Skip to main content

Fuck you Nidal.  

You are an abomination to Islam.  You hijacked a beautiful faith in the name of your petty hate.  It's not the fault of the army that you couldn't find a wife.  It's not the fault of the army that you chose to live next to some dumb ass redneck who thought it would be funny to vandalize your car.  You live in Texas.  News flash ar-tard, the south isn't exactly known for its contemporary values of pluralism and tolerance.  

I went to my old mosque last night.  I prayed next to an old man who had fled the  violence of his African homeland Eretrea.  His body could not stop shaking from the onset of his Parkinson's.  Yet somehow this man found the strength to kneel before God repeatedly in humility.  He prostrated over and over again until he could no longer stand.  Outside the mosque, little kids were cheerfully playing soccer and seeing who could twirl the most times without falling over.  Mothers were gossiping about the latest attempt of Mahmoud to find a wife.  Mahmoud, a young muslim in his early 20's, stood nervously in the parking lot waiting to see if Aisha's father would allow him to come over for family dinner.

You fucked over this old man.  You fucked over the kids.  You fucked over Mahmoud.  You fucked over every muslim american.  Americans who just want to practice their faith in peace.  Americans who want to contribute to this great country and make it a better place than it already is.  Americans who want the islamic values of compassion, mercy, and forgiveness extended to all.

Islam does not preach violence.  Islam does not preach hate.  Islam does not preach anger.  

A man once asked the founder of your faith for practical advice he could apply to his life.  Prophet Muhammad said: Do not be angry. The man repeated the question several times and The Prophet repeatedly replied, "Do not be angry."

Why didn't you heed the words of your Prophet?  Since birth, you were instilled with Muhammad's own words of compassion towards humanity.

"Do you love your creator?  Love your fellow-beings first."

"That person is not a perfect Muslim who eats his fill and leaves his neighbors hungry"

"Feed the hungry and visit a sick person, and free the captive, if he be unjustly confined.  Assist any person oppressed whether muslim or non-muslim"

"Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting alms, and prayers?  Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots."

"When the bier of anyone passes by whether Jew, Christian, or Muslim, rise to your feet."

"Kindness is a mark of faith: and whoever does not have kindness does not have faith."

"Abuse nobody."

"The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."

And so on.

However, you decided to listen to your hate rather than your faith.  You decided to embrace evil rather than righteousness.  I am glad you lived Nidal.  You now have time to realize how stupendously unislamic your actions were.   You now have time to actually pick up a Quran and read it before they rightly give you the needle.

- Samir

Originally posted to ssaban on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (166+ / 44-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, cdreid, exsimo2, slinkerwink, Timaeus, mattman, TechBob, Emerson, akeitz, dsb, LuLu, autoegocrat, x, acuppajo, AustinCynic, bethcf4p, object16, Morgana, Gustogirl, BlackSheep1, Wee Mama, ask, sayitaintso, boadicea, Dburn, michelle, Texknight, psnyder, Lynwaz, keensman, The Truffle, jaywillie, yet another liberal, Bulldawg, Samulayo, Wayward Wind, Matt Esler, isabel, Lefty Mama, tomjones, The Gryffin, Josiah Bartlett, xxdr zombiexx, vivens fons, Bluesee, radarlady, SisTwo, TexasTom, Heiuan, klamothe, Lying eyes, one of 8, dewtx, boofdah, Overseas, FunkyEntropy, Jim P, L Boom, BachFan, Keone Michaels, darthstar, fromer, pengiep, Hobbitfoot, Preston S, MarciaJ720, Demena, Cenobyte, high bitrate, jjellin, blueintheface, markthshark, Tempus Figits, orrg1, anotherdemocrat, moodyinsavannah, CTDemoFarmer, Cofcos, Seneca Doane, jgtidd, vbdietz, Jack the R, Rumarhazzit, Brahman Colorado, LWelsch, Puffin, sable, trivium, tfatha, MikePhoenix, mamamedusa, last starfighter, Cat Servant, mikeconwell, NogodsnomastersMary, TexanJane, nzanne, lenzy1000, priceman, oceanstar17, IndianaDemocrat, HoosierDeb, glynor, cactusflinthead, SciMathGuy, 1BQ, MufsMom, Fonsia, be the change you seek, proud2Bliberal, janmtairy, Last Years Man, moonbatlulu, Living in Gin, DaNang65, jfromga, Lefty Ladig, sulthernao, parse this, on2them, marabout40, pyegar, robertacker13, citizen31, sfkat, shenderson, JRandomPoster, googleimage, CABlueDog, science nerd, Nathan45, anaxiamander, Neo Control, Medina Mahmoud, westfriendship, Captain Antelope, Powell, Jadrie, croyal, vc2, Sand Hill Crane, The Narrative, ManicZen, Lorikeet, Dan Gallo, theone718, VirginiaJeff, createpeace, chira2, Wood Dragon, peregrinus, cap76, Larin, skeptiq, Gatordiet, KingofSpades, RLMiller, Huginn and Muninn, jadt65, Tom Seaview, RatCitySqueaker, MichaelNY, thepothole, Han Shot First, worldforallpeopleorg, KiB
    Hidden by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, Alice in Florida, Gooserock, conchita, cskendrick, josephk, Greg in TN, dkmich, Fabian, marina, frandor55, Turkana, Phil S 33, Detroit Mark, jj24, begone, mango, big annie, second gen, TomP, Dem in the heart of Texas, shann, Robobagpiper, Fiddlegirl, Sun dog, earicicle, JesseCW, unspeakable, Deoliver47, mahakali overdrive, p gorden lippy, TFinSF, ArtSchmart, LaughingPlanet, FrankCornish, Lost and Found, damned if you do, bicycle Hussein paladin, annieli, soothsayer99, DawnoftheRedSun, teloPariah, primarydoc, noe44
  •  great diary (20+ / 0-)

    i have muslim siblings serving in afghanistan and they've both told me that they keep being asked by their fellow soldiers about hasan and how annoying it is.

    Defeat Joe "Liar" Wilson by Donating to Rob Miller

    by robertacker13 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:24:59 PM PST

    •  remind him that they may honestly (8+ / 0-)

      want to know the difference bw hate filled religious behavior like hasan and thru islam as this diarist has posted.

      In fact, send this diary to them, it might make the start of a good and interesting conversation/understanding.  So much of the koran is misunderstood or not heard. For example they have the virgin birth, just interpreted differently.

      This diary tho says how muslims see nut cases like Hasan properly..and puts context as to why his views have nothing to do with their religion even if he thinks it does

      "I know we will have differences. Put them aside. It is so easy to focus on where we don't agree and to lose the big picture. Fight until we win" -Kwickkick

      by vc2 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:05:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they're not even that religious (4+ / 0-)

        which makes them feel even more awkward. and they only consider themselves more culturally muslim as a lot of christians do in this country that don't go to church but consider themselves christian. i guess you can call them lazy muslims. (i know they wouldn't mind me calling them that). they read the parts of the quran they agree with, much like christians usually take the new testament more seriously than the old.  thanks for the tips

        Defeat Joe "Liar" Wilson by Donating to Rob Miller

        by robertacker13 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:12:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I feel like an interloper in this diary, but (18+ / 0-)

    it's powerful enough that I'm tipping you anyway.

    A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

    by Seneca Doane on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:27:56 PM PST

    •  You didn't think that, but (3+ / 0-)

      Republicans did.

      They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

      by yet another liberal on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:35:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then you're blind. (5+ / 10-)

      I don't care if the majority of Muslims are peaceful, because they are, but it was still Hasan's Islam that drove him to slaughter his brothers and sisters.

      •  Bullshit (15+ / 0-)

        You should get troll rated for that.  Unbelievable.  Who's blind?

        They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

        by yet another liberal on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:43:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A religion is whatever someone makes of it. (6+ / 0-)

          There's no one "Islam."

          Hasan's Islam drove him to murder.

          I don't know why people are so eager to whitewash that.

          •  What do you say about Atheist murderers? (6+ / 0-)

            Does their atheism lead them to murder?

            They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

            by yet another liberal on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No? (2+ / 0-)

              I figure they have their own unique reasons.

              Is what you're saying that religion never plays a role in violent acts?

            •  Depends (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              earicicle

              Maybe you'll think this is a stretch, but when Communists murdered monks, nuns, and lay religious people, couldn't their atheism and contempt for religion have had something to do with that?

              •  Of course. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MichaelNY

                There are many reasons for violence, most of them bad.  If the evidence showed that, then so be it.

              •  The difference is you have to refer to history (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                josephk, gzodik, Fixed Point Theorem

                this is now.

                People are still killing people over religion today. People are still justifying killing in the name of religion today.
                People are still teaching hate in the name of religion today - to children, from the time they are old enough to attend certain religious schools, and throughout their life. Today.
                Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and yes, even certain Buddhists. And everything in between.

                When is the last time you heard about an atheist suicide bomber?

                When is the last time atheists shot a doctor with a sniper rifle?

                When is the last time atheists stoned a woman to death for the sin of being raped?

                For that matter, when is the last time,say, strong atheists were in pitched violent battle with weak atheists over doctrinal dispute, or atheist were massacring agnostics in their sleep?

                When is the last time atheists tried to prevent certain types of people from marrying other types of people?

                When is the last time atheists blocked an abortion clinic?

                When is the last time atheists introduced bills to outlaw abortion?

                Religion is still killing people, still dividing people, still teaching hate, still promoting discrimination, still teaching people to obey authority and not to think for themselves.

                And yet, here on Daily Kos, it is atheists who are regularly called "militant", "militant fundamentalists", "just like Al Qaeda", "No different than Hitler" - while bleeding hearts trip over their own larynxes, they've bent over backwards so far to avoid associating religious violence in any way shape or form with the actual religion involved.

                One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:54:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LTTE (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you aware that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who introduced the suicide bombing and committed more of them than any other organization, were an officially atheist Leninist organization?

                  •  Utter bullshit (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo, Fixed Point Theorem

                    Tamil Tigers are a secular, ethnic nationalist organization, not organized around religious doctrine - but most definitely not an "officially atheist Leninist organization". They left the religious beliefs of individual members up to the individual members. They were not anti-religious at all. In fact, they recruited from a devoutly religious community, Tamils, who have a strong culture of devotion to God. The political arms of the Tamil liberation movement sought a European-style socialist democracy, including the guarantee of free practice of religion. The terrorist arm, which started as a liberation movement and went off the rails, was anything but democratic - but certainly wasn't "atheist Leninist".

                    The LTTE, moreover, is a secular group which regards religion as a private matter. The ‘cult of personality,’ however, prevails.

                    http://www.indianexpress.com/...

                    The Tamil Tigers include Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim recruits.

                    They had close relations with Islamic terrorist organizations in the Middle East, in Pakistan, in the Philippines, and in Afghanistan, and in fact are believed to have trained Al Qaeda terrorists in suicide bombing techniques in bases in Sri Lanka.

                    Not exactly religio-phobes.

                    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:39:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, so you know that (0+ / 0-)

                      none of the LTTE suicide bombers were atheists? If it wasn't an issue to them, why is it to you?

                      •  It isn't an issue to me (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        corvo, Fixed Point Theorem, MichaelNY

                        What is an issue is that you made shit up, and then try to turn it around so somehow it's my problem.

                        You brought up the Tamil Tigers, not me.

                        My point is that people still commit violence in the name of religion - religious people commit the violence.

                        Yet religious moderates seem to focus all their attention on defending their religion from criticism, and disassociating the religion from those who follow it to extremes.

                        Instead of focusing on examining what is wrong with their religion - whatever it is - that it lends itself so readily to violent extremists?

                        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:49:07 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  OK, I get it (0+ / 0-)

                          I also will admit that some of what I said about the LTTE may be in error. I'm still not convinced. I didn't say they were anti-religious; I said they were atheist, which I thought was true of the leadership and its beliefs, but I stand to be corrected. And whatever bullshit claims they made about wanting a democracy, the area they occupied was ruled as a totalitarian mini-state. One thing I think you can't claim is that the LTTE used religion as a basis for ordering suicide bombings.

                          •  Which is why I never made such a claim (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            corvo, MichaelNY

                            as I mentioned already, YOU brought up the Tamil TIgers, not me.

                            This was about the plenty of religious terrorists that do commit violence in the name of their religion.

                            And the moderates that cover for them by focusing their attention to making sure secular people dont' associate them with those bad false followers - instead of examining what in religion makes it so effective a tool for violence?

                            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:07:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We agree on this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RandomActsOfReason

                            n/t

                    •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
                      -- "Tamil Tigers are a secular, ethnic nationalist organization, not organized around religious doctrine"
                      -- "The Tamil Tigers include Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim recruits."

                      You're right in that they were not driven by a religious identity, but the LTTE's composition was apparently mostly Tamil Hindus and Christians (these two were the main groups targeted by Sinhalese Buddhist state-sponsored persecution and majoritarianism mentioned below), and some Tamil Muslims. I am not sure they had many, if any, Buddhists, since, as far as I know, not many SL Tamils are of the Buddhist persuasion.

                      Since you did not mention, here is some information on the presence of Christian members in the LTTE, and Prabhakaran (who was born a Hindu) himself was apparently a Christian for a while.


                      Both leaders met with various Tamil leaders, including Velupillai Prabhakaran (a lapsed Methodist), who is now the virtual dictator of the rebel-held territory.
                      http://findarticles.com/...

                      Velupillai Prabhakaran - Religion

                      Prabhakaran is born a Hindu, and admirer of Tamil Hindu war god Murugan. However, religion is not a factor in his philosophy or ideology. All LTTE ceremonies are secular, rooted in ancient Tamil customs, or seek to incorporate multi religious elements. For instance, Hindus traditionally cremate their dead, but LTTE fighters are buried, according to the old Tamil custom of burying the warriors.

                      Also, LTTE has an overwhelming support of the minority Sri Lankan Tamil Christians and the Church, and a number of leading LTTE officers are Christians. Prabhakaran named his son Charles Anthony, a Christian name, after one of his most trusted associates, Charles Lucas Anthony, alias Seelan, who was killed in 1983.

                      http://www.experiencefestival.com/...

                      Tamil nationalism/separatism apparently sprang up in response to the persecution of the Tamil people. Prabhakaran's LTTE became the dominant group and it eventually ruled the Tamil majority regions in Northern Sri Lanka. Their separatism took a very violent turn since the mid to late 80s, and at some point, the LTTE turned into a terrorist group.

                      Here is some information that I recently came to grasp regarding the background of the Sri Lankan civil war.

                      First, this BBC timeline of migrations is helpful:


                      Timeline: Sri Lanka
                      BBC

                      Fifth century BC - Indo-Aryan (see the note below) migrants from northern India settle on the island; the Sinhalese emerge as the most powerful of the various clans.

                      Third century BC - Beginning of Tamil migration from India.

                      1505 - Portuguese arrive in Colombo, marking beginning of European interest.

                      1658 - Dutch force out Portuguese and establish control over whole island except central kingdom of Kandy.

                      1796 - Britain begins to take over island.

                      1815 - Kingdom of Kandy conquered. Britain starts bringing in Tamil labourers from southern India to work in tea, coffee and coconut plantations.

                      1833 - Whole island united under one British administration.

                      1931 - British grant the right to vote and introduce power sharing with Sinhalese-run cabinet.

                      1948 - Ceylon gains full independence.

                      Sinhala nationalism

                      1949 - Indian Tamil plantation workers disenfranchised and many deprived of citizenship.


                      One note: "Indo-Aryan" used by the BBC is a misnomer; it's derived from the British colonialist invention (for "divide and rule" purposes) called the "Aryan Invasion theory" which is a myth (See: Aryan-Dravidian divide a myth: Study). North Indians from the Eastern parts of North India would be a more accurate way to describe the origins of the Sinhalese people, in my opinion.

                      There was some serious and systematic state-sponsored persecution of the Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese Buddhist majority since Sri Lanka became independent in 1948, beginning with stripping the Tamil plantation worker migrants (who had lived in SL for about 150 years by then) of their citizenship. Please see a description of the political developments in SL on this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/... That was unnecessary animosity and ill-will between two people with essentially the same ethnic roots (as in the BBC timeline).

                      Regardless of how the situation got to where it is, there is apparently an ongoing and massive humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka with the SL government holding some 250-300 thousand Tamils in detention camps, under miserable conditions, with no end in sight. They also seem to be moving in to take over lands that belonged to the Tamil people. British online news sites seem to be doing a better job on this than the US one, but a direct source of information, for those interested in following the developments, from the Tamil side is this site: [Tamil Net http://www.tamilnet.com/}.

                      Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                      by iceweasel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:46:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Stalin was an atheist, apparently. (0+ / 0-)
                  Mao was and his revolution were opposed to religion. His successors oppress and suppress all sorts of religious groups, the Buddhists in Tibet, the Falun Gong, and the Uighurs.

                  Hitler seems to have vacillated between Christianity and non-belief (and done some "mixed religion with government"), but most Nazis were apparently non-believer with a (white/Aryan) supremacist ideology.

                  Ahimsa, i.e. non-violence, is fundamental precept in the Indian religions of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. No Hindu that I have ever known preached killing of other people, except in self-defense. There is no Hindu scripture out there that prescribes violence, in the name of religion or otherwise, again except in self-defense from violent aggression.

                  On the other hand, Hindus are, in fact, the worst persecuted religious groups over the last 1400 years. Tens of millions of Hindus (who would today amount to hundreds of millions) have been killed during the period. Even after WW2, Hindus have been killed in the name of Islam and Islamism, yet again, as an estimated 2.5 million Hindus (out of a total slain victim count of 3 million) were butchered by Pakistani and Islamist killers in 1971 in the Bangladesh liberation war: http://www.liberationwarmuseum.org/...

                  Buddhism took on some violent forms outside of India (eg, Sinhalese Buddhists are ethnic cleansing the Tamils, mostly Hindus and Christians, in Sri Lanka and wiping them out as we speak), but in India, it was a peaceful religion. Eg, King Ashoka the great took to Buddism following a brutal war against Kalingas, and ruled India in secular manner.

                  Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                  by iceweasel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:01:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Are you fully confident (4+ / 0-)

            yet that you know what motivated him? I'm not. You could be right, but I don't know whether he was mainly motivated by insanity, revenge, or radical beliefs.

          •  There is no whitewash here (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DelRPCV, Fabian, earicicle, FrankCornish

            People are attempting to answer the question, "Why?".

            If 99% of Muslims are proponents of peace and 1% are murderers - does that invalidate Islam?

            If so, you must apply the same standard for every group.  Christians.  Anti-abortionists.  Those showing a preference for Burger King.

            You lack logic.

            The only constant is change - Heraclitus

            by Gustogirl on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:04:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You don't know what the hell drove him (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto, LeftOverAmerica

            to murder.

            It may be simple treason, or he may have had a psychotic episode, or it may have been a work-place shooting resulting from the fact that he couldn't handle the hostile enviornment in which he worked.

            Here's my question - when the dorky kid tired of being picked on and beat up shows up to school with a shotgun and starts killing classmates, do you claim that he did it "because of his dork-ness"?

            Or do you pay attention to the people who tormented him?

            The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. When they become harmful, reactionaries defend them.

            by JesseCW on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:28:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The First Thing I heard -- from the Inside (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              Was that the folks in Texas kept calling him "camel jockey." He was born in the US to parents who were American citizens.

              But, like the rumors that the muslim-haters here are asserting -- it is nothing more than an unworthy rumor.

          •  Don't read much here at Kos, eh? (2+ / 0-)

            Religion is NEVER to blame for anything. Christian Inquisition? That was just politically motivated  torture that "used" religious belief to its advantage. Christian Crusade? Political land grab that "used" religious belief for conscription and an excuse. Anti-gay sentiment in modern-day America fomented by christian religious fundamentalism? Those people are just anti-gay; their religious belief is a "convenient cover." And so on.

            No sir, religious belief is completely pure and honest and never to be considered the root cause for any bad behavior. After all, look at all the good that comes from it.

            •  yeah.... (0+ / 0-)

              ....that was everyone's point....religious belief is pure and honest and look at all the good that comes from it.....Well spotted, Malumaureus!

              Personally, i think religion has done far more harm than good through the ages, but this incident just happened. We have no idea why he did what he did - if the man is insane, religion had as much to do with his actions as did dogs with those of David Berkowitz.

              We do not yet know what motivated the man. Making declarations to the contrary reveals one's own agenda, not Hasan's.

              "....Money speaks for money, the Devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?"

              by LeftOverAmerica on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:30:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The whole point is that religious people love to (0+ / 0-)

                say things like "he was insane; his religious extremity was a symptom of that" as an attempt to excuse religiously motivated acts of violence, even when it's such a laughably flawed position.

                •  Yes, they do - (0+ / 0-)

                  nearly every time, if not every time. That has nothing to do with the fact that we do not yet know this man's true motivations/mental status.

                  Just because religious people are frequently complete hypocrites doesn't mean that religion motivated this attack.

                  "....Money speaks for money, the Devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?"

                  by LeftOverAmerica on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:50:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  True. Hasan's numerous pronouncements and the (0+ / 0-)

                    weighty evidence from witnesses over the course of months and years suggests quite strongly that religious belief motivated this attack and other factors served as a catalyst to set it off and that he might have been detached from reality (in more ways than just his religious beliefs).

                    The fact that countless other religious believers throughout history have done the same is irrelevant to this particular case, as is religionists' zealous attempts to whitewash their religions' pasts. What isn't irrelevant is the ridiculous attempt to pretend religion had nothing to do with this case, or that it was a secondary factor to insanity. Well, unless certain people want to go down the road of "extremist religious belief is insanity." I'm not sure religionists truly want to go down that road, though.

          •  SOMETHING about Hasan drove him to murder. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KayCeSF

            Nobody except perhaps the investigators  and maybe not them, knows what that actually was.

        •  have you read about what Hasan said (11+ / 0-)

          in public?  Justifying suicide bombings and claiming infidels should be killed and oil poured down their necks?

          Give it a fucking break.  This was just another religious extremist asshole.  Doesn't matter if it was islamic extremism or some other religious extremism.

      •  Really? (9+ / 0-)

        You know that?

        So I guess it was Phillip Garrido's Christianity that drove him to kidnap, hold captive, and torture a young girl?

        Was it Timothy McVeigh's Christianity that "drove him to slaughter his brothers and sisters?"

        We are about to be attacked by Al Qaeda. Wave flags if you have them. That always seems to scare them away. I'm kidding. - Kurt Vonnegut

        by not a cent on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:45:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't really know much about Garrido, (0+ / 0-)

          but I don't think McVeigh was religiously motivated.  I could be wrong, but I never really saw anything about that.  If he was contacting radical Christian leaders for advice, then yeah, his religion might have been a central reason.

          •  Well maybe no one actually made an (6+ / 0-)

            issue of his religion.  Maybe it didn't become part of the equation.. because maybe being a possible christian fundamentalist doesn't really bring out the 'interest' that being a possible Islamic fundamentalist does.

            Maybe Hasan broke.  Maybe he cracked.  Maybe we'll find out if we wait and try to learn and understand.  Maybe not.

            Because our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation.. Barack Obama, 5-25-08

            by sherijr on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:16:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  McVeigh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burrow owl, churchylafemme, klamothe

          Yeah, I think his particular Christian beliefs did have something to do with his terrorist act (you can correct me if the evidence isn't clear). That might actually be a good analogy, depending on what we do or don't find out about Hasan's motivations.

          I have no idea who Garrido is.

        •  yes (0+ / 0-)

          McVeigh's extremist christian beliefs drove him to kill.

          Yes, they did.

          And Hasan's extremist muslim beliefs almost certainly drove him to kill.

          •  this is actually a myth (4+ / 0-)

            I believed it myself, until a kossack pointed out that McVeigh was not anything close to a religious fanatic.  He was actually a professed "agnostic".

            His behavior after he left the military suggests that he was mentally unbalanced.  But that was not manifest in religious extremism... his extremism was pretty purely anti-government (fueled in part by his military experience and his observation of the waco siege).

            "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

            by Hopeful Skeptic on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:28:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hell, in the army (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV, Hopeful Skeptic

              He manned the 25mm on a Bradely fighting vehicle, and liked to kill Iraqi soldiers who were standing around waiting to surrender.

              I saw an interview with a guy who served on the same crew with him...he was regarded as a stone cold killer, and thought it was a compliment.  He apparently kind of creeped everyone out, even then.

              The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. When they become harmful, reactionaries defend them.

              by JesseCW on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:45:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  huh (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hopeful Skeptic

              point taken.  Though I know they found a lot of end times racist religious literature in his car, no?

              •  I'm not sure about that (0+ / 0-)

                But it wouldn't surprise me that his agnostic claim was contradicted by other evidence.  He seemed pretty mentally messed up, and probably not likely to be "consistent" in his views.

                "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

                by Hopeful Skeptic on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:45:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  you omit completely (11+ / 0-)

        the fact that this guy was a loner, who his colleagues describe as speaking incoherently, he was depressed after his mother died according to his family, and that he was a psychotic person. an honest investigation would have to take account of those facts.

        but you're right it's not Islam... it's "Hasan's Islam". the same type of jihadi misinterpretation analagous to the christians who justify killing abortion providers or slavery in the old days. that's not Islam.

        Defeat Joe "Liar" Wilson by Donating to Rob Miller

        by robertacker13 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:56:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll pass on the first paragraph, because I think (0+ / 0-)

          that's all directly tied to his religion, but we completely are in agreement when it comes to the second paragraph.

          Everyone really makes their own religion.  I believe Hasan felt that true Islam was a murderous rampage.  Scott Roeder felt that true Christianity was murdering an abortion provider.

          I think whitewashing that is a mistake, if only so we learn how to handle people that may fall into that trap.

          •  everyone makes their own religion (4+ / 0-)

            then you're attributing it to him, and what's in his brain.  not islam. and attributing it to islam would be ludicrous. radical islam? fine. but there's no questioning that this guy is just a fucking loner and a fucking pussy and not very emotionally intelligent. and there's no stopping that whether you're islamic or not. this guy is a near equivalent in loner-status of the VATech murderer who was no muslim.

            Defeat Joe "Liar" Wilson by Donating to Rob Miller

            by robertacker13 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:07:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who sets the rule on what Islam/Christianity/ (3+ / 0-)

              Judaism/etc. is?

              Where do I find exactly what the true forms are so I can tell all the others who call themselves Muslims, Christians, Jews that they're really just fakers?

              •  Now you've just invalidated (5+ / 0-)

                The entire "logic" of your argument.  Maybe you'll come around and see.

                They tortured people to get false confessions to justify invading Iraq.

                by yet another liberal on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:19:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  it's what's mainstream and what isnt. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Pluto, Gracian, MichaelNY

                if you call it islam, you're smearing the vast majority of those who don't commit acts of hate.  if you attribute it to radical or fundamentalist islam, then you're absolutely correct.

                to call this outlier a regular muslim is just fudging things.

                the argument you're making is that everyone gets to determine what something is without the long evidence of history? it's like saying for example, that i can call religion X  a "christian religion" even though religion X does not worship Jesus. except they have a historical definition of christianity as being any faith that accepts Jesus as a savior. hence mormons can be considered technicall "christian" even though evangelicals wouldn't have it.

                by the way, i'm an athiest. and i don't consider Islam or any religion good or bad. it just is what it is. if the majority of christians started murdering abortion providers for a while, then maybe you can call it christian. when the majority of muslims start shooting fellow americans then maybe you can call it islam. but until then, no.

                Defeat Joe "Liar" Wilson by Donating to Rob Miller

                by robertacker13 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:27:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I mostly agree with you (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  churchylafemme, Pluto, robertacker13

                  But the long evidence of history is mixed on both Islam and Christianity and includes loads of acts of religious warfare and violence. What I agree with strongly is:

                  if you call it islam, you're smearing the vast majority of those who don't commit acts of hate.  if you attribute it to radical or fundamentalist islam, then you're absolutely correct.

                  to call this outlier a regular muslim is just fudging things.

                  One quibble: All believing Muslims are fundamentalists, because the Qur'an is fundamental to Islam and they believe it was recited by the Angel Gabriel and written down verbatim. It seems to be a losing battle, but borrowing the term "fundamentalist" from Christianity is inapt. "Radical" is better.

        •  The standard tautology of religious apologists (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          duckhunter, MichaelNY

          if they do something bad, they're not the "right" kind of Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/whatever.

          If they do something bad, they're not the "real" whatever.

          Because only I know the "real", "right" kind of whatever, and it can do no wrong. They are all "misinterpreting" - my priest/rabbi/imam/guru/whatever/god personally told me  the "right" way.

          Doesn’t matter that their whatever told them that their whatever was the "true" way. Doesn't matter that they can pull out just as many quotes from our holy book as I can. Doesn't matter.

          Because it is a religion, it can do no wrong. If religious people do bad things, they are not the right kind, or they're just doing it wrong.

          And around we go. Sigh.

          Meanwhile, instead of focusing on cleaning up extremism in your own religion, you devote all your energies to scolding all those bad people who think it is extremists in your religion who are doing the bad things.

          Because, as we all know, religious extremists don't kill people.

          Atheists who criticize religion for fostering extremism kill people.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:03:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tipped and agree on all but one point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jyrinx

            Don't forget the oppression of religious people by Communists, based on official atheism.

            Furthermore, you don't have to be an atheist to criticize extremism.

          •  Atheists often do the same damn thing. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, MichaelNY

            Hitchens's response to those who point out that Nazism, Stalinism, and the Cultural Revolution were atheistic is to say that they way they behaved was just like religion. In other words, fanaticism is definitionally religious, and atheists don't do certain bad things because if they did they wouldn't be true atheists.

            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

            by Jyrinx on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:52:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The correct response is to point out the fact (0+ / 0-)

              that the atheistic belief of certain characters, such as Stalin, had absolutely nothing to do with their actions, and then contrast that with the fact that certain other characters in history, such as the various religious leaders during, say, the Inquisition, were most definitely motivated by thei religious beliefs.

              Of course, religious apologists go out of their way to try the fallacy you suggest. Stalin's atheism is irrelevant to the discussion, but religionists desperately wish it were relevant because then their argument would have intellectual coherence, instead of being the incomprehensibly stupid rambling and grasping at straws that it actually is in reality.

              •  Wait, wait, wait. Only atheists are cynical? (0+ / 0-)

                You're saying categorically that anyone who exploits atheism is a cynical manipulator, but anyone who exploits religion is a true believer? That's quite a claim.

                “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                by Jyrinx on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:11:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I'm not saying that, but your response is a (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RandomActsOfReason

                  typical one, and  equally as fallacious as the others I pointed out.

                  •  Well, if you're not saying that, (0+ / 0-)

                    then all you're saying is that some atheists' motives have been cynical and some religious people have been true believers. Well, no shit, Sherlock. My whole point is that you can't make generalizations.

                    What exactly is the “fallacy” you think you've exposed, anyway? The idea that atheists can be just as evil as religious people?

                    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                    by Jyrinx on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, the fallacy is in comparing atheists who were (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      RandomActsOfReason

                      not motivated by their lack of belief in any gods to commit heinous acts with religious people who were motivated by their religious beliefs to commit heinous acts in an attempt to draw a false equivalence or to show that religious belief is irrelevant.

                      The fact is that there is a long and well-documented history of religiously motivated violence, including murder and genocide, and scarcely any evidence at all of similar behavior motivated by lack of belief in any gods.

                    •  If atheists can be just as evil as religious peop (0+ / 0-)

                      that doesn't say much for the merit or efficacy of religion, does it?

                      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:59:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  False. Not that Hitchens represents atheists (0+ / 0-)

              but he never has claimed that atheists can do no wrong.

              And I know no atheists who make that claim, or who claim that any atheist who does wrong is not truly an atheist.

              Your antagonism and prejudice against atheists is so strong, that you intrude into every conversation like this erecting straw men and attacking atheists on false grounds.

              I was addressing a specific tautology, based on a principle that Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus/whatever can do no wrong, because if Christians/Jews/Muslims/Hindus/whatever do wrong, they are not "really" religious, or they are "doing it wrong" - meaning, they are incorrectly interpreting the religion (which the apologist is always correctly interpreting).

              Note that this tautology exists independent of any particular instance, example or historical or current example. It is applied a priori to all examples.

              In contrast, if someone points out that Communism adopted all the trappings, rituals, symbols, priestly garments, inerrant holy texts, and other characteristics of religion, just without the god, that is a specific example (and, by the way, there are nontheist religions such as Buddhism, with hundreds of millions of followers worldwide, as well as atheist members of religions such as Unitarianism, so contrasting "atheists" with religious followers is an inaccurate comparison). It is not a statement that atheists can inherently do no wrong, because, if they do wrong, they are not "really" atheists.

              Not even Hitchens makes such an absurd claim.

              If you can cite an instance where Hitchens says, "real atheists do no wrong, because if they did they wouldn't be atheists", please post it here.

              Otherwise, admit that you have made false representations, faulty comparisons and erroneous conclusions.

              One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 12:58:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's a rationalization, not a reason (7+ / 0-)

        It's not Hasan's religion that caused him to act the way that he acted.  In fact there were so many issues it's clear that this had no connection in any reasonable way to his religion.  

        It wasn't even radical right wing reactionary religion that drove this.  It was just a senseless act by someone who was sick.  That's all.  

        HR'd.

      •  Can't believe that got rec'd. n/t (9+ / 0-)

        "....Money speaks for money, the Devil for his own... Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone?"

        by LeftOverAmerica on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:47:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll be looking forward to your comments (5+ / 0-)

        about how some Israeli settler's "Judaism" drove him to kill some Palestinian.

      •  We satisfy our endless needs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alec82

        We satisfy our endless needs and
        justify our bloody deeds,
        in the name of destiny and the name
        of God

        Came up in a discussion on terrorism in an IP discussion once, seems appropriate here......

      •  No (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alec82

        Hasan being a grade A nut job who never had a serious romantic relationship drove him to violence.  He just used his religion as an excuse.

      •  THIS comment is HIDDEN???? (0+ / 0-)

        of all the crap in this diary and the comments -- this community has chosen THIS comment to hide outright ... fucking ridiculous!!!!!

        "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

        by josephk on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:38:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  My assumption is that the diary author (19+ / 0-)

      is himself a Muslim who feels tarnished by the acts of this Muslim man doing something awful while professing his Muslim faith, which will inevitably be used to tarnish Muslims generally, albeit unfairly.

      Frankly, it's a bid like I feel about Bernie Madoff, who used his Jewish ties and Jewish identity to rip people off -- Jewish and not -- and who has thus contributed to the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as goniffs.  He offends me as a Jew.  I could well imagine writing a "Fuck You, Madoff!" diary along these very lines (and as I recall at one point I think I had planned to before the topic got stale.)

      A mess of Bush Admin officials have gotten away with serious crimes! Grab a mop!

      by Seneca Doane on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:08:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  who's the troll exactly? (8+ / 0-)

          man, you're coming off as awfully defensive.  Don't let the fact that you've got a serious bug up your butt about I/P issues drive you to be an asshole to sincere people.

          It's almost a certainty that Hasan killed because of religious extremism.  Deal with it.  Lots of religious extremist killers in all religions.

          This one happened to be Muslim.  Get a grip.

          •  I/P (4+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, Alec82, Lost and Found, simone daud
            Hidden by:
            Kayakbiker

            What the fuck are you talking about, you imbecile?

            •  What a trollish comment. (0+ / 0-)

              Haven't you read the FAQ and know that your comment violates it.

              A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

              by Tempus Figits on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:40:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  uprated (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mnemosyne, sofia, Pluto, Alec82, Lost and Found

              I'm in the I/P diaries constantly, and have never seen any evidence there that Pluto has "a serious bug up [her] butt about I/P issues."

              Only a person who would attribute to themselves oracular Fristian powers could so confidently pronounce that "it's almost a certainty that Hasan killed because of religious extremism."

              Spoon's comment to Pluto combined the rude, the snotty, the untrue, and the speculative. Pluto's response was simply rude.

              •  I Was Rude (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueness

                I also resent being pulled into the piles of destructive pigshit on Daily Kos, otherwise known as I/P Diaries. The allegation was shocking, meant to discredit my assertion that this, most assuredly, is a troll Diary.

                As a result, and given the usual cast of characters who descended on this diary simultaneously in the middle of the nigt like a swarm of flies on dogshit, I am beginning to believe that this Diary was orchestrated by those same members of this community.

                I appreciate your uprating, blueness, but I was clearly out of line.

                •  among (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mnemosyne, sofia, Pluto

                  all the other nonsense that's afflicted this site over the past several days, you seem to have become an HR magnet.

                  If people think you need to get dinged for asking "what the fuck are you talking about" and calling somebody an "imbecile," they also need to ding the person who first called you an "asshole" with a "bug up your butt" who "needs to get a grip," hallucinated untruths about "your I/P issues," intimated you are a troll, and demanded you "deal with" his pronouncements of oracular Fristing.

                  I don't want to tell you what to do, Pluto, but seeing as how the site in general is in a ferment, and you in particular seem to be attracting weirdsmobile HR-wielders with itchy trigger-fingers, maybe you could try to ease up a tad. Or not. When I find myself in the crosshairs, I try to keep that in mind when I post. Usually. ; )  

                  •  Yes. Something Snapped in Me Recently (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness

                    Something deep and true. It must have always been there and what snapped was the protective coating. I learned something about myself at the same time a piercing and painful insight into our situation and the motives of others has emerged.

                    Pulling it back is like trying to shove a feisty octopus into a shoebox. But it can be done. I can do this, no sweat. But at the same time:

                    "I understand every move you make, you motherfuckers. And every shabby, selfish emotion you are feeling. I will expose you everytime you try to do harm here and influence ugly, primitive thinking in the community. Never, ever tangle with me."

                    I have no idea what it must feel like to use an HR. It must be like getting a spiritual boner. I have asked Meteor Blades repeatedly to remove my TU status permanently. I know this can be done. I will continue to make this request.

                    •  i'm not sure, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sofia

                      but I don't think they can disable permanently your TU status except by removing your ability to rate. And they only do that as a form of punishment, for people who are irresponsible with their ratings. That doesn't describe you. You can self-extinguish your TU status by only commenting sparingly, and perhaps by refusing to hand out recs. But I wouldn't want you to do either of those things. If you refuse to apply HRs, you become functionally a non-TU anyway, except that everything on the site is visible to you—which it should be.

        •  What is the basis for that charge, Pluto? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gooserock

          "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

          by Lying eyes on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:10:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  But I don't care that Madoff is a Jew. (5+ / 0-)

        I just care that he is sociopathic enough to fleece that many people and the economy.  His religious affiliation means nothing to me.  I hate it that any muslim or any religious minority has to apologize for a single person professing to be of their faith.  You are not responsible!  Just like I am not responsible for the unibomber- ( I am pretty sure he was raised protestant, no?  Fuck it he was middle class white man anyways- I own him, WASP that I am ;-)) Some people suck and some people kick ass- it seldom has much to do with their religious affiliation.

      •  A constructive response, that might actually (5+ / 0-)

        lead to a better world, would be some self examination on the part of a Muslim - some contemplation of what it is in Islam that lends itself so readily to rationalizing or even motivating acts of horrific violence?

        Just as Christians here who spend all their time attacking atheists for criticizing their religion, should spend more time reflecting on what it is in the Bible and the organization of Christianity that lends itself so readily to Christian extremism?

        Just as Jews responding to criticism of the actions of extremist settlers in the West Back by yelling "antisemite", should spend more time reflecting what it is in their religion that lends itself to such extremism and violence?

        In fact, all religious people should spend more time wondering why religion, which is supposed to be the answer to such things, is such a miserable failure at making people behave better - and, in fact, turns out to be the spark, or at least the convenient, well-fitting cover, that facilitates if not encourages all the extremist violence and hatred and prejudice and discrimination around the world perpetrated explicitly in the name of religion.

        Instead of getting all bent out of shape at people who dare to look from the outside, and say, "what the flying fuck is wrong with you people?"

        Rather than be "offended as a" fellow member of the faith, it would be more productive to wonder what responsibility a faith has for these actions.

        Your comparison to Bernie Madoff, by the way, is completely off base. Madoff never went around waving a checkbook saying, "I steal in the name of Jehovah and the greater glory of the Torah!"

        He's just a thief who happens to be Jewish. Quite different from someone who murders in the name of Judaism (or Islam, or Christianity, or whatever).

        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:16:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Whether it did or didn't (5+ / 0-)

      The fact that he's a Muslim creates even more problems for other Muslims in the U.S. It shouldn't, but it does.

      And based on what we've been finding out, it's very possible these murders may have something to do with a belief in a radical, violent form of Islam. I don't know if we'll ever be able to ascertain whether it does or doesn't have anything to do with that, though, because he's clammed up since coming to, and his lawyer will presumably advise him to exercise his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, unless he's pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

    •  Reading comprehension: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      sometimes it's everything...

      However, you decided to listen to your hate rather than your faith.

    •  I don't follow your logic, Pluto (4+ / 0-)

      Diarist is angry that what Hasan did has repercussions on all Muslims, and particularly American Muslims?

      How is that trolling?

      The only constant is change - Heraclitus

      by Gustogirl on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:57:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Then you are Naive. (0+ / 0-)

      There is a large chunk of Americans who don't care about Glenn Beck, MSNBC or the Polls. They just want jobs.

      by The Simple Canadian on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:25:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hasan's Muslim Faith (0+ / 0-)

      They certainly did have something to do with Hasan's Muslim faith. Which was not entirely unique.

      His words and actions associated them with a kind of Muslim faith. Just as Christian terrorists of abortion patients and Jewish terrorists of Palestinians in Israel have something to do with their own Christian and Muslim faiths. Just as Hindu terrorists of Muslims (and others) have to do with their Hindu faith, as any religious person terrorizing because some god "told them so". Especially when supported by a church and/or priest of that religion.

      Religions have always brought murder and mayhem even when they've also brought peace and compassion. The humanity of the majority does not eliminate, or even prevent, the inhumanity of the few, all holding faith.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:12:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do You Have a Link to this Evidence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        conchita

        ...and testimony? I'd like to see it.

        His words and actions associated them with a kind of Muslim faith.

        •  Ample, That You Ignore (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cartwrightdale

          There's been ample reporting since the shooting of Hasan's words and actions associating his shooting spree with the Muslim faith. Reports of multiple witnesses to his shouting "Allah akhbar" during the shoting. Other reporting that he distributed copies of the Koran as part of his final "getting his business in order". The co-founder of the local mosque has been reported describing a conversation (or two) with Hasan about resistance to fighting fellow Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq. And reports that a week prior to the shootings, Hasan talked with his regular morning coffee vendor about not wanting to fight fellow Muslims.

          All of which is well known now. You're either going around posting like you're informed when you're not, or you're lying about having seen these reports.

          You should stop this charade of "argument" that you're offering in these threads. You're not qualified to pull it off.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 11:01:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
        "Hindu terrorists of Muslims (and others) have to do with their Hindu faith"

        The spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent killed millions of Hindus, including as recently as in 1971, when 2.5 million Hindus were killed by Pakistan, in alliance with local Muslim terrorists (called Razakars). If you are refering to the 2002 Gujarat violence, it came to exist because 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train in Godhra were burned alive by a Muslim mob. Please see here for details on both points.

        Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

        by iceweasel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 11:16:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So What? (0+ / 0-)

          You are confirming religious murder. You seem to be disagreeing.

          What's your point? That when god tells you to take revenge by mass murder, that's OK?

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:44:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
            My objection is to your use of the phrase "Hindu terrorists." I base my objection on Hinduism lacking a history of notable degree (as, eg, 9/11, or the 11/26/08 Mumbai Taj terror attack, both committed in the name of Islam) of mass murders committed in the name of Hinduism.

            Historically, Hindus and India welcomed warmly all sorts of religions from all over the world, in many case the migrants coming to India to escape persecution elsewhere (Zoarastrians/Parsis and Jews, eg), and it is recognized by Jewish groups that India is one of the very few places where the majority (Hindus, in India's case) never persecuted the Jewish minority populations:


            Jewish Identity in Independent India - The Cochin Jews

            By confluence | November 28th, 2008

            It is particularly interesting to note that Indian Jews have not experienced anti-Semitism, as seen in other parts of the world. Over the years, the Jews have integrated into Indian culture and made effective contributions in the fields of literature, journalism, entertainment, commerce and community affairs.

            One may suggest the 2002 Gujarat violence  as  a break with that historical record of Hindus, but that violence took place only upon extreme bloodshed inflicted on Hindus by a Muslim mob torching and killing, in place, 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train. The Indian law and order isn't a well-oiled machine like in the US and hence it doesn't arrive in time even when politicians have the right intentions. The Indian media (lately hijacked by anti-Hindu interests and foreign conglomerates) and punditry have the bad habit of blaming Hindus for everything. In other words, there was no effective protection available for Hindus (other than self-defense), eg, if the same people who plotted the Godhra train carnage, emboldened by the lack of timely punishment for their crime, proceeded to wage 500 such pogroms against Hindus all over India. In other words, the reprisal by Hindus in response to the Godhra train carnage pogrom against Hindus was self-protection and not religious violence.

            You tell me if Hindus have a right to protect themselves and their families from brutality (which they are all too familiar with for 1300 years and running) committed agaisnt them simply for being Hindus?

            All said and done, as people, Indian Muslims are good people. I had a close friendship with one or two in middle/high school, and some good relationships with one or two pious and gentlemanly ones in college. Most Indian Muslims have Hindu origins, and so there is no real reason for them to think that they are any different from Indian Hindus. That's a key realization which I think would help communal balance situation in India. My interactions with non-Indian Muslims in the US has also been positive, and no better or worse than that with any other community, including Hindus. However, in both of these countries, Muslims are minorities.

            It is routinely observed that when the Muslim population in a given country or a region approaches majority, the community's outlook changes dramatically, as happened in India for 1400 years, most visibly for us with the violence before and during the violence, and the state-sponsored persecution and genocide of Hindus  in Pakistan once it was created by breaking up India; Hindus, who were 16-20% in Pakistan as of 1947 were reduced to badly persecuted and severely marginalized 5% minority. Hindus are apprehensive of such terrible history repeating itself.

            This new article is an instructive read how the iron hammer lands when Muslim communities reach majorities:


            Melvisharam: "Darul Islam" of Tamil Nadu
            B R Haran
            14 Nov 2009

            Please read it. Most moderate and reasoned Muslim voices suddenly seem to disappear when the minority status starts approaching a switch to majority. I guess one of the reasons is that even they stand to face difficulties from the radical wing should they speak out.

            I think I now understand where the violence of Islmic origin stems from: Islam, through its texts glorifies warfare (of Muhammed and other fighters) and those portions of the texts are available at the beck and call of radicalizers (such as the Mumbai Taj terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed), readily usable at a moment's notice to brainwash the radicalizable among Muslims to turn to violence against non-Muslims (and rival Muslim sects, eg the Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan.)

            Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

            by iceweasel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:36:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So What? (0+ / 0-)

              You yourself cited a recent Hindu terrorist episode.

              You have some kind of excuse like "the Muslims started it". But responding with terror has no excuse. Especially when Hindus are the majority, and not infrequently have an explicitly "Hindu nationalist" party controlling India's government.

              The Israeli Jews terrorizing Muslims in the region say "the Arabs started it". The Christian terrorists say "the abortionists started it". The Muslim suicide bombers say "the Americans started it", or "the Shiites/Sunnis started it". And they're often right.

              But they're still wrong. There's no excuse for terrorism.

              Muslims are the most frequent religious terrorsts of the world's religions today. Muslims are also the most frequently powerless otherwise, whether militarily or politically - and economically too, excepting the richest Muslims who are capitalists first, and Muslims way down the priority list (after their tribe, their clan, their territory, etc).

              Hindus aren't frequently religious terrorists. But some still are, sometimes. Just because Muslims are the most frequently terrorist religious group doesn't make terrorism exclusively Muslim. Likewise, Hindus are not excluded from the guilt of terrorizing "because god said so". Every religion I know of has terrorized with metaphysical certainty in living memory. That includes Shinto Japanese, too, for example. And though I don't know of any Bahai terrorists, I don't know much Bahai anything, so I won't claim there is none.

              Terrorism is creating fear for political change, usually by violence or its credible threat. Religions are spirituality organizing people into acceptable behavior. Organizing people into acceptable behavior is politics. Religion and politics are always very similar. Churches, the material offices of religion, have interests just as do states, the material offices of politics. And just as there is no state that has not used violence or its credible threat to create political change (even changing threatening changes into neutralized movements, to protect the status quo), there is no church that has not terrorized. That's religious terrorism, and it's universal.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 07:53:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
                "You yourself cited a recent Hindu terrorist episode."

                That's an assholish mischaracterization and logic. Unless you've had some family member of yours in that situation you may not realize it, but not many appreciate the idea of being locked up in a train and burned alive.

                Hindus were brutalized (for being Hindus) with a pre-meditated terrorist attack, and they responded in kind in a language the perpetrators will understand.

                "Likewise, Hindus are not excluded from the guilt of terrorizing "because god said so"."

                Hindus, as adherents, NEVER EVER kill "because god said so", as, in fact, Hinduism teaches exactly to the contrary, i.e. that all beings embody Godliness. It's called integral humanism.

                Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                by iceweasel on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 02:04:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  DVORAK (0+ / 0-)

                  What I said is "assholish"? So I'm an asshole? I offered logic, and some compassion. Fuck you.

                  I just took the time to explain how the Hindus attacking the Muslims in that incident, both groups defined by their religion, is terrorism: violence designed to systematically change behavior. That's religious terrorism.

                  Every religious group has some excuse for "revenge" in its religion's history against any other religious group. And when its priests say it's OK, or even incite it, that's religious terrorism.

                  You're spending your time coming up with excuses for it. It doesn't matter whether someone's got personal experience of it, though of course my family's got plenty. Everyone's family does. People like you who make up excuses for perpetuating it are part of what perpetuates it.

                  Assholes like you. Did I mention fuck you?

                  Goodbye.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 02:19:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  DUDE (0+ / 0-)
                    59 dead charred bodies aren't an "excuse," Mister. They are 59 dead victims of a heinous terrorist attack against them merely for being Hindus.

                    If the victims of the Godhra train carnage/pogorm were as expendable for you to be an "excuse," then were the 3000 dead bodies of the 9/11 also an expendable "excuse" for you? They weren't for me, and hence I supported the Afghan war, as did most people here and around the world. OTOH, I didn't support the Iraq war.

                    Thousands of civilians have been killed in the Afghan war, most of whom probably had nothing to do with 9/11. According to your "logic," then, the Afghan war itself (as originally launched) was a "religious terrorist" attack perpetrated by the American people (since over 90% of them supported it) against the Muslim people (99% of Afghans are Muslims)? No, because Americans had every right to make sure that a heinous attack against them such as 9/11 never happened again. Likewise, Hindus had every right to make sure that a heinous attack against them such as the Godhra train carnage/pogrom never happened again.

                    "Fuck you."
                    "Assholes like you. Did I mention fuck you?"

                    See how forcefully you retaliated (verbally), not just once, but three-fold, to a (verbal) offense against your logic? Which illustrates the fact that revenge, retribution and having an urge to retaliate are human emotions, and having emotions is part of being human. A better evolved soul like Gandhi would turn his other cheek, most people, like you and I find that hard to do.

                    Hindus have been brutalized by Islam for 13 centuries and still continued to be. Tens of millions of Hindus have been killed and hundreds of millions of Hindus have been converted (there are 550 million of them in the undivided India, and some 90% of them have a Hindu lineage) and turned to think and act as enemies of Hindus, their ancestral siblings, by Islam.

                    Hindus don't need lectures from you, for they have been secular, tolerant and multicultural for 2000 years, 600 years before Islam itself was born. If the Muslims of today respected Hindus and Hinduism and acted accordingly, there would be no Hindu-Muslim tensions in India.

                    Ciao.

                    Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

                    by iceweasel on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 11:06:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Please edit your title to f*ck, or something (26+ / 0-)

    like that because profanity in diary titles cause filters to restrict access to this site for those engaging from company based computers.

    Just your title, in the body of the diary, it doesn't fucking matter.

    I see you are new here.  Please read the FAQs, where this particular point of info (and the rest of the house rules) can be found.

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)

    by MTmofo on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:29:56 PM PST

  •  Don't spell out the curse in your title (7+ / 0-)

    please. You can edit that. I'm not sure if that is official policy here, but I think it is.

    Someone told me a story once about Muhammad--I don't know if I have it accurately but...

    Somebody asked him what he could do to improve his spiritual station. "Give the hungry food," he said. "But I am poor, I have no extra food to give." "Then give someone clothing." "But I've only this cloak." "Then smile at them and tell them you wish them well."

    Not the same, but just another example of his interests.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:31:29 PM PST

  •  Hasan was filled with hate, depair and isolation (11+ / 0-)

    He used the Muslim faith as a conduit and crutch for his intense negativity and hate, not the other way around.  Take some solace in the fact that most people know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are good people and that any religion can be used as an excuse for horrific behavior.

    •  I wish that were true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      It may be true of most here but I fear that's not the case among the general public.

      "Not the truth in whose possession any man is, or thinks he is, but the honest effort he has made to find out the truth, is what consitutes the worth of man."

      by Lying eyes on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:15:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree strongly. (0+ / 0-)

        It is far more the rule than the exception.  Unfortunately it can only take 1 person doing a horrific act out of an association of thousands to make the perception in the general public in this country.  Your statement is more accurate as how a significant minority of the general public view Islam than the actual nature of the Religion.

        A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

        by Tempus Figits on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:54:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for replies (0+ / 0-)

          OK it was late and I kept changing how I was going to word it and was suddenly seized with optimism (rare occurrence) and said most people.

          I'm afraid Lying Eyes and Tempus Figits may be stating whats closer to reality.  It seems that this has a become a socially acceptable form of bias an bigotry. :(

  •  Violent video games encourage (3+ / 0-)

    some people to commit violent acts.

    Other fairy tales like Islam, Christianity, and whatever other religion or cult you can name encourage some people to commit violent acts.

    Neither video games nor religion should be banned, obviously, but I don't think there's use in simply whitewashing their roles in heinous acts simply because most gamers/believers don't commit them.

  •  A FYI from the FAQs (6+ / 0-)

    When choosing a title, please avoid the following:

    Profanity in titles is disallowed. The use of asterisks is acceptable. Profanity in the title of a diary will be changed by an admin to contain asterisks (e.g., "Fuck" => "F**k"). Profanity in the text of diaries, and in comments, is OK; just keep the curse words out of the diary titles.

    "Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins." Senator Ted Kennedy

    by Ekaterin on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:09:25 AM PST

  •  Edit the title (4+ / 0-)

    Using fuck in the body is fine, but not in the title.  It gets the site filtered in a lot of places.

    Watch this space. -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:22:35 AM PST

  •  A question for the Diarist. (4+ / 0-)

    Much has beeb made of the allegation that Hasan cried "Alluah Ahkbar" when he started his rampage.

    Could this also be interpreted in the way a Christian might say "May God forgive me" before commencing what he knows as a sinful act?

    "Are you sure you are really here for the hunting?" Anonymous Bear

    by senilebiker on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:34:07 AM PST

  •  And the religious apologists exploit another trag (5+ / 0-)

    tragedy.

    Look. Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychotic murderer.

    But don't pretend that no one has ever done evil in the name of Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or even Buddhism).

    Just like right wing and left wing Christians interpret Christianity differently, so do many different strains of Islamic followers interpret Islam differently.

    Plenty of devout, even scholarly Muslims find justification for violence in the Kor'an - just as many Christians find justification for violence in the Bible.

    If anything, while most violence perpetrated explicitly and overtly in the name of Christianity is in the past, while there is still plenty of current explicit overt violence perpetrated in the name of Islam - all over the world.

    Whenever someone does something bad in the name of their religion, religious apologists jump out of the woodwork to defend and protect their religion - generally expressing much more concern about that, than they ever have engaged in efforts to stop religious extremists from doing further violence.

    I suggest you direct your energy toward dealing with extremism among your fellow Muslims, just as Christians here should stop berating everyone for attacking Christianity based on the action of Christian extremists, and instead direct their attention toward the Christian extremists in the first place.

    Nidal was clearly insane, but there is no ignoring that anyone who looks can readily find chapter and verse in Islamic dogma that excuses and even encourages violence.

    The real problem is when people think their religion trumps human law and their interpretation of their god's will trumps human society.

    The real problem is not "you're doing it wrong", it's too much religion in the first place.

    Nidal has nothing to do with Islamic terror, but there is plenty of that to go around without the likes of Nidal.

    What this kind of thing should constructively lead to, however, is some soul-searching on the part of those who defend religion at all costs, and dismiss excesses as "oh, they're just doing it wrong".

    Now, most people here who wouldn't blink at calling out Christian apologists somehow think it is politically incorrect to apply the same standads to Muslim apologists or Jewish apologists. I don't buy that logic.

    Don't start cherry-picking the nice verses from your holy book, like the Christians do. There is plenty of calls to violence, bloodshed, intolerance and hate in all of your books.

    Which is why we need to learn to blindly follow them less, and exercise our minds as freethinking sentient beings who need to learn to live together, more.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:45:09 AM PST

    •  Oh yeah? (3+ / 0-)

      If anything, while most violence perpetrated explicitly and overtly in the name of Christianity is in the past, while there is still plenty of current explicit overt violence perpetrated in the name of Islam - all over the world.

      What about Bush's avowed "crusade" on Iraq? What about the head of Blackwater seeing his mercenary war in Iraq as a righteous war to kill as many Muslims as possible?

      Whenever someone does something bad in the name of their religion, religious apologists jump out of the woodwork to defend and protect their religion - generally expressing much more concern about that, than they ever have engaged in efforts to stop religious extremists from doing further violence.

      Unwarranted assumption. You have no idea whether this is true or not.

      There are many sections of your post that I fully agree with, but I will not tip it because of these parts.

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        I agree that Bush used religious language, but the war was sold on a secular footing.  I have no doubt it was a motivating factor for many, including Prince, but it's not as much of an animating force in the states as it is in, say, Egypt (if the Egyptian government permitted it, which they do not).

        On the other part agreed, although I have found anecdotal support for that, so I'm tipping anyway.

        •  I think a lot of the time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alec82

          no-one is listening to objections to extremism until a microphone is put in the face of an imam in the aftermath of an act of terrorism, etc. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people so often claim that Muslims never or hardly ever speak out against extremism. Rather, it's that the extremists blow things up, so they get more news coverage.

          •  Another problem, really.. (3+ / 0-)

            ...is that we don't have enough, or didn't have enough, exposure to Islam, the Middle East and South Asia.  There's a tendency to assume that Islam is some sort of monolith, ditto Arabs.  The diversity is overlooked here.  

            •  I lived in Malaysia (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mnemosyne, Alec82, Medina Mahmoud

              So therefore, I know. Very moderate country, very low incidence of religious violence - lower than here. Intercommunal violence does happen sometimes.

            •  You forgot Africa... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mnemosyne, Fabian, Alec82, MichaelNY

              Statistics have shown there are more black Muslims than any other race of Muslims...many people don't know that.  They assume all Muslims are Arabs.  Well, I'm definitely an exception to that stereotype being that my family is from Ethiopia.  There are many, many Muslims in Africa.

            •  Teaching both anthropology/ culture and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              government at the middle school level, religions are pretty frequently part of our class discussions. The topic is also covered in our student's geography and 7th grade Ancient Civilizations social studies classes.

              The 3 world religions and others (e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucius) are part of our core, required curriculum.  In my culture class, we study the fundamentals of each religion and tolerance and respect for each is a core theme.  In my government class, we explore the first amendment in great detail.  Again, religion is a central topic in terms of religious freedom and the principle of separation of church and state.

              And this is in KY!

              we don't have enough, or didn't have enough, exposure to Islam,

              I think things may be changing in terms of our education and exposure to Islam. But this change is only slowly being seen politically since we still have a more politically active, less tolerant older generation and a just emerging, less politically active, more tolerant younger generation.  

              Why do I think Russian Roulette whenever they start talking triggers with the Public Option?

              by bkamr on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:55:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not defending Christianity, not sure how you (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shann, sorenScostanza, MichaelNY

        leaped to that wrong conclusion. You are right, however, to point out the likes of the head of Blackwater.

        I'm certainly no defender of Christianity, nor those who seek to immunize it from criticism by claiming that the sniper who killed the abortion doctor was a "false" Christian or the "wrong kind" of Christian.

        I'm not defending any religion on Earth. Quite the contrary - I just don't exempt Islam from criticism just because American liberals think it is politically correct (or, because they are afraid of the consequences from Islamic extremists).

        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:20:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No True Scottsman very popular at DK (2+ / 0-)

      it seems everytime a wackadoodle christianist does something wackadoodle -- within a day or so, there is bound to be a "no true scottsman/christian" diary up on the rec list

      so -- this isn't too much different

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:24:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How to recognize a religious terrorist? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      willb48

      Dear X and others,

      In answering to this diary and some of the commenters I found this discussion I had with a jewish friend
      I want to refer to a lengthy but worthwhile article by sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad. In this article mr.Murad tries to unravel the origins of Suicidal Terrorism. He gives a historic account of occurrences of suicide terrorism and 'religious' suicide throughout the world and gives an analysis of their origin. He considers some of the Western roots of radical Islamism and concludes that: "Islamic" terrorism is ironically modern and Western in very many ways." He argues that "when not blinded by a xenophobic need to view terrorism as islamically authentic, we are open to see it as it is; a extremist religious movement outside the tradition of mainstream Sunni Islam, which is rooted in modernity,  "a by-product of globalisation", and a example "of the worst of the Enlightenment’s possibilities." Then he sets out to consider possible solutions to this phenomenon. "The solution, then, which the world is seeking, and which it is the primary responsibility of the Islamic world, not the West to provide must be a counter-reformation, driven by our best and most cosmopolitan heritage of spirit and law."
      I find this article of interest because mr.Murad rejects the essentialist idea that Islam is the root cause for Islamic extremism. This might seem strange at first hand, but he shows in which ways Islamic extremism is far more inspired by modern and even secular idea's than by traditionally Islamic ideas. It is well possible that the suicide terrorists who crashed their plane into the WTC, did not know this themselves, but they where driven by a modern idea, not a historical Islamic one (although they might have thought so themselves). Furthermore he shows how the traditional Sunni majority and its scholars and intellectuals have responded to the challenges of modernity. The reaction of the Muslim Majority was very moderate and is in no way comparable to the violent approach of politically motivated Muslim extremists. Dear X, I don’t have to tell you that any fool can interpret the Old Testament and find something in it to support his or her ludicrous ideas. So if a fool comes and gives an interpretation of The Old Testament which is contrary to the believes held by the majority of Jews and by it’s foremost scholars and has no historical precedent, do we then call this fool a Jew (and do we judge and condemn all Jews for his opinions) just because he( mis)interpreted the O.T, or do we insist and see him as a  fool anyway? Do we say something is wrong with the Old Testament and abolish it? No, we don’t. The same counts for Muslim extremists who misinterpret the Koran, go against the ‘idjma’ or consensus of the Muslim Majority( the Umma) and the historically established rules for interpreting the Koran and ahadith. You must understand that not only the West is seen as the enemy by these Muslim extremists, but they also consider many of their fellow Muslims as’ kufaar’ as unbelievers, because they don’t share the same religious conviction and political ideology as they do. So as far as I am concerned we face the same enemy, but sometimes for different reasons. I oppose any kind of extremism, be it Islamic, Jewish, Christian or secular. I do this because of rational reasons but also because I believe Islam is a moderate religion just as the Prophet teaches us. Volume 7, Book 70, Number 57(Sahih Al Buchari):
      Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's companions) said, 'Not even you, O Allah's Apostle?' He said, "Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me." So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah."
      Further more the prophet renounced any form of extremism:
      The Prophet (m.p.b.u.h) said: ‘Extremists shall perish’ (halaka’l-mutanatti‘un). Commenting on this, Imam al-Nawawi defines extremists as ‘fanatical zealots’ (al-muta‘ammiqun al-ghalun), who are simply ‘too intense’ (al-mushaddidun).

      (secondary source:.htm)
      For muslims the Koran and the Sunnah are the basis of their belief. So if we want to consider wether or not ‘Islamic terrorism is Islamic indeed we need to turn to these sources and study them well. I’m not a scholar of Islam, but The scholars at the university of California are and they say about this:" The Qur'an and Sunnah are the only two mediums by which Allah has directly taught us about Islam. This leads us to the following simple but critical principle: If any man or woman engages in a belief or action which clearly contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah, then that belief or action cannot be thought of as `Islamic'. This rule applies whether the man or woman is Muslim or non-Muslim. Hence, we cannot equate Islam and the Muslims. Islam is the way of life; Muslims are people who claim to follow that way of life. A Muslim may claim to follow Islam, but be wrong. In the context of misconceptions, we can restate the above principle in a slightly different way: Some misconceptions about Islam are due to the wrong beliefs and actions of Muslims, and others are due to a significant lack of understanding and false stereotyping by non-Muslims.
      Further more they state that:
      Islam tolerates the killing of innocents because:
      • Muslims can be terrorists
      • Muslims engage in `holy wars' (jihad) ..............
      This misconception is one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam today. And yet in the Qur'an, the Creator unambiguously states (translation),
      [17:33] Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)
      Based on this verse, it is Islamically unlawful to murder anyone who is innocent of certain crimes. It is well to remember at this point the distinction made above between Qur'an and Sunnah, and the Muslims: only the Qur'an and Sunnah are guaranteed to be in accordance with what the Creator desires, whereas the Muslims may possibly deviate. Hence, if any Muslim kills an innocent person, that Muslim has committed a grave sin, and certainly the action cannot be claimed to have been done "in the name of Islam."
      It should be clear, then, that "Muslim terrorist" is almost an oxymoron: by killing innocent people, a Muslim is commiting an awesome sin, and Allah is Justice personified. This phrase is offensive and demeaning of Islam, and it should be avoided. It is hoped that as the general level of public awareness and understanding of Islam increases, people will keep "terrorism" and "Islam" separate from each other, not to be used in the same phrase.
      Another reason advanced in support of the misconception is that the Creator has imposed `jihad' on us. The term "holy war" is from the time of the Crusades and originated in Europe as a rallying cry against the Muslims in Jerusalem. Jihad is an Arabic word meaning struggle, but in the context of many verses in the Qur'an, it carries the meaning of military struggle, or war. Allah gradually introduced the obligation of military struggle to the Muslim community at the time of the Messenger (saas). The first verse ever revealed in that connection is as follows (translation),
      [22:39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;
      This verse lays down the precondition for all war in Islam: there must exist certain oppressive conditions on the people. The Creator unequivocally orders us to fight oppression and persecution, even at the expense of bloodshed as the following verse shows (translation),
      [2:190-192] And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
      As one might imagine, the method of military struggle has been clearly and extensively defined in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since this subject is a huge one, we simply summarize part of it by noting that it is unlawful to kill women, children, the infirm, the old, and the innocent. From the Sunnah, specifically in the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find:
      [4:52:257] Narrated 'Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
      A related misconception to jihad is often propagated by Muslims who say that "Jihad is only for self-defense of physical borders." The Qur'an and Sunnah refute this notion categorically. As the verses cited above show, jihad is obligatory wherever there is injustice, and Muslims need not acknowledge imaginary lines around the earth when it comes to upholding this obligation. The Messenger of Allah (saas) has also commented on this extensively in the Sunnah. From the study of the Sunnah called Sahih Bukhari, we find that,
      [4:52:65] Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
      Hence, the Creator obligates us to fight wherever people are being grossly deprived of freely hearing or practicing the Message of Allah as contained in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Sayyed Qutb, a famous Muslim scholar eloquently discusses the notion of jihad and self-defense in his book Milestones,
      "If we insist on calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word `defense' and mean by it `defense of man' against all those elements which limit his freedom. These elements take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as of political systems, based on economic, racial, or class distinction."
      (source:http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html)

      So, I tried to show you that the most important sources of Islam define Islam as a moderate religion, and Islam condemns extremism and the killing of life that Allah made sacred. Furthermore war is allowed only when Muslims are oppressed or driven from their property or other forms of injustice exist. (As is the case in Palestine) The Koran defines clearly the borders of legal warfare and urges Muslims not to cross these borders: And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
      And:
      "The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, 'A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally'"
      Suicide terrorism is therefore wrong in several ways; It is directed at innocent people (instead of  (legitimate military targets in case of oppression) and therefore it is against the basic principles of Islam, because Islam has declared life sacred. Furthermore In a hadith the prophet said clearly: "and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah."  Suicide is condemned categorically, so why should this be different for suicide terrorists?  
      The decision on whether or not Muslim extremists are Muslims I leave to Allah, who is the only one capable of judging these people. But I strongly believe that their behaviour exceeds the limits of Islam, and of humanity in general. Therefore I also called their acts a crime against humanity;i.e these are crimes against human dignity. So yes it means "bad" but I consider them to be one of the gravest crimes anyone can commit.
      Dear X,....you say that suicide bombers and the organisations behind them but also secular political parties revert to "Islamic" rhetoric to legitimize their actions. It is however a very particular sort of ‘Islamic’ rhetoric or thinking these fundamentalist rever to. It is not the reasoning of the majority of Muslims or the outcome of centuries of Islamic jurisprudence they are revering to. But they are quoting religious and essentially political ideas with a specific and historically limited scope. Much of the political ideology of Islamic fundamentalists is based on the ideology of muslim thinkers, like Ibn Taymiya and Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab( founder of the ‘Muahidun’ or the Wahabite/Salafi strand of Islam) and others. These ideas where already controversial and contested by mainstream muslim thinkers in the time they first sprang up. These idea’s where mostly exported from Saudia Arabia( wich is a Wahabi kingdom)  all over the world, into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bosnia the Kaukasus. Fundamentalist Salafi literature is now widely available in the Muslim world but also in the West.  All the fundamentalist movements present in the Islamic world base their ideology on this particular brand of islamic ideology. Also movements in Palestine like the Islamic jihad base their ideas on this fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. So there is a distinction to be made between mainstream muslim thinking and fundamentalist thinking.  Distinguishing between the different modes of thinking in the Islamic community is essential. Because saying that this way of thinking is essentially Islamic is the same as saying that the ideas of for example  Yigal Amir are representative of the Jewish faith in general. People could insist that his idea’s are drawn from the Torah, and must be considered Jewish, and they could conclude that there is something essentially wrong with the Jewish Faith.
      In my earlier letters I already stated that political parties use religion to further their political goals, as does Fatah. But also the religious Zionist movement (Mizrachi) twines religion with a political agenda. Religion remains an important factor in the Middle East to rally the masses behind a political agenda. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that moderates speak out against any misuse of their religion by fundamentalist extremists.
      I want to leave it at this for the moment, I hope to have addressed your point. And I’m very interested to learn other peoples opinions on the subject.
      http://www.masud.co.uk/...

      •  You may have some interesting content (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gracian

        in this, but for people who are reading on a little screen, remember that the paragraph break is your friend. Put one in every 5 or 6 lines to make for more and happier readers.

        If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.--A Boston cabbie, to Gloria Steinem, in the 1970s

        by Mnemosyne on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:16:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm an athiest (0+ / 0-)

      and I think religion is nothing more than shared delusions originally created as a way to set up a power structure for a small elite section of the populace to gain wealth without working.

      But I don't think religions are driving people to commit violence these days.  I think pragmatic individuals who desire such violence are merely using religions to ensnare the mentally ill who then will commit such atrocities.

      Hasan, like Roeder, is mentally ill.

      Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 09:01:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm curious. (3+ / 0-)

    How do you feel about the Islamic persecution of Bahai's?

    The only constant is change - Heraclitus

    by Gustogirl on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:05:53 AM PST

    •  You could add the Ahmadiyyas (4+ / 0-)

      n/t

    •  Islamic persecution? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glynor, unspeakable, MichaelNY

      When certain countries persecute a group of people, it isn't a reflection on Islam as a whole.  Muslims come from all over the world.  The way Muslims may act in Iran isn't the same way Muslims may act in Ethiopia.

      •  It's the old tautology (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gustogirl, mrblifil, Fabian, jamesia, sk4p

        Followers of my religion can do no wrong, because if they do wrong, they re not true followers of my religion.

        Hence, my religion has no effect on wrong doers. OH, wait, my religion is supposed to make people better.

        I know, it only works on good people, who would be good anyway.

        Oh, wait.....

        Nevermind. You must be an anti-religious bigot, yeah, that's it.

        Because my religion can do no wrong. Because if people do wrong in the name of my religion, they're doing it wrong.

        Oh wait.....

        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:22:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are you talking about? lol (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unspeakable, Alec82, MichaelNY

          My whole point was that something cannot be looked at as an entire religion's persecution on a group of people when it is those of a certain country doing it.  While they were persecuted in one country that happened to be a majority of Muslims doesn't mean the same would happen in another majority of Muslims country.  Get it?  I wasn't saying that there aren't Muslims that do horrible things.  Obviously, those persecuted by Muslims did horrible things.  It's just not a reflection on the entire faith...that's all.  Believe it or not, I'm not one of those religious fanatics that thinks those that call themselves Muslim can do no wrong!  I know plenty of Muslims personally that do bad things and are quite sinful yet proclaim they are pretty much saints.  I'm not very "religious" myself.  I know I sin although I do try to not.  But I don't throw myself on a pedestal as if I am so religious or something.

          •  There are some commonalities, though (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Gustogirl, mrblifil, Alec82

            Ahmadiyyahs are widely persecuted in Muslim-majority countries, though the persecution ranges from execution (such as in Pakistan and, I'm pretty sure, Iran) to - I'm trying to remember. I think in Malaysia, the penalty is imprisonment.

          •  But you don't accept that your religion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamesia

            might have something to do with the violence. That is the blind spot.

            If Muslims commit violence, they're not doing Islam right - that's your argument, that's how you disassociate yourself.

            I'm saying, reflect on your own religion, on the seeds of violence it contains, and at least wonder if the religion itself might not be the flaw, rather than those other human beings doing it wrong.

            Look at how you word it:

            I'm not one of those religious fanatics that thinks those that call themselves Muslim can do no wrong!

            You can't bring yourself to say, "Muslims can do wrong".

            You can't bring yourself to say, "sincere, devout Muslims perpetrated 9/11."

            That doesn't mean all Muslims are murderers. But you can't keep trying to get away with this notion (and it's not just you, it is the most common argument Christian and Jewish apologists make on this site) that Muslims who do bad things are just "calling themselves Muslims."

            They read the same Kor'an you do. And reached opposite conclusions.

            Doesn't that suggest a potential problem in the source, rather than just the interpretation?

            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:46:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually I can bring myself to say those (4+ / 0-)

              exact things you said.  MUSLIMS CAN DO WRONG and SINCERE, DEVOUT MUSLIMS PERPETRATED 9/11.  I may have worded it differently, but I said whatever came to mind.  I'm not trying to deny 9/11 was done by Muslims or say that Muslims are all great and wonderful people.  

              You say they reached opposite conclusions after reading the Qur'an and that's exactly why I make the argument that these really cannot be good Muslims.  We interpret the Qur'an differently therefore, I don't see them as good Muslims and they don't see me as a good Muslim.  I mean, after all I don't cover my hair, I have plenty of Christian friends (in fact all of my friends are Christians), I'm soooo open minded when it comes to different groups of people, I date outside of my religion, and the list goes on and on...those that attacked US on 9/11 would despise me and say I am not a real Muslim and I just call myself that.  Well, I think they were really Muslims, but just bad ones...that comes from my interpretation of the Qur'an.

              •  Doesn't that suggest to you that the Qu'ran (4+ / 0-)

                (apologies for the Americanize spelling of Qu'ran, I try to respect different cultures and languages properly) that perhaps the Qu'ran is flawed - insufficiently clear, contradictory, errant and not the kind of thing you'd expect a god to produce or inspire?

                Just like the Bible?

                Doesn't that suggest to you that perhaps the problem is the prominence of religion in people's lives?

                Perhaps there is something inherently flawed in religion itself - contained within the very institution of religion - that causes problems?

                That's the problem - religion is built around the notion that it is perfect, better than all other religions, and essential for human improvement.

                But, what if religion - not just Islam, but all religions - are failures?

                What if they actually foster violence? What if good people are good with or without religion, but bad people are much worse with religion?

                That's the world I see. That's why I wish there were less religion in the world, not more, and not a different kind, just less.

                I totally respect your right to believe what you will, and will defend to the death your right to practice your religion in the US freely and equally.

                But, I will continue to argue, fervently, in the free marketplace of ideas, that religion is, on balance, bad for humanity, that is served its historical purpose and is not the main factor preventing us from moving to a higher level of society and civilization, peace cooperation, tolerance and understanding.

                In my opinion, which I realize isn't shared by many people in this country (not even that many atheists).

                One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:14:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree but I think that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  conchita

                  we must begin with the notion that all tribalism and exclusivity is wrong and harmful. They should be rejected.

                  It is the tribal exclusive aspects of religion that are horrible.  

                  In fact, religion without tribalism is kinda harmless.

                  Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                  by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:25:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Isn't religion ... by definition ... tribal? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fabian, jamesia, RandomActsOfReason

                    I mean it's called "joining a religion".

                    Religions are all basically clubs where people go to find like-minded people and a "sense of community".  

                    All the regions of which I have knowledge and/or experience foster an us/them attitude as a way of enhancing cohesiveness, and fostering that "sense of community" within their memberships.

                    However, if you're talking about a personal practice, with no organization... that's not really what most of us are talking about when we say "religion".  And I'd wager a large bet that RAoR would not have much of a problem with that kind of unorganized practice.

                    "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

                    by Hopeful Skeptic on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:41:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't think that by definition religion is tribal.

                      One can have personal beliefs that are not tribal.

                      Organized religion is of course tribal.

                      Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                      by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:45:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Okay, then "organized" is the key word (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RandomActsOfReason, simone daud

                        to differentiate what you're referring to, and what most "anti-religion" sentiments refer to as "religion".

                        I do admit that it would be much more clear if the word "organized" was used to clarify that the problem is most often with the institutions.

                        "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

                        by Hopeful Skeptic on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:51:28 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Hmm.. (0+ / 0-)

                  Your argument can be used in another way.  What about the good people that come from religion?  What about those that do good things, because of religion?

                  You see the world as no religion would make it perfect.  And I see the world as religion has done far more good than bad.

                  I respect what you believe...which seems to be nothing (correct me if I'm wrong).  I think religion is about the individual.  You cannot force someone to believe in anything otherwise it won't be belief.  

                  •  What good things? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jamesia, skohayes

                    all the good things that I see coming out of say Saudi Arabia are done by individuals who have strong tribal feelings. They do good things for those they perceive are in their group.

                    What good has ever come from any tribal religion (all of them) that sets its members on a different moral plain to non members?

                    And there are Abrahamic religions that are much more tribal than Islam.  Islam is,  of course, explicitly tribal with well a defined "others". Others are even more tribal.

                    I respect religious beliefs. Some people are greatly comforted by religion and myths. To those that are, I say the best of luck to you.

                    But I personally firmly think that nothing good comes from religion for us a community. Religion is just part of the flawed human condition. Our role should be to mitigate its absurdities.

                    Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                    by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:38:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll use the best example I know... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fabian, ViralDem

                      Myself.  Religion I think has made me into a good person.  Religion is something that was never forced upon me and we really didn't talk much about it in our household growing up.  I always longed for something to comfort me after I went through some tough depression days.  The only thing that guided me was faith.  It steered me into the right direction.  I think the person I am today stems from my religious beliefs.  I'm not saying I'm perfect, because God knows I'm not, but I think I've become a decent human being from my faith.  While others have seen it as a crutch for violence, I see it as something that has enlightened me to explore the world and to be open to all kinds of people.

                      •  similarly I found great comfort (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        RandomActsOfReason, Gracian, ViralDem

                        in being honest with myself that there are no Gods and that organized religion is truly harmful.

                        I found extraordinary comfort in the realization that morality and ethics are part of the human condition and don't depend on religious mythology.

                        Indeed, this rejection of myths and Gods helps me fulfill deeply felt desires to help all my fellow human beings, and the environment, animals and all things I care for.

                        Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                        by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:00:17 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  So, if not for your religion you would do evil? (0+ / 0-)

                        The person you are today - if you found out your religion was false, that the Qu'ran was a forgery - would you suddenly go out and pillage and rape and murder?

                        Or, to think of it another way - if you found out that, in fact, the violent extremist interpretation of Islam were actually the accurate one, and the peaceful interpretation was an error (theoretically, let's say someone discovered an authenticated letter from Muhammad himself, which stated unequivocably that Muslims are required to spread Islam by violence and to kill and oppress infidels) - would you suddenly embrace violent extremism?

                        I think in both cases the answer would be no.

                        SO what about your religion is making you a better person right now than you would be otherwise?

                        When you answer that question, we can look and see what in your education made you the good, caring, kind and compassionate person you are today.

                        And then, we can look and see if, in fact, religion is essential to teaching those qualities and that mindset.

                        Because, if I can demonstrate to you that every good thing you attribute to religion can be accomplished without religion, while at least some bad things are the result of religion, or made possible or easier with religion, then the logical conclusion is that the world would be better off with less religion.

                        None of the above in any way shape or form implies that you should not believe what you believe, or that I would seek to inhibit or outlaw or censor or in any other way impeded your personal beliefs.

                        I'm merely making an argument that, on the whole, the less religious human societies are, the better for all of us.

                        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:54:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not saying I would murder or anything like (0+ / 0-)

                          that.  I was saying that it keeps me sane.  I've gone through some things in my life and what always managed to bring me down to reality was my faith.  Now unless you were me it would be difficult for you to understand what I mean.  Faith brings me such peace in my life.  I used to be a different person that didn't have much regard for it.  I mean, my parents didn't push religion on to us although they are also Muslim.  While we did attend Islamic school on Saturdays when I was younger, my parents realized it wasn't doing much for us and pulled us out of it.  After that point it was pretty much about self discovery.  At my breaking points in life the only thing I could find was religion.  When I had nobody physically there to turn to, I had God.  So when I say good has brought good things to this world, I don't mean that without it all believers would have otherwise been murderers and rapists.  I was speaking on behalf of those like myself in which it pretty much saved us and pushed us to move in the right direction and to not give up.

                          I don't expect you to understand though, because it seems as though you don't have a religion (I may be wrong, not sure).  But I have said already, I'm not what most would consider to be religious.  And maybe that is why I am the way I am...I don't judge others for what they believe or don't believe in.  I do believe most wars were started due to the perversion of something so peaceful--religion.  But after all, that's just my opinion.  

                          Let me ask you this though...why do you think there are those like myself that think peace is the most essential thing that comes from religion and others that think it's about combating with those of other faiths constantly and creating such havoc?  Why do you think we seem to differ so much?  I can say that I'd be on your side any day of the week over the religious zealots.

                          •  To answer your question at the end (0+ / 0-)

                            why do you think there are those like myself that think peace is the most essential thing that comes from religion and others that think it's about combating with those of other faiths constantly and creating such havoc?  Why do you think we seem to differ so much?

                            Because people differ, independent of religion. Because religion doesn't change that, fundamentally.

                            However, aspects of religion - teaching not to question authority; teaching to believe independent of evidence; simplistic, good-vs-evil narratives; peer-pressure and brain-washing by common rituals, priestly uniforms, esoteric symbols, etc, which also reinforce the feeling of being in a secret, superior clique beset upon by a hostile world - all these characteristics of organized religion lend themselves to an "ends justify the means" orientation, which supports harmful actions, violence, hatred and discrimination.

                            Meanwhile, religion offer little positive that cannot be obtained without it.

                            To be clear, I'm not questioning that religion is meaningful to you, personally, and I'm not trying to "deprogram" you or anything.

                            I'm arguing that, on balance, if we look at the societal level, let alone the level of all humanity, religion is a net negative, not a net positive, and we can no longer afford its inherent negative attributes.

                            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:57:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Not quite (0+ / 0-)

                    You see the world as no religion would make it perfect.

                    Not exactly. I see it as preferable, better, on balance.

                    One of the reasons is because of evidence that the less religious a society, the more peaceful and the better it does on a whole range of measures of societal health.

                    The correlation is quite strong in comparisons of developed democracies, and in comparisons of individual states in the US.

                    There are, of course, exceptions, but the correlation is undeniable.

                    It even stands up when you look at nations that have seen significant changes in levels of religiosity over time. As societies have become more secular, they have become less violent and healthier.

                    I'm talking about trends, not absolutes, and not in terms of individuals but societies.

                    The less religious fervor in the world, the better. The more reason and critical thinking in the world, the better.

                    As for your first point - do you really argue that some people do good things just because of religion? That, if not for religion, they would be evil?

                    Who, in particular? Can you point to an example?

                    Can you point to an example of a free society which became less violent, less prejudiced, less hateful, less intolerant, when its people became more religious?

                    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:48:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Sincere? Devout? (0+ / 0-)

                You're joking right? Which is more important to you, words or deeds?

            •  Because 9/11 was not done by sincere muslims(n/t) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              klamothe
      •  Islamic persecution, as in (0+ / 0-)

        There have been a number of Fatwahs issued against the Bahai.  Only Muslims have been imprisoning and executing Bahai.

        The only constant is change - Heraclitus

        by Gustogirl on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:03:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We don't have a religious hierarchy... (0+ / 0-)

          So nothing can be done by a group and have that represent the entire faith.  Although they say they are doing it on behalf of Islam, it's their interpretation of Islam.  My interpretation of Islam sees no need to persecute other innocent people.  

  •  A "beautiful faith"? (5+ / 0-)

    There is no such thing as a beautiful faith. At its best, religion verges somewhere between silly nonsense and escapist fantasy. At its worst, it's a psychotic rationale for pathological violence and deviant behavior. It's without a doubt the most destructive force that the world has ever known, and has wasted vast resources on what are little more than monuments to death. Arguing the degree to which religion played a role in this particular tragedy is like arguing over how wet the ocean is.

    PS accepting nominations for my new kos-name *sigh*

    by GoKeever on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:23:56 AM PST

    •  Religion has brought so much good to the world (6+ / 0-)

      as well...however, you find many like yourself that don't believe only looking at the negative.  Religion is what keeps me sane.  My belief in God is what steers me in the right direction.  You may reflect on only the negative, but there are so many positive things as well.  I won't act as if there haven't been religious reasons for such horrible atrocities in the world.  In fact, I believe most wars were as a result of religion.  But I don't think it's because the religion itself teaches it (I'm talking about the 3 biggest ones...Islam, Christianity, and Judaism).

      •  I don't think that (0+ / 0-)

        you can prove that all the good could exist in the absence of religion. Yet we know most of the bad would not. Therefore, we could do without organized religion.

      •  That's scary. You're saying that your sanity is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hyuga, Ezekial 23 20

        so precarious that you need this huge fantasy crutch just to function? Wow.

      •  Uh I hope you're not saying... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hyuga, Ezekial 23 20

        My belief in God is what steers me in the right direction.

        ...that in a moral sense, right?  That without belief in a god, you'd be out there doing all sorts of nasty, evil things?

        I finally put in a signature!

        by Boris Godunov on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:58:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm tipping both of these (0+ / 0-)

        Because they both reflect how half of me feels.  :)  I'm quite torn.

        However, it always surprises me that people refer to Judaism as one of the "big three".  Yes, I know it's partially a historical note, in that it started the other "big two", but by the numbers, it's faaar down the list:

        1) Christianity: 2.1 billion

        2) Islam: 1.5 billion

        1. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
        1. Hinduism: 900 million
        1. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
        1. Buddhism: 376 million
        1. primal-indigenous: 300 million
        1. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
        1. Sikhism: 23 million
        1. Juche: 19 million
        1. Spiritism: 15 million

        12) Judaism: 14 million

        1. Baha'i: 7 million
        1. Jainism: 4.2 million
        1. Shinto: 4 million
        1. Cao Dai: 4 million
        1. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
        1. Tenrikyo: 2 million
        1. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
        1. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
        1. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
        1. Scientology: 500 thousand

        No records yet on Pastafarians.  :)  

        A health care worker, beaten at work, then denied health care: HelpAmelia.com

        by cartwrightdale on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:41:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where did you find that list? (0+ / 0-)

          There's noooo way it can be correct!  I could have sworn that Judaism was third on the list.  There's absolutely no way that there are only 14 million Jewish people in the world.

          •  No, that's really right (0+ / 0-)

            Judaism is a very very very small religion (on balance).  

            Actually, 14 million is a little high.  From Wiki:

            In 2007, the world Jewish population was estimated at 13.2 million, 41% of whom lived in Israel and 40% of whom lived in the United States.

            Some links:
            http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
            http://www.haaretz.com/...
            http://www.adherents.com/...

            etc.

            Remember, there are really only two countries left in the world with a significant Jewish population -- Israel, a nation of only 7.5 million people, 75% of which are Jewish -- and the United States, which is only 2% Jewish (the overwhelming supermajority of the U.S. are Christian, of some denomination.)  World War II really did wipe out nearly half of the Jews alive on the planet, and the numbers weren't that high to begin with.  That's why Israel was created -- to save a tiny collapsing minority from complete destruction.

            A health care worker, beaten at work, then denied health care: HelpAmelia.com

            by cartwrightdale on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:28:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's just so crazy... (0+ / 0-)

              About 6 years ago I was taking a class and I remember my teacher saying that the big 3 religions are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  He meant that they have the most followers.  He did have a source for it too, but I don't remember it.  Apparently it was wrong though.  I'm really surprised.  I thought there were a lot more Jewish people.  I guess I still would identify it as one of the big 3's, because it is closely linked to Christianity and Islam, so I can't just discredit it.

    •  You're wrong there. (6+ / 0-)

      It's without a doubt the most destructive force that the world has ever known, and has wasted vast resources on what are little more than monuments to death.

      Man is the most destructive force the world has ever known. If he didn't have religion, he'd find other excuses for his wars.

      And, by the way, politics is responsible for at least as many wars as religion. And yet, here you are, practicing politics.

      •  What other things (0+ / 0-)

        could motivate a man to pilot a plane into a building with thousands of people?

        And if those wars weren't about religion, or could happen in the absence of religion, then you have to wonder why peoples' religion were so prominently featured in their reason d'etre.

        It's because using someone's blind faith is an easy way to enable them to commit horrible atrocities. Isn't that alone a good enough reason to despise organized religion?

        •  What could motivate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          conchita, Pluto

          Fire bombing Japanese cities? Then dropping atomic weapons?

          I'd argue that those attacks were just as bad, if not worse, than 9/11.

          What could motivate arming paramilitaries in Central America that are responsible for the many times the number who died in 9/11?

          What could motivate our support of dictators throughout the world who have killed their own?

          What could motivate our embargo of Cuba, designed to deprive the Cubans to the point where they would overthrow Castro?

          What could motivate our sanctions on Iraq in the 1990's that didn't even allow them to rebuild water purification systems? Thousands died there too.

          Was it religion?

          Anyway...

          I still don't get how suicide attacks inherently make them worse than anything else.

          What did you expect them to do? Buy a bomber and attack NYC?

          Yes, what they did was despicable. But I just don't understand what you expect these people who feel that they are at war with the United States to actually do.

          People use whatever means are available to them. Conventional warfare is not available to them. Therefore, they use unconventional tactics.

          Although I do agree with you. Organized religion can, and has, caused some serious problems.

          To whom it may concern: I am an American citizen. Not an American consumer. I am a human being, not a variable in the capitalist system.

          by FinchJ on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:16:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  motivation.. (0+ / 0-)

            The short answer is: Yes, ultimately religion was an integral part of all those things.

            1. World War II in large part originated in religious genocide. There were of course a vast array of motivations in such a complex historical fulcrum, but regardless of what would have happened in actuality, religion was integral to the motivations of the armed forces and the ideologies on every side.What motivated the fire-bombing of the Japanese cities was the desire to end a war that had begun under religious pretenses on both the part of the Nazis and on the part of the Shinto imperialists. One might argue that it would have taken much the same course regardless, thus relegating religious appeals to opportunism on the part of Hitler and Tojo, but in actuality religion was the core motivator that they themselves resorted to, and that was no coincidence.
            1. The arming of Central American paramilitaries in the 1980s of course originated with American dominionists in opposition to "godless" Communism, and was inextricably tied to the religious wars of the Middle East. It was called the "Iran-Contra" scandal for a reason (and I realize you're referring to a broader phenomenon than just the Nicaragua situation).
            1. With regard to 'dictators around the world' that's such a broad topic that its difficult to offer a brief reply, except to note that most such support of dictators has again been motivated by the opposition to "godless" Communism. Yes, I will readily concede that the economic dimension to the opposition to Communism was a crucial factor as well, but there is little doubt that it was the religious factor that was primary in preventing the spread of socialist sympathies in the US populace during the 1930s & 1950s.
            1. With regard to Castro, see #s 2 & 3 above.
            1. With regard to Iraq, it is not possible to extricate much of anything from the Jewish-Muslim division on the one hand, and the Sunni-Shiite division on the other. To state things differently, were it not for those endemic conflicts, there is little reason to think the US would have ever been in the position of imposing sanctions on Iraq and thereby preventing the construction of water purification plants.

            Sure, one can argue that such things would've happened regardless, but that is merely evading the fact that in actuality they either originated in religious conflict or were perpetuated by religious sentiment.

            PS accepting nominations for my new kos-name *sigh*

            by GoKeever on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 12:39:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (0+ / 0-)
    •  Half-agree (0+ / 0-)

      That was my immediate thought.

      I understand the OP's sentiment, and I want him to know that I understand that the vast majority of Muslims would never do anything like that--just as the vast majority of people would never do anything like that (I don't like making it about religion, because when it comes down to it crazy people are just crazy people).

      But "faith" is not beautiful.

    •  I'm inclined to agree with you (duck) but (0+ / 0-)

      religion is not going away. And at the very least, I'll settle for religious people opening a debate within their communities to keep their ideologies from going off a fucking cliff.

      And as several other comments have pointed out, religion has produced plenty of good in the world too.

  •  I particularly like this quotation from Quran, (7+ / 0-)

    "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr." Please don't get angry, and don't say "fuck you!" Reason will ultimately prevail.

  •  what's an ar-tard? nt (3+ / 0-)

    Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

    by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:39:47 AM PST

  •  Fuck that bullshit (6+ / 0-)

    News flash ar-tard, the south isn't exactly known for its contemporary values of pluralism and tolerance.

    The man was stationed at an army base in Texas.

    Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest... Gibbon

    by Dinclusin on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:42:23 AM PST

  •  This is a sad and stupid diary (10+ / 0-)

    it reminds me of Sadam Hussain's Iraq where distant tribal members, and relatives, and neighbors (and mayors)  of disliked individuals felt compelled to publicly denounce them as though they are responsible for their actions. Even if they did not know the individual.

    Or like communist China where family members are compelled to buy the executioner's bullet.

    Well guess what, this guy is an American  army major first and foremost, and exclusively. That's all he is. And frankly this affair has nothing to do with Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims: Just America and the army.

    The real question is: what on earth is wrong with the army that a major and an doctor shoots up his comrades?

    That's what scares me personally, because the story is all about violence and army culture.

    Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

    by simone daud on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:06:39 AM PST

  •  Those quotes are beautiful. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j b norton

    Some Muslim anti-descrimination society should have some of them made into bumper stickers, shirts and the like.

    •  Spoiled by the last sentence (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye BattleCry, j b norton

      IMO "until you get the needle"  Doesn't follow the don't be angry text.  Pretty peaceful religion like all others.
      Be kind, feed the hungry,

      Like every religion it has been hijacked. I don't think Christians have any right  to slam Islam. Not when  The "Christian Republicans" can ignore the "Help, the sick, or  Whatever you do to me you do to others."

      Budda, Jesus, even Mohammad preached peace and compassion. What has come out of their followings would truly sadden them all

      Congress passed tighter restrictions on abortions but the insurance pays for Viagra? How does that make sense

      by snoopydawg on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:38:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The dude's righteously pissed, (0+ / 0-)

        just the way I get pissed at the way the Religious Reich drags the name of my Lord through the dirt. (I've always felt that if/when Jesus comes back, the first thing He should do is hire a good lawyer and sue for defamation of character.) I can look beyond that one line to see the beauty of the rest of the diary.

        Civility is the way of telling someone to go fuck themselves in such a way that the someone agrees it probably is a good idea.

        by Cali Scribe on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:50:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fuck a right winger posing (10+ / 0-)

    as a muslim troll diary. Fuck it. HR'd

    "But then, liberals always were a little fond of mind control, assuming of course that it was put to good use." -DKos troll

    by teloPariah on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:51:40 AM PST

  •  ? (6+ / 0-)

    Islam does not preach anger.

    ...

    Fuck you Nidal.

    Really?

    Not sure what that's supposed to be about.

    There's been more than 10 of these mass shootings in the last year. America's overboard obsession with this particular one is twisted.

    •  But it was an attack (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, mrblifil

      on our sovereign nation and our sacred military!  Don't you understand?

      </snark>

      It's almost a perfect storm.  The victims are military as opposed to some faceless white collar workers or troubled black women.  The alleged perpetrator is a member of an already "suspect" group.  Our recent (and ongoing) history paint this group as mysterious at best and a menace at worst.  The one thing missing is a Unabomber style manifesto.

      But that's okay - because quite a few people are happy to tell us exactly what his motives were.  Must be close personal friends or amazing long distance mind readers.

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:02:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. We know nothing about him yet (0+ / 0-)

        but we know plenty about the way this is being played in the media. And if I were muslim, I'd have a beef with him for that alone.

        I understand if you think that's not fair but I think the diary is more about catharsis than anything.

  •  I have known enough muslims... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j b norton

    to know Hasan was a loser. He was not typical of muslims in any way.

    Many other terrorists, such as Timothy McVeigh, were also underachievers who projected their demons onto some imagined menace.

    For McVeigh it was Clinton's New World Order, for Hasan it was America, The Great Satan.

    He was a screwed up loser. Terrorists often are.

    Obama doesn't appoint anti-gay judges to the Supreme Court.

    by Han Shot First on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 02:54:04 AM PST

  •  Dude, That Is Kind Of A Righteous Rant (0+ / 0-)

    and I am not totally sure I understand it all. I believe your faith is a faith of love and peace. I know that from reading your holy books. I just hope other folks get that.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by webranding on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 03:19:20 AM PST

  •  troll diary? who cares. (11+ / 0-)

    It's terrible.

    and ar-tard?  Hello?  is anyone paying attention?

    Also, speaking about love and the goodness of Islam, don't see a lot of that in this diary.  Just saying.

  •  Samir why did you usie such a vulgar expression (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Ezekial 23 20

    in your title?  You could have say "shame on you..."

  •  Neal Boortz yesterday said... (0+ / 0-)

    ... that the Koran states there are only 3 choices a believer can make when he meets a non-believer:
             Convert him,
             Enslave him, or
             Kill him

    Is this true?

    P.S. I can't stand Boortz but I live in Austin and we no longer have an AirAmerica station.  I check in with the righties to see what they're spewing.

    •  No more AAR in Austin, of all places? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexanJane

      Certainly the business model in Austin would support a liberal/progressive talk radio station.

      Try to make it real, compared to what.

      by shpilk on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:56:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know.... it's pathetic (0+ / 0-)

        I once called and got through to Ed Schultz's radio show (have to listen on 'puter) - and the man who answered said, "Don't complain about not getting the show in Austin" - by then I guess they'd heard the gnashing and wailing a million times....

    •  Sounds like projection (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye BattleCry, TexanJane

      I'm no expert on Islam, but these three choices describe pretty accurately the historical record of Christians when encountering non-believers. Even in the history of North America we see this:

      "Convert him" - Catholic missionaries in what is now California and Texas.

      "Enslave him" - How Africans ended up in N. America.

      "Kill him" - Gen. Sheridan - "the only good Indian is a dead Indian."

  •  I HR'd the tip jar .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klamothe, Dagoril

    I will remove it when the diarist removes Fuck from the title. I appreciate the discussion above , the use of "ar-tard" is unfortunate.

    "...a faceless mass, waiting for handouts." - Ronald Reagan describing medicaid recipients .. 1965

    by jnhobbs on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 04:42:09 AM PST

  •  Diarist Samir posing as a muslim? Here's a clue: (13+ / 0-)

    A man once asked the founder of your faith for practical advice he could apply to his life.  

    It could have been "our."

  •  Islam has a problem--accept it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cartwrightdale, zow

    I appreciate the heartfelt comments of the diary. But I think it masks a deeper question--is there anything in Islam (as it has been understood my its practitioners, not outside scholars) that makes it more intrinsically violent than other major religions today?

    Before you start to scream, a few basic points: 1)I am saying nothing about Muslims. Muslims are over a billion people and only a fool would attempt any generalization about any group, let alone a group so large and diverse. 2) The fact that many practicing Muslims choose to ignore or are ignorant of the preachings of their own faith is probably common, and also of course not unique to Muslims.(how many self-professed Christians fall short of the ideals and mandates of their region?) 3) Lets us drop the infantile argument that other regions have their bad apples or bad texts as well (It is an infantile argument because it is the same as a young child deflecting criticism of their behavior by crying out, " but they also did it!"). The fact that other religions are not perfect has nothing to do with the separate question if Islam has problems.

    Without going on a length, I would urge fellow readers to educate themselves on Islam. Look for sites that are focusing on the problems with Islam and violence associated with Islam. The problem is that this brings you into contact with some very sordid right wing types. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think that a very strong argument exists that Islam is intrinsically violent.

    Our problem is that we have been raised to accept that all religions are basically good and interchangeable. Wishing that this is so does not make it so. There is a possibility that a religion sees itself as not only correct and superior to all others (I would guess most do), but a religion can see itself locked in a war to vanquish all others and either convert them or bring them into an official religiously mandated submission and second class citizenship. That religion sanctions violence and war to accomplish that goal, and such views are mainstream interpretations of that religion. That religion is of course Islam. Finally, to state the obvious, why do we refuse to listen to the justifications that are given when Muslims commit acts of violence in the name of their religion? I must say there seems to many very devout Muslims who misinterpret their religion. While we are told endlessly that Islam is a relgion of peace, it seems that many Muslims do not accept that platitude. Why not be sobered by the fact that a vast number of Muslims approve of many of these acts?

    •  I offer muslims in India (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, conchita, Fabian, Rogneid

      They are a relatively peaceful co-existing minority (~15%)with the majority of Hindus(~80%). All acts of communal violence that happen in India have their equal shares; sometimes fundamentalist right wing Hindu fanatics perpetrate more violence than the Muslims in India. As in the case of 2002 Gujarat riots:

      The resulting riots and massacres killed 790 Muslims and an additional 254 Hindus. 223 people were reported missing and 2,548 sustained injuries. 523 places of worship were damaged: 298 dargahs, 205 mosques, 17 temples, and 3 churches. Muslim-owned businesses suffered the bulk of the damage. 61,000 Muslims and 10,000 Hindus fled their homes. Preventive arrests of 17,947 Hindus and 3,616 Muslims were made. In total 27,901 Hindus and 7,651 Muslims were arrested. Nearly 10,000 rounds of bullets were fired by the police, killing 93 Muslims and 77 Hindus.

      •  How about Muslims in the U.S. where there are NO (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe, shpilk, conchita, Rogneid, zow

        acts of communal violence by American Muslims. Certainly not Nidal Hasan, he is a lone crazy.

      •  A Muslim mob roasted 59 Hindu pilgrims alive (0+ / 0-)
        on a train in Godhra, leading to the Gujarat violence. The primary blame for the entire spate of violence belongs, in that order:
        1. with the five Muslim plotters that plotted the killing of Hindus
        2. Muslim mobs (thousand or so people) that allowed themselves to be used by those plotters to partake in killing the Hindus on the train

        You can blame Hindus for not being Mahatma Gandhis and showing the other cheek following that brutal killing of Hindu pilgrims on the train, but clearly neither I not you would have provided protection for them should Muslim plotters/mobs have launched similar attacks all over India, and neither of us can relate to how a family member of any one of those killed on the train felt.

        Please see the following:


        1. GODHRA: THE TRUE STORY, by Nicole Elfi
        2. Justice Nanavati Commission Report, 2008

        to understand what happened.

        Pakistan (made up Muslims who were once "Indian Muslims" too) brutalized their Hindu population (Hindus were 16% of the population of Pak when India was borken apart in 1947, but in 2001, there were only 5% left in Pak+Bangladesh, about 7 million "missing Hindus" if one went by expected growth numbers. In sharp contrast, Muslims in India increased tom 9% to 15%, quadrupling from 35 million to 140 million between 1951 and 2001. These numbers are based on official census data) miserably, as in killing 3 million Bengalis (an estimated 2.5 million of them Hindus) during the 1971 genocide:
        Bangladesh Liberation War Museum
        and the remaining Hindus in Pakistan today suffer worse than a third class citizen, animal like, treatment by the Pakistani Muslims, as you will gather here:
        Tortured in Pakistan, Hindu migrants want to stay in India.

        Unlike the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, secular democracy of India gives full civil, religious and democratic rights to its Muslims along with all its citizens. While no Hindu has ever been allowed to serve in the Pakistani army, Muslims do serve in the Indian military, and a Muslim even became Air Force chief in India. Unlike Pakistan where Hindus were completely shut out and marginalized (and millions of them killed), in India, Muslims have risen to prominence in every field, including the only two Muslim USD billionaires in the Indian subcontinent, and a widely-loved former President Abdul Kalam, many Muslim Bharat Ratnas (the highest civilian honor in India), on and on. I may post more examples later.

        Despite all of that, when they take majority of a region, the Muslim honchos behave entirely differently:


        Consider Kilvisharam panchayat de-merger: SC

        In 1996, at the urging of the neighbouring village of Melvisharam, the two villages of Melvisharam and Kilvisharam were merged to form the Melvisharam panchayt. Melvisharam is a much larger community and constitutes 17 wards while Kilvisharam constitutes only four wards. And Melvisharam is a predominantly Muslim majority area whereas Kilvisharam is rural and Hindu, it was averred.

        The economy of Melvisharam is dominated by a group of wealthy Urdu-speaking Muslim industrialists and it is largely based on tanneries. After the merger, the water sources of Kilvisharam area were polluted by the tanneries and had the effect of ruining the Kilvisharam betel leaf economy.

        The elected panchayat had all Muslim functionaries and the inhabitants of the four minority wards were denied their fair share of administrative and developmental facilities to such an extent that even drinking water and garbage collection facilities became almost absent in these wards, it was submitted.

        It was alleged that when this problem was brought to the notice of the functionaries of the panchayat, they suggested that the inhabitants of Kilvisharam wards convert themselves to Islam. Thus, they were discriminated against on grounds of religion, a violation of Article 15 (1) of the Constitution.

        ==

        See here for a longer exposition:

        Melvisharam: "Darul Islam" of Tamil Nadu
        B R Haran
        14 Nov 2009


        An example of a Pakistan-like radical-Muslim fiefdoms inside India. The radical Muslims took over and silenced any reasonable "moderate" Muslim voices out there, just as it happened at the time of the partition (Jinnah stirred up violence to create Pakistan), and inside Pakistan once India was broken up (ala 1971 genocide in B'Desh.)

        Did you know that Indians invented the # 0 and the decimal/binary systems: a primer on Indian mathematics.

        by iceweasel on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 11:11:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  educate yourself indeed (9+ / 0-)

      read more, write less

      Before you start to scream

      Sorry, but when I see somebody defending a bullshit idea like "Islam has problems" or "maybe women really aren't as good at math", I'm not going to take it seriously, no matter how long your argument is.

      If people and communities all interpret scripture and teachings independently, how can Islam have problems? It's like saying Europe has problems because there are bombings by Basque separatists in Spain and also corruption in Moldova. Sure, there are bombings by Basque separatists in Spain and corruption in Moldova, but what do either of those things have to do with Europe, or each other?

    •  Thats some bigoted crap (10+ / 0-)

      you're throwing out here:

      There is a possibility that a religion sees itself as not only correct and superior to all others (I would guess most do), but a religion can see itself locked in a war to vanquish all others and either convert them or bring them into an official religiously mandated submission and second class citizenship. That religion sanctions violence and war to accomplish that goal, and such views are mainstream interpretations of that religion. That religion is of course Islam.

      Islam sees itsself as the continuation and in some sence the apotheosis of the abrahamic tradition. It has a longsanding hitory of tolerance towards 'people of the book', christians and jews. Muslims do not distinguish between the different prophets, we are inspired as much by Jesus example as with Moses. Although there is a dawa or mission movement; converting people is not a priority and not emphasised.What you are talking about is a theoretical concept of 'dhimmitude', a favourite neocon and right wing extremist talking point. WIth no bearing to reality. The islamic religion only legally sanctions violence in self defence or defence of muslim nations and populations. Seems you drank too much of the right wing cool aid.

    •  Umm... no (5+ / 0-)

      As an atheist, I'd have to say that it's completely wrong to say there is a fundamental connection between any of the world's major religions and violence done by an individual or a small group, or even a larger personality cult. This is as true of Islam or any other religion. You have fallen for an illusion caused by the fact that at this particular moment in history on average there are a greater level of social ills in Muslim countries than there are in non-Muslim ones.  This has mainly to do with their lower levels of socio-economic development, which itself may be tangentially due to religious influence, but is also the result of many other factors. I believe that the great majority of Muslims recognize this, and instead of having a chip on their shoulders, are trying to rectify the situation, a difficult task considering some of the governments that they are living under.  Now susceptible Muslims like Hasan may feel aggrieved due to their situation, but this is just an excuse - there are other more powerful demons that drove his actions, which he is personally responsible for.

      "The only thing we have to fear - is fear itself." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

      by orrg1 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:54:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My answer, as a Jew. (0+ / 0-)

      Baruch Goldstein.
      Meir Kahane.
      Yigal Amir.
      The Kach and Kahane Chai.

      You'll have to prove that your "many" is any more meaningful as an indictment of a whole group of people.

      Do you think all Germans and Japanese are bad, too?

      Try to make it real, compared to what.

      by shpilk on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:54:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No more violent than Christianity (0+ / 0-)

      throughout its history; any movement can be warped to serve the ends of those who mean ill.

      Civility is the way of telling someone to go fuck themselves in such a way that the someone agrees it probably is a good idea.

      by Cali Scribe on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:54:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We Can Keep Daily Kos Hidden All Day (11+ / 0-)

    with this thing rec'd.

    Maybe the site name will be hard coded into a lot more spam filters from now on.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:23:19 AM PST

  •  Well.... he snapped. (0+ / 0-)

    Hasan going to be tried as a murderer and the army doesn't consider him a "terrorist".

    He's not going to get an insanity defense worth anything - jail or longterm forensic psychiatric hospitalization with discharge to prison.

    I AM glad to FINALLY see those of Islamic faith FORCEFULLY denouncing violence.

    We need to see a lot more of this, I think.

    Torture good, Healthcare bad, Marijuana evil.
    Doc in the Twitterverse

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:29:57 AM PST

  •  i can't believe this is on the rec list. (11+ / 0-)

    Hell hath no fury like a woman disenfranchised.

    by jj24 on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:30:26 AM PST

  •  al-Salamu alaikum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    Thank you from an old Episcopalian.... My grandparents lived over seas for years. I grew up respecting the Moslem culture through their eyes.  The quote, "Kindness is a mark of faith: and whoever does not have kindness does not have faith." reflects the view that I grew up with.  Peace with you my friend, and may God sooth your soul....

    Economics is philosophical discipline, not a business action... please don't confuse them...

    by keensman on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:37:50 AM PST

  •  Um...mental illness anybody? (7+ / 0-)

    WTF? Even as a rant this diary is lame.

  •  Embarassed to see this on the rec list. nt. (10+ / 0-)

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:42:07 AM PST

  •  You made this man a scapegoat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita, Fabian, Gracian

    instead of looking at the broader systemic issues.

    First of all, we're at war.  In Afghanistan, we've killed how many innocents?  How about Iraq?  I'm not saying this justifies what Hasan did, but there's more to the story than some guy who got angry.

    Second: the reason that Hasan has become such an important figure is because the media (especially right-wing media, also Zionists) has pointed to him as an example of all that's wrong with Islam, arguing that only Muslims do this kind of thing.  It's not true.  Christians do it too.  We don't attack the Christian religion just because of Tim McVeigh or people like him.

    Third: Everyone's trying to find motives.  We don't know.  The man who allegedly did this is alive.  We'll get a chance to ask him.  He might not answer, and he might not answer honestly.  But we don't need to go into all the speculation.  He didn't write a note, and he didn't create some kind of manifesto explaining his actions.

    Finally:  Too many Americans equate Islam with terrorism because that's the only time they come into contact with the religion.  Muslims are, by and large, peaceful people who live their lives and keep to themselves.  They don't go door-to-door like Jehovah's Witnesses.  They don't go on missions trips to American cities like Southern Baptists.  They don't give up two years of their lives to go on missions like Mormons.  So we don't hear from them.

    So we've got war, prejudice, speculation, and ignorance.

    And those are the true enemies,, in my opinion.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:44:17 AM PST

    •  Nadal is a cold-blooded murderer (0+ / 0-)

      who hijacked Islam to project his own hatred.  That is the point the diarist is making - that Islam is a victim here too.  That this diary received 42 HRs doesn't speak well of the Kos community.

  •  hr'd because of title and invisible diarist (8+ / 0-)

    even after making it to rec list and stimulating huge discussion, and repeated warnings to change the title for the good of the site, and to follow site rules, and even after many legit questions are raised about troll possibilities, diarist is AWOL.

    Wonderful discussion by many, provocative comments, but even so, diarist is hit-and-run and lets massive site violation go uncorrected.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:46:53 AM PST

  •  Gotta say (8+ / 0-)

    there are some disturbing names on the list of recommenders. People who should really know better. If it's Saturday it must mean this site gets punk'd again.

  •  FU psychosis and traumatic stress of war is title (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buckeye BattleCry, conchita, Fabian

    Or should be the title of the diary if the diarist is looking for something to blame for a psychotic pushed over the edge to murder by the traumatic stress of war.

    Islam is not to blame for Hasan's actions any more than Christianity is to blame for Catholic priest pedophiles or Christian religious terrorists like McVeigh and Nichols.

    Interestingly the diarist actually indirectly blames Islam for Hasan's actions by making Islam Hasan's motive for the killings even though the diarist (nor anyone else) has no idea why Hasan did it.  Diarist also ignores the fact that Hasan was diagnosed as psychotic by the US Army psychiatrists training him.

    Diary's more appropriate title would be "Fuck you psychosis and traumatic stress of war".

    More interestingly, yes religion is often used by people (look at Reagan, Bush, Bush and their wars and killings in the name of Christianity) to justify any action from child molestation to murder.

    As for how "beautiful" Islam (or any of the related Abramahic religions) is...give us a break.  It was born by the sword as a means to consolidate an empire in the Middle East.  None of the Abrahamic religions have a good reputation for being "beautiful" full of incest, murder, polygamy, betrayal all in the name of religion. It is no wonder their followers use them to justify any and all of their horrific acts.

    •  Do we know he was psychotic? (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sincere in asking this. I haven't seen the evidence yet.

      If people are saying that only a psychotic man would be capable of what he did, I'm afraid I would have to disagree.

      •  Reports have come out that colleagues (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Buckeye BattleCry

        at Walter Reed thought Hasan was showing signs of psychosis...mind, these people are psychiatrists, so if the reports are true that would make them credible at judging the symptoms. For whatever reason, probably because Hasan's behavior was not wild enough to get him locked up at the time, he was re-assigned to Ft Hood (which had adequate medical staff, so he wasn't really needed) as a place where he wouldn't do any harm by being incompetent. Of course, the tricky thing about mental illness is, most psychotics aren't actually dangerous...and it often isn't easy to tell which ones are until it's too late.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 01:20:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, much like Christianity... (4+ / 0-)

    Islam does not preach violence.  Islam does not preach hate.  Islam does not preach anger.

    It isn't hard at all to find those things in the holy book and among many of its followers.

    If you want to claim that the version of Islam YOU follow does not preach those things, then fine.  But it's a lie to claim they can't be found in the Qur'an, just as in the Bible.

    •  "religion of peace"? LOL (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cartwrightdale

      I'm so tired of people saying Islam is a "religion of peace".  It was spread through warfare and conquest ffs.  As was Christianity.  Not singling them out, or saying that the vast majority of Muslims aren't perfectly normal, peaceful people.  I'm just tired of hearing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy in their defense when things like this happen.  Every religion has extremists who take their religion's dogma and go overboard with it.

  •  More cherry picking and for what? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoringDem, Fabian, JimmyTheSaint

    Sorry, but you will find just as many horrific passages in both The Koran and The Bible, and they are certainly not difficult to find if you are not biased.  To exclude or omit the good or the bad is a distortion and propoganda.  

    That said, there are a number of factors involved at different levels. The bottom line is we still can't predict and are still trying to understand what makes events like this happen.

    Discipline is nothing more than stubbornly commiting oneself to making the same decision in a particular circumstance.

    by gereiztkind on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 05:58:03 AM PST

  •  A guy calls for peace (0+ / 0-)

    and gets donuts?

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    for putting into words so well what I've been feeling.
    Salaam.

  •  Your letter is angry. (5+ / 0-)

    But any smart person should know that this has nothing to do with Islam.
    To connect his crime to Islam is like connecting Timothy McVeigh's crime to Christianity.

  •  "Abuse nobody." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita, Fabian, jamesia, Lost and Found

    You now have time to actually pick up a Quran and read it before they rightly give you the needle. - Samir

    Nice.

  •  I so wished we could hide diaries sometimes /nt (9+ / 0-)
  •  Hmmm . . . (4+ / 0-)

    While I totally agree with the general thrust of the diary re: not painting all of Islam with the terrorist brush, I think it's worth pointing out that Nidal Malik Hassan is entitled to the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty. While it certainly APPEARS that this is the guy who did the killing, I think it's a good idea to remain healthily skeptical of:

    1. The military's story

    and

    1. The media narrative.

    Hassan will not "be the killer" in my mind, until he is convicted in a court of law. And while, at this early moment, it certainly appears likely that he will be, I would against rushing to judgment against this man.

  •  Please remember though, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    conchita, churchylafemme, Fabian, Pluto, mango

    that if the reports are correct, and Maj. Hasan is now paralyzed, he has become a disabled man.  
    His life will not be easy, or without intense physical pain.  He may be in pain for the rest of his life.
    I'm just seriously hoping that somehow, he is extricated from the threat of capital punishment.  I also want the insanity defense to be considered seriously here.  He is off the right track, and the violence he committed was not what he was raised or taught to value.
    It's vital to understand if he knew the difference between right and wrong when he drew those guns.

    You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

    by vivens fons on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:20:23 AM PST

  •  Doubt he'll get the needle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hyuga, noemie maxwell

    I doubt he'll get the needle. The Death Penalty in the military is extremely rare, and even rarer when it's actually carried out. The last time a person in the military was actually executed for his crimes was in the 1960s, and that was by hanging, and the last person given the death penalty was in the Dubya administration. He'll more than likely get life imprisonment in a medium security wing since he is a cripple now.

    On a personal note, I'm not for the death penalty. I think it's wrong and sends the wrong message. Death is the easy way out. It's harder to let someone live with the knowledge that they'll be alive for a long long time, and that they'll have a long long time to think about and reflect on what they did. Also, the death penalty obviously isn't an effective means of getting people not to do crimes that warrant that penalty. People who get the death penalty, usually aren't afraid to die. If we're going to use the death penalty as a deterrent, then it needs to be used against a group of criminals that are cowardly and afraid to die. Like high level embezzlement cases, white collar crimes, etc...

    Just an ordinary guy, doing extra-ordinary things.

    by Dman4Life on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:35:16 AM PST

  •  Truly, please expalin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Bulldawg, cartwrightdale

    to me why so many are upset by this comment?  Why couldn't a muslim feel this way?  I'm an American muslim and feel exactly this way.  I have to leave to man a Girl Scout cookie booth but will check back later in hopes of gaining some understanding.

    •  One part of it is simple (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noe44

      Putting an obscenity in the title of a diary can get the whole site blocked by certain filters around the web.  It also makes us all look juvenile.   It's a site rule not to do it and it really sucks when it's on the rec list.  

      "It is only by jumping over the wall into the moat that can we make the fort stronger." . -Lefter Thanu

      by Sun dog on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:53:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This diary and the comments about it are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brooke In Seattle, jamesia, Nathan45

    symptoms of the incurable problem of religion.
    Look, the Quran is full of nonsense. So is the Bible. Both books are plenty supportive of brutality as well as tolerance and peace.
    The underlying problem is that people are basing life and death decisions on primitive texts which speak to a completely different era and lifestyle.
    At least Muslims are supposed to read the texts in the original language, so they don't have the additional hindrance of dodgy translations.
    It would almost be better to base life decisions on throwing sticks---at least you'd have some current information!

    •  The "religion of peace" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hyuga, peregrinus, hardleftintx

      Every time Islamic terrorism is brought up, I hear the usual disclaimers that terrorism is a perversion of "real" Islam, which is a "religion of peace."

      And I'm  not disputing that, but sometimes I genuinely wonder...are the abhorrent treatment of women and the  draconian "justice" system that is practiced in the mainstream in many Islamic countries also "perversions of Islam". Or is these the proper practice thereof?

      I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

      by The Navigator on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 07:45:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's because you're clueless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        conchita

        about Islam and muslim countries;most muslim countries have legal systems based on secular french, swish or english law, with only a small part of familylaw being derived from islamic legislation. SO most muslim countries actually have secular lawsystems....

        •  No, you're clueless (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peregrinus

          Or you can't read. Or you can read, but you're so reflexive that you read what you wanted to read into my comment so you could give this condescending reply.

          I said MANY Islamic countries not all.

          And even in countries that do have a secular justice system nationally, local justice is often left to Sharia law.

          Is the brutal application of Sharia in many regions in so-called secular Muslim countries a reflection of the "religion of peace?"  Or it is also a perversion of Islam? That's all I asked.

          I asked a reasonable question, reasonably, and your ignorance as to what really goes on in that part of the world is actually quite stunning.

          I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

          by The Navigator on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 08:41:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Have a moroccan background (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            conchita, cartwrightdale, Alec82, Kandy

            I asked a reasonable question, reasonably, and your ignorance as to what really goes on in that part of the world is actually quite stunning.

            I was raised in a muslim family in the Netherlands. I worked for the neigbourhood council of amsterdam where Theo van Gogh was murdered, and was actively involved in managing it's aftermath. I also worked as a consultant to advise dutch city councils on how to set up programmes to recognise and prevent radicalism.

            I researched islamic salafi radicalism at a psychology department of a dutch University in the Netherlands and personally interviewed many young salafi's, I researched the progressive muslim movement in the U.S. too, I can point you to an article on those if you like. So those are my credentials...

            In a certain sense sharia is a reflection of the legal opinion of islamic scholars. The islamic legal system, is in the end a corpus of legal opinions. But you are equating a few perverted legal opininons to the whole law system. That's like saying Scalia's legal opinions suck, and therefore the whole legal system sucks. All these scholars come to different conclusions, ofcourse. The important fact remains, that sharia courts and lawsystems are still the exception to the rule in muslim countries with a central government.

            •  Yes, well (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              churchylafemme

              I lived for a year in Morocco (Meknes), and the problem isn't Morocco.  

              The problem is the brutal application of Sharia law, which is far more widespread than you pretend, and surely you must know this. The problem is in the lives of people, women in particular, broken, maimed, tortured, killed and oppressed by this medieval "justice" system carried out in the name of Islam.

              If it's truly antithetical to the religion of peace, than the majority of Muslims, who we are told are against this, should do something about this.

              I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

              by The Navigator on Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 10:06:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ever try asking someone from North Africa or (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                churchylafemme, The Navigator

                an Arab country about honor killing? I have done that many times. The results are shocking. Very few are strongly opposed; many are indifferent, some are strongly in favor. One Saudi guy explained to me what it would entail to have a girlfriend in Saudi Arabia. First off, she wouldn't really be a girlfriend, she would be a whore. Second, her brothers would kill her if they found out.
                Finally, he adds, "and I'd kill my sister if she did the same thing".
                I know this is unscientific, but I'm talking about a dozen or so conversations in this country, where people presumably are more tolerant.
                I don't believe there is a vast silent majority who are opposed to Sharia and honor killings. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see some poll data on the point.

                •  By the way, I'm not making a moral judgment (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Navigator

                  about Sharia law and its application, per se.
                  I just think it's ludicrous to pretend there isn't a vast gulf between those values and ours.
                  The systems are completely incompatible, and Western governments should not tolerate any incursion of this kind of legal principle.
                  People who move to Western countries are welcome to adopt Western values.