Rejection of Aristotelian Identity Law: A = A

[Eodnhoj7]

Any time you are using inversive symmetry you are pointing to the similarities between extremes as stemming from a center point with this center point as the knowledge between such degrees of ignorance (as all extremes are ignorant by their very nature as they imply a seperation from the dual pole.).

The problem is that belief and unbelief are both inversive opposites and any center point from which knowledge is derived requires both.

Both: similarities and differences, as possibly stemming from a common root, or not.

Belief and unbelief are not inversive opposites: unbelief is not knowledge, neither not not knowledge,
however consciously knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to believe
is more a matter of the conscience than it is with knowledge. Implicit is rather than knowledge being the be-all,
the importance of conscience supersedes, hence conscious knowledge of ignorance
derived by way of inference, performed by way of conjugating identities against themselves:

√A = +A, -A

(+)Proposition
(-)Propositional Inverse
_______________________
wherein (+) and (-) are contraposed at 180-degree angles.

{(√-A ← ....(A- ......← *A →...... +A) → √+A)}
{(conscious (knowledge of ignorance) inference)}

Belief and unbelief are inversive, one is thetical and one is antithetical. Similarities and differences are inversive as well, one is thetical and one is not.

You argument appears to be grounded in inversive symmetry. The root is inversive to exponent(iality) as well.

A root is a common branching form, ie subjects and objects diverge from it.

[nothing]

Belief and unbelief are inversive, one is thetical and one is antithetical. Similarities and differences are inversive as well, one is thetical and one is not.

You argument appears to be grounded in inversive symmetry. The root is inversive to exponent(iality) as well.

A root is a common branching form, ie subjects and objects diverge from it.

Both belief and unbelief can be rooted in a discipline of conscience: to believe that which is possibly true mandates a knowledge(s) of the degree(s) of uncertainty. These degrees serve as a corpus of the impetus of further inquiry, thus once again, the discipline of the conscience itself supersedes the need for knowledge(s) esp. if the attaining to the latter would serve not to alleviate belief-based ignorance(s) encumbering the inquirer.

Inversive symmetry can be used to describe the conditions of the universe:
i. there is a definite natural progression 'out' which is a scalar magnitude (ie. cosmological constant) c, the "speed" of light
ii. there is a natural phenomena 'in' which acts against the natural progression (ie. gravitation) intrinsic to any displaced body(s)
iii. these out/in orientations thus apply to any/all displaced bodies from, thus concerning, the natural progression of c

Therefor, √c^2 is +c, -c, which serves as the two "orientations" each having 180 degrees of RoM.

The pentagram solution derived by CKIIT employs five 36-degree junctions, producing two inversive 180-degree "orientations" which allows any subject to be viewed from both angles simultaneously. These two 180-degree inverses begin as the universal operators {alpha} and {omega}. These operators are universally bestowed and locally employed according to the impetus of the body.



The universal roots can be of *A itself, and or any object/subject relating (or not) to *A. Accordingly, all beings (conscious and/or not, each with their own respective degrees) have an internal orientation according to what they are themselves 'rooted' in, thus can only perceive accordingly.

[Eodnhoj7]

Belief and unbelief are inversive, one is thetical and one is antithetical. Similarities and differences are inversive as well, one is thetical and one is not.

You argument appears to be grounded in inversive symmetry. The root is inversive to exponent(iality) as well.

A root is a common branching form, ie subjects and objects diverge from it.

Both belief and unbelief can be rooted in a discipline of conscience: to believe that which is possibly true mandates a knowledge(s) of the degree(s) of uncertainty. These degrees serve as a corpus of the impetus of further inquiry, thus once again, the discipline of the conscience itself supersedes the need for knowledge(s) esp. if the attaining to the latter would serve not to alleviate belief-based ignorance(s) encumbering the inquirer.

Inversive symmetry can be used to describe the conditions of the universe:
i. there is a definite natural progression 'out' which is a scalar magnitude (ie. cosmological constant) c, the "speed" of light
ii. there is a natural phenomena 'in' which acts against the natural progression (ie. gravitation) intrinsic to any displaced body(s)
iii. these out/in orientations thus apply to any/all displaced bodies from, thus concerning, the natural progression of c

Therefor, √c^2 is +c, -c, which serves as the two "orientations" each having 180 degrees of RoM.

The pentagram solution derived by CKIIT employs five 36-degree junctions, producing two inversive 180-degree "orientations" which allows any subject to be viewed from both angles simultaneously. These two 180-degree inverses begin as the universal operators {alpha} and {omega}. These operators are universally bestowed and locally employed according to the impetus of the body.



The universal roots can be of *A itself, and or any object/subject relating (or not) to *A. Accordingly, all beings (conscious and/or not, each with their own respective degrees) have an internal orientation according to what they are themselves 'rooted' in, thus can only perceive accordingly.

Using discipline as a root necessitates undiscipline as an inverse, your system is dualistic and as such necessitates an opposing tension between extremes, thus requiring them (hence believe is a part of your system by default.

[nothing]

Using discipline as a root necessitates undiscipline as an inverse, your system is dualistic and as such necessitates an opposing tension between extremes, thus requiring them (hence believe is a part of your system by default.

Discipline itself is not a root, thus neither is the lack of it. If one is disciplined, the expression(s) of a particular discipline already has a corresponding root(s), real or imagined, the constituency(s) of which justifies the discipline, and not vice versa.

[Eodnhoj7]

Using discipline as a root necessitates undiscipline as an inverse, your system is dualistic and as such necessitates an opposing tension between extremes, thus requiring them (hence believe is a part of your system by default.

Discipline itself is not a root, thus neither is the lack of it. If one is disciplined, the expression(s) of a particular discipline already has a corresponding root(s), real or imagined, the constituency(s) of which justifies the discipline, and not vice versa.

The expression does not exist without the dualism between discipline and not discipline.

[nothing]

Using discipline as a root necessitates undiscipline as an inverse, your system is dualistic and as such necessitates an opposing tension between extremes, thus requiring them (hence believe is a part of your system by default.

Discipline itself is not a root, thus neither is the lack of it. If one is disciplined, the expression(s) of a particular discipline already has a corresponding root(s), real or imagined, the constituency(s) of which justifies the discipline, and not vice versa.

The expression does not exist without the dualism between discipline and not discipline.

There is no dualism between 'discipline' and 'not discipline'
less a subject/object - this is why it can not be rooted in.

Concerning *A, the same is both/neither disciplined/undisciplined
until a subject/object is concerned. If the subject is *A itself,
the discipline relates to conscience: the ability to try/test/falsify. Therefor,
'to know' and 'to believe' as conjugate roots, in conjunction with
'all' and 'not' as conjugate operators, produces two inversive orientations
(two pentagrams each with 180-degree summations)
which tends towards all-knowing and all-belief-based-ignorance (resp.)
reflecting the Edenic trees of living and of knowledge of good and evil (resp.).

'Beliefs' are thus 'fruits' - some appear pleasant to the sight, and good for food,
but the consummation of some leads not to: but suffering and death.

Consider the Islamic shahada testimony of faith. If false:

{+}Proposition: The Islamic shahada is a true testimony in accordance with god.
{-}Prop. Inverse: The Islamic shahada is a false testimony in accordance not with god.

{root} √-A=cessation suffering due to (√)+A
{oprt} FALSE=-A
{being} *A="believer" bearing testimony
{oprt} TRUE=+A
{root} √+A=causation of suffering due to false testimony

_______________________________________________
definite state +A held by any/all believing Muhammadans
captures the real root their suffering
to which their 'discipline' is aligned.

The Islamic shahada is certainly a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments;
not only, it is certainly impossible to testify to the character/nature of a dead man
thus requires the construction of a graven image (ie. 'idol') in the psychology of the believer
which is precisely what Muhammad is, thus Islam is idol worship.

[Eodnhoj7]

Discipline itself is not a root, thus neither is the lack of it. If one is disciplined, the expression(s) of a particular discipline already has a corresponding root(s), real or imagined, the constituency(s) of which justifies the discipline, and not vice versa.

The expression does not exist without the dualism between discipline and not discipline.

There is no dualism between 'discipline' and 'not discipline'
less a subject/object - this is why it can not be rooted in.

There is always a dualism between a thetical and antithetical statement.

Concerning *A, the same is both/neither disciplined/undisciplined
until a subject/object is concerned.

But it only occurs through a subject object, thus the dualism is inevitable.

If the subject is *A itself,
the discipline relates to conscience: the ability to try/test/falsify. Therefor,
'to know' and 'to believe' as conjugate roots, in conjunction with
'all' and 'not' as conjugate operators, produces two inversive orientations
(two pentagrams each with 180-degree summations)
which tends towards all-knowing and all-belief-based-ignorance (resp.)
reflecting the Edenic trees of living and of knowledge of good and evil (resp.).

'Beliefs' are thus 'fruits' - some appear pleasant to the sight, and good for food,
but the consummation of some leads not to: but suffering and death.

Consider the Islamic shahada testimony of faith. If false:

{+}Proposition: The Islamic shahada is a true testimony in accordance with god.
{-}Prop. Inverse: The Islamic shahada is a false testimony in accordance not with god.

{root} √-A=cessation suffering due to (√)+A
{oprt} FALSE=-A
{being} *A="believer" bearing testimony
{oprt} TRUE=+A
{root} √+A=causation of suffering due to false testimony

The above makes no sense.
_______________________________________________
definite state +A held by any/all believing Muhammadans
captures the real root their suffering
to which their 'discipline' is aligned.

The Islamic shahada is certainly a false testimony contrary to the ten commandments;
not only, it is certainly impossible to testify to the character/nature of a dead man
thus requires the construction of a graven image (ie. 'idol') in the psychology of the believer
which is precisely what Muhammad is, thus Islam is idol worship.

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

[Skepdick]

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

This is perhaps the crux of all Philosophy.

Do you subjugate yourself to a Philosophy, or do you see it as something in your servitude?

[nothing]

There is always a dualism between a thetical and antithetical statement.

There is no conceivable statement concerning discipline that does not involve a subject/object.

But it only occurs through a subject object, thus the dualism is inevitable.

The dualism is not related to discipline alone, as discipline alone is not divided
just as light is not divided until darkness is used to contrast, the latter being the absence of.

The above makes no sense.

Sorry.

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

CKIIT does not employ the use of male central figure idols
to justify polygamy, pedophilia, rape, torture,
"us vs. them" viz. "believer vs. unbeliever" divisions,
but rather solves for the root of suffering:

absolution-of-belief

It takes a believer to believe themselves superior to another, thus
in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation, all supremacists
will invariably be on the side of the "believers" as a function of time.

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

This is perhaps the crux of all Philosophy.

Philosophical systems are only 'idol worship' if they are closed systems.

Graven images in the "heavens" (as per the ten commandments) is the same notion:
to refrain from solidifying any impression such to make it unsurpassable. Eg.
so-called 'perfect' books and 'perfect' model men serving as 'perfect' examples.

Such idol worship is duly ignorant of the early admonishment regarding the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil: it takes a believer to believe evil is good, thus
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are 'believers'.

To circle back: it takes a believer to believe themselves superior to another.
Islam is certainly the global root(s) of supremacist Nazism/Fascism/Socialism, however
the religion entails projecting/scapegoating their own supremacist nature onto others such
that the ignorant 'believers' believe the false accusations. That is why Islam relies on 'belief',
it takes a believer to believe a false accusation such to believe the House of Islam is not
the leading cause of global human suffering.

Islam is a closed system 'stuck' in a 7th century tribalist mentality, perpetuating an "us vs them" division,
the damage of which "believers" religiously BLAME on others, just as Adam blamed
Eve for his own eating of the tree. Muhammadan men who blame women for their own being raped is the real-world
contingency and elaboration of the original sin, thus reveals the Islamic shahada as the Mark of the Beast.

To highlight the point: the shahada is a necessarily false testimony in either case: god-or-no-god, thus
the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad, being institutionalized in Islam, acts as an infection that degenerates the brain
and that is marked by the shahada, hence the beast nature is drawn out over time.

[Skepdick]

Philosophical systems are only 'idol worship' if they are closed systems.

Islam is a closed system 'stuck' in a 7th century tribalist mentality

What's "stuck in the 7th century" is your ideas about systems.

In the 21st century the language of closed systems and open systems is well developed as part of Systems Theory.
Systems theory is a "philosophy" if you will - one I happen to be quite familiar with.

Still, if you subjugate yourself to Systems theory, rather putting Systems theory in your servitude - you have still invented a false authority for yourself.

[nothing]

Philosophical systems are only 'idol worship' if they are closed systems.

Islam is a closed system 'stuck' in a 7th century tribalist mentality

What's "stuck in the 7th century" is your ideas about systems.

In the 21st century the language of closed systems and open systems is well developed as part of Systems Theory.
Systems theory is a "philosophy" if you will - one I happen to be quite familiar with.

Still, if you subjugate yourself to Systems theory, rather putting Systems theory in your servitude - you have still invented a false authority for yourself.

Please do not project your own nature onto me - your own attachment to the "systems theory"
is not unlike religion - the disposition to such "inventive" theories is context-invariant.

No system of theory is sound unless it is inductively rooted in the same "system" the universe is rooted in.
For example, here are two postulates that captures the basic nature of the physical universe:

The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units and with two, reciprocal aspects, space and time.

The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary, commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean.

v=s/t
velocity=space/time
v=1/1 =c, the speed of light as unity

General Relativity would be another example of such a worshiping of inventive "theories" that are not rooted in the real universe.

[Skepdick]

Please do not project your own nature onto me - your attachment to the "systems theory" is not unlike 7C religion - the disposition is context-invariant.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks...I can say the exact same thing about your attachment to CKIIT. It's just a language!

And while you are talking about context (in?)variance, I know a thing or two about context-free and context-sensitive languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy

Use it. Don't use it.

No system of theory is sound unless it is inductively rooted in the same "system" the universe is rooted in. Here are two postulates that captures the basic nature of the physical universe:

**sigh***

The Universe is not rooted in any system. The Universe IS a system. This is an ontological statement.

Here is the definition of a system:

A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning.

According to the above definition MAYBE you see the universe as a system, MAYBE you don't. There's no rule either way - you decide.

None the less when I utter the sentence "The Universe is a System" all that you should read into such a sentence is the following proposition "Lets use the language of Systems Theory to talk about (model?) The Universe".

You can accept my proposition, or you can reject my proposition. Either way - the language we choose to use to talk about The Universe is not prescriptive upon The Universe.

The universe (in general) doesn't give a shit what we say about it; or what language we use to say things about it.

The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units and with two, reciprocal aspects, space and time.

The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary, commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean.

The definition I gave you is better because it's more generic (less prescriptive).

It doesn't prescribe discrete or continuous time - either one is fine.
It doesn't prescribe three dimensions - any number of dimensions is fine.

We know that the Universe has at least 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. If you are to believe string theorists - it has more. Super string theorists count 10, M-string theorists count 11 and in bosonic string theory spacetime is 26 dimensional.

It doesn't prescribe any particular geometry - any geometry is fine, however the universe is most definitely NOT an Euclidean geometry. You can find this literally on the wiki page of Euclidian geometry.

An implication of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity is that physical space itself is not Euclidean, and Euclidean space is a good approximation for it only over short distances (relative to the strength of the gravitational field)

General Relativity would be another example of such a worshiping of inventive "theories" that are not rooted in the real universe.

Perhaps this is news to you, but that's exactly why we call them theories. We, humans, don't have access to the "real universe". We only have access to the "phenomenal universe".

theory noun A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The longer we look at the universe - the better our stories become, but the question "What is the true nature of reality?" can never be answered sufficiently well to satisfy a Philosopher.

[nothing]

**sigh***

Here is the definition of a system:

A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts which can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning.

This definition does not actually define space and/or time, which is the most important aspect of any universal "system". In reality, they are multiplicative reciprocals of one another, thus any true universal "system" must be inductively rooted in the same universal principle.

According to the above definition MAYBE you see the universe as a system, MAYBE you don't. There's no rule either way - you decide.

If the definition acknowledges space and time as reciprocally related, it has a basis for being a system. Considering that atoms are actually "conglomerate" configurations of motion(s), if/when incorporating motion itself as the constituency of this system, it is very much a living system.

None the less you might hear me utter the sentence "The Universe is a System". And all that you should read into such a sentence is the following proposition "Lets use the language of Systems Theory to talk about (model?) The Universe".

A shared sentiment.

You can accept my proposition, or you can reject my proposition. Either way - the language we choose to use to talk about The Universe is not prescriptive upon The Universe.

The universe (in general) doesn't give a shit what we say about it.

She'll agree with us if we happen to be right about her.

The definition I gave you is better because it's more generic (less prescriptive).

More generic is not better if it omits vital information.

It doesn't prescribe discrete or continuous time - either one is fine.

One unit of space per one unit of time is a photon/light, thus discretion is necessary.

It doesn't prescribe three dimensions - any number of dimensions is fine.

Only three dimensions are required to describe the physical universe.

The universe is most definitely NOT an Euclidean geometry - those have only two dimensions. We know that the Universe has at least 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. You can find this literally on wiki page of Euclidian geometry.

To actually model the universe, projective geometry is needed. For example, quaternion models of photons requires four dimensions.
However only two spacial dimensions are needed to capture what results in a three-dimensional experience:

v=s/t
v^2=s^2/t^2
±v=±s/±t wherein ±v concerns c.
The rest is "dimension"-invariant.

In this way, CKIIT's *A can be plugged into the equation and suffering beings can be solved for according to any context(s):



The root(s) of any context ultimately concern c, the speed of light and/or unity.
Therefor a third dimension is not needed to model the basic "system" of the universe
despite a third dimension being a necessary natural emergent to account for any/all
rotational displacement(s), such as imaginary belief-based ignorance(s) causing suffering/death.

If you are to believe string theorists - it has more. Super string theorists count 10, M-string theorists count 11 and in bosonic string theory spacetime is 26 dimensional.

It is nonsense - if setting the speed of light to 1, these dimensions collapse into what are just octaves of vibrations, like music. String theory has the right idea with vibrations/motions being the basis of reality, however their dimensions are not real, but imaginary. However, imaginary doesn't necessarily mean 'does not matter' as belief-based ignorance(s) is due to imagined realities acted upon, thus they certainly have a magnitude. String theory can not put two and two together yet - imaginary numbers have real number counter-parts.

v=s/t
vi=si/ti

One is real (ie. real s/t orientation), the other is imaginary.
The separation between the two is belief-based ignorance
as the 'default' state of creation is unity. Displacement is thus local
according to the gravity of the being (ie. their own choices/actions)
the 'imaginary' part being whatever choices/actions were/are rooted
in an unreal root, hence i - the imaginary number.

The Islamic shahada is an example of an imaginary root: not real, but
has a real magnitude that translates into suffering/death on the planet.

Attaining to the knowledge that it is impossible to bear a true testimony
to the nature/character of a dead man would lift the 'believer'
from √+A (imaginary-to-real) to √-A (real-from-imaginary)
thus ceasing their suffering owing to the same.

[Skepdick]

This definition does not actually define space and/or time, which is the most important aspect of any universal "system". In reality, they are multiplicative reciprocals of one another, thus any true universal "system" must be inductively rooted in the same universal principle.

If the definition acknowledges space and time as reciprocally related, it has a basis for being a system. Considering that atoms are actually "conglomerate" configurations of motion(s), if/when incorporating motion itself as the constituency of this system, it is very much a living system.

Yes! Computer science recognizes that space and time are reciprocal.

That is literally why we have coined the term Space-time trade-off.

A space–time or time–memory trade-off in computer science is a case where an algorithm or program trades increases space usage with decreased time. Here, space refers to the data storage consumed in performing a given task (RAM, HDD, etc), and time refers to the time consumed in performing a given task (computation time or response time).

She'll agree with us if we happen to be right about her.

What do you seem to think "The Universe agreeing with us" looks like in practice?

More generic is not better if it omits vital information.

Ironically, ALL information is vital if you subscribe to the language of Physical information.

You need to decide what you want here. Do you want a universal language or a particular language?

One unit of space per one unit of time is a photon/light, thus discretion is necessary.

And what units are you use to quantify "space" and "time"?

Only three dimensions are required to describe the physical universe.

I have nothing to say to you here except recommend a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

To actually model the universe, projective geometry is needed.

That doesn't matter - once you have a model of the universe you can project it onto whatever geometry makes sense to you.

That's literally what we call "views".

For example, quaternion models of photons requires four dimensions.
However only two spacial dimensions are needed to capture what results in a three-dimensional experience

That is exactly the point being conveyed in the book Flatland.

If your perception is 3-dimensional but the universe isn't, you are going to have to invent some methods for acquiring information from the additional dimensions.

In this way, CKIIT's *A can be plugged into the equation and suffering beings can be solved for according to any context(s)

The very leap from mathematics to suffering is making me suffer.

It is nonsense - if setting the speed of light to 1, these dimensions collapse into what are just octaves of vibrations, like music.

None of that shit matters. You "collapse" (project? transform?) the 123861283761725376123 dimensions into 3-dimensional human experience.

And you do experiments with the results your 123861283761725376123-dimensional model predicts.

If it agrees with experiments THEN we say that the Universe has 123861283761725376123 dimensions.

String theory has the right idea with vibrations/motions being the basis of reality, however their dimensions are not real

The language of "real" and "not real" is nonsense.

If the model with 123861283761725376123 dimensions works then the 123861283761725376123 dimensions are "real".

[Eodnhoj7]

There is always a dualism between a thetical and antithetical statement.

There is no conceivable statement concerning discipline that does not involve a subject/object.

Thus a dualism always occurs.

But it only occurs through a subject object, thus the dualism is inevitable.

The dualism is not related to discipline alone, as discipline alone is not divided
just as light is not divided until darkness is used to contrast, the latter being the absence of.



Void is above a time zone, as it is intrinsically nothing. The voiding of void, resulting in being observes a dichotomy which is always present.

The above makes no sense.

Sorry.

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

CKIIT does not employ the use of male central figure idols
to justify polygamy, pedophilia, rape, torture,
"us vs. them" viz. "believer vs. unbeliever" divisions,
but rather solves for the root of suffering:

Neither do many interpretations of scriptures, second it is your beleif these things are justified.

absolution-of-belief

It takes a believer to believe themselves superior to another, thus
in any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation, all supremacists
will invariably be on the side of the "believers" as a function of time.

You claim CKIIT is superior to all of these.

CKIIT as a system, hence idol worship.

This is perhaps the crux of all Philosophy.

Philosophical systems are only 'idol worship' if they are closed systems.

Graven images in the "heavens" (as per the ten commandments) is the same notion:
to refrain from solidifying any impression such to make it unsurpassable. Eg.
so-called 'perfect' books and 'perfect' model men serving as 'perfect' examples.

Your CKIIT uses graven images.

Such idol worship is duly ignorant of the early admonishment regarding the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil: it takes a believer to believe evil is good, thus
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are 'believers'.

To circle back: it takes a believer to believe themselves superior to another.
Islam is certainly the global root(s) of supremacist Nazism/Fascism/Socialism, however
the religion entails projecting/scapegoating their own supremacist nature onto others such
that the ignorant 'believers' believe the false accusations. That is why Islam relies on 'belief',
it takes a believer to believe a false accusation such to believe the House of Islam is not
the leading cause of global human suffering.

Islam is a closed system 'stuck' in a 7th century tribalist mentality, perpetuating an "us vs them" division,
the damage of which "believers" religiously BLAME on others, just as Adam blamed
Eve for his own eating of the tree. Muhammadan men who blame women for their own being raped is the real-world
contingency and elaboration of the original sin, thus reveals the Islamic shahada as the Mark of the Beast.

Your system mandates an us vs them for believers.

To highlight the point: the shahada is a necessarily false testimony in either case: god-or-no-god, thus
the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad, being institutionalized in Islam, acts as an infection that degenerates the brain
and that is marked by the shahada, hence the beast nature is drawn out over time.