59 replies to this topic

[DanielNegreanu]

Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a psychiatrist.



A German's View of Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a
number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people
were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward
fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed
the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one
of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority
just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned
us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family
lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies
destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is
the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is
entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better,
and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the
globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is
the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting
wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian
or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder,
or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is
the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims
and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to
become suicide bombers.

The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent
majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in
peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about
20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge
population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a
warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across
South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder
of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.


And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be
said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:


Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because
like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the
fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs,
Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many
others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it
was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to
the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.



Thoughts?

[Balloon guy]

They seem to find their voice whenever a Dutch makes a cartoon, or a news station reports a lie that soldiers in Gitmo are flushing Korans down the toilet.

But behead a civilian aid worker...they seem to prefer silence.

[ahosang]

Yeh, this is already realised by people studying the reality of Islam rather than the nonsense spouted by liberal apologists.

A post of mine:
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=3032230

Winston Churchill's thoughts on Islam - compare his experiences to some easily witnessed in Europe(no need to even go to the ME):
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Wi...ll-Islamism.htm

The moderates are simply unable to register any serious disapproval of extremist activity, because they either sub-consciously agree or are too fearful to be identified as siding with kufr.

[Pokerized]

Yeh, this is already realised by people studying the reality of Islam rather than the nonsense spouted by liberal apologists.

A post of mine:
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=3032230

Winston Churchill's thoughts on Islam - compare his experiences to some easily witnessed in Europe(no need to even go to the ME):
http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Wi...ll-Islamism.htm

The moderates are simply unable to register any serious disapproval of extremist activity, because they either sub-consciously agree or are too fearful to be identified as siding with kufr.

ahosang,
you post makes me see you as a relative of Darwin (Evolution Theory) who said that we were monkeys first and became human later. You wrote something that is identical with what Darwin said at that time.


If you know Islam then talk about that, if you don't know then keep your silence and let the others think that you are the master.

I would never say that other religions are bad like you are doing and like other are doing, because I believe that every religion is from Allah (c.c.) but everything has its time. the name of Jesus and Mariam are lot more than the name of Muhammad in Quran, do you know that? Who knows who? do you think you know Islam?

to evaluate any book, post or anything first you have to experience it and then tell it is good or bad. seeing bombers, terrorists and others really doesnt make any good step to evaluate Islam.

Muslim cannot be a terrorist and the terrorist cannot be a Muslim.

[akoff]

ahosang,
you post makes me see you as a relative of Darwin (Evolution Theory) who said that we were monkeys first and became human later. You wrote something that is identical with what Darwin said at that time.


If you know Islam then talk about that, if you don't know then keep your silence and let the others think that you are the master.

I would never say that other religions are bad like you are doing and like other are doing, because I believe that every religion is from Allah (c.c.) but everything has its time. the name of Jesus and Mariam are lot more than the name of Muhammad in Quran, do you know that? Who knows who? do you think you know Islam?

to evaluate any book, post or anything first you have to experience it and then tell it is good or bad. seeing bombers, terrorists and others really doesnt make any good step to evaluate Islam.

Muslim cannot be a terrorist and the terrorist cannot be a Muslim.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand.

[Avaron]

Perhaps you should pull your head out of the sand.

he has a point. true believers of any religion generally don't turn into terrorists, b/c i don't know any religion that teaches killing, mass murder, etc.
what all the three big religions (christianity, islam, jews) have in common, is, that at one point in their respective holy books, they all tell stories of wars against non-believers. this is the stuff extremists feed from.

and of course, religion is always a good excuse for political motivated extremism. it was the reason for the crusades (true motivations: conquering land, gaining control over resources, and simply looting). it is (to some extent) the reason for the conflicts in the middle east. and it is the excuse for hegemonic conflicts in the arabic world, where it is all simply about power, influence etc.

and i'm pretty sure, that the main reason for international terrorism isn't religion, but plain and simple the struggle for power, influence and money. not saying, religion isn't, but it is certainly not the main reason.

[ahosang]

ahosang,
you post makes me see you as a relative of Darwin (Evolution Theory) who said that we were monkeys first and became human later. You wrote something that is identical with what Darwin said at that time.

Thanks for suggesting that, but no, I'm not related to Darwin.

If you know Islam then talk about that, if you don't know then keep your silence and let the others think that you are the master.

I know enough about Islam. I do not know every hadith or sunna, so I am not a religious scholar of Islam, but I am a social scholar and yes, I see the reality of Islam in our societies.

I would never say that other religions are bad like you are doing and like other are doing, because I believe that every religion is from Allah (c.c.) but everything has its time. the name of Jesus and Mariam are lot more than the name of Muhammad in Quran, do you know that? Who knows who? do you think you know Islam?

Completely irrelevant to this thread whether Jesus and Mary are mentioned more. As for whether you would say any other religion is bad, that doesn't bother me and is also irrelevant. Address the points about moderate and fanatical Muslims. The religion is being spread by the sword across Africa and my brothers and sisters are being killed.
http://www.christianpersecution.info/africa.php

to evaluate any book, post or anything first you have to experience it and then tell it is good or bad. seeing bombers, terrorists and others really doesnt make any good step to evaluate Islam.

Thanks for the proletysing, but I don't need to become a Muslim. Furthermore, we are not debating theology or spirituality. We are discussing the growing aggression of Muslim populations with respect to non-Muslims and the failure of 'moderates' to halt this. Try and discuss this with us instead of just making a vague, blanket defence of 'Islam'.

Muslim cannot be a terrorist and the terrorist cannot be a Muslim.

I welcome your position, but there are many who call themselves Muslims that disagree with you.

[Balloon guy]

he has a point. true believers of any religion generally don't turn into terrorists, b/c i don't know any religion that teaches killing, mass murder, etc.
what all the three big religions (christianity, islam, jews) have in common, is, that at one point in their respective holy books, they all tell stories of wars against non-believers. this is the stuff extremists feed from.

and of course, religion is always a good excuse for political motivated extremism. it was the reason for the crusades (true motivations: conquering land, gaining control over resources, and simply looting). it is (to some extent) the reason for the conflicts in the middle east. and it is the excuse for hegemonic conflicts in the arabic world, where it is all simply about power, influence etc.

and i'm pretty sure, that the main reason for international terrorism isn't religion, but plain and simple the struggle for power, influence and money. not saying, religion isn't, but it is certainly not the main reason.

I'm not sure I can agree that this is about power.

The Taliban had all the power, a country they could dictate their rules too etc. They were also not going to have any outside influences because nobody wants their piece of ground, not really. ( Sure the former USSR but they are gone now and the port idea is pretty much on a back burner for a few decades)

I would say it is much more about culture. The Leon Uris novel the Haj said id best:

The basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother. Me and my brother against our father. My family against my cousins and the clan. The clan against the tribe. And the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.


And there is the reality that the beginning of their religion's rise to power was by the sword.

I read this once and thought it made an interesting point:

Perhaps the best way to sum up the hawkish attitude of the Quran is to note that the index to the Penguin edition of the Quran contains over 40 entries for "war," and no entries for "peace."

[nutzbuster]

All/any form of extremism is ultimately desructive on some level.

I am blown away by Churchill's take on it too, mainly these points:

Churchill wrote: "Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men's passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness."


After 9/11, George W. Bush famously described Islam as a "religion of peace". Churchill entertained no such fancy notions. In his history of the Malakand Field Force, Churchill wrote that "civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."

and

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensual-ism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralysis the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Pretty amazing.


And I am appalled that the silent majority of Muslims seem to do nothing to stem the growing tide of people who are fearful (and indeed now hateful) of Muslims in general. It may be ignorant but it is reality.

scary times...

[Balloon guy]

All/any form of extremism is ultimately desructive on some level.

I am blown away by Churchill's take on it too, mainly these points:

and
Pretty amazing.
And I am appalled that the silent majority of Muslims seem to do nothing to stem the growing tide of people who are fearful (and indeed now hateful) of Muslims in general. It may be ignorant but it is reality.

scary times...

They don't name a cigar after you for no reason my brother!

[Mercury69]

They seem to find their voice whenever the Danish make a cartoon, or a news station reports a lie that soldiers in Gitmo are flushing Korans down the toilet.

But behead a civilian aid worker...they seem to prefer silence.

fyp...

Yep, the peace loving Muslims are a bunch of pussies. Come and get me, ****ers. I'm pretty feisty and ready to scrap for a pacifist, imo. Also, all the terror tactics of killing innocent, uninvolved people is just cowardly and disgusting. You're sadly mistaken if you think those actions are going to get you a seat on Allah's right hand side while getting blown by a virgin or whatever the **** you believe.

[ratwastard]

the next time these clowns do some heavy duty terroristic damage to america or an american ally then i say we just bust out the whole nuclear arsenal on their sorry asses.

then who's ever left we just march in and chop there heads off. we spare some of the more attractive women of course. that wont be many cause most of them look kinda manly.

[vbnautilus]

I agree with the OP 100% and find it to be very well-written.

he has a point. true believers of any religion generally don't turn into terrorists, b/c i don't know any religion that teaches killing, mass murder, etc.
what all the three big religions (christianity, islam, jews) have in common, is, that at one point in their respective holy books, they all tell stories of wars against non-believers. this is the stuff extremists feed from.

and of course, religion is always a good excuse for political motivated extremism. it was the reason for the crusades (true motivations: conquering land, gaining control over resources, and simply looting). it is (to some extent) the reason for the conflicts in the middle east. and it is the excuse for hegemonic conflicts in the arabic world, where it is all simply about power, influence etc.

and i'm pretty sure, that the main reason for international terrorism isn't religion, but plain and simple the struggle for power, influence and money. not saying, religion isn't, but it is certainly not the main reason.

I strongly disagree with this post. The most destructive property of the guys guiding those planes into buildings was that they truly believed they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

You simply cannot generate such behavior without an effective, culturally endorsed ideological poison like Islam. The analogy to Nazism is very apt.

[nutzbuster]

They don't name a cigar after you for no reason my brother!

indeed (garump)

Hey, what were those stogies you handed out at the golf outing last year? Avo's? Can't remember... smooth smokes.

[Avaron]

I agree with the OP 100% and find it to be very well-written.




I strongly disagree with this post. The most destructive property of the guys guiding those planes into buildings was that they truly believed they would be rewarded in the afterlife.

and they may really believe that. for the people in the background, they simply are tools for their use.

You simply cannot generate such behavior without an effective, culturally endorsed ideological poison like Islam. The analogy to Nazism is very apt.

of course you can. with proper propaganda, enough time and maybe an enigmatic person at the top, you can implement almost any idea/ideology/behavior to people who are susceptible to it. happens every day, from commercials to politics.

the biggest part of islam (sunni islam, 85% of world's islam) is absolutely peaceful. it's so peaceful, most people haven't even heard about it. but like every religion, islam has lots of different branches, from liberal to extreme. and of course, in our media world, you only hear about the extreme parts.

You simply cannot generate such behavior

well, in northern ireland, it worked with the "effective, culturally endorsed ideological poison" named christianity

[Pokerized]

fyp...

Yep, the peace loving Muslims are a bunch of pussies. Come and get me, ****ers. I'm pretty feisty and ready to scrap for a pacifist, imo. Also, all the terror tactics of killing innocent, uninvolved people is just cowardly and disgusting. You're sadly mistaken if you think those actions are going to get you a seat on Allah's right hand side while getting blown by a virgin or whatever the **** you believe.

A question.... I don't care what you are thinking personally about Muslims and I am sure that your thought about Muslims is exactly not important for them an they don't care like me.

Now the question: Can you show me a Muslim post that insults christians and christianity like you did in your post?

[akoff]

A question.... I don't care what you are thinking personally about Muslims and I am sure that your thought about Muslims is exactly not important for them an they don't care like me.

Now the question: Can you show me a Muslim post that insults christians and christianity like you did in your post?

Muslims tend to keep it real...you know bombs, suicide, inoccent women and children randomly blown up...good stuff like that.

[Pokerized]

Muslims tend to keep it real...you know bombs, suicide, inoccent women and children randomly blown up...good stuff like that.

Afganistan, Iraq and Palestine are also under the same circumstances and they are Muslim countries, who tends to keep it in real? Who tends to diminish the world population?

[Randy Reed]

Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a psychiatrist.
Thoughts

From: Burton H Wolfe [mailto:*****]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:34 PM
To: Schmieman, Michael
Subject: This is NOT from Dr. Tanay

Mike -

Although this appears to have been something I might have written, and in many ways conveys my thoughts, it would have not come from me because I would not use terms such as "Communist Russia... Chinese Communists...Japan murdered...Palestinians...staggering 70 million people." Those terms are all literal, grammatical, factual, unsupportable atrocities. More importantly, it appears that the author of this essay is not Emanuel Tanay, M.D., who is identified on the internet as a clinical professor of psychiatry at Wayne State University - though I cannot find a listing or address for him on the Wayne State University web site. (I have added the email address of the chairman of the Psychiatry Department there, Dr. Manuel Tancer, to this message, in the event he wants to pass it on to Dr. Tanay, if indeed there is a Dr. Tanay.)

So far as I can determine, the author of this essay in its original form is a guy named Paul E. Marek. I cannot find any contact address for him, either; but since he posts articles on the Blogger News Network, I have included the given email address for the editor of that internet operation, "Simon," to the recipients, so that if "Simon" cares to do so, he can relay this message to Marek.

The national Israeli news network Arutz Sheva published this essay by Marek almost two years ago, but whether or not its version was the original I do not know.

Among those who have revealed the misidentification is a guy named John Houk, who runs a blog or online journal, using the web site http://slantstraight.com.

You might want to do an article for the Tribune papers on the many misidentifications of articles and essays that are routinely found on the internet, which, along with valuable material not found in the mass media, has unfortunately also become a gigantic fount of misinformation - not the least of which is Wikipedia. That online encyclopedia is full of errors and in many instances the authors of its articles have done nothing less than rewrite history.

Thanks, in any event, for showing me this essay. In its fundamental aspects it is devastatingly accurate. – Burton

[Mercury69]

A question.... I don't care what you are thinking personally about Muslims and I am sure that your thought about Muslims is exactly not important for them an they don't care like me.

Now the question: Can you show me a Muslim post that insults christians and christianity like you did in your post?

Here's an answer for you:

Where are their voices? Are they laid low in fear of reprisal? Or are they sercretly in agreement with the agenda of the few? Is questioning these things an indication that they are not true believers? Is THAT what they're worried about?

I HATE, DESPISE and DETEST idealogues, dogmatics and others who falsely perpetuate the notion that acts that are destructive, particularly to humans, will be rewarded. I equally despise those who target "innocents", aka non-military targets, with the aim of "getting their message across".

That is the scope of my orignal reply, which you casually ignored in the hope of unmasking a racist douchebag, which I am not. There is much to be learned from shared cultural and socio-religious experiences and dying by shrapnel isn't one of them. Islam has brought many, many beneficial things to this world: art, science, architecture, just to name a few generalities. Why...WHY has the current trend towards extremism tarnished centuries of a DIFFERENT kind of message? Time was when the Muslims were far more tolerant of Jews than the Christians were. Time was that the Word of Allah was spread with words and examples of correct behaviour. NOT BOMBS AND DEATH. This is a great concern and PEOPLE WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD MUST STAND UP AND QUESTION IT.

Silence won't help anyone.

Edited because I am feeling more composed...