Let’s get past the confusion about Islam and settle it

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Yea thanks i already knew all of that.

Still not buying it.

I don't see what you are not buying 

Edited Monday at 03:38 PM by Carl-Richard

[PurpleTree]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see what you are not buying 

I’m not buying your genetic modified and glyphosate carrots and such. I’m not buying that the saudi killer guy was not anti western. I’m not buying potatoes they remind me of Putins face. 
What i might buy later is a prawn pizza.

Edited Monday at 04:01 PM by PurpleTree

[Someone here]

OP is seeking to get past the confusion and controversy around islam and so far you guys have made it even more messy.

in fact Leo's video on Islam is enough clarification.  Allah is the absolute. Its everything &no thing . Its me and you .its the infinite field of consciousness which is the totality of everything that is or could be ever =infinity.  Its just described in the quran and Islamic/sufic literature in the style of 1400 years ago Arabic culture. 

Nough said .

[Husseinisdoingfine]

There's also this Reddit post.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1fharll/proof_that_islam_is_a_cult/#lightbox

Is it true? Islam does contain a lot of cult dynamics. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

I’m not buying that the saudi killer guy was not anti western.

"Anti-Western" in what way?

[PurpleTree]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Anti-Western" in what way?

In such a way that he kills Western women and children at a Christmas market (a festive season for Europeans)  to stir sadness and confusion.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

What does the Halo in religious art symbolize again? I think Leo talked about this in his video on Nihilism that it represents someone having gone through the dip of nihilism, and their old self collapsed.

[zazen]

On 02/01/2025 at 1:20 AM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

On January 1st, 2025, a man drove a Ford pickup truck into a crowd of people, killing 15 and injuring 30.

An ISIS (Islamic State) flag as was found in his truck, as well as several IEDs (improvised explosive device).

This is a very peculiar thing to note, as Leo has a video about Islam, as well as Islamic books in his book list.

If this is the case, then how are there some people who use Islamic teachings to justify ramming a pickup truck into a crowd of people. What does this say about Islam? Why are these attacks exclusively coming from Muslims and not Buddhists or Hindus?

Why is there such a contrast between what ISIS believes and Leo’s video above, and why do so many people subscribe to ISIS’s interpretation of Islam?

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.

Edited Wednesday at 06:14 PM by zazen

[zazen]

On 07/01/2025 at 3:21 PM, zazen said:

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.

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.

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.

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. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:01 PM by zazen

[zazen]

On 06/01/2025 at 3:43 PM, PurpleTree said:

I’m not buying your genetic modified and glyphosate carrots and such. I’m not buying that the saudi killer guy was not anti western. I’m not buying potatoes they remind me of Putins face. 
What i might buy later is a prawn pizza.

 

[zazen]

On 02/01/2025 at 1:20 AM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Why did Muhammad engage is such military campaigns, conquest, and warfare?

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.

On 15/10/2024 at 4:05 PM, zazen said:

There's an argument that goes, "If you or any other society were in our position, you'd act the same," but that's simply not true. I've seen many right wingers use this case of projection and universalizing of bad behavior as a way to excuse it because it's just a ''inevitability'' of human nature - an ''externality'' of a ''system of perverse incentives'' (moloch) that absolves any one party of blame.

Many civilizations throughout history, despite possessing the military and economic means to engage in aggressive territorial conquest, chose other pathways to spread their influence. Through religion, culture, trade, or diplomacy. Theirs a distinction to be made between colonialism, settler colonialism, imperialism and influence. The Islamic Golden Age, the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka, and the Tang Dynasty are just a few examples of civilizations (on different continents) that exercised restraint or focused on cultural diffusion rather than outright domination.

They demonstrate that violent conquest is not an inevitable result of power. It's a choice that's been resisted by some of the greatest empires in history. These civilizations recognized that expansion and influence don’t need to be built on the corpses of their enemies. The imperial mindset - that to be powerful means to dominate, is used by imperial apologists in the West to excuse the blood soaked history of their own empires. They conflate wealth with worth - any means that helps them to obtain and accumulate wealth/resources is glorified and justified. This is where the 'might makes right' mentality stems from. 

Watch the following and let me know what you think:

 

 

On 16/10/2024 at 2:56 PM, zazen said:

Conquest was normal but not all conquests were the same. Conquest has been the norm up until sovereign states and international law came into place. Before the pre-modern world - tribes, kingdoms and empires expanded as borders were fluid and determined by the strength to take and hold territory (which in todays world and by todays standards is completely wrong - no one should take what isn't theres).

The difference is in how that power and strength was used - how expansion was conducted, the conquered were treated and the new territory was administered. Of course the very nature of conquest means violent clashes are inevitable. With Spain, theres no dominant narrative of brutal conquest as compared to other empires. There was elements of pragmatism and diplomacy.  Beyond the the initial conquest and violent battles further expansion took place by making agreements with local rulers and even allowing local elites and nobility to keep their lands and status in exchange for loyalty and protection. Contrast this to Western colonialism which had genocide, plunder, exploitation and practiced a racially based form of the most degrading slavery. 

Viking raids were known for plundering and leaving, the Franks force converted the Saxons or they faced execution, the Byzantines expelled Orthodox Christians and Jews - I haven't even got into detailing colonial times but I won't go there. Meanwhile, Islamic expansion allowed for diversity of faiths, they didn't raid places into destruction, and they allowed a degree of autonomy to local cultures without expelling or erasing them from existence.

Expanding to Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahel which were huge regions was done largely through merchants trading and sufis spreading Islam. The point is they operated differently and not everyone acts the same way when in the same position.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by zazen