No, it couldn't be for the simple reason that it isn't. Your ignorance and the presence of disagreement does not invalidate reality even you falsely assert that it does. Honestly, your comment is as ignorant as me pulling out all of my back issues of astronomy and asserting that there is no actual astronomical truth because astronomers disagree with each other in them about issues related to astronomy. How foolish.
Until you come to an understanding of the truth, you will continue to blunder that badly to the detriment of yourself and others.
Here's one suggested point to begin:
CHAPTER SEVEN "TRUTH - THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL PRECONDITION
Your denial of absolute truth is self-defeating. A property of truth is that it's narrow. In simple arithmetic; 2 + 3 is not 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or any number other than 5. Truth can be understood both from what it is and from what it is not.
Truth may be tested in many ways, but it should be understood in only one way, namely, as correspondence. There may be many different ways to defend different truth claims, but there is only one proper way to define truth.
Likewise, there is a difference between what truth is and what truth does. Truth is correspondence, but truth has certain consequences. Truth itself should not be confused with its results or with its application. The failure to make this distinction leads to wrong views of the nature of truth.
Truth is that which corresponds to its referent, i.e., to the state of affairs it purports to describe. Falsehood is what does not correspond.
Truth is objective, even though symbols are culturally relative, for meaning transcends our symbols and linguistic means of expressing it. Meaning is objective and absolute, not because a given linguistic expression of it is, but because there is an absolute God who communicated to finite minds through a common but analogous means that utilizes transcendent principles of logic common to both God and humans.
The objectivity of truth that Christianity embraces is based on the premise that meaning is objective. This objectivity in meaning is rejected by much of contemporary linguistics; the prevailing conventionalist theory of meaning is a form of semantical relativism. However, in addition to being an overreaction to platonic essentialism, conventionalism is self-defeating, for the very theory of conventionalism that "all meaning is relative" is itself a nonrelative statement.
"All meaning is relative" is a meaningful statement intended to apply to all meaningful statements; it is a nonconventional statement claiming that all statements are conventional. As such, it self-destructs, for in the very process of expressing itself it implies a theory of meaning that is contrary to the one it claims is true of all meaningful statements.
The usages of symbols and words do change, but the meaning properly expressed by them does not.
Islam is a false religious system concocted in a cave by a disgruntled person. So is Mormonism. No version of Islam or Mormonism is a true representation of the objective reality we exist in and interact with and that is verifiable by corresponding their respective false religious assertions with objective reality/objective truth. True religion is simply put, religion that is true. That
is the answer.
I’ve hauled out my National Geographic Atlas of the World (7th Edition, p. 13) and it shows the United States divided into Protestant, Catholic, and Other Christian, but nothing is marked True Christian, unless the map doesn’t have the resolution to show your location.
Could it be that ‘religious truth’ exists only in the eyes of the believer? Let me ask you which is the true version of Islam: Sunni, Shia, Sufism, Ahmadiyya, Ibadi, Quranism, Mahdavia, or the version of Sunni extremism that is rocketing across the Middle East right now? If true religion is defined by those who are rigid enough in their beliefs to think they alone are righteous in God’s eyes and everyone else is going straight to hell, then I think we have our answer.