What is the True Islam…???

a reply to: JoshuaCox

See what you don't seem to understand is that Jesus Christ is judge, jury and executioner, since he has been assigned that task by God himself as a representative to exercise his rightful universal sovereignty.
And this takes place in the FUTURE, not now. And the act of judgement will be supernatural carried out by a myriad of angels, no humans will be involved at all.

No humans on this planet has the right to judge an act of immorality no matter how grievous as a death sentence, as the video shows the Muslims believe it's ok for humans to judge and kill their neighbors right NOW.

Of coarse the problem with that is we don't have a perfect way of knowing if the person is actually guilty and even if they are that punishment is way overkill, literally.

I am truly amazed that the defense of Islamic ideology comes from people that flip it and condemn Christian ideology.
Even Bill Maher who has mocked Christians merciless, has said it least Christians aren't stoning adulterers and pushing gays off roof tops. He is one of the only liberals that actually gets this, condemning the SJW in this crowd that mount any defense of Islam, because this can't be defended by a logical person religious or atheist.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox



There are 1000s of different flavored of Islam , just like there are 1000s of flavors of Christianity..

There are hundreds of flavors of ice cream, and hundreds of flavors of cake.

That doesn't mean ice cream is the same as cake.

If the pope and Vatican City decide to go all genocidal tomorrow, the Protestants will not be blamed, nor would American Catholics. Nor would either side decide that "Christianity needed to change..."

It would be the fault of those specific people involved in said atrocities.

Maybe all of humanity, but definitely "white Christian America" could never even comprehend the concept of all "white people" being responsible for the actions of one or some other "white people" that they don't even know.....

I'm not so sure this is true.

First off, the Protestants would have an obligation to call the Pope out, and truly sever ties. Right now the majority of protestant faiths treat Catholics as being a sort of distant cousin.

That would have to change.

Mainly because deep down we know we made the whole "white people thing" up , so it is patently ridiculous that on an individual basis we should be blamed for the actions of other "whites".

And yet white people who's ancestors never owned a slave, nor supported slavery are expected to share in the guilt of slavery. Even if none of your ancestors were ever wealthy, its your fault black people are still poor.

But when it comes to other cultures.......


"There us definitely a problem in the black community..."

Or

""There is definitely a problem with the Muslim community.."


As if they are all getting the same news letter... Like they are all Facebook buddies who go for lattes every Thursday and decide what idiot in some third world cave is deciding...

There is a problem when the majority of Muslims consider it likely the 9/11 attackers may find their way into paradise.

The core of a religion is in what you think will happen in the afterlife. If you believe that perverting your religion into something it is not will cause you to go to hell when you die, then you are ideologically separate from that action.

If you think there is a chance their interpretation may be close enough that they'll be allowed into heaven, then you are ideologically complicit.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox



There are 1000s of different flavored of Islam , just like there are 1000s of flavors of Christianity..

There are hundreds of flavors of ice cream, and hundreds of flavors of cake.

That doesn't mean ice cream is the same as cake.

If the pope and Vatican City decide to go all genocidal tomorrow, the Protestants will not be blamed, nor would American Catholics. Nor would either side decide that "Christianity needed to change..."

It would be the fault of those specific people involved in said atrocities.

Maybe all of humanity, but definitely "white Christian America" could never even comprehend the concept of all "white people" being responsible for the actions of one or some other "white people" that they don't even know.....

I'm not so sure this is true.

First off, the Protestants would have an obligation to call the Pope out, and truly sever ties. Right now the majority of protestant faiths treat Catholics as being a sort of distant cousin.

That would have to change.

Mainly because deep down we know we made the whole "white people thing" up , so it is patently ridiculous that on an individual basis we should be blamed for the actions of other "whites".

And yet white people who's ancestors never owned a slave, nor supported slavery are expected to share in the guilt of slavery. Even if none of your ancestors were ever wealthy, its your fault black people are still poor.

But when it comes to other cultures.......


"There us definitely a problem in the black community..."

Or

""There is definitely a problem with the Muslim community.."


As if they are all getting the same news letter... Like they are all Facebook buddies who go for lattes every Thursday and decide what idiot in some third world cave is deciding...

There is a problem when the majority of Muslims consider it likely the 9/11 attackers may find their way into paradise.

The core of a religion is in what you think will happen in the afterlife. If you believe that perverting your religion into something it is not will cause you to go to hell when you die, then you are ideologically separate from that action.

If you think there is a chance their interpretation may be close enough that they'll be allowed into heaven, then you are ideologically complicit.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There is no way "Protestants " could call out the pope, because Protestants are not a single entity..



Plenty of Muslims call out terrorists, but since it isn't even one state of people let alone the 2 billion or whatever. You can always act like "not enough people are calling them out"..

So no matter how many Protestants called him out... You could still have idiots pretending like it wasn't enough so they can villianize those who are totally unconnected to the offenders.


Muslims cherry pick what verses they feel like using that generation, exactly like Christians.. There is nothing new or unique with Islamic terror...


People have always been willing to die and kill for causes..

Militaries have always considered civilian casualties acceptable losses...

The bible's text is just as horrific as the Koran, but just like most Muslims, most Christians choose to ignore the inconvenient texts..

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Everyone's ancestors were slaves and slave owners, just depends on how far you look back...

Americas personal flavor chose to allow the enslavement of only one race , where most of human history every other race except yours could be enslaved.. Was its on specific type of evil just because of the pile on effect..

But no those of us who have not personally profited from slavery through old money , exc.. Don't owe anything..


But we do need to acknowledge the fact that only one generation of African Americans received ANY type of inheritance..


This is literally the first couple generations where more that .001% of the black population that received anything from their fire fathers labor..

Where "X" percent of Europeans recieved land, businesses, exc. some times handed down over centuries..

0% of African Americans did... There is literally no "old black money" even to this day...

So people would be just insanely nieve not to recognize that the ramifications of that are still being strongly felt.

Obviously it is a marketing issue really...

Poor white people can attest to the ridiculousness of "white privlege" ....

The truth is way closer to black discrimination.. And people point out the hypocracy of white privlege and ignore the black discrimination..

Where the KKK and its henchmen true Christians? Answer that and you have your answer to you OP

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There is no way "Protestants " could call out the pope, because Protestants are not a single entity..

If the majority or protestants dis-fellowshipped the Catholic Church over it, that would be 1/3 of the entire population of Christians world wide.

And the Roman Catholic Church consists of half of Christianity, so any decision they collectively make is representative of 50% of all Christians.

en.wikipedia.org...

The issue isn't just criticizing. It is disowning. Most Protestant Churches will honor a baptism from another denomination, meaning that if you are Lutheran, and decide to become Baptist, there is a high probability that you won't have to get baptized again. Essentially your membership is good in multiple churches. (There are exceptions to this, if for example a church considers it very important for a baptism to include total submersion in water, but the church a person is migrating from allowed partial submersion..... details like that.)

Most protestants consider Mormons not be count as "Christian". So if a Mormon commits and act of terror, lumping Protestants together with that would be problematic, because you're drawing a similarity that the Protestants reject wholeheartedly.

Plenty of Muslims call out terrorists, but since it isn't even one state of people let alone the 2 billion or whatever. You can always act like "not enough people are calling them out"..

They call it out, but they don't disfellowship. The terrorists are fellow Muslims who have lost their way. Not non-Muslim heretics who have no claim whatsoever on their prophet.

That is an important distinction.

As I mentioned, most Protestants regard Mormons in this way. And for their part, most Mormons regard the various polygamist Mormon offshoots as heretics. Anyone found practicing those versions of Mormonism is immediately ex-communicated, and Mormons believe their souls will not go to Paradise when they die.

So no matter how many Protestants called him out... You could still have idiots pretending like it wasn't enough so they can villianize those who are totally unconnected to the offenders.

It isn't enough unless they are condemned to hell.

The offer of a reward in the afterlife fills the same role as the offer of money when a Mafia don hires a hitman. It's quid pro quo.

So long as the afterlife is still on the table, the Terrorists are hired assassins.

The bible's text is just as horrific as the Koran, but just like most Muslims, most Christians choose to ignore the inconvenient texts..

It is if you count the Old Testament. Although the New Testament claims in many places to have "fulfilled" or made obsolete the old testament, meaning Xians are totally and utterly free to ignore the stuff in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy however much they want to.

Muslims are not free to disregard any part of the Koran. Although there is some debate over the validity of the Hadiths.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It is not a defense of Islamic ideology....

It is pointing out the hypocracy of a Christians pointing that finger...

And it is almost always Christians...which should tell people something...

Anyone secular, recognizes ;

A) the stupidity of trying to put 2 billion people in the same box.

B) the hypocracy of Christians calling some one else's religious texts violent..

Do Christians and Muslims PRESENTLY have the same percent of crazy idiots running around and killing people in the name of their religion???

Absolutely not..

But how long has that been true??

What?? 80 years lol?!?!

80 years ago Muslims were not committing terrorism really, but Catholics and prodestants sure were..

The truly laughable part is the fact that every Christian inherently realizes and understands there are a million flavors
of Christianity and there is very little concensus even inside the same denominations.

But why in the hell they seem to think Muslims are any different absolutely escapes me.. and Muslims have far less of a chain of command... there is no Muslim pope..


If this was a thread about how we should remove the violent butchery and hate from all the religions, then you wouldn't have any atheists argue at all.

But calling some one else's religious texts violent, when Christianity says you should cut off your wives hands if she touches another mans penis WHILE HELPING HER HUSBAND FIGHT OFF AN ATTACKER!!

Is just the pennical of hypocracy...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It is SOME modern Christians INTERPRITAION the Old Testament doesn't count.. not all Christians, nor has the violence been removed, nor is there any criticism of the truely monstrous parts of the OT...


It's the Same God in both books commiting genocides and validating slavery , rape and child abuse, exc..


Also the willingness to die for your cause is not new..

The ability for soldiers who kill civilians without accountability isn't new..

Is the poorer who dropped the Hiroshima bomb gonna burn in hell forever???

So how is that different from the pov of a terrorist??

arent the Christian civilians killed by US soldiers expected to go to heaven???

So how is that any different from a Muslim terrorist killing civilians because he believes god will forgive him and his Muslim victims??



The exact same principles apply to Christianity in every case..

Once again it is Christianities belief that they are speacial is the only thing that separates the two..

Sure Christianity has 1 million flavors and no real consensus...but it's speacial...

Sure the Bible is full of murdourous brutality and truely horrible direction, but Christianity is speacial..

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

My point was that there is that there is no way to possibly know accurately what % of prodestants agree with X or Y..
It is a billion people.. a billion people don't agree on anything..

All we could do is take anecdotal evidence (aka no evidence) and guess at what the rest think...

And the same goes for Catholics, and wait for it... Muslims too...

Since there is no real way to know what that many people actually believe, there is no way for "enough " to speak out against whatever..

At that point you are using anecdotal evidence to establish that "not enough people are speaking out."

But then realizing that anyone who does speak out, " is only anecdotal evidence."

It's loss , loss for real people and win win for any propaganda mongers..

Especially when your dealing with people with a vested interest in creating a religious boogeyman meant to validate their own religion..

All anyone has to say is "why aren't Protestants speak out??"

And there is functionally no way to show Either way.. it's just too many people.

a reply to: babloyi

Originally posted by babloyi
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.

How come some Muslims don’t seem to agree on whether the Quran was compiled before, or after the Prophet Muhammad's death…?

I mean, shouldn’t the chain of narration clear up that issue…?

Originally posted by babloyi
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.).

Some Muslims mention how there are authentic hadiths and non authentic Hadiths…but how does one qualify their authenticity…?

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.

But surely a Muslim could disagree with a sect of Islam, on a particular issue, without implying overall, that they are not Muslim or Islamic, or being “takfir”…right…?


Ps – Thanks for breaking down the History a little…


- JC

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A) doesn't almost every Christian think that the "end times" are coming soon, like within there own life times???

So I'm not sure your future reference works..

Any day now some idiot could falsely convince a percent of Christianity he is Christ.. hell it has already happened dozens of times on smaller scales.. such as with David koresh.


B) if we don't get to decide right from wrong , then I guess every soldier and person in law enforcement is in sin?!?!

C) this is not a defense of islam...

It's pointing out the hypocracy of a Christian pointing that finger..


Everything you have mentioned, except for the PRESENT band of idiots killing people over their religion applies to Christianity as well...
it's not a defense of Islam as a rebuke of Christianity...

a reply to: Joecroft
Hey JC! For the most part, the answers to your questions were posted in the quotes you posted yourself. For clarification:

originally posted by: Joecroft
How come some Muslims don’t seem to agree on whether the Quran was compiled before, or after the Prophet Muhammad's death…?

I mean, shouldn’t the chain of narration clear up that issue…?

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.

originally posted by: Joecroft
Some Muslims mention how there are authentic hadiths and non authentic Hadiths…but how does one qualify their authenticity…?

...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.).

originally posted by: Joecroft
But surely a Muslim could disagree with a sect of Islam, on a particular issue, without implying overall, that they are not Muslim or Islamic, or being “takfir”…right…?

Sure they can, and they do. But then in that case it doesn't become a question of "true islam" and "false islam".

because the average Joe in the street, just wants to know what the True Islam is…

Islam is a religion centered around the truth that God is One and created everything, and that all humans will be judged by God for their conduct on earth

Since God made earth and put humans in charge of it, God requires us to live in a way that's acceptable to Him. That's why God chose certain men to relay His Word throughout all generations.

Islam is the culmination of it all. Muslims are required to be the custodians of the Qur'an and live a life that's in accordance with God's Law. We have duties to fulfill to God, to our fellow Muslims and to our fellow humans.

originally posted by: babloyi
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.

As I mentioned earlier, Shia rejected Quran Authenticty under Abu Bakar and Uthman authority. Their main source of Quran is Mus'haf of Ali. While the main source of "sunni Quran" is the Uthmanic codex. On surface, both appear to be the same Quran. But few suras and order is enough to justify the differences in Quran, leading to differences in perspective by Sunni and Shia. Thus affecting their judgement and law.

originally posted by: babloyi
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.

My point is today Quran is not the original Quran Muhammad taught to his people. So, do you agree that Quran has been tampered and without Muhammad's approval?

originally posted by: babloyi
And your source is a chatroom?

The chatroom contain reference to the sources, such as the one I quoted, 'Sahih Al Bukhari-Kitab Al', Tafseer Bab- وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى ". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105, narrated by Alqama on subject "Companions of the Prophet")
Sahih Al Bukhari is considered "strong" by muslim.

[To be honest, I am very very skeptic with middle age muslim scholars methodology with regards to Hadith authenticity. Muhammad, just like Jesus, obviously did not forsee the consequences of verbal transmisson hundred years later after his death. Perhaps it is intentional, their teaching is not meant to be preserved, and the future would better be left alone to the free will of more advance civilization? Isnt that why God ( Allah ) created us, not as believer or non-believer, not as the obedient servant like Angel, and not as the defious rebellious Devil, but as HUMAN ? ]

PS: Sorry, I was very busy with real world life and unable to stay online for few days or maybe weeks.

a reply to: EasternShadow

originally posted by: EasternShadow
On surface, both appear to be the same Quran. But few suras and order is enough to justify the differences in Quran, leading to differences in perspective by Sunni and Shia. Thus affecting their judgement and law.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that there is NO difference between the Shia and Sunni Quran. Shias and Sunnis BOTH use the EXACT SAME Quran, not even differentiated by "few suras and order".
If what you say is true, there would be two versions of the Quran in existence right now, one that Sunnis use, one that Shias use. There isn't. Both use the same Quran.

originally posted by: babloyi
My point is today Quran is not the original Quran Muhammad taught to his people. So, do you agree that Quran has been tampered and without Muhammad's approval?

Do I see any evidence that the Quran was tampered with after Muhammad finalised it? Not really, no. There were certainly Muhammad changed during his life, things added, and possibly things removed, but certainly nothing I see suggesting that something further than that occurred. And the consensus (insofar as both Shia and Sunni scholarship goes), aside from a few tiny outliers, is with me.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
The chatroom contain reference to the sources, such as the one I quoted, 'Sahih Al Bukhari-Kitab Al', Tafseer Bab- وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَى ". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105, narrated by Alqama on subject "Companions of the Prophet")
Sahih Al Bukhari is considered "strong" by muslim.

See, that is what I meant about using a chatroom as a source. There's no such book in Sahih Bukhari called "Kitab Al' Tafseer Bab". That doesn't even make sense in arabic- "Book of Commentary Gate"? There is a "Book of Commentary (on the Quran)", but this is not what is being referred to here, the Hadith you refer to is from the "Book of the Companions of the Prophet".

originally posted by: babloyi
[To be honest, I am very very skeptic with middle age muslim scholars methodology with regards to Hadith authenticity. Muhammad, just like Jesus, obviously did not forsee the consequences of verbal transmisson hundred years later after his death. Perhaps it is intentional, their teaching is not meant to be preserved, and the future would better be left alone to the free will of more advance civilization? Isnt that why God ( Allah ) created us, not as believer or non-believer, not as the obedient servant like Angel, and not as the defious rebellious Devil, but as HUMAN ?

I've never been a fan of the claim that somehow verbal transmission is "lesser" or less authentic than a written one, simply due to how it is.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: EasternShadow

originally posted by: EasternShadow
On surface, both appear to be the same Quran. But few suras and order is enough to justify the differences in Quran, leading to differences in perspective by Sunni and Shia. Thus affecting their judgement and law.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was that there is NO difference between the Shia and Sunni Quran. Shias and Sunnis BOTH use the EXACT SAME Quran, not even differentiated by "few suras and order".
If what you say is true, there would be two versions of the Quran in existence right now, one that Sunnis use, one that Shias use. There isn't. Both use the same Quran.

Yes there is. There are 2 version of Quran exist today; Qira't of Hafs 'Asim and Qira't of Warsh 'an Naafi. Textual Quran ( Al Kitab or Book of Quran ) used by shia is not the same as the one used by sunni. Shia believe some passages in Quran mentioned Ali as the rightful decendant of Muhammad to hold Caliph position or Imam. Example, Sura Al-Maidah, Ayat 67.
Such passage do not appear in international Quran today. Other example the passage of "rajam" ( stonning to death penalty for adultery ) is absent in Quran and Uthman was completely aware of it.

originally posted by: babloyi
Do I see any evidence that the Quran was tampered with after Muhammad finalised it? Not really, no. There were certainly Muhammad changed during his life, things added, and possibly things removed, but certainly nothing I see suggesting that something further than that occurred. And the consensus (insofar as both Shia and Sunni scholarship goes), aside from a few tiny outliers, is with me.

Something further happen after the death of Muhammad. The compilation of Quran into written book ( Al Kitab Quran ). According to Shia, the compilation of complete Quran was already done during Muhammad. That because they hold Ali's mushaf as their main source of Quran. However, according to Sunni, the first compilation was completed during Uthman's reign as the caliph, known as the Uthmanic Codex. Uthman commisioned Zaid Bin Thabit to collect all written copies of Quran. However, he rejected Ali's written Quran ( Ali's mushaf ). Before Uthmanic Codex, there is no cannonized version of Quran. Therefore, every Quran written during Muhamad's life is not considered canon, including Ali's mushaf and was ordered to be destroyed by Uthman.

originally posted by: babloyi
I've never been a fan of the claim that somehow verbal transmission is "lesser" or less authentic than a written one, simply due to how it is.

Verbal transmission is subjected to memory loss after a long period of time. Very few people could memorize the complete Quran and Hadith. We have seen evidence of memory losses and errors in Sahaba ( as narrated by Hadith ) even during Muhammad lifetime. Let alone hundred of years after Muhammad died. With Muhammad died and no first person witness left to verify and clarify, verbal transmission is as good as fairy tale, which is forever debated and studied for it's authenticity. Written records, at least remove the problem with possibility of memory loss. But then again, it was too late for ancient people to realize it.

a reply to: babloyi

a reply to: EasternShadow


I’m really enjoying the discussion between you guys…not sure which view is the correct one so far, so I’m just gona keep following for now…

The discussion is helping to expand further on those questions I asked in my last reply to babloyi…

Great discussion…I just hope you both stay the course…and don’t get side tracked.

- JC

a reply to: EasternShadow

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Yes there is. There are 2 version of Quran exist today; Qira't of Hafs 'Asim and Qira't of Warsh 'an Naafi. Textual Quran ( Al Kitab or Book of Quran ) used by shia is not the same as the one used by sunni. Shia believe some passages in Quran mentioned Ali as the rightful decendant of Muhammad to hold Caliph position or Imam. Example, Sura Al-Maidah, Ayat 67.
Such passage do not appear in international Quran today. Other example the passage of "rajam" ( stonning to death penalty for adultery ) is absent in Quran and Uthman was completely aware of it.

I'm not sure how to proceed here. You've got me into a situation where you're saying "The sky is green", and I'm saying "The sky not green", and it's hard to find documentation showing the sky is not green.
Anyhow, I've provided some nonetheless:
islam.stackexchange.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.islamicity.org...

There are many "Qirat" (methods of recitation) of the Quran, NONE of them have a different text, and according to Prophetic tradition, ALL are valid.

Here is Surah Al-Maidah's verse 67 by the famous Sunni Muslim translator Yusuf Ali:

O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.

Here is the same verse by Muhammad Sarwar, a Shia Translator:

Messenger, preach what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you will not preach, it would be as though you have not conveyed My message. God protects you from men. He does not guide the unbelieving people.

For the sake of completeness, here is the arabic Quranic verses that both translations accompany:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

Likewise, although scholars all know the text of the verse of stoning, and its supposed placement, it is not present in ANY Quran today, Shia or Sunni. This is because it was removed before the Quran was completed.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Something further happen after the death of Muhammad. The compilation of Quran into written book ( Al Kitab Quran ). According to Shia, the compilation of complete Quran was already done during Muhammad. That because they hold Ali's mushaf as their main source of Quran. However, according to Sunni, the first compilation was completed during Uthman's reign as the caliph, known as the Uthmanic Codex. Uthman commisioned Zaid Bin Thabit to collect all written copies of Quran. However, he rejected Ali's written Quran ( Ali's mushaf ). Before Uthmanic Codex, there is no cannonized version of Quran. Therefore, every Quran written during Muhamad's life is not considered canon, including Ali's mushaf and was ordered to be destroyed by Uthman.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, there is debate among Shias and Sunnis as to the method of the compilation of the Quran. Neither disagree with each other as to the content.

originally posted by: EasternShadow
Verbal transmission is subjected to memory loss after a long period of time. Very few people could memorize the complete Quran and Hadith.

That's like saying "Written transmission is subject to paper loss". Not if it is transmitted properly.

For my own clarity, a bit of a possibly offensive question, but are you a muslim or former muslim who believed all those things about Shias like "They believe in a different Quran!", "They take Ali/Hussain as equal to God!" or "They perform satanic rituals with horses!"?

originally posted by: babloyi
I'm not sure how to proceed here. You've got me into a situation where you're saying "The sky is green", and I'm saying "The sky not green", and it's hard to find documentation showing the sky is not green.
Anyhow, I've provided some nonetheless:
islam.stackexchange.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.islamicity.org...

It's a matter of subjective reality. Your perspective is your own experience reality. So do mine. I'm not here to argue which of us is right. I'm here to explain my intial post, of why I dont think True Islam is no longer exist. I dont think Quran and Bible are preserved the way they're claimed to be. ( I dont think ALL religion are true anyway )

originally posted by: babloyi
There are many "Qirat" (methods of recitation) of the Quran, NONE of them have a different text, and according to Prophetic tradition, ALL are valid.

Ok then here another example:

THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS:
He (Muhammad) said (qaala), "My lord knows ..." (21:4)

THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSHL:
Say (qul): My lord knows ...

The difference here changes the subject of the verb. In the Hafs Qur’an the subject is Muhammad but in the Warsh Qur’an the subject is God. Is this valid?

originally posted by: babloyi
Here is Surah Al-Maidah's verse 67 by the famous Sunni Muslim translator Yusuf Ali:

O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.

Here is the same verse by Muhammad Sarwar, a Shia Translator:

Messenger, preach what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you will not preach, it would be as though you have not conveyed My message. God protects you from men. He does not guide the unbelieving people.

For the sake of completeness, here is the arabic Quranic verses that accompanies both translations:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

Al-Kellini, "Al-Kafi", Chapter 471, Number 28 in Volume 4, page 446 disagree with your quotation.
Note: Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Ya'qoub Ibn Ishaq Al-Kellini Ar-Razi (died 329 A.H.), an eminent Shi'ite theologian, traditionist and historian, considered the most significance Shi'ite compiler of Hadith and famous for his book "Al-Kafi" which is a compilation of 16199 hadiths and hundreds of commentaries are written about it.

On authority of Abul-Hasan Ibn Madai that he said: Commander of Believers recited “O Messenger! proclaim the (Message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord concerning the Caliphate of Ali. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Mission.” (Holy Qur’an 5:67), I said: is it revealed? He said: yes!

originally posted by: babloyi
Likewise, although scholars all know the text of the verse of stoning, and its supposed placement, it is not present in ANY Quran today, Shia or Sunni. This is because it was removed before the Quran was completed.

It was not removed. It was never been completed.

... Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, "By Allah, we do not find the verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book", and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed.

(Sahih Al-Bukhari: Volume. 8, Book. 82, no. 817)

originally posted by: babloyi
Yes, as I mentioned earlier, there is debate among Shias and Sunnis as to the method of the compilation of the Quran. Neither disagree with each other as to the content.

Some Shia scholars believe Quran has been corrupted during compilation.

Shia author Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Sayyari (9th century)[17]
Ali Ibn Ibrahim Qomi (d. 919)[18]
Al Ayyaashi (d. 932)
Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (d. 941)
Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid (d. 1022) — spoke of the alteration which occurred in the ordering of Quranic verses (ta'līf).[19]
Mohsen Fayz Kashani (d. 1680)[18]
Ni'matullah Al Jazaa'iri (d. 1701)
Muhammad Baqir Behbahani (d. 1791) — who wrote in al-Fawā'id al-ḥā'iriyya: "It is clear from the many akhbār that [corruption] occurred... Our position is that it is permitted to act upon one of the famous seven variants [of the Qur'ān]. The indicator for this position is the statement, or rather the order, of the Imams that "You must recite as the people recite until the day of the return of the qā'im"."[20]
Mirza Husain Noori Tabarsi (d. 1902)
Agha Bozorg Tehrani (d. 1970)[21]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: babloyi
That's like saying "Written transmission is subject to paper loss". Not if it is transmitted properly.

Transmitted properly by what mean? What is the proof? How do we know such verse is accurate and not hoaxes or errors done by some of the Sahaba or by some middle age scholars?

We have some proof of written transmission in the form of historical Uthmanic Codex, some early Quran manuscripts discovered in Sana'a Yemen and we have Mashuf of Ali still exist today. This evidences is first-hand proof that we can study ourselves. Irrefutible evidences.

originally posted by: babloyi
For my own clarity, a bit of a possibly offensive question, but are you a muslim or former muslim who believed all those things about Shias like "They believe in a different Quran!", "They take Ali/Hussain as equal to God!" or "They perform satanic rituals with horses!"?

Does it matters? No, I dont believe in such things.