"What’s Wrong with Muslims? " - Psychology article

[Goggen]

Being a Muslim in today’s world is unlike being anything else. It’s an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/identity). Within a single society, like the United States, white college professors, say, usually have much more in common – in their values, preferences, lifestyles, and opinions – with black college professors than they do with, say, white garbage collectors. Conversely, black garbage collectors usually have much more in common with white garbage collectors than they do with black college professors. There may be exceptions in some cases, but usually their acquired traits of occupation and profession – what they do every day – is more important in determining who they are and what they believe than their race and ethnicity.
Across societies, however, French electricians, say, usually identify more strongly with French plumbers or even with French accountants than they do with, say, Chinese electricians. Conversely, Chinese electricians usually identify more strongly with Chinese plumbers and accountants than they do with French electricians. Once again, I’m sure there are some exceptions, but usually, in modern society, nationality and culture strongly shape people’s identity and unite them despite their different occupations and professions.
These generalizations appear to hold for most societies, cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and languages, except for Muslims. For them, being a Muslim appears to be an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity that overrides and trumps everything else. For them, nothing else – their race, their nationality, their occupation, their language – matters except for being Muslim, which unites all Muslims in the world. (True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic – but not all; neither Indonesians nor Chechens speak Arabic. Nor do Iranians.)
Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a native-born American citizen, trained military officer, and educated MD and psychiatrist. Yet none of these things matters for him; first and foremost, he is a Muslim. He’s not at all like other native-born American citizens; he’s not at all like other military officers; he’s not at all like other medical doctors or psychiatrists. Anwar al-Awlaki is a native-born and educated American citizen. Three of the four perpetrators of the 7/7 bombings in London were native-born British citizens, and the fourth was Jamaican-born. Of the five US citizens currently under detention in Pakistan for terrorism charges, one has been reported to be native-born American, two originally from Yemen, one from Egypt, and one from Sweden. Yet, once again, none of their varied national and cultural backgrounds matters to them. They are all united in their values and goals (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation) by their singular identity of being Muslims.

It’s tempting to dismiss these observations by saying that they are all “extremists” or “Jihadists.” That would be politically correct and comforting, but factually inaccurate. According to Thomas L. Friedman, who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world, the only person that I know of who actually predicted 9/11 two years earlier, 50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/suicide) bombers worldwide. It took only 19 of them to kill 3,000 of us.
And this is not limited to faraway places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. According to the 2007 report by the Pew Research Center, 81% of Muslims in the United Kingdom consider themselves Muslim first, British second. 81%! For four out of every five Muslims in the UK, being Muslim is more important than being British. The comparable figure in the US is 47%, and it’s 46% in France, 66% in Germany, and 69% in Spain. I cannot think of any ethnic or religious (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/religion) group in the United States (with the possible exception of recent Mexican immigrants in the Southwest) of which half of the members consider their ethnic or religious identity to be more important than being American. Would half of black Americans consider themselves to be “black first, American second”? (I can think of one who would – Jeremiah Wright – but would anyone else?) Would half of Catholic Americans consider themselves to be “Catholic first, American second”?
Of course, it is technically impossible to know for sure without actual survey data on other comparable groups within the United States. But that’s precisely my point. Nobody would dream of asking black Americans “Do you consider yourself to be black first or American first?” Nobody would dream of asking Catholic Americans “Do you consider yourself to be Catholic first or American first?” That would be absurd, to the point of nonsensical. Yet it is not an absurd question to ask of Muslims, and indeed half of American Muslims (and four-fifths of British Muslims) do consider themselves to be Muslim first.
Why is being Muslim so completely different from being anything else in the modern world today? Why is being Muslim such an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/what-s-wrong-muslims

[Fargin]

So this Thomas L. Friedman, "who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world," estimates there are 120 million young muslim males just dying to blow themselves up.

I think we should check his math twice.

[Andreas]

Warped sense of identity basically?

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Ummm, a couple of points:


(True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic –

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Pakistani Muslims speak Urdu, Indian Muslims Hindi or another dialect, Indonesians, Nigerians...a rather substantial MINORITY of Muslims speak Arabic.


Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a native-born American citizen, trained military officer, and educated MD and psychiatrist. Yet none of these things matters for him; first and foremost, he is a Muslim. He’s not at all like other native-born American citizens; he’s not at all like other military officers; he’s not at all like other medical doctors or psychiatrists.

That is biting off a rather large chunk of speculation (unless this dude has been interview Major Hasan for the past several weeks) and spitting it out as fact...


According to Thomas L. Friedman, who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world,

I don't doubt that Mr. Friedman is pretty smart, but that smart?

Too much hyperbole, too little information and facts.

IMHO as always. YMMV.

[sheikhness]

totally,

http://www.ahmedandsalim.com/?page=player&play=rXMIQDVOs98&hl

[Kit]

50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/suicide) bombers worldwide. It took only 19 of them to kill 3,000 of us.

If I ever wrote that in a paper, my professor would fail me. Seriously, talk about a jump in logic.

[SineJustitia]

50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/suicide) bombers worldwide.As a modern, liberal Westerner, I object to this politically incorrect quote. It's very sexist to assume only males can be suicide bombers.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ummm, a couple of points:


(True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic – Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Pakistani Muslims speak Urdu, Indian Muslims Hindo or anotehr dialect, Indonesians, Nigerians...a rather substantial MINORITY of Muslims speak Arabic.

- not that it's really worth arguing about, but aren't all Korans written in Arabic? And under Islam, isn't it an obligation to recite it using proper vocalizations and grammar and such? It's a nifty crutch to use to maintain and spread cultural identity - which seems to have worked pretty well. You won't find many bastardized Mosques with people wearing jeans, playing acoustic guitars and singing in English...like you will for example with Bible readers.

[Sada]

As a modern, liberal Westerner, I object to this politically incorrect quote. It's very sexist to assume only males can be suicide bombers.
In fact reality shows us that there were and there will be female suicide bombers among muslim terrorists, and I think there were even some cases in other ethnic/religious extremists like tamils, but not sure about it. What is curious is that in a common and peaceful society, male suicides are much more frequents than females one, what a tough weak *** they are.
About the article above, I don´t comment about the muslims but about the fact that an individual, let´s say french, of really upper class, I mean the apex of the social pyramid, the old fortunes ones, have more in common with an old fortune from Japan, Saudi Arabia or India than with a troubled middle class french teacher in Toulouse.

[Sada]

- not that it's really worth arguing about, but aren't all Korans written in Arabic? And under Islam, isn't it an obligation to recite it using proper vocalizations and grammar and such? It's a nifty crutch to use to maintain and spread cultural identity - which seems to have worked pretty well. You won't find many bastardized Mosques with people wearing jeans, playing acoustic guitars and singing in English...like you will for example with Bible readers.
Well, christianity is about 600 years older than islam and that is showed in some things like this. It took non less than 1500 years for some christian groups saying good bye to pray in latin for praying in their very alive mother tongues, and almost 2000 years in the case of catholics.

[ggk]

- not that it's really worth arguing about, but aren't all Korans written in Arabic? And under Islam, isn't it an obligation to recite it using proper vocalizations and grammar and such? It's a nifty crutch to use to maintain and spread cultural identity - which seems to have worked pretty well. You won't find many bastardized Mosques with people wearing jeans, playing acoustic guitars and singing in English...like you will for example with Bible readers.

we dont speak with each other in Arabic.. if there is language barrier we use English.

Having reciting The Quran in arabic give a sense of belonging, a shared act which is why muslims and muslimah consider each others as bro and sis. Although having said this, the quran also clearly point out each individual must be responsible of their actions. The good and the bad are equally counted and utimately judged in the after life.

alot of muslim go to mosque in jeans, the modern time simply set aside traditional value... clothing, any type of clothing are allowed as long as it doesnt bear any offensive images or words and most importantly it cover the Aurat.



if you dint bother to read my post you can just take this sumarry. We muslim are Hardcore Warrior.

[pg_ord]

Ummm, a couple of points:

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Pakistani Muslims speak Urdu, Indian Muslims Hindo or anotehr dialect, Indonesians, Nigerians...a rather substantial MINORITY of Muslims speak Arabic.

Minor nitpick.
Only about 8% of Pakistanis speak Urdu as native tongue.....yes it is still the national language....majority of Pakistanis speak Punjabi....there are lot more Urdu Speakers in India than in Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Pakistan

[Jobu]

"What’s Wrong with Muslims? "

You mean other than the horns and tails?

Or was that the Jews? Damn, I can't keep these racist stereotypes straight.
Eh, everyone's crazy. It's just a matter of degrees.

[junglejim]

we dont speak with each other in Arabic.. if there is language barrier we use English.

Having reciting The Quran in arabic give a sense of belonging, a shared act which is why muslims and muslimah consider each others as bro and sis. Although having said this, the quran also clearly point out each individual must be responsible of their actions. The good and the bad are equally counted and utimately judged in the after life.

alot of muslim go to mosque in jeans, the modern time simply set aside traditional value... clothing, any type of clothing are allowed as long as it doesnt bear any offensive images or words and most importantly it cover the Aurat.



if you dint bother to read my post you can just take this sumarry. We muslim are Hardcore Warrior.


What's wrong with muslims? They tend to like Jeeps and have an obsession with Darth Maul.

[ggk]

You Know IT. Wink!

[Hollis]

- not that it's really worth arguing about, but aren't all Korans written in Arabic? And under Islam, isn't it an obligation to recite it using proper vocalizations and grammar and such? It's a nifty crutch to use to maintain and spread cultural identity - which seems to have worked pretty well. You won't find many bastardized Mosques with people wearing jeans, playing acoustic guitars and singing in English...like you will for example with Bible readers.


That is a good point, The Qur'an is actually considered to be a reader, there are something like 7 variations. Different in the Bible today, but maybe similar to the Bible during the middle ages, one recited it and was not allowed to actually read it. Reading means interpreting it. Qur'anic interpretation is sealed. People may orally memorize and repeat lines, but not necessary understand it. Maybe similar to the Catholic Church in the first half of the 19th Century when masses was done completely in Latin. Even today most Christians rely on translations from the original language(s).

I understand that the Clerics in Turkey are reevaluating the interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadiths. Like the middle age church, change has got to come from with in on allowing members to actually be able to read their cannon. One might say, that Islam is going through the metamorphosis that Christianity did 500 + years ago.

Other aspect that I noted, is that it is very easy for people to judge a group by the actions of a few, especially when they are not connected to that group. If anything this article is a mere synopsis and not through by any standards, worthy of a post in off topic and humorous, not a article of a serious publication. (unless it was truncated)

[wigon]

Being a Muslim in today’s world is unlike being anything else. It’s an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/identity). Within a single society, like the United States, white college professors, say, usually have much more in common – in their values, preferences, lifestyles, and opinions – with black college professors than they do with, say, white garbage collectors. Conversely, black garbage collectors usually have much more in common with white garbage collectors than they do with black college professors. There may be exceptions in some cases, but usually their acquired traits of occupation and profession – what they do every day – is more important in determining who they are and what they believe than their race and ethnicity.
Across societies, however, French electricians, say, usually identify more strongly with French plumbers or even with French accountants than they do with, say, Chinese electricians. Conversely, Chinese electricians usually identify more strongly with Chinese plumbers and accountants than they do with French electricians. Once again, I’m sure there are some exceptions, but usually, in modern society, nationality and culture strongly shape people’s identity and unite them despite their different occupations and professions.


This is a GROSS distortion and simplification of identity theory and is why psychologists should stick to INDIVIDUALS (as their profession focuses on) and not sociology and anthropology unless they are trained to do so (I have a BA in psychology by the way with my graduate studies being in cultural anthropology in which I specialized in studies of Islamic extremists and Islamic theology). This guy has no clue as to what he's talking about in that he does not mention that self-identity fluctuates based upon the different social groups a person shifts between. He also compares religion to a person's nationality and profession which again are entirely different cognitive areas. A profession is not an all-encompassing belief system (generally speaking) unless your profession is that of a politician, political activist, or religious clergyman (ideologically driven) or something along those lines. I could go on with this topic alone, but it gets boring unless you're really interested in identity theory and the psychology of religion (tons of stuff written on those topics... so I can't believe he wasn't aware of these areas of study).




These generalizations appear to hold for most societies, cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and languages, except for Muslims. For them, being a Muslim appears to be an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity that overrides and trumps everything else. For them, nothing else – their race, their nationality, their occupation, their language – matters except for being Muslim, which unites all Muslims in the world. (True, most Muslims speak the same language – Arabic – but not all; neither Indonesians nor Chechens speak Arabic. Nor do Iranians.)

There are a VAST number of other languages spoken by Muslims including ENGLISH. In fact the MAJORITY of Muslims in the world DO NOT SPEAK ARABIC. SE Asians make up the majority of Muslims and most of those being in Indonesia where I lived for 2 1/2 years of my life. (I've also lived in Saudi Arabia and have travelled in Bahrain and Egypt).



Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a native-born American citizen, trained military officer, and educated MD and psychiatrist. Yet none of these things matters for him; first and foremost, he is a Muslim. He’s not at all like other native-born American citizens; he’s not at all like other military officers; he’s not at all like other medical doctors or psychiatrists. Anwar al-Awlaki is a native-born and educated American citizen.


This is absolutely false. This man had ALOT of other commonalities with other Americans. He did however have a difference in that he was a Muslim. That however did not dictate that he would be going apesh*t killing fellow soldiers. This author writes without any mention of Major Hasan's career and/or prior psychological problems. Furthermore he showed serious warning signs of being an extremist well before the killings at Ft. Hood occurred and in fact was trying to get out of the Army. It should also be noted, as many of you probably have guessed, that a large percentage of individuals pursuing the profession of psychology, have serious psychological disorders themselves. This was not mentioned, but along with Hasan's leanings towards Islamic radicalism, psychological issues may have been a contributing factor (although not an excuse).



Three of the four perpetrators of the 7/7 bombings in London were native-born British citizens, and the fourth was Jamaican-born. Of the five US citizens currently under detention in Pakistan for terrorism charges, one has been reported to be native-born American, two originally from Yemen, one from Egypt, and one from Sweden. Yet, once again, none of their varied national and cultural backgrounds matters to them. They are all united in their values and goals (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/motivation) by their singular identity of being Muslims.


True. But he does not ask what type of Muslim. Just as there are many types of Christians united in their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord, God, and Savior, there are many types of Muslims. He does not mention this and seems to lump them all into the extremist category. It can only be said that being a Muslim is a prerequisite for becoming an Islamic extremist and that there are certain Islamic interpretations that make a Muslim more likely to become an extremist. But he does not get into that.



It’s tempting to dismiss these observations by saying that they are all “extremists” or “Jihadists.” That would be politically correct and comforting, but factually inaccurate. According to Thomas L. Friedman, who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world, the only person that I know of who actually predicted 9/11 two years earlier, 50% of Muslims throughout the world applaud the actions of their fellow Muslims on 9/11, and presumably other murderous acts against westerners, while the other 50% actively condemn them. Yes, 50% is only half, not a majority, but it nonetheless represents 800 million Muslims worldwide. If we assume that 50% of them are male, and about 30% of them are young (between the ages of 15-30), then we are talking about 120 million ready suicide (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/suicide) bombers worldwide. It took only 19 of them to kill 3,000 of us.


Was this seriously posted by an academic? He uses phrases like "According to Thomas L. Friedman, who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world..." as if he's read everything else out there and that no other expert's opinion matters to him. The other massive omission is that he did not mention when this data was collected and how it was collected. If it was collected after the Iraq invasion, (especially if collected post Abu-Graib incident), then the results would be tremendously skewed and would not be reflective of the murderous rage that he seems to believe resides within every Muslim's heart.



And this is not limited to faraway places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. According to the 2007 report by the Pew Research Center, 81% of Muslims in the United Kingdom consider themselves Muslim first, British second. 81%! For four out of every five Muslims in the UK, being Muslim is more important than being British. The comparable figure in the US is 47%, and it’s 46% in France, 66% in Germany, and 69% in Spain. I cannot think of any ethnic or religious (http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/religion) group in the United States (with the possible exception of recent Mexican immigrants in the Southwest) of which half of the members consider their ethnic or religious identity to be more important than being American. Would half of black Americans consider themselves to be “black first, American second”? (I can think of one who would – Jeremiah Wright – but would anyone else?) Would half of Catholic Americans consider themselves to be “Catholic first, American second”?


Again he glosses over his own quoted statistics as he doesn't seem to notice the huge drastically significant differences between the UK and countries like the US and France. He simply doesn't ask as to why there are these differences, nor whether the timing of the polling had influence. I've read this particular report which has been carefully analyzed by John Esposito, a leading expert on Islamic extremism in his book "Who Speaks for Islam. What a billion Muslims really think." If anyone wants to see a thorough analysis of the Pew data I highly recommend that book. Just looking at statistics is meaningless without knowing what factors influence the numbers. They are indicators but do not tell the whole story. Anyone who believes that raw statistics do not have the potential to lie or mislead does not understand (or is aware of) the differences between the various types of statistical research methodologies and how things like surveys are constructed in their methodology.



Of course, it is technically impossible to know for sure without actual survey data on other comparable groups within the United States. But that’s precisely my point. Nobody would dream of asking black Americans “Do you consider yourself to be black first or American first?” Nobody would dream of asking Catholic Americans “Do you consider yourself to be Catholic first or American first?” That would be absurd, to the point of nonsensical.


Actually his statement is absurd. I would not be surprised if such studies have already been done. They are certainly perfectly feasible to do without any serious ethnical issues blocking such research.



Yet it is not an absurd question to ask of Muslims, and indeed half of American Muslims (and four-fifths of British Muslims) do consider themselves to be Muslim first.
Why is being Muslim so completely different from being anything else in the modern world today? Why is being Muslim such an all-encompassing, all-consuming identity?

Why does he not ask a Muslim himself? What does "Muslim first" mean? If he is a psychologist, he should be interested in the levels of importance that certain aspects of an individual's self-identity rank in an individual's schema (the cognitive framework through which an individual views the world). I seriously would be terrified to get this quack as a shrink. He should be ashamed of representing his profession in such an intellectually lazy manner.


Wigon

[khukuri]

thanks wigon

whar an astounding article...

[deagle]

its only the delusional extremists that are problems.

[dttk0009]

Probably the most racist thing I've read on MP.net so far, especially the title.

[Clockwinder]

Yet another article posted on the web as "fact" from a "renowned expert". Here's an idea - don't refute and rebut here - send to the author and the publishers and spare me. I just read and file under "s" for sh!t and move on.

[Bathinus]

Don't all religous people put their faith above all else? I mean isn't that the definition of being a "true" believer? I kind of assumed their SOUL would be more important to them then their political view.

lol @ how we naturaly act like putting nation or ethnicty first is actualy more "normal" then putting your faith first....logicly your soul (if you believe in that) SHOULD be first.

Im not religous, but I get why someone who is thinks that way.

[Sootan]

Qur'anic interpretation is sealed.

Err, not exactly. Prominent scholars wrote interpretations every now and then. But you need to build a tonne of credentials and religious scholarly authority first.

[wigon]

its only the delusional extremists that are problems.

Well kinda... the main problem in my eyes is that those of the more fundamentalist sects of Islam (primarily Salafi, some Deobandi, and a few Shi'a sects) can be very easily pushed over the edge into either becoming terrorists or directly or indirectly supporting terrorists.
I think it is wrong to be a total apologist for Muslims and that alot of self-criticism needs to be done by Muslims about the status of their faith and how they envision the future of their faith. I think it has the potential of being a bright religion of peace and hope or a self-fullfilling prophecy of hatred, fear, revenge, chaos, and conflict bringing death and destruction upon the world (mainly upon fellow Muslims as right now the primary victims of terrorism are other Muslims who don't agree with the terrorists). The President of Iran is like the latter example. I once called him "The Iranian Bush" but now I think he's worse then Bush as he is far more wreckless and ideologically driven.

Other nations like Morocco, Indonesia, and Turkey however I think are going the other path towards finding a uniquely progressive Islamic path into the future that does not compromise shariat, but that interprets the shariat in a liberal manner, but more importantly, in a manner based upon mercy and compassion (as is traditional and Sunah) rather then on trying to prove how harshly a person can be punished each time a person is judged and sentenced for a crime. The Shariat is not about punishment. It is about justice with emphasis on mercy and compassion with many alternatives to the harshest punishments (such as blood money to be paid to the family of a murder victim instead of the murder being put to death, or the example of lashes instead of stoning for people who commit adultery). Personally I'd rather see petty criminals like minor drug dealers get public lashings and have to do community service rather then clog up our jails in the U.S. and cause taxpayers to pay millions upon millions of dollars to support them with 3 meals a day, a roof over their head, and free healthcare while many of us law abiding citizens of the United States can't even get that.

By the way, no I'm not Muslim. I'm Theist (I don't follow organized religions but I believe in one God). I'm also a firm believer in Jesus Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" as it has served me well dealing with Islamic extremists. It is simply good psychology when your enemy insults you and you reply with kindness and respect. It surprises them and forces them to respond in kind unless they're total jerks or they are truly insane paranoid/dillusional psychopaths. So basically if you give them respect and show genuine interest in learing about Islam, they generally tend to return your respect and will listen to you if you have patience enough to endure the initial insults and accusations of you being CIA or Mossad.

Just tell them.... I AM THE ZOHAN...and I want to give you silky smooth hair. LOL! Just joking, although that might make them laugh.
You can find tons of these radicals on YouTube by the way. That's probably the easiest place to find the ones that speak English if you don't speak Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, etc...
The quickest thing to stop an Islamic extremist in his tracks is to ask him, "Can you show me where in the Qur'an or Ahadith that it says Muslims can kill women, children, and the elderly?" I've yet to have even a Salafi scholar answer that one aside from some massive stretches of interpretations with zero evidence to back it up.
My favorite response is "Oh it's CIA and Mossad who kill all the civilians in the suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan." Then I reply, "Really? Do you really think a Jew or an American would blow himself up just to make Muslims look bad? Seriosly?" Then you point them to some YouTube or Liveleak clips (in private messages to their inbox) of well-known Taliban leaders running jihadist suicide bomber camps with recruits they say are sent out to attack civilian targets in Western countries. Then you ask, "Are they Jews?" It's all about breaking through all the conspiracy theory crap and focusing them on the aspects of terrorism that contradict Islamic teachings and then backing it up with solid evidence.
You end with asking them, "What does your Shaykh say regarding what happens if you mislead other Muslims towards evil in the name of Allah?" You then follow that by asking "Are not the munafiqun (hyprocits) the ones who go to the deepest depths of hell?" This generally sobers them up and makes them think a bit more about what it really means to be a Shahid (a martyr).


Wigon

[wigon]

Err, not exactly. Prominent scholars wrote interpretations every now and then. But you need to build a tonne of credentials and religious scholarly authority first.

I agree... it is (for others who don't know) the process of "Ijtihad" and is something that must be done very carefully. There is alot of current debate amongst Islamic scholars about the limits of Ijtihad and whether it is bound by the earliest rulings in Islamic history (up until the last of the rightly guided Caliphate) or whether those early rulings were bound by societal constraints and that the importance was to maintain the spirit of the Shariat rather then the absolute literal interpretation. There are ahadith and traditions supporting both sides of this issue which make it all the more complicated with much depending on the particular madhaab (school of Islamic thought) that a Muslim follows.
One powerful argument by extremists however is that the literal word offers certainity. There is little ambiguity (aside from contradicting Ayas explained away by later verses replacing earlier ones or otherwise known as abrogation). The problem with this is that if a Muslim were to truly follow the Qur'an purely, he would be living exactly as people lived at the beginning of Islamic history and they would reject almost every aspect of modernity as much of it today comes from the Kufr (non-Muslims) or it creates dependencies on Kufr nations (via global trade). They could not study biology as they would have to look at pictures of living things. They could not watch TV or take photographs. They could not use anything that made fire in warefare. Etc... Etc...

Obviously Islamic extremists DO use VERY flexible Ijtihad, but they just do so to justify their political beliefs and terrorism (like the ultra-extreme Takfiri belief that it's ok for mujahadin to dress and act like foreigners and to drink alcohol, go to strip clubs, etc... as long as they die as martyrs killing non-Muslims in jihad because they believe all sins will be forgiven by Allah then. Another example is their belief that it's ok to kill American civilians because they are taxpayers or because they voted for President Bush (or Obama) and thus are actively fighting against Muslims.

In contrast, if a moderate Muslim Shaykh tries to use Ijtihad towards figuring out how to best practice Islam in the modern world, then they have Takfir declared on them (apostate status) or at the very least are called a traitor towards Islam or they are dismissed as a Sufi or a "secret Shi'a" spreading Shi'a lies. So the "it's ok for us but not ok for you" attitude amongst extremists is always an interesting aspect of their behavior I think.

At any rate, I finally should also point out that not all Salafis are extremists. There are actually some pretty good Salafis who are good people but just concerned with their religion being grossly distorted by modernist Muslims and Western pressures. I think that this is a totally legitimate concern amongst Muslims. Christian fundamentalists have the exact same concerns here in America about their religion and their rights to express their religious beliefs (which some believe should be expressed over others who don't share their beliefs).


Wigon

[Hollis]

Err, not exactly. Prominent scholars wrote interpretations every now and then. But you need to build a tonne of credentials and religious scholarly authority first.


Yep, I mentioned the clerics in Turkey was reviewing it, but for practical purpose, it is sealed to the majority of Muslims.

Short posts are short, because they are synopsis.

[wigon]

The sad thing is that the Arab Shaykhs and Muftis will dismiss those Turkish Islamic scholars as a bunch of nutball Sufis who just want to re-assert Ottoman rule over Arabs. Although knowing Turkish nationalism, that last part is kinda true as you've probably seen from the TURKEY STRONG!1!! crew on this forum. lol They are nice people until you criticize Turkey... then wow are they ultra-nationalistic. That's part of the reason why most Arab Muslims won't listen to anything that Turkish Islamic scholars say regarding Islam.

Wigon

[Goggen]

The sad thing is that the Arab Shaykhs and Muftis will dismiss those Turkish Islamic scholars as a bunch of nutball Sufis who just want to re-assert Ottoman rule over Arabs. Although knowing Turkish nationalism, that last part is kinda true as you've probably seen from the TURKEY STRONG!1!! crew on this forum. lol They are nice people until you criticize Turkey... then wow are they ultra-nationalistic. That's part of the reason why most Arab Muslims won't listen to anything that Turkish Islamic scholars say regarding Islam.

Wigon

Wigon, you should definitely mail the author, your knowledge of the subject is humbling and I would love to see a discussion between the two of you. Especially since you appear to have set him straight ;-)

[wigon]

Oh just to be clear I wasn't criticizing Hollis. I was agreeing with him. The blog author however, was I think just someone stating his political opinions which I think is fine. What pissed me off is that he was representing himself as a psychologist with a PhD no less. I will be be sending him a more diplomatic response however. It will be interesting to see what his reply will be (if he bothers to reply). It's too bad he doesn't have a comments section on his blog.


Wigon

[JBH22]

we dont speak with each other in Arabic.. if there is language barrier we use English.

Having reciting The Quran in arabic give a sense of belonging, a shared act which is why muslims and muslimah consider each others as bro and sis. Although having said this, the quran also clearly point out each individual must be responsible of their actions. The good and the bad are equally counted and utimately judged in the after life.

alot of muslim go to mosque in jeans, the modern time simply set aside traditional value... clothing, any type of clothing are allowed as long as it doesnt bear any offensive images or words and most importantly it cover the Aurat.



if you dint bother to read my post you can just take this sumarry. We muslim are Hardcore Warrior.

HArdcore warriors Bruuuuahhhhhhh

[Sootan]

HArdcore warriors who never won against Israel or USA.vow if that's harcore so be it

Shut it! This is a very intersting and civil discussion, leave your flame baits out of this.

[JBH22]

Shut it! This is a very intersting and civil discussion, leave your flame baits out of this.

it was civilised and interesting until i read that there are harcore warriors that's why i'm here cause i would be more happy to see that there are Universities,hospitals and more debate to improve the living standard of muslim than talking about war.so STFU

[Sootan]

Yep, I mentioned the clerics in Turkey was reviewing it, but for practical purpose, it is sealed to the majority of Muslims.

Short posts are short, because they are synopsis.

Sealed up to a point, yes. Ordinary man-on-the-street muslim is not allowed to attempt an ijtihad, only bona fide scholars were supposed to do that. But there are many interpretations available, you can choose from an 8th century scholar or a more recent 21st century one. There isn't only a single interpretation of Al-Qur'an, although there is only one Al-Qur'an.

What the clerics in Turket are doing is not really something new. Only diferent thing I see perhaps is the scale of the endeavour, and maybe the expected outcome.

[ggk]

it was civilised and interesting until i read that there are harcore warriors that's why i'm here cause i would be more happy to see that there are Universities,hospitals and more debate to improve the living standard of muslim than talking about war.so STFU

you need to caliberate you sarcasm meter before telling people to STFU.

[JBH22]

you need to caliberate you sarcasm meter before telling people to STFU.

that's what i was thinking,thanks for the advice i'll take it into consideration

[andrewpotts]

The sad thing is that the Arab Shaykhs and Muftis will dismiss those Turkish Islamic scholars as a bunch of nutball Sufis who just want to re-assert Ottoman rule over Arabs. Although knowing Turkish nationalism, that last part is kinda true as you've probably seen from the TURKEY STRONG!1!! crew on this forum. lol They are nice people until you criticize Turkey... then wow are they ultra-nationalistic. That's part of the reason why most Arab Muslims won't listen to anything that Turkish Islamic scholars say regarding Islam.

Wigon

I've seen the same kind of ultra-nationalistic behavior from others when thier country or aspects of their society(France, Canada, USA, Israel) are rightly or wrongly criticized. Besides isn't being ultra-nationalistic a good thing..? Andrew

[gustav]

Besides isn't being ultra-nationalistic a good thing..? Andrew

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles De Gaulle. p-)

[andrewpotts]

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." Charles De Gaulle. p-)

Thanks, that's a very interesting statement coming from someone who to me symbolized the very definition of ultra-national. Andrew

[IDF_TANKER]

The article title made me cringe. In general, as much respect I have tor Thomas Friedman for his knowledge and insight, he very often seems to lack this inner breaking mechanism, which is supposed to stop one and make him realize, that as knowledgeable and intelligent he might be, he has his own limitations. He very often presents some pretty far-reaching conclusions as doubtless God-given truth, or - to put it bluntly - being full of shyt and of him self. And, yes, having only briefly gone through this article, it seems that some of the claims he makes can be to some extent extended on Jews too. Thomas Friedman should consider to take a deep breath and shut up once in a while.

[RoyB]

Thomas L. Friedman sounds j****h.

If this thread would have been called. "What's wrong with jews", the thread starter would be banned in seconds. This is the new reality in life. Why that is I don't know.
Someone said you're a racist, I doubted that.. Now I know.

[andrewpotts]

Someone said you're a racist, I doubted that.. Now I know.

I'm new to this but to me your comment borders on being a flame. Andrew

[kkbou]

Its a racist and poorly argued article from someone who should know better.

[wigon]

The article title made me cringe. In general, as much respect I have tor Thomas Friedman for his knowledge and insight, he very often seems to lack this inner breaking mechanism, which is supposed to stop one and make him realize, that as knowledgeable and intelligent he might be, he has his own limitations. He very often presents some pretty far-reaching conclusions as doubtless God-given truth, or - to put it bluntly - being full of shyt and of him self. And, yes, having only briefly gone through this article, it seems that some of the claims he makes can be to some extent extended on Jews too. Thomas Friedman should consider to take a deep breath and shut up once in a while.

I agree with IDF tanker. Jews actually are ALOT more self-critical. Some of the most passionate and vocal pro-Palestinian activists are actually Israelis which is kinda bizarre. I have alot of Israeli and American Jewish friends and they fall along the whole political and religious spectrum just like any other group of people. Whether Friedman is Jewish or not is really not an issue. There are many Middle East analysts who believe similar things as he does who are not Jewish. The guy who wrote the blog (quoting Friedman) is of Japanese ethnicity apparently (although not much of an analyst).

[acg1189]

i think the article is interesting, but as others said. It makes HUGE jumps in logic (I think you could easily dispute the assertion that 1/2 of all muslims support 9/11). Also no actual statistics on say how this is different from any other race immigrating to a new country. The author mentions Hispanic immigrants, but I really question if Mexican immigrants DO see themselves as Mexican first, American second. Do their children see themselves as more Mexican than American? Either way he just states this, he doesn't prove it.

But the big part of the article is the stats on those who see themselves as more muslim than their nationality. Iteresting point, but I'd like too see a breakdown by age and by whether or not that person has immigrated there or was born there. This is similar to arguements made in the US at the turn of the century about a few other racial groups (for examle, saying Irish American's saw themselves as more Irish-Catholic than american, thus making a jump to something or other about how the pope was going to take over the country)

I say the breakdown between age and those who are citizens by birth because it seems the experience of growing up in the respective country always affects things. For example, my girlfriend is a 1st generation Indian. Everytime she's gone to India to visit relatives she always says she comes back with "the impression that I'm about as Indian and Taco Bell is Mexican."

[BMUS]

So much stupidity in one thread. Amazing.


Thanks wigon for your post. It was most pleasant to read.

[wigon]

i think the article is interesting, but as others said. It makes HUGE jumps in logic (I think you could easily dispute the assertion that 1/2 of all muslims support 9/11). Also no actual statistics on say how this is different from any other race immigrating to a new country. The author mentions Hispanic immigrants, but I really question if Mexican immigrants DO see themselves as Mexican first, American second. Do their children see themselves as more Mexican than American? Either way he just states this, he doesn't prove it.

But the big part of the article is the stats on those who see themselves as more muslim than their nationality. Iteresting point, but I'd like too see a breakdown by age and by whether or not that person has immigrated there or was born there. This is similar to arguements made in the US at the turn of the century about a few other racial groups (for examle, saying Irish American's saw themselves as more Irish-Catholic than american, thus making a jump to something or other about how the pope was going to take over the country)

I say the breakdown between age and those who are citizens by birth because it seems the experience of growing up in the respective country always affects things. For example, my girlfriend is a 1st generation Indian. Everytime she's gone to India to visit relatives she always says she comes back with "the impression that I'm about as Indian and Taco Bell is Mexican."

Actually I don't think that's the major issue. If you asked "Are you an American first or a Christian first?" to an evangelical Christian, I think the vast majority would say "Christian". I don't think that is a big deal as both average American Muslims and average American evangelical Christians would say that being an American is #2 and still is very important to them. The danger is when an American Muslim believes that his or her religion is under attack by the country that they claim citizenship to. Most American Muslims know that there are a ton of other reasons why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan and that we're trying to get out of those countries (although most do not support those wars). However unfortunately there will always be that militant miniority who believe in the radical Islamic calls for Jihad against America and its allies.

It is this militant minority that is the problem as far as the security of the United States is concerned. This means law enforcement actually have to learn quite a bit about Islam so that they understand certain warning signs of radicalization. But more importantly I think is preventing radicalization from happening by countering extremist Islamic propaganda and recruiting efforts. Fortunately, the majority of American Muslim youth that I've met have taken a much more positive American self-identity that is built upon their identity as a Muslim. The analyst/author Genieve Abdo (who I've talked to in person) reported very similar observations to mine in her book: "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11." In the course of writing this book, she traveled around the United States interviewing and spending time around American Muslims from all walks of life and many different backgrounds and ethnicities. What was she also noted like myself was the new American-born generation of young Muslims who are out creating a new positive Islamic-American self-identity. For some reason however things seem very different when looking at the same demographic of young Muslims in the UK. Why is that? I have no clue to be honest. It's bizarre.

[saf]

...there is nothing wrong with being a muslim. nor with any other religious denomination. infact i find the islam faith very good. but what makes it wrong for any religious denomination are its wrong interpretation of thier law & killings civilians because they practice other religion different from the majority(area based).

[~Berdan]

...there is nothing wrong with being a muslim. nor with any other religious denomination. infact i find the islam faith very good. but what makes it wrong for any religious denomination are its wrong interpretation of thier law & killings civilians because they practice other religion different from the majority(area based).

"There is nothing wrong with being a muslim,or any other religious denomination",you are saying your opinion as if it is an absolute decision.Nice.I wish I could speak so securely about subjects.But here is my opinion against yours (yes,what you said is an opinion):

Religion is a bullcrap invented by human beings to explain their pitiful existence,and give them the feeling of being significant.Or it could also be an invention to ease the control over group of people.It could also be mind numbing inventions of a person who licked one toad too many,and thought god himself came down from the sky to talk to him (that person could also be just very schizo),and bunch of guys believed him,cause people are pretty fokking dumb.It could be finally just a natural quest of human kind to satisfy our curiosity about why and how stuff works in our world.But just they didn't had enough tools to understand it,so they invented god.

Be it as it may,any religion looses any sense of credibility to me,when it makes it's followers follow some stupid bunch of defined laws,which cannot withstand the test of time.Time changes,people change,life changes,society norms change,so yea...your god sucks if he still expects you to fokk camels and wash your arsehole with your three fingers on your left hands.Whlie humanity (the better part of it that is) is mapping super-clusters,launched WMAP probe to check anisotropy radiation of universe,and trying to find Higgs Boson.And also,not fokking camels.

You can braincrap me until your mehdi comes,about "how Islam is great,and it is not Islam fault that local tradition pollute it,and how people wrongly interprit Islam".Oh no,no no no.People will try and change laws so it will suite them.That is,unless Allah Bismillah will come down on this earth to every single tribe who follows Islam,stand in the middle of the city,and say "you mother .... nice people,please,don't change the laws,cause they are timeless and were written by me".Checking to see if that happened?Nope,never happened.

This fact alone,only comes to show Islam is not word of Allah almighty may he know no sorrow,but just a bunch of crap written by someone.Would it be a word of infinite wisdom,it would not contain option for people to add stupid crap to it.Islamic world was once center of wisdom (Baghdad was the city of knowledge),from 800 to 1100 AD it was the place of exploration,fertile period for science.That is,until some smartguys decided science evolution is blasphemous.Great work.Really,cool guys,Allah must be so proud of them.

Coming from Muslim heritage (not that much of a followers :) ),and living in bunch of a Muslim countries myself,I wonder,"If Allah wanted to find a group of people who can show the world how Islam is great-he did a piss poor job".Every single country had the same mindset,which is not that good for self-growing-as-a-human-being mindset.And sense the really only connection between them (well,as a matter of fact,the countries I lived in were all Turkic countries,so that also connects) is Islamic heritage.So,makes one wonder.


Of course,all of that is all my personal OPINION (so,next time you write something like "religions are great",please add,"to my opinion").And it should be noted that I am taking a shot not only at Islam,but I don't care that much of other religions.So,my opinion and my opinion only,if you do not agree with it,live and let live.Just to show people have other opinions...

Peace out.

[wigon]

"There is nothing wrong with being a muslim,or any other religious denomination",you are saying your opinion as if it is an absolute decision.Nice.I wish I could speak so securely about subjects.But here is my opinion against yours (yes,what you said is an opinion):

Religion is a bullcrap invented by human beings to explain their pitiful existence,and give them the feeling of being significant.Or it could also be an invention to ease the control over group of people.It could also be mind numbing inventions of a person who licked one toad too many,and thought god himself came down from the sky to talk to him (that person could also be just very schizo),and bunch of guys believed him,cause people are pretty fokking dumb.It could be finally just a natural quest of human kind to satisfy our curiosity about why and how stuff works in our world.But just they didn't had enough tools to understand it,so they invented god.

Be it as it may,any religion looses any sense of credibility to me,when it makes it's followers follow some stupid bunch of defined laws,which cannot withstand the test of time.Time changes,people change,life changes,society norms change,so yea...your god sucks if he still expects you to fokk camels and wash your arsehole with your three fingers on your left hands.Whlie humanity (the better part of it that is) is mapping super-clusters,launched WMAP probe to check anisotropy radiation of universe,and trying to find Higgs Boson.And also,not fokking camels.

You can braincrap me until your mehdi comes,about "how Islam is great,and it is not Islam fault that local tradition pollute it,and how people wrongly interprit Islam".Oh no,no no no.People will try and change laws so it will suite them.That is,unless Allah Bismillah will come down on this earth to every single tribe who follows Islam,stand in the middle of the city,and say "you mother .... nice people,please,don't change the laws,cause they are timeless and were written by me".Checking to see if that happened?Nope,never happened.

This fact alone,only comes to show Islam is not word of Allah almighty may he know no sorrow,but just a bunch of crap written by someone.Would it be a word of infinite wisdom,it would not contain option for people to add stupid crap to it.Islamic world was once center of wisdom (Baghdad was the city of knowledge),from 800 to 1100 AD it was the place of exploration,fertile period for science.That is,until some smartguys decided science evolution is blasphemous.Great work.Really,cool guys,Allah must be so proud of them.

Coming from Muslim heritage (not that much of a followers :) ),and living in bunch of a Muslim countries myself,I wonder,"If Allah wanted to find a group of people who can show the world how Islam is great-he did a piss poor job".Every single country had the same mindset,which is not that good for self-growing-as-a-human-being mindset.And sense the really only connection between them (well,as a matter of fact,the countries I lived in were all Turkic countries,so that also connects) is Islamic heritage.So,makes one wonder.


Of course,all of that is all my personal OPINION (so,next time you write something like "religions are great",please add,"to my opinion").And it should be noted that I am taking a shot not only at Islam,but I don't care that much of other religions.So,my opinion and my opinion only,if you do not agree with it,live and let live.Just to show people have other opinions...

Peace out.

That's all fine and good, but your opinion does little to address the fact that hundreds of millions of people follow the religion of Islam. You very rarely can change a person's religious beliefs by insulting their religion and making fun of it. Generally it has the opposite effect when you do that by making them further entrenched in their beliefs. As a Theist (I believe in something higher but not in organized religion) while I do not follow Islam, I try and do my best to understand why they believe what they believe, especially when it comes to understanding Muslim extremists. To me that's the only important thing to focus on (as well as how to keep extremism from spreading). If I just made fun of Islam with every Muslim I talked to I would get absolutely nowhere with them except perhaps learning new curse words in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, etc...
:)

To refuse to acccept that hundreds of millions of Muslims follow Islam is to be just as blind as you believe following a religion makes a person.

[~Berdan]

That's all fine and good, but your opinion does little to address the fact that hundreds of millions of people follow the religion of Islam. You very rarely can change a person's religious beliefs by insulting their religion and making fun of it. Generally it has the opposite effect when you do that by making them further entrenched in their beliefs. As a Theist (I believe in something higher but not in organized religion) while I do not follow Islam, I try and do my best to understand why they believe what they believe, especially when it comes to understanding Muslim extremists. To me that's the only important thing to focus on (as well as how to keep extremism from spreading). If I just made fun of Islam with every Muslim I talked to I would get absolutely nowhere with them except perhaps learning new curse words in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, etc...
:)

To refuse to acccept that hundreds of millions of Muslims follow Islam is to be just as blind as you believe following a religion makes a person.

Right....
See dude,I don't know why you wrote all this great speach.I am pretty much aware of the fact,that saying unpleasant stuff make someone retract into his bellieves,and getting defensive mechanism all up and running.I think that even a little kids aware of that fact.And also,if and when I'm trying to convince someone,I am most certainly will try to avoid insulting him.But-->

With all do respect,that guy just insulted me by saying Islam is great (which is against my set of believes and triggers my defensive mechanism).So,I told him what is my opinion about the subject.You see,the problem with us guys that we try to understand so much other people,like Muslims,that we forger we also human beings,and we also entitled to have our own defensive mechanisms,we entitled for someone to understand our feelings,and so on.IT works both ways.
I don't give a kaka about millions of muslims.I lived enough time between them,and franky,I don't want to understand why someone wants to be so backward.I also don't understand how someone asks to be understood and heard,and gives two shytes about doing the same in return.The king is naked,science is best tool to explain how physical world works today,not some bullcrap from schizo pedofile warmongering politician lying snake asshole.It's a taboo to talk about this obvious matter,so I say,frak it.With all do respect,most academia are agnostics and athesits,certainly most of them aren't Muslim.Those are the people who contribute to our world and have the best understanding how it works,not the hords of bearded smelly illiterate wahhabi with rotten teeth who yell "it's an outrage".

The fact that people believe that crap insults me as a person.Why no one talks about that,and also the fact it also insult couple and couple of millions of agnosts like me.And I believe I,with capital that I,have the right,just like Mustafah there,to get my respect and be heard and understood for my opinions.

And I think we allready had that conversation somewhere before...

[wigon]

Right....
See dude,I don't know why you wrote all this great speach.I am pretty much aware of the fact,that saying unpleasant stuff make someone retract into his bellieves,and getting defensive mechanism all up and running.I think that even a little kids aware of that fact.And also,if and when I'm trying to convince someone,I am most certainly will try to avoid insulting him.But-->

With all do respect,that guy just insulted me by saying Islam is great (which is against my set of believes and triggers my defensive mechanism).So,I told him what is my opinion about the subject.You see,the problem with us guys that we try to understand so much other people,like Muslims,that we forger we also human beings,and we also entitled to have our own defensive mechanisms,we entitled for someone to understand our feelings,and so on.IT works both ways.
I don't give a kaka about millions of muslims.I lived enough time between them,and franky,I don't want to understand why someone wants to be so backward.I also don't understand how someone asks to be understood and heard,and gives two shytes about doing the same in return.The king is naked,science is best tool to explain how physical world works today,not some bullcrap from schizo pedofile warmongering politician lying snake asshole.It's a taboo to talk about this obvious matter,so I say,frak it.With all do respect,most academia are agnostics and athesits,certainly most of them aren't Muslim.Those are the people who contribute to our world and have the best understanding how it works,not the hords of bearded smelly illiterate wahhabi with rotten teeth who yell "it's an outrage".

The fact that people believe that crap insults me as a person.Why no one talks about that,and also the fact it also insult couple and couple of millions of agnosts like me.And I believe I,with capital that I,have the right,just like Mustafah there,to get my respect and be heard and understood for my opinions.

And I think we allready had that conversation somewhere before...


You just stated that you don't give a crap about Muslims or why they believe what they believe. So why then should Muslims or any other religious person bother to understand you? Every human wishes to be respected including yourself and Muslims. However don't expect to receive respect without giving respect. If someone saying that their God is great insults you, then my friend, you have very thin skin and I'm afraid that you will continue to feel insulted by Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc.. no matter where you go on this planet. Insulting them back, as you just acknowledged, leads to nothing good. Sometimes, you have to be the bigger man and keep the anger and ego in check in order to make progress with people. That reminds me of what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy in the Book of Matthew... see religion isn't all useless.

[kamaz]

.........................

the new sharia laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGbynOi9tIY

[Ought Six]

While the article is poorly written, the point about the Muslim identity being a more powerful and all-encompassing one is a valid one (as a generality, of course). The fact that Sharia calls for religion, government, behavior, dress and just about everything else to be dictated by the Koran is indicative of the scope of cultural Muslim beliefs and practices. This is a big difference from other contemporary major religions, and goes a long way to explaining some of the behavior we see, positive and negative alike.

[ggk]

Religion is a bullcrap invented by human beings to explain their pitiful existence,and give them the feeling of being significant

you cannot impose that opinion of yours to those who choose religion over atheism.

[lzdbb]

:grin:
So this Thomas L. Friedman, "who knows more about the world affairs, especially the Middle Eastern affairs, than anybody in the world," estimates there are 120 million young muslim males just dying to blow themselves up.

I think we should check his math twice.

Oh, holy s**t, what does blow up mean?
sorry, but I am only a foreigner.

[Russian_dude]

What's wrong with muslims? They still take their brand of fairy tales seriously, unlike the 21st century society.

[Russian_dude]

you cannot impose that opinion of yours to those who choose religion over atheism.

But religious people ALWAYS want to force their OPINION on others.