Declared war?

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont.

In the section of the book 'A Mistake We Can't Afford' on pages 12-13, Mr. Wallace writes that Europe made a mistake when dealing with Hitler (12). This would be from 1933 until the beginning of World War II in 1939. This mistake would be appeasement and not realizing the reality of imminent war.

The author reasons that Islam declared war on the West fourteen hundred years ago and this needs to be acknowledged. (12). Mr. Wallace is very critical of then President Obama for not publicly acknowledging that Islam is indeed at war with the Western world. (12).

From  reviewing this book so far, I have reasoned that orthodox Islam, as does radical Islam, does hold to forms of Jihad and Holy War.

November 14 2017: Aggressive Martyrdom

I documented that although both orthodox and radical forms of Islam hold to Jihad/Holy War, the orthodox interpretation in many cases, with Islam in the Western world, is that Jihad is for defensive purposes.  I will take the Islamic Supreme Council of America at their word that Jihad is primarily defensive. In other words, that is their scholarly interpretation. I am going to attempt to not judge motives.

As cited in previous articles, in regard to Jihad/Holy War from World Religions textbooks.

Nigosian writes that this is 'combativeness'...or rather being engaged in combat against 'pagans' or opponents is called jihad, meaning holy war. (448). The goal is not primarily religious, as in conversion, but the goal is political control over societies. (448). In order to rule with the principles of Islam, in other words, Islamic law.

Nigosian's definition allows for defensive Jihad, but also a more aggressive form of Jihad could also be interpreted here. To rule other societies by Islamic law is certainly beyond defensive Jihad.

Lewis M. Hopfe admits that one of the most controversial aspects of Islam is 'Jihad' (Holy War). Hopfe (1987: 419). Pagans he writes may have been forced to convert but Jews and Christians and others were free to worship and they chose. Hopfe (1987: 419). It is admitted by Hopfe that there is a Muslim doctrine that one must do battle for God. Hopfe (1987: 419).

Hopfe's definition too could view Jihad as defensive, but also it aggressively protects the interests of the religion through military force. Force and coercion is beyond the scope of defensive Jihad.

I reason that because of this very faulty State/Religion government model, Jihad/Holy War can easily be at times interpreted and implemented with varied degrees of force and coercion. This has been done throughout the history of Islam.

Critics have pointed out that much of the Qur'an has open-ended verses in regard to Jihad meaning that they are not necessarily restrained to an historical context. Radical forms of Jihad and aggressive martyrdom could be conceivably reasonably interpreted within today's Islam, for today's world.

Mr. Wallace does have some reasonable concerns...

October 24 2017: Open-ended verses

Therefore, I can reason that any forms of Islam, Quranic Islam in context, and also those citing the Sunnah, that interpret Jihad/Holy War and martyrdom in a politically and theologically aggressive manner are indeed enemies of Western society.

This based on radical Islamic worldviews which are against Western democratic society, the Christian Church, and other opposing worldviews, including those within Islam that show some significant moderation. This type of Islam violently opposes any and all opposing worldviews.

HOPFE, LEWIS M. (1991) Religions of the World, New York, Macmillan Publishing Company. 

NIGOSIAN, S.A. (1994) World Faiths, New York, St. Martin’s Press.

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

The clash of universes?

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
cls = Class
int= Interpretation

Primitive concepts, terms and relations, within symbolic logic are not explained, but are simply 'taken for granted'. (167). These meanings are provided by interpretation only in the context provided. (167). The symbols for houses and related is an example as these symbolic interpretations. (167).

For clarity, philosopher, Langer writes that there is a new context assumed. (167). In this context the formal context has elements which are certain classes. (168).

Let us note that Langer adds another symbol: cls, which is the usual symbol for class.

From page 168:

K= int (interpreted) as class of houses
B = int (interpreted) as class of brick houses
W = int (interpreted) as class of white houses
-B = int (interpreted) as class of  not-brick houses
-W = int (interpreted) as class of not-white houses
B x W =int (interpreted) as class of white brick houses
---
0 = int (interpreted) as class of no houses
I = int (interpreted) as class of all houses

On page 170, Langer states that a very important point is that there is a difference between:

K = The universe of discourse (Is this context established by Langer)

&

I = The universe class

Langer warns against identifying the universe of discourse with the greatest class that is within it. (170). Langer explains that the error of equating the universe of discourse with the universe of class, was made by John Venn is his Symbolic Logic of 1881. Langer instead reasons that I does not equate with K, but rather I is an element within K. (170).

My equations

˜ (I ⊨ K)

The universe class does not entail the universe of discourse.

˜ (I ⊃ K)

The universe class is not the same as the universe of discourse.

In other words the universe of discourse contains the universe class. The universe class does not contain the universe of discourse.

In Three Minutes: Birds of a Feather, Flock Together/Student versus Teacher

Brought to you by McDonalds



In regard to the engineer, that I stated should be teachable, but his theology, denied that God was infinite, reasoning that God had made promises is his Scripture, therefore making self-finite. Two friends have opined that I was right to admonish him for this theological error and his unwillingness to be taught.

This is primitive

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

The continuation of text review:

Key symbols

≡df = Equivalence by definition
: = Equal (s)
ε = Epsilon and means is
⊃ = Is the same as
⊨ is Entails
˜ = Not
∃ = There exists
∃! = There exists
∴ = Therefore
· = Therefore
< = Is included
v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives).
x = variable
· = Conjunction meaning And
0 = Null class
---

Classes as 'primitive concepts' in a system

Philosopher Langer expresses the idea that there are clear and economical propositions that express the entire system with a few symbols. (166). This rests on a tedious process of translation and re-translation. (166).

Most that have been following this review, which is alternated with other articles, will likely agree that learning symbol logic is indeed tedious!

It has been billed by Langer as (paraphrased) an academic alternative to more confusing syntax language, but in reality, in my humble opinion, only a few academic types in philosophy and mathematics will find learning symbolic logic helpful.

Even so, as my PhD (Wales) was in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, it is useful to learn more symbolic logic than the little amount I did during writing my British theses. At the same time, there are some good lessons to learn in regard to logic and reason from Philosopher, Langer.

Langer states that classes are not empty. They are not zero. (166). A class in not 0 = null class.

(∃! wt) : ˜ (0)

There exists white houses equals not null class. White houses are a class.

Symbolic logic requires a formal context in order for anything to be stated. (166-167). A great difficulty is that the typical reader will not grasp the context of symbolic logic, and/or especially in a 2017, Western context, which is in general, distinctly non-philosophical, even have the desire to attempt to learn the context of any symbolic logic.

Primitive concepts, terms and relations, within symbolic logic are not explained, but are simply 'taken for granted'. (167). These meanings are provided by interpretation only in the context provided. (167). The symbols for houses and related is an example as these symbolic interpretations. (167).

The author writes that to avoid ambiguity with literary grammar and syntax. words are replaced in symbolic logic with arbitrary symbols. (52).

Having reviewed now nearly half of this textbook, I can grant that technically, Langer's premise could be correct, I suppose. Symbolic logic could be more clear than literary, grammar and syntax.

However, practically, even most academics are more familiar with syntax language than symbolic logic, and it is an understatement to write that this will not change any time soon.