zazen

If Tate doesn’t become UK prime minister this may be his next grift. After all, he’s already got experience keyboard fronting as a cam girl scamming desperate men - the same men he proclaims to champion for. The last pic is inspo for the “operation money” angle

Les hope for the best! But what does this actually say about the Biden admin - why is a ceasefire coming now that Trump is coming in? Is it just coincidental timing or illustrative of weak leadership or will on Biden and co’s part.. Did Israel even achieve their proposed objective of degrading Hamas..according to Blinken Hamas are still active and replenished with new resistance fighters - because Israel’s actions call for nothing else but resistance. Ukraine, Israel - even US’s actions towards China is backfiring with their TikTok ban. Western hegemony is on the ropes and groggy, and their image utterly tarnished.

Elon must be fuming Arnaud: ”The TikTok thing is a good old shakedown (literally "agree to sell yourself to us or we ban you") because the US cannot bear the existence of a major tech company out there that they don't own, and because US tech companies lobby their government to kill a competitor they're losing lots of users to. Think of the precedent this would set: all the Chinese companies that become successful and internationalize would be forced into a fire sale to the US... Obviously unacceptable. Think also of the message this would send to other nations and companies. It essentially declares that success in the US market comes with a mandatory exit clause - either sell to American interests or be legislated out of existence. TikTok isn't just defending itself or Chinese interests here but broader principles which ironically used to be championed by the US themselves less than a decade ago: the notion that companies should be able to compete fairly in international markets without facing politically-motivated forced sales, that success shouldn't be punished simply because it comes from a foreign company, and that the rules of commerce shouldn't be rewritten whenever they become inconvenient for some country's interests. The sheer amount of gaslighting and propaganda on this topic is absolutely insane but at heart this is a fight for whether non-US companies are allowed to exist at the top of the global tech hierarchy. The US has shown its hand - its answer is an unequivocal no, 'free market principles' evaporate when they stop serving American interests. Anyone who actually care about fair competition, digital sovereignty, and preventing a new era of digital colonialism where the US annexes successful foreign tech companies should stand firmly behind TikTok in this fight.”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/01/14/tech/rednote-china-popularity-us-tiktok-ban-intl-hnk World peace perhaps lol “The Tao never acts, yet nothing is left undone. If rulers could hold to this principle, all things would transform themselves.” - Lao Tzu

There’s no doubt the West is developed (though now declining) and has a lot going for it. But if we simply look at things rather than through them - we miss a whole lot. Many people know how this development has historically been achieved and how it's maintained today. The list of countries above is an indictment rather than an indication of “look how great we are”. 1. The abundance of small nations skews these rankings, plenty of which are in Europe, creating a false impression that Western style governance reigns supreme. Small, socially cohesive populations are far easier to govern than larger, more divided ones. That stability enables the chance for development. And stability is something many nations missing from these lists lack - something the West has been a culprit in undermining. But stability must also be seized by the people which is something Western nations have been great at. Size, stability, and seizing those conditions has good outcomes. That's a big part of why non-Western nations like Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, and Singapore make the list. ''And those non western countries have a very similiar political alignment to us anyway. '' - Singapore didn't rise due to the typical Western style democracy, but by the firm hand of Lee Kuan Yew who governed for over 30 years and was very restrictive on certain freedoms, for the greater freedom of development for his own people - he restricted political opposition, tightly controlled the media, and suppressed dissent. Speaking of smaller nations, the fact that UAE or Oman aren’t even on the list tells me that these rankings prioritize Western ideological metrics like being a liberal democracy, ignoring the fact it's possible to achieve a high quality of life without conforming to that system. Instead we get Brazil, with some of the highest in-equality and crime on the list. The only country in the Middle East on the list is Israel - who's quality of life has been enabled by literally disqualifying natives to their own sovereignty. They have been un-aliving and de-developing the region through their battering ram uncle Sam (US) - then have the audacity to claim to be the only developed democracy in the neighborhood. On Piers Morgan last week Jordan Peterson implied that the inability of many Muslim majority nations to embrace democracy reflects some inherent cultural deficiency or pre-disposition - completely ignoring the West’s history of intervention and regime change in the region that toppled democracies and propped up dictators. A modern day settler colonial apartheid state makes the list, but not UAE or Oman who are in the same region and arguably have a higher quality of life which is apparently high enough for people to be flocking to Dubai for. I’m supposed to believe that Mauritius, Romania, Hungary and Bosnia have a higher quality of life than UAE? 2. Another visible pattern is that the list is made up of either former colonial powers turned modern day imperial powers, or those who haven't been subjugated by those powers or intervened in after their independence (Brazil, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia). The UK, France, Spain, and their European cousins dominate these rankings. That wealth, infrastructure and quality of life wasn't built solely by genius or governance - it was fueled by centuries of global exploitation. The nations they colonized were extracted from and structured to serve imperial interests. Most of those nations don't make the list - beside recovering from colonialism, these nations and regions are still being destabilized and intervened in today. Centuries of colonialism were followed by post colonial meddling, coups, sanctions, and proxy wars. Entire regions have had their borders drawn up along sectarian lines causing plenty of internal instability and social tensions. Their absence from these lists doesn’t necessarily reflect their systems failures but does reflect the success of Western systems in sabotaging their development. How can nations rebuild when external powers continually pull the rug out from under them? This doesn't celebrate Western brilliance but indicts them in their brutality. 3. Even within these rankings, cracks are evident. In the more populous nations like UK, US and France there is wealth inequality, crumbling infrastructure, rising crime and populism. These aren’t paragons of development, they’re more like developing countries with rich cities attached. France has widespread discontent and protests like all the time ie yellow vests. The fact of populism raging across the West and that UK had Brexit years before Trump's cheeky ass rode down the golden elevator indicates that the people clearly don't think they have a decent quality of life. This is a large driver behind a lot of populism and it's discontents.

https://www.ft.com/content/f71a3570-020f-4c43-a0ab-7143f5f9fd98

A Jeffrey Sachs short on the book of Joshua calling for ethnic cleansing / genocide: https://youtube.com/shorts/IHp7NItQ-PQ?si=M6hSfC9531WTWLcy Youtube doesn’t allow the embedding of the above video. The Zionist Christian alliance is bizarre as they are theologically at odds with each other. Zionists reject Jesus Christ outright whilst Muslims revere him as a prophet and Christian’s as the very foundation of their faith. That probably tells us it isn’t shared spiritual values but shared social-political values at best, and a shared racialized imperial worldview at its worst. Ashkenazi Jews who form the backbone of Zionism are seen by the West as part of their own - Western, white, and “civilized” against the barbaric East. Can’t help notice the undercurrent of racial supremacy despite the rhetoric of “democracy” and “freedom” as what binds them. Just see what Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk are saying now days and it seems clearer that it’s more the former rather than the latter. Claiming there’s an ‘Islamic crime problem’ in the UK is as reductive as saying there’s a ‘Democratic imperialism problem’ because the US leads in imperialism, or a ‘White violence problem’ because only White nations have dropped atomic bombs. Idiotic takes from JP, Elon and Tate - and I’m one who sympathises with populist concerns - but it’s clear people can go about reasonable concerns in unreasonable ways.

I'm shocked to become aware of the Chinese EV market which is now rolling out more so in Europe with BYD. Besides whatever else Musk had in mind for political power - no doubt another incentive was to secure protectionist policies from daddy Trump who has said he would impose 100% tariffs on Chinese EV's. The same Elon Musk who shares Milton Friedman videos extolling the virtues of free market competition and capitalism - cries crocodile tears for government protection the moment Chinese EVs threaten Tesla's market dominance. The competition: MSNBC trying to spin it negatively and getting shredded in the comments lol The following video is insanely impressive (link doesn’t embed). Cars that float, skytrains, unmanned aerial taxis /deliveries, robots etc https://youtu.be/g9ch8yHthP4?si=RV3cV5Iy2WEqC7r2

Define: getting ratio’d https://x.com/iancarrollshow/status/1877522304906965445?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

Spiritual enlightenment is usually associated with withdrawl from worldly affairs and renunciation. Muhammad clearly didn't retreat from the complexity of life - that doesn't negate he had some spiritual awakening - although to what degree can be debated for sure. Him and his followers were being persecuted in Mecca by the dominant tribe (Quraysh) as they felt challenged by his message of monotheism which threatened the existing power structure. Muhammad and his followers fled to Medina where they faced battles and went to war in defence. He wanted to unify a pre-Isalmic Arabia that was fractured and lawless - and his actions were confined to the Arabian peninsula. His ''conquests'' were transformative rather than extractive in the classical use of that word which usually gets associated with imperialism. Unification happened mostly through peaceful means via diplomacy, treaties and alliance building.The expansion beyond the region happened after his death. ** Beside that - I will still end by saying that we can respect and value religions but still realise them for what they are, and from a higher consciousness. The paradigm shift when approaching all religions including Islam - is that they are not words being spoken from God, but words spoken on and about God - that their books aren't THE truth, but about the truth. And in Islam's case when they say that the Prophet Muhammed is the final messenger - yes, of the Quran and of Islam, but not of God. There have been many messengers on God even till today, Leo as just one example. And this is what can get annoying when dealing with literalist religious minded people - they close themselves to the possibilities of hearing anyone else speak on God - they miss out on Osho, Ram Dass, Khalil Gibran, Eckhart Tolle - and even Leo.

Another norm in the pre modern world that we judge from the vantage point of the modern world where we sit. To us it’s crazy for sure. When people judge the Islamic period of Prophet Muhammad for this they usually overlook the fact that similar practices were widespread across the world for centuries afterward, including in medieval Europe, which came several hundred years later. What we consider child marriage today was a universal societal norms tied to survival and practicality in premodern times. Concepts like childhood and adolescence, or the idea of delaying marriage didn’t even exist because life expectancy was so low. Things only changed with modern advancements in life expectancy, education, and economics. In the US for example, child marriage laws have only recently gotten serious about setting 18 as a hard minimum with no exceptions. 13 out of 50 states, roughly 25% - have instituted a full ban on under 18 marriage. These were only enacted from 2018, shockingly.The rest still allow exceptions based on parental or judicial approval. The ink is still drying on most of these regulations which is odd considering our norms have shifted well away from that reality. When looking at a norm 1’400 years ago under conditions we can barely relate to today, it helps to remember that our “modern” standards haven’t even codified yet into law what feels alien to us today - maybe that indicates how far and fast we’ve advanced - that’s great. A interesting video on this, although the guys being cheeky with his framing and usual digs at the West, but insightful nonetheless:

Again, Islam doesn’t promote cousin marriage. Just like other points - it’s easy to conflate cultural or social norms with religion. Religion may talk about things, but that’s different to promoting them or divinely mandating them. This happens with war and then Islam being conflated with violence. The same way the UN addressing modern day conflict at length - doesn’t make it violent - the Bhagavagita or the Quran addressing war in their own times and bringing ethical rules to something that seems inevitable to the human condition - doesn’t make them violent either. It isn’t always that religion dictates culture as much as culture borrows religion’s authority to justify itself. It wasn’t Islam itself that cloaked women, it was the pre-Islamic norms already in place and existing in much of the world that did -even in the West. In fact it was a status symbol from women in Persia and Byzantine (non Muslim) that influenced Arabian women in Mecca to adopt it. Islam did call for modesty though - and this of course can have different interpretation. Cousin marriage was another norm even in Roman times until it became a solely elite arrangement in Medieval Europe. These norms being acknowledged by scripture is different to being promoted or required by it. Muslim countries may be stagnant but this can’t simply be pinned on Islam itself (perhaps a rigid interpretation of it) - the Islamic golden age counters the view that it’s inherently stagnating. It’s more to do with other factors. We have to keep in mind that many Muslim countries have faced or are still facing intervention, wars, puppet dictators and sanctions. Those aren’t ideal conditions to develop well in - and building a colourful vibrant culture isn’t a priority until survival is handled. It’s not that Islam feels heavy, but that these places have been heavily bombarded and are more in survival mode before anything else. That’s the real trauma in the air. As for Muslim cities being dull and gray - just look at Morocco, Isfahan or Istanbul. Architecture usually matches the environment too, so earthy colours sync better in the Middle East. We wouldn’t expect Mexican or Indian level colour in Scotland for example.

The point about exaggerating the importance of family is key I think to understanding the difference between Islamic and Western civilization. That orientation manifests in the culture, community, family and economy. A somewhat simplistic or general overarching lens to view them from would be that Western Civilisation is oriented towards Kingship (elitist) - Islamic Civilisation is oriented towards Kinship (communal). It’s a broad distinction between Europe’s elitist mindset and the Middle East’s communal one, but explains quite a bit. Both have authority structures, but their underlying purposes and the way the people relate to them are different: Europe’s old feudalism aimed to consolidate power for the few while granting a almost divine status to them, while the Middle East’s kinship based system aimed to strengthen social cohesion for the many and reserved divinity only to the One. Basically: - Kinship in Islamic Society: Power and culture flowed horizontally, through familial, tribal, and communal bonds. Even authority structures like caliphates were embedded within a broader web of collective responsibility and accountability to the ummah (community). - Kingship in Western Society: Power and culture flowed vertically, concentrating in the hands of the elite. Kings ruled over their subjects, not with them, and cultural and economic systems reinforced this hierarchy, sidelining the majority. How it shows up in culture: The common thinking is that the creativity unleashed in the Enlightenment and Renaissance was due to progressivism, freedom and liberty. But it was mostly incubated under systems of exclusionary elitism. The great cathedrals, music, and literature of Europe was funded and controlled by aristocrats, monarchs, and patrons - created not for the masses, but for the elite. The majority of the population - peasants and laborers - had little to no access to this culture or its creation. Their role was to toil, fund, and support the elite who commissioned those works, while being excluded from its benefits. Renaissance art celebrated the elite patrons who funded it - who were vying for prestige - most notably the Medici’s funding Da Vinci. Classical music was performed in courts and salons, not in public spaces for the masses. Architectural marvels like castles and cathedrals symbolized the power of Kings and the Church. In the Islamic golden age - knowledge, art, and culture were not concentrated in the hands of an elite few but were accessible and beneficial to the broader society in the Islamic golden age. Scholars, poets, scientists, and architects often worked within communal networks, supported by patrons who saw their work as a service to the ummah (the community), not just the ruling class. Knowledge wasn’t hoarded but shared. Libraries like the House of Wisdom in Baghdad were open to scholars from diverse backgrounds whereas education was more of a noble pursuit gatekept in the written language of Latin which the common man didn’t speak in Medieval Europe. The arts, sciences, and architecture were created not as symbols of elite dominance, but as contributions to the collective good. Mosques with their stunning architecture were spaces for everyone, regardless of class. Poetry and literature, such as the works of Rumi or Hafez were shared through the tradition of oral recitation in bazaars and mosques. Advances in medicine, mathematics, and science were translated, shared, and taught widely through madrasas. A related video on culture: Cousin marriage was more common among Western elites and outlawed for commoners because it could potentially strengthen family alliances to the point they could amass enough power to challenge the feudal (elitist) system. In more communal oriented Islamic societies that fostered bonds in a tribal context, cousin marriage was for preserving wealth and alliances within extended family. “By curbing cousin marriage, the Church kept commoners dependent on its own structure, channeling loyalty and obedience upward rather than letting strong kin groups develop competing power bases.“ Elitist entrenchment of the power structure. Think of Europe’s old feudal model as a massive pyramid: nobles at the top, peasants at the bottom, a Church controlling the moral framework, and everyone’s loyalty flowing upward. Now contrast that with much of the Islamic world, where everyday allegiances were horizontal - rooted in family, tribe, or clan, all under the unifying belief that no human being could rightfully take the place of the Divine. Unlike the “divine right of kings” in medieval Europe, Islamic rulers were and still are seen as part of the community, not as figures semi-holy figures who have God on speed dial. That difference trickles down from the theological conviction that God is beyond any form, meaning no feudal throne can lay claim that sweet divinity. People might still recognize and respect rulers, but loyalty to them remains on a human level - it never elevates a monarch or leader to Godliness. In that sense, the everyday bonds people share with their families and local communities (kinship) take precedence over any supposed “higher” feudal hierarchy (kingship).

@Ero @Bobby_2021 Great listen - around the 17min mark he makes a great point on how it challenges their worldview of being supreme - beyond just the practical concern for domestic job security and bolstering your own work force which are valid. It’s the same old play book - soak up the benefits of globalization whilst denying the benefits or contributions of globalization, to maintain a supremacist world view. They want to claim the achievements of their civilization as if they built them in isolation - which confirms their supremacy. Just as the West benefited from Islamic advancements in science and technology during its Renaissance, it now benefits from immigrant labor and expertise - but they struggle to acknowledge this reliance or contribution. Immigrants are framed as a threat to Western greatness rather than the ones propping it up. What they are a threat to is their worldview.

Mexico’s president hits back at Trump - why don’t we call this Mexican America. What time line are we on here 😂 I never knew but Mexico ceded 55% of its historic territory to the US - 15% of US territory today used to be Mexicos. Everyone gonna be talking about historical claims now lol

Wrote the above in another conversation but it fits here. Look at the comments on this short of people saying how Islam spread to Asia or Africa - largely through cultural transmission and trade. Muhammad was addressing a tribal society facing tribal warfare and immediate challenges - of course he’s not going to speak in fluffy language. Despite having spiritual awakenings or experiences he still needs to deal with practicalities and guide his people. In fact the ethics around warfare that he introduced were revolutionary at the time - no innocents, women children elderly or animals, no destruction of crops or property etc - basically no scorched earth policy of pillage, plunder and or even vengeance.

Besides some things just not adding up about the incident - upside down flag, journalist access with a seemingly perfectly placed Quran in there etc - it's a correlation / causation fallacy to now go '' whats wrong with Islam that causes this''. Any religion or ideology can be used to justify anything - that says nothing in particular about those ideologies or religions but says more about the individuals. This same type of logic applied would say: Why did Kamikazee attacks come exclusively from Japanese? Whats wrong with Shintoism that makes people fly planes into ships.. Why do school shootings happen in America at the scale they do? Must be something up with Christianity or Democracy.. The Bhagavad Gita discusses warfare thus Hinduism is violent too. When Japanese people (or any other) do something heinous, we understand it as a historical anomaly tied to specific circumstances. But when Muslims do something, suddenly it's treated as some inherent, unchangeable aspect of their religion or culture. It's like saying "only Americans dropped nuclear bombs, therefore there must be something uniquely violent about democracy or Christianity." Majority of Muslims don't subscribe to ISIS's interpretation of Islam. If that was the case we'd have world wide carnage in a world of 2 billion Muslims. We wouldn't be sitting here on a forum. This is a super minority of Muslims, that have unfortunately been enabled by imperial interests for imperial goals within the Middle East. The ultra rigid interpretation of Islam that underpins groups like ISIS is not some organic, widespread representation of Islam. It’s a fringe ideology that just so happens to have been exported globally with the helping hand of the Western ally Saudi Arabia for their own game of imperial chess in trying to topple Iran / Assad in Syria etc. The same hands that enabled this extreme fringe, paint the majority of Muslims with the ISIS brush. ISIS had to recruit heavily from Western countries precisely because they couldn't convince most Muslims in Muslim majority countries to buy their bullshit. The very regions that critics love to point fingers at turned out to be the most resistant to their perverted ideology. They had access to 100's of millions of Muslims in Africa, Middle East and Asia yet decided to recruit from the secular West. It's the places where Islamic education and community support are lacking, that ISIS found its most vulnerable targets. When people actually understand Islam, grow up with its teachings, and are embedded in a community that practice it properly – they can spot a twisted interpretation from a mile away. It's like they have built in antibodies against extremism - partly thanks to Islam itself providing the social structures and support systems that prevent alienation and vulnerability in the first place. Check this video if you get the chance: Did anyone see the video of the burning woman on the New York subway while people just walked by filming it? Imagine for a second if that happened in any Muslim country – the headlines would be screaming about "Islamic indifference to human life" or some other orientalist bullshit. But here no one's writing think pieces about "The Crisis of American Values" or "What's Wrong with Western Civilization?" In Gaza we've seen people digging through rubble with their bare hands to save strangers while bombs are still falling. But in the "civilized" West, people can't even be bothered to help a woman on fire apparently.

From Chat GPT: The Islamic Golden Age was its own Renaissance and Enlightenment, building on Greek and Roman works while innovating in science, philosophy, and art. It wasn’t just about preserving knowledge—it was about expanding it, creating advancements in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and more. This intellectual flourishing didn’t happen despite Islam—it thrived within it, shaping a vibrant, creative civilization. But like all empires, the Islamic world faced decline, with invasions and instability curtailing its momentum. Europe, through contact with Islamic Spain and translated texts, picked up the baton. The Renaissance and Enlightenment were fueled by the intellectual groundwork laid during the Islamic Golden Age. Here’s the part that gets erased: Europe’s development wasn’t isolated genius—it was built on the foundation of Islamic brilliance. But the narrative conveniently skips this because it disrupts the myth of self-made "Western progress," rooted in whiteness and colonial superiority. They disconnect from their own history to maintain the illusion of unchallenged exceptionalism.

It isn't objective fact though, but even it it was - we can't attribute the reason for violence being inherent to the ethnicity, religion or ideology of such and such group. More accurately, you are saying that Islamic societies are more oppressive, is what you mean. But by your version of oppression being ''too many rules to follow'' we could say US is the most oppressive place on earth because it has the most laws on earth - which is a point the guy in that video makes - and which is false. Just as woke progressives frame everything as oppressive - this is doing the exact same. We're equating spiritual dietary and aesthetic practices with oppression. Hindu's don't eat beef, Jews only eat Kosher, Jains don't eat any type of animal product, Sadhguru's or Osho's ashrams only serve vegetarian - are we going to complain that people are being castrated by the vegetable industrial complex? Cultures can prioritize different values like spirituality, humility, or a connection to the divine over the glorification of human ego in the form of portrait art. Not everything needs to fit the Western mold to be valid - what if they didn't focus on calligraphy and geometry - those are beautiful in their own right. They had their own reasons at the time which was to stop idolatry and instead to re orient people towards a transcendent One God that is formless, and that they found the material world of form which has many forms was a hindrance to. Despite that - it doesn't even say that this type of art is forbidden in the Quran - it just came out of a preference. There's plenty of figurative art in and from the Islamic world too - https://asiangeo.com/culture_and_people/the-face-of-islam-in-praise-of-an-inimitable-creation/ Every society has dress codes and norms. The difference is in degree, not principle. There's public decency laws that prohibit nudity and require you to cover certain body parts. But it's oppressive for other cultures to do the same, just with slightly more fabric. The priorities need to be straight here - sure, it is restrictive and women should definitively have a choice in whether to cover their hair - but Western critics cry oppression about the covering of hair while justifying wars in the Middle East that blow their entire heads off. Again - what I keep saying is that Islam isn't a monolith. Out of 50 Muslim countries only 2 legally mandate it - Iran, Afghanistan- Saudi who just recently removed the law under MBS - so 4% of Muslim countries. I'm aware that even if not mandated, social pressure and discrimination can coerce women to still wear it. But I wouldn't call that oppressive, it's more discriminatory and stifling. Just like how white males may find DEI to be discriminatory in hiring practices - to equate that with being oppressive is just a bit of a stretch - unless there is state sanctioned enforcement where no choice is given. These things should change though - but the way isn't to legislate it away - it has to be more organic and grassroots. A lot of these Islamic countries are still dealing with the hangover of Western colonialism and military intervention - declaring this is their natural state is like bombing someone's house and then criticizing their interior decorating. We need to allow them to develop and not judge so quickly. It's just unfair to view Islamic societies as some oppressive hell hole based off of a rigid interpretation of Islam by such a minority of Muslims. This is a caricature created by Western propaganda the same way China and Russia are painted to be boogeymen.

Wow he got roasted lol. He’s like some right wing fertilizer giving oxygen to every right wing movement he can in the West. He can’t decide whether he’s Thomas Jefferson or Tony Stark. People on X are even speaking against his new algo changes to promote more “positivity” which probably is cover for whatever suits his narrative. So much for being a free speech absolutist. The latest chapter in American Empire. Trump wants to re-name the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America. Manifest destiny 2.0. The same people who scream basic biology at trans folks are simultaneously trying to trans an entire gulf into becoming American. They’ll try convince us that Greenland has always felt American deep inside. That Canada's been questioning its identity and wants to Iive its truth as Americas 51st state. Panama Canal? Ditto. What next? These techno imperialists will claim Mars is a 52nd state when Musk shits on it. The empire has decided that self-identification is totally valid - as long as it's the empire doing the identifying.

These kind of conversations need more nuance man. Things are being conflated and selectively picked, omitted or reduced. Islam isn't uniquely restrictive or violent - it does has more visibility because a quarter of the world’s population is Muslim. We also can't reduce religions to bumper sticker words as Nilsi pointed out. Theres plenty of calls for love and mercy in Islam, for example - In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most compassionate (Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim) is often said. Anything can be twisted to be violent and oppressive - even secular ideologies or high sounding ones. Look how democracy and human rights / liberation has been weaponised by the West for their own interests across the world. Does that make democracy inherently evil? Or Christianity? Of course not. Both religions adapted to their times and circumstances and were shaped as much by politics and survival as by their spirituality. Christianity has been used to morally justify crusades, inquisitions and later colonisation. I'm not going to reductively jump to demonise Christianity because of that. Buddhists have also been violent - look at Sri Lanka or Myanmar - but no one paints Buddhism as violent because there aren’t as many Buddhists to pin incidents on. The scale skews the perception. But violence is still being committed today by the West - at scale in the Middle East - what do we pin that on? Christianity? Probably not because Christian rhetoric isn't driving it. A more secular state is behind it - so what, does that mean secularism is now inherently violent? No - and that's the problem with conflating things. Just look at homicide rates per 100'000 inhabitants. Malaysia's is 0.7, Indonesia is 0.3 - in the same region Cambodia is 1.8, VIetnam 1.5, Philippines 4 - which are non muslim countries. Majority Hindu India is 2.8. In the Middle East - Iraq is 15, Afghanistan is 4 (both high mainly due to Western intervention and destabilisation so it’s an unfair comparison) Syria's is oddly low at 2. Egypt is much lower at 1.3 and Jordan which is in the same volatile region as Iraq is 1 - because it hasn't gone to or been involved in war. Meanwhile over in Americas - Mexico is 24, Brazil 20 and US is a 5.7 (a developed non muslim country - the worlds superpower in fact). The point is - I can take these statistics and conflate that Christian nations have much higher homicide rates than muslims ones (except in the cases of war) and come to the conclusion that their respective religions or ideologies are inherently violent. (Source I used: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) But I won’t because we can't ignore environmental or economic factors. If Bhuddists lived in a geopolitically fractured Middle East facing colonization, invasions and warfare over resources - they may exhibit similar behaviours and resort to extremism far more often as a last resort. If Muslims lived in isolated regions like Bhutan or Thailand which are geographically hard to penetrate and thus be bothered by outside meddling or hostile actors - maybe they'd be blissing out too over there - in fact there are many Muslims in the South of Thailand bordering Malaysia who live happily side by side with Bhuddists. Everyone can be deemed a hypocrite because humans are messy. Every faith has followers stumbling their way to growth. Thats why theres the idea of repentance in both Islam and Christianity. Also, why be selective about hypocrisy? Just look at the Western actions with regards to backing Israel as the most latest and blatant example of hypocrisy. Bhuddist monks have hundreds of precepts on how to live every day life that would make Islam looks lax. Obviously the average Bhuddist doesn't follow them, they just have the 5 precepts / principles which align with Islam and Christianity also - no killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying or intoxicants. Are we going to say Christianity is restrictive because Jordan Peterson tells us to make our bed, bear our own cross and sacrifice for something higher? Faiths have their restrictions and guidelines. The irony of the argument about development is that the very thing your criticising (Islam's rules and regulations) is what makes it more developed, not less. Similar to the argument against libertarianism - the fact we have complex societies that function, only do so because of the framework of rules and regulations, not because we live in a free for all society of anarchy. Islam was religion made worldly - they developed a framework for governance , ethics and society - to buffer against the excesses of human nature, not to indulge it. A powerless religion like Christianity when it was born - could afford to preach nonviolence because it’s wasn't in the business of governing or surviving tribal warfare. Islam was born in a different context. Also, in a time and world of little to no rules or ethics , you would rather have rules and ethics around domains that are inescapable for humanity. Wars will always come and sexuality announces its arrival at the sight of the opposite sex - best we have rules and ethics around how to conduct human affairs than not. This isn’t some hippy commune being run, a civilization requires a framework. A Islamic foundation for a society isn't a strait jacket for societal development - although ISIS would like to make it one. Only the minutest minority of Muslims are approaching Islam in the way ISIS do. If it were true that a sizable portion of Muslims follow Islam the way ISIS do, the world would be carnage - but it isn't because most muslims don't. It's not just about the text (Quran), but the context in how it was revealed, to whom and where. A Islamic foundation doesn't mean its inherently limiting - the Islamic Golden Age wasn't called golden because Muslims sat around feeling limited and oppressed by their foundations - because they still had flexibility in operating their societies with diversity and autonomy. As for being the Quran being the word of God. A man who's had enlightenment experiences as say Leo - speaks to us in videos and on this forum - yet we discuss at length everything he says and shares. If Leo's ideas are discussed at length, what of God? Theres a whole field in Islam called Tafsir (explanation) where scholars go into explaining the Quran. Some things in the Quran are descriptive of the history at the time it was revealed, some things are prescriptive, and other things are broad principles like justice, compassion and kindness that are supposed to be adaptive to different times and contexts. Which is why there is no monolith in how Islam is practiced across the world - from Turkey to Malaysia. Again, this highlights the problem of conflating cultural or imperial practices with religious teachings. Islam itself neither prescribes nor endorses the use of eunuchs or harems - in fact it caps polygamy to 4, and only in certain strict conditions and for specific reasons (war deeming there less men available to protect/provide for women etc). In Malaysia and Pakistan for example polygamy is permitted but men need permission from the first wife. In Tunisia its outright banned - again, emphasising that Islam isn't a monolith. Harems arose from political and cultural contexts, not religious doctrine or prescription. In fact, Europe was one of the largest sources of eunuchs historically, as castration was not prohibited in Christian lands but was prohibited in Islamic lands according to sharia law. Thats why they would be sourced from Europe by rulers in Islamic empires. The presence of queens in medieval Europe doesn’t reflect respect for women as a whole. Queenship was tied to aristocratic bloodlines and dynasties. In the backdrop witch burnings, keeping women illiterate and no property rights was the norm. Meanwhile, Islam drops into 7th century Arabia and says women can inherit property, get educated and run their own businesses.

@Breakingthewall You should watch this video brother. In conjunction with this:

So people who violate the law and murder/kill should suffer the consequences? How about Israel then..debunk the following video or reconcile and square that circle.