faction...


Why in the world can you realize there are thousands of flavors of Christianity, and obviously "Christianity " as a whole is not effected by the actions of random Christians, but still think that all Muslims agree on anything and that what some Muslims do is the responsibility of all Muslims??!?!


Ya kinda gotta think that hypo racy is just hard wired into Christianity...

a reply to: Joecroft

There is no true Islamic perspective, because it was all just made up in the first place, then used for political advantage by every authority since..

The exact same way that there is no true Christianity , because they all just made it up and pick and chose whatever verse presently beneficial to them at the time.