I want to say I am not a poly-religious person or whatever. What I am about to say is something that is present in mystical Islam as well.
In the Quran the Devil is described as an angel who refuses to bow down to Adam because he is made of fire which is superior to earth. And after that event, he swears to God that he is going to do everything in order to lead Adam (and Eve of course) to all sorts of error and away from God.
In my understanding this is exactly the state of the human Ego (and the human mind). As in “Skynet is the virus” in the movie Terminator 3. That’s our Skynet. That’s our fallen angel that leads us to sin (or error). The error is a sense of limited personality instead of a state of infinite Union with God (heaven).
So books and teachings are just a roadmap. So there is nothing magical about them. We are not supposed to worship them and be entirely consumed by them. The general advice in spiritual teachings is “read a little, meditate more and think of God all the time”. The formulation of this may change from one geographical region to the other but this is the only true path. Because it’s the only safe way of doing things. If you don’t do that and become mentally obsessed with the book itself (which is basically another physical object in this mundane reality), your mind will start playing tricks (unless you are a well-educated scholar or a good theologian who is able to maintain his/her scientific approach while studying these issues). Otherwise, as I said: “Skynet is the virus”. So first there will some small deviations. Than it will lead you to some populist interpretations, crusades, burning of scientists as heretics, fanatic defense of completely irrational thoughts like “If God wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings”. So again, I believe that being an atheist beats being a believer and falling into this type of grave error.
So if you go to the root of religious practices, like fasting for instance, in the past this used to be a period during which you would focus on inner realities, while refraining from worldly activities such as eating and drinking. The fasting used to be a mental process more than a physical process. But as a result of what I’ve explained, this and many other religious practices have turned in mechanical actions that will give you a temporary relief (It’s a scientific fact: If you lost someone for instance, praying will provide some psychological relief whether you believe it or not) but it will not lead to what I call “success in spiritual terms”. So you will keep being an ordinary who taps into spiritual elements in order to obtain some psychological relief (until the hour of death in which you may realize that all of it were fairy tales
).
So again, I don’t care what other people do or don’t do. I am trying to walk, one step after another, on a path that (I believe) will lead me to a more spiritual level in which this Skynet will be more under my control (“me” being my inner self or true self). And As I said: I’m in a process of constant new discoveries. This is not a stagnant process in which I am able to lay back and enjoy the show. It requires some active participation as well. And I don’t think there is even a one size fits all approach in this. So I see it as a personal journey.
My only argument is that we are not in the middle ages anymore. I agree That Urban II had his reasons in the past (like directing the already existing violence between constantly fighting warlords toward the riches of the East). I even agree that Muawiya I also had his reasons in turning the Islamic religion into an expansionist empire. This was the one or two centuries before the Viking age. Mankind was only beginning to become civilized. So maybe these people simply did what they had to do as political leaders of the time. So in that Era I may have remained silent to such distortions of the original message. Because that was the time.
But what about the torturing and burning alive of Giordano Bruno for instance? Or the denying that the earth is round in the 17th century? The killing of Protestants or the war against Elizabeth II of England? Or the inhumane treatment of all non-Christians during the Spanish Reconquista?
So these are the historical examples. And luckily we are in an age in which theocratic rule and all of those insanities have ended. So we are able to focus our attention on the climate apocalypse lying ahead of us .
But the question in our time is “how far do we tolerate?”. I’m not dictating anything on anyone. But one example is that the hijab in Muslim societies is being used as a very strong symbol. The psychology behind it is that it is basically the same as walking with a huge Soviet flag all over the place. I don’t have anything against female US senators entering the US congress with a headscarf (It’s their choice and I don’t have a say in that). But there are debates. The Turkish medical association has a very negative report on young girls being forced to wear a hijab at a very young age. When you do that you are teaching that adolescent girl that she has become a sexual object in the eyes of her male counterparts. And if you segregate female girls (as they do in religious schools) you are telling her from that age that she is never going to be the equal of her boy comrades. These are all scientifically backed facts. So people are debating. In France there are public beaches in which the burkini (don’t ask me because I don’t really know) has been completely banned. And I have the right to have an opinion on that. I don’t think that only those persons with a turban and a prayer bead in their hand should be issuing their opinions on the “Muslim side” of these stories. Who made them “the Muslim side” anyway. In Islam we don’t have a clergy like the Vatican and the Imam is defined as “He (and today she – Yes there are female Imams in some countries like France) who leads the prayer”. In Turkey these are civil servants that are paid by the ministry of Religion. So the first question is “Who is this guy who decided 3 days ago that Harry of Whales is the enemy of Muslims?” Not only is his argument completely empty, but who made him the speaker in the name of 2 Billion followers in the world? (Historical reminder: The last Caliph or Leader of the Muslim World was an Ottoman Noble called Abdulmecit, and this caliphate was simply abolished with the decision of the Turkish General Assembly in 1924). So again: “Who is this guy in the first place?
So again, If I am defined as a Muslim of sort. I have some objections on some issues. And because we don’t have a clergy like the Catholics or the Shiite Muslims in Iran, I am also encouraging other Muslims to speak up for what they see (whatever is) “our true faith”. In the US you have a movement called “Not in my name”. I even saw a guy with a banner in New York with the sign “I’m a Muslim. Ask me anything”. It’s a very sad situation (all of the serious Muslim scholars agree on that) but this is the state of our faith today. So the question here is (as it has always been) “What is permissible? And what is not permissible?”. So I cannot mess with other people’s belief systems. I like donating money to charity while other people like slaughtering poor animal. When it’s their beliefs, I do not have a say in that.
Yet. When someone is clearly insane and is posing as “a Muslim” and is speaking and doing nonsense, I will question their legitimacy. Because they are misusing this what I would call ignorance of the true doctrine on the very people who are giving them this “religious freedom”. I mean can pedophilia and polygamy be included in the domain of religious freedom and the spirit of cultural tolerance? I don’t think so. But the debate is on in my country. And if you let them, they might even include cannibalism and/or the practice of female genital mutilation in the context of religious freedoms (remember the example of Skynet ).
So if this is the 21st century and this isn’t the time of Urban II of Muawiya II anymore and if we achieved some degree of progress in the past 500 years. Again: This guy who called Harry of Whales an “enemy of Muslims” has to make an explanation 1) in front of a legal court and 2) to me, the Muslim community (I mean where did he get that idea in the first place?).
So that’s how I see it and I think this time you must have understood me
In the Quran the Devil is described as an angel who refuses to bow down to Adam because he is made of fire which is superior to earth. And after that event, he swears to God that he is going to do everything in order to lead Adam (and Eve of course) to all sorts of error and away from God.
In my understanding this is exactly the state of the human Ego (and the human mind). As in “Skynet is the virus” in the movie Terminator 3. That’s our Skynet. That’s our fallen angel that leads us to sin (or error). The error is a sense of limited personality instead of a state of infinite Union with God (heaven).
So books and teachings are just a roadmap. So there is nothing magical about them. We are not supposed to worship them and be entirely consumed by them. The general advice in spiritual teachings is “read a little, meditate more and think of God all the time”. The formulation of this may change from one geographical region to the other but this is the only true path. Because it’s the only safe way of doing things. If you don’t do that and become mentally obsessed with the book itself (which is basically another physical object in this mundane reality), your mind will start playing tricks (unless you are a well-educated scholar or a good theologian who is able to maintain his/her scientific approach while studying these issues). Otherwise, as I said: “Skynet is the virus”. So first there will some small deviations. Than it will lead you to some populist interpretations, crusades, burning of scientists as heretics, fanatic defense of completely irrational thoughts like “If God wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings”. So again, I believe that being an atheist beats being a believer and falling into this type of grave error.
So if you go to the root of religious practices, like fasting for instance, in the past this used to be a period during which you would focus on inner realities, while refraining from worldly activities such as eating and drinking. The fasting used to be a mental process more than a physical process. But as a result of what I’ve explained, this and many other religious practices have turned in mechanical actions that will give you a temporary relief (It’s a scientific fact: If you lost someone for instance, praying will provide some psychological relief whether you believe it or not) but it will not lead to what I call “success in spiritual terms”. So you will keep being an ordinary who taps into spiritual elements in order to obtain some psychological relief (until the hour of death in which you may realize that all of it were fairy tales
).So again, I don’t care what other people do or don’t do. I am trying to walk, one step after another, on a path that (I believe) will lead me to a more spiritual level in which this Skynet will be more under my control (“me” being my inner self or true self). And As I said: I’m in a process of constant new discoveries. This is not a stagnant process in which I am able to lay back and enjoy the show. It requires some active participation as well. And I don’t think there is even a one size fits all approach in this. So I see it as a personal journey.
My only argument is that we are not in the middle ages anymore. I agree That Urban II had his reasons in the past (like directing the already existing violence between constantly fighting warlords toward the riches of the East). I even agree that Muawiya I also had his reasons in turning the Islamic religion into an expansionist empire. This was the one or two centuries before the Viking age. Mankind was only beginning to become civilized. So maybe these people simply did what they had to do as political leaders of the time. So in that Era I may have remained silent to such distortions of the original message. Because that was the time.
But what about the torturing and burning alive of Giordano Bruno for instance? Or the denying that the earth is round in the 17th century? The killing of Protestants or the war against Elizabeth II of England? Or the inhumane treatment of all non-Christians during the Spanish Reconquista?
So these are the historical examples. And luckily we are in an age in which theocratic rule and all of those insanities have ended. So we are able to focus our attention on the climate apocalypse lying ahead of us
. But the question in our time is “how far do we tolerate?”. I’m not dictating anything on anyone. But one example is that the hijab in Muslim societies is being used as a very strong symbol. The psychology behind it is that it is basically the same as walking with a huge Soviet flag all over the place. I don’t have anything against female US senators entering the US congress with a headscarf (It’s their choice and I don’t have a say in that). But there are debates. The Turkish medical association has a very negative report on young girls being forced to wear a hijab at a very young age. When you do that you are teaching that adolescent girl that she has become a sexual object in the eyes of her male counterparts. And if you segregate female girls (as they do in religious schools) you are telling her from that age that she is never going to be the equal of her boy comrades. These are all scientifically backed facts. So people are debating. In France there are public beaches in which the burkini (don’t ask me because I don’t really know) has been completely banned. And I have the right to have an opinion on that. I don’t think that only those persons with a turban and a prayer bead in their hand should be issuing their opinions on the “Muslim side” of these stories. Who made them “the Muslim side” anyway. In Islam we don’t have a clergy like the Vatican and the Imam is defined as “He (and today she – Yes there are female Imams in some countries like France) who leads the prayer”. In Turkey these are civil servants that are paid by the ministry of Religion. So the first question is “Who is this guy who decided 3 days ago that Harry of Whales is the enemy of Muslims?” Not only is his argument completely empty, but who made him the speaker in the name of 2 Billion followers in the world? (Historical reminder: The last Caliph or Leader of the Muslim World was an Ottoman Noble called Abdulmecit, and this caliphate was simply abolished with the decision of the Turkish General Assembly in 1924). So again: “Who is this guy in the first place?
So again, If I am defined as a Muslim of sort. I have some objections on some issues. And because we don’t have a clergy like the Catholics or the Shiite Muslims in Iran, I am also encouraging other Muslims to speak up for what they see (whatever is) “our true faith”. In the US you have a movement called “Not in my name”. I even saw a guy with a banner in New York with the sign “I’m a Muslim. Ask me anything”. It’s a very sad situation (all of the serious Muslim scholars agree on that) but this is the state of our faith today. So the question here is (as it has always been) “What is permissible? And what is not permissible?”. So I cannot mess with other people’s belief systems. I like donating money to charity while other people like slaughtering poor animal. When it’s their beliefs, I do not have a say in that.
Yet. When someone is clearly insane and is posing as “a Muslim” and is speaking and doing nonsense, I will question their legitimacy. Because they are misusing this what I would call ignorance of the true doctrine on the very people who are giving them this “religious freedom”. I mean can pedophilia and polygamy be included in the domain of religious freedom and the spirit of cultural tolerance? I don’t think so. But the debate is on in my country. And if you let them, they might even include cannibalism and/or the practice of female genital mutilation in the context of religious freedoms (remember the example of Skynet
). So if this is the 21st century and this isn’t the time of Urban II of Muawiya II anymore and if we achieved some degree of progress in the past 500 years. Again: This guy who called Harry of Whales an “enemy of Muslims” has to make an explanation 1) in front of a legal court and 2) to me, the Muslim community (I mean where did he get that idea in the first place?).
So that’s how I see it and I think this time you must have understood me
