What Is ISLAM?

[Common Soldier]

"What Is ISLAM?"

Well, if I were to answer to that question it would be something like....

A). Koran + hadiths = Islam

Or...

B). A bunch of lies...

Or...

C). All of the above... As in, the Koran (a bunch of lies) + hadiths (yet even more lies) = Islam (a pack of lies).


Personally, I would suggest that alternative C is the most accurate here. While alternative B is the easiest to remember and A is the most diplomatic answer of the bunch. Then again, one probably needs to be a "kafir" (unbeliever and/or infidel) to accept any of this - much in the same way one probably needs to be a believer in Islam first, in order to accept many (if not most) claims of the OP.

- A

Something is a lie only if a person knows.something is not true but it anyways. If you genuinely believe something that is not true, then that is not necessarily lying. It makes you wrong, but not necessarily a liar.

However, if you believe something no matter what the evidence says, that skirts the edge of lying in my opinion. In the case of Islam, Muslims believe in many things that simply not true. Many, most ordinary Muslims, out of ignorance believe these falsehoods, but many Muslim teachers know these things are false and say them anyways, which makes these Muslim teachers and appologist liars.

For example, the Koran says that Jews say Ezra is the Son of God, and the Christians say Jesus is the Son of God, Koran Sura 9:30 While the Christians do say Jesus is the Son of God, the Jews have never said Ezra is the Son of God. Because this is so clearly false, Muslims and appologist for Islam claim there was some obscure Jewish group that proclaimed Ezra was the Son of God, but this is lie, nonsuch group ever existed. The lie was invented to avoid having to admit the Koran, Allah's perfect and eternal word, was wrong. (And even if such an obscure group did exist, the Koran would still be wrong, since the Koran did not.say "some Jews" but only "Jews", meaning all Jews or large number, which is.simply not true)...While ordinary Muslims.may believe tbis to be true, Muslim scholars know it is not true.




?

[Prodromos]

I'm disappointed that the OP left out the best proof of Islam: the fact that a cat won't walk on the Quran.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

At the very least you can't argue that their religion has vastly changed since the days of the Abbasid caliphate.

Abbasids may not be the most perfect example, given their promotion of Muʿtazilitism as well as the fact the promotion of such views led to figures such as Abu Isa al-Warraq existing during Abbasid height.

[Common Soldier]

Except it doesn't mean "to beat" in that form. It's like the difference between "strike" and "strike out" where you have the same word but in a totally different meaning given the context and form. That word, in fact, is used countless times throughout Quran, but with different meanings based on context and form.

Despite your attempt claim the Arabic does nor mean to beat the wives, the fact is examples from early hadiths from respected Muslim sources do in fact show the Arabic really does show the verse to mean to strike (physically).

Hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawud reports (2146: English translation Book 11 hadith 2141) reports that Muhammad originally instructed Muslimz not to beat their wives but when husbands complained because their wives were becoming emboldened (upity) Muhammad changed his instructions to allow husbands to beat their wives. https://sunnah.com/abudawud/12


Sunan Abu Dawus reports (2147) that a man will not be asked why he beats his wife (thus meaning it ok to beat his wife) https://sunnah.com/abudawud/12page

AL-Bukhari (5825; Book 77, Hadith 42) relates how the wife of AbdurRahman complained to Alisha about his beating her until her skin turned color. When the wife complained.to Muhammad, Muhammad rebuked her and did nothing to stop the beatings https://sunnah.com/bukhari/77/42.


These Hadith show physical beatings of wives were accepted by Muhammad and Muslim, and "beating" in sura 4:34 really meant a physical beating.

[Infidel144]

Despite your attempt claim the Arabic does nor mean to beat <snip>

Does not even need to be that involved (w/ the hadith). Sumskilz posts and link show why.

[Common Soldier]

Just because people thought Earth was flat didn't make it to be. It's not how it works. Ideologies, especially ones that come with a book and a claim to be unchangeable, do not get defined by whatever their followers cook up. By your logic, if I can somehow get enough Muslims to believe that Trump is the Muslim god, then in Islam Trump is Allah. No. Logic doesn't work that way.

The meaning of a book and how it is interpreted is determined by its follower. Religions are human constructs, and a religion is whatever its followers decide it to be. That may be interpreting a book differently than what the original writer(s) originally intended. In the case of Islam, that can be a good thing, since modern Muslims are typically more peaceful than those of the original Muslims. The violent jihadist committing terrorist acts are often following the original meaning and interpretation of the Koran and Islam. For example, the Koran okay's the rape of captives and early hadiths from trusted Muslim sources make clear that is what the verses actually meant. Yet modern Muslim mostly reject those interpretation even though and might go against what is the plain meaning of the text.


Interpreting a book like the Koran is not like the determining whether the earth is flat or not. Unless we know for certain what the writer was thinking and are completely informed of the language and society in which the book was written, the exact meaning of the book will be up for debate, and for the Koran, we don't know any of those things for certain. Despite the common myth, we actually have very little real and reliable information of 7th century Mecca and Medina. Thr historical accounts we have are removed in time and place. The Muslim historical accounts date from more than a cemtury later than Muhammad and in a much different environment. Earlier evidence from non Muslim sources contradict what Muslims say, and archaeologicsl evidence paint a different picture from what Muslims history say. A good book to read on the subject of early Islamic history that attempts to use archarleological sources and not just rely on what a Muslims say is "Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State" Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren. .


Also, deapite the Koran's repeated claims that it is clear, it is actually not clear in many places, which is why the Muslims have relied so heavily on sources outside the Koran like the hadiths to interpret it. Given all that, whose to say your interpretstion is any more correct and proper than.the jihadist? Why should jihadist accept your more modern interpretations over earlier ones?

[Sir Adrian]

Islam is a religion of aggression, violence and forced assimilation. Anybody who disagrees is welcome to read the history of the Balkans starting with the 1300s

[Axalon]

Something is a lie only if a person knows.something is not true but it anyways. If you genuinely believe something that is not true, then that is not necessarily lying. It makes you wrong, but not necessarily a liar.

However, if you believe something no matter what the evidence says, that skirts the edge of lying in my opinion. In the case of Islam, Muslims believe in many things that simply not true. Many, most ordinary Muslims, out of ignorance believe these falsehoods, but many Muslim teachers know these things are false and say them anyways, which makes these Muslim teachers and appologist liars.

A lie is still a lie, despite us being aware of it (as such) or not. A lie does not become a lie the instant we do realize that it is untrue and/or it deceives us - it becomes a lie long before that point. It becomes a lie (and stays a lie) the instant it is created with the intention to deceive and mislead somehow - not later, once (when or if) we discover/identify it as such a thing.

Take the premise of "the Koran" for instance. The claimed (overtly) divine book of Islam. Islamic tradition tells us that the Koran is one, divine, eternal, perfect and fixed. So much so that even "God" has a copy of the Koran in the heavens (supposedly). As it stands, none of that can be true (somehow) as reality does not match any of that. As simple as that. After all, it is a well established fact that there are multiple versions of "the Koran" used and found in this world - both historically, and currently. That circumstance makes the entire (declared) premise of the Koran impossible and as a result it falls apart accordingly. Feel free to confirm that first hand - multiple korans. Its a fact folks.

Now, if God is as all-knowing and all-powerful, as Islamic tradition claims - this whole circumstance would be totally absurd. After all, it would be an utter idiot of a god to let any such thing happen in the first place. It would be well beyond ridiculous to spread different and multiple Korans among his/its believers and servants for no reason whatsoever. And that famous celestial Koran in God's care? It would then become utterly pointless, on top. Not to mention that all claims of the Koran as one, eternal, perfect and fixed would also be openly false, and so forth. In short, the entire premise falls apart because there are multiple Korans in the world. The declared impossibility is not only possible - but a reality.

It just does not add up... Thus the whole thing has too be a lie - as that is the only rational possibility left to us - given the framework Islamic tradition has provided us with. And once we recognize that - things do start to add up, and rather effortlessly at that. Once we do accept as much - it matters little if the believers/followers of all this junk are actually aware of that or not. To me its more important that the nature of it all seems to be inherently corrupt and dishonest in the first place. If true, that nature (and what it brings) will never truly (and honestly) change or disappear - its stuck there forever. Regardless what we do or say. I think that bit is more important at the end of the day.

Maybe its just me...

- A

[Common Soldier]

A lie is still a lie, despite us being aware of it (as such) or not. A lie does not become a lie the instant we do realize that it is untrue and/or it deceives us - it becomes a lie long before that point. It becomes a lie (and stays a lie) the instant it is created with the intention to deceive and mislead somehow - not later, once (when or if) we discover/identify it as such a thing.

I disagree - according to definiton, a lie requires the deliberate intent to deceive. So yes, something does become a lie when you learn it was not true, it was a falsehood before that. However, there is another element. In slander or libel, you don't have to deliberately know the statement is false to be gulty, if you recklessly disregard the truth or act negligently to ascertain whether something is true or not. In this case, Islam and Muslims are guilty of libel and slander. The Koran repeatedly makes false claims against Jews and Christians, such as Jews say Ezra is the Son of God, and Christians worship Mary as a god alongside Jesus and Allah, when any research would reveal that these things were not true., making the Koran guilty of libel.

Take the premise of "the Koran" for instance. The claimed (overtly) divine book of Islam. Islamic tradition tells us that the Koran is one, divine, eternal, perfect and fixed. So much so that even "God" has a copy of the Koran in the heavens (supposedly). As it stands, none of that can be true (somehow) as reality does not match any of that. As simple as that. After all, it is a well established fact that there are multiple versions of "the Koran" used and found in this world - both historically, and currently. That circumstance makes the entire (declared) premise of the Koran impossible and as a result it falls apart accordingly. Feel free to confirm that first hand - multiple korans. Its a fact folks.

Yes, Muhammad could easily be convicted of slander for the things the Koran said, and Muslims guilty of libel and slander, since they recklessly disregard the truth and negligently ascertained whether they said was true.

Now, if God is as all-knowing and all-powerful, as Islamic tradition claims - this whole circumstance would be totally absurd. After all, it would be an utter idiot of a god to let any such thing happen in the first place. It would be well beyond ridiculous to spread different and multiple Korans among his/its believers and servants for no reason whatsoever. And that famous celestial Koran in God's care? It would then become utterly pointless, on top. Not to mention that all claims of the Koran as one, eternal, perfect and fixed would also be openly false, and so forth. In short, the entire premise falls apart because there are multiple Korans in the world. The declared impossibility is not only possible - but a reality.

Not only is the Koran, Muhammad and Muslims guilty of libel and slander against Jews and Christians, Islam also libels and slanders Allah as well, by claiming such a disorganized book with a number of false statements came from Allah. To say the all-knowing Allah.did not know know Jews did not know Jews did not in fact say Ezra is the Son of God (sura 9:30) is to libel Allah. And to assert that Allah would deliberately deceive not only Jews.but his own followers and the entire world that Jesus died on the cross (sura 4:157), and did not around to.correcting his deception until 600 years later is a further.label on his character. ..

It just does not add up... Thus the whole thing has too be a lie - as that is the only rational possibility left to us - given the framework Islamic tradition has provided us with. And once we recognize that - things do start to add up, and rather effortlessly at that. Once we do accept as much - it matters little if the believers/followers of all this junk are actually aware of that or not. To me its more important that the nature of it all seems to be inherently corrupt and dishonest in the first place. If true, that nature (and what it brings) will never truly (and honestly) change or disappear - its stuck there forever. Regardless what we do or say. I think that bit is more important at the end of the day. Maybe its just me... - A

Well, all of Islam is based on just what one person, Muhammad, said, nobody else witnessed these revelations. And initially, Muhammad thought he was possed until his wife, who did not witness these revelations, convinced him otherwise. Since everything in Islam comes down to Muhammad, what is Muhammad's character that we should trust what he say?

1. Muhammad had 2 singing girls of Mecca, Fartana and Sara, murdered for criticizing him. (Ibn Kathir v.3 p. 403). Fartana was killed when tyr Muslims captured Mecca, but Sara ran away ans was later trampled ro death under a horse (Ibn Ishaq 819).

2. Muhammard had all the men of a Jewish village murdered and the women and children enslaves, and thei property taken. There is no evidence the people of the village were actively opposing Muhammad , Muhammad did this because he was directed to. https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...-52/Hadith-68/

3. Had men tortured and killed. While the men were.rohbers and killers, Muhammad didn't just execute.them but tortured them first. https://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/US...4/Hadith-234/e Sahih Bukhari Haeith 233.

4. Had Kinana al-Rabi tortured and killed to find hidden wealth ("Life of the Prophet" translation by A. Guillaume of Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad, page 515)

5. Muhammad repeated received convenient revelations that applied only to him and were for his benefit. While Muslim men are allowed 4 wives, surah 33:50 makes an exception just for Muhammad in having more. And when Muhammad wanted to marry his adopted son's wife (after she was divorced from his adopted son), surah 33:37. The rational in the surah is nonsense, since it said it was to show that it was ok for men ronmarry the wives of their adopted sons, but Islam abolished adoption, so the surah only applies to Muhammad. And while in sura 4:3 tells men to treat their wives equally, sura 33:51 again gives an excrption to Muhammad.

If Muhammard had been alive today, he would have been charged with war crimes. The character of Muhammad is not one to trust a revelation from. And the number of very convenientn revelations that make exception for just Muhammad or only apply to him for a book that is supposed to be the eternal word of Allah makes it suspicious that revelations really are from God/Allah.

[Infidel144]

Then of course there is this bit of ignorant or deceitful nonsense Abdulmecid supplied in post #24:

Osama bin Laden had been crystal clear on his motivations for the attack: Zionism, US military presence in Saudi Arabia and human rights abuses in Kashmir, Lebanon, Iraq, Chechnya and elsewhere. His reasoning was purely geopolitical and not religious.

My bolding.
Some quotes from UBL's 'letter to America':

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
(a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

Hmm... "Kashmir, Lebanon, Iraq, Chechnya and elsewhere", check, check, check, check, and check.
What is the commonality of these places that is "purely geopolitical and not religious"?
Hmmmm... wait, Muslims of Iraq, Muslims in Southern Phillippines.
Could it be? Why yes, I nearly think there are Muslims in Kashmir, Lebanon and Chechnya as well.
And UBL is a Muslim too.
I nearly wonder, could UBL be concerned about the oppression of his co-religioni... er... I mean co-geopoliticalists?
[Quran 8:39, Yusuf Ali translation] And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


Note that UBL does go beyond just the 'muslim world' in his 'letter to America' in Q2, 2, d: "However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape."

[Common Soldier]

Then of course there is this bit of ignorant or deceitful nonsense Abdulmecid supplied in post #24:

My bolding.
Some quotes from UBL's 'letter to America':

Hmm... "Kashmir, Lebanon, Iraq, Chechnya and elsewhere", check, check, check, check, and check.
What is the commonality of these places that is "purely geopolitical and not religious"?
Hmmmm... wait, Muslims of Iraq, Muslims in Southern Phillippines.
Could it be? Why yes, I nearly think there are Muslims in Kashmir, Lebanon and Chechnya as well.
And UBL is a Muslim too.
I nearly wonder, could UBL be concerned about the oppression of his co-religioni... er... I mean co-geopoliticalists?
[Quran 8:39, Yusuf Ali translation] And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.


Note that UBL does go beyond just the 'muslim world' in his 'letter to America' in Q2, 2, d: "However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape."

UBL's letter is typically full of half truths, distortions and outright lie fundamenralist Muslims often tell. The 1.5 million Iraqi supposedly died of fhe boycott is just a lie. Alao, the boycott would have been meaningless without the support of.other countried, including Islamic countries. Iraq had land borders with countries the US did not control, like Syria and Iran. If 1.5 million Iraq citizens died, Iran must be as responsible.for.thr deaths. The US is not the only source of food and medicine in the world. And US attacks on Afghanistan were in response to Afghanistan being used a a base for conducting terrorist attacks The US invaded Iraq in response ro Iraq invading its Muslim neighbor, and thr US was supported by Mulsim.counties in its actions. And Muslims like UBL ignore the actions the US took in defense of Muslims in Kosovo..

Truth is the Muslims like UBL will seek any excuse to justify their killing, and their letters are just PR. UBL had killed as many Muslims.in his terrorist attacks as non Muslims, and UBL never.expressed any concern when Muslims were killed by fellow Muslims. The insurgent attacks in Iraq supportrd by Islamic states like Iran killed far more civilians than the US, and Muslim civilians were the target of these attacks. It was Muslim jihadist who attacked mosques. As the actions of ISIS show, the Muslim terrorist attacks religiously based not political. The caliphate ISIS tried to establish is a religious institution and the driving motivation was religious. As Muslim attacks in places like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the beheading of non Muslim women in Morocco, in Indonesia show these attacks are religiously motivated, not politicslly.

Repeating letters like bin Laden# is empowering and supportng terrorist like.him. i doubt you would have repeated rhr manifesto from a gunman attacking a mosque like you are doing with UBl's. We wouldn't give any credence to a manifesto of a man attacking a mosquw saying it was act defending the world against.islamic violence by killing potential Muslim jihadist, so the UBL letternshould be given the same treatment.

[Infidel144]

UBL's letter is typically full of half truths, distortions and outright lie fundamenralist Muslims often tell. The 1.5 million Iraqi supposedly died of fhe boycott is just a lie. Alao, the boycott would have been meaningless without the support of.other countried, including Islamic countries. Iraq had land borders with countries the US did not control, like Syria and Iran. If 1.5 million Iraq citizens died, Iran must be as responsible.for.thr deaths. The US is not the only source of food and medicine in the world. And US attacks on Afghanistan were in response to Afghanistan being used a a base for conducting terrorist attacks The US invaded Iraq in response ro Iraq invading its Muslim neighbor, and thr US was supported by Mulsim.counties in its actions. And Muslims like UBL ignore the actions the US took in defense of Muslims in Kosovo..

Truth is the Muslims like UBL will seek any excuse to justify their killing, and their letters are just PR. UBL had killed as many Muslims.in his terrorist attacks as non Muslims, and UBL never.expressed any concern when Muslims were killed by fellow Muslims. The insurgent attacks in Iraq supportrd by Islamic states like Iran killed far more civilians than the US, and Muslim civilians were the target of these attacks. It was Muslim jihadist who attacked mosques. As the actions of ISIS show, the Muslim terrorist attacks religiously based not political. The caliphate ISIS tried to establish is a religious institution and the driving motivation was religious. As Muslim attacks in places like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the beheading of non Muslim women in Morocco, in Indonesia show these attacks are religiously motivated, not politicslly.

Repeating letters like bin Laden# is empowering and supportng terrorist like.him. i doubt you would have repeated rhr manifesto from a gunman attacking a mosque like you are doing with UBl's. We wouldn't give any credence to a manifesto of a man attacking a mosquw saying it was act defending the world against.islamic violence by killing potential Muslim jihadist, so the UBL letternshould be given the same treatment.

Uh.... Do you even comprehend what you are responding to?

Nothing you have written here has anything to do with the point I made.

[Gromovnik]

It's hilarious how OP had to mention "teh Joos" in the very first paragraph.

[Axalon]

I disagree - according to definiton, a lie requires the deliberate intent to deceive. So yes, something does become a lie when you learn it was not true, it was a falsehood before that.

Well, two of the most established dictionaries around define and explain "falsehood" as...

"The state of being untrue. A lie." (Oxford dictionary)

"an untrue statement : lie" (Merriam-Webster dictionary).


Which suggests to me that my use of the word "lie" seems rather accurate in the first place - as that is exactly what I had in mind here. An inherently untrue, false statement or assertion presented to the world as something else - either unknowingly or deliberately. It makes no difference to me - the statement, claim or notion as such was still false anyways. A lie, in short.

Anyhow, I think it is fair to say that Islam have a very problematic relation with honesty, truth and credibility on general terms. The Koran itself serves as an obvious example... Take the many problems and inconsistencies - already outlined to some degree in my previous post - just surrounding the Koran. That stuff is so devastating that it alone more or less wrecks the credibility of the entire movement as a whole. And, once we start to look inside the Koran (regardless of version) the case for Islam just continues to deteriorate. For me, it has the reverse effect clearly intended with it. Instead of making the case for Islam any stronger, my disbelief and dislike just grows about the whole thing. I get the repeated impression of opportunism, dishonesty and paltry excuses and after-constructs all over the place. Its clearly not an expression or communication of an all-knowing and all-powerful deity - it just too confused, disorganized, hysterical and paltry for that.

However, there is another element. In slander or libel, you don't have to deliberately know the statement is false to be gulty, if you recklessly disregard the truth or act negligently to ascertain whether something is true or not. In this case, Islam and Muslims are guilty of libel and slander.

I guess, this is the part I disagree with you... The believers in Islam can hardly be accused for slandering their OWN material - its premises, assertions and claims etc. They may very well screw them up, distort them and do other disservices to it - but - they are hardly slandering them deliberately. If anything, its the other way around - they go to ridiculous lengths to "protect" all and everything in the Islamic mythos/tradition. Incessantly trying to put it in the most favorably light possible, regardless of context. Even when it is clearly not warranted or dishonest to do so.

The Koran repeatedly makes false claims against Jews and Christians...

While this is true and unfortunate in more ways then one, its hardly surprising. To be honest, most things in the Koran do strike me as false and ridiculous to begin with - so its hardly anything restricted to just Jews and Christians. Besides, Jews and Christians will always be enemies to Islam as long as they will not conform and submit to Islamic supremacy. All the talk of "peoples of the Book" is just a smokescreen, to pacify opposition I would imagine. Ultimately they can expect the same treatment and terms as everyone else who stands in the way of Islamic world domination - cultural annihilation and hellfire/death (whichever comes first).

In short, the Koran strike me as a propaganda piece that serves to provide supposed legitimacy to the homemade cult of Mohammed. Jews and Christians and basically everyone else are enemies of Islam at the end of the day, as simple as that. Either you submit (and subscribe) to Islam or you don't. If you don't, you are ultimately a threat and enemy of Islam. If you call yourself a Christian, Jew, Hindu, pagan, agnostic, secular atheist or something else makes no difference.

- A

[Infidel144]

(Uniqueness and unity of God is distorted in Christian religion)

[and]
It is stated in the Old Testament (the distorted Torah)

How are the Torah and Christian religion distorted?
Where is that asserted?

[Common Soldier]

How are the Torah and Christian religion distorted?
Where is that asserted?

The Koran ane Muslims assert that the Torah, Psalms and Gospels were revelations from Allah (Surah 4:53, 4:163, and 5:46 are just some of thr Koranic verses saying this), yet the.Torah and rhr Gospels flatly contradict what the Koran says in a nu.ber of very major points. The only way to reconcile this discrepency wirhout having to admit thr Koran is error and wrong is to claim the Bible has been corrupted. Unfortunately for Muslims, we have nunerous examples of the Old Testsment and the Gospels and they all still contradict thr Koran in those fundamental areas - no version supports the Koran.


Muslims take the Koran verse 2:79 as an example that the Koran says the Bible has been corrupted, although the words of the verse don't specifically say that the Torah or the Gospels were corrupted, merely that people produce writing they said was from Allah but was not, something a litte different. Verse 2:79 could merely refer to any writing, tract or lettet that someone claimed was from God, but was not necessarily the Bible. Thd Koran tells Christians to judge according to the Gospel (Surah 4:46-7). If the Gospel had been corrupted, the Koran would have told people of that fact, and warned Jews and Christians to judge only by the uncorrupted versions, but no such warnings were given in the Koran, implying the Koran did not think the Bible was corrupted.

In fact the Koran says none can alter the words of Allah (6:34, 6:115, 10:64) and the Koran says that Torah and Gospela are the words of Allah. Note 6:34, 6:115, 10:64 don't say none can alter just the Koran, but that none can change Allah's words which would include the Torah and Gospels as well.as the Koran.

[Mayer]

Or maybe the Quran simply refers to the Torah, Psalms and Gospels for legitimacy's sake.

Unlike religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism, which accept oppression, Islam does not accept oppression

No easier way to advertise you faith than badmouth all the others, but a poor choice of words. Islamic societies having no oppression is a demonstrable falsehood and will not be believed by anyone who lives in the West and sees human right standards in the Middle East as appalling.

I mean if we;re being honest Diamat, Christianity went through reforms, and its been watered down to the point where its basically just Jesus(modern day capitalist jesus that is), Kumbayah, and give to charity.

Agree, Christianity has been devalued and lost importance in the West. I tried to watch the protestant mass during Easter on TV, but it was pure cringe, just some stupid woman who wailed that she can't touch anyone due to Coronavirus. I switched to the catholic channel, at least they take it a bit more serious with tradition and their churches are beautiful. Which is a shame because protestantism was originally more radical and pure, Martin Luther would be viewed as a fundamentalist today. If you are truely looking for guidance, then modern-day Christianity with its overtly liberal tone offers none and the total submission of Islam offers all.

[Common Soldier]

Or maybe the Quran simply refers to the Torah, Psalms and Gospels for legitimacy's sake.

Possible, but it does put Muslims in somewhat of a bind if they are going to be rational and honest, since what the Torah and Gospels say at times undermines what the Koran says. You have to claim a hypothetical corruption that has no evidence of ever existing. While there have been some relatively minor variations among copies ofnthe copies of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels, out of thr thousands of ancient copies we have that precede Islam, none support the Koran in the areas where our current Bible differs from the Koran. We have thousands of ancient copies of thr Bible, and even heretical text that never made it into the Bible, yet based on what Muslim say not a single uncorrupted xopy was ever preserved.

The most likely real scenario is that Muhammad didn't have a direct copy of the Bible, and and assumed what it assumed based on garbled and misunderstood oral stories derived from the Bible. According to Muslims, Muhammad could not read, but he could have overheard Christians and Jews talking about stories from the Bible and popular folk legends inspired by the Bible.

No easier way to advertise you faith than badmouth all the others, but a poor choice of words. Islamic societies having no oppression is a demonstrable falsehood and will not be believed by anyone who lives in the West and sees human right standards in the Middle East as appalling.

I think what it was meant here is while Christianity and Buddhism teach passive acceptance of wrongs done to you, to turn the other cheek, Islam teaxhes you to fight back when others wrong you, to stand up for yourself. Islam does not expect you to allow others to walk all over you and take advantage of you. Muslims rgard that as a good thing. Islam says don't mess with us or get in our way, cause Muslims fight back. "Oppression" to Muslim is preventing them from doing what they percieve as what Allah commands, which could include killing apostates.

However, the problem with humans in general is not that they aren't willing to stand up for themselves as much as they are not willing to tuen the other cheek and let grudges.

[Mayer]

Christian teaching is the moral one,to forgive your enemy means to stop revenge and conflict spirals.

Islam.says don't mess with us or get in our way, cause Muslims fight back. "Oppression" to Muslim is precsnting them from doing what they percieve as what Allah commands, which could include killing apostates.

Fighting back against injustice or tyranny is understandable to an extent, but Islam takes it to an extreme by condoning all violence. To be fair, devout christians would also protest if their religious freedom is infringed, although christian worship doesn't include killing apostates, not anymore at least.

[Common Soldier]

We kind of deviated from what is Islam, so I thought a brief summary going back to the topic is in order.

Essentially Islam is a monotheistic religion (belief that only one god exist) that has Muhammad as its ultimate prophet, the last of the law giving prophets. It shares some common stories and myths with both Judaism and Christianity, including some of the prophets and figures that can be found in Judaism and Christianity, but with its own unique scripture, the Koran, while at times has stories similar to those in the Bible, it also its own stories not found in the Bible, and at times says things that conflict with what the Bible says.

Some key elements of Islam:

1. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last major prophet and there will be no more major revelations after him. Most Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet and there will be no more propheta after Muhammad. (Although some very minor sects of Islams believe there could be prophets after Muhammad, many Muslims view these sects as heretical and not true Muslims.). Muhammad lived in 7th century CE Arabia.

2. The Koran is the sacred book of Muslims, and is believed to record the words of Muhammad that repeated the words of God that the angel Gabriel gave Muhammad. Muslins believe the Koran to record the very words of God, and many Muslims believe the Koran is eternal, alwaya existing and perfect.

- The Koran is sometimes contradictory seeming in what it says. Most Muslims reconcile these contradictory seeming verses with the claims that Koranic verses given earlier in time can be replaced by later verses, so the earlier verses no longer apply.

- The Koran is not organized either chronologically when verses were given nor by topic, but by length of the chapters (called surahs). A surah early of a revelation early in Muhammad's carreer could be next to a surah that came late in Muhammad's career.

- The Koran contains almost no specific details of Muhammad's life. There are many passages in the Koran that are interpreted as talking about specific events in the Koran, but these interpretstions depend on sources outside of thr Koran like the Hadith.

- The Koran is about the same length as the Testament. Mhammad was given by the angel Gabriel different revelations at different tiimes and places.

- The Koran (also spelled Qur'an) was created after Muhammad's death from the recordings of the revelation Muhammar died that had been made on a variety of materials such as bone, tree branches, stones, and learher or what other material was lying around at the Muhammad made the particular revelation.

3. The Koran, as said, doesn't have a lot of actual biographical details on Muhammad's life and carrer, and the Koran is often unclear,, since it often seems ro assume listeners would know the story. As a result, Muslims rely on the Hadiths, which are sayings that record the actions and sayings of Muhammad, to provide clarification to verses in the Koran, providing more details than found in Koran itself to provide better understanding. Many major Muslim practices, such requiring Muslim men to be circumcised come from the Hadiths and Sunnas ( religious practices established by Muhammad) not from the Koran itself.

- While not regarded as sacred like the Koran , the good Hadiths are regarded by most Muslims as having an authority only second to the Koran itself. As pointed out, many icon Muslim behavours practiced universally by Muslims like not eating pork, some from the Hadiths rather than the Koran itseld.

- There are hundreds of thousands of hadiths, however the vast majority of the hadiths were regarded as inauthentic, . One of the most respected of the collectors of the hadiths, Al-Bukhari, said of 600,000 hadiths he examined, only some 7, 275 did he regard as authentic. Other collectors of the hadith found similar low percentage of of authentic hadirhs.

- The each hadith is usually short, mostly just a few paragraphs to at most a page in length, and mostly concerning just one set of verses in the Koran.

- While most Muslims regard the hadiths as authoritive, there is a small minority of Muslims that rejct the hadiths and acknowledge only Koran.

- There were biographies written about Muhammad starting more than a hundred years after his death. The oldest was from Ibn Ishaq, but we no longer have his original biography ans only havw an edited copy from Ibn Hisham from about 150 years after Muhammad . Hisham admitted be editted out things from Ibn Ishaq's biography, things that were too shamefull to discuss or would cause distress to people. Most of the information about Muhammad's life come from these biographies (Siras) if not from the hadiths.

4. The 5 pillars of Islam are the foundation for Muslims and is whar is practiced by all Muslims

- The declaration there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet, called th r Shahada. - 5 daily prayers, called the Salat.

- Giving of charity to support the Muslim community, called Zakat.

- Fasting during the time of Ramadan, calld Sawn.

- And going on a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during your life if you are able, called rhe Hajj.

6. Islam is split into 2 main branches, Sunni ans Shia. Sunnis account for 85% of Muslims, Shia around 10% and the rest a variety of Muslim sects, many which are regarded as heretics by other Muslims.

- while the splitting point between Shias ans Sunnis was over the question of who should have suceeded Muhammad (Shia believed the rule of the Muslim community should have remained with the prophets family), there other differences as well. Shia's have Imams who are somewhat similar to Catholic saints and are venerated by Shia, while Sunni's reject that idea.

- All Muslim groups accept the same Koran. While Shia accept some of the hadiths accepted by Sunni, they reject hadiths that come from the companions of Mohammed. Shia have their own writings not accepted by Sunnis, but these writings are not considered as sacred like the Koran is, more like the authentic hadiths.

When you have 1.6 billion followers, few things will be true for all Muslims, there will be a lot of differences between Muslims.