Just to clarify, I am not referring to the majority of muslims who follow the forms/traditions of Islam which predominate particularly in the West. I am simply referring to the literature itself, in that it can be and is be interpreted literally by some.
Literally interpreted how and by whom exactly? THAT is a serious question.
I don't think I misunderstood Townsend here, although I am open to that possibility. Have you read his books?
Hold on there, I was making a very specific point about the particular way violence is engaged and the rules of said engagement therein applied by Muslims must duly abide.
No, I haven't read Townsend (though have been meaning to but have a major reading back-log at the mo) I assume you raise Townsend because he argues the psychopathic actions of ISIS is directly equated with Islam, or at the very least allowing for a mindset as such to cultivate from? If so, he's wrong.
ISIS is the creation of Zio-CIA factions as I'm sure you well know. The rules the Muslim world abide couldn't give birth to an *organisation* such like ISIS from within its fold not least because it acts so vehemently psychopathic
against its own fold -
against its 'own people'! - in the manner it does if Islamic nations were left to their own devices, except perhaps Saudi Arabia under command of the royal House of Saud who are of a similar vein to the pathocracy of Israelis - which is interesting in and of itself given that monarchy is universally prohibited in Islam yet so command absolute authority over
the two most holiest of holies in all of Islam; Mecca and Medina (it warrants its own topic I think).
There is no way the likes of ISIS could be seeded within an established Islamic nation without powerfully-backed outside interference. ISIS was dependent on continuous backing from powerful external (ie non-Islamic) forces packin' some serious heat to maintain its upkeep and continuance because clearly it couldn't have taken hold without those outside forces making it happen. This is very important to first recognize if we want to be serious about tackling Islam and dissecting its many demons/djinns that unarguably do exist. To use ISIS in an argument as suggestive to ascertaining the problems underpinning the Muslim mindset, or of Islam in general, is a mistake!
I think you, or rather Townsend, is making an erroneous error by essentially trying to say: "Islam permits killing in its name, and ISIS kills
"in the name of Islam" so therefor they're cut from the same cloth". They're not. Islam kills to a predetermined format held to a preordained order - FOR order. As such, Islam kills discriminatory.
ISIS on the other hand kills
indiscriminately. ISIS kills because its directed by agents of chaos - FOR chaos.
Try to understand too; unlike Judaism for example, Islam seeks to incorporate EVERYONE and does so through propagating its mainstay-agenda attempted foremost through a process of deductive reasoning that Muslims are surely truly the righteous followers of the
One True Benevolent and Merciful God of All - and must therefor go some way to demonstrate
thusly on 'His' behalf - not just to others but also
themselves to convince
their own superior righteousness through genuine self-belief of same - even doing so within the parameters setting about "believing" in having to necessitate 'His' contradictory benevolence through the "divine wrath" of war and retribution - as is always the inevitable crunch point to enforce "divine right of supremacy".
As such:
the spirit of Islamic law cannot totally allow for absolute disintegration into entropy through overtly 'psycopathologizing' (for lack of a better term) through the overt abuse via
the letter of Islamic law - when its prime mission seeks to be so "inclusive for all mankind".
As such:
The spirit of
Something must ultimately - and in spite of many a perversion and brutality that
Something so embroiled in and of, down through the ages - in its eventuality,
must over-arch
the letter of
Something when general soul patterning of humanity is present and prevalent, of which, at least for the most part, when all is said and done, the general Muslim population DO possess in a sufficient enough quantity - albeit rather stunted.
(For example... The 'letter' is bodily detail in focus of works making up the tomes. The tomes making up the overall works is essence, it is 'its spirit' and succeeds 'the letter' of bodily details of word. Or for a more...
personable example: I've 'Liked' your post not because of 'the letter' but because of 'its spirit'
succedent to 'the letter'
)
From what I understood, Muslims in secular societies desregard many aspects of the religious text in favor of common human decency and secular values. This is actually a great thing, because it renders Islam compatible with western values and allows for people to thrive in their local communities with other groups of people who either follow different religions or are atheist/agnostic.
Sure, but alas… A Muslim whilst "a Muslim" can never become "Christ-like" because Islam does not - nor likely ever will - hold up to enough Light, for it has not enough Light within. (It is after all an STS creation as are all world-religions, or begotten of)
I might be nit-picking here, but I think "secular values" is a bit of a misnomer. "Secular" is to remain objectively neutral, assuring neutrality remains just that: "Neutral". It cannot be emotionally invested, like values.
"Secular values" is more
an objective to "remain objective" throughout the realm,
for all. I wouldn't say it has "values" as such, in and of itself, but I would say it is of the highest
in having "value". In the Singular.
Secularism ensures other systems of belief and tradition and perpetuation hold on to
their respective "values" without the subjectivity of each of the respective systems of beliefs and traditions and perpetuations abridging the free-will of anothers'. OSIT.
However, by doing so - Muslims are actively ignoring various teachings of their own religious text. Those Muslims who are against ISIS etc have decided that the destructive teachings of the Quran/ahadith are no longer useful, and they have thrown them out in favor of more secular ideas. Likewise, there are those Muslims who have distorted principles of their religion (such as misrepresenting/misinterpreting "Jihad" as self-work, when in fact the literal translation is referring to violent warfare on behalf of Islam).
My previous coverage of misunderstanding Islam's relationship with ISIS applies. Regards the rest... As is endemic within the human condition, the "Jihad" misrepresenting/misinterpreting comes down to calamitous failure in understanding:
"There is right, and there is wrong, and then there is the specific situation/context which determines which is which."
Whilst I am trying not be think in black-and-white terms about this, it seems to me that if people were to follow Islam by the book, then it would be a force of destruction.
Not necessarily, at least not in 3D. I'll get back to that.
Edit: Actually, I did already touch on that a little, above, regards "spirit and letter".
The social-rejects and pathological types who are drawn to ISIS and what-not do have a rational justification for their actions, because they are following the text in a literal way.
The actions of ISIS as agents of indiscriminate destruction and chaos are not rational justifications in any texts except Zionism.
With the "Law of Abrogation" (meaning that where there is contradictory teachings, the later teachings should be given more weight), promotion of violence comes later, and this provides justification for that kind of behavior OSIT.
These are fair points, and from what I have read so far it appears that orthodox judaism is indeed more extreme in that regard. However, Townsend cites a few verses in the hadiths/Quran which explicitly state that non-believers, and even "people of the book" (Jews & Christians) can be slaughtered if they do not convert to Islam. These verses come later, which means that they are given more weight than previous contradictory verses.
That's not entirely correct. Putting aside the Islamic Law of Jurisprudence in battle for now, Law of Abrogation may indeed be a worthy point to raise. However, its a big mess! You need to properly understand the conditions behind determining and validating abrogation. Not that I fully know either. But nor do Muslims, and that's my point.
Primarily, abrogation arises
after the Quranic 'fact' via determining the validity of the Hadiths. Preliminarily, this is subject to much variable interpretation and we all know what
that means! In actual actuality, upon looking into the matter, you will quickly find Muslims
still to this day cannot agree on whether or not abrogation should be applied or appropriated in what context, or if Law of Abrogation (or Naskh) should always follow when where and how - and in some traditions if applied at all.
Here's a Wiki page rundown to give you an idea of the confusion of the matter:
Naskh (tafsir) - Wikipedia
As it becomes quickly evident, a theological mine field if ever there was one!
The Quranic texts are subject to interpretation/misinterpretation via the complex validating process of Hadiths, and in turn those interpretations/misinterpretations are categorized in accordance to validity. There are; "weak Hadiths", "strong Hadiths", "fabricated Hadiths", and "authentic Hadiths", and of course "every-in-between" Hadiths. This is a never-ending contention and cause for much consternation within Islam. It is the main reason why there are splits and different sects within Islam, and within each sect furthering different "schools of thoughts", then throw in the usual mix of egos pride and presumption, depending on the geopolitical-centric cultural baggage, often pre-Islamic in origin, handed down the generations exacted by any a given Ulema of the day.
This is the main reason divisions occur within Islam. This issue must first be appreciated to understand the problem of applying Islamic code and practice. It is also this that allows the opening for much needed Reform.
So lets be clear; to NOT follow an abrogated law does not necessarily mean a Muslim is not doing or not believing what a Muslim is supposed to do or believe and. In reality most devout Muslims wanting to follow code religiously and as objectively as can be, will go by what is *most repeated* in holy texts regardless of chronological order writ. That is; if something has been mentioned 3 or 4 times across the array of 'holy' texts it will naturally be given credence over and above a contradictory later text that has only been mentioned once. Also to consider; Law of Abrogation can sometimes be a good thing overriding less desirable codes prior eg extending Dhimmi to non-Christians/Jews across many parts of the Islamic realm. One could say banning the consumption of alcohol was a "sensible" abrogation. So who's to say more recently-abrogated texts aren't sometimes more egalitarian than older contradictory ones? This is the reality of interpretation, whether good or ill.
Townsend may or may not be running away with himself with respect to certain interpretations... And to follow up, as you say:
by doing so - Muslims are actively ignoring various teachings of their own religious text.
A Muslim told me once: "The Muslim who is a moderate is following Islam correctly. However, the Muslim who is an extremist is also following Islam correctly. You see? There lies the problem."
However, despite the latter, no matter how much a jihadist is extreme in his outlook and actions, there is no escaping the fact to collaborate with ISIS goes against Islamic Military Jurisprudence of conduct in war. Period. I think Townsend (again I assume because I haven't read his book) is greatly confusing the matter with genuine concerns with the concept of "Jihad" in Islam and confusing it with ulterior psychopath-led leadership in command over all-too-easily misled Organic Portals and severely-damaged souls making up the ranks and file. I assume Townsend doesn't acknowledge such considerations the Forum covers?
Even so, it would be a bit like saying Christianity is responsible for the mass-horrors committed by Vlad the Impaler and his men on behalf of Christendom because Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword!".
If the leaders are Psychopathologicals given access to unlimited resources', and the bulk of their flock are the amassed disillusioned and dispossessed Organic Portals and the like, then evil can
and will always find its way though eroded spirituality - regardless religious persuasion.
Law of Abrogation isn't absolute. It isn't well defined at all, and is cause for rifts and much internal strife. The letter of the law will always be changed and twisted by the Predator contradicting "God doesn't change His Mind", for sure, but only so far and for so long before the spirit of the law becomes beyond recognizable and the Spirit of Man can no longer sustain its 'self-destruction' before having to resort to a reform. Any system governing large swathes of Earths yoke for a sufficient length of time as did/does Islam must ascertain and maintain a certain degree of
general over-arching agreeableness or it will simply implode and have to be ejected before it plunges into complete darkness and/or total chaos. In contrast to that, and following on the Judaic issue; Judaism can in fact get away with it indefinitely because it has become dependent on being a minority within a majority host-culture/nation to "suck" to its hearts content knowing the stupid goyim can be relied on to replenish stock. I think this was the real reason and driving-force behind the diaspora, and why many Jews oppose the creation of modern Israel because those Judaics KNOW they can never become "their own hosts" if they wish to continue their own survival without destroying the beast within. It's probably another reason Judaism is primarily determined through genealogical exclusivity, because in doing so is to regulate and therefor maintain a desired minority status wholly dependent on ensuring adequate "feeding off" of any given burgeoning "host" society, OSIT. Judaism can be disagreeable and destructive in its entirety due to strict laws of genetic progeny cleverly regulating codependency of host cultures through those host cultures to thrive. Judaism needs a goyim population to manipulate and to covertly rule over for their continued supplies of "wool and skins and flesh".
Muslims don't. They have no innate desire to manipulate the kafir because they want everyone to convert to Islam. Muslims believe EVERYONE should embrace Islam, to assimilate ALL under one law.
Just on a side note: I half-wonder if, because Christianity proved time and again would eventually come to see "the wolf under the sheeps clothing", if Islam was created by Judaism to ensure a bloated fat host for itself, a host reliably unable to see the forest for the trees - as much as it was created to undermine and keep in check Christianity. After all… Judaism is quite happy to practice Taqiya if needs be (It should be known "taqiya" is an Islamic (Shia) practice - yet Judaism was the first to practice such).
In a way, Judaism reversibly demonstrates that without religious structured Order governing over a majority-rule, then it is concluded ONLY widespread nihilism of a majority-rule population, practicing literal unregulated atheism/materialism, can and will lead to definitive destruction. Islam is only destructive to non-believers who refuse to convert. There is always the option to simply convert.
Aside from slaughter, there is also promotion of sex with pre-pubescent girls, slavery, bodily mutilation (head, hands and feet), stoning, etc.
Sexual abuse and child sex I think is the biggie here. Islam does, repeatedly, state a female must always consent to consummation and she must be of sound mind and faculties. Rape is rape. Its quite clear on that (perhaps you could bring up the contradictory verse/verses in question for analysis in the Islam thread).
From what I can tell, the paedo issue stems from Mohammed "consummating" his marriage to Aisha at age 9 or 12 and then is followed up with a verse in the Quran of Verse: 65:4 that has been grossly misinterpreted through muddy mistranslations regards timing of "menses".
Putting aside my personal thoughts --
If Mohammed didn't exist therefore its likely - because his first wife Khadija was much older than he, and conversely Aisha much younger - is based in astronomical symbolism of some kind -- I do remember, in point of fact, Jordan Peterson "allowing for cultural practices and customs of the times" or something along those lines, when speaking about Mohammed's sexual preference. Although I can see what he is purporting, I actually disagree with Jordan Peterson there... So I will give you that one.
Following on with "allowing for cultural practices and customs of the times"... Slavery and exacting brutal punishment are all moot points to varying degrees. They're not particularly indicative of Islam and none not waved under the Christian banner (I really hope your not gonna try argue with me on that one!
)
With all of the above said though, I believe; If it is possible to determine as universally disagreeable acts by reasoned men today, it therefore always was universally disagreeable and always was able to be determined so by reasoned men of any a yesteryear. Ponerization as excused or not... Evils are evils, its that simple... Objectively always has been and always will be no matter what cultural-mores justification is excused by apologetics of any given background or time-period.
One can argue that Western Muslims in the 21st century rightly find these practices abhorrent, but I think that is because they have adopted western customs and values, and over time, cut ties with those aspects of the teaching. But when we look at some countries in the middle East, these things are still practiced. Townsend points out it is no coincidence that these countries are also devout Muslims (albeit with a different, more literal interpretation).
Ultimately, I think it is important to factor in that the large majority of Muslims do NOT promote these practices, and rightly see that they should be discarded.
I think what you mean by "adopting western values and customs" is in fact adhering to "secular law", of which Western civilization operates on.
Western 'values' once considered "Christian" at source are now hollowed of its hallowed origins. The way I see it, Christianity has allowed itself to become the victim of potentially the greatest criminal act committed in the name of "Modernization". It is trampled on and pilloried, and continues to fall by the wayside under the bastardization of what is now "Western civilization". With that, "Western values" is no longer representative of secular altruism in the way we might once like to imagine... Hell no -
Its outright Nihilism!
And let me repeat: Christianity
has allowed itself to become the victim!...
Shame on Christianity!!
So its interesting earlier you relate "This is actually a great thing, because it renders Islam compatible with western values" between Islam and the West. Because in contrast to Christianity, Islam on the other hand, when combined with the new age of Western-centric materialism fore-fronting Modernization incidentally (some may say ironically even) appears to be much more compatible with Westernization than does Christianity having now shown itself forlorn and begotten "of the negative" in the face
of the negative. Under that banner - or rather umbrella - of "Western values" Christianity has certainly lost its way and its mettle and become watery to the point of pointlessness, or conversely 'flipped' to becoming plain bonkers eg the Bible Belt Inc.
Yet, as you yourself alluded to, a new parallel may be observed:
Therein appears to be a certain compatibility in the relationship between mainstream Islam and modernized Westernization of which seemingly compliments
conventional Islam rather well going some way to soften its hard edges and temper its unyielding 'primitive' desert-forged coarseness within but a single generation or two (even allowing for a strange tolerance toward 'discrete' homosexuality).
Certainly, urbanized Muslims overall verily embrace the trappings of modernization - a modernization of which is still primarily led by Western civilization (with the Far-East duly bringing up the rear) - without their flock allowing it to disintegrate the stability of its order among its flock in maintaining its religious heritage through the daily general routines of religiousness. Maybe
its because Islam is more prone to primitive religious extremism which allows the contrasting materialistic "immateriality" of modern Western-isms that make for an idyll -
and ideal - balancing partnership?... I don't know. I will stress however, Islam, as with any other religion, can only maintain any measure of agreeableness
so long as
secular law of the land is upheld over and above at all times.
Getting a little off topic, but I think there's another side point in all this worth exploring, here:
There is another important point in all this in regards to relating spirituality, and by association 'religion', to lesser-souled beings who make up the world's majority ie the baying hordes. Keep that in mind because I think it is in part
because Islam has quite a limited "Light" emission capacity/capability stunting higher spirituality associated 'ideals', that it is
that very limitation of 'Light' Islam is sorely lacking which makes Islam's stunted spirituality so much more obtainable compatible and
compliable for Organic Portals in reflect
and respect [sic] to their own stunted soul-growth.
As religions go, Islam works rather well for the Organic Portal from the get go because they 'get each other' on a base-line level. Added to that, mainstream or conventional Islam
does allow for
some semblance of soul-growth potential - ie Sufism being an off-shoot - thereby having just about enough of a glowing ember of "Light" smoldering beneath all that grey matter of 3D STS physicality of which OP's are so strongly attached and bound to - as to make conventional Islam realistically accessible to
all OPs in a very real tangible way and especially so for those nevertheless flickering faintly those early stages of potential soul-growth.
The somewhat primitive and 3D-pragmatic approach of Islam becomes more a way of life than religion per se in giving ordered structure to an OP's life,
and can give him a bit of a leg-up (just about) to activate the "soul-growth-potential jump-starter pack". However, history has shown it is absolutely imperative secular law must always hold sway - so as to keep a lid on religious zeal bubbling over and running rampant - to allow those ready to progress pre-Adamic on to Adamic (and on to
pro-Adamic) to do so without persecution (who'da ever thunk zen-like Buddhists would one day run about in their floaty robes chopping up simple villagers eh??)
I think ensuring secular law maintaining law and order over and above religion may have been the
true responsibility for
Christ's Christianity here in 3D, for I've come to realize how, in a funny way, upholding secular law on Earth
is a divine law understood at 3D level. I think Julius Caesar understood that and was what he was working toward implementing.
Following up with Islam on into the considerations for Christianity and the case for Christendom, there is a major issue that needs addressing:
With so many souls across the ages reaching out, and up, for the lofty spirituality of
true Christianity only to then fall back down and FAIL has ended up causing more harm than good. Those poor souls trying all they can only to then find they are incapably of reaching its lofty spiritual heights fall down hard breaking metaphysical bones, unable to re-mend, and so, they spiral down into a darkened psychological descent into spiritual rack-and-ruin seemingly unable to muster the strength to pull back up again. What wells up is contempt resentment and eventual self-deprecation before spilling it over on down through the generations through progeny... Just look at what Catholic guilt has done.
Islam is firmly rooted in the pragmatism of 3D STS physicality first and foremost which makes it an ideal default religion for the struggling OP to fall back down upon with self-preservation relatively intact when failing in his attempt for a higher spiritual pursuit.
Because the basis of Islam is rooted in simplicity, its a religion for the simple, yet gives simple men some self-grounding
and has but a sliver of conceptualized spirituality allowing for some awareness in matters of the soul, Islam is far better off for OP's than "
True Christ-ianity" (un-corrupted Christianity in its original intended form).
Working toward becoming "Christ-like" is simply too much to ask of an OP, and for most those even a bit above that. For the bulk of humanity learning to be "Christ-like" is to become an Organic Portal aggrieved.. Islam does not have such an effect because its always within grasp. Its just a bit too bigoted and presumptuous, and its leadership all too easily hijacked by the Predator. A very dangerous combination indeed... But ISIS it is not.
Abrogate secular statehood over and above Sharia along with the absolution of the requirements of Da'wah among menfolk, and we may find a "reformed" Islam surprisingly agreeable in a relatively short time.
In short; the spiritually-limiting nature of Islam as a religion
in conjunction with an "abrogation for secular statehood" is very OP-viable.
So my comment was not directed at Muslims per se. Rather, it is directed at the text... which upon literal interpretation, is promoting psychopathic and violent behavior IMO.
I would say... Muslims are whom such comments like ours should be most directed toward... Far too many Muslims wriggling away from wanting to "wake up and smell the humus!"
.svg "The image resembles a complex, spirograph floral pattern with five loops encircling the middle.")
