A Religion of Fear

[godelian]

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

They are right within their denomination. But then again, there are numerous rulings that enjoy consensus across denominations or even Islam-wide.

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.

No. Rulings must meander through the lengthy decentralized accreditation process.

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.

Wrong. It is the consensus amongst the scholars that eventually give status to a ruling. This requires the ruling to meander through the lengthy decentralized accreditation process.

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.

You just keep ignoring my response.

I repeat.

Islam defines the Islamic notions of good and evil. Therefore, calling good or evil the definition itself of good and evil, is absurd. What definition would you even use to that effect? You never mention such alternative definition. That makes you proposition even more nonsensical. Your approach is ultimately circular and even ridiculous.

Your approach is a glaring category error against type theory. If you look at the type-theoretical definition of the "isGood" predicate:

Code: Select all

isGood(x : behavior) : boolean

The predicate "isGood" accepts the description of a human behavior "x" and returns true or false. You are trying to feed the predicate itself tot the predicate:

Code: Select all

isGood(isGood)

That expression is a type error. "IsGood" is a predicate and not a human behavior. So, it is not even that your program does not run. Worse, it does not even compile! As Wolfgang Pauli would have said:

That is not only not right. It is not even wrong!
(Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig. Es ist nicht einmal falsch!)

Most of the source code of any compiler is geared at making sure that people like you cannot do that kind of things. The problem is that word salads in English allow for that. There is no compiler for the English language to prevent that. That is why word salads are deemed so cheap:

Linus Torvalds: Talk is cheap. Show me the source code!

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

They are right within their denomination. But then again, there are numerous rulings that enjoy consensus across denominations or even Islam-wide.

The variations and difference without full consensus imply subjectiveness and non-objectivity which has the same impact [non-credibility] on whatever they happen to agree on.
This show the religion is messed up.

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.

No. Rulings must meander through the lengthy decentralized accreditation process.

It is very evident there is no guarantee of the truth of knowledge even with any lengthy decentralized accreditation process.
Note the case of the Flat Earth Theory, the geocentric model which was established via supposedly "lengthy decentralized accreditation process" even from God.

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.

Wrong. It is the consensus amongst the scholars that eventually give status to a ruling. This requires the ruling to meander through the lengthy decentralized accreditation process.

Did God command this?
The Quran-only group argued convincingly that is not the case that scholars are the absolute or have the final say on what God's words mean.

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.

You just keep ignoring my response.

I repeat.

Islam defines the Islamic notions of good and evil. Therefore, calling good or evil the definition itself of good and evil, is absurd. What definition would you even use to that effect? You never mention such alternative definition. That makes you proposition even more nonsensical. Your approach is ultimately circular and even ridiculous.

Your approach is a glaring category error against type theory. If you look at the type-theoretical definition of the "isGood" predicate:

Code: Select all

isGood(x : behavior) : boolean

The predicate "isGood" accepts the description of a human behavior "x" and returns true or false. You are trying to feed the predicate itself tot the predicate:

Code: Select all

isGood(isGood)

That expression is a type error. "IsGood" is a predicate and not a human behavior. So, it is not even that your program does not run. Worse, it does not even compile! As Wolfgang Pauli would have said:

That is not only not right. It is not even wrong!
(Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig. Es ist nicht einmal falsch!)

Most of the source code of any compiler is geared at making sure that people like you cannot do that kind of things. The problem is that word salads in English allow for that. There is no compiler for the English language to prevent that. That is why word salads are deemed so cheap:

Linus Torvalds: Talk is cheap. Show me the source code!

The above is a strawman and has no relevance to what I was talking about.
The Quran does dictate what is good [salih, ma'ruf, sharr, etc.] and evil [Khayr, fasid, munkar, etc.]

That is not the issue, I asked and you have ignored;

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.

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?

[Age]

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.

'This one', STILL, does NOT YET KNOW what the words 'unbelievers' AND 'kill' ACTUALLY MEAN and are ACTUALLY REFERRING TO, above here.

Also, one of the BIGGEST ones FORMING AN 'us' versus 'them' DIVIDE, here, IS "veritas aequitas", "itself".

[godelian]

The variations and difference without full consensus imply subjectiveness and non-objectivity which has the same impact [non-credibility] on whatever they happen to agree on.
This show the religion is messed up.

Wrong again.

Every decentralized distributed process will generate competing forks on its path to consensus. A good example is how forks in a blockchain arise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)

Forks are related to the fact that different parties need to use common rules to maintain the history of the blockchain. When parties are not in agreement, alternative chains may emerge. While most forks are short-lived some are permanent. Short-lived forks are due to the difficulty of reaching fast consensus in a distributed system.

What you say, shows that you are ignorant of how decentralization works.

Furthermore, decentralization is extremely important to prevent corruption. It is exactly because of systematic centralization that Christian doctrine has become so spectacularly corrupt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The variations and difference without full consensus imply subjectiveness and non-objectivity which has the same impact [non-credibility] on whatever they happen to agree on.
This show the religion is messed up.

Wrong again.

Every decentralized distributed process will generate competing forks on its path to consensus. A good example is how forks in a blockchain arise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(blockchain)

Forks are related to the fact that different parties need to use common rules to maintain the history of the blockchain. When parties are not in agreement, alternative chains may emerge. While most forks are short-lived some are permanent. Short-lived forks are due to the difficulty of reaching fast consensus in a distributed system.

What you say, shows that you are ignorant of how decentralization works.

Furthermore, decentralization is extremely important to prevent corruption. It is exactly because of systematic centralization that Christian doctrine has become so spectacularly corrupt.

Again your thinking is very shallow and narrow.

I have stated there is the fundamental Christian doctrine within the Gospels and their different interpretations within the different denominations.
That the doctrines has been corrupted say within Catholicism [via systematic centralization] does not affect the fundamentals as spoken by Christs within the Gospels.

There is a question of centralization within decentralization and that is ultimately subjective thus loses credibility.
Say, at present the doctrine and jurisprudence is decentralized to the various main schools and then sub-schools.
This sort of decentralization does not generate the true views of the religions.

Rather, Islam should be centralized within the Quran alone, i.e. its imperative Constitution.
If the Quran dictate only 3 prayers a day, then to insist upon 5 [etc.] by different decentralized schools and sub-schools is blasphemy against the doctrine.