A Religion of Fear

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is one true view of a religion of fear; TROP is fundamentally based on fear of the other as in Us versus Them. As such, Islam counter the above with a greater threat of fear, i.e. kill non-believers upon the slightest threat [fasad] to the religion, Q5:33.
As such, intellectually, the term 'Islamophobia' is an Oxymoron.

Islam is disliked by people with bad intentions because it strikes them with fear. That is not a bug. That is a feature. Reining in misbehavior requires the use of threats of retaliation, because all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals. We will never remove the threat of retaliation. That will not happen. Ever. If you don't want to get beaten up, then don't misbehave. Isn't that a very simple principle?

Theism in general is leveraged on fear, very deep and terrible fears from the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis.

The Islamic theistic model [as represented in the 6236 verses of the Quran] is leveraged on terrible fear of existential terror, from fear to God to fear to non-believers threatening the religion.
It is very poisonous to the well-being of individual[s] and humanity to leverage too much on the primary emotions of fear; this generate stress which poison the body.

Constructive Criticisms are not with 'bad' intentions.
Muslims will interpret all forms of criticisms of Islam as a threat, i.e. blasphemy and the 0.1% or 15 millions of extremely evil-prone will carry out Q5:33 to the 'T'.

Your stance above as extending to the slightest threats is very evil, barbaric and abominable.

The ideal and effective approach to theology for soteriological reason is not to kill non-believers even for any fears of threat from non-believers; this is the fundamental basis of Christianity, Buddhism and the like.

Your stance above as extending to the slightest threats is very evil, barbaric and abominable.

The religion is the definition for good and evil for its believers. Judging such definition according to an alternative definition is not supported. Furthermore, if you are afraid of consequences, then the threat of retaliation it clearly working. This is exactly what it is meant to do. We do not care if you find that abominable. We only care that you fear reprisals. Since you do, you thereby confirm that the strategy is successful.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Q 5:33
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and
strive after corruption in the land [fasadan]
will be that they will be killed or crucified,
or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom

innamā jazāu alladhīna yuḥāribūna l-laha warasūlahu wayasʿawna fī l-arḍi fasādan an yuqattalū aw yuṣallabū aw tuqaṭṭaʿa aydīhim wa-arjuluhum min khilāfin aw yunfaw mina l-arḍi dhālika lahum khiz'yun fī l-dun'yā walahum fī l-ākhirati ʿadhābun ʿaẓīmu

Fasād [F-S-D]
Fasad, fasadan, fasadin, afsada, nufsida, mufsid, mufsidum, mufsidin, yufsidū

That the word Fasad (or the corresponding verb afsada) is a very comprehensive word which is capable of denoting all kinds of evil-doing is clear from an examination of its behavior in non-religious contexts.
Izutzu - Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Quran

The term 'fasadan' [root F-D-D] is often translated in English as 'corruption in the land' which is misleading and does not encompass the full fledge meaning of the term.
However, the influential clergy [who spent their whole life reading the Quran and immersed in the religion] and those who read the Quran in Arabic and in the spirit of the whole history and psychology of Islam would interpret and feel its essence and act accordingly to what is intended by God.

Q 5:33 Word for Word Translation:
Only innamāإِنَّمَا ا ن ن م
(the) recompense jazāuجَزَاءُ ج ز ى
(for) those who alladhīnaالَّذِينَ ا ل ل ذ
wage wary uḥāribūnaيُحَارِبُونَ ح ر ب
(against) Allahl-lahaاللَّهَ ا ل ه
and His Messenger warasūlahuوَرَسُولَهُ ر س ل
and strive way as ʿawnaوَيَسْعَوْنَ س ع ى
in fīفِي ف ى
the earth l-arḍiالْأَرْضِ ا ر ض
spreading corruption fasādanفَسَادًا ف س د
(is) that anأَنْ ا ن
they be killed yuqattalūيُقَتَّلُوا ق ت ل
or awأَوْ ا و
they be crucifiedyuṣallabūيُصَلَّبُوا ص ل ب
or awأَوْ ا و
be cut off tuqaṭṭaʿaتُقَطَّعَ ق ط ع
their hand saydīhimأَيْدِيهِمْ ى د ى
and their feetwa-arjuluhumوَأَرْجُلُهُمْ ر ج ل
of minمِنْ م ن
opposite sides khilāfinخِلَافٍ خ ل ف
or awأَوْ ا و
they be exiledyunfawيُنْفَوْا ن ف ى
from minaمِنَ م ن
the land l-arḍiالْأَرْضِ ا ر ض
That dhālikaذَلِكَ ذ ل ك
(is) for them lahumلَهُمْ ل
disgrace khiz'yunخِزْيٌ خ ز ى
in fīفِي ف ى
the world l-dun'yāالدُّنْيَا د ن و
and for them walahumوَلَهُمْ ل
in fīفِي ف ى
the Hereafter l-ākhiratiالْءَاخِرَةِ ا خ ر
(is) a punishment ʿadhābunعَذَابٌ ع ذ ب
great ʿaẓīmunعَظِيمٌ ع ظ م

[godelian]

As such, intellectually, the term 'Islamophobia' is an Oxymoron.

Not everybody feels the need to insult other people's religion. The threat of retaliation targets a rather small demographic. These people do indeed live in fear, but that is simply the cost of doing business. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Other people also live in fear because they are burglars and fear that some day it will go wrong. The fact that some people will end up living in fear is unavoidable. Just let them. That is not my problem. I certainly enjoy life regardless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As such, intellectually, the term 'Islamophobia' is an Oxymoron.

Not everybody feels the need to insult other people's religion. The threat of retaliation targets a rather small demographic. These people do indeed live in fear, but that is simply the cost of doing business. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Other people also live in fear because they are burglars and fear that some day it will go wrong. The fact that some people will end up living in fear is unavoidable. Just let them. That is not my problem. I certainly enjoy life regardless.

The point is, as a covenanted [contracted] believer you must comply with the above term of dictate and act upon it should you come across such threats [even the slightest fasadan]. If you don't you are not doing your duty and as such has sinned.

It is evident from your posts, you accept such threats of fear to non-believers.

The majority or even 99.99% of believers do not comply with the above because they are being-more-human than being-more-believer in this case.

But even if it is only 0.1%, that's 15 million ; they will dutifully comply with such a dictate as 5:33 to be ensured of their passage to paradise with 10 times the ordinary reward will carry out such a duty. It only took 20+ to do a 911.
This is why TROP is frightening and Islamophobia is an oxymoron.

As such, the existence of such an ideology with a natural % of evil prone believers posed a real threat to humanity [as already evident] in the future, especially when cheap WMDs are easily accessible.

If is VERY unfortunate you converted from a good religion to an evil one. Catholicism has loads of negatives but you could still have stuck to Christianity without adhering to any instutionalized-Christianity and still be assured of eternal life in heaven.

[godelian]

The point is, as a covenanted [contracted] believer you must comply

We do not take advice from unbelievers in matters of religion. That is strictly forbidden.

It is evident from your posts, you accept such threats of fear to non-believers.

I fully subscribe to the entirety of the Islamic doctrine.

If is VERY unfortunate you converted from a good religion to an evil one.

I have already explained at length that I do not subscribe to clerical religions. I do not allow the clergy to invent the religion along the way. I firmly reject that practice. Concerning good and evil, it is the religion itself that provides the definition for these terms. It is meaningless and even nonsensical to claim that a religion would be good or evil in terms of another religion.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas

Philosophy of religion was taught to you, would your disposition be more educated. Casting, doubts are what you do, is an education for you a protentional. Learning, and doubts are affirmatives or negatives, will you be more educated. Not everything you found on the internet was a truth, could you at least research the topic before you had posted. Had you gotten an education, you might understand what you post. One day would you receive an education, would you change. You look at everything in the negative, you begin with a negative you end in a negative. When you finally receive your education, you will find certainty.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point is, as a covenanted [contracted] believer you must comply

We do not take advice from unbelievers in matters of religion. That is strictly forbidden.

What I have stated is a matter of principle, not an advice.

Religion is fundamentally a "contractual" or bonding relationship between God and the individual-man.
So the onus is on the individual to understand the contractual terms [with assistance from others] and take personal responsibility for it; ignorance is no defense on the Day of Judgment.

So it is best believers should not rely totally on others for advice, more so from non-believer.

It is evident from your posts, you accept such threats of fear to non-believers.

I fully subscribe to the entirety of the Islamic doctrine.

Noted.

If is VERY unfortunate you converted from a good religion to an evil one.

I have already explained at length that I do not subscribe to clerical religions. I do not allow the clergy to invent the religion along the way. I firmly reject that practice. Concerning good and evil, it is the religion itself that provides the definition for these terms. It is meaningless and even nonsensical to claim that a religion would be good or evil in terms of another religion.

Where did I suggest clerical religion?
On the other hand, you are preferring the clergy, i.e. those clergy who construct jurisprudence to be enforced on yourself as supposedly God's laws; they are man-made laws, not completely God's and some are wrong, i.e. no divine.

There is a universal concept of evil that is acceptable to all humans.
E.g. no human volunteer to be killed [except the mentally sick] or want to be killed.
As such, any permission to kill humans is evil, Period!
At present, humans will and do kill with various reasons but that is not in compliance with the universal concept of no-killing, i.e. killing of humans are evil.
With that, humans must strive to prevent and eliminate the killing of humans by humans, not condone it in any way.

In contrast to the pacifist religion of Christianity in essence [not clerical], Islam permit and condone the killing of non-believers [which is essentially evil] upon the slightest threat re Q5:33.
Islam thus posed a real threat to the extermination of the human species [which is evil] as an when WMDs are cheaply and easily available.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas

Philosophy of religion was taught to you, would your disposition be more educated. Casting, doubts are what you do, is an education for you a protentional. Learning, and doubts are affirmatives or negatives, will you be more educated. Not everything you found on the internet was a truth, could you at least research the topic before you had posted. Had you gotten an education, you might understand what you post. One day would you receive an education, would you change. You look at everything in the negative, you begin with a negative you end in a negative. When you finally receive your education, you will find certainty.

Blabbering as usual and wasting your unproductive effort.

Provide effective arguments to the OP.
Something like, after researching 100% of the 6236 verses of the religion, there is no evidence of fear and evil within that religion.

I have given evidences in the OP and the next post, prove I am wrong. You are insulting your own intelligence if you cannot understand what is written thereof.

[puto]

First, prove you know how to write, and original post. When your research is worth arguing, I will.

[puto]

Prove with your copying and posting of the Aramaic, you are a fluent speaker. You rely on translations, not even in an argument form just a post. When you have studied the religions, I will argue with you. Until then original poster in internet speak, you are in English and idiot.

[godelian]

What I have stated is a matter of principle, not an advice.

Only scholars of the religion can do that.

Where did I suggest clerical religion?

Christianity is a clerical religion. I am not interested in that. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope or of anyone else.

There is a universal concept of evil that is acceptable to all humans.

It is the religion that defines good and evil. There is no higher definition for that than the religion itself. Furthermore, this definition is not universal, because there is more than one religion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove with your copying and posting of the Aramaic, you are a fluent speaker. You rely on translations, not even in an argument form just a post. When you have studied the religions, I will argue with you. Until then original poster in internet speak, you are in English and idiot.

You're a psycho.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I have stated is a matter of principle, not an advice.

Only scholars of the religion can do that.

Who said that? What reference?

Where did I suggest clerical religion?

Christianity is a clerical religion. I am not interested in that. I do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope or of anyone else.

Why do you keep referring to Catholicism and the Pope.

According to Acts 11:26, the term "Christian" (Χρῑστῐᾱνός, Khrīstiānós), meaning "followers of Christ" in reference to Jesus's disciples, was first used in the city of Antioch by the non-Jewish inhabitants there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Etymology

Note this:

Non-denominational Christianity (or nondenominational Christianity) consists of churches, and individual Christians,[1][2] which typically distance themselves from the confessionalism or creedalism of other Christian communities[3] by not formally aligning with a specific Christian denomination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denom ... ristianity

One can even be a Buddhist-Christian:
My Interfaith Life as a Buddhist-Christian

If you must adopt religious-spirituality I highly recommend you turn away from that toxic ideology; better to be a Christian [no clergy] or Buddhist-Christian for better peace in the present state of the majority.

There is a universal concept of evil that is acceptable to all humans.

It is the religion that defines good and evil. There is no higher definition for that than the religion itself. Furthermore, this definition is not universal, because there is more than one religion.

It is humans who define "religion" which define its own 'good' and 'evil'. What is good for one religion [Christianity] could be evil for another [say, Islam].

As such, what is most objective is to rely on empirical evidences of what is naturally good and what is evil.
"Torturing and killing of babies for pleasure" is naturally 'evil' i.e. abominable. Which humans [other than the mentally ill] will agree to that. You agree with it?
Generally [exceptions are debatable], the killing of any human by human[s] is evil, i.e. contemptible.

[godelian]

What I have stated is a matter of principle, not an advice.

Only scholars of the religion can do that.

Who said that? What reference?

For a jurisprudential ruling in Islam to be receivable, the scholar must have the following qualifications:

ChatGPT: Who can make jurisprudential rulings in Islam?

In Islam, the ability to make jurisprudential rulings, known as ijtihad, depends on a person's knowledge, expertise, and qualifications. Those who are recognized as capable of issuing such rulings are typically scholars who fulfill specific criteria. These scholars are referred to by various titles depending on the Islamic tradition they follow. Here’s an overview:

1. Sunni Islam

Mufti: A qualified Islamic scholar who issues fatwas (non-binding legal opinions) based on Islamic law.

Mujtahid: A scholar who is capable of ijtihad, meaning they can independently interpret the sources of Islamic law (the Qur'an and Sunnah) and derive rulings. This level requires extensive knowledge of Arabic, Qur'anic exegesis, Hadith, and legal methodology (usul al-fiqh).

In the Sunni tradition, ijtihad is typically associated with the classical era of Islamic scholarship, although modern scholars also engage in it within their expertise.

---

2. Shia Islam

Marja' al-Taqlid: In Twelver Shi'ism, this is a senior scholar recognized as a source of emulation. A marja' is considered highly qualified in Islamic jurisprudence and has the authority to issue binding rulings for their followers.

Mujtahid: Like in Sunni Islam, a mujtahid in Shia Islam is someone qualified to perform ijtihad. However, in the Shia context, they often take on more formal roles as leaders of jurisprudential thought.

The process for becoming a marja' includes years of study in seminaries, mastering Islamic sciences, and receiving recognition from peers.

---

3. General Qualifications for Jurisprudential Rulings

For someone to make rulings in Islam, they must:

Be deeply knowledgeable in Qur'an and Hadith sciences.

Master Arabic language and grammar.

Be proficient in usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence).

Understand the historical context of Islamic rulings.

Be known for their piety, integrity, and moral character.

Have extensive training under established scholars.

Those who lack the qualifications to engage in ijtihad or issue rulings are advised to follow the opinions of qualified scholars through taqlid (adherence to scholarly rulings).

This will only make the ruling receivable.

From there on, the ruling can start the lengthy and decentralized process of verification against the "usul" (methodology) as well as peer review, all of which may eventually lead up to such ruling achieving "ijma" amongst the "ulema" (consensus amongst the scholars).

I have already pointed out umpteen times that you cannot produce a ruling receivable in Islam. You are simply not qualified to do that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Only scholars of the religion can do that.

Who said that? What reference?

For a jurisprudential ruling in Islam to be receivable, the scholar must have the following qualifications:

ChatGPT: Who can make jurisprudential rulings in Islam?

In Islam, the ability to make jurisprudential rulings, known as ijtihad, depends on a person's knowledge, expertise, and qualifications. Those who are recognized as capable of issuing such rulings are typically scholars who fulfill specific criteria. These scholars are referred to by various titles depending on the Islamic tradition they follow. Here’s an overview:
1. Sunni Islam
Mufti: A qualified Islamic scholar who issues fatwas (non-binding legal opinions) based on Islamic law.
Mujtahid: A scholar who is capable of ijtihad, meaning they can independently interpret the sources of Islamic law (the Qur'an and Sunnah) and derive rulings. This level requires extensive knowledge of Arabic, Qur'anic exegesis, Hadith, and legal methodology (usul al-fiqh).
In the Sunni tradition, ijtihad is typically associated with the classical era of Islamic scholarship, although modern scholars also engage in it within their expertise.
---

2. Shia Islam
Marja' al-Taqlid: In Twelver Shi'ism, this is a senior scholar recognized as a source of emulation. A marja' is considered highly qualified in Islamic jurisprudence and has the authority to issue binding rulings for their followers.
Mujtahid: Like in Sunni Islam, a mujtahid in Shia Islam is someone qualified to perform ijtihad. However, in the Shia context, they often take on more formal roles as leaders of jurisprudential thought.
The process for becoming a marja' includes years of study in seminaries, mastering Islamic sciences, and receiving recognition from peers.
---

3. General Qualifications for Jurisprudential Rulings
For someone to make rulings in Islam, they must:
Be deeply knowledgeable in Qur'an and Hadith sciences.
Master Arabic language and grammar.
Be proficient in usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence).
Understand the historical context of Islamic rulings.
Be known for their piety, integrity, and moral character.
Have extensive training under established scholars.
Those who lack the qualifications to engage in ijtihad or issue rulings are advised to follow the opinions of qualified scholars through taqlid (adherence to scholarly rulings).

This will only make the ruling receivable.

From there on, the ruling can start the lengthy and decentralized process of verification against the "usul" (methodology) as well as peer review, all of which may eventually lead up to such ruling achieving "ijma" amongst the "ulema" (consensus amongst the scholars).

The above basis is no different from the 'clergy' basis of Christianity that you condemned.
Where there are differences between the Sunni and Shia jurisprudence, who is right?

There are other schools e.g. Sufi, the Quran-Only and various sects of Islam, who is right?

Note the criticisms by the Quran-only schools who condemned those who rely on the Ahadith for their jurisprudences.

(45:6) These are God’s verses which we recite unto you [O Muhammad] truthfully. Therefore, in which HADITH other than GOD and His verses do they believe in?
Are hadiths and Sunnah truly part of Islam or are they baseless traditions which distort the message of peace described in the Holy Quran?
https://quranaloneislam.org/are-hadiths-legitimate/

Perhaps for the olden days, illiterate believers has to rely on the scholars, but in our present age and our intellectual and rationalization capacity, a believer should be able to understand God's word directly from the Quran.

Do you believe that you will face God alone on Judgment Day?
For anyone who have found to have sinned, can they defend themselves that they relied on the scholars?
On Judgment Day, ignorance is no defense.

I have already pointed out umpteen times that you cannot produce a ruling receivable in Islam. You are simply not qualified to do that.

You missed my point.
I am not saying "I" will produce a ruling on Islam for others to follow.
The point all believers are free to interpret the Quran they way they want and there is no one to decide on Earth whether they are right or wrong.
The existence of such a religion which is evil laden is dangerous to humanity where the extremists can interpret the texts in their evil ways and no one can stop them.

I asked and you have ignored.
If a believer were to kill humans or exterminate the human species with reference to Q5:33 based on the slightest fasadan, will God punish him on Judgment Day?

If a believer were to beat up his wife badly, with reference to 4:34 will God punish him on Judgment Day?