Humans and Islam

[Breakingthewall]

Islam, regardless of debates about its spirituality, Sufism, its level of spiritual truth, is an ideology that creates an enormous level of abuse and domination of men over women. Millions of women are forced into something as transcendent for a human being as marriage using violence. It doesn't seem like a very nice thing. It also generates enormous hypocrisy. Muslims are a bunch of fakes, since according to their religion they should all be saints, and any deviation is despicable. Shame and contempt for themselves as humans makes them false, twisted, dark. In short, it's a big piece of shit.

Ancient fanatic Christianity is negative and limiting, but in the end the message of Christianity is: love. That of Islam is: obey. That of Buddhism is: realize yourself. One of them seems quite negative. What could be its evolution?

[aurum]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

in the end the message of Christianity is: love. That of Islam is: obey. That of Buddhism is: realize yourself.

This is an extremely biased perspective.

You could easily argue that every major religion has those three elements.

[Nilsi]

The problem with Islam is that its eschatology is so radical, and the descriptions of paradise and hell so vivid and extreme, that the afterlife becomes the central focus of everything. This fixation leads to paranoiac behaviors, like cloaking women from head to toe to eliminate even the slightest chance of sin’s seductive influence.

And as psychoanalysis teaches us, repression always leads to neurosis and often manifests in precisely the most extreme form of what has been repressed, in deeply ironic ways. So, it’s no surprise that some of the most repressive and God-fearing cultures often produce the most godless acts of violence and depravity.

[Breakingthewall]

35 minutes ago, aurum said:

This is an extremely biased perspective.

You could easily argue that every major religion has those three elements.

I mean the final message, the concept that they transmit in it's base. You can misinterpreting the bible, but its final message is love and forgiveness, although the fear of hell is one of its pillars. Institutionalized Christianity has been repressive, castrating, creating sad, strange, false beings in many cases, but many free and creative spirits arise in Christianity .  it is easy to interpret it as a religion of love, solidarity, forgiveness, tolerance, if you want to do so. Islam seems impossible, despite that the sufis tried

Edited Saturday at 10:07 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

The problem with Islam is that its eschatology is so radical, and the descriptions of paradise and hell so vivid and extreme, that the afterlife becomes the central focus of everything. This fixation leads to paranoiac behaviors, like cloaking women from head to toe to eliminate even the slightest chance of sin’s seductive influence.

And as psychoanalysis teaches us, repression always leads to neurosis and often manifests in precisely the most extreme form of what has been repressed, in deeply ironic ways. So, it’s no surprise that some of the most repressive and God-fearing cultures often produce the most godless acts of violence and depravity.

That's a good analysis, Islam threatens directly, but also allows the use of violence. Jesus or Buddha never speak of violence or war except to condemn it. Mohammed does, it is an essential difference.

Another essential difference is that Christianity has precepts of universal moral: don't steal, don't kill, don't have sex like fun (now seems fool but without contraceptives, abortion or medicine it was dramatic), and another normal rules. 

Islam have precepts like a dictator would do: don't eat pork, don't drink, do that, don't do that, obey because it's my will. 

Edited Saturday at 09:48 PM by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

Another essential difference: the Catholic church declared that hell doesn't exist. That seems banal, but it's a declaration of deactivation of the power of the church by the threat, that they used for centuries. Could the islam deactivate the hell? Impossible, it's essential, there is not a doubt about how it is, as @Nilsi said, then the Islam can't do that in any case

[Nilsi]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Another essential difference: the Catholic church declared that hell doesn't exist. That seems banal, but it's a declaration of deactivation of the power of the church by the threat, that they used for centuries. Could the islam deactivate the hell? Impossible, it's essential, there is not a doubt about how it is, as @Nilsi said, then the Islam can't do that in any case

Just to make sure we’re on the same page: we are talking about the same Catholic Church that once made a fortune selling what were essentially “get-out-of-jail-free cards” (indulgences) to their followers, under the threat that they’d burn in hell for eternity otherwise, right? Just because some 21st-century pope declared that “hell doesn’t exist” doesn’t suddenly absolve the Catholic Church of its past.

Let’s not forget that there are Islamic scholars who’ve made similar claims, such as suggesting that “hell might eventually cease to exist.” Moreover, in Islamic theology, hell is not eternal for believers, which arguably makes it more mild than the traditional Catholic view. So, we need to approach this with a lot more nuance, as I can’t help but notice a strong anti-Islam bias in your arguments.

Also, Islam is about far more than just "obedience." There’s a significant emphasis on love, compassion, mercy, and the promise of paradise, so that critique is frankly quite reductive and vulgar.

Edited Saturday at 10:22 PM by Nilsi

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Just to make sure we’re on the same page: we are talking about the same Catholic Church that once made a fortune selling what were essentially “get out of jail free cards” (indulgences) to their followers, under the threat that they’d burn in hell for eternity otherwise, right? Just because some 21st-century pope declared that “hell doesn’t exist” doesn’t suddenly absolve the Catholic Church of its past.

Let’s not forget that there are Islamic scholars who’ve made similar claims, such as suggesting that “hell might eventually cease to exist.” Moreover, in Islamic theology, hell is not eternal for believers, which arguably makes it more mild than the traditional Catholic view. So, we need to approach this with a lot more nuance, as I can’t help but notice a strong anti-Islam bias in your arguments.

The Catholic Church has been extremist and dictatorial, and if it had been attacked it would have responded with war, as it has done countless times. But in those days people walked around with swords in the streets, and in every generation there were three wars. In Iran people drive cars and have Internet. 

About the hell, the question is if Islam could do the same or it's totally impossible 

Edited Saturday at 10:25 PM by Breakingthewall

[Juns]

@Nilsi

 

Wow, well said. I have personal experience with this from my time being religious and have seen it around me while growing up. What you said about repression is especially true. Look at the Taliban, for example. What they are doing with regard to women is, strangely, a very modern phenomenon in the bigger picture. They believe in the afterlife and their religion with such fervor that it makes sense, from their perspective, for them to do what they are doing.

That’s the thing with Islam—it’s the perfect religion to bring someone to stage blue (in developmental terms), but it is harder to liberalize and make more orange or green compared to other religions. However, it did lead me to become more orange (in the sense of being more rational) as an individual, as it trained me to think in more abstract ways when I was a fundamentalist.

But yeah, I think we have all seen what repression does to people. The harsh laws that segregate men and women, and the bans on all forms of sexual release, often lead to sexual perversion and other negative outcomes. I think a middle path works much better at stage blue, and other religions have managed this balance more effectively.

These were just some random, incoherent thoughts I had.

[Raze]

53 minutes ago, Juns said:

@Nilsi

 

Wow, well said. I have personal experience with this from my time being religious and have seen it around me while growing up. What you said about repression is especially true. Look at the Taliban, for example. What they are doing with regard to women is, strangely, a very modern phenomenon in the bigger picture. They believe in the afterlife and their religion with such fervor that it makes sense, from their perspective, for them to do what they are doing.

That’s the thing with Islam—it’s the perfect religion to bring someone to stage blue (in developmental terms), but it is harder to liberalize and make more orange or green compared to other religions. However, it did lead me to become more orange (in the sense of being more rational) as an individual, as it trained me to think in more abstract ways when I was a fundamentalist.

But yeah, I think we have all seen what repression does to people. The harsh laws that segregate men and women, and the bans on all forms of sexual release, often lead to sexual perversion and other negative outcomes. I think a middle path works much better at stage blue, and other religions have managed this balance more effectively.

These were just some random, incoherent thoughts I had.

The taliban isn’t representative of Muslims, that’s just the rulers of one war torn country, and they aren’t popular among their own people.

Islamic countries did reform, such as stopping the practice of slavery. 

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Another essential difference: the Catholic church declared that hell doesn't exist. That seems banal, but it's a declaration of deactivation of the power of the church by the threat, that they used for centuries. Could the islam deactivate the hell? Impossible, it's essential, there is not a doubt about how it is, as @Nilsi said, then the Islam can't do that in any case

No they didn’t, the Vatican has said many times hell is real. 
 

https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-claim-pope-denied-hells-existence-unreliable

Edited Sunday at 01:04 AM by Raze

[whh2222]

Islam is a great warrior religion. Thats why all those Dagestan Muslims are so successful in UFC. 

[Juns]

28 minutes ago, Raze said:

The taliban isn’t representative of Muslims, that’s just the rulers of one war torn country, and they aren’t popular among their own people.

Islamic countries did reform, such as stopping the practice of slavery. 

I’d say the Taliban is closer to the "true" interpretation of Islam. I make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims practice Islam in many ways—purple, red, blue, orange, and green. However, the actual fundamental texts, the quotes of the founder of the religion, and the understanding of the early Muslims and scholars, according to my knowledge, reflect the type of Islam practiced by fundamentalists, Wahhabis, the Taliban, etc.

Regarding them not being popular among their own people, I would disagree. They are popular, or at least seen as doing the right thing, even if it conflicts with their short-term desires, by many Afghans, especially Pashtuns. Of course, there is a large portion of the population that disagrees with them, but they are in power for a reason.

I agree that Islamic countries have reformed, but most of them have done so by rejecting religion, not by liberalizing it. I could be wrong here. The Balkan muslims, for example,  are mainly secular and liberal due to communism and their own specific historical circumstances. However, if you were to ask people there if drinking alcohol and the other things they are doing are wrong according to religion, they would likely agree and say they aren't religious, or they just wouldn't know due to a lack of knowledge.

 

[Raze]

16 minutes ago, Juns said:

I’d say the Taliban is closer to the "true" interpretation of Islam. I make a distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims practice Islam in many ways—purple, red, blue, orange, and green. However, the actual fundamental texts, the quotes of the founder of the religion, and the understanding of the early Muslims and scholars, according to my knowledge, reflect the type of Islam practiced by fundamentalists, Wahhabis, the Taliban, etc.

Not really. 

Islam doesn’t ban girls education, require wearing the burqa, etc.

16 minutes ago, Juns said:

Regarding them not being popular among their own people, I would disagree. They are popular, or at least seen as doing the right thing, even if it conflicts with their short-term desires, by many Afghans, especially Pashtuns. Of course, there is a large portion of the population that disagrees with them, but they are in power for a reason.

They are in power because they have the arms and the afghan people have no way of fighting them

polls show the majority do not support their current rule

https://news.gallup.com/poll/405572/afghans-lose-hope-taliban.aspx

16 minutes ago, Juns said:

I agree that Islamic countries have reformed, but most of them have done so by rejecting religion, not by liberalizing it. I could be wrong here. The Balkan muslims, for example,  are mainly secular and liberal due to communism and their own specific historical circumstances. However, if you were to ask people there if drinking alcohol and the other things they are doing are wrong according to religion, they would likely agree and say they aren't religious, or they just wouldn't know due to a lack of knowledge.

Not really. The majority of most Muslim countries still identify as practicing Muslims yet those countries have varying levels of liberalization.

Countries can liberalize without rejecting religion. The average Christian in America has not rejected religion but is much more liberal than the average Christian in America 170 years ago who could own slaves and justify it by using scripture.

 

Edited Sunday at 01:54 AM by Raze

[Juns]

Just now, Raze said:

No they don’t. 

Islam doesn’t ban girls education, require wearing the burqa, etc.

are you a Muslim or do you know a lot about Islam? I agree that there are interpretations where you could justify having girls go into "secular" education however I personally think that the more fundametalist and more in alignment with the actual teachings of Islam agree with women not going into educatino due to gender roles, fitnah, liberisatino through education, feminism, freedom from husband financially etc. as for the burqa then most fundamentists could easliy find strong justivdaitnos for enforcing burqas. 

 

1 minute ago, Raze said:

They are in power because they have the arms and the afghan people have no way of fighting them

polls show the majority do not support their current rule

https://news.gallup.com/poll/405572/afghans-lose-hope-taliban.aspx

could be mistaken but the afghan army was quite well armed and had been with the US for quite a while. 

 

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

Not really. The majority of most countries still identify as practicing Muslims yet those countries have varying levels of liberalization.

Countries can liberalize without rejecting religion. The average Christian in America has not rejected religion but is much more liberal than the average Christian in America 170 years ago who could own slaves and justify it by using scripture.

 by rejecting religion i meant admitting that what they are doing isnt in alignment with the religion but doing it anyway. 

I agree with your second statement and have mentioned above that Islam struggles to liberalise from within like other religions. 

[Juns]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

They are in power because they have the arms and the afghan people have no way of fighting them

polls show the majority do not support their current rule

https://news.gallup.com/poll/405572/afghans-lose-hope-taliban.aspx

took a quick glance. isnt it about people reporting how much they are suffering and what they expect the future to be like in terms of suffering. they dont spcific that they think that the direct cause of the suffering is the taliban.

[Raze]

25 minutes ago, Juns said:

are you a Muslim or do you know a lot about Islam? I agree that there are interpretations where you could justify having girls go into "secular" education however I personally think that the more fundametalist and more in alignment with the actual teachings of Islam agree with women not going into educatino due to gender roles, fitnah, liberisatino through education, feminism, freedom from husband financially etc. as for the burqa then most fundamentists could easliy find strong justivdaitnos for enforcing burqas. 

Let me put it this way. Afghanistan was a extremely poor and socially stratified country with a very specific culture and ethnic conflicts that predated Islam, they had a civil war that killed thousands, they then had a war and occupation with the Soviet Union that killed millions, they then had another civil war that killed millions, then the taliban took over and had a war with the US that killed hundreds of thousands, now the country is being crushed under sanctions, and this all happened in one to two generations. 

Why do you presume this leads to a culture that follows Islam most accurately as opposed to the majority of Muslim countries?

and even if they do, doesn’t that go against your point that it’s harder for Islam to liberalize if it took such an extreme environment to produce a government which finally followed islam accurately?

The taliban obviously do justify their rulings based on religion, that doesn’t mean their interpretation is more accurate than other countries.

25 minutes ago, Juns said:

could be mistaken but the afghan army was quite well armed and had been with the US for quite a while. 

It was extremely corrupt and infiltrated. Just because people don’t like the taliban doesn’t mean they’re going to sacrifice themselves to prop up government they also don’t like.

It’s possible for a dictator to be unpopular with the people but still stay in power.

25 minutes ago, Juns said:

I agree with your second statement and have mentioned above that Islam struggles to liberalise from within like other religions. 

How do you know it’s because of the religion specifically and not economic or geopolitical reasons? 

If we traveled back to the 19th century you could make a similar argument about Christianity, yet we now know that it liberalized rapidly after a certain point. 

Even in more fundamentalist countries like Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan they had liberalization movements that got stopped in their tracks. Under Nassar Egypt was pushing for secular nationalism but it was seen as a failed ideology after they lost wars to Israel. In Iran they had a more secular leader who was toppled and replaced with a secular dictator which spurred a Islamist revolution. Afghanistan also had a secular Marxist government until Islamist rebels took over from the civil war. Why would we conclude this is caused primarily by Islam rather than any other relevant reason.

Edited Sunday at 02:22 AM by Raze

[Juns]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

Let me put it this way. Afghanistan was a extremely poor and socially stratified country with a very specific culture and ethnic conflicts that predated Islam, they had a civil war that killed thousands, they then had a war and occupation with the Soviet Union that killed millions, they then had another civil war that killed millions, then the taliban took over and had a war with the US that killed hundreds of thousands, now the country is being crushed under sanctions, and this all happened in one to two generations. 

Why do you presume this leads to a culture that follows Islam most accurately as opposed to the majority of Muslim countries?

and even if they do, doesn’t that go against your point that it’s harder for Islam to liberalize if it took such an extreme environment to produce a government which finally followed islam accurately?

The taliban obviously do justify their rulings based on religion, that doesn’t mean their interpretation is more accurate than other countries.

yeah, the taliban is making afghanistan become mroe stage blue. they were more red and purple before. however with stage blue you have to accept the ideaology which in this case is Islam fully. that's where my prevoius comments about Islam being harder to liberalise come in. Islam is much more through and comprehensive in terms of laws compared to other religions and so since there is so much evidence that supports certain contreversial things the taliban in this example have no choice but to follow it to mnaintain stage blue. 

 

8 minutes ago, Raze said:

It was extremely corrupt and infiltrated. Just because people don’t like the taliban doesn’t mean they’re going to sacrifice themselves to prop up government they also don’t like.

It’s possible for a dictator to be unpopular with the people but still stay in power.

the taliban is a huge group and for each fighting taliban there is a family and community that agrees with what the fighter is doing. a lot of peopl support them. 

 

10 minutes ago, Raze said:

How do you know it’s because of the religion specifically and not economic or geopolitical reasons? 

If we traveled back to the 19th century you could make a similar argument about Christianity, yet we now know that it liberalized rapidly after a certain point. 

Even in more fundamentalist countries like Egypt, Iran, and Afghanistan they had liberalization movements that got stopped in their tracks. Under Nassar Egypt was pushing for secular nationalism but it was seen as a failed ideology after they lost wars to Israel. In Iran they had a more secular leader who was toppled and replaced with a secular dictator which spurred a Islamist revolution. Afghanistan also had a secular Marxist government until Islamist rebels took over from the civil war. Why would we conclude this is caused primarily by Islam rather than any other relevant reason.

could be wropng but i think christainity has more room for liberal interpretations. jewdaism could serve as a counter example though i guess. small secular movemetns dont mean much if you look at the majhortiy of what the people believed and the results speak for themselves. I don't think its impossible of course its just a little harder with islam. Lots of muslims that live in the west become stage blue after being confrunted with stage orange and green and then later on develop and move up like myself for example.

[aurum]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I mean the final message, the concept that they transmit in it's base. You can misinterpreting the bible, but its final message is love and forgiveness, although the fear of hell is one of its pillars. Institutionalized Christianity has been repressive, castrating, creating sad, strange, false beings in many cases, but many free and creative spirits arise in Christianity .  it is easy to interpret it as a religion of love, solidarity, forgiveness, tolerance, if you want to do so. Islam seems impossible, despite that the sufis tried

This is still a grossly biased interpretation.

Islam has close to 2 billion followers, obviously they don't see it that way.

You can make any major religion look evil or like an angel if you narrow your perspective enough.

[zazen]

Check out this Taliban spokesperson speak:

The audacity of the following interviewer asking how does the Taliban government benefit Western countries just over 2 min in. This is what the Global South have had to deal with:

Check out the vlogger Arab currently chilling with some Talibros:

There is a problem of thinking something - a book or religous text in this case - is THE truth vs speaks on or about the truth. That’s what causes people to take a literalist approach vs a more metaphorical and flexible one.

Also, it can take extensive study and understanding to know how to implement something - there is a lot of jurisprudence and debate within Islam. It’s not as simple as “God said something on page 42 so we do it” - the context and interaction with the entirety of the text has to be taken into account. 

Most muslim women aren’t being forced into marriage or to wear hijab even. Of course there’s extreme cases, but in general it’s not the rule.

In fact some women who try wear the hijab in Western countries find it can be challenging - not because of being forced to but by how they are perceived and can be treated by non Muslims. Odd looks, a rude comment here and there, thankfully not frequently - people act as if it’s easy for them to do but it’s the opposite which challenges their “belief system” and faith in how they conduct themselves.

Even men should adhere to modest dressing. Some Muslim gym bros tell their other bros not to wear such tight fitting clothes that show off their muscles to the “sistas” lol. Some of you act like Islam is some alien oppressive thing and misunderstand how a lot of Muslims live day to day.

For relationships also, in general men and women are introduced by family / friends, but the choice is up to them whether they want to marry. It’s not arranged marriage as much as it is arranged introductions.

Edited Sunday at 04:49 PM by zazen