Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[Belinda]

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.


Nope, the moral maxim genocide is evil is inferred as innate is inferred from sciences of anthropology, psychology and evolutionary psychology.

There are loads of research to claim the innateness of morality, e.g.

Indeed the social animal, and humans are social animals, is innately equipped with a sense of fairness. However that sense of fairness must be nurtured by whoever rears the child. If the child is reared by sadists he will become a sadist unless he subsequently learns different.

Not humans only but other mammal species too are taught by significant others. The canine bitch with pups will teach them how to behave , even to the extent of learning the basics of herding sheep or defending others.

Fairness in Animals's DNA: that remind me of this:
Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Frans de Waal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Humans are embedded with an innate/inherent moral functions with certain innate moral maxims. They are coded in the DNA and subsequent expressed in humans and as evident from empirical evidences, e.g. the link above.

Yes, there is a need for nurturing to refine these innate moral maxims in practice.
However, these inherent sets of neurons are embedded deep in the brain as innate and they are always there as they are unless damaged for some reasons.

In practice, the innate moral impulses has to go through various paths before they can motivate moral consciousness and actions.
If the subsequent impulses are hijacked by stronger and more dominant psychopathic neurons, then the person's inherent morality will not be expressed, thus ending as a sadist, murderer, violent or evil person.

What is critical here is where the inherent moral function and moral maxims are dominated and overridden by the more dominant terrific existential terror of hell related to religion, e.g. in Islam.
The option to believers within Islam is the immutable "commit the immoral Q5:33 [kill believers] or end up in hell"; to avoid hell which is more terrible, the inherent weaker moral function is suppressed by this threat of hell. This is why it is so evident there are so many supposedly goody-two-shoes suddenly appeared on TV as Islamic suicide bombers which surprised their families.

The seriousness of the danger of that religion is, if only 10% of believers' inherent moral function is weakened by the threat of hell, we have 150 million of potential evil laden believers. Even if it is 1% there is 15 millions of them and it only took 20++ to do a 911 .

In contrast, Christianity's "love even your enemies, do NOT kill or else end up in hell" default do not suppress the inherent moral functions but enable it to be nurtured to be more morally competent.
Because there is no suppression, even if Christians committed evil acts not as a Christian per-se but as a human, Christianity provide room for the sinful evil person [believer] to progress morally in future.

I agree that Christianity was and is and probably will be an effective culture of belief, effective as a unifying force. Islam too was and is effective as a unifying force, the war in the middle East may determine how Islam will be effective in the few years that are left to us.

Both Jesus and Muhammad were prophets who were well able to adapt basic Judaism to their times and places.
Islam lacked a Paul figure to spread Christianity to the gentiles, and Constantine was instrumental in furthering Christianity to pagan peoples. Muhammad did not need a Constantine because , unlike the NT, militarism is in the Koran.

Americanism is an interesting case of unification. It failed to unify people in the US arguably because it lacks a holy prophet such as Jesus, or Muhammad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Indeed the social animal, and humans are social animals, is innately equipped with a sense of fairness. However that sense of fairness must be nurtured by whoever rears the child. If the child is reared by sadists he will become a sadist unless he subsequently learns different.

Not humans only but other mammal species too are taught by significant others. The canine bitch with pups will teach them how to behave , even to the extent of learning the basics of herding sheep or defending others.

Fairness in Animals's DNA: that remind me of this:
Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Frans de Waal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Humans are embedded with an innate/inherent moral functions with certain innate moral maxims. They are coded in the DNA and subsequent expressed in humans and as evident from empirical evidences, e.g. the link above.

Yes, there is a need for nurturing to refine these innate moral maxims in practice.
However, these inherent sets of neurons are embedded deep in the brain as innate and they are always there as they are unless damaged for some reasons.

In practice, the innate moral impulses has to go through various paths before they can motivate moral consciousness and actions.
If the subsequent impulses are hijacked by stronger and more dominant psychopathic neurons, then the person's inherent morality will not be expressed, thus ending as a sadist, murderer, violent or evil person.

What is critical here is where the inherent moral function and moral maxims are dominated and overridden by the more dominant terrific existential terror of hell related to religion, e.g. in Islam.
The option to believers within Islam is the immutable "commit the immoral Q5:33 [kill believers] or end up in hell"; to avoid hell which is more terrible, the inherent weaker moral function is suppressed by this threat of hell. This is why it is so evident there are so many supposedly goody-two-shoes suddenly appeared on TV as Islamic suicide bombers which surprised their families.

The seriousness of the danger of that religion is, if only 10% of believers' inherent moral function is weakened by the threat of hell, we have 150 million of potential evil laden believers. Even if it is 1% there is 15 millions of them and it only took 20++ to do a 911 .

In contrast, Christianity's "love even your enemies, do NOT kill or else end up in hell" default do not suppress the inherent moral functions but enable it to be nurtured to be more morally competent.
Because there is no suppression, even if Christians committed evil acts not as a Christian per-se but as a human, Christianity provide room for the sinful evil person [believer] to progress morally in future.

I agree that Christianity was and is and probably will be an effective culture of belief, effective as a unifying force. Islam too was and is effective as a unifying force, the war in the middle East may determine how Islam will be effective in the few years that are left to us.

Both Jesus and Muhammad were prophets who were well able to adapt basic Judaism to their times and places.
Islam lacked a Paul figure to spread Christianity to the gentiles, and Constantine was instrumental in furthering Christianity to pagan peoples. Muhammad did not need a Constantine because , unlike the NT, militarism is in the Koran.

Americanism is an interesting case of unification. It failed to unify people in the US arguably because it lacks a holy prophet such as Jesus, or Muhammad.

I don't think you have full or sufficient knowledge of that "religion of peace" [i.e. understand the 6236 verses of the Qn] to arrive at your above conclusion. Note my point re Q5:33 and it evil potential; there are loads of violent and evil elements in that book.

All Muslims as humans and being humans there are the good [majority], the ugly and the evil.
However, Islam the ideology has very malignant elements which catalyze the evil prone to commit terrible evil, thus cannot be a unifying force for good.
It is the same with Nazism where the majority of Germans were good people and it only take the minority few to act upon the evil ideology of Nazism to influence many to commit terrible evils.

Since Islam's origin, it is already evident throughout its history, the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.
Given the easy access and cheaply available WMDs in the near future, and that believers has nothing to lose on Earth, they as a religious duty and obligation would have no hesitancy to exterminate the human species on Earth to gain eternal life in paradise.

So the 'religion of peace' cannot be a unifying force of spirituality to save the world rather it is the opposite.

[puto]

Simply written

Veritas Aequitas,

you are a dogmatist. Your Latin is hilarious. You should be named, “Mendacium veru.” Let me help you out, “Lying spit.” You prove your stupidity in every post, you write. “Go spit,” you imbecile.

[Belinda]

Fairness in Animals's DNA: that remind me of this:
Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Frans de Waal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Humans are embedded with an innate/inherent moral functions with certain innate moral maxims. They are coded in the DNA and subsequent expressed in humans and as evident from empirical evidences, e.g. the link above.

Yes, there is a need for nurturing to refine these innate moral maxims in practice.
However, these inherent sets of neurons are embedded deep in the brain as innate and they are always there as they are unless damaged for some reasons.

In practice, the innate moral impulses has to go through various paths before they can motivate moral consciousness and actions.
If the subsequent impulses are hijacked by stronger and more dominant psychopathic neurons, then the person's inherent morality will not be expressed, thus ending as a sadist, murderer, violent or evil person.

What is critical here is where the inherent moral function and moral maxims are dominated and overridden by the more dominant terrific existential terror of hell related to religion, e.g. in Islam.
The option to believers within Islam is the immutable "commit the immoral Q5:33 [kill believers] or end up in hell"; to avoid hell which is more terrible, the inherent weaker moral function is suppressed by this threat of hell. This is why it is so evident there are so many supposedly goody-two-shoes suddenly appeared on TV as Islamic suicide bombers which surprised their families.

The seriousness of the danger of that religion is, if only 10% of believers' inherent moral function is weakened by the threat of hell, we have 150 million of potential evil laden believers. Even if it is 1% there is 15 millions of them and it only took 20++ to do a 911 .

In contrast, Christianity's "love even your enemies, do NOT kill or else end up in hell" default do not suppress the inherent moral functions but enable it to be nurtured to be more morally competent.
Because there is no suppression, even if Christians committed evil acts not as a Christian per-se but as a human, Christianity provide room for the sinful evil person [believer] to progress morally in future.

I agree that Christianity was and is and probably will be an effective culture of belief, effective as a unifying force. Islam too was and is effective as a unifying force, the war in the middle East may determine how Islam will be effective in the few years that are left to us.

Both Jesus and Muhammad were prophets who were well able to adapt basic Judaism to their times and places.
Islam lacked a Paul figure to spread Christianity to the gentiles, and Constantine was instrumental in furthering Christianity to pagan peoples. Muhammad did not need a Constantine because , unlike the NT, militarism is in the Koran.

Americanism is an interesting case of unification. It failed to unify people in the US arguably because it lacks a holy prophet such as Jesus, or Muhammad.

I don't think you have full or sufficient knowledge of that "religion of peace" [i.e. understand the 6236 verses of the Qn] to arrive at your above conclusion. Note my point re Q5:33 and it evil potential; there are loads of violent and evil elements in that book.

All Muslims as humans and being humans there are the good [majority], the ugly and the evil.
However, Islam the ideology has very malignant elements which catalyze the evil prone to commit terrible evil, thus cannot be a unifying force for good.
It is the same with Nazism where the majority of Germans were good people and it only take the minority few to act upon the evil ideology of Nazism to influence many to commit terrible evils.

Since Islam's origin, it is already evident throughout its history, the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.
Given the easy access and cheaply available WMDs in the near future, and that believers has nothing to lose on Earth, they as a religious duty and obligation would have no hesitancy to exterminate the human species on Earth to gain eternal life in paradise.

So the 'religion of peace' cannot be a unifying force of spirituality to save the world rather it is the opposite.

But Christianity too is a work of man and also is tainted with atrocities.
Muhammad did in fact unify the warring tribes in Arabia.

You say

the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.

. But that's Islamism which is political. Christianism too is political.

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”

The variety of interpretations of Lesser Jihad, or just war, over 1400 years in many settings is a complex discussion.

Much of the contemporary misuse of the term “jihad” may be dated to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when stateless actors began to claim the right to declare jihad. In Islamic tradition, there is no theological or political basis for this claim. Radical and extremist groups appropriate and misuse the term “jihad” to give a religious veneer to their violent political movements and tactics.



15. Does the Qur’an require women to be covered?
The Qur’an requires men and women to dress modestly, but without specifying exactly what that means (24:30-31). Muslims therefore differ on what modesty requires, resulting in a variety of practices in different cultures and countries.

Historically, male dominance in Muslim societies has led to unequal application of modestly rules, with women in some cultures being made to cover much more of their bodies then men are required to do. At the same time, it must be said that many Muslim women in the United States and other countries freely choose to veil as an expression of their faith.



16. Are Muslim men allowed to marry four wives?
While the Qur’an sanctions marriage to up to four wives (Q.4:3), the wording of the verse is understood by some Muslim scholars to allow but at the same time discourage marrying more than one wife. Verse 4:3 says that a Muslim man may marry up to four wives if he can treat them equally. Since men cannot treat any two people equally, the practice which was historically acceptable during times of crisis, like war, is now even outlawed in some Muslim majority nations.



17. Does Islam sanction “honor killings”?
No. According to Islamic teachings, no Muslim may sanction or support murder; the Qur’an explicitly forbids such actions (16:59, 5:27-32). In fact, the Qur’an does not mention “honor killings,” and in Islamic teachings, there is no such thing as excusable murder. The term “honor killings” used in some cultures is an attempt to describe murder as something religiously acceptable. It is not religiously acceptable in Islam.



18. What is Taqiyya? Does Islam encourage American Muslims to deceive and lie?
Taqiyya is an Arabic word that means to hide your faith in times of persecution in order to protect your life and family. It does not allow one to deceive and lie. Muslims are allowed to practice Taqiyya when open declaration of their faith leads to death and torture.

A similar teaching can be found in Judaism: Maimonides, one of the great Jewish Torah scholars, taught that one is allowed to lie about one’s religion in order to save one’s life, and many Jews who were forcibly baptized in medieval Christian Europe engaged in the same kind of practice to protect their lives and remain committed to their faith. Given the very restricted contexts in which such behavior is allowed in both religions, it would be wrong to accuse Islam or Judaism of actively encouraging believers to deceive others.

Islam commands all Muslims to speak the truth and conduct themselves honestly in personal, political and professional relationships. In the Qur’an, God commands Muslims: “And do not mix the truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth while you know [what it is] (2:42).”

Editor's note: This publication, jointly produced by the Religious Freedom Education Project of the First Amendment Center and the Interfaith Alliance Islamic Understanding, is republished here with permission.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think you have full or sufficient knowledge of that "religion of peace" [i.e. understand the 6236 verses of the Qn] to arrive at your above conclusion. Note my point re Q5:33 and it evil potential; there are loads of violent and evil elements in that book.

All Muslims as humans and being humans there are the good [majority], the ugly and the evil.
However, Islam the ideology has very malignant elements which catalyze the evil prone to commit terrible evil, thus cannot be a unifying force for good.
It is the same with Nazism where the majority of Germans were good people and it only take the minority few to act upon the evil ideology of Nazism to influence many to commit terrible evils.

Since Islam's origin, it is already evident throughout its history, the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.
Given the easy access and cheaply available WMDs in the near future, and that believers has nothing to lose on Earth, they as a religious duty and obligation would have no hesitancy to exterminate the human species on Earth to gain eternal life in paradise.

So the 'religion of peace' cannot be a unifying force of spirituality to save the world rather it is the opposite.

But Christianity too is a work of man and also is tainted with atrocities.
Muhammad did in fact unify the warring tribes in Arabia.

In this case, it is not a question of whether Christianity or Islam being a work of man which is from the non-theist POV.
The believers of Christianity and Islam believe it is the work of God and they have to obey what God dictates.
To be a Christian or Muslim, the believer must enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God as implied [John 3:16] or explicitly [mithaq]; the believer is duty bound to comply with the terms of the contract within the Gospels-Only and the Quran-Only.
The OT, Acts and Epistles are merely appendixes and guides.

The overriding maxim within the Gospels-ONLY is 'love all, even enemies' give the other cheek and the like.
In this case, if Christians had killed humans or commit atrocities they would have not complied with their term of 'contract' and thus had sinned and at the mercy of God to forgive them, if what they had sinned is just or for the good of the religion and human kind.
As such, where humans who are Christians had committed killing of humans or violence, they are not doing it in the name of religion, Christ or God but rather from their own personal volition as an ordinary person and not as a Christian.

On the other hand, if Muslims killed or commit evils upon non-believers or humans, driven by their own understanding [or clergy] of the terms-of-their-contract* in the Quran, they are doing it in the name of the religion, Allah or the Prophet.
* Q5:33 and loads of other evil-laden texts that compel the true Muslims to obey the words of Allah to commit evil acts as they are contractually bound.
Under the threat of compliance to the terms of their contract to ensure eternal life in paradise or be sent to Hell, many [if 10% =150 million] will naturally comply to commit the 'evil' acts upon non-believer which is very evident since the origin of Islam to the present.

As such, in contrast to Christianity, the ideology of Islam is inherently evil and humanity must take note of such evilness.

You say

the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.

But that's Islamism which is political. Christianism too is political.

Politics and religions are distinct.
But if combined and the religion is inherently evil, it would be more terrible.
If Christianity is politicized and evil is committed, it cannot be due to Christianity itself because its inherent morality and contractual obligation is pacifist, e.g. love all, even enemies.
However, if Islam is politicized and evil is committed with reference to the evil laden Quranic verses, the fault lies with Islam as evil.

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”

The variety of interpretations of Lesser Jihad, or just war, over 1400 years in many settings is a complex discussion.

Much of the contemporary misuse of the term “jihad” may be dated to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when stateless actors began to claim the right to declare jihad. In Islamic tradition, there is no theological or political basis for this claim. Radical and extremist groups appropriate and misuse the term “jihad” to give a religious veneer to their violent political movements and tactics.

Editor's note: This publication, jointly produced by the Religious Freedom Education Project of the First Amendment Center and the Interfaith Alliance Islamic Understanding, is republished here with permission.

It is true “Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost.
But in real life, the meaning of a word can be taken and adopted with a specific kind of psychological impulse for a certain purpose.

Note;
the Japanese term "banzai' literally means “long live..., huzzah, hurrah” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banzai
which could be applied to any aspects of life to motivate positive actions.
But this term was hijacked to be a war-cry and battle-cry.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... ish/banzai
There are many similar cases, where the literally meaning of a term is hijack for common use with a totally or slightly different meaning.

It is the same with the term 'Jihad' which is currently used as a war-cry and battle-cry; it is rarely used as general striving literally.

Most of the 'wools' pulled by Muslims and their apologists are merely cherry picked to put up a false facade of good for the religion; these facade elements do not represent the effective contractual terms of a Muslim's contractual obligation with Allah as dictated within the context of the full 6236 verses of the Quran delivered directly from Allah via Angel Gabriel.

Say, if you sign a contract [covenant in this case] with any other party, surely you cannot pick and choose [cherry pick] the terms to be applicable [one sided] as your contractual obligations.
As such, a true Muslim must comply to the full contract terms to the best of his abilities.
If Q5:33 or other evil verses imposed a contractual obligation on a true Muslim to kill the blasphemer, then he has a divine-duty to kill the him, if he does not do it, then he is not an obedient and compliant believer in the eyes of the omniscient [all knowing] God; if repetitive, he risk ending up in Hell after Judgment Day.

[Belinda]

I don't think you have full or sufficient knowledge of that "religion of peace" [i.e. understand the 6236 verses of the Qn] to arrive at your above conclusion. Note my point re Q5:33 and it evil potential; there are loads of violent and evil elements in that book.

All Muslims as humans and being humans there are the good [majority], the ugly and the evil.
However, Islam the ideology has very malignant elements which catalyze the evil prone to commit terrible evil, thus cannot be a unifying force for good.
It is the same with Nazism where the majority of Germans were good people and it only take the minority few to act upon the evil ideology of Nazism to influence many to commit terrible evils.

Since Islam's origin, it is already evident throughout its history, the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.
Given the easy access and cheaply available WMDs in the near future, and that believers has nothing to lose on Earth, they as a religious duty and obligation would have no hesitancy to exterminate the human species on Earth to gain eternal life in paradise.

So the 'religion of peace' cannot be a unifying force of spirituality to save the world rather it is the opposite.

But Christianity too is a work of man and also is tainted with atrocities.
Muhammad did in fact unify the warring tribes in Arabia.

In this case, it is not a question of whether Christianity or Islam being a work of man which is from the non-theist POV.
The believers of Christianity and Islam believe it is the work of God and they have to obey what God dictates.
To be a Christian or Muslim, the believer must enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God as implied [John 3:16] or explicitly [mithaq]; the believer is duty bound to comply with the terms of the contract within the Gospels-Only and the Quran-Only.
The OT, Acts and Epistles are merely appendixes and guides.

The overriding maxim within the Gospels-ONLY is 'love all, even enemies' give the other cheek and the like.
In this case, if Christians had killed humans or commit atrocities they would have not complied with their term of 'contract' and thus had sinned and at the mercy of God to forgive them, if what they had sinned is just or for the good of the religion and human kind.
As such, where humans who are Christians had committed killing of humans or violence, they are not doing it in the name of religion, Christ or God but rather from their own personal volition as an ordinary person and not as a Christian.

On the other hand, if Muslims killed or commit evils upon non-believers or humans, driven by their own understanding [or clergy] of the terms-of-their-contract* in the Quran, they are doing it in the name of the religion, Allah or the Prophet.
* Q5:33 and loads of other evil-laden texts that compel the true Muslims to obey the words of Allah to commit evil acts as they are contractually bound.
Under the threat of compliance to the terms of their contract to ensure eternal life in paradise or be sent to Hell, many [if 10% =150 million] will naturally comply to commit the 'evil' acts upon non-believer which is very evident since the origin of Islam to the present.

As such, in contrast to Christianity, the ideology of Islam is inherently evil and humanity must take note of such evilness.

You say

the evil minority of Islam has committed terrible evil upon non-believers and even its own believers.

But that's Islamism which is political. Christianism too is political.

Politics and religions are distinct.
But if combined and the religion is inherently evil, it would be more terrible.
If Christianity is politicized and evil is committed, it cannot be due to Christianity itself because its inherent morality and contractual obligation is pacifist, e.g. love all, even enemies.
However, if Islam is politicized and evil is committed with reference to the evil laden Quranic verses, the fault lies with Islam as evil.

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”

The variety of interpretations of Lesser Jihad, or just war, over 1400 years in many settings is a complex discussion.

Much of the contemporary misuse of the term “jihad” may be dated to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when stateless actors began to claim the right to declare jihad. In Islamic tradition, there is no theological or political basis for this claim. Radical and extremist groups appropriate and misuse the term “jihad” to give a religious veneer to their violent political movements and tactics.

Editor's note: This publication, jointly produced by the Religious Freedom Education Project of the First Amendment Center and the Interfaith Alliance Islamic Understanding, is republished here with permission.

It is true “Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost.
But in real life, the meaning of a word can be taken and adopted with a specific kind of psychological impulse for a certain purpose.

Note;
the Japanese term "banzai' literally means “long live..., huzzah, hurrah” https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/banzai
which could be applied to any aspects of life to motivate positive actions.
But this term was hijacked to be a war-cry and battle-cry.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... ish/banzai
There are many similar cases, where the literally meaning of a term is hijack for common use with a totally or slightly different meaning.

It is the same with the term 'Jihad' which is currently used as a war-cry and battle-cry; it is rarely used as general striving literally.

Most of the 'wools' pulled by Muslims and their apologists are merely cherry picked to put up a false facade of good for the religion; these facade elements do not represent the effective contractual terms of a Muslim's contractual obligation with Allah as dictated within the context of the full 6236 verses of the Quran delivered directly from Allah via Angel Gabriel.

Say, if you sign a contract [covenant in this case] with any other party, surely you cannot pick and choose [cherry pick] the terms to be applicable [one sided] as your contractual obligations.
As such, a true Muslim must comply to the full contract terms to the best of his abilities.
If Q5:33 or other evil verses imposed a contractual obligation on a true Muslim to kill the blasphemer, then he has a divine-duty to kill the him, if he does not do it, then he is not an obedient and compliant believer in the eyes of the omniscient [all knowing] God; if repetitive, he risk ending up in Hell after Judgment Day.

Each and every religion is polluted by the world of mankind and its politics. It falls to us who care to underline the good which is the seemingly everlasting core of each and every religion.

I do however appreciate your disdain for some of the verses in the Koran. Please remember that the Koran same as The Bible is historical not eternal. Independent interpretation was made illicit for Muslims around the tenth century. Medieval Christendom was similar. However Christendom had a scientific enlightenment (18th century) which for historical reasons did not affect Islam.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Each and every religion is polluted by the world of mankind and its politics. It falls to us who care to underline the good which is the seemingly everlasting core of each and every religion.

I do however appreciate your disdain for some of the verses in the Koran. Please remember that the Koran same as The Bible is historical not eternal. Independent interpretation was made illicit for Muslims around the tenth century. Medieval Christendom was similar. However Christendom had a scientific enlightenment (18th century) which for historical reasons did not affect Islam.

I believe you missed out the very crucial points I've raised.

1. The Covenant [Contract] with God
Upon the terror of hell, both Christians and Muslims must enter into a covenant [binding agreement, divine contract] with God with a promise of eternal life in heaven where the believers must comply with the terms of the agreement which are confined ONLY within the Gospels [not while Bible] and Quran.
Thus the believer has a 'contractual' obligation to obey and comply with the terms of their agreement to gain a passage to heaven and avoid the terrible hell.

2. God is Final on Judgment Day
Unless abrogated, whatever is God's words is eternal and immutable. No humans can judge which interpretation of the words of God in the Quran or Bible is 'legal' or illicit.
Reasoning and consensus help but they cannot be final.
What is final regarding whether a believer is a good believer who is obedient and compliant is to be judged by God on Judgment Day.
On Judgment Day when facing God, it is between the individual and God. If found to have sinned, the individual cannot give his defense to God, 'my imam (based on consensus) advised me on that act' [personal ignorance of the terms of agreement is no defense].
Thus independent interpretation[s] by individual believers or group is valid as long as it aligns with God's words and intention in the holy book.
Note the trend of 'spiritual not religious' where individual[s] form a personal relationship with God within his terms [with assistance but no obligation to a group or organization].

3. Q5:33 Kill believers upon the slightest threat [fasad]
Since God's words are Final with his intended meaning, my question is;
if a believer kill a blasphemer [drew cartoons, insults the religion, and the like] in compliant with Q5:33 based on individual interpretations, will God send him to paradise with eternal life or to hell?

4. Christianity's Overriding Pacifist Maxim.
The terms of the divine contract with Christ/God is confined within the Gospels [words of Christ/God] only and no where else. The OT, Acts and Epistles are merely appendices and guides; they are not part of the divine contract.
The overriding maxim of the contract all Christians must comply with is 'love all, even enemies', 'give the other cheek' and the like.
As such, if any Christian does not comply with the above, e.g. the kill humans or commit other evil acts, they have sinned and risk going to hell; their only hope to forgiveness from God which may be given if done with just reasons.

5. As you can see, Christianity is based on a preventive approach, i.e. with a threat of hell if one commit evil acts like killing of humans' they are supposed to love all even enemies.
Islam on the other hand is, kill humans first [Q5:33] and God will decide on Judgment Day, which is already too late in real human life. The potential is the extremist Muslims [10% = 150 million ] could exterminate the human species with WMDs and they have nothing to lose because they are confident they will have eternal life in heaven regardless to what happen on Earth.
The point is, where 'Muslims' do NOT kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion, they are not good Muslims but rather good and moral humans, being human.
Where 'Muslims' do kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion as dictated in Q5:33, they are good obedient believers in complying with their contractual obligation as a believer.

6. As discussed above, Islam [a trojan horse] cannot be a part of an Unifying-spiritual-practice to save the world.

Please comment with reference to the above points.

[Belinda]

Each and every religion is polluted by the world of mankind and its politics. It falls to us who care to underline the good which is the seemingly everlasting core of each and every religion.

I do however appreciate your disdain for some of the verses in the Koran. Please remember that the Koran same as The Bible is historical not eternal. Independent interpretation was made illicit for Muslims around the tenth century. Medieval Christendom was similar. However Christendom had a scientific enlightenment (18th century) which for historical reasons did not affect Islam.

I believe you missed out the very crucial points I've raised.

1. The Covenant [Contract] with God
Upon the terror of hell, both Christians and Muslims must enter into a covenant [binding agreement, divine contract] with God with a promise of eternal life in heaven where the believers must comply with the terms of the agreement which are confined ONLY within the Gospels [not while Bible] and Quran.
Thus the believer has a 'contractual' obligation to obey and comply with the terms of their agreement to gain a passage to heaven and avoid the terrible hell.

2. God is Final on Judgment Day
Unless abrogated, whatever is God's words is eternal and immutable. No humans can judge which interpretation of the words of God in the Quran or Bible is 'legal' or illicit.
Reasoning and consensus help but they cannot be final.
What is final regarding whether a believer is a good believer who is obedient and compliant is to be judged by God on Judgment Day.
On Judgment Day when facing God, it is between the individual and God. If found to have sinned, the individual cannot give his defense to God, 'my imam (based on consensus) advised me on that act' [personal ignorance of the terms of agreement is no defense].
Thus independent interpretation[s] by individual believers or group is valid as long as it aligns with God's words and intention in the holy book.
Note the trend of 'spiritual not religious' where individual[s] form a personal relationship with God within his terms [with assistance but no obligation to a group or organization].

3. Q5:33 Kill believers upon the slightest threat [fasad]
Since God's words are Final with his intended meaning, my question is;
if a believer kill a blasphemer [drew cartoons, insults the religion, and the like] in compliant with Q5:33 based on individual interpretations, will God send him to paradise with eternal life or to hell?

4. Christianity's Overriding Pacifist Maxim.
The terms of the divine contract with Christ/God is confined within the Gospels [words of Christ/God] only and no where else. The OT, Acts and Epistles are merely appendices and guides; they are not part of the divine contract.
The overriding maxim of the contract all Christians must comply with is 'love all, even enemies', 'give the other cheek' and the like.
As such, if any Christian does not comply with the above, e.g. the kill humans or commit other evil acts, they have sinned and risk going to hell; their only hope to forgiveness from God which may be given if done with just reasons.

5. As you can see, Christianity is based on a preventive approach, i.e. with a threat of hell if one commit evil acts like killing of humans' they are supposed to love all even enemies.
Islam on the other hand is, kill humans first [Q5:33] and God will decide on Judgment Day, which is already too late in real human life. The potential is the extremist Muslims [10% = 150 million ] could exterminate the human species with WMDs and they have nothing to lose because they are confident they will have eternal life in heaven regardless to what happen on Earth.
The point is, where 'Muslims' do NOT kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion, they are not good Muslims but rather good and moral humans, being human.
Where 'Muslims' do kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion as dictated in Q5:33, they are good obedient believers in complying with their contractual obligation as a believer.

6. As discussed above, Islam [a trojan horse] cannot be a part of an Unifying-spiritual-practice to save the world.

Please comment with reference to the above points.

1. What is Hell? Not all religious believe in Hell. Not all religious believe in a punitive God. Why not choose the useful bits of Koran that make for peace and prosperity.

2. Both Jesus and Muhammad were God's prophets. Both Jesus and Muhammad taught God's intentions for us through their lives and their works.

3.Please refer to the qualitive difference between the greater and the lesser jihads.

4. As 3.

5. As 3.

6.Can any politicised religion unify the world! Again, see the enlightening difference between the greater and the lesser jihads. Christians can better understand the wisdom of Jesus when Christians also know the wisdom of Islam, some of which is in the Koran and some of which is in the Hadith

[godelian]

16. Are Muslim men allowed to marry four wives?
While the Qur’an sanctions marriage to up to four wives (Q.4:3), the wording of the verse is understood by some Muslim scholars to allow but at the same time discourage marrying more than one wife. Verse 4:3 says that a Muslim man may marry up to four wives if he can treat them equally. Since men cannot treat any two people equally, the practice which was historically acceptable during times of crisis, like war, is now even outlawed in some Muslim majority nations.

You can find some of the most interesting commentary to intergender dynamics and morality, implicitly confirming what the Quran has been teaching all along, in the publications by the most popular authors of the manosphere and red-pill philosophy. That is undoubtedly why this philosophy is so incredibly popular amongst Muslim men. For example:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/900294 ... an-than-be

Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled with a faithful loser.

Rollo Tomassi, The Rational Male

Rollo Tomassi is not a Muslim but nonetheless wildly popular amongst his Muslim readership.

The mainstream western narrative depicts polygamy as something men would be the most favorable to. In reality, it is women who are on the demanding side.

Polygamy is also what naturally emerges out of a deregulated sexual marketplace:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_ ... ame_Guy%3F

Are We Dating The Same Guy?

The truth is that lots of women do not seem to care that the man that they are dating, is already involved with another woman, or is even married. They all like the same small group of men who are either physically very attractive or are seriously wealthy.

In fact, I still need to run into the first woman who even asks if I already have a wife. Worse, if I volunteer the information by myself, it never stops them from carrying on.

"I already have a boyfriend/husband" will often stop a man in his tracks but "I already have a girlfriend/wife" is typically considered irrelevant by a woman.

Polygamy is part of human nature. It has always been around and will always be around. Islam merely recognizes that fact.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. What is Hell? Not all religious believe in Hell. Not all religious believe in a punitive God. Why not choose the useful bits of Koran that make for peace and prosperity.

What is most critical is this:

• both Christians and Muslims must enter into a covenant [binding agreement, divine contract] with God with a promise of eternal life in heaven where the believers must comply with the terms of the agreement which are confined ONLY within the Gospels [not while Bible] and Quran.
  Thus the believer has a 'contractual' obligation to obey and comply with the terms of their agreement to gain a passage to heaven and avoid the terrible hell.

When a believer is in a binding agreement [Mithaq] with God, he cannot cherry pick bits and pieces in the Quran, but he must comply fully with whatever is dictated in the Quran that a believer is contractually obligated to comply with within his ability to do so.

I have done a full analysis of the 6236 verses within the Quran into >1400 themes.
One of the major theme is the soteriological themes of heaven or be doomed in hell which comprised more than 2000 related verses, i.e. >30%.

As such the main focus of being a Muslim according the Quran is for the desperate believer to go to heaven with eternal life and avoiding Hell.

The threat [fasadin] of Muslims going to heaven is from non-believers which are the infidels and there are >3400 verses related to the infidels and the majority are in the negative sense.

The main verse [there are loads of others] of dealing with threats from the infidels is Q5:33 where believers are permitted to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasad] to the religion and the believers' passage to heaven and avoiding Hell.

Here is a rough list of themes from the Quran from this site:
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... ook=q&id=2
It is not done with rigor and precision but it does give one an idea of what Islam represents:

• Contradictions 273
  Absurdity 521
  Cruelty & Violence 545
  Injustice 781
  Intolerance 541
  Good Stuff 158
  Science 70
  Family Values 44
  Interpretation 25
  Women 78
  Sex 30
  Prophecy and Misquotes 3
  Language 2
  Politics -
  Homosexuality 6
  Boring stuff 30

Note the >500 verses related to Absurdity, Cruelty & Violence, Injustice, Intolerance as compares to the minimal verses of positive elements.
The above is a a crude analysis; I have analyze the negative verses in 000's.

The above is the reality where the believer is contractually bound to comply with what is in the Quran.

Bill Warner Phd analysis show the Islam's main texts are worse than Mein Kempt in terms of antisemitism:
https://www.cspii.org/learn-political-i ... cal-islam/



I don't see how your,
"Why not choose the useful bits of Koran that make for peace and prosperity"
is practical.
It is impossible given that if the believer do not comply fully with the Quran, they risk going to hell.

2. Both Jesus and Muhammad were God's prophets. Both Jesus and Muhammad taught God's intentions for us through their lives and their works.

It is obvious with Jesus' "love all even enemies" but you cannot say the same with Islam as evident in the contractually-bound verses within the Quran.

3.Please refer to the qualitive difference between the greater and the lesser jihads.

What is 'jihad' is literally striving.
Jihad as practiced throughout their history is strongly associated with striving to get to heaven, avoid hell by complying with terms of the covenant and striving against the threats [fasad] from non-believers who are threat to the passage to heaven.

5. As 3.

Where 'Muslims' do kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion as dictated in Q5:33, they are good obedient believers in complying with their contractual obligation as a believer.

6.Can any politicised religion unify the world! Again, see the enlightening difference between the greater and the lesser jihads. Christians can better understand the wisdom of Jesus when Christians also know the wisdom of Islam, some of which is in the Koran and some of which is in the Hadith

The concern is with the ideology not the believers.
Jesus' 'love all, even enemies' is moral, while Islam's Q:33 kill believers upon the slightest threat [fasad] is evil.
Rather, in the short term, Muslims should all convert to Christianity for the sake of peace on Earth so they will be influenced to 'love all, even enemies' as a contractual divine duty.

With the above, hope you will have a different view than your current view.

[Belinda]

1. What is Hell? Not all religious believe in Hell. Not all religious believe in a punitive God. Why not choose the useful bits of Koran that make for peace and prosperity.

What is most critical is this:

• both Christians and Muslims must enter into a covenant [binding agreement, divine contract] with God with a promise of eternal life in heaven where the believers must comply with the terms of the agreement which are confined ONLY within the Gospels [not while Bible] and Quran.
  Thus the believer has a 'contractual' obligation to obey and comply with the terms of their agreement to gain a passage to heaven and avoid the terrible hell.

When a believer is in a binding agreement [Mithaq] with God, he cannot cherry pick bits and pieces in the Quran, but he must comply fully with whatever is dictated in the Quran that a believer is contractually obligated to comply with within his ability to do so.

I have done a full analysis of the 6236 verses within the Quran into >1400 themes.
One of the major theme is the soteriological themes of heaven or be doomed in hell which comprised more than 2000 related verses, i.e. >30%.

As such the main focus of being a Muslim according the Quran is for the desperate believer to go to heaven with eternal life and avoiding Hell.

The threat [fasadin] of Muslims going to heaven is from non-believers which are the infidels and there are >3400 verses related to the infidels and the majority are in the negative sense.

The main verse [there are loads of others] of dealing with threats from the infidels is Q5:33 where believers are permitted to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasad] to the religion and the believers' passage to heaven and avoiding Hell.

Here is a rough list of themes from the Quran from this site:
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ... ook=q&id=2
It is not done with rigor and precision but it does give one an idea of what Islam represents:

• Contradictions 273
  Absurdity 521
  Cruelty & Violence 545
  Injustice 781
  Intolerance 541
  Good Stuff 158
  Science 70
  Family Values 44
  Interpretation 25
  Women 78
  Sex 30
  Prophecy and Misquotes 3
  Language 2
  Politics -
  Homosexuality 6
  Boring stuff 30

Note the >500 verses related to Absurdity, Cruelty & Violence, Injustice, Intolerance as compares to the minimal verses of positive elements.
The above is a a crude analysis; I have analyze the negative verses in 000's.

The above is the reality where the believer is contractually bound to comply with what is in the Quran.

Bill Warner Phd analysis show the Islam's main texts are worse than Mein Kempt in terms of antisemitism:
https://www.cspii.org/learn-political-i ... cal-islam/



I don't see how your,
"Why not choose the useful bits of Koran that make for peace and prosperity"
is practical.
It is impossible given that if the believer do not comply fully with the Quran, they risk going to hell.

2. Both Jesus and Muhammad were God's prophets. Both Jesus and Muhammad taught God's intentions for us through their lives and their works.

It is obvious with Jesus' "love all even enemies" but you cannot say the same with Islam as evident in the contractually-bound verses within the Quran.

3.Please refer to the qualitive difference between the greater and the lesser jihads.

What is 'jihad' is literally striving.
Jihad as practiced throughout their history is strongly associated with striving to get to heaven, avoid hell by complying with terms of the covenant and striving against the threats [fasad] from non-believers who are threat to the passage to heaven.

5. As 3.

Where 'Muslims' do kill humans upon any threat [fasad] to the religion as dictated in Q5:33, they are good obedient believers in complying with their contractual obligation as a believer.

6.Can any politicised religion unify the world! Again, see the enlightening difference between the greater and the lesser jihads. Christians can better understand the wisdom of Jesus when Christians also know the wisdom of Islam, some of which is in the Koran and some of which is in the Hadith

The concern is with the ideology not the believers.
Jesus' 'love all, even enemies' is moral, while Islam's Q:33 kill believers upon the slightest threat [fasad] is evil.
Rather, in the short term, Muslims should all convert to Christianity for the sake of peace on Earth so they will be influenced to 'love all, even enemies' as a contractual divine duty.

With the above, hope you will have a different view than your current view.

The covenant with God is not quid pro quo but is grace from God. The grace , for Christians, came in the form of Jesus Christ, and, for Muslims, the grace came in the form of divine revelation to Muhammad.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The covenant with God is not quid pro quo but is grace from God. The grace , for Christians, came in the form of Jesus Christ, and, for Muslims, the grace came in the form of divine revelation to Muhammad.

I hope you have an idea of what are the main theme and direction of the Quran as presented above; these are factual and directly from the text which anyone can verify by reading the Quran thoroughly.

The covenant has nothing to do with grace at all.

The 'covenant' is literally a divine contract, i.e. a binding agreement between two parties with each party will fulfil what is promised within the terms of the 'contract', i.e. a contractual quid pro quo.

In Islam, the covenant or divine contract i.e. mithaaq is very explicit where Allah made an offer to the believer who accept the offer via the sahada in submission and surrender his life to Allah. ALL Muslims are contractually obligated to comply with the terms of agreement which is only within the Quran [the only direct words from God].
https://the.ismaili/my/news/covenants-mithaaq-the-qur

In Christianity, it is not explicit but implied within John 3:16 where God made an offer:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life"
when a person believes in and surrender to Christ/God, that is an acceptance of the offer which constitute a agreement, i.e. covenant or divine contract.

As I had explained above, the main theme within the Quran is the desperate need for salvation [represented within >30% verses in the Quran] by the believers.
To ensure eternal life in heaven and avoiding Hell, the believer has to enter into a 'contract' [covenant] with God.
In this case of a covenant [divine contract] surely there must be agreed upon terms of contract to be complied by both parties; ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.
The terms of contract can only be from the words of God, i.e. the Quran and no where else.

The Quran is loaded with evil laden terms of contract, even from the crude listing above, it is already evident the Quran is loaded with evil elements.
I highlighted the significant terms of contract i.e. Q5:33 whereby believers must kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasad] to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, apostacy, even as disbelievers. The practice of this is SO evident.

The majority of Muslims are not aware of the terms of contract they have entered into; but ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.
However, those scholars clergies and imams who study the Quran in Arabic 24/7 for years know what is essential [evil laden] in the Quran as the terms of their contract with God.

Because to disclose the full truth of the religion to the public is a no no, the scholars are indirectly influencing believers with the truths of the contract with God where if only 10% truly comply with the terms of agreement, that results in terrible evil and terrors to non-believers and humanity which is SO evident at present.

Btw, do your care for the truths?
Do you have any counter to the above facts of the religion per se?

[puto]

“Tolstoy literature can be described as, say, “Intentionally recreated experiences and emotions communicated by the author to the reader for purposes of the reader having an illusionary similar experience.” Tor’e, Daniel. “Plato versus Literature,” Philosophy Now Issue 161 April/May 2024 Digital.

[Belinda]

The covenant with God is not quid pro quo but is grace from God. The grace , for Christians, came in the form of Jesus Christ, and, for Muslims, the grace came in the form of divine revelation to Muhammad.

I hope you have an idea of what are the main theme and direction of the Quran as presented above; these are factual and directly from the text which anyone can verify by reading the Quran thoroughly.

The covenant has nothing to do with grace at all.

The 'covenant' is literally a divine contract, i.e. a binding agreement between two parties with each party will fulfil what is promised within the terms of the 'contract', i.e. a contractual quid pro quo.

In Islam, the covenant or divine contract i.e. mithaaq is very explicit where Allah made an offer to the believer who accept the offer via the sahada in submission and surrender his life to Allah. ALL Muslims are contractually obligated to comply with the terms of agreement which is only within the Quran [the only direct words from God].
https://the.ismaili/my/news/covenants-mithaaq-the-qur

In Christianity, it is not explicit but implied within John 3:16 where God made an offer:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life"
when a person believes in and surrender to Christ/God, that is an acceptance of the offer which constitute a agreement, i.e. covenant or divine contract.

As I had explained above, the main theme within the Quran is the desperate need for salvation [represented within >30% verses in the Quran] by the believers.
To ensure eternal life in heaven and avoiding Hell, the believer has to enter into a 'contract' [covenant] with God.
In this case of a covenant [divine contract] surely there must be agreed upon terms of contract to be complied by both parties; ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.
The terms of contract can only be from the words of God, i.e. the Quran and no where else.

The Quran is loaded with evil laden terms of contract, even from the crude listing above, it is already evident the Quran is loaded with evil elements.
I highlighted the significant terms of contract i.e. Q5:33 whereby believers must kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasad] to the religion, e.g. blasphemy, apostacy, even as disbelievers. The practice of this is SO evident.

The majority of Muslims are not aware of the terms of contract they have entered into; but ignorance is no defense on Judgment Day.
However, those scholars clergies and imams who study the Quran in Arabic 24/7 for years know what is essential [evil laden] in the Quran as the terms of their contract with God.

Because to disclose the full truth of the religion to the public is a no no, the scholars are indirectly influencing believers with the truths of the contract with God where if only 10% truly comply with the terms of agreement, that results in terrible evil and terrors to non-believers and humanity which is SO evident at present.

Btw, do your care for the truths?
Do you have any counter to the above facts of the religion per se?

I do.Allah is merciful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, do your care for the truths?
Do you have any counter to the above facts of the religion per se?

I do. Allah is merciful.

Allah is merciful but only to those who comply with his commands in the Quran.

To be intellectually fair and reasonable to yourself, you have to read the Constitution of the Religion [the Quran] to understand [not necessary agree with] the essential truths of the religion.

Here is the Pickthall's Translation of the Quran.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1.html
Note an analysis of themes on the side.

Even from Chapter 1, it gives an indication of a very threatening tone and attitude of the religion to non-believers which is not merciful as claimed:

• Chapter 1. The Opening
  1 Praise be to Allah,
  2 The Beneficent, the Merciful.
  3 Master of the Day of Judgment,
  4 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
  5 Show us the straight path,
  6 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
  7 Not (the path) of those [Jews] who earn Thine anger nor of those [non-believers, Christians] who go astray.

Verse 7 is reflected throughout various verses in the Quran:
All non-Muslims [are inherently Muslims] have either gone astray (like the Christians) or have earned Allah's anger (like the Jews).
Allah has no mercy for those who follow another path.

Worse and what is so critical is the whole of Chapter 1 is asserted by every Muslim 17 times everyday throughout their life in their daily 5-times-a-day prayers.

How can Allah be merciful when it permit Q5:33?