What Muhammd preached varied over time and is often contradictory. The literalists are just as selective as the Sufis or the moderates etc...
I think it is useless to try and prove there is a true Islam. In fact it worries me when people do that - they do that a lot on FFI - as it is often so they can justify their hatred or bigoted agenda. They end up endlessly trying to convince an ordinary Muslim that real Islam is not the Islam he believes in (and often accusing him of Taqiyya)
As far as I'm concerned there is no true/real Islam - only many versions of Islam.
After all it is human being themselves that define what they believe. If they believe Islam is such and such then for them that's Islam.
There seems something very wrong about trying to impose a nasty form of Islam on them just so you can say "Aha you see!"
Totally disagree - not sure if its what FFI do, nor whether its fair to bring their name here. There can only be one true version of Islam, and thats the version we all discounted. I could happily have believed in AbuYs version, and done what he does, but I knew I would only be cheating myself for the same reasons I gave in my previous post i.e.
consistency across all the islamic literatures as well as historical facts from external sources..
Indeed the literalist version of the quran is the correct one, there is no room for mental gymnastics - Allah is mubeen. And when he said hit, he means hit. If the prophet said kill them in Sahih hadith, I have no doubt the prophet would not have had a problem with sleying apostates like us.
If I am wrong, then my brain was faulty, and that would also be down to Allah.
And you have said as much before Hassan, that the literalist version is what you consider to be the true version.
We all know everyone has different versions, but thats not what I'm talking about here.