Islam: The Rough Diamond?
Jeroen
Not all those who wander are lostNetherlands Veteran
I came across an interesting video of Osho on Islam, which I’ll just paraphrase here…
“I haven’t spoken much on Islam because in order to do so I’d have to disagree with some of its beliefs. Islam’s message is meant for more primitive people; it is like teaching a primary school class, while speaking on spirituality in India is like lecturing at a university. But because the Koran says it is the last word from God to man, there hasn’t been much evolution. The Upanishads have been continually refined and interpreted in new ways over the years, and in order to make progress in Islam there should be new commentaries and interpretations of the Koran. As it is, the Koran is a diamond, but a diamond in the rough, uncut.”
I thought it was interesting, because it reflects some of what we see happening in the Middle East over the decades. Dictators, systems of law where they still behead people, a distinct lack of tolerance. And all of that in one of the most religious societies in the world. The whole idea of a “last word” and “the only book you’ll need” removes a lot of incentive for learning and progress, I think.
Comments
Personally, I have no interest in the Abrahamic religions, or any institutional religion. All have been corrupted or co-opted, including Buddhism when turned into a system of belief. The state of the world today reflects how teachings meant to free can become tools of control.
While I understand he often used provocative language to challenge dogma, however, when he says Islam was “meant for primitive people” or comparing it to “teaching a primary school class” feels condescending and reductive. It ignores the richness of the Islamic tradition, especially Sufism, whose mystics like Rumi, Hafiz and Rabia al-Adawiyya expressed timeless spiritual insight.
From what I gather Osho came from a region shaped by centuries of religious tension and caste oppression. It’s worth noting that during the Islamic conquests of the subcontinent, many from oppressed castes, especially the untouchables, converted to Islam seeking dignity, justice, and equality, an escape from the rigid Hindu caste system. This may have shaped some of his views, consciously or not, especially his criticism of Islam.
It’s also worth noting that many in the West see Osho as a cult leader, given the scandals surrounding his commune. This doesn’t nullify everything he said, but it does call for caution when he makes sweeping judgements about other paths.
This view oversimplifies a complex region and ignores the historical role of Western colonialism and their interference and propping up dictatorships.
Islamic civilisation made important contributions to the Western world, especially during what is now referred to as the Islamic Golden Age. Muslim scholars preserved and built on Greek, Persian, and Indian knowledge, shaping the fields of medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy. Their influence can also be seen in architecture, agriculture, and trade. Much of this knowledge later fed into the European Renaissance and helped lay the foundations for modern science.
Western propaganda will always promote its own narrative, often downplaying or ignoring the contributions of others, especially those from the Asian, African and Islamic world.
Dismissing a religion because of its misuse misses the deeper point: it’s the inner inquiry, not the outer form, that truly matters.
“Beyond right and wrong, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.”
~Rumi~
Agreed, 100%
There are a lot of misconceptions about Islam and a lot of unfair/inaccurate comparisons, to other Abrahamic traditions.
One such misconception is the hearing of Hijab. A lot of westerners, think that Islam is strict on the subject - all women must wear head covering. It is strict, but not everywhere. As an example, Egyptian Muslim women can choose to wear Hijab or not.
A lot of people portray Islam is a religion of violence. It does have that side, but the violence isn't commonplace. Compared to what Jews and Christian are doing these, I'd say, Islam is doing OK.
Some folks point to their dietary restriction. That's fine, but Halal is not much different from Kosher. You can still get alcohol in most Muslim countries, but the lack of pork products, especially in venues where foreigners are expected, is puzzling.
And I'd hardly agree with Osho's opinion in Islam. He comes from a culture where Muslims are generally looked down upon. He's insulting and condescending. Considering his history, he's hardly one to advise any of the changes he suggests/expects. Didn't one of his closest students try to poison a whole town or something?
More of what Osho thought/said about something
. * rolls eyes *
+1
Ok, ok. I didn’t know you guys objected. I will let it be for a while, although I do find him interesting, and he does get the ball rolling.
For the record, Osho did speak at length about the Sufi’s, often in glowing terms. But the fact is Islam has largely rejected Sufism, and has historically persecuted it’s saints, like Mansur al-Hallaj. And Osho came from a Jain family, not a Hindu one, so was never really concerned with castes.
So @Shoshin1, what do you think about honour killings? There was a recent case in the Netherlands about a Syrian father and two sons who killed a young adult daughter/sister. The religious climate does shape people’s expectations and behaviour.
Most of the rest of your points seem to be attacking Western standpoints, and shoring up Islam as a whole, and bringing in Osho’s reputation, without ever addressing what Osho said. Which is not really a sound basis for debate.
If you look at things like the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or the Charlie Hebdo murders, or the rape incidents in Germany from Syrian refugees, there seems to be a lot of more extreme and more violent mindsets amongst these people. I can’t say I approve.
Just out of interest @Jeroen, who do you mean by “these people”? Are you referring to the two billion Muslims in the world?
If you want to compare apples with apples when it comes to violent mindsets, you need to consider scale, context, and power. Western powers have invaded, bombed, occupied, sanctioned, and destabilised numerous Muslim-majority countries over the past century, often with catastrophic civilian death tolls. These were not fringe actions by extremists, but official state policies backed by governments, parliaments, and presidents.
By contrast, terrorism carried out by Muslims, while horrific, is usually the work of non-state actors and widely condemned across the Muslim world. These attacks have caused far fewer deaths than those resulting from Western wars, drone strikes, sanctions, and occupations.
If we’re being honest, the most destructive and far-reaching violence, measured in lives lost and long-term suffering, has overwhelmingly come from powerful Western states, not from Muslims.
Over the past century, conservative estimates suggest that between 4 and 12 million Muslims have died in conflicts involving Western powers: through wars, occupations, sanctions, and their aftermath. Most were civilians.
Now compare that with the estimated 30,000 to 40,000 Western soldiers killed, and 5,000 to 6,000 civilians killed by so-called Islamic terrorists in the same time period.
As for Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, and the attacks in Germany, yes, those were brutal acts. But they were carried out by a small minority and do not represent all Muslims. Just as we would not blame all Christians for the Christchurch mosque attack, or all Jews for the actions of Israeli forces, we should not generalise here either.
What happened in the Netherlands was horrific, but honour killings are not unique to Muslims, nor are they supported by Islamic teachings. These are rooted in patriarchal customs found in many cultures: Christian, Hindu, and secular alike. Framing this as a religious issue only feeds a harmful and misleading narrative, @Jeroen.
As well as formally taking hands I was trained with two mystical Sufi orders
Naqshbandi (Sunni and Secular) and Chishti.
https://idriesshahfoundation.org/
I learned the inner meaning of Dharma (all sorts) from this learning.
Now that I am a heretic (allegedly) and non conformist, I can finally practice without practice and just tell stories no one believes...
https://sufi-tavern.com/category/chishti-order/
Once upon a time...
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/comment/522259#Comment_522259
@Shoshin1: I’m not going to try and justify the acts of western governments, geopolitics expands the scope of this discussion way beyond its original intention.
But if you read the Skeptics Annotated Koran you’ll find it’s really quite violent, for example in it’s prescriptions about what to do with unbelievers. In my eyes religion should call to the best of mankind, not the worst, encouraging people to do good, and recent trends towards universalism in some quarters of the Christian Church are a good thing.
I thought Osho’s observation about the Koran’s positioning as the “last word” was sharply made. Nothing in this world is perfect, and Christianity for example has been forced to re-examine its roots in response to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi papers. This has breathed new life into how people look at the Bible.
Fair enough, but if you're going to make sweeping statements about Muslims or Islam, then surely the broader context does matter. We don’t exist in a vacuum.
I feel like Islam should be open to criticism just as much as any other religion. If you do that though its important to keep it to doctrine and not conflate Islam with Muslims. And realize that while culture is often tied up with religious beliefs they aren't one and the same. So using language that recognizes people's individuality and complexity rather than saying "those people" as if they are all the same, or "illegals" rather than illegal/undocumented immigrants. Ajahn Brahm often talks about when he goes to visit people in prison he doesn't talk or think about them as criminals, but people who have committed a crime.
I just find it interesting that rather than discussing the core of the post, all the replies chose to focus on one small two word generalisation. I thought we had moved beyond one-upmanship on this forum…
Nice put-down, Jeroen. But I think the objection is to the OP in general, which has a distinctly racist and ethnocentric tinge to it.
Yes, Islam has a violent streak. So does Christianity. So does Buddhism. So does Judaism. So does Hinduism. Osho and his followers had their moments, too. Personally, I think you're picking on Islam because you have a certain bias - prejudice, if you will.
It doesn't really matter what's included in their scriptures. Their actions are the most telling. For the largest part, Muslims are a kind, generous and peaceful people.
You mentioned Skeptics Annotated Koran. Why not simply read the Quran instead of something someone, not even a committee, wrote up based on his own prejudices, biases and bigotry.
FYI, the Skeptics Annotated Koran includes the text of the Koran in English, with some symbols added to show where the text references violence, etc. If you care to take a look, you may find it illuminating.
And by the way, I do have some Muslim friends, I don’t think your accusation of prejudice has any merit.
@Jeroen If you read the Christian and Hebrew Bibles, you'll find there is far more violence, including genocide. For example, the Book of Joshua details the military campaigns against the Canaanites, describing the destruction of enemy cities and entire populations. This is framed as a divine mandate for the Israelites to inherit the land.
The Christian and Jewish Bibles have more violent overtones: the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible contains a notably high amount of explicit violence, especially compared to Buddhist or Taoist texts, and even compared to the Quran when taken as a whole.
This is supported by scholars like Philip Jenkins, who notes that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, contains more verses promoting or describing violence than the Quran. Textual analyses such as Tom Anderson’s open-source comparison project also back this up
Hmm I have read the Koran, and it actively advises violence against unbelievers. There were also certainly documented incidents where Mohammed - when he was converting people and came up against the Jews - started beheading folks when they refused to convert, killing several dozen Jews.
I’m not interested in the Bible, it’s not really taken seriously and the truthfulness of some of the violent accounts in the Old Testament is contested by the historical record. As a spiritual text it’s primarily useful as a record of the words of Jesus, and many people who read it acknowledge that. More to the point you don’t see its adherents blowing up planes or walking into offices and starting killing people.
Although I can certainly understand that you want to broaden the scope of the discussion to all holy books, it is not really what this thread is about. For the record I’d like to see modern interpretations of holy books move away from seeing violence as a means of enforcing religious ideas. Tolerance seems to be the prime virtue of civilisation.
I can't say that I'm very well informed. It seems to me like today's Christians don't really pay much mind to the violent parts of their text. In my opinion parts of the Islamic world could use a sort of Reformation to modernize the interpretation. I suspect many of the violent followers adhere to those parts rather than the peaceful parts due to other factors like politics, culture, economics, etc. But people prone to violent actions due to those factors will be worse if they believe their actions have religious justification and rewards.
Try not to. Soon you will be wordless and everyone understands that...
I would also mention that some of my fiends are Buddhist septics. Oops seem to have missed out an aaah and C
Meanwhile I will be reading my tea-leaves. Rather difficult but revealing if using teabags...
The words of Bodhi Muhammad (PBUH) are the basis of my Koran with text, translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
And now back to the opinions
Nice bit of selective framing there, @Jeroen. You tend to focus on Muslims and Islam whenever violence comes up, but you’re starting to sound like those who blame October 7 alone for what’s happening in Gaza now, ignoring everything that led up to it. Much of the instability in the Middle East today stems from Western powers’ interventions, invasions, and support for oppressive regimes. This goes back as far as the Balfour Declaration, which helped set the stage for decades of conflict and dispossession. Cause, condition, effect.
I know this might be hard for you to grasp, @Jeroen, but the Quran itself isn’t a cause of violence, it’s how people interpret and use it that matters. The same can be said for the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Most Muslims read the Quran as a guide to peace and ethical living. The Muslims I know are peaceful, and when I’ve travelled in Muslim countries, I’ve personally found them to be some of the most friendly helpful and generous people I’ve ever met.
Yes, Islam, like any religion, should not be shielded from criticism, it like all other religions has faults. But the question is, why focus solely on Islam? If we’re going to talk honestly about religious violence or extremism, it needs to include all traditions, not just the one that’s easiest to single out in today’s climate. We need to understand the context: historical, geopolitical, and social, behind why and how these expressions of violence emerge.
Well, I started this thread more as a discussion of spiritual growth and how it is influenced by the Koran specifically, and also how it affects the growth of societies. Certainly these things are just second-hand or third-hand impressions, I only speak and read a little Arabic.
The only reason violence was brought up was because certain parts of the Koran encourage it. You see it often mentioned in the Western media, just yesterday there was a case in France where seven young people were inciting others to acts of violence on social media, and the discussion made mention of the jihad.
Feel free to give us your view of the geopolitics if you want, @Shoshin1.
Yes, there are verses in the Quran that mention violence, but they are not blanket endorsements of violence.
Many of the verses that mention fighting were revealed during times of war or persecution, and were addressing specific circumstances, like defending the Muslim community from attacks. Ignoring the historical and textual context can distort their meaning.
The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains many more explicit and detailed descriptions of violence, including genocide, conquest, and divine retribution.
The West seems to have learned little from centuries of Judeo-Christian, God-centric belief systems. Just look at the sheer scale of cruel and suppressive violence inflicted on the Global South, from colonisation and slavery to coups, sanctions, and endless wars. Moral superiority rings hollow when these legacies remain unacknowledged or ongoing.
The western world by and large no longer uses religious justifications for its actions. Not that that makes it okay, just that tying in religious motivation causes people to do things they might not normally do.
What about the Sword Verse? Just to mention one which is commonly cited. This discussion may also help make things clearer.
There I was Tantrically drinking the blood of my enemies (the uninitiated for example) out of a skull. Simultaneously dancing on the bones of all the obstacles and anti-Buddhas relishing their screaming.
Yep Buddhism and Mother of the Buddhas Tara sure is a naughty! Meanwhile the 'celibate' Head of the Shaolin monastery has been caught embezzling and fathering children with multiple women. Tsk, tsk. The Theravada monks of various schools have been supporting drug dealers, eradication of Hindus in for example Sri Lanka etc. etc. etc.
Thank goodness I am not a literal Buddhist but make my own choices.
https://pathgate.org/index.php/gateway-to-tibetan-buddhism/569-understanding-mara-the-lord-of-illusion-gtb
And now back to the evils of [insert favourite half understood baddies]...
Although actually, the list of translations for the Sword Verse speaks to the truth of what Osho said about new interpretations being necessary. The more moderate translations date from modern times, so 2005 and 2015, well after Osho’s death in 1990. Still it depends on which translations are actually finding traction across the Arab world, the King James Version of the Bible is still popular today.
What qualifies Osho as an authority on what is _necessary _for Muslims?
The scope of Islam goes far beyond the Arab world. Or, is your interest in moderating Islam only focused on Arabs? You keep flirting with racism and religious bigotry.
The KJV is a terrible translation, but its popularity is due largely to the quality of its prose, not the quality of its translation.
I wouldn't say that. The West still uses religion as a justification or motivation for action, but it's a lot more subtle. The current state of affairs in Israel/Gaza is a testament to that. The US sides with Israel for religious and racial reasons.
I don't know. I think if we're being fair and applying the same standards of looking to cultural, economic, etc. forces being predominant over religion, then the West isn't very religious in its motives. Even more so in comparison to the Islamic world.
great advise, eat what you can chew and spit out what you cant chew
duality, every religion has its good and bad sides. take what is good and ignore its bad side.
but buddhas advise to any teacher, inspect and discern the man with his breath speech or is his talk matches his walk. if his breath speech is off dont follow him. because a foul breath stinks the joint.
I’d agree with that. I always thought the US’s support for Israel had more to do with oil and geopolitical presence in the region than anything else. A kind of economic imperialism if you want to put it that way. Historically a lot of wars in Islamic countries have been portrayed more as a reaction to terrorism than anything else, especially the long campaign in Afghanistan.
But then you can never really say. I’ve not done a deep dive on the World Trade Center collapse, but there were some very strange things about those events, like the Building 7 collapse. The US went after Al’Qaeda hard after that, and they picked up a whole lot of terrorist suspects and put them in Guantanamo, it would be quite something if the original thing all turned out to be some sort of intelligence operation.
@Jeroen the US govt may support Israel for those reasons. But shockingly many evangelical Christians here suspect that the end times in the Revelation chapter of the Bible have to do with an Israel in the Middle East. And it could be the state of Israel we have right now, at least in their minds. I don't know the details or like say what percentage of people have those thoughts in mind.
Lets please not entertain 9/11 conspiracies.
My impression is Osho was involved in lots of abuse of students; including sexuality.
What happened in the Middle-East in the past (pre-WW1) was a great pluralistic society and empire.
What has actually happened in the Middle East recently (post-WW1) is countries carved out by Western powers, dictators installed by Western Powers (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Taliban, in 2024 Syria), strong leaders upholding the historic pluralism (Syria) being falsely labeled as 'dictators' by Western powers; true Islamic countries demonized (Iran).
The Koran is the last word because religion has actually collapsed as governing societies around the world (starting with the self-implosion of Christianity), apart from some more genuine Islamic countries (eg. Iran, Malaysia), which are religion's last stand. Islam showed itself to be the most resilient social religion thus is the last religion standing.
The Muslim were correct, saying it is the last word of God.
I can entertain any theory i want to, such as the USA attacked countries after 9/11 that were not connected to Al Qaeda (such as Iraq, Libya & Syria) and did not attack the countries directly related to Al Qaeda (such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Pakistan).
Al Qaeda was fighting wars in Libya in 2011 and in Syria from 2011 for USA interests and finally took control of Syria in 2024, after the collapse of Hezbollah and after Russia's quagmire in Ukraine (who both were protectors of Syria).
If Al Qaeda really did 9/11, why did Trump recently say the new Al Qaeda leader of Syria is a good guy? Refer to the link: https://abcnews.go.com/International/al-qaeda-syrias-presidency-rise-ahmad-al-sharaa/story?id=121788656
Videos of real facts are like the below. The video shows the actual relationship between the USA. ISIS. Al Qaeda and the puppet 'Rebels'.
Honor killing, similar to female circumcision, is not something inherently Islamic and happens rarely. Have you never read the Old Testament, which has lots of killing for stuff like this?
So rape has never happened in the West by white people? So its the Islamic world and not the West that has a free internet full of pornography with debased sexual acts of gang sex?
So IDF soldiers were not really captured on video gang raping a Gaza man? It was a fake?
So one of the Hostages was not raped after she returned to Israel? This was just a fake media article?
What's ironic is these gang rapes are not common in countries like Syria but happen when foreigners turn up in the West. Possibly these refugees are naive, watch the Western internet and develop the idea gang rape is something normal in the West.
I would suggest you jump on a plane & travel to Iran before its destroyed by the West and its Wahhabi Allies.
They didn't really. Al Qaeda was flown out of Afghanistan prior to Invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift
Then later Al Qaeda fought wars for the USA in Libya & Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Islamic_Fighting_Group
Al Qaeda leader in Libya was given award by USA Senators: https://x.com/timand2037/status/1156465447853707264?lang=bg