See AC's comment to AL III: 52:

"52. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him.

Mohammed’s point of view is wrong too; but he needs no such sharp correction as ‘Jesus’. It is his face — his outward semblance- that is to be covered with His wings. The tenets of Islam, correctly interpreted, are not far from our Way of Life and Light and Love and Liberty. This applies especially to the secret tenets. The external creed is mere nonsense suited to the intelligence of the peoples among whom it was promulgated; but even so, Islam is magnificent in practice. Its code is that of a man of courage and honour and self- respect; contrasting admirably with the cringing cowardice of the damnation-dodging Christians with their unmanly and dishonest acceptance of vicarious sacrifice, and their currish conception of themselves as ‘born in sin’, ‘miserable sinners’ with ‘no health in us."

Whilst I agree with you the quoting and interpreting of Liber Al fills me with the same feeling as a muslim would have; after realising they have just eaten pork.

I'm not sure I understand the intention of this thread. Is it to note the relevance of Islam, or to discuss their role in the overall scheme, or both? Is it for some other purpose?

Rest assured, you are not alone.
Right now, real-time, the "aggressive" elements within the prophet's realm (peace be upon him) are the primary source of externalized strife on our merry planet. Heaven only knows who the secret forces of strife are.

Really? Let's hear you make the argument, then.

This website must turn your stomach, then, since The Book of the Law is often discussed here.

Huh?!

"Huh?!" is an appropriate response - not that you need my approval (Ha?!)  :-

This is possibly the most schizophrenic thread yet to appear on lashtal. No body knows what the original poster's point is (probably including himself). I prescribe cutting down on the holiday booze and associated libationary material.

HAHAHA!  This one is pretty bad, but there are some far more schizophrenic threads in the "Qabalah" section.  I seem to recall a really crazy one where some fella was claiming that Paul McCartney was dead.  HAHAHA!  ;D

Actually, N.O.X that fellah might have been me, in 1996 I did an occult ritual where my fellow partner in occultism shouted out after hours of Beatles'-and their songs interpretations in Dutch "Paul Mc Carthney is Dood" meaning simply "Paul McCarthney is Dead" and we got a reaction it seemed from 'the occult world' to confirm that that statement was true, but nevertheless, I didn't believe it, it's a bad way to do on historical critic, and I left the thought about it!

Paul is a "dude," not dood or dead. We expect raving maniacs in the QBL section because they're mostly trying to proove that they are the legitimate heir to the Liber AL legacy. Those are simply "identity crises." But THIS thread cannot be put into any convenient box or psychiatric condition. "Rambling" might qualify, but that implies a lengthy going-on and on. Our poster doesn't go on and on; he simply makes unintelligible (rather short) remarks and then dematerializes. "Islam new aeon" is the topic. I reply: "WTF?" (That's a version of "Huh?!") 😮

Come on, OP, make your case, please.

There is also no dying god formula in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto ...  In Islam, however, it does exist, although in a slightly different form. "Mors janua vitae," as a tenet associated with the formula, holds true in Islam as in Christianity (though not so much in Judaism, which incidentally also has no dying god formula). Thus the point is both moot and unclear. If there is a point, that is.

The original post, and the comment on Liber Al quotes making one sick, both seem to point towards someone trying to get folks to think about accepting Islam. I mean, the dying god formula is void because Islam doesn't contain it, right? Obviously, Islam knows the "truth" about Jesus and other esoteric doctrines.

I read the OP's comment about "the quoting and interpreting of Liber AL" to mean that he views it as taboo, like eating pork in Islam. So, he has taken on The Comment as a religious obligation, including taboos and penalities for breaking them. This might explain why he refuses to return and clarify his obscure OP, where he seems to be fishing for a discussion of Islam, rather than a discussion of AL per se.

He appears to be ambivalent about Islam, doctrinally at least. My advice to him is to befriend some Muslims, go to the Mosque, read the Qur'an, and thereby learn directly about the religion and its constituent cultures as it is lived, rather than just reading about it and theorizing on it in abstract theological or moral terms.

Looking back at it, I think you're right Belmurru. But that still leaves me puzzled. Why does Islam's views of Jesus have any bearing on the Dying God formula? While we're at it, we might as well go into the various gnostic viewpoints of Jesus, as well as the Jehovah's Witness version, the Yezidi views, and the Bahaists, and any other religion with a divergent viewpoint on Jesus. But even then, hell, the dying god formula doesn't originate with Jesus in the first place, so I'm confused.

I would even suggest, or remind, that there is no (or, very little) dying god in Liber AL. This was Crowley's interpretation of the Aeon based on Frazer, and while I think it explains accurately Christianity it does not pertain to other religions that otherwise may safely be classified under the Aeon of the Father. I think that patriarchy and its associated scale of values is the major expression of the Aeon of Osiris, not the dying god. 

Seems more like a troll thread at this juncture.

At the time Crowley wrote the above, Islam was a relatively docile religion practiced by poor cultures that had been overrun by the West; one can only wonder what Crowley would think of Islam today, with its intolerance of other religions and its bold hatred of the West fueled by billions of dollars in oil revenues. At the very least, Crowley's commentary is dated; at worst, it's incorrect. I see very little Light, Life, Love, and Liberty in Islamic cultures that are bent destroying those that disagree with their point of view. Islam in general has the worst record when it comes to human rights and the rights of women. The comparative religious fantasies that have become so commonplace within the culture of Thelema look more and more ridiculous with each passing day.

Crowley was born in 1875. Below is a simple timeline of major events in Islam between 1875 and 1904.

1876: Britain purchased shares of Khediv Ismail in the Suez canal and got involved in Egyptian affairs.
1876: Constitutional monarchy in Ottoman Empire (Turkey)(first phase)
1878: Conference of Berlin. Ottoman Empire loses territories to Russia or Balkan countries
1878: Ottoman handed over Cyprus to Britain.
1879: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani exiled from Egypt. Treaty of Berlin. Ottoman lost 4/5 th of its territory in Europe.
1881: France invaded Tunisia and the Bey acknowledged supremacy of France as a result of the treaty of Bardo. Muhammad Ahmad declared himself Mahdi in northern Sudan.
1882: Egypt came under British military occupation.
1883: Death of Amir Abdul Qadir in Damascus.
1885: Muhammad Ahmad declared free Government of Sudan under his rule. Death of Mahdi Sudani five months after the occupation of Khartoum.
1890: End of the Toucouleur Empire.
1889: Shah Jahan Mosque opened in Woking (England).
1891: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian claimed to be the promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi, and thus laid the foundation of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam But All scholars of Muslim world especially Indian announce Ghulam Ahmad as fake personality and latterly Parliament of Pakistan declared followers of ahmadiya movement as non- Muslims.
1895: Afghanistan got Wakhan Corridor by an understanding with Russia and British India making Afghan border touch China. * 1897: State of Bagirimi occupied by the French.
1899: Fall of Muhammad Ahmad's Mahdi State occupied by the British and the Egyptians jointly. By the end of this century, global Muslim population had grown to 13 percent of the total.
1901: Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud captures Riyadh. French forces occupy Morocco.
1902: Birth of Ruhollah Khomeini, The leader of Islamic revolution and the founder of Islamic Republic of Iran.
1903: Birth of Syed Abul Ala Maududi (Founder of Jamaat-e-Islami).
1904: Morocco becomes a French protectorate under the Algeciras Conference. The Presian constitution is promoted.

Certainly, this "relatively docile religion" is a comparison made by "relative to now", with the images of suicide bombers and what-not. But it doesn't take a genius to look at some of these events, and ascertain where many seeds of the present conflict were sewn.

There is also a Western propaganda image influenced heavily by the media, who would rather paint Muslims as savages hell-bent on world conquest (a smokescreen for their own owners' agenda of world domination), completely overlooking the effect that "Westernization" has had on Muslim culture and land.

In some respects, Islam is a sort of stronghold. In other respects, it lacks the teachings necessary to bring them fully into the present Aeon, leaving it pretty much as it started, a war engine against Western influence and "modernization".

This is of course not to say that Muslim extremists do not have their own goals and agenda, which may also include world domination.

I am not a 'troll', I focus on family at this time of year.

Apparently then a lot of people here comment on Al.  Well this is only my personal opinion; commenting on Liber Al is in my view poor taste and crass.  For me it is the equivalent of a noisome fart expelled in a lift full of people.  In my view Crowley was strongly against it because such pontifications can be restrictive and limit people, because they may think some 'authority' expounds these opinions.  This is my personal opinion it is not trolling.

However to be criticised for not appreciating others giving interpretations of AL is a little amusing.  The prospect of being booted from a Thelemic forum for not liking Liber Al being interpreted for me by others rather amuses 🙂

With regard to various comments about Islam:  These I think are people trolling me.  I have many friends who follow the muslim faith and I have total respect for them and their religion.  Indeed I think the response of certain members on this forum of are of a nature that could be regarded as trolling against Islam, this would only go to prove my point that not commenting on Liber Al as Crowley himself advocated is the correct way.  Because here, we have unidentified individuals making assumptions, judgements and condemnations.  As if they are the Master Therion themselves.

Well, the Liber AL comment I posted was written by Crowley.

Fair enough

According to Crowley, of whose wishes you are apparently an advocate, The Family is Public Enemy Number One.

Well this is only my personal opinion; commenting on Liber Al is in my view poor taste and crass.

I tend to agree with you, but only when they start producing their own full-blown Commentary. However, most of us (lashtalians) still live in the "free world" ::) where free speech is allowed.
 

For me it is the equivalent of a noisome fart expelled in a lift full of people.

Now that comment is really in very poor taste and crass. Do you suffer from some anal-nasal syndrome?

However to be criticised for not appreciating others giving interpretations of AL is a little amusing.

You have been called out ("criticized") for rambling and for not making your point(s) clear. Now you have made them clearer, but nobody gives a pope, er poop, about your personal opinions when they tend to restrict the free speech of others.

Indeed I think the response of certain members on this forum of are of a nature that could be regarded as trolling against Islam, this would only go to prove my point that not commenting on Liber Al as Crowley himself advocated is the correct way.  Because here, we have unidentified individuals making assumptions, judgements and condemnations.  As if they are the Master Therion themselves.

Yeah. But really - you should see a doctor  😮

Reading someone else's comments on Liber AL in no way "restricts" or "limits" a person: that person would still have to think about whether he agrees with the comment or not (and why). Only a total mental weakling would read a commentary and blindly accept the commentary without bothering to think about it. All interpretation -- of every text -- happens in the context of other sources, even if it's just the sum total of knowledge that a person has acquired throughout his life. There's no a priori reason to think that an interpretation of Liber AL made with the aid of one kind of source (say, someone else's comments on Liber AL) will lead to "restriction" while an interpretation made with the aid of a different kind of source (say, the sum total of knowledge one has acquired throughout his life) will not.

Anyway, in this particular thread, you're advancing a murky and unclear argument that appears to directly contradict Liber AL's condemnation of the religions of the world. People are well within their rights to point this out and to ask for a clarification on what in the hell you could possibly be on about. Now obviously there's no "obligation" for you to respond, but people sure are going to wonder about your motives if you pop up, post something incoherent, and then refuse to speak further on it.

I have many friends who follow the muslim faith and I have total respect for them and their religion.

Good for you. Personally, I tend to respect people (when they earn it) but not religions. Islam is an interesting case becase, while it is not necessarily in and of itself "worse" than, say, Christianity, it is unlike Christianity in that the cultures in which it grew up did not have the benefit of a secular Enlightenment that could have dragged it (kicking and screaming) out of the dark ages. Christianity was a savage, brutal religion that was, in large part, softened by the society it was part of: Islam hasn't had that chance.

Indeed I think the response of certain members on this forum of are of a nature that could be regarded as trolling against Islam, this would only go to prove my point that not commenting on Liber Al as Crowley himself advocated is the correct way.

Does not follow.

Because here, we have unidentified individuals making assumptions, judgements and condemnations.

People make assumptions, judgments, and condemnations regardless of whether they comment on Liber AL. 

As if they are the Master Therion themselves.

Oh, brother.

Same way I don't have much sympathy for literal rendition of the Bible or the Quran ( Or any holy book ), a bit more 'gnostic' touch on the subject may become fruitful concerning the topic.

While fundamental or traditional Islam might not give much importance to Jesus or prophet Isa as nothing more than a prophet of Allah, a bit more esoteric or mystical interpretation like those of traditions like Sufism make Jesus as metaphor for "man perfected". Even early Christian sects had a theme that Jesus was never crucified and/or there was a substitute.

By comparing these verses, one might see the general idea I am after. I don't want to go in great lengths to quote whole Crowley's New Comment on this BOTL verse, but it might be helpful to quote something:

Taking this view of much more 'personal exegesis' of the crucifixion, one might see this as the supreme act of "love under will" that brings salvation to all that Man may constitute of.

Very well put, Ayino.

This thread resolved in six words: "Islam: slave cult for the goyim." And the jobs a good'n.