* PS. Personal remarks on similar origins in Islam and Christianity :
The way in which people adapt elements from the Middle East is also understandable from a religious viewpoint : Mohammad knew and accepted the origins from Christianity and even attempted to take it back to its origins. Both Christianity as well as Islam has origins in the same source of inspiration, which expressed itself, on their second stage of existence, in a bigger and more common social context, saying that there is only one God, to oppose all the local communities who worshipped various gods, that more particularly expressed their local needs, visions and reflections. Mohammad understood the purpose of this idea of unity, which is cleverly called al-lah, because for those who understand language, and who are ready to understand the deeper meaning of words, must know why this means that no-one is allowed to interpret this, into regulations of what is God and what is not, and to making it take a preference in all conditions for the shape of certain earthly forms, for personalized human conditions because this cannot reflect this feeling and origin. God (al) and not God (lah) are there at the same time, because it reflects itself with an inner awareness, reflected from potency in everybody, a reason for saying we all have the same God. Lots of this still existing belief systems know that when choosing a preference, how something MUST be presented will also cause the opposite thought. Making heaven or hell on earth will cause also the opposed form to it with its own shape and consequences. That’s why the “image” should not be classified as the most important factor. More important is to show a balanced worship to a centre which reveals all imaginable aspects in its values. When someone belongs to a certain religious group or beliefsystem, it does not necessarily prove that such people know this one-centred causal source of truth, we can only say that religions could eventually be used to remember these aspects, whether it is understood or not.
Mohammad also warned of the appearance of false prophets, which are those who make regulations and who once more, define God. A shame to say, but history tends to make similar developments from what also happened in Christianity and now leads to what happens as well in Islam, that through certain misinterpretations once more, more people are abusing a definition of god, and thus creating a false image.
I will explain some of the problems this causes, because Islam, especially in Europe and within certain tyrannies, faces similar problems as what has already happened in Christianity and which, until today, still leaves it marks, with a structure leading to Rome as the centre, and not the worship as being aware of a certain centre.
Islam outside of the Middle East (as in Europe), especially when influenced by certain dogmas in Christianity, or when changed by certain tyrannies (like by the Western trained Khomeinhi, in Iran, which made its own popes who now have more power than the belief on how it is measured and experienced as a centre), deliberately or not caused the adaptation of wrong definitions.
Instead of working with imams as the "readers/singers of text books" (a Pakistani once told me that imams should not interpret, but just read, in just the way it was in early Christian days), it became as if it were no longer the books that was meant to inspire, but the truth was taken over by a new power structure of those who feel they are allowed to speak more than others, like police officers, and like judges, killing the spontaneous and more natural dialogue and open seeking for truth in everybody’s own lives.
Instead of trying to remember where liess the inner god-heart for all this, the seeker himself became the replacement for god, so the centre moved to a real person, which with his mind he always will be like a one-eyed god. This one-eyed god (without the unity over dualisms) will judge, with a dualistic vision, with hatred on all the things he is no longer able to participate with. His fruits are not like the wine-root, which in Koran is promised to those people who are ready to fight for the inner truth, (-in Koran wineroots are now wrongly translated as ‘virgins’, because in modern times the word wineroot was used for a virgin as well, -not different in the way we now could use in some urbanised context the word "chick" (or chicken) for a woman-. This is obviously a wrong interpretation, because the “wineroot” was written in a context of faith and for being fruitful with faith ; -think for instance of the significance and importance the wineroot had in ancient days. In Roman days for instance, every soldier had a wineroot with him on travels, so that once settled down they were guaranteed an income. Not only for the Romans, wine was a guaranteed safe nutrition, because wine was especially used to make water drinkable-. Those who misinterpreted these words have different fruits for their faith. (Also for those who cannot be spontaneously sexually active and in this way might suffer from sexual frustration, of course a virgin looks much more attractive than a wineroot). But their fruits of faith make hatred and separation, and seem to be more like rotten fruit, while themselves they will be called terrorists, something which is very different from those who are able to bring more wealth on various levels, and with a uniting power.
It is the same people who determined in religion why women now are dressed differently, especially since no longer than the '70s, so not even so long ago! The origin of that change is again a wrong translation and interpretation, most possibly done deliberately. Two things that the Koran says about woman, are mixed together now. The Koran says it would better for women if they could be protected with a veil in the house. The same veil was also a scarf which in the whole east (in Hindu & Islam society), which women could also put over their head when some men couldn't help but to look with desire upon them, a habit which was commonly used in Hindu and Islam society. Elsewhere the Koran says that women should protect, with their clothing, JUST their breasts and sexual organs, and only points to these places. But when you misinterpret the veil as a protection into a scarf for “hiding” instead of protecting woman and then everywhere and from everything, this is already something completely different. Hiding them from everything today knows many variations, of which some are terrible. It can start from protecting their hair from others, their face, their whole person, until even their presence (why not lock them all up in houses ?), not allowing them to meet men etc. (with a total secregation of the sexes). Anyhow, it surely leads to an inequality for free of movement for women, because now they completely depend on local custom interpretations of certain dominating men in the specific areas where these women live. But these interpretations do not open up the practical society, or not leave the interpretation of God completely open and while developing for practical circumstances, also this sounds much more comeing from a determinating and absolutely ‘human’ vision. Wrong interpretations and forgetting where lays the source of a common nature, the idea of one God for all, can be devastating for society and men and women, in the way people live together, and for the development of spontaneous cultural variations.
I already mentioned how in Christianity a few wrong translations caused similar problems. A wrong interpretation was for instance give the words of Jesus when he said : "Satan follow me", which says that the shadow of man should follow the person and not the other way around, is a true wisdom, that each person with a heart and a normal way of thinking can understand, but making from it "Satan go away" caused the idea within the Christian community that it is correct to see all evil outside themselves, and that you are allowed to fight against it, and are allowed to destroy all enemies who think differently or who are not immediately understood, an idea which was used to form the Inquisition and so on, while also, thanks to this, the people who follow this misinterpretation, now will instead be enlightened and act like that, and will learn to live with all variations of mankind and live within their own light of being, with a minor shadow behind them, now will act from and become one with their own shadow, and also will never solve their own shadow so easily, but will instead fight these things in others.
We can easily find many more easily similar origins in some religions and belief systems, when leaving behind the idea of a dualism that interprets what is good and wrong into regulations, that can no longer inspire (but inspire fear like god fearing and keeps people away from their own capability of feeling and thiking). It is because people are prepared to sacrifice something to find a way, that tyrannies using religion are firstly accepted for a while, but in the end this new centre and focus on the power of a government instead on inspiration, always causes suffering, and little growth or understanding. While the source of the inner heart of men making them real and honest is a potency in everbody that much more easily unites them in practical and longer lasting ways. Psalters searches their way within own worshipping experience during a performance.
PS. Educational visions on Islam in Dutch :
