Hate Speech?

[Exodus]

No one ever uses the term "warlord" for Obama, or Bush, or Tony Blair, even though they have caused thousands of deaths around the world, and the United States has set up army bases all over the world. Who are the real warlords here? I guess it's easier to ignore it when it's happening over in someone else's country.

US-Military-Bases-Around-The-World.jpg

The US is one of the most warlike nations that has ever existed, it has been involved in 100 wars in its short lifetime, and conquered its territory through the bloody massacre and subjugation of Native American tribes, and the enslavement of an entire race of people. All under a democratic government.

It's the same thing with terrorism: if a Western white person or nation does it or is ok with it, it's "fighting for freedom", but if a brown person or a Muslim does it it's "terrorism."

The Prophet (saws) only caused "alarm" in Mecca because the Quraysh saw the new religion as a threat: the Muslims were forced to leave under threat of violence. The Prophet Muhammd (saws) was given success in both worldly affairs and spiritual ones: this is part of his uniqueness and favor from Allah. Before the Muslims the Arabian peninsula was a dangerous place, filled with bandits and lacking any kind of widespread governmental order -- he united it and made it a safer place than it was before.

[wacey]

40 posts in still looking for the hate?

[Exodus]

The extent of Allah's mercy is such that He makes the repayment of an evil deed the same as the deed, while He multiplies the reward for good deeds by 10 times. The Hellfire is indeed a deterrent. Honestly, many people would not abstain from doing wrong unless there was some kind of punishment for it. Whether it is in their nature or not is the same with worldly law: we punish people who are naturally violent -- unless they are insane or something like that, which is the same in Islam, a crazy person is not held accountable for their actions. Allah created us and gave us life, it's a small thing to ask for us to believe in Him and use some small part of our time to praise Him.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I have some time so I will make a few more comments on the subject.

No serious scholar believes that the Qur'an has been altered in any way -- the Birmingham manuscript, while not complete, confirms this. There is no evidence of any alteration. Muslims -- Sunnis, Shi'a, etc. -- all use the same Qur'an to this day. In every city in the Muslim world there are small children who have memorized the entire Qur'an and can correct you if you make even a single mistake. The Qur'an was memorized by many during the lifetime of the Prophet (saws), it was also written on scraps later on, but the recitation existed before the physical book.

Allah describes Himself in the Qur'an as "khayrul-maakireen" which means the Best Planner or Plotter. Makr means deception in the sense of a concealed or secret plan -- this is a reference to how Allah has a plan for each creature in the afterlife, yet they are not aware of what their eventual fate will be. The idea that this justifies lying is completely absurd -- Allah does not lie nor does He command anyone to lie, lying is the worst offense in Islam:

"And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie about Allah?" (Qur'an 11.18)

"And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]." (Qur'an 2.42)

"And with the truth We have sent the Qur'an down, and with the truth it has descended." (Qur'an 17.105)

"Say, "Are there of your 'partners' any who guides to the truth?" Say, "Allah guides to the truth." (Qur'an 10.35)

"And Allah will establish the truth by His words" (Quran 10.82)

"And the one who has brought the truth and [they who] believed in it - those are the righteous." (Qur'an 39.33)

"Rather, the Prophet has come with the truth" (Qur'an 37.37)

One of Allah's 99 names is The Truth -- how could He command anyone to lie? Deception in wartime is an obvious fact -- no army is going to tell their enemy where their troops are, for example. This is just common sense. The hadith about inventing good information just means that it's ok to tell a white lie, it doesn't mean lying about anything of serious importance. There is a long scholarly tradition in Islam based on cross-referencing hadiths, checking their authenticity, and referring to the context of Qur'anic verses to derive their meaning and bounds. It's not something you can just look at and figure out without serious study and knowledge of the Arabic language, which has words with many multiple meanings based on context.

Tom Holland in a not in his book "In the Shadow of the Sword" that:

A Muslim scholar of the tenth century, Ibn Mujahid, established what subsequently became the orthodoxy: that there were seven, equally valid qira’at—“readings”—of the Qur’an. The modern, widely held notion that there is one single text was established only in 1924, with the publication in Cairo of an edition of the Qur’an that went on to become the global standard.

In regards lying, it isn't about white lies: it says it is perfectly acceptable to lie outright to non-Muslims (and not honour oaths, pledges, allegiances etc.), but yes, that it is also acceptable to tell white lies to your spouse etc.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No one ever uses the term "warlord" for Obama, or Bush, or Tony Blair, even though they have caused thousands of deaths around the world, and the United States has set up army bases all over the world. Who are the real warlords here? I guess it's easier to ignore it when it's happening over in someone else's country.

US-Military-Bases-Around-The-World.jpg

The US is one of the most warlike nations that has ever existed, it has been involved in 100 wars in its short lifetime, and conquered its territory through the bloody massacre and subjugation of Native American tribes, and the enslavement of an entire race of people. All under a democratic government.

It's the same thing with terrorism: if a Western white person or nation does it or is ok with it, it's "fighting for freedom", but if a brown person or a Muslim does it it's "terrorism."

The Prophet (saws) only caused "alarm" in Mecca because the Quraysh saw the new religion as a threat: the Muslims were forced to leave under threat of violence. The Prophet Muhammd (saws) was given success in both worldly affairs and spiritual ones: this is part of his uniqueness and favor from Allah. Before the Muslims the Arabian peninsula was a dangerous place, filled with bandits and lacking any kind of widespread governmental order -- he united it and made it a safer place than it was before.

Obama, Bush, and Blair were/are leaders of organised states, so the term "warlord" could not strictly be applied to them. Otherwise, words of similar negative association have frequently been assigned to all three. I am just as opposed with leaders like George Bush starting wars because they believed their god "told" them to as I am when Muhammad allegedly used the same qualification. Whether the wars they started were just is another matter. In Muhammad's case, even without comparing him to religious and philosophical figures who told their followers to leave peacefully, his wars were generally offensive in nature (if not in all instances). Whether by expectation or by example, Muslims from his time to the present have been at war with the world: I think when many Muslims consider Muhammad to have been the exemplary human being and driven by the verses in the qur'an and hadith which emphasise war in the name of their god as a means of defending and spreading their religion, it will be difficult for Islam to reform itself for the better.

Obama, Bush, and Blair did not form a doctrine which tells its followers to in induce terror in their enemies, and wage war against everyone who opposed their ideology. When a person says they are American, or a Republican, this can mean a diverse range of things. When someone says they are Muslim...this can also mean a diverse range of things, but if Islam is not about considering Muhammad an exemplary human being to follow and adhering to the teachings of the qur'an, which expects followers to inflict terror against the enemies of Islam (as it says their god will do in the afterlife) and otherwise fight and kill or subdue the enemies of Islam until everyone worships Allah, then it is greatly reformed from the ideology of Muhammad and his early followers.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The Prophet (saws) only caused "alarm" in Mecca because the Quraysh saw the new religion as a threat: the Muslims were forced to leave under threat of violence. The Prophet Muhammd (saws) was given success in both worldly affairs and spiritual ones: this is part of his uniqueness and favor from Allah. Before the Muslims the Arabian peninsula was a dangerous place, filled with bandits and lacking any kind of widespread governmental order -- he united it and made it a safer place than it was before.

You say "only", but causing "alarm" according to the qur'an is sufficient justification to crucify or otherwise brutally murder the alarmist.

I believe we only have Muhammad's word for the existence of the Quraysh, the worship of stones, and Mecca being an Earthly paradise in the middle of the desert.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The extent of Allah's mercy is such that He makes the repayment of an evil deed the same as the deed, while He multiplies the reward for good deeds by 10 times. The Hellfire is indeed a deterrent. Honestly, many people would not abstain from doing wrong unless there was some kind of punishment for it. Whether it is in their nature or not is the same with worldly law: we punish people who are naturally violent -- unless they are insane or something like that, which is the same in Islam, a crazy person is not held accountable for their actions. Allah created us and gave us life, it's a small thing to ask for us to believe in Him and use some small part of our time to praise Him.

Muslims believe that everyone's fate is predestined, do they not? How can Hell it be a deterrent if you are only fulfilling your destiny? Or, if somehow we are supposed to be capable of agency in such a system, are we not just acting in accordance with our nature? To suggest that someone would knowingly do an "evil deed" that are certain they will be punished for when they could alternatively do an act of good that gives ten times the reward must mean they are compelled contrary to all reason, and therefore should not be punished, or, in actually fact, it is not a deterrent because they do not believe it. In any case, torture is fundamentally wrong.

If a person is naturally violent, they should be detained for the safety of themselves and the rest of society, and an attempt should be made to rehabilitate them. Punishing someone for how they are naturally is in principal rather immoral. In practice, following this maxim to its logical conclusion is difficult to follow consistently and comprehensively: we are not omnipotent beings, after all. An omnipotent being however has no excuse for punishing mortals.

I do not believe in god or rewards & punishments in an afterlife, but this does not mean that I feel compelled to do "evil deeds" or act for some third party subduing, torturing, and killing others because the victims do not agree with an ideology. I choose to do things in accordance with my "conscience": if something is "bad", it simply does not acquiesce with my mind and I feel incapable of doing it.

As I said in a recent post with @Eliza Thomason: there is no virtue in believing in god, and there is no virtue in believing in something contrary to reason. It is not an act of "good" to believe in a being without evidence (especially one that is supposed to be all-powerful): if anything, a supreme being should believe in you, not the other way round. Whether Allah gave us life and whether that life is worthy of unconditional praise are two separate matters. In general, I believe time and energy should be devoted to those who need it, who are proven to exist, and should be freely given with no undue penalty attached for refusing to do so.

[Exodus]

Tom Holland in a not in his book "In the Shadow of the Sword" that:

The qira'at are well known: the Arabs spoke many different dialects, and there were variants of the Qur'an in each of them. The essential meaning remains the same. I myself recite in the Warsh qira'at, Hafs is the most common. The qira'at were authorized by the Prophet (saws) during his lifetime.

In regards lying, it isn't about white lies: it says it is perfectly acceptable to lie outright to non-Muslims (and not honour oaths, pledges, allegiances etc.), but yes, that it is also acceptable to tell white lies to your spouse etc.

There is nothing in the Muslim tradition that tells us to not honor oaths or lie to non-Muslims etc., this is a misinterpretation of that verse. In fact Allah reprimands the Jews in the Qur'an for acting unjustly towards non-Jews (regarding usury and other things):

"That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned [meaning, the pagan Arabs]." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it]. But yes, whoever fulfills his commitment and fears Allah - then indeed, Allah loves those who fear Him." (Qur'an 3.75-76)

You should find some better sources, even most orientalists don't hold to these ridiculous claims. Holland apparently doesn't even know Arabic.

[Exodus]

You say "only", but causing "alarm" according to the qur'an is sufficient justification to crucify or otherwise brutally murder the alarmist.

I believe we only have Muhammad's word for the existence of the Quraysh, the worship of stones, and Mecca being an Earthly paradise in the middle of the desert.

What on earth are you talking about? The Quraysh is the tribe of Muhammad (saws) and many of his companions. Mecca being an Earthly paradise?? Again, read some real books on Islam.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No one ever uses the term "warlord" for Obama, or Bush, or Tony Blair, even though they have caused thousands of deaths around the world, and the United States has set up army bases all over the world. Who are the real warlords here? I guess it's easier to ignore it when it's happening over in someone else's country.

US-Military-Bases-Around-The-World.jpg

The US is one of the most warlike nations that has ever existed, it has been involved in 100 wars in its short lifetime, and conquered its territory through the bloody massacre and subjugation of Native American tribes, and the enslavement of an entire race of people. All under a democratic government.

It's the same thing with terrorism: if a Western white person or nation does it or is ok with it, it's "fighting for freedom", but if a brown person or a Muslim does it it's "terrorism."

When the US and other Western countries do go to war...there is actually a huge amount of fuss made about it, from all sections of society and in many countries. But in most instances, there is also a diverse group of people that support action.

I did not say I approved of American imperialism and warmongering throughout its history. I merely reflected on how Islam is an ideology which has expected its followers to terrorise, subdue or otherwise kill its opponents, which I am also opposed to. It is probably still the case that for each of the last three centuries, the number of people being killed in wars & being murdered per capita worldwide, there was a decline from the previous century. There was an even greater increase by the 1990s:

We also have very good statistics for the history of one-on-one murder, because for centuries many European municipalities have recorded causes of death. When the criminologist Manuel Eisner scoured the records of every village, city, county, and nation he could find, he discovered that homicide rates in Europe had declined from 100 killings per 100,000 people per year in the Middle Ages to less than one killing per 100,000 people in modern Europe.

And since 1945 in Europe and the Americas, we’ve seen steep declines in the number of deaths from interstate wars, ethnic riots, and military coups, even in South America. Worldwide, the number of battle deaths has fallen from 65,000 per conflict per year to less than 2,000 deaths in this decade. Since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, we have seen fewer civil wars, a 90 percent reduction in the number of deaths by genocide, and even a reversal in the 1960s-era uptick in violent crime.

[Not A Communist Shill]

What on earth are you talking about? The Quraysh is the tribe of Muhammad (saws) and many of his companions. Mecca being an Earthly paradise?? Again, read some real books on Islam.

I'm sorry, I'm mixing them up with the Banu Qurayza.

The Quran 6.99 Al Anam (Cattle)
He it is Who sendeth down water from the sky, and therewith We bring forth buds of every kind; We bring forth the green blade from which We bring forth the thick-clustered grain; and from the date-palm, from the pollen thereof, spring pendant bunches; and (We bring forth) gardens of grapes, and the olive and the pomegranate, alike and unlike. Look upon the fruit thereof, when they bear fruit, and upon its ripening. Lo! herein verily are portents for a people who believe.

The Quran 80 He Frowned

80:1 He frowned and turned away
80:2 Because the blind man came unto him.
80:3 What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace)
80:4 Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him ?
80:5 As for him who thinketh himself independent,
80:6 Unto him thou payest regard.
80:7 Yet it is not thy concern if he grow not (in grace).
80:8 But as for him who cometh unto thee with earnest purpose
80:9 And hath fear,
80:10 From him thou art distracted.
80:11 Nay, but verily it is an Admonishment,
80:12 So let whosoever will pay heed to it,
80:13 On honoured leaves
80:14 Exalted, purified,
80:15 (Set down) by scribes
80:16 Noble and righteous.
80:17 Man is (self-)destroyed: how ungrateful!
80:18 From what thing doth He create him ?
80:19 From a drop of seed. He createth him and proportioneth him,
80:20 Then maketh the way easy for him,
80:21 Then causeth him to die, and burieth him;
80:22 Then, when He will, He bringeth him again to life.
80:23 Nay, but (man) hath not done what He commanded him.
80:24 Let man consider his food:
80:25 How We pour water in showers
80:26 Then split the earth in clefts
80:27 And cause the grain to grow therein
80:28 And grapes and green fodder
80:29 And olive-trees and palm-trees
80:30 And garden-closes of thick foliage
80:31 And fruits and grasses:
80:32 Provision for you and your cattle.
80:33 But when the Shout cometh
80:34 On the day when a man fleeth from his brother
80:35 And his mother and his father
80:36 And his wife and his children,
80:37 Every man that day will have concern enough to make him heedless (of others).
80:38 On that day faces will be bright as dawn,
80:39 Laughing, rejoicing at good news;
80:40 And other faces, on that day, with dust upon them,
80:41 Veiled in darkness,
80:42 Those are the disbelievers, the wicked.

[Exodus]

I choose to do things in accordance with my "conscience": if something is "bad", it simply does not acquiesce with my mind and I feel incapable of doing it.

You never do bad things?

As I said in a recent post with @Eliza Thomason: there is no virtue in believing in god, and there is no virtue in believing in something contrary to reason. It is not an act of "good" to believe in a being without evidence (especially one that is supposed to be all-powerful): if anything, a supreme being should believe in you, not the other way round. Whether Allah gave us life and whether that life is worthy of unconditional praise are two separate matters.

The evidence is all around us -- creation is evidence of a creator.

Allah is characterized by belief - one of his 99 names is "Al-Mu'min", which means one possessing belief in Arabic.

In general, I believe time and energy should be devoted to those who need it, who are proven to exist, and should be freely given with no undue penalty attached for refusing to do so.

We devote ourselves to Allah because we need it. Humans have spiritual needs just like they have physical needs.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There is nothing in the Muslim tradition that tells us to not honor oaths or lie to non-Muslims etc., this is a misinterpretation of that verse. In fact Allah reprimands the Jews in the Qur'an for acting unjustly towards non-Jews (regarding usury and other things):

"That is because they say, "There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned [meaning, the pagan Arabs]." And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it]. But yes, whoever fulfills his commitment and fears Allah - then indeed, Allah loves those who fear Him." (Qur'an 3.75-76)

You should find some better sources, even most orientalists don't hold to these ridiculous claims. Holland apparently doesn't even know Arabic.

It is still possible to have one rule for the Muslims regarding non-Jews, and for the Jews regarding non-Jews. It is similar with the common misuse of Qur'an 5:32, which is specifically mentioned to be a rule for Jews, not Muslims.

("We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.") - there is no such verse aimed at Muslims.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You never do bad things?

I did not say that. I said if I felt something was bad, I would feel incapable of doing it. I would act accordingly. Of course there are also instances where I have done something which I later determined to be bad, or which weigh far more heavily on my conscience.

I do not use "bad" in the sense of "evil" either, because I do not believe in evil.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Holland apparently doesn't even know Arabic.

You do not need to know Greek to understand the New Testament and the works of ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians. Not sure what your point is, except that you are saying that the qur'an does not have a clear, timeless message.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The evidence is all around us -- creation is evidence of a creator.

That assumes that every effect has a cause. Living in a cause and effect Reality is only true if Reality is a closed system, which could only mean it has no cause.

[Not A Communist Shill]

We devote ourselves to Allah because we need it. Humans have spiritual needs just like they have physical needs.

I don't believe "spiritual" can be defined in any meaningfully unique way that does not describe a physical process, but that would mean it would not be "spiritual". It is an empty word, and not even an empty that exists.

[Exodus]

It is still possible to have one rule for the Muslims regarding non-Jews, and for the Jews regarding non-Jews. It is similar with the common misuse of Qur'an 5:32, which is specifically mentioned to be a rule for Jews, not Muslims.

The conclusion of the verse is completely general: "But yes, whoever fulfills his commitment and fears Allah - then indeed, Allah loves those who fear Him."

You do not need to know Greek to understand the New Testament and the works of ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians. Not sure what your point is, except that you are saying that the qur'an does not have a clear, timeless message.

You definitely need to know Arabic to fully understand the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saws), as well as to understand the history of the Arabs -- ESPECIALLY if you are making original historical claims that go against what the people who are actually familiar with Islamic history are saying. The surface meaning of the Qur'an is clear and contains wisdom for all people, but it is also extremely nuanced with deeper levels of meaning, which you have already demonstrated that you don't understand. Much of Islamic literature hasn't even been translated into English, either.

That assumes that every effect has a cause. Living in a cause and effect Reality is only true if Reality is a closed system, which could only mean it has no cause.

Allah is the Reality, and He has no cause.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I cannot for the life of me see why a supreme being would care about mere mortals following certain rituals, especially ones that limit the freedom of others and do not have a "net good" for the mortals, rather than the supreme being. That these rituals are intended as a test which emphasize suffering as being necessary on the part of the follower and often on non-believers does not strike me as being the mark of a being worth worshiping.

If a supreme being has the power to do good and prevent all evil (I can only believe in the existence of "evil" in regards the existence of supreme beings, even if religious people have done significant "bads" because of believing they have the ultimate truth), I can only consider that being to be evil. Doing something contrary to your judgement purely because of what such a being supposedly wishes should obviously be fundamentally wrong.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Allah is the Reality, and He has no cause.

You cited Reality as proof of a creator, I argued that the existence of Reality does not prove it has a creator. You have still not presented the being itself, nevermind demonstrated how it has no cause. I can only conclude that until proven, Reality has no cause.

You can only really satisfactorily say something of a similar nature is likely to have a similar origin, if any. With something defined as being of an exceptional quality, it needs evidence specific to it.

As it is, I can say that it seems immoral to punish someone for not believing something, on account of their reasoning. It would seem peculiar also to reward someone who believing something in line with their inherent nature, or for believing contrary to reason because they wish is to be true.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You definitely need to know Arabic to fully understand the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saws), as well as to understand the history of the Arabs -- ESPECIALLY if you are making original historical claims that go against what the people who are actually familiar with Islamic history are saying. The surface meaning of the Qur'an is clear and contains wisdom for all people, but it is also extremely nuanced with deeper levels of meaning, which you have already demonstrated that you don't understand. Much of Islamic literature hasn't even been translated into English, either.

If Allah knows the intentions of all, there does not appear to be a good reason to have a "holy book" that can and has been so often been utilised by a whole range of nefarious individuals and groups.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Qur'an 83:34-37 appears to say that Muslims will laugh at the non-Muslims being tortured in hell while they are in heaven. I cannot respect anybody who genuinely believes they will do this, nor can I worship a god that has such an ideology.

Many would argue that torture can be worse than death, and this would certainly be true in the context of a punishment in hell. It is difficult to imagine a greater evil than laughing at others being tortured, other than for example committing such acts of violence yourself.

This appears to be a classic example of a fundamentalist ideology dehumanizing those who do not follow it. Having people in the world who believe and follow such things does not improve our lives. It only degrades them, and makes acts of violence and oppression seem permissible for what believers consider a "greater good" - especially when the texts and leaders of the ideology explicitly justify or even demand them to be carried out.

[Exodus]

If Allah knows the intentions of all, there does not appear to be a good reason to have a "holy book" that can and has been so often been utilised by a whole range of nefarious individuals and groups.

The Qur'an is here for our benefit -- how we use it is up to us. It's part of having free will.

I cannot for the life of me see why a supreme being would care about mere mortals following certain rituals, especially ones that limit the freedom of others and do not have a "net good" for the mortals, rather than the supreme being. That these rituals are intended as a test which emphasize suffering as being necessary on the part of the follower and often on non-believers does not strike me as being the mark of a being worth worshiping.

The rites of Islam absolutely do have a net good. Giving charity helps the poor, and remembering Allah through prayer gives us peace.

If a supreme being has the power to do good and prevent all evil (I can only believe in the existence of "evil" in regards the existence of supreme beings, even if religious people have done significant "bads" because of believing they have the ultimate truth), I can only consider that being to be evil. Doing something contrary to your judgement purely because of what such a being supposedly wishes should obviously be fundamentally wrong.

If good exists, then evil exists. Things come in pairs, it's how creation is. Allah is far above being described as evil, He is not like creation.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If good exists, then evil exists. Things come in pairs, it's how creation is. Allah is far above being described as evil, He is not like creation.

You may think the way you do, but there is absolutely no reason why an omnipotent being would be able to allow only "good" to exist and not evil. You do not need evil exist for there to be good, anymore than you need non-existence to exist in order for existence to exist.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you believe that Islam allows the freedom of the individual to practice whatever ideology they wish, can you explain why Muhammad commanded Muslims to execute apostates? (Those who converted away from Islam: due to his hypocrisy, he "only" commanded the execution of those who converted away from Islam, not to).

Do you believe that apostates should be executed?

Do you believe in other practices engaged in by Muhammad such as encouraging the use of sexual slavery (and slavery in general)?

[Not A Communist Shill]

There will be people from my Ummah who will seek to make lawful fornication, the wearing of silk, wine drinking and the use of musical instruments. Some people will stay at the side of the mountain and when their shepherd comes in the evening to ask them for his needs, they will say : 'Return to us tomorrow'. Then Allaah will destroy them during the night by causing the mountain to fall upon them, while He changes others into apes and swine. They will remain in such a state until the Day of Resurrection. ~ Al-Bukhari Hadith

That passage seems to vilify and hate most of humanity.

[Chae]

Instead of debating about peace, let's practice it

[Grendel]

[Not A Communist Shill]

Instead of debating about peace, let's practice it

I think addressing the normalisation of hateful ideologies is an important aspect of making things more peaceful. "Christian values" for example are often considered an ideal of harmonious living, but in truth, "Christian values" threaten most of humanity with torture.

[End]

I think addressing the normalisation of hateful ideologies is an important aspect of making things more peaceful. "Christian values" for example are often considered an ideal of harmonious living, but in truth, "Christian values" threaten most of humanity with torture.

So do most any and all ethnic groups when ya get down to it. Jack Donovan is right, the way of "men" (and thus, humanity) is the way of the party gang. We good, they bad, we kill them because we good and they bad. Yay us! Fuck them all! (In very bad ways if you happen to be a woman who belongs to the "other" tribe)...

This is how humans operate. To say this isn't the case is to deny reality. Deny it all you will, you will always come to regret it. Give credit where it is due however, for "Christian" values do not label the "other" as something worthy only of slaughter at best. Read the Quran or the Talmud and tell me how much better they are than the Christian Ethos on that front. Yeah... perhaps now you'll begin to understand why those who followed those religions got an enthusiastic thrust from an otherwise kind and sweet Crusader... Infidel am I? Soulless cattle? Yeah, no, fuck you right here, right now (SPLORCH!!!)!

[Not A Communist Shill]

So do most any and all ethnic groups when ya get down to it. Jack Donovan is right, the way of "men" (and thus, humanity) is the way of the party gang. We good, they bad, we kill them because we good and they bad. Yay us! Fuck them all! (In very bad ways if you happen to be a woman who belongs to the "other" tribe)...

This is how humans operate. To say this isn't the case is to deny reality. Deny it all you will, you will always come to regret it. Give credit where it is due however, for "Christian" values do not label the "other" as something worthy only of slaughter at best. Read the Quran or the Talmud and tell me how much better they are than the Christian Ethos on that front. Yeah... perhaps now you'll begin to understand why those who followed those religions got an enthusiastic thrust from an otherwise kind and sweet Crusader... Infidel am I? Soulless cattle? Yeah, no, fuck you right here, right now (SPLORCH!!!)!

As may be clear from posts in this thread, I actually consider the Qur'an to be worse than the New Testament, because Muslims in the Qur'an are told to kill, terrorise, and torture their enemies whereas Christians are specifically told to not only refrain from violence, but to turn the other cheek. The Old Testament is bad in terms of the genocides ordered by its god, but Jews don't tend to be as much of a problem in the 21st century as Christians and Muslims - partly due to being outnumbered 100 to 1 or similar by each, but also due to the nature of Jewish history since the time of the Babylonian exile.

[Chae]

I think addressing the normalisation of hateful ideologies is an important aspect of making things more peaceful. "Christian values" for example are often considered an ideal of harmonious living, but in truth, "Christian values" threaten most of humanity with torture.

Yes indeed and I agree with your assessment, it's correct! Yet! Being against evil does not make you good. And also:


Do you want to be the loyal opposition who's entirely dependent on the enemy? You are also the very cause that this enemy can exist, no power without resistance!

I consider debating bad values a waste of time - it feels cozy to engage in your own good values. That makes you a role model aka you inspire positive change more easily. Discussing bad perpetuates the bad, being good perpetuates the good. Calling out harmful Christian values does not change anything, we have to rise above them and practise a better world with an alternative! We need to see the use- and peaceful parts of Christianity, too. We need to see the true intention of this religion, which is the purpose of every other belief system as well btw. Which is: making people more loving

It's important not to get on this level of hatred but to be happy about having one's individual harmony of life This attitude causes a great peace of mind.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes indeed and I agree with your assessment, it's correct! Yet! Being against evil does not make you good. And also:


Do you want to be the loyal opposition who's entirely dependent on the enemy? You are also the very cause that this enemy can exist, no power without resistance!

I consider debating bad values a waste of time - it feels cozy to engage in your own good values. That makes you a role model aka you inspire positive change more easily. Discussing bad perpetuates the bad, being good perpetuates the good. Calling out harmful Christian values does not change anything, we have to rise above them and practise a better world with an alternative! We need to see the use- and peaceful parts of Christianity, too. We need to see the true intention of this religion, which is the purpose of every other belief system as well btw. Which is: making people more loving And I'm saying this as an atheist.

It's important not to get on this level of hatred but to be happy about having one's individual harmony of life This attitude causes a great peace of mind.

I think most people live positive lives merely by abiding by the laws and cultural norms of modern society, which I consider to be more of a good thing than a bad thing. Certainly it is important to have a good foundation about what is right, but we live in a world where rights such as democratic representation, freedom of speech, equality before the law, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom from poverty, are universal human rights. These concepts are well-defined and enshrined in international law - they are a minimum standard. Of course, I could highlight how this foundation could be improved (and I have done so in the past), but I think the real issue is not with these universal rights, but with those organisations and people who fail to live up to this minimum standard.

[Chae]

the real issue is not with these universal rights, but with those organisations and people who fail to live up to this minimum standard.

Exactly The question is: does the issue arise from the human mentality or organization with its standards itself?

[End]

As may be clear from posts in this thread, I actually consider the Qur'an to be worse than the New Testament, because Muslims in the Qur'an are told to kill, terrorise, and torture their enemies whereas Christians are specifically told to not only refrain from violence, but to turn the other cheek. The Old Testament is bad in terms of the genocides ordered by its god, but Jews don't tend to be as much of a problem in the 21st century as Christians and Muslims - partly due to being outnumbered 100 to 1 or similar by each, but also due to the nature of Jewish history since the time of the Babylonian exile.

The Jews have a far more insidious MO. I'd read some of the works of Kevin MacDonald if I were you. He comes at the subject from a purely academic/intellectual perspective but the final verdict is rather damning. Turns out that if your "tribe" is Ethno-Centric Enough and so fully convinced of its own moral, genetic, and cultural superiority enough, well, that 1-2 percent of the population is all you really need to "win" as it were long term. Doesn't hurt to "pass" more often than not on the appearance side of the equation due to several generations of interbreeding. The very structure of Jewish society also ensures that moderation is social suicide. Either you hate the goys and all they stand for or you don't. And if ya don't then good luck getting into the upper echelons of Jewish society and/or not getting fired by your co-ethnic superior. After all, the goys are all either Nazis or Future Nazis, thus there can be no peace in the end, only total annihilation of either Us or Them. If'n you just so happen to sympathize with the Palestinians or think that Modern Israel looks a bit too much like Apartheid South Africa for comfort well... fuck you, die in a fire you filthy traitor, etc...

This is how it has, again, always been. There will always be an "Us" and thus there will always be a "Them". If you delude yourself to the point that you think "they" can ever become "us" without anything short of drowning out their alien genetics by forcibly assimilating them either by law or by pop-cultural pressure/osmosis then you've already lost. When two groups meet without an open war/conflict breaking out the group with the higher "in-group" preference will ALWAYS win. Why? Well, look at who just so happens to own almost all of Hollywood, the Media, the Sports Teams, etc. I can guarantee you this, the (((coincidences))) are anything but... The latter group has a far stronger in-group preference than the so-called "nazi" White Nationalists. It is little surprise that they now run everything of any cultural importance. They have an "us", they have their "big club" as George Carlin put it, and you and I are sure as fucking hell not in it .

[Not A Communist Shill]

@End it is difficult to see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as anything other than a Jewish-Islamic conflict, ultimately. When you can predict which way people who do not even live in the area side on the issue purely by knowing their religious background and when such people make a fuss about the actions of one side in the conflict but say nothing of comparable atrocities happening elsewhere in the world, you can only conclude that it is a conflict blown out of proportion because of religious fundamentalism.

The situation in Syria since 2011 alone has killed more than ten times the number of people killed in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in fifty+ years.

[End]

@End it is difficult to see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as anything other than a Jewish-Islamic conflict, ultimately. When you can predict which way people who do not even live in the area side on the issue purely by knowing their religious background and when such people make a fuss about the actions of one side in the conflict but say nothing of comparable atrocities happening elsewhere in the world, you can only conclude that it is a conflict blown out of proportion because of religious fundamentalism.

The situation in Syria since 2011 alone has killed more than ten times the number of people killed in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in fifty+ years.

It is that, yes, but the fundamentalism goes well beyond that to the point of people like me questioning the sanity of the Jews. Yeah, the Muslims hate you with a passion that makes even Der Fuhrer blush (eg. if ye were but 1/8th Jew or below you weren't a Jew in his eyes making him a total cuck in the eyes of many a Neo-Nazi), yet you overwhelmingly welcome them in and call anyone who wants it to stop a bigoted xenophobe.

This is a critical weakness of the left, a lack of long term planning/perspective. The Muslims may well kill off all the Christians and burn their Cathedrals to the ground and ye may well welcome that end with mirthful glee. However, make no mistake, as far as they're concerned the SJW left is next. They're very much into a harsh patriarchy and you will be made to accept harems, female abuse and genital mutilation, and Arabic as your new national language whether you like it or not!

Same thing got Trump elected BTW. The left figured that if they could get next to half of all women on your side and got almost all minorities to vote that way as well you'd crush the Conservatives in damn near every election. Only one problem with that strategy (effective as it may be), however. If you take that route you by definition rely on wedge issues. You will Balkanize the country with that strategy long term and, when push comes to shove, you cannot win at the current time given current demographics and geopolitical realities (i.e. White people still comprise over half the population AND hold all the vital farmland even if they've abdicated to cities to hordes of "vibrant" diversity).

Basically, the left took the cities/culture but didn't take the countryside/actual productive class of blue collar workers. There's only one problem with doing that. The Countryside feeds the cities. The Country does not need the cities, but the cities need the countryside. Thus, if we really get down to brass tacks I just don't show up to the local Farmer's Market and keep all my produce to myself and leave the shitlib Western Civilization Hating Cucks to starve and eat each other in their desperation! You'd think they'd understand that basic fact but... well, a High IQ and a Ph.D doesn't mean shit if society collapses. Quantum physics and Calculus don't mean Jack Shit in a dark alley with only me, my gang, and our weapons versus a fatass unarmed and untrained in Martial Arts weakling leftist or out in the remote wilderness of the frontier where knowing how to start a fire without a lighter means the difference between staying warm and safe vs. being Bear Chow. Just saying...

[Grendel]

Technically, the reason our society condemns bigotry as such an injustice is because it discriminates against individuals based upon traits they cannot control, such as race and sexuality. Religion isn't an innate trait you're born with, it's a conscious choice to espouse a certain set of beliefs. Criticizing a belief system -- or even calling for sanctions against it -- is a far cry from "bigotry" against the individuals choosing to practice it.


If a belief system calls for behaviors that are clearly destructive to a given society, it's only understandable that this society will want to sanction that belief system. Sanctioning this belief system is not the same as persecuting individuals for their innate traits, because these individuals can abandon this belief system whenever they so choose.


Is the sanctioning of belief systems consistent with our ideal of a free, liberal, Democratic society?
No.
And that's why our society has busted its ass to avoid sanctioning any belief system unless it poses a clear and present danger to it. If any society can't feel free to defend itself from ideologies that directly threaten its proper functioning, it eventually collapses. If you want to have a society at all, you have to draw the line somewhere, and considering that all in all Western liberal democracy has demonstrated the best model of society we've yet seen in recorded history, it'd be a small sacrifice to keep her alive.


Criticism of belief systems is a fundamental part of intellectual life in the Western world. If your cultural collective can't handle that tiny little bit of criticism, fuck off with it.

[Pookie]

The bible outright condones slavery and beating slaves until they cant walk. Stoning women who are not virgins, etc.... I think theres gotta be some bias if the quran seems more violent to you then the bible.

[Pookie]

Yes indeed and I agree with your assessment, it's correct! Yet! Being against evil does not make you good. And also:


Do you want to be the loyal opposition who's entirely dependent on the enemy? You are also the very cause that this enemy can exist, no power without resistance!

I consider debating bad values a waste of time - it feels cozy to engage in your own good values. That makes you a role model aka you inspire positive change more easily. Discussing bad perpetuates the bad, being good perpetuates the good. Calling out harmful Christian values does not change anything, we have to rise above them and practise a better world with an alternative! We need to see the use- and peaceful parts of Christianity, too. We need to see the true intention of this religion, which is the purpose of every other belief system as well btw. Which is: making people more loving

It's important not to get on this level of hatred but to be happy about having one's individual harmony of life This attitude causes a great peace of mind.

Thats a good quality quote, I got into a squabble with a girl once on that topic. People who define themselves by opposition to an idea lose their identity if that idea is defeated, so the end goal alot of times isnt change, its to moral peacock.