So the Khan family. We're all good, right?

[kritikvernunft]

From the way that you've consistently been using ...

That sounds like an endorsement. Consistency is desirable.

the word "pagan,"

The term "paganism" corresponds to shirk (شرك‎‎ širk) and "pagans" to mušrikūn (مشركون).
It is the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God i.e. Allah.
It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).

I don't think that ...

You see, that the is the difference between us, people who specialize in provability (=math) and falsifiability (=science), versus people who just inanely repeat conjectures and entire ideologies from textbooks. What you guys do, is not a valid academic endeavour. We have never and will never consider you to be real intellectuals. Seriously, since you do not even know how to think correctly, it does not matter to us that you "don't think that". Who cares?

 

[nadinesauriol]

Salam walikum

Allah is Great

 

[Serinity]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

 

[Aaqib]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

I wonder how you think the US is the enemy of Islam if only a small population of people here are Islamaphobes.

Don't stereotype, and yes, the civilian bombings, they aren't bombing because of just killing muslims, it's because they think they are terrorists, they are too clueless to know the difference (the army).

If the US was the enemy of Islam, then no muslims would be living in peace here. If we were to point fingers on who hates muslims, then we should point to Myanmar: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/world/asia/myanmar-muslims-killed-dispute/index.html

 

[jabeady]

I wonder how US is not an enemy of Islam, they allow propaganda, bomb Muslim countries, encourages Islamophobia.

If Islamophobia is not a sign of an enemy of Islam. (those who spread it) then isn't anti-semitism just a business? To make it into a business is even worse.

And Allah :swt: knows best.

Maybe you should read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/02/dearborn-mi-where-muslims-are-americans.html

 

[cooterhein]

The term "paganism" corresponds to shirk (شرك‎‎ širk) and "pagans" to mušrikūn (مشركون).
It is the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism, i.e. the deification or worship of anyone or anything other than the singular God i.e. Allah.
It is the vice that is opposed to the virtue of Tawhid (monotheism).

Okay, see, nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with worship. National identity is a non-religious concept. You need to be informed of this at least once, even if you ignore it and are incredibly rude about it.

 

[Serinity]

Maybe you should read this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/02/dearborn-mi-where-muslims-are-americans.html

So you are saying this propaganda is just to steer non muslims to hate muslims. And vice versa? although those who propagate hatred for Muslims, well. Best not to bundle everyone in the same boat.

The rise in Muslim hate, propaganda, and the demonization and terrorization of Islam, trying to link Islam and terrorism together - trying to make them synonymous.

I won't paint everyone with a broad brush. This media propaganda is trying to steer Non-muslims to hate Muslims, and Muslims to hate non muslims. What I find ridiculous is the increase in hatred for Islam.

Politician will prob start being like "we see Niqabs/hjiabs as a form of terrorism, or potential threat of terrorism, therefore we must ban it for security and safety reasons" doesn't that sound ridiculous to you?

By that logic, I should have you be in Jail cuz you are a potential terrorist. But what the implications this ^ above quote is sending is that "Terrorism = Islam".

But given the situation with ISIS, being terrorists using Islam to further their agenda. Their goal is for the West to hate ISlam, innit? What kind of Islamic State would do that?

I'd call myself a hypocrite if I'd generalise whole USA for being Enemies of Islam, cuz it is the politicians, and Allah :swt: knows best.

However it does give the vibe and the consequences of this propaganda against Islam, banning Islamic symbols in the name of "terrorism" or "extremism" is that for a Muslim:

It is offensive to see our religion being seen as synonymous with Terrrorism. We know this is propaganda.

For the non muslim:

he thinks this is Islam and distances from it.

Problem is, how is it fair for politicans to ban stuff in the name of extremism just because of some group Like ISIS?

I am tired of politics, and Idk.

I feel like this is all a trap to further Islam vs. the world image. Brainwashing non-muslims. If we muslims act on this propaganda by furthering away and going against US, would we have contributed to the problem?

But thing is, USA is bombing Iraq, etc. and what excuse did USA have for bombing? All in the name of Terrorism. In Islam if one's homeland is bombed on has a right to self-defense.

Or this is just the media trying to further hatred towards both sides. But what I do know is the obvious Islamophobia, which I think the government and those who do it are guilty for.

The USA bombing, and the citizens do nothing about it? Why so?

But seriously, I find this whole politic game pathetic.

 

[jabeady]

Sigh. The story is about how Muslims are "just people,",and neither to be feared or hated.

Never thought I'd have to defend a pro-Muslim story to a Muslim.

 

[Serinity]

Sigh. The story is about how Muslims are "just people,",and neither to be feared or hated.

Never thought I'd have to defend a pro-Muslim story to a Muslim.

Lol, I guess. I guess we had a misunderstanding. I don't hate you personally.

my motto in MMORPG is "solo-it-out!". I am still firm on the fact that joining the US army is kufr and apostasy.

There is no need to and the West hates Shariah, so what you are fighting for is their laws and their ways.

 

[jabeady]

Lol, I guess. I guess we had a misunderstanding. I don't hate you personally.

That's good to know.

There is no need to and the West hates Shariah, so what you are fighting for is their laws and their ways.

"The West" doesn't hate Shariah so much as it fears it. The image Shariah has is that of a code of laws characterized by strict intolerance, repression and brutality. It is also the impression of most here that Muslims are dedicated to imposing Shariah on the entire world by force.

From what I've learned here, even in Muslim - majority jurisdictions Shariah cannot be imposed on non-Muslims. Assuming that's true, I have absolutely no idea why Muslims apparently make no effort to publicize this fact. OTOH, it has long appeared to me that most Muslims really don't care how they're seen by the rest of the world, except to complain about how the world sees them. I see almost no interest in correcting the West's admittedly mistaken view.

The tragedy is that, Trump not withstanding, there are plenty of Westerners willing to listen. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands of non-Muslims volunteered to escort Muslims on shopping trips and such, just as one example.

 

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

That's good to know.

Well, I like you.

"The West" doesn't hate Shariah so much as it fears it.

I think that is definitely a big part of it. People often fear what they don't understand, and this has been happening since time immemorial (that is, fear of the unknown). So, nothing new in regards to the human nature fearing the unknown or that which is considered strange.

The image Shariah has is that of a code of laws characterized by strict intolerance, repression and brutality. It is also the impression of most here that Muslims are dedicated to imposing Shariah on the entire world by force.

From my study of shariah (Islamic law), granted I'm a layperson and not an Islamic scholar, is the complete antithesis of that. However, I can see how it can be interpreted that way when people have a very simplistic understanding of the matter.

From what I've learned here, even in Muslim - majority jurisdictions Shariah cannot be imposed on non-Muslims.

True.

Assuming that's true, I have absolutely no idea why Muslims apparently make no effort to publicize this fact.

Well, since for Muslims following shariah (Islamic law) mostly means dealing with marriage, divorce, funeral, hygiene, prayer, finances, etc., I think Muslims to be honest are generally quite perplexed as to why non-Muslims are quite fussed (when that should not be so) as there isn't anything about which to be concerned. Also, Muslims, especially in the U.S., are politically not organized to get their voices out and do not have a lobby. The closest Muslims have anything to speak for them is CAIR, which focuses specifically on civil liberty violations of American Muslims. Also, I think the issue is twofold: (1) Muslims do not have a lobbying platform in which they can unitedly be heard, and (2) the media and the public is also generally not giving mainstream Muslims a free space to say their piece.

OTOH, it has long appeared to me that most Muslims really don't care how they're seen by the rest of the world, except to complain about how the world sees them. I see almost no interest in correcting the West's admittedly mistaken view.

Yes, I have noticed that too. I think honest dialogue is important in the context of such discussions, and therefore I hope I do not get any flak for saying that I feel many Muslims have adopted a victim mentality from which they are unwilling or unable to budge. Now, in case someone wants to tell me differently here, let me amend that to say I'm not saying that Muslims in other parts of the world have not felt the imperialistic ambition of Western countries or that Muslims have not died elsewhere in the globe and unfairly due to a result of wars. However, I also think some Muslims would rather complain than be proactive and positive about making any difference in Western perception of Islam and Muslims.

The tragedy is that, Trump not withstanding, there are plenty of Westerners willing to listen. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, thousands of non-Muslims volunteered to escort Muslims on shopping trips and such, just as one example.

You said it! It's a tragedy that people are not willing to have those conversations even when there is a willing audience. That said, I do think that there's a rising far right in many Western countries, including the U.S., that sees Muslims increasingly as a problem because of how Islamophobia has now entered the mainstream public discourse and discussions on how evil Muslims or Islam is even considered a valid political talking point! This does need to change; however, like with any change, I hope people, Muslims and non-Muslim, realize that there is no magic wand to wave and make it happen. Sometimes, it starts with just one ordinary person, a person perhaps like Khirz Khan.

 

[jabeady]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)Well, I like you.

Oh, well thank you. [emoji5] I like you, too.

I think that is definitely a big part of it. People often fear what they don't understand, and this has been happening since time immemorial (that is, fear of the unknown). So, nothing new in regards to the human nature fearing the unknown or that which is considered strange.

As an illustration, I posted one of the news stories at the beginning of the thread about a female Muslim student in Chicago being roughed up by police, in an atheist forum; the following quote is the entire text from one of that forum's more even-handed replies.

Note that both here and in the other forum I have deleted any personally - identifiable information regarding the poster, and have omitted any identification of both forums. Additionally, in the other forum I quoted only the news article and nothing that originated on IB.

Finally, since the other forum is for atheists, there is at least in theory no religious bias (this guy hates everybody equally).

I will explain my view a little more eloquently and I will break it down into two sections that are in the victims claim.

1: Her right as a citizen and a human being.

Yes she should of been told to stop, she should of course been informed of the reasons and be asked to cooperate and of course the police need to give a legitimate reason as to why the stop happened.

No matter what, a strip search of course should be conducted fairly and humanely. If some 'lucifer effect' made the male cops powertrip and abuse their position of power and ogle and laugh at the woman of course they need to be punished and it needs to be investigated (Or maybe from the police perspective, covered up).

2: Claims of rights by an ironic, overpowering bullshit religion.

I'm sorry but again I find it ironic how somebody who covers themselves up, much beyond the hajib, because their religion does not trust them and that they wont tempt men by showing skin. An ideology that treats women as second class, where they can be 'owned' under polygamous marriage, can then bleat on about having 'rights' that in the western world, they have already given away through their religion and include it in a lawsuit.

I compare that to the christian who thanks god for curing their loved one of cancer, whilst not questioning the very same god for giving them cancer in the first place.

Its hipocritical, parodoxical and illogical.

The case should be about number 1, it should not include number 2.

But then again im biased as an atheist and see all religion as bullshit.....

 

[kritikvernunft]

Okay, see, nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with worship. National identity is a non-religious concept.

Every belief concerning law is a matter of religion. Pure monotheism claims that there is only one legitimate lawmaker, the singular God. Therefore, any belief claiming that the National State would be a legitimate lawmaker is a false, pagan belief. It has nothing to do with national identity. As a believer, you are certainly allowed to identify with a territorial polygon, but you are not allowed to claim that this territorial polygon would also be a legitimate lawmaker next to or above the singular God.

 

[cooterhein]

Every belief concerning law is a matter of religion. Pure monotheism claims that there is only one legitimate lawmaker, the singular God.

I (and the rest of the West) would argue that God's laws- although they're called laws- are not compulsory in the same sense that actual laws are compulsory, they should never be compulsory, and they were never intended to be compulsory by God when He was letting people know about these laws.

Religious laws are a thing. But there is no compulsion in religion, or so you say. But it's not what you really mean, because when I say God's laws are strictly optional- God's laws are opt in, or opt out, at will- God's laws cannot, or should not, ever be laws that anyone is forced to follow- you don't agree with any of that. People should always have the free choice to obey God's laws or not, in whatever capacity they understand God to have laws. They should not be enforced on a broad population in any compulsory way.

Now, this is where we differ, because I am not only arguing that God's laws should not be forced on people- they should not be compulsory- I am arguing that God Himself Never Wanted Them To Be That Way. Optional, non-forced, non-coerced adherence to God's laws was always Always ALWAYS the plan for these laws, and this idea that the laws of a particular religion- which claims that their laws came from God- should be the sole law of a country? Or of anyone? That is an aberration. That does not align with the plan that God had for His laws from the beginning. They were never supposed to be compulsory. There was never supposed to be compulsion in religion, and yes religious law has something to do with religion. Of course it does, it's right there, "religious" law. No, of course it's not supposed to be compulsory. My position does align with the plan God had for His laws all along, yours does not.

But you don't get that. You have an entirely different way of looking at it. You claim that there is no compulsion in religion, and yet you somehow think that God's laws were always supposed to be compulsory from the very beginning. You believe that God said "There is no compulsion in religion" out of one side of his mouth, then out of the other side he said "This religious law that I give you should be compulsory." And you believe that in every country where Islamic law is enForced on everyone, regardless of religion, they are carrying out the original plan that God always had and you dream of the day when the whole world is forced to follow Islamic law under pain of punishment as decided by Shariah courts.

You're wrong about all of that. God never wanted His laws to be compulsory. He never intended to force anyone to obey His commands, and He never appointed anyone to be law enforcement for God. God's laws were never supposed to be mandatory.

Now, there are other laws that are supposed to be mandatory. They're not God's laws, but people are forced to follow them. They get punished in some way if they don't. I got a parking ticket just recently, as one example. There was a time restriction on the parking space, I parked there on a Sunday when there was no fine attached to parking there but I didn't get to my car before 9 am on a Monday morning and so I found a ticket on the windshield when I got there. And so I payed the fine.

The reason I tell you about this is in order to drive this point home. Actual laws of cities and countries are not greater than God's laws. They are just different. I got a parking ticket, I paid the parking ticket, what does that have to do with God's laws? Has God ever been in the business of parking tickets? Has He ever left a ticket on someone's windshield? No sir, this is just a completely different thing. God is doing something when it comes to laws that are non-compulsory, and then there's a whole different legal code that is compulsory. There is some overlap, of course, but where it does overlap mostly deals with truly heinous crimes that are forbidden by God's law (which, as far as I'm aware, mostly specifies eternal consequences without very specific temporal ones) and they're also forbidden by, let's call it, Mandatory Law. Within a legal code that has very specific penalties, bail procedures, and ways in which legal recourse and review can be carried out. Legal systems, law enforcement, representation, ensuring that people are forced to obey His laws- all of these are things that God never even remotely did when it came to His laws, so even though God's laws are the greatest laws ever (as long as you properly know what His laws actually are, and respectfully, I don't trust Islam to show me that), there is no question at all that God never created an entire legal system or courts or any means of forcing people to obey His laws. People can obey them if they want to, in light of eternal consequences and their love for God, or they can choose not to do that and only follow the Mandatory Laws that are created by men. Yes they are created by men, and yes you must follow them because you're forced to.

But they aren't greater than God's laws, one set of laws simply happens to be mandatory (and a bit more broad, also totally unrelated in its content in many parts of the legal code) whereas God's laws are superior in quality, entirely non-compulsory, shouldn't ever be enforced by people who seek to compel obedience, and they are typically a bit more stringent and difficult to follow in their entirety. For many people of many different religions, one of the defining features of their religion is that they constantly breaks God's laws, and despite never being fined or sent to prison, they repent, seek forgiveness from God and not from a religious court, and they gradually get better at adhering to more and more of God's laws while helping other people do the same.

Yes God's law is superior. No it is not mandatory, and it was never supposed to be. That makes it different, it does not make it less good or inferior. The question of compulsion has absolutely no bearing on the good or bad qualities of laws, it's just another detail about them.

So with all that being said, there really is no compulsion in my understanding of religion, in that God's laws are non-compulsory and they were always meant to be non-compulsory. Now let me ask you something, and please be very clear and straightforward in your response. (I know you won't, but I'll ask you to anyway). Where do you stand on compulsion in your religion? Do you believe God's laws are or ought to be compulsory, or do you believe they are and ought to be understood as non-compulsory?

Please make sure you answer the question about compulsion in your religion. Do you understand God's laws, and the intent behind them, to be compulsory or non-compulsory? Please pick one. If you pick one, I will thank you for agreeing with me, if you pick the other I will nail you to the wall because of the massive contradiction that you are obviously guilty of.

Please, take your time. Choose wisely.

 

[kritikvernunft]

I (and the rest of the West) would argue that God's laws- although they're called laws- are not compulsory in the same sense that actual laws are compulsory. God's laws are strictly optional ... Actual laws of cities and countries are not greater than God's laws. They are just different.

Well, yeah. All laws are optional in a sense. However, that makes the laws that protect you from harm, also optional. Since it is Divine Law that prevents believers from arbitrarily killing you, if you give up Divine Law, in a sense, you also give up your rights under Divine Law. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law against believers who are hostile to them, they should expect that they will only fail to address their hostility. As you know, this is exactly what is happening around you. Some believers arbitrarily kill unbelievers. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law, the unbelievers have no recourse whatsoever against the believers who are hostile to them. You see, that is not my problem, because the believers are not hostile to me. It is only a problem that the unbelievers suffer, and not a problem that concerns me personally. In theory, I could possibly tell these unbeliever-hostile believers that I think that they are over the top. In practice, I don't, because I don't care. Seriously, it is not my problem.

... only follow the Mandatory Laws that are created by men. Yes they are created by men, and yes you must follow them because you're forced to ...

Well, the suicide bombers are also "forcing to". I do not see the one as better or worse than the other. Concerning the use of force, the unbelievers are now obviously sitting on a very serious problem. They increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of it. There is a growing price tag attached to enforcing man-made law. As you can imagine, it is not in my interest whatsoever to do anything about that price tag, because I do not really see it as a problem, since it is not me paying for it. In fact, if it is a problem, which is debatable, it is certainly not my problem.

Where do you stand on compulsion in your religion? Do you believe God's laws are or ought to be compulsory, or do you believe they are and ought to be understood as non-compulsory?

No. Divine Law is not compulsory. You will never be forced to accept its obligations nor to claim its rights. Furthermore, I have already argued that in practical terms, I do not believe that, unlike Divine Law, man-made law actually works. As far as I am concerning, I consider man-made law to be an "evolutionary dead end". Of course, it is not my job to try to prevent people like you from trying. You can see, however, that you are increasingly expected to prove that you are willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in. So, let the show go on. I am watching with amazement! ;-)

 

[cooterhein]

Well, yeah. All laws are optional in a sense.

Let me stop you right there. Typically, laws are very very not optional. You will face fines imprisonment or maybe even death as punishment for breaking them, That is what Makes them Not Optional. Punishment is forced on you when you break these laws, and that punishment is not optional. If you make the mistake of acting like it is, your situation snowballs and it gets worse and worse for you. If I could avoid paying parking tickets I certainly would, and I would park wherever I like. But parking tickets do happen, fines need to be paid or they lead to larger fines and a summons to court that really shouldn't be ignored, there is crime and there is punishment. That is how laws typically work, and they're not optional Specifically Because Of the Punishment. The only way you could possibly think that laws, which are enforced, are in-a-sense optional is if you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that a Punishment is forced upon you if you break these laws.

Bringing it back to the point at hand, God's law Is optional because there are not specific temporal punishments or penalties that are attached to it. No one enforces God's laws. Unless they do, and then I tell them they shouldn't be doing that, and get off me with that. It is the Punishment, or lack thereof, that makes laws mandatory or optional.

Do you understand?

However, that makes the laws that protect you from harm, also optional.

This is incredible. You managed to make a solid chunk of your post completely worthless with that awful premise in the first sentence.

Since it is Divine Law that prevents believers from arbitrarily killing you, if you give up Divine Law, in a sense, you also give up your rights under Divine Law.

I haven't given up Divine Law. And at the same time, I'm protected from being arbitrarily killed by Mandatory Law, the kind that is actually enforced, and that acts as a pretty effective deterrent whenever someone is feeling incredibly violent.

I did mention previously that there was some overlap between Mandatory Law and Divine Law, yes? I even said that it mostly applies to particularly heinous crimes. Arbitrary murder would be one of those crimes. Divine law condemns it without specifying exactly what sort of penalty should result, and Mandatory Law prohibits it while specifying specific types of punishment depending on circumstances, depending what country or state you're in, and depending on whether it's judged to be First Second or Third Degree Murder. Divine Law doesn't explicitly lay out anything that specific, but there it is in the legal code of Mandatory Law.

So in the actual reality that I live in every day, I haven't "given up" Divine Law and I'm not in any great danger of being killed at random either. It works out.

Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law against believers who are hostile to them, they should expect that they will only fail to address their hostility. As you know, this is exactly what is happening around you. Some believers arbitrarily kill unbelievers. Since the unbelievers refuse to invoke Divine Law, the unbelievers have no recourse whatsoever against the believers who are hostile to them. You see, that is not my problem, because the believers are not hostile to me. It is only a problem that the unbelievers suffer, and not a problem that concerns me personally. In theory, I could possibly tell these unbeliever-hostile believers that I think that they are over the top. In practice, I don't, because I don't care. Seriously, it is not my problem.

I don't have the first idea of exactly what you are trying to reference. A significant part of my confusion stems from how I know you're using the term "unbeliever" in a way that would be considered non-standard by almost anyone whether they're religious or non-religious, I just don't have any idea what "unbeliever" means to you when you're referencing the term.

Well, the suicide bombers are also "forcing to". I do not see the one as better or worse than the other. Concerning the use of force, the unbelievers are now obviously sitting on a very serious problem. They increasingly find themselves on the receiving end of it. There is a growing price tag attached to enforcing man-made law. As you can imagine, it is not in my interest whatsoever to do anything about that price tag, because I do not really see it as a problem, since it is not me paying for it. In fact, if it is a problem, which is debatable, it is certainly not my problem.

Now in this part of your response, I must admit, I suspect there is something that I could hope to understand and maybe even agree with. Up to a point at least. I'm still not sure what you mean by "unbeliever" though. There are a couple of really standard ways in which the term is typically used, and I just know you're not doing either of them.

No. Divine Law is not compulsory. You will never be forced to accept its obligations nor to claim its rights. Furthermore, I have already argued that in practical terms, I do not believe that, unlike Divine Law, man-made law actually works.

Thank you so much for clearly stating that Divine Law is not compulsory! I am incredibly relieved to see that you gave an actual answer to a straightforward question.

Now, I am curious about something. If Divine Law is not compulsory- if no one is forced to accept or follow it- and presumably, if no one is punished when it is broken- how exactly does Divine Law "work"? By what measure do you see that working? Especially, and this is important, since you're coming at this from an anti-Statist perspective in which you foresee a much better future without government, law enforcement, or Mandatory Laws as we now know them. What exactly is it that happens with Divine Law under this particular set of circumstances that would cause you to say "That's much better, this is working really well"? Please feel free to correct this premise if I got any part of it wrong, restate that as necessary. I am genuinely curious to know what you mean when you compare the two things and you say one works well and the other does not, I apologize if I didn't do the best job of leading you into a clarifying response but I am actually curious about this.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Let me stop you right there. Typically, laws are very very not optional. You will face fines imprisonment or maybe even death as punishment for breaking them, That is what Makes them Not Optional. Punishment is forced on you when you break these laws, and that punishment is not optional. If you make the mistake of acting like it is, your situation snowballs and it gets worse and worse for you.

Not necessarily. It depends on who exactly would win the shootout. We recently had a black veteran who killed 12 cops in Dallas. I think that he clearly won. The score was 12-1. Then, you have the suicide bombers who also often win, even though in my impression they may to an important extent pick the wrong adversary. Still, that is just a detail. The truck driver's score in Nice was 84-1, not counting the people who ended up in hospital in a terminal condition. There is a very simple way to redefine "winning" and "losing" in this game. Let's say that I have enough of your threats and that we are both going to leave. If I end up taking 10 000 with me, the score of the game will be 10 000-1, and I will obviously have won. You incorrectly assume that you are the one who would be defining the goal of the game. That is a totally wrong perception of the situation. What's more, both of us will be dead, but I will go to heaven, while you will go to hell.

That is how laws typically work, and they're not optional Specifically Because Of the Punishment.

Correction. That is not how the game works, but how you believe that the game works.

The only way you could possibly think that laws, which are enforced, are in-a-sense optional is if you conveniently choose to ignore the fact that a Punishment is forced upon you if you break these laws.

The laws that really matter are the ones that are in vigour when we are dead already. So, if I die and I take 500 people with me, who the hell cares about your man-made laws at the point? The only laws that matter from there on, are the ones of the singular God.

Bringing it back to the point at hand, God's law Is optional because there are not specific temporal punishments or penalties that are attached to it. No one enforces God's laws.

Of course there are penalties attached. Don't you see that there is a growing extermination fest being carried out amongst the unbelievers? They are increasingly dying like flies, while you and I know that all of that is not going to get better any time soon.

... since you're coming at this from an anti-Statist perspective in which you foresee a much better future without government, law enforcement, or Mandatory Laws as we now know them...

As you can see, government, law enforcement, man-made laws have simply run out of control. All of that will just get cut down to the very, very, very minimum. There may still be something like a State after that, but certainly not anything that can overrule Divine Law. I suspect that the Statists are just going keep dying like flies until the laws of nature will have reasserted themselves. You cannot stop the laws of nature, if only, because they reflect the will of the singular God.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you cooterhein;

I haven't given up Divine Law. And at the same time, I'm protected from being arbitrarily killed by Mandatory Law, the kind that is actually enforced, and that acts as a pretty effective deterrent whenever someone is feeling incredibly violent.

If you are murdered, then God can restore you to a greater good life after death. But we all have to answer to God for our own actions, we spend a few years on earth and an eternity with or without God. I fear God's judgement more than I fear the judgement of any court on earth.

In the spirit of praying to a just and merciful God,

Eric

 

[cooterhein]

Not necessarily. It depends on who exactly would win the shootout. We recently had a black veteran who killed 12 cops in Dallas. I think that he clearly won. The score was 12-1.

First, this does not help to prove any point that you've previously been arguing for. Laws are optional if you can break them and not experience any sort of temporal punishment. In every example that you've given, the people who were guilty of lawless action died almost immediately, if not sooner. If they hadn't died, they would have been imprisoned and then maybe killed. If your side of one person dies in your lawbreaking and you kill more than one person, it's rather twisted that you think of this as winning, but it doesn't make the laws governing your actions any more optional. You're still dead.

Second, I think you're underestimating the extent to which American police officers in most major cities are continuing to play this game, if that's what you want to call it. Tensions are rather high and people will continue to die, whoever kills any number of police officers will surely die and any officer who kills an unarmed black man will....probably not be indicted, I suppose we have to work on our judicial system as it applies to cops.

Then, you have the suicide bombers who also often win, even though in my impression they may to an important extent pick the wrong adversary. Still, that is just a detail. The truck driver's score in Nice was 84-1, not counting the people who ended up in hospital in a terminal condition.

None of these people won in the sense of successfully promoting any of their ideology, or in terms of changing laws or changing society to any of their preferences. I think you're overly focused on body counts, as if that is even the primary motivator and goal of these particular types of terror attacks. Every single thing that these terrorists wanted (apart from just killing people) is something you can put in the loss column. The caliphate isn't going to happen, and France continues to be dead set on a secular existence of a particular strand that is not terribly friendly to religion of any kind. And yes, these terrorists are very much dead, and their efforts did not create any safe spaces for terrorists or extremists. It made certain parts of the world decidedly less safe for terrorists and extremists.

There is a very simple way to redefine "winning" and "losing" in this game. Let's say that I have enough of your threats and that we are both going to leave.

The point that I made which led into this is that Regular, Actual Law, or what I've been calling Mandatory Law, is enforced. By force. People are forced to follow it, they are penalized sometimes quite heavily if they don't. And now you're talking about a redefinition of winning? As if that makes Mandatory Law any less mandatory? It doesn't do anything to push back against the point that I'm making, but if you want to think of a terrorist as a winner you're more than welcome to. Like I said though, it's not a particularly direct rebuttal to any of the points that I've been making, and I can only assume that you're going in this direction because some part of you enjoys thinking of terrorists as the winners in some odd fashion.

If I end up taking 10 000 with me, the score of the game will be 10 000-1, and I will obviously have won. You incorrectly assume that you are the one who would be defining the goal of the game. That is a totally wrong perception of the situation. What's more, both of us will be dead, but I will go to heaven, while you will go to hell.

It seems you have thought about this in some detail, and by the way I would actually go to heaven because I'm a Christian, saved for all eternity by Jesus Christ while being indwelt and reborn by the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit. I hope you don't begrudge that belief to me, I also hope that you're coming at this with a "game theory" sort of mentality. It is important to clarify that, given the circumstances under which we are communicating. It's almost exactly like communicating sarcasm via the Internet- it doesn't always come across clearly and immediately, so clarification is sometimes a helpful thing.

Correction. That is not how the game works, but how you believe that the game works.

I'm not choosing to frame this as a game with winners and losers, I'm simply describing how crime and punishment works vis a vis the "mandatory" label that I am putting on a regular, everyday legal system. Identifying a winner and a loser is not the issue, distinguishing the mandatory from the optional is the whole point of this, and calling someone a winner or a loser in any of a wide variety of situations is not super relevant to this distinction. I will admit that I do have an aversion to the idea of calling any terrorist a winner, and I probably have a tendency to disagree with the assertion that any dead terrorist has been able to win anything. But the main thing I want to say is that this is all rather discursive.

The laws that really matter are the ones that are in vigour when we are dead already. So, if I die and I take 500 people with me, who the hell cares about your man-made laws at the point? The only laws that matter from there on, are the ones of the singular God.

Well, yes, I have at several points specified that Mandatory Laws deal in temporal punishments, which as I'm sure you know references consequences that we experience in life, before death. I would most likely describe this as a situation in which Mandatory Law applies its consequences and punishments to offenders right up until the point of death, sometimes capital punishment even takes people over the line, and then Divine Law kicks in. In the example of a terrorist, I would argue that Divine Law is very unkind to this person, and I would further argue that terrorists have a very poor understanding of Divine Law. They think that when they murder innocent civilians, especially during Ramadan, they will be rewarded with paradise and sexual goodies. But they won't, because they're completely wrong any won't listen to anyone who disagrees with them.

Do you share this confidence, in the justice of Divine Law after death in the example of these terrorists that you've brought up? Do you share my confidence in the punishment that awaits them, or do you still want to say they are the winners? In their own self-appropriated game theory, of course they are the winners who will have 72 virgins, or perhaps 70 virgins and two young boys, if they're into that. But what do you really think? Under Divine Law, specifically after they have died, do you really think that terrorists really discover that they are winners in the eyes of God?

Of course there are penalties attached. Don't you see that there is a growing extermination fest being carried out amongst the unbelievers? They are increasingly dying like flies, while you and I know that all of that is not going to get better any time soon.

Still not exactly sure what you mean by "unbelievers." It throws me every time you use the word.

As you can see, government, law enforcement, man-made laws have simply run out of control. All of that will just get cut down to the very, very, very minimum. There may still be something like a State after that, but certainly not anything that can overrule Divine Law. I suspect that the Statists are just going keep dying like flies until the laws of nature will have reasserted themselves. You cannot stop the laws of nature, if only, because they reflect the will of the singular God.

I was hoping I would find out exactly how the "will of the singular God" asserts itself in the lives of people who are still, you know, alive. You've already told me these laws are optional, that no one should be compelled to follow them by force (although there are some Muslim countries that enforce Shariah law on their whole population, which they equate with Divine Law and with the will of the singular God, although I would disagree with that in principle and even if I didn't, I would vehemently disagree with any such enforcement in practice). With all of that being said....I was hoping to find out one main thing from you, and I guess I didn't.

 

[kritikvernunft]

... the people who were guilty of lawless action died almost immediately ...

In terms of man-made law, their action may have been lawless, but since they are dead, only Divine Law matters now. It is not simple to determine the status of their action in terms of Divine Law. Some people say that they broke it. Other people say that they are martyrs and will be admitted into paradise on the spot.

... You're still dead ...

What if dying does not matter? In order to take the matter before the singular God, you can die along with your enemies, and then it is the singular God who will have the last word over what happened. Trying to stay alive at any cost, looks like a silly ambition to me. We are going to die anyway. Why not die in glory and in beauty, head up high?

... None of these people won in the sense of successfully promoting any of their ideology ...

Not sure about that. Lots of people feel gleefully vindicated! ;-)

...The caliphate isn't going to happen...

Well, it's there already. What you probably mean, is that it will not last and disappear again. Possibly.
I am anti-Statist. Hence, I cannot consider to be legitimate the ambition to create yet another National State.
I would only be ok with the idea that the clergy buys a slave in order to make him the Sultan and give him a bunch of unruly slave girls. So, no problem with me if they just want to reopen the Porte Sublime in Istanbul! ;-)

And yes, these terrorists are very much dead, and their efforts did not create any safe spaces for terrorists or extremists. It made certain parts of the world decidedly less safe for terrorists and extremists.

You would still have to know who they are. That is where the surprise always comes. This time it was the boy working in the bakery!

The point that I made which led into this is that Regular, Actual Law, or what I've been calling Mandatory Law, is enforced. By force.

If you live by the sword, you must also agree to die by the sword.
Is MAN-MADE LAW worth dying for?
Not sure at all, because it will do nothing for you, after you will be dead already. Only Divine Law will matter then.
Furthermore, your participation in MAN-MADE LAW will be held against you after you die, because in your lifetime, you will have appointed something next to or above the singular God. You will be guilty of paganism.

People are forced to follow it, they are penalized sometimes quite heavily if they don't.

Yes, and that could have a chilling effect. Therefore, it was really important that the Dallas black veteran shot 12 cops, killing 5, and that the Baton Rouge black veteran shot 7 killing 4.
People would need to do that much more often. You see, all you need is dump of the personnel records by hacking the computers that store them. From there, you would have all the home addresses of all policemen in the country. The next step would be utterly trivial, because you can just have small groups of executioners visiting them one by one, and unceremoniously kill them on the spot. In fact, the willingness to fund this kind of operations, also exists. In the US, you could easily collect a few million dollars for this operation, in bitcoin, just from the black population. That would be more than enough to kill, say 10% of all policemen over the next year. You can reasonably expect at least 50% to resign, because they would obviously understand that they are just sitting ducks.

Hence, with a budget of less than 0.5% of the yearly appropriations to maintain a police force, you can pretty much completely annihilate it. The main problem is that someone has got to do it, and get out of his lazy chair, to start rolling it out. It would be insanely profitable. Seriously, you can make truck loads of money by transforming the willingness to pay to kill the police into an instrument that actually does it. It is not even really dangerous to do it, because how would the police shut down that kind of system? The tor network is full of them already. If they could shut them down, they would, wouldn't they? Maybe some day, I should just set it up! ;-)

The National State stores too much information about itself, that you can use to smoothly destroy it. The National State is incredibly vulnerable. It is really not hard to hack your way through life and get a dump of all home addresses of policemen, and since we are at it, of all army men too. You see, on paper it was possible to create Facebook or Google. That does not mean that it happened right away. Someone still had to actually do it. So, one day someone will indeed monetize on this business model, make truck loads of money, and delight his satisfied customers! ;-)

And now you're talking about a redefinition of winning? As if that makes Mandatory Law any less mandatory? It doesn't do anything to push back against the point that I'm making, but if you want to think of a terrorist as a winner you're more than welcome to. Like I said though, it's not a particularly direct rebuttal to any of the points that I've been making, and I can only assume that you're going in this direction because some part of you enjoys thinking of terrorists as the winners in some odd fashion.

Well, I do not particularly agree with their choice of target. They do not lose because they would not have managed to kill a lot of people, as they desired and planned to do, but because I personally feel that they are picking the wrong targets. Suicide bombing the general population is possibly a questionable practice. There is a legitimacy problem attached to doing that. But then again, I do not see it as my personal job to dissuade them from doing that. As I said before, it is essentially not my problem. I really do not care. It suits me fine that they are possibly misguided, because in the end, what they do, is their own responsibility, and not mine.

I'm simply describing how crime and punishment works vis a vis the "mandatory" label that I am putting on a regular, everyday legal system.

In terms of technology, the National State is an evolutionary dead end. It is so easy to knock it out, that I cannot imagine that someone would not do it one day. So, it is pretty much inevitable that the National State will be annihilated, just as it was inevitable that someone would understand that it was possible to set up something like Google or Facebook. There is simply too much money in doing that. There are simply too many people who would pay for it. That is also the reason why I feel that I would not need to do it. I could as well wait until someone else does it! ;-)

I will admit that I do have an aversion to the idea of calling any terrorist a winner ...

Well, the black veterans are winners, because they obviously picked the right target. Their behaviour was 100% justified in terms of the Qisas. Furthermore, the head count clearly say that they won (12-1 and 7-1). At the basis, the Muslim suicide bombers may have a much more noble motivation, i.e. their faith in the singular God, but by targeting the general population -- no matter how pagan it may be -- they are raining on their own parade. But then again, it is not my job to try to convince them of this. I would be saying things that sound too much like what National Statists would say, and I do not like that too much.

I would most likely describe this as a situation in which Mandatory Law applies its consequences and punishments to offenders right up until the point of death, sometimes capital punishment even takes people over the line, and then Divine Law kicks in.

Well, I do not care about MAN-MADE LAW, and I never will. People in technology generally feel that they are much more dangerous to the National State than the other way around. What the National State could do, is bad, but what we could do, is several orders of magnitude worse. Just to give you an example. What if we hacked their systems (that we actually built for them) and sent the GPS coordinates of the whereabouts of their army operatives and soldiers in real time to their enemies? How long would they survive that? We are very capable of doing that, while they are totally and utterly incapable of defending against that. Therefore, the National State does not impress me at all.

They think that when they murder innocent civilians, especially during Ramadan, they will be rewarded with paradise and sexual goodies. But they won't, because they're completely wrong any won't listen to anyone who disagrees with them.

Well, I may have negative opinions of my own on these matters, but seriously, I do not see any value in explaining this to them. It does not cost me anything to shut up, while advocating against what they are doing, could actually be counterproductive. It would free resources at the National States that are now committed to combating these people. We do not want to see these resources re-assigned to something else, because we don't know what they would be re-assigned to. You cannot deny that they still have some merit by tying up the National State's security departments in a hopeless fight. Hence, they are not completely useless.

Do you share this confidence, in the justice of Divine Law after death in the example of these terrorists that you've brought up? Do you share my confidence in the punishment that awaits them, or do you still want to say they are the winners?

Well, my own personal opinion is that it is not a particularly winning proposition to target and attack the general population. Still, I do not publicize this opinion. I do not insist on it. I am utterly inefficient in getting that point across, and I want to keep it that way, because that suits me absolutely fine.