Is Islam A Death Cult?

[Anomalocaris]

War economy institutions and employees are destined to fail in front of an army fighting for a "cause".
Money is finite unlike "an idea"; compare early Muslims that fought for the idea of God to the "Roman soldiers" or "Persian soldiers" who were fighting for money alone.

Money is finite and institutions that promise it will stop giving it once the contract is over. That's the catch.

BTW don't think that Islamist terrorists are out of the war economy circle: they too fight for cash.

The Roman army started to collapse when it started hiring German mercenaries in return for money. Machiavelli is also very critical of mercenary troops. Since you can’t really rely on volunteers to go and die on the battlefield, conscription seems to be the best method because it teaches you a lot when you are a young individual.
 
And reminder: I’m an advocate of peace. There are no two democratic nations who went to war with each other up to this day. So war fare is murder. No to War / Peace V

what did in the imperial roman army in wasn’t mercenaries,  but a system of imperial succession that always overtly or tacitly required backing by military force.    consequently the soldiers found the upside in being instrumental in enthroning the winning contestant for the crown far outweigh the down side in losing the bid to enthrone their rival emperor.    So the army gradually degenerated into a cadre force for forming conscript mob forces to fight civil wars.

[WinterHold]

Dying for the cause of God is the highest honour a Muslim can get.
The question is: what ranks up as a death in "God's cause"?

Martyrdom = death in battle for God, death while sacrificing for God.


So if God despises your act (like causing the death of innocents -even innocent non-believers-, causing corruption on the land...etcetera)  you can't claim it is death for God. God might throw you in hell instead for the sin you caused.

BTW, all countries claim they have the true "meaning of martyrdom". I know lots of Americans who threw themselves in the crematoria of Iraq and Afghanistan to be "martyrs for the USA".

I don’t agree with that thought. İf it is so, How about a child who is fighting Leukemia? Many of them are fighting more than the soldiers in Ukraine? So how can this be sacred?
 
As I said. This idea goes back to the Greek. İt’s called “eu teleuein” (to end one’s life well). It’s a social phenomenon that means you are giving up your life for the benefit of society as a whole. So it’s a military / social principle and the Koran seems to support that principle. That’s all. (those guys you are referring to are simply schizophrenic – That’s how I see it)

A battle is a battle; either it is in a hospital bed or against soldiers. 
A sick child under attack from Cancer or Lukimea is the same as a child under attack from human soldiers.

[WinterHold]

War economy institutions and employees are destined to fail in front of an army fighting for a "cause".
Money is finite unlike "an idea"; compare early Muslims that fought for the idea of God to the "Roman soldiers" or "Persian soldiers" who were fighting for money alone.

Money is finite and institutions that promise it will stop giving it once the contract is over. That's the catch.

BTW don't think that Islamist terrorists are out of the war economy circle: they too fight for cash.

The Roman army started to collapse when it started hiring German mercenaries in return for money. Machiavelli is also very critical of mercenary troops. Since you can’t really rely on volunteers to go and die on the battlefield, conscription seems to be the best method because it teaches you a lot when you are a young individual.
 
And reminder: I’m an advocate of peace. There are no two democratic nations who went to war with each other up to this day. So war fare is murder. No to War / Peace V

Loyalty is the key in so many things. Mercenaries have no loyalty but to cash, once cash runs out they run out too.
When money is good; democratic regimes thrive, but let them taste poverty for long years; eventually they'll invade others to take their food, just like the ancient Sea People.

[The Architect Of Fate]

"Roman soldiers" or "Persian soldiers" who were fighting for money alone.

Please tell me you understand about ancient history without telling me you know nothing about ancient history 

[Ferrocyanide]

In the Quran and hadith, martyrs are first and foremost those who have died in jihad, “fighting in the path of God,” those who have perished violently in battle.

Certainly, death in battle is not the only way to achieve martyrdom in Islam. Those who die unjustly or whose lives are truncated by some act of God are martyrs as well. Someone who is killed for their money, someone who drowns, someone who dies building a mosque or in a structural collapse, a woman who dies in childbirth, the victims of a plague, someone who is killed defending their family, someone who is killed for speaking truth to an unjust ruler, who dies in prison or who stands alone for truth in corrupted times; even (according to one hadith) someone who falls in love and represses their desire with fatal consequences—all these are martyrs.

Source: (https://tinyurl.com/3xtv3b39)

In the article he goes on to take a very erudite and western interpretation of the Quran and the meaning of Duty.

"What if Muslims restored this idea of ‘bearing witness’ to the word martyrdom? What if we thought of martyrdom as bearing witness by being willing to die in the name of that God Who tells us that saving one life is like saving all of humanity, that standing up to injustice is the highest act of faith, that feeding the stranger and the orphan, and sheltering the wayfarer are the solemn duties of every individual? The Quran (41:33) tells us, “What better word is there than calling out to God, doing a good deed and saying, Indeed I am one of those who submits to God.”"

Dying for the cause of God is the highest honour a Muslim can get.
The question is: what ranks up as a death in "God's cause"?

Martyrdom = death in battle for God, death while sacrificing for God.


So if God despises your act (like causing the death of innocents -even innocent non-believers-, causing corruption on the land...etcetera)  you can't claim it is death for God. God might throw you in hell instead for the sin you caused.

BTW, all countries claim they have the true "meaning of martyrdom". I know lots of Americans who threw themselves in the crematoria of Iraq and Afghanistan to be "martyrs for the USA".

Well, obviously in the islamic faith, dying for Islam is a high honor. The leaders want strongly devoted followers.
It is the same in christianity.

It isn't just the united statians that didn't like what the taliban and Al-quada was doing.
One of the issues is that they don't allow women to get an education.
But that isn't the primary reason why they went to Afghanistan. The primary reason is that Al-quada payed a visit to the USA and decided to randomly kill people. They also conducted attacks in other countries.
Since they are taking away lives, it makes sense to take away their (Taliban) lives.

The only problem is that all wars come down to resources. The USA and allies do not have the resources to kill all of Taliban or Al-quada.
It costs too much.
Also, they wanted Afghanistan to self govern and to handle the taliban. Looks like that didn't happen.
Looks like the taliban has a large population and lots of weapons.
Probably another factor is the Russia-USA problem that has been going on for 100 y or so. The USA chose to help the taliban when Soviet Russia wanted to invade Afganistan. It makes sense for Russia to help the Taliban. It is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation.

[WinterHold]

Dying for the cause of God is the highest honour a Muslim can get.
The question is: what ranks up as a death in "God's cause"?

Martyrdom = death in battle for God, death while sacrificing for God.


So if God despises your act (like causing the death of innocents -even innocent non-believers-, causing corruption on the land...etcetera)  you can't claim it is death for God. God might throw you in hell instead for the sin you caused.

BTW, all countries claim they have the true "meaning of martyrdom". I know lots of Americans who threw themselves in the crematoria of Iraq and Afghanistan to be "martyrs for the USA".

Well, obviously in the islamic faith, dying for Islam is a high honor. The leaders want strongly devoted followers.
It is the same in christianity.

It isn't just the united statians that didn't like what the taliban and Al-quada was doing.
One of the issues is that they don't allow women to get an education.
But that isn't the primary reason why they went to Afghanistan. The primary reason is that Al-quada payed a visit to the USA and decided to randomly kill people. They also conducted attacks in other countries.
Since they are taking away lives, it makes sense to take away their (Taliban) lives.

The only problem is that all wars come down to resources. The USA and allies do not have the resources to kill all of Taliban or Al-quada.
It costs too much.
Also, they wanted Afghanistan to self govern and to handle the taliban. Looks like that didn't happen.
Looks like the taliban has a large population and lots of weapons.
Probably another factor is the Russia-USA problem that has been going on for 100 y or so. The USA chose to help the taliban when Soviet Russia wanted to invade Afganistan. It makes sense for Russia to help the Taliban. It is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation.

Dying for any cause is the highest honor in its context.
Example is American soldiers dying in war.

So? your point; I mean?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, obviously in the islamic faith, dying for Islam is a high honor. The leaders want strongly devoted followers.
It is the same in christianity.

It isn't just the united statians that didn't like what the taliban and Al-quada was doing.
One of the issues is that they don't allow women to get an education.
But that isn't the primary reason why they went to Afghanistan. The primary reason is that Al-quada payed a visit to the USA and decided to randomly kill people. They also conducted attacks in other countries.
Since they are taking away lives, it makes sense to take away their (Taliban) lives.

The only problem is that all wars come down to resources. The USA and allies do not have the resources to kill all of Taliban or Al-quada.
It costs too much.
Also, they wanted Afghanistan to self govern and to handle the taliban. Looks like that didn't happen.
Looks like the taliban has a large population and lots of weapons.
Probably another factor is the Russia-USA problem that has been going on for 100 y or so. The USA chose to help the taliban when Soviet Russia wanted to invade Afganistan. It makes sense for Russia to help the Taliban. It is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation.

Dying for any cause is the highest honor in its context.
Example is American soldiers dying in war.

So? your point; I mean?

‘No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.’ - US General George S. Patton

So (according to Patton, at least), killing for a cause is a higher honour than dying for it.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Dying for any cause is the highest honor in its context.
Example is American soldiers dying in war.

So? your point; I mean?

Soldiers dying is a tragedy, not an honor.  See...you're in a fucking death cult. It shapes the way you think about this stuff and you just take it for granted that things are so.

[Leonardo17]

The Roman army started to collapse when it started hiring German mercenaries in return for money. Machiavelli is also very critical of mercenary troops. Since you can’t really rely on volunteers to go and die on the battlefield, conscription seems to be the best method because it teaches you a lot when you are a young individual.
 
And reminder: I’m an advocate of peace. There are no two democratic nations who went to war with each other up to this day. So war fare is murder. No to War / Peace V

what did in the imperial roman army in wasn’t mercenaries,  but a system of imperial succession that always overtly or tacitly required backing by military force.    consequently the soldiers found the upside in being instrumental in enthroning the winning contestant for the crown far outweigh the down side in losing the bid to enthrone their rival emperor.    So the army gradually degenerated into a cadre force for forming conscript mob forces to fight civil wars.

…and the cause of this was the very brutal nature of the empire since its beginning. A legionary would enlist in the Roman army for a period of 25 years. In modern language that’s a death sentence. The term “decimation” is a practice that existed in that Era. If a military unit lacked discipline, they would kill every 10th man in that unit. Crucifixion was a real practice. Those who dares to follow the rebel slave Spartacus (6000 of them) were crucified along the road from Rome to south Italy. So yes, they were the major civilizing force of the world at the time. But no they were as brutal (perhaps more brutal) than any other power-based empire that followed them in the middle ages. Their economy was 100% based on slave labor and their power was based on a military machine that was designed to conquer and conquer and conquer. Just think of the size of their dominion. Why would anyone want to have such a huge amount of territory without having sailing methods or motorized vehicles? (We’re talking of an era in which it took perhaps a week or two to move from one city to the other.
 
So whatever. Maybe they were doomed to crumble at some point anyway

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet..people actually wanted to join them. They were highly motivated in this regard. If they were doomed to crumble, it would be difficult to explain why it took so much for that to happen. They did shitty (and stupid) things, but doing those things doesn't actually doom a nation to fail, we only wish it did.

Abrahamic religion did it's part in helping rome crumble. Diminishing their ability as cultural assimilators..rather than exterminators, for example. Offset in time by increased technical and military ability (and the pretty rough situation the rest of the world found itself in)..but, imo, the minute that rome went with the god of abraham...and with all of the other pressures already weighing on them, that was the point of no return. They could no longer be the (relatively) liberal civilizers, they could only be brutal colonizers. To a huge extent, I think they assumed christianization as a reactionary effect of all of that pressure. The last pagan emperor of the world asked his subjects, christian and pagan alike, how they could sleep at night on roman pillows in roman beds in a roman world and reject all that was roman. The answer followed shortly in his death and shortly after that - the dissolution of rome.

Because that's what abrahamic religion is. An exclusionary death cult run by a bloodgod which has yet to escape the indelible stamp of it's lowly origin. People sit in temples nodding their head every weekend all over the world like this is normal only because the wetwork was done so long ago. The peace of the abrahamic god is a smoldering crater. A warcrime already completed. It's first victims were it's earliest adopters.