What is “Real Islam”?

Jon MC

Jon MC is a retired Chemist, Physicist and teacher (not necessarily in that order) who still has professional commitments. His interest in Islam was kindled when he met some "radical Muslims up close and personal" and he has studied the foundational texts of Islam ever since. He writes under a nomme de plume in order to keep his professional life and views separate.

11 Responses

  1. Face_The_Truth says:

    Faithful Muslims will migrate to non-believers’ lands and non-believers will consider faithful Muslims very moderate people!

    Non-believers will offer human rights and food-shelter-welfare rights to faithful Muslims.

    And, when opportune time arrives, faithful Muslims will rape and murder non-believers.

    “A Swedish non-believer woman in her 40’s was brutally raped by an Afghan Muslim teenager while another migrant Muslim man molested her, a court has heard.

    Anwar Hassani and Fardi Hesari, both 18, met the non-believer victim outside a hotel bar in Ljungby, southern Sweden, in the early hours of Boxing Day last year.

    The non-believer victim later told police she took an interest in the Muslim teenagers, having been told they were Muslim-migrants from Afghanistan.

    The non-believer victim explained that she had been a member of a FaceBook Group which campaigns against the deportation of Muslim-migrants from Sweden.

    The non-believer victim said, she had been struggling to sleep and suffered other mental health issues following the Islamic rape.”



  2. Michael says:

    I agree with the argument in this article. Islam has seemingly opposed modes of being which are both valid, depending on circumstances. These can best be described as the Meccan and Medinan models. This gives Islam a uniquely powerful system of adaptation to any circumstance. It can inveigle its way into unsuspecting societies as just another faith but when numbers (change of circumstance) permit, it can start to use violent tactics more and more. Even while the violence is ongoing, non-Muslims are disarmed by the confusion created by the prior Meccan mode of “coexistence”.

  3. Bikinis not Burkas says:

    The perfect man, NOT, defective DNA.
    Muhammad was WHITE!
    Muhammad was a dwarf and fat!

  4. Jon MC says:

    you make a good point about Islam being a “religion of denial”.
    You write, quoting answering Islam: “The imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam will try to “explain’ this all away by making the claim that the Bible had been corrupted by Christians ,through time, and that’s way the Bible reads as it does.”
    Do you know that the Koran itself actually refutes this argument?
    Several times in the Koran Mohammed is told to “Say” something about the “kitab” (book) of the Jews and/or Christians and the verses assert the truthfulness of the “book [the Bible] that is between my hands”.
    Thus bat this time the Bible, the Koran itself asserts is uncorrupted.
    It therefore follows that the argument of “The imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam” presupposes a world-wide joint and universal conspiracy by Jews and Christians to “pervert” the Bible.
    To any rational person such a pre-supposition is beyond absurd and utterly risible.

  5. Walter Sieruk says:

    As for the question “What is real Islam ?” The reality is of the many ways real Islam may be described, one of them is that a religion of denial. Meaning that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God. As in the Son of God Who is God the Father. Furthermore, Islam denies the Jesus is God the Son. In addition, Islam denies that Jesus is God. Before going over these three denials of Islam it first should the stated the Bible instructs the way to tell if a prophet or religious teacher is really from and of God or not is do the teachings and doctrines of that prophet of teacher really fit in accord what is found in the Bible ? For if that prophet or teachers and teachers doctrines that are in contradiction to the Bible then that prophet is a false prophet and that religious teacher is a false teacher and thus in doctrinal error and darkness. Likewise if a religion had teachings and doctrines that are in contradiction that is religion is in error also part of the world of darkness and is therefore a false religion. As the Bible instructs in Isaiah 8:20. “To the law of the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [K.J.V.] With this clearly stated, three things should be known.
    First, that Islam denial that Jesus is the Son of God is in great contradiction to the teaching of the Bible . Which reveals the Jesus is the Son of God? As seen in ,for example Matthew 3:16,17. 16:15,16. Luke 1:35. John 3:16-18, 36. First John 2:22,23. 4:14,15. 5:12,13. Second, that Islam denies that Jesus is God the Son is in strong contradiction to the Bible. As found in Hebrews 1:6-8. With emphasis on verse 8. Third, Islam’s denial that Jesus is God is in great contrast to the doctrine and teaching of the Bible. That Jesus is God may be found in ,for example, John 1:1;3. Colossians 1:15-17. 2:9. Romans 9:5 Second Peter 1:1. Titus 2:13. First John 5:20.
    Moreover, to further discover that the Bible teachings that Jesus is God all a person has to do is to compare the Old Testament with New Testament to see that Jesus is God. As in comparing Isaiah 45:22,23. with Philippians 2:5-11. Also by comparing Psalm 89:8,9. with Mathew 8:23-27. will reveal that Jesus is God. Likewise , by comparing Psalm 62:5-7 . with First Corinthians 10:4. shows the Deity of Jesus. Even by comparing the News Testament books together will show that Jesus is God. As in comparing Romans 14:12. with John 5:22. will show Jesus to be God. The list can go on but this should be enough, for all who are willing to see the truth , that Jesus is, indeed, the Son of God. That Jesus is God the Son and that Jesus is God.
    The imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam will try to “explain’ this all away by making the claim that the Bible had been corrupted by Christians ,through time, and that’s way the Bible reads as it does. This claim, very much, underestimate the Power of God to protect and preserve His Word ,through time , and to keep in intact and away from the corruption of men. In conclusion, in light and information of the Bible in can be seen that Islam is a awful and terrible doctrinal error concerning it teaching about the Nature of Jesus and therefore Islam is part of the world of darkness. So Islam with its strong contradictions to the Bible is a false religion, Proverbs 14:12. So all dear Muslims are thus invited to leave the false religion of Islam and come the and receive the Jesus of the Bible who is the only way to heaven ,John 14:6. and the True Light of the world. John 8:12.
    In addition to all this there is the Christian internet site which replies to the many different claims made by the apologists for Islam. It’s http://www.answering-islam.org

  6. Jon MC says:

    On statistics: I do recall humans being called “an ugly bag of mostly water” in one Star Trek episode which struck me as accurate if unflattering.
    On a more serious note: The summary I linked is not of my authorship, AFAIK it’s author is Bill Warner himself.
    I too have reservations about some of Bill Warner’s methodology, but where material on a subject is overwhelmingly in one direction – for example ~98% of Sahih ahadith on Jihad are about Sword-Jihad against Kaffirs – then that can be taken as the normative understanding.
    You neatly point out the problem with statistics, most of the Koran is Meccan (and thus more or less peaceful) and this is why Richard was entirely correct with his comment on taking a phenomenological (or historical) approach to Islam.
    Islam’s history, particularly its early history is particularly bloody – although I would add that its expansion into India in the 12th to 16th centuries was at least as bloody as Islam’s earlier “western” conquests.
    Thus this tells us that “full-on” Islam is violent and bloody and hence that ISIL is more “Islamic” than the “Religion of Peace” brigade.
    However my purpose in the article was to show that Islamic practice (if not today belief) is mutable and that this mutability is entirely “Islamic” in nature which is why I consider the question “which is the real Islam” invalid because to ask it is to misunderstand the very nature of Islam.
    As Richard says “Plenty of Muslims and even Imams have convinced themselves that there is a valid peaceful interpretation” and I would argue that they are not wrong (and for which we should perhaps be grateful). But I suspect that they mostly live in the West or other non-Muslim Countries!

    As an interesting note: if you track back the origins of the idea that “Jihad is all about the inner struggle” and the idea of “Islam, the religion of peace” (Writer Louis Palme has a good article on this latter) you will find that these first appear during the European Colonial era when, for the first time in its history, Islam was losing ground (literally) on all fronts: India, M.E., North Africa, Far East.
    Given that Islam generally thinks that conquest is the proof of its “godliness” (how not when sword-Jihad is the highest and most holy calling?) this was a huge shock to the psyche and led some to re-evaluate what had previously been the “Jihadist” attitude.
    With de-colonisation and Muslim “re-conquest” the orthodox views have and are coming to prevail once again – unsurprisingly.

    You write: “Another difficulty is, as some academic said, a fifth of the Koran just doesn’t make sense.” That academic was Martin Lings, a German convert to Islam. Or at least he said words to that effect. I suspect he is not the only one however. Margolieth said something, similar but without quantification.

    I hope you won’t mind if I borrow this: “After all, those “peaceful muslims” may not be responsible for violence – but violence is responsible for them. Without past violence they would be Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians etc.”
    I really liked that, its punchy and accurate.

  7. Walter Sieruk says:

    Real Islam may be seen in the behavior of the jihadist/Muslims who compose that jihad entity, ISIS. Those cruel ,vicious and murderous jihadists thugs who compose ISIS are so very brutal and deadly that they even want to murder people. Those malicious jihadists of that jihad entity, ISIS, are actually putting in to the practice ,with all their ruthless actions, the violence and killing that is part of the teaching of the “holy book” of Islam ,the Koran. Which contain the doctrine of extreme violent force for the advancement of Islam. As seen in the Koran, for example, 2:191,4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. So in spite of the strong denials by many, ISIS is an actual Islamic organization. Likewise the malicious, bloodthirsty violence jihadists who make up ISIS are real Muslims. Nevertheless, there are some who might , understandably, wonder and then ask “Just how can those jihadists of ISIS ,being so very religious , also at the time also be so very malice-filled ,unfeeling and deadly ? “ The answer to that question is found in the Bible. For the Bible teaches that there are some people who are extremely heartless, cold, callous and dangerous because they have had “their conscience seared with a hot iron.” First Timothy 4:2. [ K.J.V.] In this case of the members of ISIS this “hot iron” is Islam.

  8. Walter Sieruk says:

    Real Islam is what some people call “Radical Islamic Terrorism” , which is very much based on religion. The religion of Islam For Islam’s “holy book” the Qur ‘an [the Koran] instructs on the use of violence and killing for the advancement of Islam. As found in ,for example 2:191. 4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. Furthermore, it may be illustrated that if Islam is represented as a tree then the fruits then the fruits of that tree are the many brutal, violent and deadly jihad terror entities. Such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab , Hamas, Hezbollah, P.I.J. etc. With this statement, the Wisdom of the teachings of Jesus may, very much, apply to this subject. For Jesus taught “Ye do know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” After saying this Jesus told them what He told them when He said “By their fruit ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:16, 17, 18,.20. [K.J.V.] In conclusion, Islam is a corrupt tree and also a false religion, Proverbs 14:12. John 14:6. First John 2:22,23. 4:14,15. 5:12,13,20.

  9. Richard says:

    @Ecaw’s Blog
    You are quite right of course the problem with talking about the Koran is that it is largely unintelligible, contradictory and confusing. Plenty of Muslims and even Imams have convinced themselves that there is a valid peaceful interpretation – and you are not going to shake them out of that belief whatever you say.

    They have a lot more difficulty dealing with the activities of their co-religionists, both in the past and in the present. This is why I prefer to concentrate on the early history (up to about 750AD) and current trends in Muslim countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.

  10. ECAW's blog says:

    Jon – I quite agree that Islam is dualistic and that both the Meccan and Medinan stances are normative depending on circumstances. The Muslim Brotherhood exemplify this by switching seamlessly between the bombs and blood type jihad and the suits and lawfare type jihad depending on circumstances.

    Bill Warner has done a lot to publicise this as well as a great deal else about Islam. Nevertheless whenever I read his writings about Political Islam I feel uneasy about his assumptions and his methodology. You provided this summary:


    As examples:

    1. On page 1 there is this:

    “The assumption is that the more content that is devoted to a subject, the greater the importance of the subject is”.

    I don’t agree with this assumption. It reminds me of those breakdowns of the various chemicals constituting the human body. Should we conclude that the most important thing about humans is water?

    It is the same assumption made by those people who counted the violent passages in the Bible and the Koran and concluded that the Bible was the more violent (with the subtext that Christianity is worse than Islam). Apart from them not taking into account that the Bible is bigger and therefore proportionally there is more violence in the Koran, they didn’t take into account the meaning of the passages. The O/T commands to destroy particular tribes led to “one kill” operations whereas there is some doubt as to whether slaying the infidel means just those infidels camped on the other side of the valley to Mohammed or all infidels forever. Makes all the difference doesn’t it?

    Come to think of it, By Dr Warner’s own reckoning, since 64% of the Koran consists of Meccan text (ie peaceful and religious) and 36% Medinan (ie warlike and political), shouldn’t we conclude that the Koran is primarily peaceful and religious?

    2. Perhaps Dr Warner shows his full workings somewhere but I haven’t noticed links to them. He gives statistical breakdowns but I would like to see the actual texts divided up to see how he did it. Presumably the allocation of passages into various categories depended on his subjective judgment, which rather goes against the grain of the statistical objectivity he seeks.

    I am intrigued by this because I once tried to allocate different sections of the Koran under different headings (for a much smaller project) and found it quite tricky and very time consuming. As an example he finds the Koran to be 64% about the kaffir. I would be interested to know how much he found to be about believers (although perhaps I just missed it). I don’t think they are mutually exclusive since I’m sure there are passages which talk about both believers and kaffirs together. Another difficulty is, as some academic said, a fifth of the Koran just doesn’t make sense.

    I await correction.

  11. Richard says:

    Don’t try and untangle the inner workings of Islam. Take a phenomenological approach to it.
    Ask the question “How has Islam, historically, expanded?”. The answer to that question will tell you what the “True Islam” is. And the answer is pretty obvious. ISlam grew by violence – therefore the violent version is the true islam. After all, those “peaceful muslims” may not be responsible for violence – but violence is responsible for them. Without past violence they would be Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians etc.