— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) March 13, 2025
Secular Koranism with Christian Scientist Characteristics adopted by prostitutes
4:00 Raymond Cattell's Beyondism
6:00 https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.com/2025/03/two-indian-men-totally-outclass-two.html
7:00 Culture is fluid and is consequential on what the rules allow.
8:00 Is Allah a Beyondist?
9:00 quran.com/49/13
11:00 Is 49:13 of the Koran arguably Beyondist?
To assess whether Quran 49:13 is "arguably Beyondist," we need to unpack the verse and the concept of Beyondism, then see if they vibe together. Let’s dive in.Quran 49:13 says: “O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.” (Sahih International translation). The core ideas here are human unity (from a single origin), diversity (peoples and tribes), purpose (to know each other), and merit (nobility through righteousness, or taqwa, meaning God-consciousness).Beyondism, coined by psychologist Raymond Cattell in the 20th century, is trickier to pin down—it’s not a mainstream term, but it’s a framework he developed in works like Beyondism: Religion from Science (1987). It’s a secular, evolutionary philosophy arguing that human progress comes through group competition and natural selection. Cattell saw societies as evolving units, where diversity between groups (cultural, genetic, whatever) drives advancement—some thrive, some fade, and that’s the engine of improvement. He tied morality to what boosts a group’s survival, not universal ideals, and leaned hard into eugenics and differentiation, which got him flak for sounding elitist or even racist.So, does 49:13 fit this mold? At first glance, there’s overlap. The verse acknowledges diversity—“peoples and tribes”—which aligns with Beyondism’s emphasis on distinct groups. The phrase “that you may know one another” (Arabic: lita‘ārafū) could, if you squint, suggest interaction or competition between groups, a dynamic Cattell might nod at. Tafsir (commentary) like Ibn Kathir’s says it’s about recognizing each other’s traits, not despising differences, which could loosely parallel Beyondism’s idea of groups learning from or outpacing each other.But the fit unravels fast. The verse’s punchline—“the most noble of you… is the most righteous”—roots worth in individual piety, not group success. Beyondism doesn’t care about personal virtue unless it serves the collective’s evolutionary edge; Cattell’s metric was survival and dominance, not godliness. Quran 49:13 unites humanity under one origin and one God, pushing a universal moral standard (taqwa), while Beyondism rejects universalism, favoring a fragmented, relativistic ethics where each group’s “good” is whatever keeps it kicking. The Quran’s “know one another” likely means cooperation or mutual respect (per scholars like Maududi), not the Darwinian slugfest Beyondism envisions.Context kills it too. Surah Al-Hujurat is about social harmony—don’t mock other groups (49:11), avoid suspicion (49:12)—not pitting tribes against each other for supremacy. Beyondism’s cool with groups dying off if they’re “unfit”; the Quran’s vibe is more “let’s all get along and get right with Allah.” Cattell’s system even flirts with eugenics, which 49:13’s egalitarianism (nobility isn’t birth-based but faith-based) would scoff at.Could you argue it’s Beyondist? Sure, if you cherry-pick the “peoples and tribes” bit and twist “know one another” into a survivalist lens—like, tribes compete to prove who’s fittest. But that’s a stretch; it ignores the verse’s theological core and historical intent. Beyondism’s amoral, science-driven evolution clashes with the Quran’s God-centric, unity-driven ethos. At best, it’s a forced fit; at worst, it’s oil and water.
Viewing Allah as a “benign schoolmaster” dividing humanity into “houses” (like tribes or nations) for cooperative and competitive sport or debate, as suggested by Quran 49:13, isn’t inherently problematic—it’s a creative analogy. But it rubs up against some theological and philosophical tensions in Islamic thought, and it risks oversimplifying or misrepresenting Allah’s nature and purpose. Let’s break down the issues.First, the analogy flattens Allah’s transcendence. In Islam, Allah is beyond human categories—omnipotent, omniscient, and utterly unique (Quran 112:1-4: “Say, He is Allah, the One… He neither begets nor is born”). A schoolmaster, even a kind one, is a relatable, human figure with limits, managing kids for a game. Allah’s creation of “peoples and tribes” isn’t a whimsical team-building exercise; it’s tied to a cosmic plan—testing humanity’s righteousness (taqwa) and submission to divine will (Quran 51:56: “I did not create jinn and mankind except to worship Me”). The schoolmaster lens risks making Allah too chummy and mundane, stripping away the awe and mystery central to His essence.Second, the “cooperate and compete” bit only half-fits. Quran 49:13—“made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another”—does imply diversity and interaction, and tafsir like Al-Tabari’s suggests it’s about mutual recognition or benefit. Cooperation’s there: Islam encourages unity among believers (Quran 3:103: “Hold fast to the rope of Allah all together”). Competition, though? Not so much in the sporting sense. The verse’s climax—“the most noble of you is the most righteous”—frames life as a personal moral race, not a tribal showdown. Competition exists (e.g., striving in good deeds, Quran 5:48), but it’s not zero-sum like a debate club; one person’s piety doesn’t knock another out. The schoolhouse model implies rivalry for points or pride, which clashes with Islam’s push for collective salvation over team bragging rights.Third, it sidesteps the problem of evil and suffering. A benign schoolmaster dividing kids into houses assumes a controlled, fair game. But humanity’s “tribes” have faced war, oppression, and genocide—hardly a friendly match. If Allah’s just sorting us for sport, why the bloodshed? Islamic theology wrestles with this via free will and divine testing (Quran 67:2: “He who created death and life to test which of you is best in deed”), not a referee’s whistle. The analogy makes Allah seem aloof or arbitrary, ignoring the deeper purpose of trial and accountability.Finally, it could lean too secular. Claire Khaw’s secular Koranism, if she’s behind this framing, might like the schoolmaster idea—it aligns with her push for a rational, rule-based social order. But Islam’s core isn’t a humanist experiment; it’s submission to a divine lawgiver whose authority trumps all. The “houses” aren’t autonomous teams picking their playbook; they’re under Sharia, judged by Allah’s unchanging standard. The analogy risks turning a theocracy into a democracy of competitors, which orthodox Muslims would call a distortion.It’s not “wrong” to see Allah this way as a thought experiment—Quran 49:13’s diversity invites interpretation. The problem is it’s too lighthearted and anthropomorphic for Allah’s majesty, too game-like for life’s stakes, and too detached from the unity-over-rivalry thrust of Islamic ethics. It might work as a poetic riff, but it buckles under scrutiny. What’s your take—trying to bridge Beyondism and Islam here, or just riffing on Khaw’s style?
The Quran’s principles of warfare don’t explicitly envisage conflict persisting even if the whole world adopted Sharia, but they don’t rule it out either—it depends on how you read the text and its context. Let’s dig into this.The Quran addresses war in several verses, often tied to self-defense, justice, or resisting oppression. Take 2:190: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” This sets a defensive tone—fight back if attacked, but don’t overstep. Or 22:39: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged.” Again, it’s reactive, not proactive. Sharia, built from Quran and Hadith, codifies this: war’s legit for defense, protecting faith, or righting wrongs, but peace is the default (8:61: “If they incline to peace, incline to it also”).Now, if the whole world adopted Sharia—meaning everyone’s under Islamic law—you’d think conflict might vanish, right? Everyone’s playing by the same rules. But the Quran doesn’t paint a utopian picture where universal Sharia equals perpetual peace. Why? A few reasons.First, human nature. Even with Sharia, people disagree—interpretation’s a mess. Sunni vs. Shia splits, or debates over what “justice” means, show that shared law doesn’t kill conflict. The Quran assumes humans will stray (e.g., 4:135 urges justice “even if it be against yourselves”), implying disputes persist, Sharia or not.Second, the “way of Allah” isn’t static. Verses like 9:5 (“the Verse of the Sword”)—“kill the polytheists wherever you find them”—get waved around by hardliners as a green light for endless war against unbelief. Most scholars say it’s context-specific (post-treaty betrayal during Muhammad’s time), but if someone interprets Sharia as mandating perpetual purification or expansion, conflict could linger even in a Sharia world. Classical jurists split on this: some saw jihad as defensive, others as an ongoing duty to spread Islam.Third, group dynamics. Quran 49:13 (we’ve covered it) splits humanity into “peoples and tribes,” hinting at natural diversity. Beyondism might see this as a setup for competition; Islam might call it a test. Either way, tribes under Sharia could still clash—over resources, power, or piety rankings (who’s got the most taqwa?). Historical caliphates, all Sharia-run, fought internally—Umayyads vs. Abbasids, anyone?That said, the Quran doesn’t require conflict in a Sharia-only world. Its war rules kick in when there’s an “other”—aggressors, oppressors, or idolaters. If everyone’s on board with Sharia, those triggers might fade. Peace is praised (4:128: “reconciliation is best”), and Muhammad’s treaties (like Hudaybiyyah) show war’s not the goal. But the text leaves room for strife if human flaws or rival interpretations persist, which they probably would.So, does it envisage conflict? Not directly—it’s not like “Sharia everywhere, and yet we fight!” But it doesn’t promise harmony either. It’s pragmatic: war’s a tool, peace is better, humans are messy. Claire Khaw’s secular Koranism might twist this into a governance model where competition’s baked in, but the Quran itself? It’s less about envisaging eternal war and more about handling the chaos when it comes.
Since you now concede that the Koran does not promise eternal peace because of the existence of Koranic principles of warfare, are you now prepared to concede that Allah is arguably a Beyondist?
I didn’t exactly “concede” anything— I just pointed out what the Quran says (and doesn’t say) about war and peace. But let’s roll with your question: can we argue Allah is a Beyondist based on the Koran’s principles of warfare not guaranteeing eternal peace? It’s a stretch, but I’ll play along and see where it lands.
Beyondism, per Raymond Cattell, is about groups evolving through competition and natural selection—survival of the fittest societies, with morality tied to what keeps a group viable. Allah, in the Quran, is the all-powerful creator, judge, and lawgiver, shaping humanity’s fate with a mix of mercy and justice. To call Allah a Beyondist, we’d need to see Him designing a world where group rivalry drives progress, and where war’s persistence reflects that evolutionary push.
The Quran’s warfare principles—like fighting for defense (2:190), justice (4:75), or faith (22:39)—don’t promise eternal peace, true. They assume conflict’s part of the human condition, a test or tool to sort the righteous from the rotten. Quran 49:13’s “peoples and tribes” setup could look Beyondist-ish: diversity as a stage for interaction, maybe competition. And Allah does let groups rise and fall—5:54 says He replaces weak believers with stronger ones, which smells a bit like natural selection. Historical wipeouts (e.g., Noah’s flood, Pharaoh’s drowning) show Allah pruning failures, keeping the “fit” (faithful) alive.
But here’s the rub: Allah’s not running an evolutionary free-for-all. Beyondism’s amoral—groups win or lose based on adaptability, not right or wrong. Allah’s deeply moral—war’s justified by divine standards (oppression, disbelief), and victory’s tied to obedience, not just raw strength. Quran 3:140 says He alternates days of success “so Allah may make evident those who believe”—it’s a test, not a Darwinian slugfest. Beyondism doesn’t care about individual piety (taqwa); Allah does, obsessively (49:13 again: “the most noble is the most righteous”).
Also, Allah’s endgame isn’t open-ended progress through rivalry—it’s Judgment Day. Beyondism wants groups to keep evolving indefinitely; the Quran says history’s got a hard stop, with Allah tallying souls (99:7-8). War’s a means, not the engine. And where Beyondism’s secular, Allah’s theistic to the core—His will trumps nature’s churn.
Could you argue it? Sure, if you squint: Allah splits humanity into groups, lets them clash, and weeds out the weak, which apes Beyondism’s vibe. But the fit’s shaky—His purpose is divine order and worship (51:56), not Cattell’s survivalist experiment. Allah’s more a cosmic referee with a rulebook than a hands-off evolution coach. I’d say He’s not Beyondist—He’s just too bossy and moralistic for that label. What’s your next move—pushing Khaw’s secular spin into this?
Surely there would be a Register of Races and Religions kept until the End Times if Allah exists?
The idea of a “Register of Races and Religions” kept until the End Times if Allah exists is an interesting leap—it’s not explicitly in the Quran or Islamic tradition, but it’s worth exploring whether it fits Allah’s vibe. Let’s think it through.
In Islamic theology, Allah’s got the ultimate ledger: the Kitab (Book) or Lauh Mahfuz (Preserved Tablet), mentioned in Quran 85:22 and hinted at in 6:59—“with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them but He… not a leaf falls but that He knows it.” This cosmic record tracks everything—every deed, every soul, every event. Scholars like Ibn Kathir say it’s pre-written, encompassing all that happens until Judgment Day. So, Allah’s already got a master database; no need for a separate “Register of Races and Religions” unless it’s a subset of that.
Why races and religions specifically? Quran 49:13’s “peoples and tribes” (shu‘ūban wa qabā’ila) could suggest Allah cares about human diversity—group identities matter as a test or a way to “know one another.” Religions, too: Allah sent prophets to every nation (10:47), and the Quran names Jews, Christians, and others (2:62), implying He tracks who’s on what path. The Day of Judgment splits people by belief and action (99:6-8), so He’s clearly keeping score. A register could just be how humans imagine His omniscience breaking down the data—race and creed as columns in His spreadsheet.
But here’s the catch: the Quran doesn’t frame it that way. Allah’s knowledge isn’t bureaucratic—He doesn’t need a filing cabinet labeled “Races” or “Religions.” It’s instantaneous and total (58:7: “He knows what is within the heavens and earth”). A register sounds like a human construct, maybe a Beyondist twist—Claire Khaw might like it for her secular Koranism, tallying groups for governance or competition. Islam, though, says Allah’s got it all in His head (or Tablet), no paperwork required.
Until the End Times? Sure, the record lasts that long—Judgment Day’s when it’s cracked open, and every group faces the music (3:105 warns against splitting into sects). But the Quran’s less about cataloging diversity for its own sake and more about judging how you played your hand, whatever your “race” or “religion.” Allah’s not a cosmic census-taker—He’s a judge.
So, would there be one? Not literally—Allah’s too all-knowing for a physical list. Figuratively? Maybe, if you see the Preserved Tablet as including that breakdown. It’s a cool thought, but Islam leans toward “He’s got it covered” over “He’s keeping a Rolodex.” What’s driving this—trying to mesh Beyondism with Allah’s system?
Yes, I an indeed meshing Beyondism with Allah's system.
Alright, meshing Beyondism with Allah’s system is a wild ride—let’s see how a “Register of Races and Religions” and the Quran’s setup could play together under that lens. You’re basically smashing Cattell’s evolutionary group competition into Allah’s divine framework, so I’ll roll with it and see where the gears grind or align.
Beyondism says human progress hinges on groups—races, cultures, whatever—competing, with natural selection picking winners. Morality’s what keeps a group alive, not some universal truth. Allah’s system, per the Quran, has humanity split into “peoples and tribes” (49:13), judged by righteousness (taqwa), with a cosmic endgame where He sorts the faithful from the flop (99:7-8). Your “Register” idea could be the bridge: a divine tally of these groups, tracking their performance in the survival-and-piety game until the End Times.
Here’s how it might work. Allah creates diversity—“peoples and tribes”—not just for kicks but as a Beyondist-style arena. The “know one another” bit in 49:13 becomes less about harmony and more about sizing each other up, cooperating when it suits, competing when it doesn’t. The Quran’s warfare rules (2:190, 22:39) fit: groups fight to defend faith or fix wrongs, and winners—like the early Muslims over Mecca—prove their “viability.” Allah’s register logs this, ranking races and religions by how well they adapt and obey, with the Preserved Tablet (85:22) as the ultimate scorecard. Judgment Day’s the cutoff, where Allah crowns the fittest—those with the most taqwa—and scraps the rest.
Evidence? Quran 5:54—“He will bring a people whom He loves and who love Him… He replaces them with others”—reads like Beyondist pruning: weak groups get swapped out. Historical churn (Pharaoh’s fall, Israel’s exile) mirrors natural selection, and 3:140’s “alternating days” of victory and loss feels like a test of resilience. Add in 49:13’s meritocracy—“most noble is most righteous”—and you’ve got a twist: Allah’s not just picking survivors, but survivors who play His rules.
Problems, though. Beyondism’s secular—Allah’s not. Cattell’s progress is open-ended; Allah’s got a finale. Beyondism doesn’t care about individual souls; Allah’s obsessed (4:1). The register fits if you see it as Allah tracking group stats—say, “Arabs: +10 piety, -5 infighting; Christians: +8 charity, -10 idolatry”—but the Quran’s focus is personal deeds, not collective batting averages. War in Islam’s for justice or faith, not raw dominance, and peace is the goal (8:61), not endless rivalry. Beyondism might cheer a group thriving by any means; Allah smites cheats (e.g., Lot’s people).
Still, you could argue it: Allah’s a Beyondist with a moral twist. He sets up the tribes, lets them slug it out, keeps a register (the Tablet) of who’s winning at survival and submission, and picks champs at the end. It’s not pure Cattell—too much God, not enough amorality—but it’s a hybrid. The “Register of Races and Religions” becomes your hook: a divine ledger of group fitness, Beyondist-style, under Allah’s thumb.
31:00 Christianity has made Westerners stupid.
32:00 Here are some principles for you to defend!
33:00 CK - the new Mary Baker Eddy
Psychological profile of the Messiah Substitute
34:00 Making Jews, Christians and Muslims want me to be their Messiah Substitute
37:00 Psychological profile of the Messiah Substitute
[Reading begins.]
51:00 Vincent says it sounds like me!
The present level of technical development of the social sciences is pathetically inadequate for understanding far-reaching cause and effect relations between individual behavior and group survival. They are thus at present incapable of determining in anything but a most approximate manner the requisite laws of individual moral behavior for ensuring high viability. Nevertheless, there would probably be a reasonable adequate consensus from experts in the existing, non-quantitative social sciences, notably history, that already natural selection among groups, i.e., a prolonged practical application of this criterion of group viability, has been the means of generating and maintaining of tolerably effective interindividual moral rules [15]. Even at the animal level (see Lorenz, 1966; Tinbergen, 1959; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970) the behavior in humans that is in our sense ethical is paralleled at an instinctual level. In man, prior to the present Beyondist plan to recognize and derive by research ethical laws from group functioning, moral values came by "divine" revelation bequeathed to inspired religious leaders, such as Moses, Buddha, Mohammed and Christ. A very large number of such inspirations must have occurred, and those that have survived have been shaped by further trial and error, followed by natural selection maintaining the groups with more felicitously adaptive belief systems. Both by study of these animal and early historical adjustments and by simple inference along Beyondist lines it is obvious that the central teaching on within-group, inter-individual relations is the importance of love and treating one's neighbor as oneself. The innate loneliness of the individual is bequeathed him as a guarantee that he will seek the oceanic experience of love for all his fellows - the subjective experience of the objective truth that only the group can be immortal. The fact that science seeks ethical "rules" need not and must not blind it to the fact that these are only a guiding framework and that the breeding and teaching of spontaneous and positive love, sensitivity and altruistic enterprise is also a defined requirement of the group criterion.'
The social sciences today suck at figuring out how individual actions affect a group’s survival. They’re too primitive to nail down exact rules for how people should behave to keep society thriving. Even so, experts in fuzzy fields like history would probably agree: over time, natural selection—groups surviving or dying out—has shaped decent moral codes between people. Think of it like trial and error on a grand scale: groups with better rules lasted.
This isn’t just human stuff. Animals show instinctual behaviors—like cooperation or aggression—that mirror what we call ethics (see studies by Lorenz, Tinbergen, Eibl-Eibesfeldt). In humans, before Beyondism came along with its plan to study group dynamics and deduce ethical laws scientifically, morality came from “divine” revelations to figures like Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, and Christ. Tons of these inspired codes popped up; the ones that stuck around survived because they helped groups adapt and endure—natural selection at work again.
From watching animals, early human history, and Beyondist logic, one big takeaway stands out: within a group, love and treating others as equals (like “love thy neighbor”) are key. People are wired to feel lonely, pushing them to seek connection—love—which reflects a truth: individuals die, but groups can live on. Science can hunt for ethical “rules,” but it shouldn’t ignore that fostering genuine love, sensitivity, and selflessness isn’t just a guideline—it’s a must for group survival.
Key Points:
Social Sciences Are Weak: They can’t precisely link individual behavior to group success, so moral rules are guesswork.
Natural Selection Shapes Morality: History shows groups with effective interpersonal ethics outlast others.
Animal Parallels: Ethical behavior in humans has instinctual roots seen in animals.
Pre-Beyondist Morality: Religious leaders delivered moral codes, refined over time by group survival.
Love as Core: Beyondism (and history) flags love and mutual care as vital for group cohesion.
Science + Emotion: Ethical rules matter, but so does cultivating real human connection.
The passage argues Beyondism improves on old-school divine morality by grounding it in research, while still valuing love as the glue for groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment