Meaning of 'Islam'?

[Dontaskme]

The belief in God is due to a psychological compulsion that compels one to cling to the idea of a God to gain relief to the Angst of an inherent existential crisis.

In general, the path of theism [very effective] is a double-edged blade which contribute to the terrible evils and violence committed by SOME evil prone believers who are compelled by the evil laden command in their theistic doctrines [nb. OP].

The morally effective solution for any human is to understand the underlying processes that compels one to a belief in God and find fool proof methods to relieve that fundamental Angst.

Do you actually believe in your own personal self created demonic beliefs? Seriously, this is your screwed up mindset, it does NOT reside in the real world. If you don't like the movie then change it for one you do like, but don't project the one you don't like into the world, onto someone elses shoulders.

Doing something about what is not a good idea is a very good idea.

In speaking of evolution it is necessary to understand from the outset that no mechanical evolution is possible. The evolution of man is the evolution of his consciousness. And 'consciousness' cannot evolve unconsciously.Matter and consciousness are inseparably interwoven.Just as the screen and the player are united by participation.



.

[Age]

4. I also looked up the word 'islam' and the one reference, of countless references in the world, that i looked at roughly said that the word 'islam', which comes from or is related to 'salam', which means peace.

Firstly you should not insist that is the only meaning attributed to the word 'Islam'.

Surely you could NOT be as blind as you are showing yourself to be here?

I NEVER ever even remotely implied that there was only ONE meaning to any word throughout human beings existence. If you actually read what I wrote I used words like 'one reference', of 'countless references' in regards to the one, and only one, I looked at, which by the way I think you find was the one reference you used also. I even used the words 'roughly said' to make sure that it was completely and utterly obvious that the meaning I was giving what NOT the absolute one and only meaning. So, from three different attempts to show to you that I was NOT insisting any thing and on the contrary showing the obvious different meanings ANY word can have you still missed all of that and jumped to the exact opposite conclusion that i was somehow insisting that the meaning I gave is the only meaning attributed to the word 'islam', which by the way to make this even more humorousness you have previously attributed more or less the exact same meaning anyway.

You will NEVER make a sound and valid argument if you keep changing the meanings you want to use in order to try and fit in with your ever increasing changing views and viewpoints.

To be balanced and very essentially you should have brought in the other more relevant meaning, i.e. 'Islam' in the religious sense means submission or surrender.[/quote]

Just because you used words like 'to be balance' and 'very essentially' to say that I should have done some thing does not make what you are actually doing look very foolish indeed.

The word 'islam' relates to the word 'salam', which MEANS peace. Now trying to use words like 'in the religious sense' does NOT change the meaning of a word like 'islam'. The word 'islam' relates to the word peace, if it does not literally mean peace. The word that you are looking for that means 'submission' or 'surrender' is 'muslim'. The word 'muslim' refers to submitting, surrendering, or following, peace, or maybe more correctly submitting to, surrendering, or following the alleged words of the One who supposedly wrote the a book.

Surely you can understand this now?

5. Your conclusion that "Thus 'muslim' do not literally, means follower of peace" does NOT in any way, shape, nor form, follower on from the premise that 'islam' does not literally mean peace.

Note, etymology can be very loose and in most cases we need to qualify and understand the current contexts of the words and its respective meaning.

Okay. I will let you qualify the 'current' contexts of the words and its respective meaning.

Go ahead.

I will let you show all of us how to understand all of this. You sure seem to think that you KNOW what is right and wrong.

Oh and by the way, the 'current' context, if you are still unaware, can be taken out of complete context of what the original and thus intended meaning and purpose of what was said and/or written down, and then passed on.

So, once again, whatever you think you can QUALIFY is ONLY your INTERPRETATION.

One day you will see and understand this.

I am fully aware it is very common for Muslims and their apologists to claim 'Islam = Religion of Peace' but I am expressing my view very strongly that this is misleading and very dangerous as such a view will cover up its inherent evilness.

It is very plain and obvious what your VIEW is. We can all SEE it startling clear as. We can also see how strong your belief is how strongly you want to dearly hold onto it and fight for it.

By the way if 'muslim' means submitting to, surrendering to, and/or following onto peace, or the words of peace, then do you really think they want or even seek out 'apologists'? I do NOT see there is anything to apologize for in regards to being peaceful. But maybe you show some sort of light onto and into this?

6. Your next line, however, is written perfectly correct when you wrote "as I have read it". Now this is about the only solitary bit of truth, I see in your writings.

7. The rest of what you wrote, which you got from a copy and paste wikipedia post, infers that the word 'islam' is a derivative from S-L-M and roughly related to 'salam', which generally means peace. Yet you STILL insist that the ideology of islam is inherently evil. Did you notice that all the words you used as a range of meanings are peaceful or tenderly like words. I can NOT see one word in there that even has a slight towards away gentle and loving and towards bad and evil. You insistant perception that islam is bad and evil is bases solely on your assumptions which are based solely on your past experiential upbringing, thus APE gained views.

Note Wiki as progressed to the present is reasonably reliable as it is but obviously still need confirmation from the more reliable resources.

Surely you sit there giggling to yourself when you write stuff like this?

Do you smirk or laugh when you write this, or do you actually say this stuff straight faced?

Did you read the following, note;

Islam (Arabic: إسلام‎, IPA: [alʔɪsˈlaːm] (About this sound listen)) is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root S-L-M which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace.[44]

Yes and as I have just pointed out ALL of those words relate to gentle, loving, kindness, and wholesome.

WHERE and HOW do you see any evil intent in there?

I have asked you this a few times now and still waiting.

In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[45][46]
Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender".

So what?

If this voluntary submission or voluntary surrender is in regards to this thing called God, which you say is an impossible thing, HOW IN HELL does that even remotely infer anything whatsoever to any thing of evil like.

Ah, maybe you believe that texts which refer to a God/Allah say that God/Allah is an evil thing and/or that It desires human beings to submit or surrender to It because it wants to do evil to those people who are not surrendering/submitting to It. Is this what you are somehow referring to? If not, then what is it that you are actually trying to say and get us to understand?

Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb form, and means "submitter" or "one who surrenders".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Read the above again.

We have gone through this so many times previously.

In fact I think you will find that it was I who stated that the word 'islam' refers/relates to peace, and that the word 'muslim' refers/relates to follower/submitter/surrender.

I thought we had agreed to and accepted this a fairly long time ago.

What I want to KNOW is where do you see any evil intent that you allege lies within all of this?

In other words show some evidence. Even one piece of evidence would do.

That Islam is inherent evil is not based on my assumption.
I inferred that conclusion, i.e. Islam is inherently, from evidence within the hundreds and thousands of verse from the Quran itself.
Note I have already given you links as a clue.
You need to read the Quran thoroughly to confirm my claim or prove me wrong with your arguments and evidence.

There is nothing to prove you wrong about because you have only claimed that islam is inherently evil based on the quran.

You have to provide some evidence for YOUR CLAIM. Just telling others to read the quran thoroughly does NOT claim nor disprove any thing.

I have claimed that you are reading with distorted and prejudiced eyes and that is WHY you are seeing, and claiming, what you are now. Remember that you are NO different to any other adult human being. Because of your beliefs and assumptions you will all look at things distortedly.

Also I only now state that the word 'islam' closely relates to the word peace, and that the word 'muslim' closely relates to the followers, submitters, and surrenders of peace. If every one was currently like that, then imagine how much better this world would be now?

8. A) OBVIOUSLY, the concept of 'peace' is in the positive mode. Is it even possible that 'peace' could even be looked at or seen in a negative mode?
B) OBVIOUSLY, the concept of 'peace', in the quran, is directed only at 'muslims', which are who the followers of peace are. If 'muslims' are the followers of peace, then that in itself defines 'non-muslims' as people not following peace.

Note in the current contexts, the use of the statement 'Islam is a Religion of Peace' as used by Muslim and non-Muslim leaders plus ordinary Muslims and their apologists is in the context of countering the evil and violence committed by Islamic terrorists.

Is that an absolute true fact that the use of the statement 'islam is a religion of peace' is countering the evil and violence committed by islamic terrorists?

I certainly do NOT see you being "fooled" by this attempt as such trickery.

I do NOT even use statements like 'islam is a religion of peace', other than copying others to show the ridiculousness of what is in their writings, i just say things like when we take a look at what the word 'islam' means or once meant or refers to or relates to, et cetera, then we can see that in one way or another that word came from a word like 'salam' which means or once meant or refers to or relates to the english word peace.

By definition 'islamic terrorist' has nothing at all to do with peace because the word 'terrorist' obviously diminished any word that is regarded as being related to peace or peacefullness.

Have you ever thought about or considered the very fact that a human being who commits a terrorist act, in the so called name of some thing, may in fact not being do anything at all really with any thing at all to do with that thing?

This is like when human beings go out and kill others in the name of 'war against terror' for example, which is supposedly sounding peaceful piece of terminology. Going out and killing completely innocent children in the name of its a 'war against terror' as though it is perfectly all right and understandable are really not doing anything other than committing terrorist acts themselves. Committing terrible and terrifying acts against completely innocent human beings in the name of 'peace' from any "side" is truthfully a terrorist act in and of itself no matter which way you look at it. Obviously killing obviously innocent children in the name of 'war against terror' is in all reality committing a terrorist act NOT in the intended name or 'peace' or 'war AGAINST terror'. The statement 'war against terror' is NOT countering the evil and violence committed by christian soldiers/terrorist.

Just because christian terrorists are committing evil and violent terrorist acts in the so called name of God and peace does NOT actually mean they are actually doing this in the name of peace or of God.

Any person could say they are doing any thing in the name of any thing but not necessarily being do so.

The claim is, the Islamic terrorists are committing evil and violence on non-Muslims & others is not because they following true Islamic doctrines since 'Islam is a religion of peace.'

What about the claim that, the non-muslim terrorists are committing evil and violence on muslim and others is not because they are following true christian doctrines since 'christianity' is a religion of peace? Is there any difference there?

The political leaders insist Islam is peaceful towards non-believers.

The political leaders insist christianity is peaceful towards believers and non-believers. But how many human beings kill, and how many human beings have been killed, in the name of (christian) God?

This is the current context of the term 'peace' in relation of the religion of Islam.

This is the current context of the term 'peace' in relation of the religion of christianity.

Christians commit evil, violent, terrorists acts all the time in the name of 'world peace' and 'God'.

Just listen to all the political leaders who send people, under them, out to kill muslims, and what they are really saying.

But the truth of what they are actually saying is to hard to hear for some people. Their distorted and biased one-eyed views will not allow them to hear and see that actual and real truth of what is actually happening. Some people even submit and surrender themselves to these war mongering "leaders" and commit the most horrible and horrific, terrifying acts on the most innocent human beings who were born into islamic follower families.

If one "side" thinks that it has the right to take revenge on those that have committed terrorist acts against "them", then do you not think that the other "side" thinks that is also has that same right?

Human beings are excellent at being absolutely blinded by the actual obvious and visible truths that stares them in the face every day. The reason you are all so blinded is also just as obvious, when you awaken to it.

But the fact as reflected in the Quran and Islam is the religion is inherently not peaceful to non-believers at all.

Once again, you just saying that does NOT make it fact.

Where is the actual evidence?

Muslims as commanded in the Quran cannot be peaceful with non-Muslims.

Where does it state in the quran that muslims cannot be peaceful with non-muslims?

The term 'peace' [salam] that is mentioned in the Quran is only applicable to Muslims.

Obviously 'peace' only applies to those that are peaceful. If people are not peaceful, then obviously peace does not apply to them. To those people violence begets violence.

As I had linked, Muslims cannot even wish 'peace' [As-salāmu ʿalaykum - Peace upon you] to non-Muslims.

Are you absolutely sure of this?

And if you are, then have you ever that about how just wishing some thing on another does not ever really work?

But what most adults know is what does work is by leading by example.

If just wishing peace on angry, aggressive, violent, terrifying human beings worked, then there would not be any of those people around anymore.

Which leads back to my insistence that it is very quick, simple, and easy, to kill those who are not followers of peace without ever hurting, harming, nor obviously killing one single human being.

I agree to the above but I am not sure what you are driving at?

If you are not sure what I am driving at, then WHY would you agree to it.

If, however, when you say, "I agree to the above" maybe it might be better if you actually said what part you actually agree to, and, what part exactly that you are not sure what I am driving at.

Also, I have written in a particular to way to point out to the readers how if when I say and write a truly seemingly absurd looking sentence, then the adult human beings of this day and age have lost any sort of curiosity and questioning that they can not even bring themselves to question what I actually mean. They will just allude to the fact that "they do not know what I am driving at", yet are expecting me to make some sort assumption about what it is that they are talking about.

What is it that you are unsure about that you say I am driving at?

My point is TROP ['The Religion of Peace] is inherently evil as reflected in its pathos within its immutable holy texts.

I KNOW, you have said this countless times already.

I, and others, are just waiting for some sort of evidence for it, from you.

Also, before i let you go I will have to question you in regards to what is 'TROP'?

And, can you see the absolutely contrary nature of saying that 'The Religion of Peace' is 'Inherently Evil'?

Please do not say it is other people who call it a religion of peace when it is obviously you who is saying it and writing it. The evidence is here for us to look at, and see. Also, WHY do you even give words like 'islam', 'muslim' 'religion of peace', 'God/Allah' capital letters when it is so clearly obvious how much you detest them all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your two posts are quite a large chunk.
I will deal them bit by bit.
Let me know if I missed any point you think is critical.

Here is one critical point;

Did you read the following, note;

Islam (Arabic: إسلام‎, IPA: [alʔɪsˈlaːm] (About this sound listen)) is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root S-L-M which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace.[44]

In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".[45][46]
Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means "submission" or "surrender".

Yes and as I have just pointed out ALL of those words relate to gentle, loving, kindness, and wholesome.

WHERE and HOW do you see any evil intent in there?

I have asked you this a few times now and still waiting.

I have argued the critical meaning of 'Islam' in context of the whole of the Quran is 'submission' or 'surrender'.

As such a Muslim is one who practices Islam by submitting and surrendering to the will of Allah via a covenant.
The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687

I presume you understand the Principles of A Contract.

In this case all the terms of the contract/covenant MUST be complied by a Muslim who had surrendered or submitted to God are in the Quran's 6,236 verses.
There is the provision in the contract for a Muslim to do whatever is within his/her best capability.

I have claimed and provided evidence [to be refined] the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements. [You disagree, we will have to debate this]. Note these links which need further discussion.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html

Since a Muslim had entered into a religious contract with Allah, the Muslim is contractually obligated to comply with ALL the terms in the contract i.e. in the Quran within the provision of 'to the best of the Muslim's ability.

And since, the terms of the contract entered into by a Muslim contain the commands to carry out divine acts [which happened to be evil -as defined], they have to comply with those commands of which the consequences are of terrible evil and violent.
The evidence for this compliance of a Muslim to carry his divine duty is so glaring as per this statistics [one example and need refinement],



The above are the proofs why the religion of Islam [in a major part] is inherent evil.

Another reason why Islam itself is dangerous is the presence of evil elements within Islam [Quran] trigger the natural evil tendencies in SOME percentage of Muslims who are naturally evil prone.

DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil acts.
Appx 20% [very conservatively] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency.
Thus 20% of all Muslims are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency.
Now 20% of all Muslims is 300 million Muslims [this fig need to be refined] with an active evil tendency.

Since these 300 million evil prone Muslims are naturally evil prone, they will readily carry out those commands [evil] as a divine duty per their contractual terms. The evidence of this is so glaring. Note the statistics above.

Now it is likely 80% of Muslims are likely to be moderate and do not comply with certain commands [evil laden] which are uneasy to them. Per the contract these moderate Muslims will not be well rewarded as compared to those who comply fully with the commands in the Quran to the best of their ability. Note going to war and killing non-believers are not difficult and within the capability of most Muslims.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is TROP ['The Religion of Peace] is inherently evil as reflected in its pathos within its immutable holy texts.

I KNOW, you have said this countless times already.

I, and others, are just waiting for some sort of evidence for it, from you.

Also, before i let you go I will have to question you in regards to what is 'TROP'?

And, can you see the absolutely contrary nature of saying that 'The Religion of Peace' is 'Inherently Evil'?

Please do not say it is other people who call it a religion of peace when it is obviously you who is saying it and writing it. The evidence is here for us to look at, and see. Also, WHY do you even give words like 'islam', 'muslim' 'religion of peace', 'God/Allah' capital letters when it is so clearly obvious how much you detest them all?

That is the problem with your inability to understand contexts and in this case the context of sarcasm.

Note this site;
https://thereligionofpeace.com/
I presume you would insist the site present Islam as peaceful?

The sarcasm re TROP, 'The Religion of Peace' used commonly by many critique of Islam is to show how stupid most our current political leaders and Muslim apologist are when they insist Islam is a religion of peace when they are ignorant of the intrinsic nature of Islam which in a major part, inherently evil.

[Age]

Your two posts are quite a large chunk.
I will deal them bit by bit.
Let me know if I missed any point you think is critical.

Here is one critical point;

Did you read the following, note;

Yes and as I have just pointed out ALL of those words relate to gentle, loving, kindness, and wholesome.

WHERE and HOW do you see any evil intent in there?

I have asked you this a few times now and still waiting.

I have argued the critical meaning of 'Islam' in context of the whole of the Quran is 'submission' or 'surrender'.

As such a Muslim is one who practices Islam by submitting and surrendering to the will of Allah via a covenant.
The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687

I presume you understand the Principles of A Contract.

In this case all the terms of the contract/covenant MUST be complied by a Muslim who had surrendered or submitted to God are in the Quran's 6,236 verses.
There is the provision in the contract for a Muslim to do whatever is within his/her best capability.

I have claimed and provided evidence [to be refined] the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements. [You disagree, we will have to debate this]. Note these links which need further discussion.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html

Since a Muslim had entered into a religious contract with Allah, the Muslim is contractually obligated to comply with ALL the terms in the contract i.e. in the Quran within the provision of 'to the best of the Muslim's ability.

And since, the terms of the contract entered into by a Muslim contain the commands to carry out divine acts [which happened to be evil -as defined], they have to comply with those commands of which the consequences are of terrible evil and violent.
The evidence for this compliance of a Muslim to carry his divine duty is so glaring as per this statistics [one example and need refinement],



The above are the proofs why the religion of Islam [in a major part] is inherent evil.

Another reason why Islam itself is dangerous is the presence of evil elements within Islam [Quran] trigger the natural evil tendencies in SOME percentage of Muslims who are naturally evil prone.

DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil acts.
Appx 20% [very conservatively] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency.
Thus 20% of all Muslims are unfortunately born with an active evil tendency.
Now 20% of all Muslims is 300 million Muslims [this fig need to be refined] with an active evil tendency.

Since these 300 million evil prone Muslims are naturally evil prone, they will readily carry out those commands [evil] as a divine duty per their contractual terms. The evidence of this is so glaring. Note the statistics above.

Now it is likely 80% of Muslims are likely to be moderate and do not comply with certain commands [evil laden] which are uneasy to them. Per the contract these moderate Muslims will not be well rewarded as compared to those who comply fully with the commands in the Quran to the best of their ability. Note going to war and killing non-believers are not difficult and within the capability of most Muslims.

Every thing you say [needs to be refined] and changed and then re-written.

The word 'God' or 'Allah' by definition relates to peace and love. Therefore submitting to or surrendering to God or Allah's will just means being peaceful and loving. In this case the terms of contract just entail being peaceful and loving. Nothing else. There is NO evil intent anywhere here nor in the quran. But as I have stated many times already adult human beings see in things whatever they want to see.

You state that "the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements". Post just one, or as many as like, of these alleged evil laden commands and elements, THEN we can take a look at what it actually is that you are talking about, AND THEN we can discuss. Until then you have NOT shown any evidence for your distorted laden beliefs.

[Age]

My point is TROP ['The Religion of Peace] is inherently evil as reflected in its pathos within its immutable holy texts.

I KNOW, you have said this countless times already.

I, and others, are just waiting for some sort of evidence for it, from you.

Also, before i let you go I will have to question you in regards to what is 'TROP'?

And, can you see the absolutely contrary nature of saying that 'The Religion of Peace' is 'Inherently Evil'?

Please do not say it is other people who call it a religion of peace when it is obviously you who is saying it and writing it. The evidence is here for us to look at, and see. Also, WHY do you even give words like 'islam', 'muslim' 'religion of peace', 'God/Allah' capital letters when it is so clearly obvious how much you detest them all?

That is the problem with your inability to understand contexts and in this case the context of sarcasm.


Note this site;
https://thereligionofpeace.com/
I presume you would insist the site present Islam as peaceful?

The sarcasm re TROP, 'The Religion of Peace' used commonly by many critique of Islam is to show how stupid most our current political leaders and Muslim apologist are when they insist Islam is a religion of peace when they are ignorant of the intrinsic nature of Islam which in a major part, inherently evil.

I can and did see the obvious sarcasm within a site labelled the religion of peace that specifically details how many supposed islamic human beings have killed others. But as I clearly knew this and that is why I asked you, why did YOU write it? I even asked you nicely NOT to point out that others write this. It is you I am talking to. But you are obviously NOT able to read and understand what it is that I am actually writing.

This is philosophy forum, which is based on and has an ideology of forming sound and valid arguments. Sarcasm just does NOT work in true and accurate sound and valid arguments. So, join or make up another site of parody and sarcasm if you like. If you are NOT going to show any evidence or make any sound nor valid arguments for what you believe is true, then WHY are you here in this forum?

Is christianity a so called religion of peace also? What is the answer to christian soldiers/terrorists have carried out more than ????? deadly terror attacks since 9/11? Or, do the people on the side of the christian west not like to take a look at these statistics?

Which by the way were also done in the name of "God" and/or "Peace".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Also I only now state that the word 'islam' closely relates to the word peace, and that the word 'muslim' closely relates to the followers, submitters, and surrenders of peace. If every one was currently like that, then imagine how much better this world would be now?

Note I made an effort to study basic Arabic Grammar.
Most of the Arabic words and their meaning are basically form from tri-lateral roots.
One of the tri-lateral root is Siin-Lam-Miim

This root is the basis for a set of words which has close relations but not all has close relationship with the other, e.g.

safety/security/freedom/immunity,
to escape,
salutation/greeting/peace [Salam - Musculine noun],
deliver/acknowledge,
pay in advance,
submit, - Aslama - Islam - Verb IV Perfect
submitter, Muslim - Verb IV- Active Participle
sincerity,
humility,
submission/conformance/obedience,
resign/quit/relinquish,
to be in sound condition,
well without blemish,
gentle/tender/soft/elegant.
Solomon/Sulaiman.


The manner in which the words are constructed is a based on a model and format for verbs [various forms] nouns, etc.

The critical point here while Islam and Salam has the same trilateral roots S-L-M they do not have the same meaning at all.
It is wrong to insist Islam = salam, i.e. peace.

Note these videos where Islam means submission to gain peace [salam],

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkrVpNi3_gw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09PsIC-l19w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_AcAa_vPEI

Because there is so much terrible evil acts and violence related to Islam we need to be very precise in our definition of Islam.

I do NOT even use statements like 'islam is a religion of peace', other than copying others to show the ridiculousness of what is in their writings, i just say things like when we take a look at what the word 'islam' means or once meant or refers to or relates to, et cetera, then we can see that in one way or another that word came from a word like 'salam' which means or once meant or refers to or relates to the english word peace.

I had to point out to you, the association of the term Islam = Salam [Peace] is a rhetorical deception by ignorance or whatever the reason.

By definition 'islamic terrorist' has nothing at all to do with peace because the word 'terrorist' obviously diminished any word that is regarded as being related to peace or peacefullness.

An Islamist or Muslim is one who submit [Islam] to the will of God to gain peace [salam].
It is so obvious in the Quran where Allah exhorts Muslims to exterminate non-Muslims if their "state of peace" from Islam is threatened. The definition of 'threatened' [roots F-S-D and the likes] is very vague in the Quran and the slightest offence against Muslims is a threat and thus the offensive non-Muslims are to be killed or suppressed. This is why there are SOME Muslims who will kill merely because cartoons of the prophet are drawn.

The critical point here is, who in the world can judge they are wrong with their interpretation. Another point is, it is not likely Allah [an impossibility] will ever appear to make the judgment. In addition no Muslim would dare to misinterpret the words of the Quran or else if they will go to hell.
So who in the world can stop say 300 million Muslims from interpreting the words in the Quran as it should be. You?

Have you ever thought about or considered the very fact that a human being who commits a terrorist act, in the so called name of some thing, may in fact not being do anything at all really with any thing at all to do with that thing?

In the case of the Islamic terrorists and those Muslims who commit evil and violence on non-Muslims and even other Muslims, they sincerely they are doing a divine duty in compliance with the obligation of their contract with Allah to carry out Allah's command as stated in the Quran to the best of their ability.
It is so common for Islamists to quote the Quran and Ahadiths to justify their divine duty against non-Muslims which results in terrible evil acts and violence.

We don't hear of Christians, more so Buddhists, Hindus killing in the name of their God.

This is like when human beings go out and kill others in the name of 'war against terror' for example, which is supposedly sounding peaceful piece of terminology. Going out and killing completely innocent children in the name of its a 'war against terror' as though it is perfectly all right and understandable are really not doing anything other than committing terrorist acts themselves. Committing terrible and terrifying acts against completely innocent human beings in the name of 'peace' from any "side" is truthfully a terrorist act in and of itself no matter which way you look at it. Obviously killing obviously innocent children in the name of 'war against terror' is in all reality committing a terrorist act NOT in the intended name or 'peace' or 'war AGAINST terror'. The statement 'war against terror' is NOT countering the evil and violence committed by christian soldiers/terrorist.

All evils acts must be addressed and condemned.
Soldiers who happened to be Christians do not kill in the name of their religion. Christianity overriding pacifist maxim is "love your enemies".
Islam on the other hand sanctioned and condoned the killing of non-believers on the basis of very vague definition of a threat against Islam.

Just because christian terrorists are committing evil and violent terrorist acts in the so called name of God and peace does NOT actually mean they are actually doing this in the name of peace or of God.

Any person could say they are doing any thing in the name of any thing but not necessarily being do so.

As stated above, there are no provision in the NT to go kill even enemies, but to love one's enemies.

Islam guarantees those who submit [Muslims] a state of peace.
To maintain and sustain their state of peace, Muslims are sanctioned by Allah to kill non-Muslims and do whatever it takes to defend Islam thus the individual's peace of mind.

Note the peace intended in Islam is not so much on peace re physical security* but more critical, a peace of mind from the Angst [psychological fears and anxieties] of an existential crisis, i.e. thus the assurance of eternal life in paradise with instant renewable virgins.
Islam is not so concern with life and physical peace of Earth which it condemns in the worst terms. Muslims [SOME] will have no hesitation exterminating the human species with nukes or biological WMDs since they are guaranteed eternal life regardless of what happens on Earth.

[Age]

There obviously is no use in me talking anymore.

You are completely unable to listen, hear, and understand anything beyond those dearly held distorted beliefs of yours.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There obviously is no use in me talking anymore.

You are completely unable to listen, hear, and understand anything beyond those dearly held distorted beliefs of yours.

It is your discretion.

Note I have provided evidences* and arguments in support of all my statement.
* at present some of the evidence provided are rough but as I had qualified they can be refined in time. Note I am getting into more details e.g. Classical Quranic Arabic Grammar and I still have a lot in reserves.

It not my intention not to hear, listen or understand your points but in such a complex issue we need posts and time to grind it to the point.

[Dontaskme]

It not my intention not to hear, listen or understand your points but in such a complex issue we need posts and time to grind it to the point.

Sometimes we need to listen twice as much as we speak.

Silence is golden, talk is cheap.

.

[Age]

There obviously is no use in me talking anymore.

You are completely unable to listen, hear, and understand anything beyond those dearly held distorted beliefs of yours.

It is your discretion.

Note I have provided evidences* and arguments in support of all my statement.
* at present some of the evidence provided are rough but as I had qualified they can be refined in time. Note I am getting into more details e.g. Classical Quranic Arabic Grammar and I still have a lot in reserves.

It not my intention not to hear, listen or understand your points but in such a complex issue we need posts and time to grind it to the point.

There is absolutely nothing complex to look at, see, and understand here. It is all rather easy actually.

You state that "the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements". Post just one, or as many as you like, of these alleged evil laden commands and elements, THEN we can take a look at what it actually is that you are talking about, AND THEN we can discuss. Until then you have NOT shown any evidence for your distorted laden beliefs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There obviously is no use in me talking anymore.

You are completely unable to listen, hear, and understand anything beyond those dearly held distorted beliefs of yours.

It is your discretion.

Note I have provided evidences* and arguments in support of all my statement.
* at present some of the evidence provided are rough but as I had qualified they can be refined in time. Note I am getting into more details e.g. Classical Quranic Arabic Grammar and I still have a lot in reserves.

It not my intention not to hear, listen or understand your points but in such a complex issue we need posts and time to grind it to the point.

There is absolutely nothing complex to look at, see, and understand here. It is all rather easy actually.

Nothing complex??
Understanding the main theme of the Quran is definitely not kindergarten stuff.
I had spent 3 years full time reading, researching and analysis the Quran in its finest details. I had to learn basic Arabic [not read or write level] and its linguistic principles.

You state that "the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements". Post just one, or as many as you like, of these alleged evil laden commands and elements, THEN we can take a look at what it actually is that you are talking about, AND THEN we can discuss. Until then you have NOT shown any evidence for your distorted laden beliefs.

You bet, I am NOT the typical critique of Islam who will jump straight to the war or sword verses and overlooking the whole context of the 6236 verses of the Quran. My approach is very objective based on the Quran itself together with rational and philosophical justifications.

My focus in on the whole contexts and the pathos/ethos [mission & vision] of the whole Quran, i.e. the main themes and not on individual and groups of verses. I have a thorough flowchart of the main and sub-themes that show all the intended results of Islam of which is mainly resulting in evil acts to humanity while pleasing the believers' desperation to avoid hell and gaining eternal life in paradise.

I have my own supporting lists of the loads of evil laden elements in the Quran in Microsoft Excel Files.

As a matter of convenience I have already given you links to some sets of these verses.
I have now added the links to the specific sources of the list of verses.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  List of verses:
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... n_Sira.pdf
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  list of verses;
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... ophecy.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html
  List of verses
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... d_Sira.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf

CSPI used the term 'kafir' in relation to non-Muslims or non-believers. This can be very controversial.
However I used the term '"them" as in 'us versus them' i.e. us=good versus them=evil.

CSPI listed >60% of the Quran is devoted to directing attention to the 'kafir' i.e. non-believers because the group sequential verses the chapter of the same contexts as one point.
My result is >54% [3400++] of the Quran's 6,236 is devoted to the "them" [the evil side] as I merely identify any verse that has or refer to the-them [non-Muslims].

I have further analyse those 3400 of 'them' verses in hundreds of sub-themes of evil elements, e.g. dehumanizing, warred against, destroyed, humiliated, hated, abhorrence, condemned to hell, deserved to be killed, raped, enslaved, etc.

Note it is 54% or 3400++ verses, i.e. more than one in every two verses of the Quran is reek of evil elements and directed at the-them [non-Muslims] in the most horrendous negative manner.

This is why the consequences of SOME [a highly significant quantum] evil prone Muslims committing terrible evil and violent acts as divine duty to please their God is their desperation for eternal life in Paradise.

I wonder if you have read the Quran.
If you have done so it would seem you have read it blindly with confirmation bias.
I suggest you reread the Quran [Ahadith and Sira if possible] again taking into account of the above point from a very objective perspective to reconcile against the real evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who were motivated [rather compelled] by the words of their God.

My definition of 'evil act' is;
-any human act and thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom the collective.

For a start, before any defense move you intend to take,
find out how many verses out of the 6236 verses that are unconditionally positive to the non-believers.
I don't think you can produce 20 or 10? If we analyze seriously there is probable ZERO!
The no compulsion verses as claimed by many apologists are conditional or others argued they are abrogated.
All the supposedly 'good' verses directed specifically to the non-believers are conditional.
An example of an unconditional maxim is that of the Christian's NT, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies'.
The Quran [Islam] do not even state the Golden Rule explicitly like in Christianity and other religions.

You counters to the above?

[Age]

It is your discretion.

Note I have provided evidences* and arguments in support of all my statement.
* at present some of the evidence provided are rough but as I had qualified they can be refined in time. Note I am getting into more details e.g. Classical Quranic Arabic Grammar and I still have a lot in reserves.

It not my intention not to hear, listen or understand your points but in such a complex issue we need posts and time to grind it to the point.

There is absolutely nothing complex to look at, see, and understand here. It is all rather easy actually.

Nothing complex??
Understanding the main theme of the Quran is definitely not kindergarten stuff.
I had spent 3 years full time reading, researching and analysis the Quran in its finest details. I had to learn basic Arabic [not read or write level] and its linguistic principles.

Maybe to you it appears complex. But really it is extremely simple and all very easy to understand.

You state that "the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements". Post just one, or as many as you like, of these alleged evil laden commands and elements, THEN we can take a look at what it actually is that you are talking about, AND THEN we can discuss. Until then you have NOT shown any evidence for your distorted laden beliefs.

You bet, I am NOT the typical critique of Islam who will jump straight to the war or sword verses and overlooking the whole context of the 6236 verses of the Quran. My approach is very objective based on the Quran itself together with rational and philosophical justifications.

My focus in on the whole contexts and the pathos/ethos [mission & vision] of the whole Quran, i.e. the main themes and not on individual and groups of verses. I have a thorough flowchart of the main and sub-themes that show all the intended results of Islam of which is mainly resulting in evil acts to humanity while pleasing the believers' desperation to avoid hell and gaining eternal life in paradise.

You are obsessed with and by islam, quran, and evil. Why do you think this is so?

I have my own supporting lists of the loads of evil laden elements in the Quran in Microsoft Excel Files.

As a matter of convenience I have already given you links to some sets of these verses.
I have now added the links to the specific sources of the list of verses.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  List of verses:
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... n_Sira.pdf
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  list of verses;
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... ophecy.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html
  List of verses
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... d_Sira.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf

CSPI used the term 'kafir' in relation to non-Muslims or non-believers. This can be very controversial.
However I used the term '"them" as in 'us versus them' i.e. us=good versus them=evil.

CSPI listed >60% of the Quran is devoted to directing attention to the 'kafir' i.e. non-believers because the group sequential verses the chapter of the same contexts as one point.
My result is >54% [3400++] of the Quran's 6,236 is devoted to the "them" [the evil side] as I merely identify any verse that has or refer to the-them [non-Muslims].

I have further analyse those 3400 of 'them' verses in hundreds of sub-themes of evil elements, e.g. dehumanizing, warred against, destroyed, humiliated, hated, abhorrence, condemned to hell, deserved to be killed, raped, enslaved, etc.

Note it is 54% or 3400++ verses, i.e. more than one in every two verses of the Quran is reek of evil elements and directed at the-them [non-Muslims] in the most horrendous negative manner.

This is why the consequences of SOME [a highly significant quantum] evil prone Muslims committing terrible evil and violent acts as divine duty to please their God is their desperation for eternal life in Paradise.

I wonder if you have read the Quran.
If you have done so it would seem you have read it blindly with confirmation bias.
I suggest you reread the Quran [Ahadith and Sira if possible] again taking into account of the above point from a very objective perspective to reconcile against the real evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who were motivated [rather compelled] by the words of their God.

My definition of 'evil act' is;
-any human act and thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom the collective.

For a start, before any defense move you intend to take,
find out how many verses out of the 6236 verses that are unconditionally positive to the non-believers.
I don't think you can produce 20 or 10? If we analyze seriously there is probable ZERO!
The no compulsion verses as claimed by many apologists are conditional or others argued they are abrogated.
All the supposedly 'good' verses directed specifically to the non-believers are conditional.
An example of an unconditional maxim is that of the Christian's NT, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies'.
The Quran [Islam] do not even state the Golden Rule explicitly like in Christianity and other religions.

You counters to the above?

Just like I had suggested earlier. You are not yet even capable of explaining what a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being' is yet, in relation to what is being said about believers and non-believers. Until then you will still be under the delusion that "killing an other" involves hurting, harming, injuring, or killing the physical human body.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nothing complex??
Understanding the main theme of the Quran is definitely not kindergarten stuff.
I had spent 3 years full time reading, researching and analysis the Quran in its finest details. I had to learn basic Arabic [not read or write level] and its linguistic principles.

Maybe to you it appears complex. But really it is extremely simple and all very easy to understand.

You are merely hand-waving. It is so easy to say anything.
Prove to me why you think it extremely simple.

One clue to the complexity of the Quran and Islam is the existence many schools of thought and jurisprudence who has a different views.
If it is that extremely simple, then all Muslims should have thought and act the same in term in their beliefs and practices.

My focus in on the whole contexts and the pathos/ethos [mission & vision] of the whole Quran, i.e. the main themes and not on individual and groups of verses. I have a thorough flowchart of the main and sub-themes that show all the intended results of Islam of which is mainly resulting in evil acts to humanity while pleasing the believers' desperation to avoid hell and gaining eternal life in paradise.

You are obsessed with and by islam, quran, and evil. Why do you think this is so?

I have said that many times in other posts. It is burden I have to repeat with new poster I discussed on this topic.

I am not a Buddhist per se, but I have adopted on the Boddhisattva's vow to be a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity.
As such, I am concerned with ALL the evils and violence that is happening which is a potential threat to humanity in the future.
But I don't have the competency to deal with ALL evils and violence in the world.
My interests [& forte] are in philosophy and religions which I have reasonable depth of knowledge, thus my focus on evil that is related to religions.
The religion that is related to most of the religious-related evil is Islam, note Pareto's 80/20, thus my focus is on Islam and the Quran.

Aren't you a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity?

I have my own supporting lists of the loads of evil laden elements in the Quran in Microsoft Excel Files.

As a matter of convenience I have already given you links to some sets of these verses.
I have now added the links to the specific sources of the list of verses.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  List of verses:
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... n_Sira.pdf
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  list of verses;
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... ophecy.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html
  List of verses
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... d_Sira.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf

CSPI used the term 'kafir' in relation to non-Muslims or non-believers. This can be very controversial.
However I used the term '"them" as in 'us versus them' i.e. us=good versus them=evil.

CSPI listed >60% of the Quran is devoted to directing attention to the 'kafir' i.e. non-believers because the group sequential verses the chapter of the same contexts as one point.
My result is >54% [3400++] of the Quran's 6,236 is devoted to the "them" [the evil side] as I merely identify any verse that has or refer to the-them [non-Muslims].

I have further analyse those 3400 of 'them' verses in hundreds of sub-themes of evil elements, e.g. dehumanizing, warred against, destroyed, humiliated, hated, abhorrence, condemned to hell, deserved to be killed, raped, enslaved, etc.

Note it is 54% or 3400++ verses, i.e. more than one in every two verses of the Quran is reek of evil elements and directed at the-them [non-Muslims] in the most horrendous negative manner.

This is why the consequences of SOME [a highly significant quantum] evil prone Muslims committing terrible evil and violent acts as divine duty to please their God is their desperation for eternal life in Paradise.

I wonder if you have read the Quran.
If you have done so it would seem you have read it blindly with confirmation bias.
I suggest you reread the Quran [Ahadith and Sira if possible] again taking into account of the above point from a very objective perspective to reconcile against the real evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who were motivated [rather compelled] by the words of their God.

My definition of 'evil act' is;
-any human act and thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom the collective.

For a start, before any defense move you intend to take,
find out how many verses out of the 6236 verses that are unconditionally positive to the non-believers.
I don't think you can produce 20 or 10? If we analyze seriously there is probable ZERO!
The no compulsion verses as claimed by many apologists are conditional or others argued they are abrogated.
All the supposedly 'good' verses directed specifically to the non-believers are conditional.
An example of an unconditional maxim is that of the Christian's NT, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies'.
The Quran [Islam] do not even state the Golden Rule explicitly like in Christianity and other religions.

You counters to the above?

Just like I had suggested earlier. You are not yet even capable of explaining what a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being' is yet, in relation to what is being said about believers and non-believers. Until then you will still be under the delusion that "killing an other" involves hurting, harming, injuring, or killing the physical human body.

You requested I justified my claim why Islam is inherently evil.
I have given you the supporting list of verses but you seem to be running away from it?
Do you have any counters to the above evidences I have provided.

Note this question;
How many verses out of the 6236 verses in the Quran are unconditionally positive to the non-believers [the out-group].

Discrimination between ingroups and outgroups is a matter of favoritism towards an ingroup and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an outgroup.[7]
Outgroup derogation is the phenomenon in which an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup.[8]
This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their ingroup.

Some research suggests that outgroup derogation occurs when an outgroup is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an ingroup. It has also been argued that outgroup derogation is a natural consequence of the categorization process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_ ... derogation

The pathos/ethos [mission and vision] of Islam is centered on the out-group [non-Muslims and hypocrite-Muslims] as a threat to the ideology of Islam and thus should be eliminated or suppressed in whatever ways as sanctioned and commanded by Allah in the Quran.

Just like I had suggested earlier. You are not yet even capable of explaining what a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being' is yet, in relation to what is being said about believers and non-believers. Until then you will still be under the delusion that "killing an other" involves hurting, harming, injuring, or killing the physical human body.

I had been guessing but frankly I had no clue at all to what you are trying do drive at re the above.

Philosophically there is no problem understanding and explaining a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being'.
Roughly;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Believer - a person who holds a particular religious belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

If you have your own personal theories of the above and do not explain, don't fault me for not understanding your point. The fault is you are a bad communicator.

Instead of being cryptic, why don't you put your intended point in very simple statements.

[Age]

Nothing complex??
Understanding the main theme of the Quran is definitely not kindergarten stuff.
I had spent 3 years full time reading, researching and analysis the Quran in its finest details. I had to learn basic Arabic [not read or write level] and its linguistic principles.

Maybe to you it appears complex. But really it is extremely simple and all very easy to understand.

You are merely hand-waving. It is so easy to say anything.
Prove to me why you think it extremely simple.

Prove to you why I think WHAT IS extremely simple?

One clue to the complexity of the Quran and Islam is the existence many schools of thought and jurisprudence who has a different views.

That is NOT a clue to the complexity of any thing. That is your prejudiced and noncomprehending view. In the state that you are in now, you are obviously not able to comprehend the simplicity of things of this nature.

If it is that extremely simple, then all Muslims should have thought and act the same in term in their beliefs and practices.

Since human beings evolved/came into existence, have any two of them thought and act the same in term of any thing, let alone beliefs and practices?

If no, then why should muslims be different?
If yes, then who are those two human beings?

My focus in on the whole contexts and the pathos/ethos [mission & vision] of the whole Quran, i.e. the main themes and not on individual and groups of verses. I have a thorough flowchart of the main and sub-themes that show all the intended results of Islam of which is mainly resulting in evil acts to humanity while pleasing the believers' desperation to avoid hell and gaining eternal life in paradise.

You are obsessed with and by islam, quran, and evil. Why do you think this is so?

I have said that many times in other posts. It is burden I have to repeat with new poster I discussed on this topic.

I apologize for placing so much burden on you. Your life must be mere turmoil if my one question here is such a burden. In future I will be very careful in asking you further questions. Would you prefer I just read every post you have written before I ask you anymore questions? I certainly would not like to burden you again, with clarifying questions.

I am not a Buddhist per se, but I have adopted on the Boddhisattva's vow to be a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity.

Are you saying that you were not a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity previously, but now you are and vowed to be because you have adopted the view of some other?

How many people are you actually concerned about now, which you were not before?

What does a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity actually entail?

Does being a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity now mean that you are a concerned and responsible citizen for all people, thus humanity itself, or for only some of humanity? Are you concerned about those that you would call muslims with evil intent to kill those who are "non-muslims"?

As such, I am concerned with ALL the evils and violence that is happening which is a potential threat to humanity in the future.

Are you at all concerned about the actual evils and violence that you perpetrate on others? Or is that of no concern to you? Or, do you not do evil onto others?

But I don't have the competency to deal with ALL evils and violence in the world.

That is very obviously shown within your writings. But do not be to concerned. You might gain that competency soon. It is rather very simple and easy. Once you know how to.

My interests [& forte] are in philosophy and religions which I have reasonable depth of knowledge, thus my focus on evil that is related to religions.

It is obvious how much faith in your depth of knowledge. But be careful, the more you know, or more correctly, think you know, then the less open you are to learning what the actual truth of things are.

The religion that is related to most of the religious-related evil is Islam, note Pareto's 80/20, thus my focus is on Islam and the Quran.

Are you saying your focus on islam is because of pareto's 80/20, or, because islam to you is the most evil religion?

Aren't you a concerned and responsible citizen of humanity?

If you call this world that is full of pollution, with prejudices, wars, fighting, killing, and the allowing of some to starve to death, which is all caused by human beings, and thus by the citizens of "humanity", then NO I am NOT even a citizen of it, let alone being a concerned and responsible citizen of that kind of humanity. I want nothing to do with that humanity. I much prefer to be alone and separated from all of that.

I have my own supporting lists of the loads of evil laden elements in the Quran in Microsoft Excel Files.

As a matter of convenience I have already given you links to some sets of these verses.
I have now added the links to the specific sources of the list of verses.

• Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir [negatively]
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Kafir.html
  List of verses:
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... n_Sira.pdf
  
  Anti-Jew Text in Trilogy
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Text.html
  list of verses;
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... ophecy.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf
  
  Percentage of Trilogy Text Devoted to Jihad
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Jihad.html
  List of verses
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... _Koran.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... d_Sira.pdf
  http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/T ... Hadith.pdf

CSPI used the term 'kafir' in relation to non-Muslims or non-believers. This can be very controversial.
However I used the term '"them" as in 'us versus them' i.e. us=good versus them=evil.

CSPI listed >60% of the Quran is devoted to directing attention to the 'kafir' i.e. non-believers because the group sequential verses the chapter of the same contexts as one point.
My result is >54% [3400++] of the Quran's 6,236 is devoted to the "them" [the evil side] as I merely identify any verse that has or refer to the-them [non-Muslims].

I have further analyse those 3400 of 'them' verses in hundreds of sub-themes of evil elements, e.g. dehumanizing, warred against, destroyed, humiliated, hated, abhorrence, condemned to hell, deserved to be killed, raped, enslaved, etc.

Note it is 54% or 3400++ verses, i.e. more than one in every two verses of the Quran is reek of evil elements and directed at the-them [non-Muslims] in the most horrendous negative manner.

This is why the consequences of SOME [a highly significant quantum] evil prone Muslims committing terrible evil and violent acts as divine duty to please their God is their desperation for eternal life in Paradise.

I wonder if you have read the Quran.

Keep wondering.

If you have done so it would seem you have read it blindly with confirmation bias.

Of course it would to you. I have already explained that, and why it is so, which it appears you are trying to use my words to say the same about me. Did you even realize you are copying my words?

The difference between you and I saying is; you are trying to insist on some thing. Whereas, I am not.

I suggest you reread the Quran [Ahadith and Sira if possible] again taking into account of the above point from a very objective perspective to reconcile against the real evil acts and violence committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who were motivated [rather compelled] by the words of their God.

Them, just like you, do NOT yet posses the wisdom to read without prejudiced thinking. Have you noticed that you, and them, read the text the same way? You are closer to and more like "them" then you even realize yet.

I suggest you reread what I have written again taking into account the actual words that I have written and also NOT looking and reading from a distorted viewpoint.

My definition of 'evil act' is;
-any human act and thought that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual and therefrom the collective.

Have you, do you, will you commit an 'evil act'?

For a start, before any defense move you intend to take,
find out how many verses out of the 6236 verses that are unconditionally positive to the non-believers.
I don't think you can produce 20 or 10? If we analyze seriously there is probable ZERO!

Have you noticed that you have already jumped to and made up what the conclusion is BEFORE any serious analyze has taken place? (Just to let you know; What you are thinking now is already known.)

The no compulsion verses as claimed by many apologists are conditional or others argued they are abrogated.
All the supposedly 'good' verses directed specifically to the non-believers are conditional.
An example of an unconditional maxim is that of the Christian's NT, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies'.
The Quran [Islam] do not even state the Golden Rule explicitly like in Christianity and other religions.

You counters to the above?

Just like I had suggested earlier. You are not yet even capable of explaining what a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being' is yet, in relation to what is being said about believers and non-believers. Until then you will still be under the delusion that "killing an other" involves hurting, harming, injuring, or killing the physical human body.
[/quote]

You requested I justified my claim why Islam is inherently evil.
I have given you the supporting list of verses but you seem to be running away from it?

I am NOT running away from any thing because you have not yet given any thing, to run away from.

Yes i requested you justify you claim, which you have not yet done at all. I have also requested you post just one command and element that you insist on saying is laden in evil. I am still waiting. I requested:
You state that "the Quran contains loads of evil laden commands and elements". Post just one, or as many as you like, of these alleged evil laden commands and elements, THEN we can take a look at what it actually is that you are talking about, AND THEN we can discuss. Until then you have NOT shown any evidence for your distorted laden beliefs.

Do you have any counters to the above evidences I have provided.

They are NOT evidences. They ARE just distorted views and beliefs that you hold onto and want to hold onto dearly.

Note this question;
How many verses out of the 6236 verses in the Quran are unconditionally positive to the non-believers [the out-group].

EVERY single one of them is. But, once again I will repeat this for you, it all depends on how one wants to look into and read (into) things. You WANT to see evil, in a religion you dislike. So, that is what you will find, and see.

When will you understand? You MAKE UP your own narrative no matter what is said or shown to you. But do not feel alone. You are just the same as every other one of you adult human beings. You are blinded to the actual and real truth by your own distorted views, obviously and naturally.

Discrimination between ingroups and outgroups is a matter of favoritism towards an ingroup and the absence of equivalent favoritism towards an outgroup.[7]
Outgroup derogation is the phenomenon in which an outgroup is perceived as being threatening to the members of an ingroup.[8]
This phenomenon often accompanies ingroup favoritism, as it requires one to have an affinity towards their ingroup.

Some research suggests that outgroup derogation occurs when an outgroup is perceived as blocking or hindering the goals of an ingroup. It has also been argued that outgroup derogation is a natural consequence of the categorization process.

Are you at all aware that exactly what you a trying to do in this forum is derogate, what you perceive to be, an outgroup. The more people you can get to side with your ingroup, then the more better you feel with and about yourself.

If you want you could look into why you feel so insecure and of low worth, then that will help you in discovering and understanding this much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_ ... derogation

The pathos/ethos [mission and vision] of Islam is centered on the out-group [non-Muslims and hypocrite-Muslims] as a threat to the ideology of Islam and thus should be eliminated or suppressed in whatever ways as sanctioned and commanded by Allah in the Quran.

That is perfect and great. Riding the world of non-muslims was and still is the goal I set up. Unfortunately there is so many people of this world who have absolutely no clue nor idea what a 'non-muslim' person actually is.

I had been guessing but frankly I had no clue at all to what you are trying do drive at re the above.

I KNOW. You said the exact same thing previously, that is you have no idea of what I am driving at.

I will tell you. I am here to show how human beings of this day and age have such a narrow and closed view of things that even when purposely written texts are put in front of them, which if they were somewhat open and inquisitive people at all, could respond in a way that they could and would KNOW, for sure, what the other is driving at.

You are so closed and distorted that you have lost ALL ability to learn, understand, and gain further knowledge of absolutely anything. If you have lost all ability to ask a clarifying question, then you will NEVER KNOW.

Philosophically there is no problem understanding and explaining a 'person', an 'individual', or 'human being'.

WHY did you use the word 'philosphically' at the start of this sentence? Was it to portray some sort of intelligence or intellect on your part? Was it to show some sort of more accuracy in your understanding of this words, especially in the use of using of all things in the world, wikipedia? Or, was there some other reason for it. To me, the first word has no real relation with the rest of what you wrote, which by the way if you are going to use the wikipedia definitions, and your interpretation of them, then that is the very reason why the world you live in now is so completely and utterly confused and mixed up. No wonder you think things are complex and not easy to understand.

Roughly;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Believer - a person who holds a particular religious belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

If you have your own personal theories of the above and do not explain, don't fault me for not understanding your point. The fault is you are a bad communicator.

Agreed, I am a bad communicator and I certainly do NOT fault you for not understanding my point. I purposely write in a deceptively and manipulating way. I write NOT necessarily to point out and show you things. I write to point out, show, and prove things with and by the responses I get. YOUR words are MY evidence.

By the way, if people do NOT ask for clarification from each other about what it is they are actually saying and meaning, then what does that make the former?

Is it just the one speaking/writing who is the bad communicator? Is the whole responsibility of being heard and understood always and completely up to the speaker/writer? Have you ever considered that sometimes the people listening/reading do NOT want to learn and understand?

Have you ever considered that sometimes no matter what one says/writes the listener/reader is not yet capable of learning and understanding what is being said/wrote? Just imagine what it would be like trying to explain that the earth actually circles the sun, and not the other way around, when absolutely everyone else BELIEVES the opposite is true.

Instead of being cryptic, why don't you put your intended point in very simple statements.

Because I like to do things my way, just like you like to do things your way. I am in no rush, nor to feel any need to be listened to and agreed with. I am NOT trying to say and show any thing to any one who is not yet ready for it. If people are open enough, then the so called "cryptic" messages in my writings are very simply and easily seen. In fact they are so obvious, they people will look back and laugh at all of this.

By the way, all of my intended points are in very simple statements. Just some people are not yet ready nor able to see this point yet.

But to get back to the point that you were getting at. I will say it again killing a non-believer, or any person for that matter, is extremely simple and easy to do, once you know how, without harming, hurting, or injury a human body in any way, shape, or form.

Let us see if my point has sunk in at all, with this person, this time.