God's law or private law?

[Leonardo17]

You don't think it's your ego, they don't think it's their ego...you each think it's each others egos...and you're engaged in a dispute about what a god did or didn't say, according to each of you.  Nothing less than the ownership of True Religion™ and who is or is not a True Muslim™ at stake.  At any rate, you hit the nail squarely on the head..if you're bowing down to rules because someone told you too...even if that someone is a god...that's just dumb.  

So why, again, does it matter what a god does or doesn't say about x?

You argue that there is no islamism or no islamists in the face of mere reality..and this would be disturbing, were it not for the rest of the post being littered with chakra garbage.  More like expected, at this point.  I'll repeat again that the short version as it looks to me - every post in this entire thread-  is that you've made an effort to memory hole anything that you might find shitty about islam so that you feel comfortable in your heterodox beliefs.  An improvement over orthodox beliefs, surely...but not much curiosity, honesty, or consistence.  Not a single ounce of reason.

I don’t know if you are aware while you are going this but I think you are asking the right questions:
 
1) This is absolutely true. We are supposed to go beyond the mind and not to try to solve the mysteries of the universe with our minds. Being mind-based means being ego-based. So you are right in this. This is just my ego (who has a Muslim identity) who is reacting to their egos (who also claim to have a Muslim identity) so my ego is feeling attacked and my ego is reacting.
 
(See: I already gave you all the clues to help you understand that I am not that advanced on the spiritual path )
 
And 2) That’s a completely Ego based reaction too. I mean the second paragraph. Many people like the comfort of their ego based belief systems (but be careful this includes non-theological belief systems too). Being open to change and being dynamic in our philosophical convictions means that we are willing to leave our comfort zone and take a lot of risks.
 
That’s why I said that the road can be bumpy if you decide to venture into spirituality. Many people find it to be a transforming experience that includes a lot of experimentations with completely new concepts and ideas.
 
And what you are describing is also a typical ego based reaction. A Muslim or Jew or whatever, will want to rationalize whatever he/she thinks is the basis of his/her belief system in order to be able to maintain that belief system (that he/she probably has learned as a child and is still trying to maintain as an adult simply because it’s more comfortable that way).
 
But don’t misunderstand me, I will not go on and criticize this type of approach either. I mean, whatever that ideology or religion is, I don’t think it’s anybody’s business. As I believe that we all have a given software at birth. So some of us can decide to explore the limits of the truth about our own reality while another person’s problem might be to make a good living and care for his/her family. And if that person lives in the second scheme what is my problem with that? I think it’s completely fine.
 
And if we were to define ourselves as truth seekers, I think we would have to walk alone on that path.
 
So my statement is more of a political statement. I am simply saying that (again as you noticed) I’ve met many people from many different belief systems. And I found some elements that are common to all of us (all people who believe in the existence of a reality beyond this everyday material reality that seems to work entirely according to the rules of physics). And all that I said is that according to me, there are many people who want to sell themselves as this or that, and that these people don’t really seem to have this common elements that I have witnessed both within myself and in other people who sincerely adhere to this or that religious tradition. And I will keep arguing on that trying to give you some more concrete examples if you were to remain completely unconvinced.
 
One such example is “Thou shalt not kill”. See common in all Abrahamic religions. So if you are not convinced maybe it’s you turn to explain me why the IRI has just murdered a double citizen who was a member of the IRI government in the based on forced confession (that were obtained under torture) and showcase trials that have nothing to do with any legal tradition that we know of up to this day.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are a lot of caveats and exceptions to that one in your magic books as well….when it’s god isnt outright ordering murders, ofc.

Is that important, do you think?

[Leonardo17]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Neo-pagans have a similar issue. As their new age religions cannot genuinely lay claim to a traditional grounding, and seeing as how the few traditional groundings credibly available are often unsuitable due to the modern adherent's contemporary moral views, appeals to some so-called original message are counterproductive, and worst of all, inaccurate.

I don't think there's any way to avoid messing with peoples belief systems if we pursue the question of what is and is not permissible, really. We'll inevitably decide that something sacred is not permissible. Our Guy in question could be doing his sacred duty - but we're already flirting with impermissibility in his case. Who is he, what gives him warrant? His god, and that gods deep spiritual wisdom that's been meditated on at length.

[Leonardo17]

See:

“Iran's Foreign Ministry tweeted on Tuesday that the "British regime, whose royal family member, sees the killing of 25 innocent people as removal of chess pieces and has no regrets over the issue, and those who turn a blind eye to this war crime, are in no position to preach others on human rights."”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-cites-pr...36338.html

Correction by some ordinary Muslim:

“The religious dictatorship of Iran has made a nonsense tweet yesterday which is to be corrected as: Harry of Whales probably received orders to eliminate 25 Taliban fighters while he was in Active duty in Afghanistan. This is not a war crime because he was a soldiers who followed orders while being on active duty and the Taliban are all murderous animals who don’t have a real link to any type of religious of spiritual belief system. (No more than us, the IRI to be honest). Most Muslims won’t give a rat’s ass if they were to be used as shooting targets by the way /most but not all). And we are all murderous B.ards who are the reason why even little children who are defying our rule have to hide their faces from cameras because we are not even a true government who are supposedly there to protect and love our people. In fact we are volunteering to be used as shooting targets as well because that’s probably the best thing that we deserve.
May the peace of whoever it is we believe in be upon you,
IRI”

[Leonardo17]

Neo-pagans have a similar issue.  As their new age religions cannot genuinely lay claim to a traditional grounding, and seeing as how the few traditional groundings credibly available are often unsuitable due to the modern adherent's contemporary moral views, appeals to some so-called original message are counterproductive, and worst of all, inaccurate.  

I don't think there's any way to avoid messing with peoples belief systems if we pursue the question of what is and is not permissible, really.  We'll inevitably decide that something sacred is not permissible.  Our Guy in question could be doing his sacred duty - but we're already flirting with impermissibility in his case.  Who is he, what gives him warrant?  His god, and that gods deep spiritual wisdom that's been meditated on at length.

1) As someone who knows a little about ancient cultures, I understand the romantic ideas of neo-pagans, but there is a well-known phenomenon in anthropology that tells us that different era usually means different perceptions, different psychology and different understanding. So it’s their call. I don’t believe they are really reviving something. I think they are creating something completely new
 
2) You must have heard of the Russian Patriarch Kiril calling the Russian war in Ukraine “A holy war against evil forces” What is your position on that?
 
Another example: You must have hear about the mercenary group called Wagner. What if they too decided to add a religious to their organization? What if they suddenly started to refer to themselves as “Crusaders?” What would be you position on that?
 
And please don’t feel offended. I was listening to the former French President François Hollande a minute ago. He was also talking about “Jihadist” Activities in West-Africa.
 
I think this is a common misperception, and the more we insist on this misperception the more these SoB’s will be able to recruit people to their cause “in the name of God”. And this goes for political Islam too.
 
What would be you position if someone like your former president did what Jair Bolsonaro did and started to call himself “A president who is favored by God” (Bolsonaro did that, He could do that too if he wanted)?
 
So where is our first line of defense? Is it to say “Religion is stupid anyway, so yes, Trump might be appointed by God and Russian soldiers In Ukraine are the soldiers of God”? Or do we rather say “No Sir, Christian religion is against everything that Wagner does and is they were to call themselves “crusaders” they would purely and simply lying and they would be doing this for propaganda purpose”.
 
In fact I will add again, that if there is a “holy war” or “duty of war (in the name of God)” in this case, according to my Holy Book it’s the Ukrainian Soldiers who are in this case because they’re the ones who were attacked without any real cause by an oppressive tyrant.
 
So I’m even saying that I also feel a bit offended by these things. It’s no big deal because we are only at the starting phase of getting to know one another in this world. But still I will keep insisting that militia forces who kill / plunder and rape people in West-Africa are nothing more than Barbarian Hordes. So they should be called this way. They are the same as the Gangs controlling Haiti right know. When you call them “jihadists” you add a cultural / religious element that is not there in reality. These guys are not better only worse than the drug addict who asks for your wallet in a street in the middle of the night.
 
And this also works for political Islam. There is no “political İslam” because the Quran says “your religion is for you and my religion is for me”. So logically, there cannot be politics with a Muslim agenda nor can there be faith with a political agenda because, as I have explained, it’s completely personal. I could have a magic wand and convert 1000 person a day to Islam. Still, as I have explained, If I don’t do my meditations and/or my reading in order to achieve some personal spiritual progress. What is it to me? How do I achieve any type of spiritual growth?
 
So this is also nonsense. When you call the IRI “Islamic” you do the same thing. You add a cultural / religious element which does not really exist there. In my country we like repeating the phrase “The religion of a state is justice”. There is no Justice in the IRI. It’s not even a government. A government is supposed to protect its people. Even if you are a monarchy, children shouldn’t have no hide their faces because they are afraid of their government. Governments don’t do that. And I have already explained the “Islamic” clause in my previous posts. So there is no IRI. It’s simply a lie.
 
And if you don’t agree. Than do you agree that Russian soldiers in Ukraine are Holy Wariors (as the Patriarch Kiril said)? Would you agree with me if I started talking about the Wagner Militia (and enterprise) as a crusader group? Don’t feel offended but I have to ask this

[The Grand Nudger]

You understand, in the context of pagans, that the romanticism of a long gone people is absurd on it's own grounds. Yet you fail to realize as much in the case of abrahamism? Maybe they're deciphering The Original Message™?...... or maybe they're inventing something completely new. I think it's the latter, in your case and in their own.

My position on the idea that the invasion of ukraine was a holy war against evil forces...is that's it's abject bullshit. I would say that, though, wouldn't I, since I think that any purportedly holy war is abject bullshit? Christian religion is not against everything that wagner does - but I am. The same is true of me..or..apparently, you.

There is, ofc, political islam..and to be completely honest there can be no other thing -but- political islam, as it premises a loooong list of what is and is not permissible. A list that you, like the neopagans, have read for filth.

Is the IRI Islamic? Yes. Should the government of Iran protect it's citizens from islamism....? Yes. Russian holy warriors in ukraine are equivalent, here, and I agree that they are compelled by their silly religions to do what they do...............? Some members of wagner are religiously motivated. There's no offense in this, theres no contradiction in this. It is just an accurate statement of some (what I would call legitimate) motivations to conflict. Legitimate in that this is what those people genuinely believe. The only cure for people like that is a bullet.