Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateurs de drogues et des explorateurs de l'esprit

Danger of Islam!

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion zezt
  • Date de début Date de début
Statut
N'est pas ouverte pour d'autres réponses.
CaduceusMercurius a dit:
zezt a dit:
There was no mention of the Lord Ahmed, and the threatened 10,000 muslims at all
Or his bragging about a victory for Islam...

On this page the editor points out exactly the same thing I did earlier:

"Britain has banned Dutch politician Geert Wilders as a threat, on the grounds that its imported Islamists will be violent if they see him: Let’s get this straight: A Dutch politician is banned from Britain not because he’s violent himself, but because the Islamists that have been welcomed to Britain could tear the joint apart."

And Ed Husain, the co-Director of the Quilliam Foundation, says:

“Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence. As a result, unlike in the case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, I do not support the decision to ban him from the UK. By threatening parliament with a mob, Lord Ahmed is contributing to the negative portrayal of Muslims and their religion.
 
So let me see. whare are we? Apart from CM and myself who have been openmindedly exploring this important subjects, and one or two others who fluttered in for a bit then disappeared, including Rymman (who I had asked specifically what it was like in Islamic Turkey regarding psychedelics. No answer), the rest have basically just accused people trying to explore this, have changed subject, and ostracized when they know they cant get their way, and impose their IL-liberal beliefs on this process of investigation.

I take forums very serious. ESPECIALLY ones that understand psychedelic experience, because i DEEPLY respect psychedelics, and their potentials for healing the conflicts in us and between us. It is where people share ideas, and other people outside also look at what is said here. As I said, I Googled 'Islam Shaiah Law Psychedelics' and THIS thread was top two links. NOone else online is talking about this. Imagine!!! Only here.

Although this thread is rightly called 'Danger of Islam', this definately does not mean that other belief systems wont also come under scrutiny.

For example, I thought I would chekout what the so-called 'mystical' branch of Islam has to do with what we are talking about, the Qu'ran and Shariah Law. I found one article that said a branch of Sufism was violent and part of a Jihad. And at Islam-watch I read a very interesting article, where the author looks at the different forms of Sufism. He admits that for example Rumi was very much a 'heretic' regarding the demands of orthodoc Islam, but the author also betrayed his own belief system which can be termed 'a rationalist humanism', and from that perspective he put-down the Sufy rituals of whirling as being nonesense and even harmful materially (dont know what he meant by that).

So just for convenience let me make a list of belief systems as I understand them, and how looking at this may help us understand Islam and what it means in this world, where we are at etc?:

Judeo~~ Off the top of my head. You have the Talmud and Torah. In the Talmud especially there are racist remarks about the Arabs? and certainly about the 'Gentiles/non-Jews'..? But UNLIKE Islam there is no 'prophet' that believers have to act like. And 'God' can actually be 'put on trial' if rabbis etc believe 'he' is being unjust
UN-orhodox Jews are not made to feel under threat, and Jews who change faith also are free to

Christian~~ The N.T. The big difference between this and the Judeo-Islamic is the emphasis on 'love your neighbours/enemies'---Not that that has been practised as such, but it cant be argued it isn't there as 'Jesus's saying
Yes, there are fundies, but usually these are condemned by most Christians, and there exists no threat to change beliefs, or have no belief

Islam ~~(well subject of this thread is covering this. Would be superflous to go on here)

Buddhism~~It too like all the other belief systems has misogny at its core. Where women are believed to be inferior, and it is world denying

Advaita vedanta## here also there is the idea of a 'One' and that material reality is illusion. What this do is a subtle dualism between the @one' and the 'many', where the good 'karma' is the evolution to holy status and thuis being able to leave nature and 'return to bliss'

rational humanism~~ Tends to not encourage belief in the 'supernatural'. usually when Islam is critiqued, there is mention that the Islamic world missed out on the 'Enlightenment' which was the experience of Judeo-Christianity, where reason is valued, and rigid religious dogma is allowed to be questioned in freedom.
BUT, the danger i see with the 'religion' of humanistic rationality', is that our spiritual sides become suppressed. And we enter the world of materialism. Where anything 'spiritual' is feared. And maybe no surprise considering the oppressive box it emerged screaming from. But we need to look deeper into this. Also bearing in mind that all thos e belief systems prohibit psychedelics and their experience!
 
CaduceusMercurius a dit:
I understand. We don't know what exactly transpired, and if it relates to the Ka'bah in Mecca at all. Within one or two days I'll start a separate topic about what I'm hinting at here.
OK, I started the topic, which you can find here: Nassim Haramein's Unified Field Theory

Nassim Haramein's grandfather was a devout muslim who guided pilgrims to Mecca every year. Though Nassim's family lineage isn't that relevant because he's not religious himself, he does have some interesting things to say about the Ka'bah, and much more on the Arc of the Covenant.
 
Cool. I will havea look :)
 
zezt a dit:
So just for convenience let me make a list of belief systems as I understand them, and how looking at this may help us understand Islam and what it means in this world, where we are at etc?:

followers of Shiva (shaivites) ~~ Shiva himself abandoned the sexist and racist varnashrama system, yet was a great lover to his devoted wife. Worshippers of Shiva smoke ganja and are generally not aggressive.

followers of Vishnu (vaishnavas) ~~ Krishna, the avatar or source of Vishnu, says in the Bhagavad-gita that he created the varnashram system, based on a person's nature (guna) and work (karma), not birth. So vaishnavas are generally not racist, but they do live a life that is dominated by all kinds of rules and regulations, determined by ancient and recent scriptures. At least the founder of the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON, a prominent branch of the gaudiya-vaishnava tradition) did make statements that could be considered sexist and to some extent intolerant of homosexuals, and there are many more in the Purana's (~1000 BC - 600 AD), his favorite scriptures. The founder died in 1977. Much has changed since then. Women have equal rights in all matters, are considered equally intelligent, and it's ok to be gay. Vaishnava scripture doesn't encourage violence.

polytheistic hinduism ~~There may be an authoritarian structure of pandits, and the varnas: different ranks of society, the highest being the brahmanas and the lowest the sudras (untouchables). Lots of Hindu scriptures describe epic battles, but they are very old stories (predating the tension in the Middle-East), and there are no orders to the reader to take up the sword or anything. An important group of scriptures, the Upanishads, were written in forests by people who had renounced city life. They are not concerned with war or politics at all, but deal only with the nature of reality.

Zezt, I know there are lots of Hindu's in the UK. How are they integrating into Western society? Are there fundamentalist groups?

I do remember one case of religious intolerance: Hindus sued the makers of the first Lara Croft movie, because her jumping on top of the giant Goddess statue and blowing living Hanuman statues to pieces was considered offensive to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200112/s434734.htm

Oh, they were actually vaishnavas, not ISKCON though. And no threats of physical violence:
If the film maker does not apologise and remove these scenes from the film immediately, we will have no choice but to seek legal redress," he said, adding that the group was "very serious" about the threat of a law suit.
 
The crucial thing in this I think is the stopping of the freedom of speech. And this means also the media not being stopped from reporting about it either.

Basically there are only two crucial things in this story and you failed to mention either one of them:

A while ago some extreme Islamist called Yasin was going to visit the Netherlands to give a few lectures. Wilders tried to stop this guy entering the Netherlands with the argument that this guy preached hate. Wilders made those comments based upon poor research (wrongly translated words of Yasin).

The two points:

1) Wilders hypocrisy

2) The irony of Wilders being stopped at the border.

Wilders is all for freedom of speech, if it's his opinion. Hopefully more people start to open their eyes.

On a sidenote, check his program and check what Wilders wants to do with your freedom related to substances and herbs. He's the criminalize-all guy, he never made one thoughtful comment on policymaking. Makes me sad people never discuss those points which are relevant considering the number of retards who would vote for him if there would elections now.
 
CaduceusMercurius a dit:
Zezt, I know there are lots of Hindu's in the UK. How are they integrating into Western society? Are there fundamentalist groups?
I'd still like to hear your answers, but found an answer to at least the last question.

www.stopfundinghate.org

While this article looks at specific issues of Hindu fundamentalism, we would not want readers to think we are unconcerned about other fundamentalisms, although locally these have been of less concern to us, as the largest minority ethnic/religious group is that of Gujarati Hindus. Arun Kundnani, in a recent article in Race & Class, looks at both Muslim and Hindu fundamentalism in the UK. We would endorse his conclusion that "One practice that needs to be challenged is the tendency of 'multiculturalist' policies to take an unthinking, and often tokenistic, approach to 'minority' representation ... leaders of communalist groups can easily become accepted as authentic representatives of Asian 'culture' ... as a result the most reactionary elements within our communities are being given undue influence."
During the Hindu Navratri festival in September 2001 a letter was circulated quite extensively within the Hindu community which appeared to come from an extreme Muslim group threatening to target Hindu and Sikh girls for conversion to Islam. On closer inspection, however, it was clear that this letter was not from any Muslim group, but was intended to stir up anti-Muslim feeling within the Hindu and Sikh communities.

What was surprising was how easily members of the local Hindu community accepted the letter as genuine, without critical examination or scepticism. The bogus letter was therefore very successful in achieving its objectives. There were also serious community conflicts between Sikhs and Muslims in Derby and other parts of the UK following circulation of the same letter. The good news was that the leaders of both the Hindu and Muslim communities in Wellingborough, the local REC and a leading Hindu councillor issued a joint statement strongly condemning the letter and pointing out its bogus nature.

This easy acceptance of anti-Muslim propaganda reflects a wider set of concerns - the growth of Hindu fundamentalist, nationalist and anti-Muslim ideas within the Hindu community of Wellingborough, and indeed wider afield, where such ideas have become almost "common sense". Since the attack on the Twin Towers and the subsequent American led "war on terrorism", anti-Muslim sentiment and prejudice has grown significantly across all communities, both in the UK and abroad, and is certainly not confined to the Hindu community, although Hindu fundamentalist groups now have more credibility for their long-standing anti-Muslim views that predate recent events.
The "Sangh Parivar"

The Sangh Parivar, or "family of organisations", is an umbrella term used to describe the range of social, educational and political organisations and groups that have been formed by the Indian Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) since the 1950s. However, the ideas that the Sangh promotes have existed, in one form or another, for over 150 years. They generally have a series of common ideological or political objectives, with different emphases at different times. These can be broadly summarised as follows:

* India has been in the past, and should be in the future, a Hindu-only country. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are accepted as being within the Hindu "community" (whether they like it or not!).
* Hinduism is a unified religion and civilisation (without conflicts of sect, caste, region, "theology", even when such conflicts clearly exist) which goes back thousands of years. Hindus need to be re-educated and be proud of their historical destiny.
* Hindus constitute a "race" - the Vedic-Aryans.
* Hindus have been traditionally tolerant, which has been interpreted as "weakness". This has resulted in India being conquered by others over the centuries, including Muslims and the British. Hindus now need to become strong ideologically, in their faith, politically and in health (through exercise and mental preparation) in preparation for the struggle to form a Hindu nation (Hindu Rastra) based on Hindutva - blood belonging, religious identity and territorial nationhood.
* People of other religions in India have either been forced to convert (and in essence therefore remain Hindus) or are "foreigners" in India and should be expelled or forced to live within a Hindu society and according to Hindu defined laws. The Muslims of India have been the special focus of attention, but others, such as Christians, have also been stigmatised as the non-Indian "other" and targeted for attacks or forcible reconversion back to Hinduism.
* Hindus are discriminated against in their "own" country and have been divided by others (the "secularists", communists, Congress Party) on the basis of caste, class, regional identities or politics. Such "secularists" should also be targets and are labelled "neo-secularists" by the Sangh (who claim they are the true secularists!).
* The only legitimate languages of India should be those derived from Sanskrit, the ancient language of north Indian, high-caste Brahmins, as written in Hindu holy texts.
Hindu fundamentalism = fascism?

There has been a tendency by some to label Hindu fundamentalist groups such as the Sangh, RSS, VHP etc., as "fascist". Whilst this may be understandable within an Indian context, it would be very dangerous to extend this label to such groups in the UK. Asian communalist groups in the UK are mostly reactive, distorted, responses to a racist society by which they feel threatened. In the final analysis they are aiming towards "separation" from, rather than subordination of, other minority groups and consolidation of support for their views within their own community. This is not the same as fascist organisations in the UK, such as the British National Party, which want to subordinate or eliminate minority groups. However, those who support fundamentalist and communalist groups in the UK should be in no doubt as to the effects of such support in other countries, where subordination and oppression, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religion, is the aim.
Conclusion

The vision of a strong, united, and exclusive Hindu India, cultivated by the Sangh Parivar, has found systematic and organised expression in the UK and in other parts of the world outside India. There are now few Hindu organisations in the UK that are not at least strongly influenced by the Sangh Parivar, particularly the VHP and the HSS. The fundraising activities of Sewa International are considerable. In addition, many of the devotional Hindu priests that visit the UK (dharmachanaryas, pujaris, swamis and sadhus) are also influenced by the Sangh. We hope that by this article on the Sangh both Hindus and non-Hindus might be better informed, and thus able to make clearer judgements, when it comes to the activities of its constituent organisations.

We also hope this briefing will empower those in all communities to oppose "fundamentalisms" of all kinds that set families against families, communities against communities and religions against religions. If humanity is to progress, such fundamentalisms need to be defeated both in the UK and elsewhere in the world.

Also, see IDRF and the American Funding of Hindutva and Hindutva: The Growth of Violent Hindu Nationalism

Violence is a core aspect of Hindutva. It has never been shy of advocating violence for the achievement of its goals of a Hindu Rashtra. It depicts ‘Hinduism’ as constantly under threat from external/foreign forces (of Islam, Christianity and ‘Secularism’), and hence, portrays violence against Muslims, Christians and advocates of pluralism in India as a form of ‘self-defense.’ This, self defense is further positioned as the process of regeneration of Hindu manhood. This twin trope of self-defense and a lost manhood that is in need of recovery are part of the daily rhetoric of Hindutva.
Probably there is no more a poignant way to underscore the issue of Hindutva’s definition as a violent movement than the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by a prominent Hindutva activist Nathuram Godse.
 
HeartCore a dit:
1) Wilders hypocrisy

2) The irony of Wilders being stopped at the border.

Wilders is all for freedom of speech, if it's his opinion. Hopefully more people start to open their eyes.

Of course. People like him are trying to gain power by the easiest method.. Spread fear and hate and prop yourself up as the savior from such fear and hate. It worked throughout the twentieth century, and human nature evidently hasn't changed. Hence he's not here to heal or improve the muslim situation, just to pick at and deepen wounds and profit off of it all

He must love all this free publicity, it is so easy for him to manipulate and twist reality to make it appear he is so hard done by or a martyr or something.

Anyway, side with neocons, fascists and get what you deserve. The path to the dark side is so easy :wink:
 
You reap what you sow.

Why don't women and gays who live in muslim countries stand up together? They ARE the majority, right? What is holding them back?
 
I can answer that but noone will freakin listen to me, I said it already !

Surah 2 - Al Baqarah THE HEIFER


002.001 Alif, Lam, Mim.

002.002 This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God;

002.003 Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

002.004 And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

002.005 They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

002.006 As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

002.007 God hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

002.008 Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in God and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe.

This is probably the most accepted english translation, I don't know about arabic so I cannot tell, all I can say is that it's badly translated, the prophet is not talking about beleif but living that truth. IT IS LOCAL !!!

How else can I explain this, I don't know.

As long as some of us who do not fear god will put our noses in their business, they will never be able to stand up, the will be overwhelmed in the unseen, exept a few with very strong faith.

This is not an extreme tought as you can all see...
 
Furthermore :

002.011 When it is said to them: "[quote:b27r7ez0]Make not mischief on the earth,
" they say: "Why, we only want to make peace!"

002.012 Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not.

002.013 When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

002.014 When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."

002.015 God will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (to and fro).
[/quote:b27r7ez0]

There you wanted to say that the extremists from this religion are "bad" you don't need to MIX legal issues, politics and the media. It's right there in their own book for all to see !

Oh did you see... it's written god there... is there a distinction between god and Allah ? YES !

I reread my own posts in this thread, and I had said this very clearly in other words, but obviously noone even tried to understand me, I did not expect anything but I purposefully know you all know better. I mean common... get over it !
 
Forkbender a dit:
Why don't women and gays who live in muslim countries stand up together? They ARE the majority, right? What is holding them back?

It depends on the country. Some islamic countries are tolerant of gays. Some of them in a way are maybe only a few decades behind many western nations. Some are not but the laws are ignored (morocco). Some (like Iran) will openly execute homosexuals. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

nice table at the bottom... interesting read.
 
And that was the two paragraph between the two I posted... I separate them so you see the clear distinction that Allah is the creator principle, and well god is something bigger that noone can understand, they are only citing their experience with faith !

002.009 Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!

002.010 In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).
 
Ahuaeynjxs a dit:
Oh did you see... it's written god there... is there a distinction between god and Allah ? YES !
What word is used for god?
 
well... only god... what do you mean ?

Allah is also refered to as the guardian-lord :

002.021 O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that you may become righteous;

It's really badly translated , they use lots of pejorative words and not much vocabulary, I can see it there is much distortion compared to its holographic archive, perhaps thats why it causes so much trouble !
 
God = Allah

It is a direct translation.
 
Ahuaeynjxs a dit:
well... only god... what do you mean ?
The Arabic word used in the text.

It's really badly translated , they use lots of pejorative words and not much vocabulary, I can see it there is much distortion compared to its holographic archive, perhaps thats why it causes so much trouble !
On the one hand you say you don't know Arabic, yet on the other you claim it's badly translated. Simply because the translation doesn't make perfect holographic sense to you. What if the Arabic text isn't perfectly in line with the holographic conception either? What if Muhammed wasn't the enlightened person you imagine him to be?
 
CaduceusMercurius a dit:
zezt a dit:
So just for convenience let me make a list of belief systems as I understand them, and how looking at this may help us understand Islam and what it means in this world, where we are at etc?:

followers of Shiva (shaivites) ~~ Shiva himself abandoned the sexist and racist varnashrama system, yet was a great lover to his devoted wife. Worshippers of Shiva smoke ganja and are generally not aggressive.

followers of Vishnu (vaishnavas) ~~ Krishna, the avatar or source of Vishnu, says in the Bhagavad-gita that he created the varnashram system, based on a person's nature (guna) and work (karma), not birth. So vaishnavas are generally not racist, but they do live a life that is dominated by all kinds of rules and regulations, determined by ancient and recent scriptures. At least the founder of the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON, a prominent branch of the gaudiya-vaishnava tradition) did make statements that could be considered sexist and to some extent intolerant of homosexuals, and there are many more in the Purana's (~1000 BC - 600 AD), his favorite scriptures. The founder died in 1977. Much has changed since then. Women have equal rights in all matters, are considered equally intelligent, and it's ok to be gay. Vaishnava scripture doesn't encourage violence.

polytheistic hinduism ~~There may be an authoritarian structure of pandits, and the varnas: different ranks of society, the highest being the brahmanas and the lowest the sudras (untouchables). Lots of Hindu scriptures describe epic battles, but they are very old stories (predating the tension in the Middle-East), and there are no orders to the reader to take up the sword or anything. An important group of scriptures, the Upanishads, were written in forests by people who had renounced city life. They are not concerned with war or politics at all, but deal only with the nature of reality.

Zezt, I know there are lots of Hindu's in the UK. How are they integrating into Western society? Are there fundamentalist groups?

I do remember one case of religious intolerance: Hindus sued the makers of the first Lara Croft movie, because her jumping on top of the giant Goddess statue and blowing living Hanuman statues to pieces was considered offensive to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200112/s434734.htm

Oh, they were actually vaishnavas, not ISKCON though. And no threats of physical violence:
If the film maker does not apologise and remove these scenes from the film immediately, we will have no choice but to seek legal redress," he said, adding that the group was "very serious" about the threat of a law suit.

I do not personally know any Hindus, but as far as I am aware there are no extremist groups, and I have to say I am not aware of any Islamic extremist groups either. BUT I could imagine people feeling more at ease to take the piss out of Hindu gods and goddesses than would be the case against Muhammid and Allah, and Islam of course.

(ps, WOW CM, I will communicate of course over in your thread more about this at a later time. I have been listening to Nassim's interview and it is truly mindblowing!)
 
HeartCore a dit:
The crucial thing in this I think is the stopping of the freedom of speech. And this means also the media not being stopped from reporting about it either.

Basically there are only two crucial things in this story and you failed to mention either one of them:

A while ago some extreme Islamist called Yasin was going to visit the Netherlands to give a few lectures. Wilders tried to stop this guy entering the Netherlands with the argument that this guy preached hate. Wilders made those comments based upon poor research (wrongly translated words of Yasin).

The two points:

1) Wilders hypocrisy

2) The irony of Wilders being stopped at the border.

Wilders is all for freedom of speech, if it's his opinion. Hopefully more people start to open their eyes.

On a sidenote, check his program and check what Wilders wants to do with your freedom related to substances and herbs. He's the criminalize-all guy, he never made one thoughtful comment on policymaking. Makes me sad people never discuss those points which are relevant considering the number of retards who would vote for him if there would elections now.

heartcore, I am not thinking of joining the far right party, dont worry 8)

The very first time I even heard of Geert was at the beginning of this thread. All I knew was he made Fitna. But then was put straight about his anti-psychedleics etc etc by people here.
Yet I still value his free speech. he had no right to be banned from UK. Do you think he had?

I haven't heard of Yasin, so I cannot judge. But I feel Wilders like ex-muslims feel the Qu'ran is bascially NOT a peaceful religion in that it demands the word of 'Allah' is the LASt word. It cannot be contradicted, nor commented on. For to do so would defy God's and Muhammid's authority

Question, I notice your avatar: Are you a Buddhist, or are you Islamic Muslim?
Of course, you dont have to tell me
 
st.bot.32 a dit:
Forkbender a dit:
Why don't women and gays who live in muslim countries stand up together? They ARE the majority, right? What is holding them back?

It depends on the country. Some islamic countries are tolerant of gays. Some of them in a way are maybe only a few decades behind many western nations. Some are not but the laws are ignored (morocco). Some (like Iran) will openly execute homosexuals. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

nice table at the bottom... interesting read.

EXACTLY. No offense, but you are not feeling what serious oppressive medieval religious oppression is REALLY like. It doesn't work like that!
Yeah HERE we had Stonewall riots, sure. But that was in a supposed western democratic system where people demanded human rights.
In a system where only 'Allah' has the say, there is no CONCEPT and/or allowance of human rights. It is taboo, 'unthinkable'
 
Statut
N'est pas ouverte pour d'autres réponses.
Retour
Haut