Hi JoM,

You suggest that "The biggest crime against the Muslim world perpetrated by the Western democracies has been the brain drain of their intellectuals and educated people."

Sorry, where's the crime ? Isn't that migration the choice of those emigrants alone ? Well, plus a bit of prompting from the barrel-bombing from Assad, and burnings-alive and multiple-rapings from the IS psychopaths [all brainlessly aided and abetted by their Goat-Cheese-Circle useful idiots in affluent countries, i.e. in the more affluent professions and suburbs of countries like Australia ?] ?

Those educated people choose to move; nobody forces them, or even particularly entices them. So sorry - no crime.

Your references to low IQ are intriguing: apart from the long-term effects of close-cousin marriage (and its family-oriented, anti-society implications), I've been wondering if it is possible for a 'culture', particularly one bound up with a backward religion and which discourages (no, not just 'discourages' but bans outright) any critical thinking whatsoever (except against one's neighbours), that thinking never gets past what Piaget called the 'concrete-operational' stage - i.e. it can't rise above the 'concrete' to the 'general', to learn to explore for overall rules from isolated but similar examples of behaviour or experience.

In other words, is it possible that 'culture' inhibits thinking so much that people trapped in it can't - or rarely can - think beyond the level of a ten- or twelve-year-old ? Yes, they may have a vast store of events, concrete examples and rumours and outright tales of something, but can make only the barest, crudest - and usually highly personalised - inferences from all of that experience.

And since, outside of that limited world, so much goes on that the people inside it cannot remotely understand, yet must
'interpret' somehow, the tendency is bound to be towards paranoia about that unknowable outside world, and the common development of a perception of being persecuted - and in extreme forms of that paranoia, outright psychosis ? Ergo, ISIS.

Still working on it :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

//In other words, is it possible that 'culture' inhibits thinking so much that people trapped in it can't - or rarely can - think beyond the level of a ten- or twelve-year-old ?//

Of course. How bright do you think the average middle-ages peasant was? Free, quality, universal education is the key to developing an intelligent society. We're damn lucky to have it in this country because a lot of people don't, and naturally that diminishes the average intelligence of their population.

Of course, it's hard to go to school when your classroom has just been turned into a crater by Seppos who mistook it for a weapon of mass destruction. Iraq was a cock-up of the most monumental proportions, and some blame must fairly be apportioned to the West for destabilising a stable and functional dictatorship. Maybe if less Iraqi children had had their lives turned upside down and more of them had gone to school, there wouldn't be so many idiots running around the Middle East.

What BS! In case Mr. Hunter is ignorant, Islam’s economic model, under Mohammad, was based upon attacking and plundering others. For 10 years he attacked his neighbors, committing all kinds of atrocities.

He says "An Islamic model of economy has never been implemented in any world economy. Well duh.... Perhaps because that model is a confused mess. Note that ISIS is o implementing an 'Islamic economy' by plundering, ransoming captives, selling slaves, etc...

Note that the author says "80% of the World's Muslims live in poverty, with high incidences of unemployment and low productivity. Countries with Muslin populations are declining in knowledge, innovation and education, have a lower life expectancy, higher illiteracy rates, lower GDP per capita rates and more dependents. Islamic GDP is estimated to be only 45% of the rest of the world.

Gosh, gee I wonder why? Maybe Islam is the primary cause of all these problems.

The Author says "Islam urges individuals to strive their utmost to earn large monetary rewards and spiritual profits'. No, it says to strive in the way of Allah (jihad) to spread Islam, and killing and plunder are basic instruments of this required effort. What does he think the surah "the spoils of war" is about? Does this man know anything about the real Islam, its texts and history? He seems to be aware of the current situation of Muslims (see above!) yet is blind to the obvious link between Islam and the status/actions of Muslims today.

As to the "amoral society we live in" Muslims should be the last to lecture anybody. Islam has no moral principles. It has routines, rituals, wear this, do that, go there, dont eat that, throw some change to the poor, etc... A person can kill and torture all day and still be a good Muslim for evening prayers. There is no 'thou shall not kill" in Islam, much to the contrary. Killing is what Allah says Muslims are put on earth for (Quran 9:111).

This is just another one of those stupid “Islam is wonderful” articles without basis in historical fact or reality.

Hi Kactuz,

Spot-on. I'm working through a book on Colonial Land Law, written seventy years ago, and the writer (C.K. Meek) has an entire chapter on 'Muhammadan Land Law': for Muslims, Allah owns all land, indeed al countries such that there really are no separate countries, Allah is sovereign over all of them, presumably including Australia. But that hasn't stopped Muslims from 'owning' land, of course.

And as an example of how the instructions can be observed while their (presumed) intent can be corrupted, the example of usury, charging interest on money-lending, is illuminating:

* since farmers need to borrow money, to tide them over until harvest, or to buy equipment, fencing, etc., they used to go to Muslim money-lenders, Arabs and Indians in East Africa, Syrians in West Africa - but since good Muslims can't charge interest, how do they get around this ?

By a 'conditional sale', by which the farmer 'sells' his farm to the money-lender, but stays on it and works it until he can redeem his debt, and pays rent in the meantime, which is usually much more than any interest he might have had to pay. So Muslim money-lenders not only can observe their instructions to the letter, but make big money as well. The original intention (one presumes) of not making money out of somebody else's needs is thus somewhat compromised.

Similarly, it appears that one-night stands can be justified by 'marrying' a woman for a night. So the letter of the book can be observed, and a man can have his way. Sweet ! But thus again, surely, the underlying intention is compromised ? Maybe not, she's only a woman, after all.

[TBC]

[continued]

Here's another notion: am I totally wrong that people embedded in religion don't ever seem to have much sense of Guilt, but do have a strong sense of Shame, of being shamed, of being humiliated ? Well, except perhaps Christians who may have lots of both.

On the other hand, amongst those of us who take our guidance from one ideology or another, which usually indicate what is to be regarded as right and wrong, good and bad, it imposes on us a moral framework and therefore their boundaries; if we act outside of them, we may feel a strong sense of guilt - after all, we choose our ideologies and therefore their moral parameters, so we know if we have strayed outside of them, we can't blame bad spirits, or devils, or djinns, only ourselves.

Or am I drawing too long a bow ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Not totally wrong... I would extend the observation to a trifecta: people embedded in text-interpreted religion do have a strong sense of guilt (however much it is sublimated), a strong sense of shame plus a strong sense of persecution.

Each of these can be reflected inwards or onto 'others' and to make matters worse this can occur in every permutation, combination and strength of the three traits.

For some people such cognitive dissonance barely registers whilst in the most dangerous all three are dialled up to 11.

At that extreme [to adopt a soccer analogy] all eyes have been taken off the ball and are focussed on the teams' players and fans rioting on the pitch in the stands.This may be why we can talk about pitched battles and longstanding conflicts within religions.

In this analogy secular humanists are doomed to be the referees trying to restore peace.

Some of us acknowlege and accept personal responsibility. All too many have diverted theirs to '...because allah/god/yahweh/etc'.