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?

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.

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.

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.

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


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.


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


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'.


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

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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

indeed (garump)

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

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


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.


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

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.

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?

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

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...

... and then you would have another dangerous ideology like Islam. It seems like you are actually agreeing with me.



"like every religion..."

The implicit assumption here is that all religions are exactly equal in their potential to do harm. I do not see why we would ever assume that to be true. Certain ideas are more dangerous than others. Small details in a set of ideas can matter quite a bit.

No one thinks that every muslim is a suicide bomber. If I say to you I am going to start a set of ideas which will lead to 100 people who are very nice, but will create 15 people who are intent on destroying the world, wouldn't you think that was a problem? The whole point of this essay too was that the so-called peaceful majority of muslims are complicit in the damage that the so-called radicals are creating. And, they kind of have to be, because those guys are not "perverting" the religion as is heard so often, they are actually following it more closely.

I think it's kind of funny that Daniel posted a hate mongering email to the website written by

Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a respected psychiatrist.

that apparently doesn't exist except in a chain mail/ spam meant to create hatred.


Reading this thread is some more strong evidence for Science, Education and Athiesm though.

I don't see why you think it is meant to create "hatred". I don't "hate" muslims, but I do recognize that Islam is a dangerous mind-virus that poses a threat to the world.

I, for one, respect Dr. Tanay.

I also don't think it's a hate-mongering e-mail. What I see is someone asking questions like "Why aren't there any Muslim voices speaking for peace as loudly as those speaking for death?"

I ask the same of the any race or religion that puts themselves above others for superficially arcane reasons. For example, who is selling arms to the Taliban and Al Qaeda? If they are coming from non-Muslim sources or other types of unbelievers, then isn't it a crime against Allah to use them? "Halal Weapons Only Please"

Well, OUAKMEKW OIUOINSLJ disagrees with you and he's very respected.

of course it is the christians who are doing the majority of the slaughtering in the world.

is it not a terrorist act to remotely bomb civilians with drones?

Not necessarily.

What should we do?

Throw those bombs away and WASTE them?

It depends.

on what?

please explain.

on whether the terrorists the drones are after are using civilians as a shield.

that's one example anyway.

I think the point of terrorism is that you are leveraging fear on a civilian population in order to achieve some political goal.

There are circumstances where civilians get killed in war that don't qualify as terrorism (e.g. the bombing of Berlin in WWII is not terrorism). It also has a lot to do with intention -- if you are trying to bomb a military bunker and you accidentally hit a hospital, that is not terrorism.

what if Al-jazeer says it is?

what if the 'terrorists' are not using them as shields. What if the area is heavily congested, and there's nowhere to go to 'fight on a field' or whatever?

what if the targets are traveling through a civilian area?

Too bad.

They shouldn't be terrorist in the first place.

how about if the bomber just doesn't care whether or not civilians are killed, is that not terroristic; to constantly be in fear of an arbitrary death 'just because'?

what if u knew that there was a high probability of the hospital being hit or damaged?

Too bad.

Bomber have schedules to keep too

Define care. Civilian casualties happen in war. The question is, are the civilians targeted with purpose or are they just in the way people that can't be helped? It also ups the ante just a bit when the in the way people, based on numerous past experiences, might just actually be not so much in the way people. It makes for quite a bit less black and white than your posts would seem to allow for. Interestingly enough, your posts could be used in speeches made by Muslim extremists looking to recruit.

Starting to agree with this guy, just post nonsense right back.

Or what if I just kept generating hypotheticals without responding to the point of what you were saying?

guns don't kill people, people kill people. of course has every religion the same potential to do harm, it just depends on how some crazy radicals interprete them. bible and koran are basically from the same tree, just different branches. in both books can you find passages with the potential to be interpreted as harmful.


not necessarily. how about all the violent missionaries in our history, who basically gave this choice: "convert or die"? did they pervert catholizism or did they follow it more closely?

Why should we believe this? The same exact potential to do harm? Exact same for every religion and ideology? Why do you think that? Satanism just as dangerous as Christianity for example?



And they are both harmful. But Islam is worse.



I don't know who you're referring to exactly, so I can't really answer this. But certainly fundamentalists are people who follow the religion more closely - by definition. And those people are crazy, yes.

since it just depends on the people that created them, yes.
satanism has its origins in christianity...


their radicals are worse than the christian radicals in our days. but in essence, you can compare them to the christian radicals a couple of centuries ago.
i know , it's a long shot, but i sometimes think that islam, as it is "younger" than christianity, gose through a similar state christianity had during the times of crusades, burning of witches etc. christanity was very authoritarian and wanted basically the same things, islam wants today: more power, bigger territory etc.


agreed. it's often stated, that the world would be a lot more peaceful without religions. i think, it would be enough if all the religions thought about their similarities. christianity, islam and judaism have the same roots and even relate on each other.

In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days.
Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10
countries during this time... while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.




Good link showing the 'religion of peace'

what took you so long?^^

well, it's all about spin these days. as i said, there are radicals in every religion. if you dig deep enough, i'm pretty sure you'll find radical jews also. and that there has been terror with christian background recently should be obvious (not talking about crusades. ireland.).

i'm not accusing or defending anything. just stating facts and my opinion. the reason that the potential for terrorism is that big in islam, lies more in infrastructural, territorial, educational problems. why does the potential for radicalism and terror develop in areas like yemen, somalia, afghanistan/pakistan border regions, etc? why do the most suicide bombers and actual terrorists (not the guys in the background) come from those countries and not from saudi arabia, katar, dubai - all muslim countries also?

You do notice that you are quick to point out the 'other' factors when considering Islamic violence, while ignoring these same factors to point to Christian violence?

am i? weren't the reasons in northern ireland mostly territorial and infrastructural?

At first, but soon it was the Catholic fertility rate that caused the rise in violence.

The Irish issue was wanting to belong to the crown or not. Generally the English and Scottish descendants lived in the north and wanted to stay with the crown, they were obviously Protestant as the UK was Protestant. The Irish didn't want to be part of the crown and obviously were Catholic. Religion was not the issue it just came hand and hand with which side of the fence you were on so please stop bringing up the religious issue and throwing Irelands name in this debate. Some of the greatest leaders against the English were Irish protestants.

If you fancy a read Charles Stewart Parnell is one of them and my favourite ever Irish Person.


Edit: Catholic fertility rate, when Ireland got free the English/Scottish descendants all lived in the north and they got to stay with the crown while Ireland became independent (not until 1936 but nevermind for now). A tiny number of Irish catholics lived there and grew and grew but they couldn't vote or get jobs and a lot became refugees. So yea the Catholics multiplied like crazy until there was too many that they had to be given the right to vote etc and the oppression lead to extremism.