The "Real" Islam

[Neznac]

Rather than being good Muslims, the moderate Muslims are compromising 'real' Islam with good human values as being human.
A very good Muslim relying in real Islam = evil person
A bad Muslim ignoring some evil verses = good person, human being.

I completely agree with your assessment Spectrum and was going to write the same sort of opinion. And this kind of "what is real Islam" analysis can also be applied to other religions. Where good, decent, and moral human values overturn the disgusting, primitive, and corrupt values of the prticular religion, we should conclude that it is because of the natural human propensity for ethical behaviour which deserves the credit for the loving values being upheld and the hateful values being rejected. Even if those loving values are actually in the text, (like the profession of the Golden Rule), they are essentially cancelled by immoral cruelty and murder in the same texts (like Jesus's approval of human slavery), so we should conclude that it is true human compassion which should be credited for approving the good moral values. When humans can override the evil doctrines in any religion, then they are doing "what is the human thing to do" - and all religions have evil doctrines from beheading infidels to accepting slavery.

As an example, when someone acts with real empathy toward another person, people will often say, "that was the Christian thing to do" but when I suggested earlier that when people who were believing Christians pushed the Jews into the gas chambers, that "that was the Christian thing to do" religious people here got all upset and excited. It's the same with Islam, those who are believers and are beheading the innocent infidels, are doing "what is the Muslim thing to do" even though at a true human level of compassion they know that their actions are evil in respect of the Golden Rule, for instance.

Islam, in an overall sense, is an evil doctrine, and the same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism. When you take ALL of their directives into account. Even the suggestion of cherry-picking is evidence that real human values are in play, and by that mere suggestion, the religious doctrine should be invalidated! But it's a long way to getting oneself to atheistic reality, and some people just don't have the "balls" to do it (like Obama himself)!

[Subatomic God]

Actually no, it went sideways. Or more correctly, you took it sideways in order to blather about your kooky new age beliefs.

This is coming from someone who just said, in public, "atheists love God". Sorry, but you're not a sage, or a nihilist, or a philosopher - you are denying other people's reasoning to support your small world.

A wise man sees the whole world; and so, nothing is off-topic to a wise man. For all things come to a turn, like the planets in the solar system. The wise know that we cannot always see the moon, Venus, or Haley's Comet.

[NihilistSage]

This is coming from someone who just said, in public, "atheists love God".

I guess that one flew over your head. It's called sarcasm. It was a satirical play on the "real" Islam thing.

Sorry, but you're not a sage, or a nihilist, or a philosopher - you are denying other people's reasoning to support your small world.

A wise man sees the whole world; and so, nothing is off-topic to a wise man. For all things come to a turn, like the planets in the solar system. The wise know that we cannot always see the moon, Venus, or Haley's Comet.

Do you have any criticism to make about anything I've said? What do you disagree with?

[Subatomic God]

I guess that one flew over your head. It's called sarcasm. It was a satirical play on the "real" Islam thing.

My apologies, I'm a god among dogs. I do not adhere to the lowest form of wit. Perhaps treat your men with communicative respect - lest you want to make it easier for the gods to see the dog in you.

Do you have any criticism to make about anything I've said? What do you disagree with?

Yes, what Artimas said was on-topic to the Universe; and off-topic to your brain, but for something that's barely connected to 1% of life's aspects, I wouldn't really doubt it.

[Wilson]

I guess that one flew over your head. It's called sarcasm. It was a satirical play on the "real" Islam thing.

If that was really an attempt at sarcasm, it was a pathetic attempt. You wrote, "People who want to get rid of religion only make up a tiny percentage of the atheist community. The vast majority of atheists believe in God just like everyone else." That's not sarcasm. No, I think you had some weird point, then realized it was a ridiculous thing to say and tried to cover yourself. Didn't work.

[Okisites]

First I would like to ask, what do you mean by "real"? The "real" as what we can understand seeing the reality around or "real" means what is written in the book, with real interpretation.

Then came the problem what is "real interpretation". Is there any objectively "real interpretation" of Islam? If so what is that? How to ascertain that this is real interpretation and nothing else?

What is perfect way to determine the reality of something? Isn't it is scientific to observe the reality, effect, and theorize and see what fits best to what is happening around like some kind of phenomena?

Or this is scientific to determine what is real by interpreting the book?

I don't think anybody can claim objectively on the basis of interpretation of books, that this is real Islam, whether Muslim or Non-muslim, because there is a problem of proof. I think determining what the Real Islam is could be a hard problem.

Better is just interpret it as the case would require, as per your goal.

You're correct, they can't figure out what is 'real' and what isn't, as with all Religion. They cherry pick through it, not even realizing that IF there was a real judging deity, he would come down to Earth and put a whip to human a**. There is no cherry picking with a deity, especially a judging one at that, as I have said.

You either believe the full story, or not. If the stories have been manipulated, of which they came out manipulated in the first place, but manipulated even more, than there is no way to follow what is "true" and what isn't.

Interpreting what they want, is the problem of which why we are all here. Facing negative consequences, dividing even more from these petty topics and actions of petty war over difference. All from "interpreting" it differently, and thinking their way is superior.

I think Nihilistsage destroying his own thread, Isn't he? I think this thread is very good thread if we can reach an objective conclusion that what exactly is the "Real Islam"?

It will be good if perfect interpretation can be put forward which could be very objective, which will not lead anybody to claim it to be dishonest, as you said it is just cherry picking verses to suit the agenda, such thing cannot be said, and someone can objectively claim and prove that Islam is this or that.

That means if someone claims that Islam is Religion of Peace, then he had to prove that in such a way that it cannot be refuted or be satisfactorily convincing, without any cherry picking verses. This is actually very important for Muslims and Non-Muslims to know that what's the Real Islam is, because it is matter of choosing between a belief in God and otherwise a delusion. I think this is important for even believers to know what exactly Islam is all about, without any ambiguation, which believers must do wilfully and with open mindedness.

That means everybody must interpret Islam considering each and every verses with all its different perspectives, and possible interpretations, and make a bigger picture with psychological, moral, political, theological understanding, that could make a very clear picture what the Islam is all about, without replacing one meaning from another and giving another verse to make it look right, and make all completely messed up such that no important conclusion can be made. All such practices should be kept aside once by all believers for the sake of honesty, and determine what actually Islam is, rather repeating the words of others that say, Islam is a religion of peace, without proving.

-- Updated 05 Sep 2014, 15:29 to add the following --

Islam, in an overall sense, is an evil doctrine, and the same thing goes for Christianity and Judaism. When you take ALL of their directives into account. Even the suggestion of cherry-picking is evidence that real human values are in play, and by that mere suggestion, the religious doctrine should be invalidated! But it's a long way to getting oneself to atheistic reality, and some people just don't have the "balls" to do it (like Obama himself)!

Anybody can speak about their perception of Islam, as they understand it, and nothing can change if it simply said like this that "Islam is an evil doctrine". Nobody can believe it, because it is not justified by proofs. Muslims says that Islam is a Religion of Peach, sometimes Religion of compassion, sometimes Submission. My perception says that Islam is a Religion of Colonialism.

But there is no value in claiming all such things. Better would be that if somebody come up with objective non refutable proof that Islam is this or that, which is quite a difficult task.

I know nobody here can come up with objective definition of what Islam is, but I am only suggesting that it will be better and honest way, to say it with proof and without any ambiguity left.

Thank you for giving me chance to speak this. Okisites.

[Ruskin]

There are basically two very different forms of "Real" Islam and they both seek the same aim though they go about this in two different ways depending on how they're interpreting the Quran. Western/moderate Muslims tend to focus more on the earlier more tolerant part of the Quran and the Isis and Al Queda terrorists focus on on the latter Islamic conquest phase of the Quran but they both have the same book.

[Okisites]

But what Real Islam is in its entirety, and how can you prove that?

[Ruskin]

But what Real Islam is in its entirety, and how can you prove that?

"Real Islam" seeks to establish a peaceful global religious and political order based on the Quran and the worship of the one true God as revealed to Mohammed (and all the Islamic prophets before him including Jesus) and recorded in the Quran. One way of doing it is through peaceful conversion of the society from the ground up as the early part of the Quran describes and the other is from the top down through armed conflict and conquest as the latter part of the Quran describes. They're both validated by the Quran it depends how an individual Muslim wants to interpret it as there isn't an authority figure in Islam who tells everyone what to believe. It's a nonsense to say Osama Bin Laden wasn't a "Real Muslim" he just took the military aspect of Islam as a war against the Western oppressors while other Muslims would reserve war for the same types of occasion we would reserve it for such as the war against Nazi Germany during WW2.

[Okisites]

But what Real Islam is in its entirety, and how can you prove that?

"Real Islam" seeks to establish a peaceful global religious and political order based on the Quran and the worship of the one true God as revealed to Mohammed (and all the Islamic prophets before him including Jesus) and recorded in the Quran. One way of doing it is through peaceful conversion of the society from the ground up as the early part of the Quran describes and the other is from the top down through armed conflict and conquest as the latter part of the Quran describes. They're both validated by the Quran it depends how an individual Muslim wants to interpret it as there isn't an authority figure in Islam who tells everyone what to believe. It's a nonsense to say Osama Bin Laden wasn't a "Real Muslim" he just took the military aspect of Islam as a war against the Western oppressors while other Muslims would reserve war for the same types of occasion we would reserve it for such as the war against Nazi Germany during WW2.

How can you say it more credible that Islam seeks to establish peaceful global religious and political order (probably Religion of Peace ideas), and is not the Religion of Colonialism(my idea) and other definitions aforementioned in this topic i.e. Religion of evil doctrine, or Religion of deceit.

For my definition, I put forward the same thing as you in which first part is peaceful because there is not that much number of followers to wage a war against people, but when the number of follower grown the armed and forced conversion of the people, to submit and accept that Allah is one God, and Mohammad is his messenger, and if you’ll not submit and accept it, you should be killed. You should not question the prophethood of Mohammad, and say anything about him that can reveal the non-prophetic nature of him. So you are not allowed to talk about the non-prophetic nature that can reveal the truth, and if you did you’ll be killed. By this way anybody can be a prophet of God, just anybody, but what you need is some initial ignorant people that can believe you that you have brought words from God. And certainly you’ll start it with peaceful preaching and conversion. So I think my theory is also viable. What do you think?

[Ruskin]

How can you say it more credible that Islam seeks to establish peaceful global religious and political order (probably Religion of Peace ideas), and is not the Religion of Colonialism(my idea)

It's actually kind of both think of something like a political ideology like Communism combined with a supreme religious authority such as Roman Catholicism, only the political ideology replaces the authority of the Pope. Christianity in the West lacks the fully integrated political element Islam has and I think this allows for democratic secular society. You can therefore have your religion and belief in God but everything else is separate to this. Islam doesn't have this in mind but instead you have a religious global order where everyone is either a true believing Muslim or has to abide fully by Islamic law. This way so everything in human life is fully integrated as part of Islam as God himself commanded in the Quran.

and other definitions aforementioned in this topic i.e. Religion of evil doctrine, or Religion of deceit.

It's not as black and white as that but it isn't something we would like in our culture as have different ideals.

[Okisites]

How can you say it more credible that Islam seeks to establish peaceful global religious and political order (probably Religion of Peace ideas), and is not the Religion of Colonialism(my idea)

It's actually kind of both think of something like a political ideology like Communism combined with a supreme religious authority such as Roman Catholicism, only the political ideology replaces the authority of the Pope. Christianity in the West lacks the fully integrated political element Islam has and I think this allows for democratic secular society. You can therefore have your religion and belief in God but everything else is separate to this. Islam doesn't have this in mind but instead you have a religious global order where everyone is either a true believing Muslim or has to abide fully by Islamic law. This way so everything in human life is fully integrated as part of Islam as God himself commanded in the Quran.

I can agree with your opinion that it is kind of both, but it is not persuasive to most that it is kind of both. For most of people, it is be only of one kind. Nobody can hold a belief is Islam is a Religion of Peach, as well as a Religion of Colonialism. Therefore is the question what is that only kind which is agreeable to all and nobody will dispute it. What way everybody can conclusively say that Real Islam is this and not that, and explain it successfully as such. What is Real Islam, and how to objectively ascertain it?

Certainly it cannot be done by cherry picking verses, denying as well as validating on the basis of same authors saying the authors is fallible and can be wrong somewhere while Quran cannot be. It is like adjusting everything according to a book and a prophet, and denying what cannot be adjusted properly. This is not the honest way to say that Islam is this and not that. Honest claim will require claiming considering all the verses at once and making a bigger and perfect picture of it.

So what is your idea of Real Islam considering, both evil and good or general, verses or part at once simultaneously, without splitting it into two? What is the once perfect interpretation you will give to Islam, as this is the Real Islam and not that? Only one interpretation because this is only persuasive.

Thank You, Okisites.

[Artimas]

I don't understand why no one takes into consideration, that all of Religion is just a power play ploy, that has been going on for 100's and 1000's of years. Seriously, it is. We don't need false hope and fear in this time and era, we have science and better tools. I am sure philosophers of the old day would agree. I am not saying to not believe in what you want, I am saying those people who reject knowledge and deem it "satanic" because their faith, view, or culture tells them so. We got here from many books, not one. If it were left up to the religious, we would all be in bible study right now, with no internet.

Take that into consideration, because it is true. Ken Ham already tried spewing his creationist BS to the schools for children, etc, then was utterly destroyed by Bill Nye in public debate.

They are always trying to put their religion into the schools. Children are gullible, they will buy into just about any story, they buy into ignorance, not knowing. Then later as adults, it is almost impossible to derail them from their own belief of belief, because it is all that they grew up with and know, not looking outside of their portion of the painting. I am looking at the entire painting.

Islam is no different, it can be called "religion of peace" all you guys want, but it isn't peaceful when people cherry pick, and kill each other for being different, racism, religion, division over difference was created by man.

Spirituality is natural, it needs no story, it needs no system, it needs no deity. This fact alone, should bring you all to question Natural Spirituality/ being spiritual on own terms.

Buddhism, Taoism, etc are not religions. They are forms of being spiritual, balanced, etc. No system, no deity, self importance.

[Ruskin]

I can agree with your opinion that it is kind of both, but it is not persuasive to most that it is kind of both. For most of people, it is be only of one kind. Nobody can hold a belief is Islam is a Religion of Peach, as well as a Religion of Colonialism.

It's an ideology comparable to this though not quite as unambiguously evil, it is fairly left wing though authoritarian while what we have is right wing and libertarian.

Our Western ideology is superior (though not flawlessly perfect nothing is) and we should be exporting our values to the Islamic world rather than the other way. There are Western secular Muslim nations like say Turkey but that's barely counts as Islamic since the fall of the Ottoman Empire they turned the Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum for instance.

Therefore is the question what is that only kind which is agreeable to all and nobody will dispute it. What way everybody can conclusively say that Real Islam is this and not that, and explain it successfully as such. What is Real Islam, and how to objectively ascertain it?

Real Islam would maintain the faith in one undivided God and Mohammed as his prophet and then follow through on what the prophet actually taught and bring that actively into society. You can do this peacefully through conversion, political coercion and reproduction getting those babies pumped out or through military action and conquest such as what is taking place in Iraq right now with Christians and Yeziddis being forced to convert at gunpoint. Both methods have been used and they're greatly effective. Most modern Muslims would put the former rather than the latter in practice and this is working out well in Europe for instance though historically you can see both methods being used in different places at different times, military conquest tends to become a viable option once they become a dominant majority but it doesn't always occur 100% of the time it depends on the circumstances.

Certainly it cannot be done by cherry picking verses, denying as well as validating on the basis of same authors saying the authors is fallible and can be wrong somewhere while Quran cannot be. It is like adjusting everything according to a book and a prophet, and denying what cannot be adjusted properly. This is not the honest way to say that Islam is this and not that. Honest claim will require claiming considering all the verses at once and making a bigger and perfect picture of it.

A Muslim who is applying the thoroughly non-aggressive peaceful "Islamic takeover technique" or whatever you want to call it would argue that the aggressive verse in the Quran only apply to conflict against genuinely evil aggressors and they can pull out a number of verse to support this. An Islamic Jihadist on the other hand would argue that the peaceful method is superseded and replaced by the later revelations in the Quran and pull out verse to support that. So it depends how they're interpreting it but they're both examples of"Real Islam" as they seek the same ultimate goal a fully human race all of it or the vast majority of it ruling over a small minority of dhmis, non-Muslims are tolerated but have a second class status in the scheme of things.

So what is your idea of Real Islam considering, both evil and good or general, verses or part at once simultaneously, without splitting it into two?

They just interpret the verses to mean different things and apply them in different ways either is valid.

What is the once perfect interpretation you will give to Islam, as this is the Real Islam and not that? Only one interpretation because this is only persuasive.

If you take this passage of from the Quran here.


9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.

A peaceful Muslim would say this only applied to pagan idol worshipers of the time who practiced child sacrifice to the gods while a Jihadist would say an idol worshiper is anyone who does not worship the one true God but something else in Gods place so Christians would worship Jesus/the Trinity and atheists would worship man made philosophies. So you have the same passage interpreted in two different ways.

[Wilson]

What it comes down to is that most religious people assume that God is a god of peace, and that Islam is a religion that attempts to follow God's law. In other words, they assume that all religions are religions of peace, and that when believers descend into barbarism, they are misinterpreting the religion. Those of us who aren't religious see followers of many religions acting kindly and others acting cruelly and conclude that no Abrahamic religion is a religion of peace, and no Abrahamic religion is a religion of evil. Some of both, all depends on one's interpretation and one's mental state.