Islam, Violence and Pacifism

[attofishpi]

Some people, like 'this one', here, have absolutely no idea that "islam" is, means, and revolves around 'Peace', Itself. And, that "muslims" are, essentially, just the followers of 'Peace', itself.

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

[godelian]

Some people, like 'this one', here, have absolutely no idea that "islam" is, means, and revolves around 'Peace', Itself. And, that "muslims" are, essentially, just the followers of 'Peace', itself.

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

You keep misrepresenting the fact that desertion on the battlefield is punishable by death. This is also the case in Islam. But then again, it is the maximum penalty. Not all deserters are shot at dawn.

[Age]

Some people, like 'this one', here, have absolutely no idea that "islam" is, means, and revolves around 'Peace', Itself. And, that "muslims" are, essentially, just the followers of 'Peace', itself.

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

Once again, 'we' have another prime of 'confirmation bias' being Truly alive and well.

And, in regards to being 'dumb', or not wise at all, as I said earlier;

Here, 'we' have another example, of another one, who is still not yet 'educated' in what the word 'kill', in the quran, means nor is in reference to, exactly.

But, as will be soon revealed and shown, people, like 'this one', have no interest nor curiosity at all in learning what the word 'kill', in the quran, means nor is referring to, exactly.

[Age]

Some people, like 'this one', here, have absolutely no idea that "islam" is, means, and revolves around 'Peace', Itself. And, that "muslims" are, essentially, just the followers of 'Peace', itself.

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

You keep misrepresenting the fact that desertion on the battlefield is punishable by death. This is also the case in Islam. But then again, it is the maximum penalty. Not all deserters are shot at dawn.

Again, 'we' have 'another one' who has not yet been 'educated' in what the word 'kill' means, and is referring to, exactly, in the quran.

[godelian]

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

You keep misrepresenting the fact that desertion on the battlefield is punishable by death. This is also the case in Islam. But then again, it is the maximum penalty. Not all deserters are shot at dawn.

Again, 'we' have 'another one' who has not yet been 'educated' in what the word 'kill' means, and is referring to, exactly, in the quran.

It is not about a verse in the Quran. It is about Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6922, which is interpreted as the permission at the discretion of the commander of the army to see to it that deserters are shot at dawn. Again, standing armies do not always do this.

For example, American soldiers shot for desertion:

== World War I ==
Total U.S. soldiers court-martialed for desertion: Around 2,657.
Death sentences handed down: 24.
Executions carried out: 0.
While several soldiers were sentenced to death for desertion, none were executed for that offense alone during WWI. Sentences were usually commuted to long prison terms or hard labor.

== World War II ==
Total U.S. soldiers tried for desertion: Over 21,000.
Death sentences handed down: 49.
Execution carried out: 1.

== Civil War ==
Union Army
Estimated deserters: Around 200,000 (out of 2.1 million who served).
Death sentences for desertion: Several thousand.
Executions carried out: Approximately 147–265 soldiers were actually executed by firing squad for desertion.
The exact number varies depending on sources, due to incomplete or conflicting records.
President Abraham Lincoln often commuted death sentences for desertion to lesser punishments like hard labor or dishonorable discharge. He was famously lenient, especially with younger soldiers or first-time offenders.

Confederate Army
Estimated deserters: About 100,000+ (out of roughly 1 million total troops).
Executions: Less well-documented, but dozens, possibly over 100, were executed for desertion.
Enforcement was inconsistent, especially as the Confederacy struggled more with manpower shortages and morale issues later in the war.

(Data from ChatGPT)

The armed forces reserve the right to shoot at dawn any military personnel found behaving dishonorably on the battlefield. They really do not care whether you like that principle or not.

[Age]

You keep misrepresenting the fact that desertion on the battlefield is punishable by death. This is also the case in Islam. But then again, it is the maximum penalty. Not all deserters are shot at dawn.

Again, 'we' have 'another one' who has not yet been 'educated' in what the word 'kill' means, and is referring to, exactly, in the quran.

It is not about a verse in the Quran.

I never thought it was. Why do you keep making up these Wrong and incorrect assumptions?

It is about Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6922, which is interpreted as the permission at the discretion of the commander of the army to see to it that deserters are shot at dawn. Again, standing armies do not always do this.[/quote]

Completely and utterly way off track, here.

For example, American soldiers shot for desertion:

Who cares?

== World War I ==
Total U.S. soldiers court-martialed for desertion: Around 2,657.
Death sentences handed down: 24.
Executions carried out: 0.
While several soldiers were sentenced to death for desertion, none were executed for that offense alone during WWI. Sentences were usually commuted to long prison terms or hard labor.

== World War II ==
Total U.S. soldiers tried for desertion: Over 21,000.
Death sentences handed down: 49.
Execution carried out: 1.

== Civil War ==
Union Army
Estimated deserters: Around 200,000 (out of 2.1 million who served).
Death sentences for desertion: Several thousand.
Executions carried out: Approximately 147–265 soldiers were actually executed by firing squad for desertion.
The exact number varies depending on sources, due to incomplete or conflicting records.
President Abraham Lincoln often commuted death sentences for desertion to lesser punishments like hard labor or dishonorable discharge. He was famously lenient, especially with younger soldiers or first-time offenders.

Confederate Army
Estimated deserters: About 100,000+ (out of roughly 1 million total troops).
Executions: Less well-documented, but dozens, possibly over 100, were executed for desertion.
Enforcement was inconsistent, especially as the Confederacy struggled more with manpower shortages and morale issues later in the war.[/quote]

Once more 'this one' 'tries' its hardest to 'justify' violence. But, it is never going to work.

(Data from ChatGPT)

The armed forces reserve the right to shoot at dawn any military personnel found behaving dishonorably on the battlefield. They really do not care whether you like that principle or not.

Who cares?

[attofishpi]

Develop a functioning brain or fuck off.

[attofishpi]

Some people, like 'this one', here, have absolutely no idea that "islam" is, means, and revolves around 'Peace', Itself. And, that "muslims" are, essentially, just the followers of 'Peace', itself.

You are so dumb and gullible. Why does a religion of "peace" instruct its followers to kill any fellow Muslim that decides they no longer want to be a Muslim?

You keep misrepresenting the fact that desertion on the battlefield is punishable by death. This is also the case in Islam. But then again, it is the maximum penalty. Not all deserters are shot at dawn.

Duh! So according to your "Divine" version of GOD, killing each other on battlefields is important.

*for what reason would an omnipotent Divine GOD require those it created to KILL each other, rather than love and respect each other?

[godelian]

Duh! So according to your "Divine" version of GOD, killing each other on battlefields is important.
*for what reason would an omnipotent Divine GOD require those it created to KILL each other, rather than love and respect each other?

Because humans are primates. Across mammals, we have a relatively high casualty rate resulting from internecine violence. Humans typically have a 2% casualty rate. The mechanism of in-species violence is undoubtedly necessary for biological reasons. Chances are that if we managed to stamp it out completely, we would end up with even worse problems.

ChatGPT: internecine violence amongst mammals

"Internecine violence" refers to conflict within a group—literally, "mutually destructive" violence, especially among members of the same community, organization, or species. When applied to mammals, it encompasses a variety of intraspecific (within-species) violent behaviors observed across different species. Here's a breakdown of how this plays out in mammalian biology and behavior:

Forms of Internecine Violence in Mammals

1. Territorial Disputes
Examples: Wolves, big cats (like lions or tigers), primates.
Why it happens: To control access to resources—mates, food, shelter.
Outcome: Can result in injury or death, but often ends with submission displays to avoid escalation.

2. Infanticide
Examples: Lions, langurs, rodents, bears.
Why it happens: Often practiced by incoming dominant males to eliminate offspring sired by rivals and bring females back into estrus.
Note: Although it sounds brutal, it’s an evolutionary strategy seen in multiple species.

3. Dominance and Hierarchy Battles
Examples: Elephants, gorillas, meerkats, dolphins.
Why it happens: Competition for status, breeding rights, and group leadership.
How it's managed: Fights may be ritualized to reduce risk of serious harm, but sometimes they’re deadly.

4. Coalition-based Attacks
Examples: Chimpanzees are notorious for this.
Why it happens: Groups of males may gang up on rivals or outsiders from other groups—almost like proto-warfare.
Significance: Shows planning, strategy, and social coordination.

5. Sibling Rivalry / Cannibalism
Examples: Hyenas, pigs, rodents.
Why it happens: Resource scarcity—stronger siblings may kill weaker ones to monopolize food.
Survival Mechanism: Harsh but efficient when resources are limited.

Biological & Evolutionary Drivers
Natural Selection: Aggressive traits can be favored if they improve reproductive success.
Social Structures: In highly social mammals, violence is often balanced by strong cooperative behaviors.
Resource Scarcity: Limited resources intensify competition and the likelihood of violent conflict.

Interesting Case: Chimpanzees
Observed forming raiding parties to attack neighboring groups.
Evidence of territorial expansion and lethal violence.
Resembles organized conflict—leading some scientists to call it "chimpanzee warfare."

ChatGPT: What percentage of mammals die in internecine violence?

The percentage of mammals that die due to internecine violence—that is, violence between members of the same species—varies significantly between species, but some broad scientific estimates exist.

A 2016 study published in Nature by José María Gómez and colleagues analyzed violence-related deaths across over 1,000 mammalian species. Here are the key findings:
Average for mammals: About 0.3% of mammal deaths are due to intraspecific violence (i.e., violence between members of the same species).
Primates (including humans) have a higher rate on average, around 2%.
Humans specifically: The study estimated that early human societies had an average violence-related death rate of about 2%, though this has varied widely over time and cultures. In some prehistoric and ancient groups, the rate was much higher, up to 15% or more, while in modern societies it can be far lower.

So to directly answer your question:
Roughly 0.3% of mammals die due to internecine (intraspecific) violence, though this number is much higher for certain species like primates and carnivores.

[attofishpi]

Duh! So according to your "Divine" version of GOD, killing each other on battlefields is important.
*for what reason would an omnipotent Divine GOD require those it created to KILL each other, rather than love and respect each other?

Because humans are primates. Across mammals, we have a relatively high casualty rate resulting from internecine violence. Humans typically have a 2% casualty rate. The mechanism of in-species violence is undoubtedly necessary for biological reasons. Chances are that if we managed to stamp it out completely, we would end up with even worse problems.

That right there just summed up the primal disgusting non Divine ideology of Islam versus the Divine message of Christ - LOVE & RESPECT -- yes, we moved on from such immoral evil inconsiderate acts that a primate may inflict upon others.

LOVE & RESPECT that Christ went to his death to insist upon is what we of greater intelligence and wisdom espouse to. (* and you rejected that to return to primal instincts )

[godelian]

That right there just summed up the primal disgusting non Divine ideology of Islam versus the Divine message of Christ - LOVE & RESPECT -- yes, we moved on from such immoral evil inconsiderate acts that a primate may inflict upon others.

LOVE & RESPECT that Christ went to his death to insist upon is what we of greater intelligence and wisdom espouse to. (* and you rejected that to return to primal instincts )

We are all primates whether you like it or not.

[Dr Faustus]

In each state, there is a legitimation, a framework within which violence is exercised, whether internal or external. No religion escapes this principle. Especially not Christianity, the Inquisition, the Holy War, the conquest of America. Even in its modern, secularized form, Christianity, the State and the law do not escape this rule. Colonization, racial hatred of the unassimilated. All this is always done in the name of the same reasons, the will of the Universal Sovereign.
There is here a mystification, an essentialization of the violence of the Arab or the Muslim, as a symptom of his intrinsic barbarism carried by his culture and his civilization.
Forums have never been exempt from the expression of stupidity and crass ignorance. When it's expressed in a pseudo-scholarly manner, it's almost burlesque

[godelian]

In each state, there is a legitimation, a framework within which violence is exercised, whether internal or external. No religion escapes this principle. Especially not Christianity, the Inquisition, the Holy War, the conquest of America. Even in its modern, secularized form, Christianity, the State and the law do not escape this rule. Colonization, racial hatred of the unassimilated. All this is always done in the name of the same reasons, the will of the Universal Sovereign.
There is here a mystification, an essentialization of the violence of the Arab or the Muslim, as a symptom of his intrinsic barbarism carried by his culture and his civilization.
Forums have never been exempt from the expression of stupidity and crass ignorance. When it's expressed in a pseudo-scholarly manner, it's almost burlesque

Christianity is best exemplified by Donald Trump's position in his trade war, which is that countries that retaliate to his aggression, are evil.

This imbecile view is clearly inspired by Christianity.

The countries that Trump singles out for aggression, should instead turn the other cheek, because then they will be "rewarded".

Christianity is a scam suitable only for illiterate peasants.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

In each state, there is a legitimation, a framework within which violence is exercised, whether internal or external. No religion escapes this principle. Especially not Christianity, the Inquisition, the Holy War, the conquest of America. Even in its modern, secularized form, Christianity, the State and the law do not escape this rule. Colonization, racial hatred of the unassimilated. All this is always done in the name of the same reasons, the will of the Universal Sovereign.
There is here a mystification, an essentialization of the violence of the Arab or the Muslim, as a symptom of his intrinsic barbarism carried by his culture and his civilization.
Forums have never been exempt from the expression of stupidity and crass ignorance. When it's expressed in a pseudo-scholarly manner, it's almost burlesque

Yeah, civilization is institutionalized barbarism, in all of its religions and their derived cultures, with its claim of the monopoly of violence. Christianity is just the most successful in the matrix of population, territory, infrastructure, power, wealth and money; 'development'.

Of course by Christianity we mean the Greco-Roman matrix in which it arose and still rules the world.

German legal theorist Rudolf von Jhering famously remarked that ancient Rome had conquered the world three times: the first through its armies, the second through its religion, the third through its laws. He might have added: each time more thoroughly.

— David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years