IndieAgora

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCC97yf7dys

I am not particularly interested in the first section of this video, apart from the part about how the blaming of Islam and Muslims for terrorism by Islamophobes is overly reductive and excludes historical context, for example, there have been more IRA Catholic bombings and terror incidents confirmed in the UK than ones pertaining to Islamic terrorism, but most importantly, they assert that it's only about the teachings of the Quran itself that causes such problems. Garrett points out various coup de tats in Syria and Iran to name two examples where secularism and western-inspired democracy was interrupted due to western intervention as opposed to Islamic terrorism and ideology.

The main part of the video that interests me, is the definition of feminism. Many will go to Google and find the 'fight for the equality of the sexes of genders', which Garrett, in my opinion, rightly rejects this definition as over simplistic. It ignores proto-feminist individuals and groups in various cultures throughout history across the whole world, it wasn't until recently that feminism united as a movement and the first wave was primarily about suffrage. The second wave was about changing attitudes of the private sector towards women. He makes a good point about how if gender equality was achieved, there would still be feminism. Feminism may advocate rights, but it is not the central subject of feminism. It has a cultural critique, a literary tradition, a commentary on art and has made an impact on philosophy too.

Where I will disagree with Garrett in this video however, is the part where he challenges political correctness, which has become one of the main criticisms of feminism by those who oppose it. It's not that Garrett is challenging political correctness, I agree with him that it is a non-existent problem, or at the very most, an insignificant problem where I disagree with him. It's when he says 'how can feminists enforce if they have no laws', which is to say, how can feminists enforce things like censorship when they don't have the law behind them to do so at their command. While I agree with him on the point that this is a non-issue, I disagree that groups in society need laws to enforce what they believe to be true.

Norms can be just as powerful and forceful as laws, they are the unwritten and unofficial rules that are enforced by any member of society who is part of a group that holds certain beliefs and values to be right or wrong and they don't need a law and force that enforces those laws to impose sanctions and rewards - norms can do that just as effectively, if not more effectively than laws themselves.

Just to be clear - I am not saying that feminists are using norms to enforce political correctness in the form of censorship, I am opposing his claim that a group or individual needs laws to enforce their beliefs, values and desires.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say in regards to this video.

I didn't watch the video but noticed one of the assailants is red and the other is yellow. The Qur'an does not teach terrorism. The weight of the book can make a handy head slamming tool though.

www.islamawakened.com/quran it is my favorite book in the whole world, standing above all other books genres and is the highest achievement in writing humanity has ever had. It combines everything into one book while in Arabic rhyming and following a rhythm and talking about every subject fluidly and honestly and without pretensions. It is full of layers of meaning and etymological depth. People running around shooting people can make up any reason or be blamed for any reason but the Qur'an is a book which has just by its existence around those who haven't even read it, been involved in serious reactions. The book itself is magical and seems to speak directly to the reader and have constant new discoveries and change secretly or revealing more as if it is a living book and the true Necronomicon and its very likely what inspired such originally.

Its also a wonderful tool for testing and dividing and sorting people.

You can simply offer it to people and see how they take it or understand it or agree or disagree.

The book and I are one, I have no disagreements with it, consider it a divine gift and curse, consider it the prime text of Diabolism and truth, and the only book which very clearly says what I say word for word and is in perfect alignment with me.

The other religious texts also say what I say but this one doesn't require sifting through and finding gems, its one amazing sentence after another, clear on the surface but with incredible depth and levels for most words in it and extremely precise while encompassing so much. The Bible is fully corrupt and obnoxious in comparison to it and has been wrongfully lauded while the Qur'an has been unjustly disparaged just like me.

Its message is wholly unpalatable to the desires of humanity in many senses, so it does not give people what they want, but does give them what it promises, Islam, which from its root slm can mean relief/healing/satiation/peace through acknowledgement of a surrendered state to the Truth/Reality (Al-Haqq) which is God/Allah/The One Power/Chaos/Like Nothing/Subhan alone, without partners or sharing or any causes or chains, but just always at every step Allah doing and making experienced all that is by us and there is nothing to say or do about it except to speak the truth and remind ourselves of the power and request whatever as it os Magic itself.

That encompasses the whole meaning plus idea of Islam.

People, even mentioned in the book itself which seems to depict contemporary attitudes, hated so much about Islam, most particularly the Fatalism and Determinism and total power of Allah in doing and making all things.

This becomes the easiest tool in sorting people, even sorting so-called Muslims between real Muslims.

So-called Muslims will be ignorant and tend towards modern ideas like Free Will and God being Omnibenevolent and in many ways imitate the Christians of today with their poor to ridiculous and embarassing apologetics.

One can simply ask if Allah determines every move and action and thought and deed a person does or thinks or if the person has a choice and a power of their own and can choose this or that and Allah does not choose but the person chooses and Allah follows after their decision and reacts to them so they cause Allah to do this or that and it is left to Chance if they do this or that.

Chance is still a name for God but they wouldn't know that or think so.

Do if they choose Option A, that Allah controls every moment and all experience in every detail and there is no time or system except what Allah makes appear or seem to be, and they make an effort to be noble and just and merciful and worship throughout the day after cleansing themselves and are charitable and strive and compete in nobility, fear, and excellence, they are Muslims.

If they say God does not make evildoers evil and is not the creator of all things, and people choose and God is influenced by them, they are not speaking according to the Qur'an.

The corruption of Islam comes through collected tales written in Persia called the Hadiths. They are full of stupidity and most of the costume show that is called Islam today is just related to the Hadith which the Qur'an predicted and said would be a sorting device to take away a portion of people.

Islam was very Calvinist before John Calvin, and very much throughout history before Muhammed.

The other area of sorting besides the issue of choice and chance and free will and options is Fear and Evil.

If the questioned does not fear God or believe that God can freely without consequence or reason or justice do whatever and change whatever, they are saying that God is tied down by Justice or Love which were how pagans also named their Gods and powers. Allah is not bound to anything but makes the rules and can change them freely.

Finally, Allah as the source, cause, agent, and actor behind everything, both good and evil. The Qur'an clearly states and repeatedly states All is from God, the good and the evil even from within people. Anyone who claims otherwise and excludes evil is creating other sources and causes and comutting what in the Qur'an is the greatest error of shirk meaning sharing, as in sharing of power or misattribution of causation.

Finally, if the person says that Allah doesn't know some information which exists, like that you know your experience but God knows it from the outside or another perspective or doesn't know the feelings as you have felt them or doesn't pry into bathrooms or see what people see from their eyes and in their hearts as in them, they have also defied the clear messages of the Qur'an and they do so because they even unadmittedly are imagining Allah wrongfully as a man or human figure who they deem would be perverse to be interested in these things. These are primitive and stupid notions and the Qur'an is clearly against such things.

There are very few true muslims known in the world anymore and practically no true Christians which would basically be a Muslim and a Jew and a Hindu and many other things because they were extremely similar or identical in the ancient past down to the cleansing practices and worship practices and motions.

Terrorism, in particular, suicide bombing, was a reinterpretation of the scripture by Assad and is not inherently in the scripture.

Great reply, but it would have made a great thread on its own as it covered a specific topic, just saying.

Haha yeah I thought you might say that. I can copy paste it to a thread. Then delete it here and link to the thread. One second.

It's okay, you don't have to do that. Just saying for future reference.

https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Islam-Quran-Qur-an-Koran-Sorting-Identifying-True-Muslims