This is for Allah ----- stupid!

[suncowiam]

Neither are manic secular xenophobes. Therefore?

I knew you would bring up a similar example as justification. Two wrongs make a right I suppose.

To be fair, I don't think the author is manic or a xenophobe. I would agree that less manic xenophobe anything would be better for the world.

Again, I have to ask as it's related to the OP and your previous post, how does the religious process prevent future extremists.

 

[leibowde84]

For the same reason an historical imperative would require the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That makes no sense. God is not limited in the same way that history and people are, so what do you mean?

 

[corynski]

"This is for Allah." That's what was heard by the attackers at London Bridge and the market.
........
I am led, always and inexorably, to the conclusion that there are only two possible explanations for this kind of thinking: either such religious beliefs create palpable stupidity through rabid rejection of reason, or such religious beliefs are the ultimate result of an already existing, incurable, stupidity.

Yes, but there is a rational explanation..... and that is that we are all lied to from birth, by our parents, by our teachers and by our preachers. All of these people want us to believe as they do, as everyone, the entire group, stands to gain if we do. It's a cultural phenomena, it's the glue that holds a group together, common beliefs, and especially religious beliefs because they are irrational and unique. One's beliefs absolutely identified one as a group member. Remember, our evolution was in small groups for hundreds of thousands of years, and each group created its own gods and goddesses..... and all of it identified each member of a tribe or group. It's a rejection of reason, but for a unifying purpose. And there was no science, no 'evidence' for those thousands of years, so just imagine how little they knew compared with what we know now..... Yes, religious beliefs are irrational, but ostracism from the group was very painful and likely avoided. Group identity is thus valued more highly than the truth itself seems to be the result. And apparently only about 1 in 10 people find individualism rewarding and satisfying enough to search for the truth, whatever it may be.......

 

[Twilight Hue]

"This is for Allah." That's what was heard by the attackers at London Bridge and the market.

This, from people who presumably believe what Islam teaches: what Allah wills happens. If Allah wished for a girl from Canada, who moved to London to be with her fiancé, to be dead, why then, Allan's wish would be fact -- she would be dead. What kind of demented, irrational, non-thinking doofus imagines that the all-powerful creator of the universe needs his help to get the job done?

I am led, always and inexorably, to the conclusion that there are only two possible explanations for this kind of thinking: either such religious beliefs create palpable stupidity through rabid rejection of reason, or such religious beliefs are the ultimate result of an already existing, incurable, stupidity.

Pretty pathetic statement made when people demonstrate so well that their God is so helpless and hopelessly incapable to the point that they instead, feel compiled to do everything themselves on their God's "behalf".

Dosent say much other than the fact that there are some pretty stupid and psychopathic people running around with serious delusions that what they do, actually has worth and meaning to them and the sock puppet God they serve.

 

[Grumpuss]

Anybody remember when the Debate Forums were used for, you know, debates ?

Too many eggshells?

 

[David1967]

How do you explain this ludicrous way of thinking? Why would God need help in killing people?

I consider myself a relatively religious person and I agree with you here. God is a big boy. If he wanted someone dead I seriously doubt he would need to have a human do the dirty work. Can you imagine God saying something to the effect of "Hey, I've decided I dont like that person. Could you help me out and kill them? And BTW, tell everyone you did it for me, the creator of everything. " Ridiculous.

 

[Kemosloby]

You would say the same thing if you were trying to frame Islam. Scream this is for Allah, blow something up, then go get your check from the conspirators.

 

[LukeS]

Was discussing "bismillah" (in the name of Allah) over the last couple of days. IMO name is meant to also imply reputation etc.

So doing something in the name of Allah who has "al asma al husna" or 99 good/beautiful names, implies honouring that name.

You cant consistently say "bismillah" drink a beer, etc. because that would dishonour the good name.

Theres a prayer "a uzu be kallimatallah at tamai min sharri ma kalaq" (seeking refuge in the perfect word of Allah from the evil aspect of creation). IMO Its not a magic formula, as some think, you have to actually do what you say otherwise faith doesn't pass the lips.

I'm not being holier than thou, btw.

 

[Ponder This]

What kind of demented, irrational, non-thinking doofus imagines that the all-powerful creator of the universe needs his help to get the job done?

I'm not sure. I mean, I'm pretty sure the bread isn't going to bake itself this morning, but I'm not sure that means God didn't want the bread baked.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I knew you would bring up a similar example as justification. Two wrongs make a right I suppose.

That is not at all what the statement is intended to suggest. Rather, if the overwhelming majority of religious and secular/socialist citizens reject terrorism, one either (a) recognizes that terrorism is not a necessary characteristic or consequence of either, or (b) ends up appealing to some variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

"Islamic" terror is no more characteristic of Islam than "scientific" socialist terror is characteristic of science.

 

[Notanumber]

"Islamic" terror is no more characteristic of Islam than "scientific" socialist terror is characteristic of science.

It is however, undeniably and fundamentally, what Islam is based upon.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is however, undeniably and fundamentally, what Islam is based upon.

And those Muslims who reject terror are either not true Muslims or fools? Thanks for proving my point, the obvious corollary being: bigotry plays havoc with reason.

 

[Notanumber]

We have to wonder what was Muhammad if he was not a terrorist.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not sure. I mean, I'm pretty sure the bread isn't going to bake itself this morning, but I'm not sure that means God didn't want the bread baked.

It means God can't even bake bread is what it means. Whether He is there or not... He can't bake bread. Nor can He kill anyone. Nor can He speak, nor appear, nor fix a car, nor provide food for the starving... one thing is for sure though, He apparently can't keep His big, preposterous nose out of other people's business, and is constantly asking His followers to make their nose His nose.

 

[Akivah]

That is not at all what the statement is intended to suggest. Rather, if the overwhelming majority of religious and secular/socialist citizens reject terrorism, one either (a) recognizes that terrorism is not a necessary characteristic or consequence of either, or (b) ends up appealing to some variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your statement about 'overwhelming majority' is misleading. Opinion polls among Muslims about the justification of terrorism differ by country.

Muslim attitudes toward terrorism - Wikipedia

In a poll by NOP Research, almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 terrorism attacks on London were justified.

In a 2007 Pew Research poll to Muslims in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified:

(36 vs 64) 64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

versus

(55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.

So France has a large minority believing terrorism is fine and Egypt has a majority believing that. No matter your spin, a significant portion of Muslims support terrorism.

 

[leibowde84]

You would say the same thing if you were trying to frame Islam. Scream this is for Allah, blow something up, then go get your check from the conspirators.

What evidence is there that this was a frame job?

 

[FearGod]

"This is for Allah." That's what was heard by the attackers at London Bridge and the market.

This, from people who presumably believe what Islam teaches: what Allah wills happens. If Allah wished for a girl from Canada, who moved to London to be with her fiancé, to be dead, why then, Allan's wish would be fact -- she would be dead. What kind of demented, irrational, non-thinking doofus imagines that the all-powerful creator of the universe needs his help to get the job done?

I am led, always and inexorably, to the conclusion that there are only two possible explanations for this kind of thinking: either such religious beliefs create palpable stupidity through rabid rejection of reason, or such religious beliefs are the ultimate result of an already existing, incurable, stupidity.

I think it's people stupidity and not religion, all wars are done due to people's stupidity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(55 vs 45) 45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.

And you, do you believe that "it could never be justified"?

Shall we chat about the sicarii? ... the irgun? ... the lehi?​

 

[viole]

I consider myself a relatively religious person and I agree with you here. God is a big boy. If he wanted someone dead I seriously doubt he would need to have a human do the dirty work. Can you imagine God saying something to the effect of "Hey, I've decided I dont like that person. Could you help me out and kill them? And BTW, tell everyone you did it for me, the creator of everything. " Ridiculous.

Does God disapprove gay marriages? I ask, because it appears some humans believers are trying to lobby against that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[suncowiam]

That is not at all what the statement is intended to suggest. Rather, if the overwhelming majority of religious and secular/socialist citizens reject terrorism, one either (a) recognizes that terrorism is not a necessary characteristic or consequence of either, or (b) ends up appealing to some variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

"Islamic" terror is no more characteristic of Islam than "scientific" socialist terror is characteristic of science.

I have to disagree.

I'll just put this simply by going straight to the issue.

There are phrases in the Quran that can be translated to be violence against enemies. Until that is fixed and universally accepted to no longer reflect violence, then no longer can this specific religion be endorsed for violent acts. Those that believe this can continue to preach this translation through word of mouth.

For what its worth, I value freedom of expression first and foremost. I defend Muslims and immigrants in many discussions. However, we're not going to fix terrorism from extremists without highlighting the root cause of it.