It is zealous, doesn’t mean it is pious

It is hard to find a suitable spot to begin writing about what's all wrong with Islam and why it needs a thorough fast and meticious reformation.
It is also difficult to spot a good goal for what Islam should or could become. It is a religion, and it will be a religion, but it is also a spirituality, individual pattern of faith, not only organised social belief (religion).

Islam today is as diverse as it wasn't imagined it would be. A relatively famous narration by Muhammad is that Islam will diverse into seventy different paths, and only one path will be right.

The only path, or one of few, that denounces other “69” paths is the Wahhabism. All other “69” (there are of course much more than just 70, but “seventy” used to mean “a lot” back in the day in Arabia) acknowledge that it means, there are many choices, but only the path of pious is the good one”. The Wahhabi sect is the leading among few that completely rejects any other form of religion, and by that, it rejects any individual approach to a faith, or to the faith.

it is zealous, doesn’t mean it is pious

So because of that, sociologically and historically we can safely say that the Wahhabism and any other exclusivist sect is certainly not that “good” path. However, in the anti-Islamic propaganda, they are the representatives of Islam, but what’s worse (for the Muslims) the anti-Islamic propaganda uses that way of interpretation to even put all other “moderate” as they call them, Muslims under the hat of “Muslims must hate non-Muslims” religion. So you’ll see comments like “moderate Muslims don’t condemn the radical Muslims”, and “moderate Muslims wish that the radicals kill all other people”

This is false. Because, the “moderate” Muslims might be backward, and illiterate, savage, evil, but they’re not sharing the Wahhabistic approach to the religion. They don’t by indoctrination believe that non-Muslims should be hurt in any way. Apostasy penalty is not common to all the world’s Muslims. It is a Wahhabi thing, and since the spreading of their literature, a lot of moderate Muslims do consider it religious. But just because it is zealous, doesn’t mean it is pious. And that’s what’s wrong with taking Islam in consideration. The Wahhabis are keen to propagate their ideology, not what is historically possible that Muhammad did or said.

The sources that the Wahhabis trust blindly in, the Hadith, which they elevate to the heights of Qur’an’s holiness, is full of stories that are clearly made up. Let’s consider a historian who would take such narrative. We can put Muhammad in a certain context of seventh century Arabia, but there’s certainly no place for flying on a winged horse. Now, if you take your history from such a book, it would be like considering the Greek mythology to be true. And I’m not speaking about believing in a supernatural being, an omniscient, omnipotent creator, but the false stories about the life of a real human, Muhammad. Has he flown on a winged horse, before or after the execution of 700 Jewish soldiers, the execution which is mentioned by no other historic reference?

Did Muhammad ride a winged horse before or after the execution of 700 Jewish soldiers, the execution which is mentioned by no other historic reference?

It is a really sad fact that the Muslims of today believe either of the two stories, the non-traceable massacre of a Jewish tribe, or a made up story about flying on a winged horse. Either is stupid, and from the same sourcebook.

Another thing is that the hadiths can be taken as a source for some historical context, into which we can put the Qur’an’s stories. But the Wahhabis blindly take both books as source for their “spirituality”, and that’s what creates a problem, in addition to the fact that the “moderate” Muslims mistake that zeal with piousness.

Even the Qur’an needs a context, because, if we discuss the verse in which God speaks to humans and says: “Remember when I told the angels: “I have stroke fear into the hearts of unbelievers, now you go and hit their necks” – this was told to angels to hit somebody’s neck. But furthermore, it is about a battlefield in which a way to hurt a soldier was to hit his neck.

The Wahhabis take this as if any “enemy” is filled with fear, and should be taken down. Related to this story from the Qur’an, the hadiths that “confirm” the truth behind the God’s words, tell how some people actually saw the enemies’ soldiers’ heads flying around, without any human soldier being near them. With this, the early Muslims allegedly confirmed that there indeed were angels in the battlefield, and that they indeed did strike necks of the enemies.

Why nobody isn’t discussing this fallacy of the Qur’an-or the hadith?

Maybe the Qur’an just said “I – God – have cast fear into their hearts, now you can fight them with more moral”. But no, the proud Muslims must terrorise people around them.

This is one of the reasons the modern Muslims need to revive their faith.