What causes muslims to be violent

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
seeds
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:54 am Psychologically, Muslims like anyone else are disposed to be violent when they feel threatened by people who want to deprive you of your traditional inheritance which you perceive as a good.
In regards to our current situation, I have often envisioned a darkly humorous scenario that takes place in a not-so-distant (post apocalyptic) future in the form of something resembling one of those old World War 2 documentaries.

I’m talking about one of those old black and white films where the monotone voice of a narrator flows atop a bed of dark and ominous sounding music in an effort to explain the series of cascading events that led to the destruction of humanity in an all-out nuclear war.

The immersive (3-D) documentary sets the viewer in a timeline tunnel of flowing images that slowly move past either side of the viewer’s head in a bifurcated stream of thumbnail scenes that go deeper and deeper into the past, with the ultimate intent of funneling down to the point where the path (or branch) of our present timeline seemed to be established.

And after numerous side trips into the contents of certain pivotal thumbnails, the walls of the documentary tunnel, finally narrow down to reveal the initiating incident that set the course that led us to our doom.

And what suddenly comes into vivid and sharp relief at the beginning of the timeline tunnel is the image of this tiny blue dress,...

Image

...a dress that just so happens to be covered in semen stains from President Bill Clinton. :shock: :D

I mean, just imagine how different the world’s current timeline would have been if none of that Monica Lewinsky business had ever taken place, and Bill Clinton (and by association, the Democratic Party) would not have experienced such a tawdry scandal leading to his impeachment.

Al Gore would certainly have been elected president (as opposed to George W. Bush), which means that it is quite possible that 911 might not have taken place.

And I say that because the Bush family (being steeped in the business of oil) is good friends with members and operatives of the Saudi royal family...

...(do you remember “Bandar Bush,” for example?):

Image

And the point is that Osama bin Laden allegedly hated the fact that America (through its closeness to the Saudis) was encroaching on Muslim holy land (with the allowing of Saudi approved U.S. military bases on its sovereign territory, for example).

So my conjecture is that another Bush becoming president might have pushed bin Laden past the tipping point, whereas, on the other hand, Al Gore might not have had the same effect on him. In which case, with Gore as president, it is possible that, again, 911, along with the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have taken place.

(Now of course the idiots in charge would no doubt have found some other reason to bring chaos to the Middle East in order to gain control over the oil, but it at least would have been along a different [perhaps, less violent] branching of the timeline.)

Now the ultimate purpose of this strange little “what if” story is that not only does it point out some of the glaring reasons for what causes Muslims to be violent (i.e., the invasion and destruction of their homelands),...

...but it is also meant to suggest that it is not unreasonable to entertain the ridiculously absurd notion that this little blue dress...

Image

...might just be the reason for the end of the world as we know it. :D :cry: :D

(Cue R.E.M. - https://youtu.be/Z0GFRcFm-aY)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by gaffo »

1st off you have a mind and a heart - in fact i consider you my friend - though via the net and aliases - from your posts since i showed up 3 yrs ago, your posts seem honest to your character (you could have provided a false character via the posts here - but imo you have not, and i take your posts as the person you are.

as i hope you do via me.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm

A thoughtful Atheist might possibly know more about Christianity than an unthinking Christian.
I think some do, myself included.

i do have a problem with unthinking persons (they have a mind, and do not use it - and so my problem) - be the Christian, Hindu, Atheist etc.

I know about Operation blue Star - Indian thing (so not american nor canadian would likely know - i know and so there are exceptions, so maybe you are, i think you are a cannuck so may know - but maybe you don't - if not i tell you then (i forgive my spelling i can;t spell worth shit due to my dyslexia - but shall provide enough for you inform yourself if you do not know about - via google.

once upon a time - 1982 - there was a Siek Top Dog, name Bendwali, and he had hate for all Hindus and Muslims for the descrimination the Hindus had toward Sieks (yes they are discriminated), and so he armed the Golden Temple to the teeth, and - like ruby ridge - many died on both sides.

1. yes it is likely the Seiks are descrinated over the decades
2. Bendwali was the thug, his repy to the above was not justified
3. Indian army shot up the Golden Temple (sad about that - its a pretty building, and have nothing against Seiks or thier reilgion), and killed Bendwali (a thug IMO) - sadly the indian army also via "collateral damage" - that just means "sorry we killed your kid during the fire fight" - kill some not in the fight (and even if in the fight, not to merit death).
4. I do not convict the Indian Army in Blue Star, they did what i would - Benwali was a thug, and the indians did a professional job - and war is dirty, some inocints died, but they did the mininum death and i support their attack against Benbwali
5. If Benwali was not the thug he would have negotiated with the indians - he ahd a year or so to do so - nor would he have put the Goiden Temple (ahd he actually valued it as a Siek) to the bullet/tanks - ie allow the possibiily of a sacrade side to be raise from the ground.
6. he chose 5, so was a egotistical dick.
7. too many seiks today view that same dick as a hero
8. 7 says all we need to know about the character of sieks that view him as a hero
9. Not a condemnation upon the religion if the Sieks, just that some are asshomes - refer to 6-8 above.


-----you do know about the result of Blue Star a year later, yes?

Vancover thugs that had the same mindset of Benwali - blew up a 747 - killing 2/3 indians (they did not care that none of them are soldiers in Operation Blue Star, nor that some were not Hindu (in fact many were Sieks!) - just that they were indian and assumed hindu (then as now Indians like all folks come in all religions (or none) - yes Thomas via Kerala via oral history found the first Christian population - which was formerly Jewish 200 yrs ago - so ya Indians like anyone else come in all faiths or no faiths - but the Bomber thugs of Vancuver did not know/and/or care - as long as some indians died (being hindu for the few was enough, and they not a part of blue star itself did not matter to them).

the other 1/3 that died that day were not indians and had not part in the "blood feud" bet the rabit Sieks vs the rabid Hindu Nationalists.

but the Canadian thugs did not care about the death of the 280 - they fixated upon the the 100 or so that were probably Hindu (and did not care that none of them were involved in Blue Star (guilt by association) - and so to others here! (not you, you are honest and honourable) - to others here, you are no less a Thug than those that killed 280 40 yrs ago - via your "guilt by Islam". your mindset is the same.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm And likewise, somebody who's thought carefully about Atheism is sure to know more about it than an Atheist who has simply taken it for granted as true, and never really thought about what it means at all.
sure, and BTW i know much - more then even some (most?)Believers of your faith.

and a do value it!

some of - i deny the concept of Sola Scripture.

some works are better than others, and i use my mind and heart to determine the worthy works - which i value, and to ignore the unworthy ones (levictus anyone?)

as i do with the Koran - 80 percent is filth, 20 percent is as worthy as the better works of the "bible". and so value that 1/5th.

as i ignore the Talibanish 1/5 of the Bible, and value the 4/5th of.





Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm I can't say which situation pertains here...I don't know enough about you. Maybe you've been thoughtful in your Atheism, or maybe you've been casual about it. You tell me.
my post here reflect my character, and so i think you know which pertains here via myself.


please.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm But if what you said were true, it would actually not be surprising.
?????? don't follow.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm
BTW you should know by now that I am an Solipsist, we deny materialism.
Well, if one is not a very strict Materialist, then one has undercut one's own rationale for Atheism.
ME as a person.

am an Athiest

and a Solispist.

as the latter i am not a "wishy washy" spirtiulist - i.e. quasi matterialist.

- so do speak for me, take me for my word.

yes Virginia (and i only speak for myself - others have tougues and can voice there views/beleives)

one can be an Athiestic while not being a Materialist.

- as in myself.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm For only if it were, for some reason, known to be utterly impossible for there to be any transcendent realities, any non-physical entities, or any other such things, then and only then would Atheism be necessarily true.
what are you blathering about?

as stated I'm a Solipsist, so why would that in and of itself deny the concept of the existence

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm Otherwise, the door is open again to the possibility of God.
why is the the possibility of God a more primal Truth than your existance?

as me ME - the Solipsist, i know "I aM" (Torah reference is ironic, but not intended)

you think because of your Faith, that God somehow can prove he exists more then his servant - you, to me?

no, neither you nor your God can prove either of you exist.

via daily living i do see you and not your God, but neither you nor your God can prove you actually exist.

not via my limited nature via limited mind/logic/ and the use of empricism to nail down what I KNOW as TRUTH.

and for those 3.

I AM - right now. not in the past (i have a memory of that,but that is record, it could be fiction, nor the future)

I do not know you Exist, nor your God,

and you cannot prove you exist nor can you prove your God exists to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - for all nonesence could be me just talking to myself.

so i must ignore as not a Truth.

i limit what I KNOW - and fuck it is limited as Hell!!!!!!!!! - I exist right now.

nothing more.

nothing about know my nature.

just i am.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm So maybe you want to think about that...and maybe you don't. It depends on how you took on your own Atheism.

I became in Atheist in 1978 (i was 12)

i became a Solipsist (and so denied materialism) in 1982.

at 16 - via thinking, never know of Descarte until college 5 yrs later and learning (he - me?) can to the same epithany as i did - though older than me.

so ya, i do take pride in that.

pride is a vise btw (one of the 7 sins), humility is the virtue (and its opposite) and one that we should strive for.

as i try to myself.

so about Pol Pot being an Buddist and Stalin a Christian prior to their rampage.


.............silence from you on that point.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm Unless you can show that turning Orthodox Churches into Red Museums or creating the killing fields are somehow "Christian" acts, you've got a simple case for Marxist conversion to Atheism by both. And I think the case is pretty obvious there, don't you? The deeds speak very loudly.
my point is your point - athiest are the killers - is mute of Stalin/Pol Pot were Beleivers.....as they killed. Ruwandian and Yugoslavian thugs that murders were Beleivers while they murdered.

or did they convert to Athiest prior to their killing.

asking you.

you are biased, but not incoragable, you still have a heart and mind.

I'll prey to your god i do not believe in, to allow you to remove your prejudice per "athiests" and the murder count.

instead of the expected reply:

Ruwandians were Catholics, so not Christian, so that is why the murdered 1/2 million in the 90's.

Yuglavians were Orthodox, so not Christian, so that is why they murdered 1/4 million in the 80's.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:11 am as i hope you do via me.
Hey, you and I are good. I like you plenty. So don't worry about that.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm A thoughtful Atheist might possibly know more about Christianity than an unthinking Christian.
I think some do, myself included.[/quote]
That would be great.
-----you do know about the result of Blue Star a year later, yes?
No, I'll have to brush up on that. I do know about the bombing, though.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm And likewise, somebody who's thought carefully about Atheism is sure to know more about it than an Atheist who has simply taken it for granted as true, and never really thought about what it means at all.
sure, and BTW i know much - more then even some (most?)Believers of your faith.
I don't know. I guess we'll see. You'd have to know a lot to know more than some of the folks I know, though.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm
BTW you should know by now that I am an Solipsist, we deny materialism.
Well, if one is not a very strict Materialist, then one has undercut one's own rationale for Atheism.
ME as a person.

am an Athiest

and a Solispist.

as the latter i am not a "wishy washy" spirtiulist - i.e. quasi matterialist.

- so do speak for me, take me for my word.
I believe you are both, if you say so. Why shouldn't I take you at your word?

But I do not believe one can be consistent and both deny Materialism and affirm Atheism. If Materialism is not true, then Atheism is logically not sound. That means a person can disbelieve Materialism and believe Atheism only by being illogical. The two cannot be had together...not and being rational as well.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm For only if it were, for some reason, known to be utterly impossible for there to be any transcendent realities, any non-physical entities, or any other such things, then and only then would Atheism be necessarily true.
what are you blathering about?
I'm making a point. Atheism can only be rationalized if Materialism is absolutely true. If not, there always remains the possibility of a God or gods, and no rational person could any longer deny that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm Otherwise, the door is open again to the possibility of God.
why is the the possibility of God a more primal Truth than your existance?
Because God made me, and I didn't make God. I'm a contingent being, and He's an eternal one. That makes His existence always a more primal truth than mine. I can not-exist. He never does.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm So maybe you want to think about that...and maybe you don't. It depends on how you took on your own Atheism.
I became in Atheist in 1978 (i was 12)
That's interesting. Richard Dawkins admits to converting to Atheism when he was 17. And I've heard other Atheists say the same, that they came to it as young...mostly boys.

There are studies of such things. And it seems that Atheism is rather an adolescent affection, rather than something people tend, for the most part, to take on in earlier or later life.
my point is your point - athiest are the killers - is mute of Stalin/Pol Pot were Beleivers.....as they killed. Ruwandian and Yugoslavian thugs that murders were Beleivers while they murdered.
I think you're missing my point, actually. No, they were not. You cannot, by definition, do an evil action and then claim you did it for God. It doesn't work like that.
...or did they convert to Athiest prior to their killing.
Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning, "By what people do, you shall know whether they're God's or not."

So what do you think, if you follow that standard, laid down by the very founder of Christianity? Were they "Christian"?

The answer is clear.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:30 am
gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 1:11 am as i hope you do via me.
Hey, you and I are good. I like you plenty. So don't worry about that..

good i welcome the discussion (still think you assume too much about what Atheism is (its just a rejection in a belief in any Gods - nothing more, its not a philosphy) - your view also is "group think" (which i see too much here on the forum - visa via "christians are" "leftists are" consevatives are" - ya there my be trends - so present your view of the "Trend" of the Athiest perspective generally - and i'm fine with you seeing a trend. but i see you seeing more a rule than a trend, and so negating the individual outsider who is an Athiest/leftist/conservative/etc who is just as valid of cone of those things, but not part of your assumed generalized rule.

i.e. of you see a general trend as such and some of us not within that stereotype, to not insult us and claim we do not exist and/or are not true Athiests/leftist/conservatives...etc just because we sit outside of the general thesis.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm A thoughtful Atheist might possibly know more about Christianity than an unthinking Christian.
I think some do, myself included.[/quote]
That would be great.[/quote]

I agree, however the inverse i'd welcome, and i've not seen if from most Christians - including you.

Atheists are disparaged, that is a fact - even in 2020.

as are single folks

just look at who is elected to congress/presidency.

one pres, Buchanon - in 240 yrs one of 50 or so that was not married.

no Atheists as yet have been (though i know prob 30 or so were privately - but stayed in the athiest closet to get elected prez).

ask yourself this: why did they have to be closeted atheists if being that was not disparaged by the general electorate.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm
-----you do know about the result of Blue Star a year later, yes?
No, I'll have to brush up on that. I do know about the bombing, though.
do that - 280? or so died on the plane (exploded over Cork Ireland -at 35000 feet - at least one person was alive - falling for 5 minutes to his death upon impact with the ocean - had see water in his lungs, so did not die immediately upon hitting the ocean, but in effect drowned - but hitting water at 120 mph is the same as hitting concrete, so he would have died from blunt force even if drowning (i've sure unconcious from the lack of o2/and/or the impact) was removed as the cause of death.

30-50 died a yr earlier during the seige of the Golden Temple - on both side, including women and other non-compatants. collatoral damage.

----so ya read up on it, if just to honour their memory.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm And likewise, somebody who's thought carefully about Atheism is sure to know more about it than an Atheist who has simply taken it for granted as true, and never really thought about what it means at all.
sure, and BTW i know much - more then even some (most?)Believers of your faith.[/quote]
I don't know. I guess we'll see. [/quote]

most atheists hate your religion - and at the same time love all the others like islam.buddism.himduism - prob a distortion of mine from the American perspective - if i were an indian living in india, (and this forum was based im Mumbi ) i'd suspect most of the Athiests would be hating on Hinduism.

likewise - it this forum were Saudi (and as i said may times before 1/5 Saudis are either Athiests or agnostics per Allah as God) - sadly Saudi Arabia is a thuggish regime and so i've no doubt that there are 1/5 of then outs there we will not hear it - nor should we, since the second we do they are jailed (at least) for a decade at least.

I'm an Athiest, and do not hate your religion - nor any of the other religions - why most do, no clue, but that is not me. take it up with them.

in fact - as iv'e said many times - find value in most of it.




Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm You'd have to know a lot to know more than some of the folks I know, though.
I know quite a bit - esp Judaism. as you well know, i started at least 3 thread on the subject over the last 3 yrs and got almost no replies.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm

But I do not believe one can be consistent and both deny Materialism and affirm Atheism.

i see no link, why do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm If Materialism is not true, then Atheism is logically not sound.
??

as i stated i'm a Solipsist, that means my mind is all of knowable reality - and so not material.

and i know empirically "you" (I) cannot prove God exists via my reality - my conciousness.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm That means a person can disbelieve Materialism and believe Atheism only by being illogical.


I fail to understand.

I use logic to know that Truth is I Am - Solipsism - this is via logical thinking.

logic thinking does not prove no God - only a lack of evidence shows a lack of a god/s in this reality.


I view your God as existing a likely as you existing, i take the latter on faith for my sanity - but logical thinking does not prove you exist nor your god. empircism only offer that i exist, nothing more.

to function a a same person i assume you exist/and all others via faith - for my sanities sake - and so emotionally i affirm your existance - intellectually i do not.

God being or not being - is an order of magintude less important to me than your existance as Solipsist striving to function in my reality.



Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm The two cannot be had together...not and being rational as well.


??

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm I'm making a point. Atheism can only be rationalized if Materialism is absolutely true.




your point is bullshit, there is no link, as i stated i am an athiest and at the same time not a materialist.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm there always remains the possibility of a God or gods, and no rational person could any longer deny that.

all things are possible, but i only care about what is provable.

and that is "I am" right now.

nothing more.

sure 1000 angels may be dancing on pinheads, cows jumping over the moon, etc.............but all is conjecture and not provable via deductive reasoning..


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm
Because God made me, and I didn't make God.


how do i know that?

from my perspective it is equally likely that i made both you and your god, and i'm now just talking to myself/arguing with myself - playing some weird game of multiple personalities with myself.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm I'm a contingent being, and He's an eternal one.
yes, and you "wear a loud tie" ..to prove you exist.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm So maybe you want to think about that...and maybe you don't. It depends on how you took on your own Atheism.
I became in Atheist in 1978 (i was 12)[/quote]

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm That's interesting. Richard Dawkins admits to converting to Atheism when he was 17.
I never liked Dawkins nor Hitchens. they are not thinkers - well one is now dead, but still...

I liked Carus more - been dead for 140 yrs, not sure if he was an Atheist or not, nor care.


Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm And I've heard other Atheists say the same, that they came to it as young...mostly boys.

There are studies of such things. And it seems that Atheism is rather an adolescent affection, rather than something people tend, for the most part, to take on in earlier or later life.
the timeline adolecence is true, but would not read more into that that.

fact is there are 2 types of Athiests:

1. the Silent Majority - like my Saudi Brothers - we were born into a family without faith, and just had "Faith" via our general culture" and when old enough just outgrew the social programming since our parents are not part of that programming.


For instance me - neither of my parents were ever Christians (both agnostic since they were kids in the 1940s (why because via my dad both of his parents were agnostic since the 1920's - and per my mom, only her mom was a Christian (and nominally at best)

and so in 1975 as a 9 yr old i remember reading my grandmother bible - genesis, and noted the "open eyes and become one of US" and "WE" i rem thinking who is we/us? if there is only one God?

that started my path to my damnation to burn in hell forever as a non-beliver.

i know now that Genesis was a Summarian/Akkadian work and the we/us is the Cananite Panteon of the Polytheicis Gods of thier religion - of course i did not know that back then, but knew somehting was "fishy" as that small kid.

2. the minoriy of Athiests are loud mouthed "child abused" fundies - crying about thier mean parents that made them go to a pentocost/independant baptist revival - and reject their religion out of anger toward parents. they either end up killing themselves, or going back to thier original religion eventually.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning, "By what people do, you shall know whether they're God's or not."

yes, i always like your Jesus, too bad Saul took your religion over, and said Faith and not works is all that matter (so Ghandi and I burn in hell forever for not beleiving in the proper God, and the good works we do do not give us repreive from eternal danmantion and torment in the belly of hell.

James wrote a book to support Jesus and even stated it plainly - Fatih without works is dead - but sadly the Book of James is more dead than alive compared to Saul's letters.

good effort James the Just and brother of Jesus, you tried - as did your brother Jude, but Saul took over your religion and today we only have Paulists. sorry guys. ;-/.

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm The answer is clear.
yes it is - i burn forever - due to not affirming the correct God of the many Gods - regardless of any or all good deads i do in the life.

i go to Hell forever, the end.

so be it.
Belinda
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:29 am _______

(Continued from prior post)
Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 8:54 am Psychologically, Muslims like anyone else are disposed to be violent when they feel threatened by people who want to deprive you of your traditional inheritance which you perceive as a good.
In regards to our current situation, I have often envisioned a darkly humorous scenario that takes place in a not-so-distant (post apocalyptic) future in the form of something resembling one of those old World War 2 documentaries.

I’m talking about one of those old black and white films where the monotone voice of a narrator flows atop a bed of dark and ominous sounding music in an effort to explain the series of cascading events that led to the destruction of humanity in an all-out nuclear war.

The immersive (3-D) documentary sets the viewer in a timeline tunnel of flowing images that slowly move past either side of the viewer’s head in a bifurcated stream of thumbnail scenes that go deeper and deeper into the past, with the ultimate intent of funneling down to the point where the path (or branch) of our present timeline seemed to be established.

And after numerous side trips into the contents of certain pivotal thumbnails, the walls of the documentary tunnel, finally narrow down to reveal the initiating incident that set the course that led us to our doom.

And what suddenly comes into vivid and sharp relief at the beginning of the timeline tunnel is the image of this tiny blue dress,...

Image

...a dress that just so happens to be covered in semen stains from President Bill Clinton. :shock: :D

I mean, just imagine how different the world’s current timeline would have been if none of that Monica Lewinski business had ever taken place, and Bill Clinton (and by association, the Democratic Party) would not have experienced such a tawdry scandal leading to his impeachment.

Al Gore would certainly have been elected president (as opposed to George W. Bush), which means that it is quite possible that 911 might not have taken place.

And I say that because the Bush family (being steeped in the business of oil) is good friends with members and operatives of the Saudi royal family...

...(do you remember “Bandar Bush,” for example?):

Image

And the point is that Osama bin Laden allegedly hated the fact that America (through its closeness to the Saudis) was encroaching on Muslim holy land (with the allowing of Saudi approved U.S. military bases on its sovereign territory, for example).

So my conjecture is that another Bush becoming president might have pushed bin Laden past the tipping point, whereas, on the other hand, Al Gore might not have had the same effect on him. In which case, with Gore as president, it is possible that, again, 911, along with the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would not have taken place.

(Now of course the idiots in charge would no doubt have found some other reason to bring chaos to the Middle East in order to gain control over the oil, but it at least would have been along a different [perhaps, less violent] branching of the timeline.)

Now the ultimate purpose of this strange little “what if” story is that not only does it point out some of the glaring reasons for what causes Muslims to be violent (i.e., the invasion and destruction of their homelands),...

...but it is also meant to suggest that it is not unreasonable to entertain the ridiculously absurd notion that this little blue dress...

Image

...might just be the reason for the end of the world as we know it. :D :cry: :D

(Cue R.E.M. - https://youtu.be/Z0GFRcFm-aY)
_______
Seeds, the little blue dress event, and the Osama bin Laden event, and all other events are necessary events that could not have been otherwise than they were. Your hypothesis of "the Documentary" is incomplete as it's based on a false premise. The false premise is that each event is caused by a previous event in a time sequence.

True, events do occur in time, events relate to past time. However events also relate to present time simultaneous events. Events may also relate to laws of nature(or of science). Adding all these causes together we have events that could not have been other than they are , were ,or will be.

The more we know about past events, simultaneous, events, and 'laws' of science the more we can be active agents in shaping the future for self or the world.(depending on the scope of one's influence).

An objection to what I have just written might be that a stupid, ignorant,destructive, or selfish person might have enormous power to shape his future or/and the future of the world. Such a person by definition does not reason: he reacts from his raw emotions . Raw or unrefined emotions lack self knowledge, empathy , or other sorts of knowledge. Reason refines and tones up emotions so that the emotions which are refined by reason, by knowledge , are more true to what is the case than are emotions that are unexamined.

Violence often results from unrefined emotionality . When Muslims or anybody else is violent the cause is sometimes that the violent individual is ignorant of that wherewith he feels violence is the correct action. In other words, this sort of violent person reacts to perceived slights.

Muslim criminals killed staff of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, because the criminals thought a cartoon that featured Muhammad was insulting .Those criminals were uninformed of the debate about how the Koran's violent bits are fit only for the times of Muhammad.

Other violent persons are not necessarily criminals and are equally as dangerous as any violent religious fundamentalists.This sort of person manages to keep within the letter of the law, or manages to cover up crimes while he foments violence, despair, and suffering. He may be a rich business man , a media boss, or he may be a successful politician. Whatever he is, he is unreasoned as he acts from selfish reactions not from reasoned empathy.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4932
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:21 am Veritas Aequitas, Yes I agree that is a fair challenge, but I am not going to read the whole Koran.

May I take it you believe the Koran is a heroic polemic for war and conquest ?

With respect, if so, could you possibly write as a neutral historiographer and less like a confirmed theist? I'd really like to read , not the whole Koran, but a serious account by a historian of Muhammad's views and motives.
I did not have any preconception of the Quran at all before I read it.

It is only after observations of the evil acts and behaviors of SOME Muslims that I wandered into the Quran and upon the first reading, it is so obvious to me that the Quran, i.e. the core Islamic texts, is loaded with evil elements. Thereafter I continue to read the Quran and relied mainly on references of evil laden verses made by critiques of Islam.

However in course of deeper discussions into the evil acts of Islam with some who are scholars, I am challenged by Muslims that I have not read the whole of the Quran thoroughly and I did not know Arabic sufficiently to understand the nuances and sublime knowledge of the Quran - the constitution of Islam. With this lack, I have to admit I am standing on very shaky grounds in my critique of Islam.

So to ensure I am on very solid ground, I ventured to research into the Quran deeply and extensively in addition to studying basic Arabic & Quranic grammar.
At present I have spent MANY years and hours researching into the Quran and noted there no need for any in depth knowledge of Arabic. I cross-referenced with more than 50 English translations of the Quran.

At present I am very confident my knowledge of Islam is on VERY solid grounds. If I had covered the 144 chapters, 6236 verses and 77,400+ words of Allah in the Quran thoroughly what else can be missing that I do not know of the Quran and its substance?

If one do not have a methodology in reading the Quran, it can be very frustrating as the Quran chapters like a salad-spread arranged mainly in order by the size of the chapters.

To read the Quran effectively, one must arrange the Chapters of the Quran in at least some chronological order and make an attempt to extract the main themes and sub-themes.

Around 30% of the verses are plagiarized from the Bible, and since you are familiar with the Bible you thus have already understood 30% of the Quran verses [A].
30% of the Quranic verses are soteriological related and this is an easily understood them of wanting to be SAVED as with Christianity .

34% of the 6236 verses [including those in A & B] are laden with evil elements and by focusing on these in depth one will be able to extract the inherent evilness within the Quran.

My point is if one have not done extensive objective research on the Quran, logically they cannot have the credibility to speak for nor critique the Quran and Islam.
Belinda
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:43 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:21 am Veritas Aequitas, Yes I agree that is a fair challenge, but I am not going to read the whole Koran.

May I take it you believe the Koran is a heroic polemic for war and conquest ?

With respect, if so, could you possibly write as a neutral historiographer and less like a confirmed theist? I'd really like to read , not the whole Koran, but a serious account by a historian of Muhammad's views and motives.
I did not have any preconception of the Quran at all before I read it.

It is only after observations of the evil acts and behaviors of SOME Muslims that I wandered into the Quran and upon the first reading, it is so obvious to me that the Quran, i.e. the core Islamic texts, is loaded with evil elements. Thereafter I continue to read the Quran and relied mainly on references of evil laden verses made by critiques of Islam.

However in course of deeper discussions into the evil acts of Islam with some who are scholars, I am challenged by Muslims that I have not read the whole of the Quran thoroughly and I did not know Arabic sufficiently to understand the nuances and sublime knowledge of the Quran - the constitution of Islam. With this lack, I have to admit I am standing on very shaky grounds in my critique of Islam.

So to ensure I am on very solid ground, I ventured to research into the Quran deeply and extensively in addition to studying basic Arabic & Quranic grammar.
At present I have spent MANY years and hours researching into the Quran and noted there no need for any in depth knowledge of Arabic. I cross-referenced with more than 50 English translations of the Quran.

At present I am very confident my knowledge of Islam is on VERY solid grounds. If I had covered the 144 chapters, 6236 verses and 77,400+ words of Allah in the Quran thoroughly what else can be missing that I do not know of the Quran and its substance?

If one do not have a methodology in reading the Quran, it can be very frustrating as the Quran chapters like a salad-spread arranged mainly in order by the size of the chapters.

To read the Quran effectively, one must arrange the Chapters of the Quran in at least some chronological order and make an attempt to extract the main themes and sub-themes.

Around 30% of the verses are plagiarized from the Bible, and since you are familiar with the Bible you thus have already understood 30% of the Quran verses [A].
30% of the Quranic verses are soteriological related and this is an easily understood them of wanting to be SAVED as with Christianity .

34% of the 6236 verses [including those in A & B] are laden with evil elements and by focusing on these in depth one will be able to extract the inherent evilness within the Quran.

My point is if one have not done extensive objective research on the Quran, logically they cannot have the credibility to speak for nor critique the Quran and Islam.

I am favourably impressed. But with regard to the Koran I keep remembering St Paul

And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

There is that in the Koran regarding Allah, that takes precedence over pro tem rules and regulations.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 5:29 am still think you assume too much about what Atheism is (its just a rejection in a belief in any Gods - nothing more, its not a philosphy)
You must have missed my earlier discussion with AV.

She also agrees that that is the case, and I accepted her definition. But I pointed out that that "nothing-more-ness" of Atheism is its root problem. That is, it offers absolutely nothing by way of information on ethics, meaning, purpose, the direction of life, and so on. It's empty, void, purely negative, and left alone, it's dead. A person cannot live with only Atheism, and have any information about how to live or what anything means.

So any Atheist has to add some other philosophy to fill the emptiness created by Atheism. People still want to be good, find the meaning of life, head toward meaningful goals, and end up in the right place, and Atheism tells them nothing about how to do those things. So they end up embracing something else -- I pointed out that Communism is a popular "fix" for Atheism's emptiness. But you have chosen Solipsism instead, you say.

Still, the point is made. Solipsism is then your choice for fixing up the emptiness of Atheism, it seems.

But if your Solipsism includes any transcendent or metaphysical realities, then it contradicts Atheism. That would be a logical problem for you, if you want to consider it.
I think some do, myself included.
That would be great.
I agree, however the inverse i'd welcome, and i've not seen if from most Christians - including you.
Well, we'll see. I actually think I have a really good handle on what Atheism entails. After all, just as you said, it's a pretty simple belief. Practically anything else is more complex.
Atheists are disparaged, that is a fact - even in 2020.
I have not disparaged Atheists.

I do disparage Atheism.

Because those are not the same things at all. An "Atheist" is a person; but "Atheism" is just a bad belief system. And a good person can believe bad things sometimes. Atheism is a very bad thing, even if a very nice, pleasant Atheist, like yourself, happens to believe it.
most atheists hate your religion - and at the same time love all the others like islam.buddism.himduism
You've noticed that, too, have you? Very good.

Yes, you're right. Atheists believe all religions are somewhat bunk, but they only really seem to hate Christians and Jews. I wonder what that should tell us about Atheism...and the truth.
I'm an Athiest, and do not hate your religion
I'm glad. But you're unusual in that, as you say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pmBut I do not believe one can be consistent and both deny Materialism and affirm Atheism.
i see no link, why do you?
Most thinking Atheists not only see the link...they insist upon it.

You will not find many Atheists who say, "I deny that God exists, but other transcendent/ metaphysical entities may exist." Because the minute they admit that transcendent or metaphysical entities could exist, they've made silly their own basic claim that God does not exist. Why arbitrarily exclude only one metaphysical entity, and believe in all the others? It doesn't make any sense anymore.
my mind is all of knowable reality - and so not material.
Well, the idea of "mind" itself does not fit with Atheism. Atheism has to hold that all that exists is the physical brain, of which any feeling of "mind" is just a sort of accidental byproduct. Because if minds can exists without brains, then we're back to metaphysical realities...and why then insist God cannot possibly exist?

Again, it wouldn't make sense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm That means a person can disbelieve Materialism and believe Atheism only by being illogical.


I fail to understand.

I use logic to know that Truth is I Am - Solipsism - this is via logical thinking.

logic thinking does not prove no God - only a lack of evidence shows a lack of a god/s in this reality.
Well, I'm afraid that's an error in logic.

The statement, "I do not personally know (or "I lack") any evidence of God" is not a reason for anyone to say "God does not exist."

What it does justify is the claim, "...so I don't know whether or not any God exists." That would work. But to insist that nothing exists but what one already knows would imply that you were incapable of learning anything new, or taking in any evidence that might appear in future. And I think that's probably not true of you...you don't seem unable to process new evidence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm I'm making a point. Atheism can only be rationalized if Materialism is absolutely true.

your point is bullshit, there is no link, as i stated i am an athiest and at the same time not a materialist.
Yes, I see. But those two beliefs contradict one another.

So even if you do that, it doesn't prove that it can be done logically...only that a person is capable of illogic, which we all know is true.

Separate, in your mind, between the person holding the belief (the Atheist) and the belief he holds (Atheism) and you'll understand. But as long as you continue to think that you can refute an illogical thing in Atheism simply by appealing to what some Atheists irrationally do, you won't get what I'm saying at all, and you'll end up writing "?????" again.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pmBecause God made me, and I didn't make God.


how do i know that?
Your question earlier was "Why do you always regard God as primary?" And I answered. You don't have to like my answer in order for it to be true, and for it to explain why I think what I think.

I mean, I would like it if you liked my answer...but it's not necessary for the answer to be a true one.
from my perspective it is equally likely that i made both you and your god, and i'm now just talking to myself/arguing with myself - playing some weird game of multiple personalities with myself.
I get that.

But that suspicion must also leave you feeling pretty lonely. If everything in the world is just your own mind playing tricks on your own mind, then the possibility of having any real friends, or anyone to really talk to, is gone.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm I'm a contingent being, and He's an eternal one.
yes, and you "wear a loud tie" ..to prove you exist.
Sorry...I don't understand that response.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm And I've heard other Atheists say the same, that they came to it as young...mostly boys.

There are studies of such things. And it seems that Atheism is rather an adolescent affection, rather than something people tend, for the most part, to take on in earlier or later life.
the timeline adolecence is true, but would not read more into that that.
Hmm...I think it happens to often for us not to ask the question, "Is Atheism more attractive to adolescent boys, for some reason." Likewise, studies show that some touch of "the Spectrum" makes Atheism more plausible to a person. Is that relevant, too?

And I wonder: isn't Solipsism a pretty natural thing to feel, if you've spent your life "cut off" from people because they didn't understand you? And maybe they called you a "weirdo," or a "nerd" and kicked you around? Maybe you felt all your life that you were rejected, friendless, pushed to the margins and treated like a leper.

But you'll notice I haven't done that to you, have I? I've respected your differences, and even approved of them. And I don't dislike you...you know that, right? I get where you're coming from. And it's fine with me.

Now, of course, I don't know if any such bad experiences as I describe above have ever happened to you, but that happens to lots of people "on the Spectrum" from ADD to Autism. Society is still only now figuring out what that is all about. And if you had had a bad time with such things, I would think Solipsism would become much more attractive. After all, to be inside one's own mind would seem to be the only safe place, then. That makes sense.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning, "By what people do, you shall know whether they're God's or not."
yes, i always like your Jesus
Well, do you like what my Jesus said?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:20 pm The answer is clear.
yes it is - i burn forever

Well, if that is the answer you want, I guess...but it's not at all necessary.

Do you really want that answer?
seeds
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by seeds »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:00 am Seeds, the little blue dress event, and the Osama bin Laden event, and all other events are necessary events that could not have been otherwise than they were.
Good grief, Belinda, it was just meant to be an amusing “what if” hypothesis that would have dramatically changed the course of history.

Furthermore, by what reasoning are you determining that the unseemly sexual events that took place between Clinton and Lewinsky – events that eventually led to his impeachment,...

(which undoubtedly caused the loss of a vast number of votes for Al Gore)

...were “necessary” events?

You speak as if “determinism” was an irrefutable fact of reality and that there is no such thing as “free will.”
_______
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by nothing »

kentdavidge wrote: Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:24 pm The followers of Islam seem to be the most violent among the three Abrahamic religions. Of course, there are peaceful muslims, but it is not hard to find one who interprets the Quoran and general Islamic teachings as giving them the permission to commit acts such as blowing themselves up and killing even innocent people.

I was thinking about this and came to believe that the historical context in which Islam was born might have something to do with all of this. Perhaps the reason is that they were persecuted by the Christians from the beggining; adding to this, they are always fighting for control of certain sites which are already claimed by the Christians (because Christianity came first).

Another possibility is of course, that the Quoran allows for the interpretation that violence is accepted, while the Christian and Jewish holy books (bibles) are not so open for interpretations.

What you think?
Islam employs a male central figure 'idol' who was historically violent (ie. genocidal).
Muhammadanism is violent because the idol they emulate/imitate was violent (as above, so below).
If one worships a violent warlord, one becomes a violent warlord. This is what Islam is: warlordy.

The underlying pathology of Islam is the Muhammadans can not account for their own actions/behavior.
They are not accountable to themselves, thus pathologically scapegoat their own crimes against humanity
onto non-Muslims, as they religiously divide the world in two: "believer vs. unbeliever".

Islam is thus not a religion, it is the opposite: a geopolitical division. "Us vs. them".

In reality, the Muhammadans are themselves the real book-worshiping "jews" who divide/destroy the world,
the problem is they can not see the "jew" that is inside of themselves, as Muhammad is the embodiment
of the pig nature of man: polygamy, pedophilia, rape, genocide and endless "us vs. them" division(s)
that has costed the lives of hundreds of millions. The only thing they have is to point their fingers at others,
as they can not account for their own (pathetically divisive) state of being without trying to blame it on someone else.
That is the nature of the jew/muslim (yahooslim) - it is just what they are/have become from worshiping books/idols
such to justify their loathing and hatred for others, especially others who are not suffering as miserably as the "believer".

Here is the solution to "Abrahamism" ie. the two Edenic trees:
Image

"Believers" know not from which tree they even eat, for being "believers".
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance9s) ad infinitum.
This is the practical reason(s) why Islam is upside-down, backwards and regressive.

Islam is also the (real) root of Nazism, as it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves, thus in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation
(such that Islam perpetuates) all Nazis/supremacists are pinned to the side of the "believers".
An "unbeliever" can not "believe" such by definition/necessity, and Nazism is a product of Islamic ideology.
They are still shouting 'Heil Hitler!' in Palestinian lands because Hitler was a puppet for the House of Islam.
He did not realize who the real book-worshiping "jews" were until realizing he was allied with them:
the Muslim Brotherhood. That is why Hitler shot himself: he got "played" by the very same he set out to destroy.

Humanity is thus still asleep and the House of Islam has their same propaganda machines spinning heads constantly.
The House of Islam controls all major media/social networking and is globally silencing/suppressing people
who speak the truth about the House of Islam being a House of Abuse composed of book-worshiping "jews"
who whine and squeal like pigs upon criticism of Islam and/or the idol they worship, Muhammad. One can know
Muslims worship Muhammad by understanding their willingness to spill blood over ridicule of this imagined (dead) man,
thus we have book-worshiping, blood-spilling man-worshipers whose 'state' is constructed upon the life of a single (dead) violent warlord
who religiously blamed "jews" for everything he was himself guilty of. Muslims carry on that legacy of "blame jews" while being them.

This inability to account for one's own action is the underlying illness in/of Islam, and is responsible
for generation Snowflake: people who "believe" their own internal state of being, if/when unpleasant,
is someone else's fault (thus they whine and squeal at others). The underlying root is blame,
as this is the original sin of Adam (who blamed Eve for his own eating) and this is seen in/as
the hijab/niqab/burqa. Muhammadan men thus abuse the women and try to force the "belief"
that this is a symbol of "modesty" of the woman, despite it actually being the immodesty of the men
but blamed on the woman. The women in/of Islam thus wear the original sin of Muhammadan men
and that is their suffering: at the hands of the abusive men who can not account for their own actions.
Belinda
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Belinda »

seeds wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:00 am Seeds, the little blue dress event, and the Osama bin Laden event, and all other events are necessary events that could not have been otherwise than they were.
Good grief, Belinda, it was just meant to be an amusing “what if” hypothesis that would have dramatically changed the course of history.

Furthermore, by what reasoning are you determining that the unseemly sexual events that took place between Clinton and Lewinsky – events that eventually led to his impeachment,...

(which undoubtedly caused the loss of a vast number of votes for Al Gore)

...were “necessary” events?

You speak as if “determinism” was an irrefutable fact of reality and that there is no such thing as “free will.”
_______
Although I cannot know what reality is, I choose determinism rather than Free Will. There is probably no such thing as Free Will.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:55 pm I choose determinism...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's so, so funny! My dear B., that is the ONE thing you cannot possibly do.

If determinism is true, then nobody ever "chooses" anything...least of all, the belief in determinism.

It's ALL determined, then. There are NO choices.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4932
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:48 am But with regard to the Koran I keep remembering St Paul
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
There is that in the Koran regarding Allah, that takes precedence over pro tem rules and regulations.
The spirit of Christianity is represented by the overriding maxim 'Love all and even one's enemies'. This would be welcomed by all normal human beings.

But from my solid of knowledge of the Quran, the spirit within the Quran is inherently evil, i.e. there is an evil spirit therein that exhort believers to kill non-believers at the slightest inkling of threat [fasadan] where disbelieve in Islam itself is a threat.
  • Quran 5:33: The only reward of those
    who make war upon Allah and His messenger and
    strive after corruption in the land
    will be that
    they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.
    Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. Pickthall
If one were to read the English translation of 5:33, it is a violent command but nevertheless seem reasonable since there are justifications, i.e. corruption of the land.

But when one read in Arabic [transliteration below], there are a lot of serious meanings to the words used. In this case, note the word 'fasadan' is translated as 'corruption' which does not trigger any alarm of terrible violence.
  • Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna fee al-ardi fasadan an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun
The word 'fasadan' is translated as 'corruption' which does not trigger any alarm. But if one were to refer to the Arabic dictionary and note the root word 'fasad' and its derivative 'fasadan' there are more practical [performative] meanings as understood by the serious Muslims than mere 'corruption'.
  • Fasad (Arabic: فساد‎ /fasād/) is an Arabic word meaning rottenness, corruption, or depravity. In an Islamic context it can refer to spreading mischief in a Muslim land, moral corruption against God, or disturbance of the public peace.The spread of fasad is a major theme in the Quran, and the notion is often contrasted with islah (setting things aright).
    Classical Quranic commentators commonly interpreted "corruption in the land" as open disobedience against God or its result.
    https://www.definitions.net/definition/fasad
The serious Muslims upon reading the Quran solely in Arabic take the meaning [performatively] of 'fasadan' as open disobedience against Allah, i.e. disbelief by the non-Muslims, and this trigger violent emotions within Muslims.
In this case, Allah permit Muslims to kill non-believers because they disbelieve Allah and Muhammad as messenger which tantamount to an insult and disrespecting Allah and Islam thus non-Muslims [infidels] should be killed based on fasadan.

This is a passport for any Muslim to kill non-Muslims [disbelievers] as permitted by Allah within the Quran, i.e. verse 5:33 supported by other verses that permit violence upon non-Muslims. Those evil prone Muslims from a pool of 300 million [20%] will comply with this command in some ways and the terrible consequences are so glaring evident throughout the history of Islam.

I learned of such genuine interpretation of 5:33 from the serious Muslims and their acts.

Since you don't have a solid stand to critique the Quran, there is you are not qualified to dispute the above, but even if try to rely on experts, you will not be able to find any rational counter to it from anywhere.

What is going on at present, the majority of moderate Muslims are ignorant of the essence of what is in their Quran and they merely cherry-pick the goody verses to adopt while the Muslims apologists are totally ignorant of the essentials of Islam and the Quran.

This is why I exhort all those who want to comment [for or against] on the Quran and Islam, to research on the Quran - the core constitution of Islam - deeply and thoroughly.
Belinda
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:29 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:48 am But with regard to the Koran I keep remembering St Paul
And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
There is that in the Koran regarding Allah, that takes precedence over pro tem rules and regulations.
The spirit of Christianity is represented by the overriding maxim 'Love all and even one's enemies'. This would be welcomed by all normal human beings.

But from my solid of knowledge of the Quran, the spirit within the Quran is inherently evil, i.e. there is an evil spirit therein that exhort believers to kill non-believers at the slightest inkling of threat [fasadan] where disbelieve in Islam itself is a threat.
  • Quran 5:33: The only reward of those
    who make war upon Allah and His messenger and
    strive after corruption in the land
    will be that
    they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.
    Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom. Pickthall
If one were to read the English translation of 5:33, it is a violent command but nevertheless seem reasonable since there are justifications, i.e. corruption of the land.

But when one read in Arabic [transliteration below], there are a lot of serious meanings to the words used. In this case, note the word 'fasadan' is translated as 'corruption' which does not trigger any alarm of terrible violence.
  • Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna fee al-ardi fasadan an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun
The word 'fasadan' is translated as 'corruption' which does not trigger any alarm. But if one were to refer to the Arabic dictionary and note the root word 'fasad' and its derivative 'fasadan' there are more practical [performative] meanings as understood by the serious Muslims than mere 'corruption'.
  • Fasad (Arabic: فساد‎ /fasād/) is an Arabic word meaning rottenness, corruption, or depravity. In an Islamic context it can refer to spreading mischief in a Muslim land, moral corruption against God, or disturbance of the public peace.The spread of fasad is a major theme in the Quran, and the notion is often contrasted with islah (setting things aright).
    Classical Quranic commentators commonly interpreted "corruption in the land" as open disobedience against God or its result.
    https://www.definitions.net/definition/fasad
The serious Muslims upon reading the Quran solely in Arabic take the meaning [performatively] of 'fasadan' as open disobedience against Allah, i.e. disbelief by the non-Muslims, and this trigger violent emotions within Muslims.
In this case, Allah permit Muslims to kill non-believers because they disbelieve Allah and Muhammad as messenger which tantamount to an insult and disrespecting Allah and Islam thus non-Muslims [infidels] should be killed based on fasadan.

This is a passport for any Muslim to kill non-Muslims [disbelievers] as permitted by Allah within the Quran, i.e. verse 5:33 supported by other verses that permit violence upon non-Muslims. Those evil prone Muslims from a pool of 300 million [20%] will comply with this command in some ways and the terrible consequences are so glaring evident throughout the history of Islam.

I learned of such genuine interpretation of 5:33 from the serious Muslims and their acts.

Since you don't have a solid stand to critique the Quran, there is you are not qualified to dispute the above, but even if try to rely on experts, you will not be able to find any rational counter to it from anywhere.

What is going on at present, the majority of moderate Muslims are ignorant of the essence of what is in their Quran and they merely cherry-pick the goody verses to adopt while the Muslims apologists are totally ignorant of the essentials of Islam and the Quran.

This is why I exhort all those who want to comment [for or against] on the Quran and Islam, to research on the Quran - the core constitution of Islam - deeply and thoroughly.

https://www.alislam.org/quran/view/?pag ... 2&CR=E1,E2

Some verses are context dependent and some verses are context independent. Unlike Jahweh, Allah has no name/ definition/predicate, so His name cannot be used to endorse violence.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4932
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What causes muslims to be violent

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 03, 2020 9:03 am
https://www.alislam.org/quran/view/?pag ... 2&CR=E1,E2

Some verses are context dependent and some verses are context independent. Unlike Jahweh, Allah has no name/ definition/predicate, so His name cannot be used to endorse violence.
As I had argued, when you do not research deeply, what you produced is NOT likely to carry much weight.

Here are the first of the 5 popular Translations of the said verse, i.e. Quran 3:7:
  • Muhammad Asad
    He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ - as well as others that are allegorical. Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion, and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning. Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.

    M. M. Pickthall
    He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

    Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985)
    He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

    Shakir
    He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

    Wahiduddin Khan
    It is He who has sent down the Book to you. Some of its verses are clear and precise in meaningthey are the basis of the Bookwhile others are allegorical. Those with deviation in their hearts pursue the allegorical, so as to create dissension by seeking to explain it: but no one knows its meaning except God. Those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, We believe in it: it is all from our Lord. But only the wise take heed.
Your link interpret "mutashābihātun" as "succeptible of different interpretations" while the above interpret it according it as 'allegorical.'
'Allegorical' is the most appropriate is to denote some texts are like parables while others are literal and direct.

To interpret "mutashābihātun" as "succeptible of different interpretations" is not effective since every verse in the Quran is "succeptible of different interpretations."

But the last point in the verse is critical, i.e. "only men of understanding" will understand the message whether it is literal or allegorical.
In the Quran, Allah explained who are the people qualified as "only men of understanding."

Having done the relevant research and amount of work, I believe I qualify as "men of understanding" in the Quranic sense.

I believe my interpretation of Quran 5:33 is right on target as Allah intended.
If you think it is a wrong interpretation, where is your supporting evidence.
Quoting the link above, i.e.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/view/?pag ... 2&CR=E1,E2
do not present as an effective counter to my earlier point.

There are many verses in the Quran where the Quran is supposedly made easy to be understood, here is one example, i.e. 54:17 with 3 interpretations;
  • 54:17
    Yusuf Ali:
    And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?

    Muhammad Sarwar: We have made the Quran easy to understand, but is there anyone who would pay attention?

    Muhammad Asad:
    Hence, indeed, We made this Qur’an easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart.
Post Reply