University professor hacked to death in Bangladesh

[ddavidovsky]

"Religion of peace"

Few people understand what that phrase, according to its derivation, really means, which is "the religion of security (for its adherents)". Anyone who threatens the solidarity of the group (such as atheists and the free-thinking west in general) threatens the security of the group and must be done away with.

Where did you get that information/translation? Can you read Arabic?

I have a general thesis that 'security' governs a large part of human nature. Applying that to this case, it seemed clear to me that the 'peace' referred to was from the perspective of the group in question and derived from the security provided by adherence to the group. I rummaged around just a little and found this from an article by Mark Durie, which certainly supports that view:

"While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, and Islam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.

The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.

Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’…."

Btw, I was writing carelessly in my original post. When I said 'must be done away with' I didn't mean that physical eradication was the official response, only that we shouldn't be surprised that certain radical elements would arrive at that brutal expedient.

[mesterm]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1461418616.825660.jpg

Yes it does. If there were no religious scriptures (fairytales) to follow, or if they were discarded as irrelevant and outdated by an evolved human mind, there would be no ridiculous justifications for such actions.

Sure, there are non-religious killings. But they are harder to justify or find mass support for than religious ones.

"God told me to do it."

Non-religious killings are harder to justify? Really? How so?

Please review the history of Gengis Khan, Nazism, Stalinism, communist China under Mao, and racist genocide in Rwanda. Please estimate the total millions massacred.

Then, please amplify your statement.

Those were politically motivated killings that were supported by people at/around that time. There is still a lot more support for religious killings (specifically Muslim) today than there is for the Nazi holocaust or Stalin's murders, for example.

[mesterm]

"Religion of peace"

Few people understand what that phrase, according to its derivation, really means, which is "the religion of security (for its adherents)". Anyone who threatens the solidarity of the group (such as atheists and the free-thinking west in general) threatens the security of the group and must be done away with.

Where did you get that information/translation? Can you read Arabic?

I have a general thesis that 'security' governs a large part of human nature. Applying that to this case, it seemed clear to me that the 'peace' referred to was from the perspective of the group in question and derived from the security provided by adherence to the group. I rummaged around just a little and found this from an article by Mark Durie, which certainly supports that view:

"While there is a link in Arabic between salam, a word often translated ‘peace’, and Islam, the real connection is found in the idea of safety.

The word Islam is based upon a military metaphor. Derived from aslama ‘surrender’ its primary meaning is to make oneself safe (salama) through surrender. In its original meaning, a muslim was someone who surrendered in warfare.

Thus Islam did not stand for the absence of war, but for one of its intended outcomes: surrender leading to the ‘safety’ of captivity. It was Muhammad himself who said to his non-Muslim neighbors aslim taslam ‘surrender (i.e. convert to Islam) and you will be safe’…."

Btw, I was writing carelessly in my original post. When I said 'must be done away with' I didn't mean that physical eradication was the official response, only that we shouldn't be surprised that certain radical elements would arrive at that brutal expedient.

Is Mark Durie the only person who written on the lines of this translation? And are the only people who have written about it Westerners or non-Muslims?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if this was legitimate.

Edited April 26, 2016 by mesterm

[Fookhaht]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1461418616.825660.jpg

Yes it does. If there were no religious scriptures (fairytales) to follow, or if they were discarded as irrelevant and outdated by an evolved human mind, there would be no ridiculous justifications for such actions.

Sure, there are non-religious killings. But they are harder to justify or find mass support for than religious ones.

"God told me to do it."

Non-religious killings are harder to justify? Really? How so?

Please review the history of Gengis Khan, Nazism, Stalinism, communist China under Mao, and racist genocide in Rwanda. Please estimate the total millions massacred.

Then, please amplify your statement.

Those were politically motivated killings that were supported by people at/around that time. There is still a lot more support for religious killings (specifically Muslim) today than there is for the Nazi holocaust or Stalin's murders, for example.

Oh, NOW you narrow down your argument: "today." No fair changing the rules.

So you think the non-religious motivations for killing are a thing of the past?

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge were 20 years ago. A mere blip ago in time compared to mankind's entire murderous history, wouldn't you say?

I think I detect an anti-religious bias.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Fookhaht

[SheungWan]

"Religion of peace"

Few people understand what that phrase, according to its derivation, really means, which is "the religion of security (for its adherents)". Anyone who threatens the solidarity of the group (such as atheists and the free-thinking west in general) threatens the security of the group and must be done away with.

To combat these assassinations it is necessary first to address why Islam feels so insecure. Tension breeds insecurity which breeds (self-protective) violence in a vicious cycle. It is therefore necessary to reduce tension, and as always, it should be the stronger side to do that first.

The root of the problem seems to be traceable to the emergence of Israel (combined with the recent globalisation of information). The first step to alleviating the problem is therefore rapid recognition of a Palestinian state. That would give some pride back to Muslims in general and make them feel less threatened, significantly reducing global tension.

I am available for the position of Secretary-General of the UN.

There is always someone who wants to slip in their pet hobby-horse. Don't give up the day job.

[SheungWan]

"Religion of peace"

There is no evidence it was done by muslims. Did Christians or Scientologists never kill anybody before? It feels so wrong to write that even though it is so PC. Yuck.

'There is no evidence.....' if you stick your head in the sand. Two days prior, Islamic State claimed responsibility for the similar murder of a professor of English literature.

[mesterm]

Please review the history of Gengis Khan, Nazism, Stalinism, communist China under Mao, and racist genocide in Rwanda. Please estimate the total millions massacred.

Then, please amplify your statement.

Those were politically motivated killings that were supported by people at/around that time. There is still a lot more support for religious killings (specifically Muslim) today than there is for the Nazi holocaust or Stalin's murders, for example.

Oh, NOW you narrow down your argument: "today." No fair changing the rules.

So you think the non-religious motivations for killing are a thing of the past?

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge were 20 years ago. A mere blip ago in time compared to mankind's entire murderous history, wouldn't you say?

I think I detect an anti-religious bias.

20 years ago yes, and how many people support those massacres today?

And sorry I left out one word and that it got you so agitated. Are you religious? Religious people are usually very sensitive.

[Fookhaht]

Please review the history of Gengis Khan, Nazism, Stalinism, communist China under Mao, and racist genocide in Rwanda. Please estimate the total millions massacred.

Then, please amplify your statement.

Those were politically motivated killings that were supported by people at/around that time. There is still a lot more support for religious killings (specifically Muslim) today than there is for the Nazi holocaust or Stalin's murders, for example.

Oh, NOW you narrow down your argument: "today." No fair changing the rules.

So you think the non-religious motivations for killing are a thing of the past?

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge were 20 years ago. A mere blip ago in time compared to mankind's entire murderous history, wouldn't you say?

I think I detect an anti-religious bias.

20 years ago yes, and how many people support those massacres today?

And sorry I left out one word and that it got you so agitated. Are you religious? Religious people are usually very sensitive.

How many people will support non-religious massacres in the near future? We only have a 20-year lull, here. Sorry, history runs against your argument.

Yes, an argument can certainly turn on a dime with one word. Especially when you use that word to define the timeframe of a discussion.

Are you anti-religious? Usually religion bashers are quite combative.

[mesterm]

Oh, NOW you narrow down your argument: "today." No fair changing the rules.

So you think the non-religious motivations for killing are a thing of the past?

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge were 20 years ago. A mere blip ago in time compared to mankind's entire murderous history, wouldn't you say?

I think I detect an anti-religious bias.

20 years ago yes, and how many people support those massacres today?

And sorry I left out one word and that it got you so agitated. Are you religious? Religious people are usually very sensitive.

How many people will support non-religious massacres in the near future? We only have a 20-year lull, here. Sorry, history runs against your argument.

Yes, an argument can certainly turn on a dime with one word. Especially when you use that word to define the timeframe of a discussion.

Are you anti-religious? Usually religion bashers are quite combative.

Get with the times and try being more honest with yourself.

Anyway I think the most prolific combatants these days are from religious groups, so...

[Fookhaht]

Oh, NOW you narrow down your argument: "today." No fair changing the rules.

So you think the non-religious motivations for killing are a thing of the past?

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge were 20 years ago. A mere blip ago in time compared to mankind's entire murderous history, wouldn't you say?

I think I detect an anti-religious bias.

20 years ago yes, and how many people support those massacres today?

And sorry I left out one word and that it got you so agitated. Are you religious? Religious people are usually very sensitive.

How many people will support non-religious massacres in the near future? We only have a 20-year lull, here. Sorry, history runs against your argument.

Yes, an argument can certainly turn on a dime with one word. Especially when you use that word to define the timeframe of a discussion.

Are you anti-religious? Usually religion bashers are quite combative.

Get with the times and try being more honest with yourself.

Anyway I think the most prolific combatants these days are from religious groups, so...

You disprove your own assertion.