This would be laughable if it didn't involve a woman without a head. In any case, it is a classic example of the essentially universal tendency on the part of Islamic supemacists and jihadists to blame everyone but themselves for what they have done. In a larger sense, this is exactly like the jihadis blaming American foreign policy for the global jihad, and is related to the campaign to get the West to "stop linking Islam with terrorism": Islamic jihadists link Islam with terrorism with consistency and religious fervor, but if a Western non-Muslim notices this, he is "hateful," "bigoted," "Islamophobic," "ignorant of Islam," etc. Never would the Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of "hate" for "linking Islam with terrorism" ever look to themselves, see the responsibility for the link as being within the Muslim community rather than outside it, and challenge those jihadists instead.
From our bulging It's-Always-Someone-Else's-Fault File: "Hassan says he's the victim: Facing murder charge, he blames slain wife," by Sandra Tan in the Buffalo News, July 17 (thanks to Mark):
Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan, the Orchard Park man charged in the stabbing and decapitation of his wife in February 2009, said last week that he is an honest man prepared to speak the truth.And the truth, he said, is that he is the real victim.
Contrary to the pile of evidence and witness corroboration that he mentally tormented and physically beat his wife over a period of years, he said, the truth is that he was the one "emotionally tortured" by his outwardly kind and sweet-natured wife, Aasiya Zubair Hassan.
Few believe him, however.
"It, to me, sounds like a desperate attempt by a person who does not have a credible defense," said Suzanne Tomkins, the clinical professor at the University at Buffalo Law School who runs a domestic violence law clinic.
Sure does, doesn't it?
In brief conversations with The News at the Erie County Holding Center last week, Hassan said that immediately after his wife was killed, he could have fled the country."I could have gone to Toronto, taken a direct flight to Pakistan, and I speak the language fluently," he said.
Instead, he said he chose to turn himself in and adhere to Gandhi's principle of "satyagraha" -- to seek the truth without selfish interests.
Gandhi, yet! What a manipulator this murderer is! But of course, we already knew that about him: he was the founder of Bridges TV, a network designed to give "Islamophobic" Westerners a "positive," "moderate" image of Muslims -- until the day he beheaded his wife inside the Bridges TV studios.
The former banker and head of an Islam-oriented cable network faces a murder trial in September. Erie County Judge Thomas P. Franczyk recently ruled that Hassan's statement from Feb. 12, 2009, that he just killed his wife, is admissible as evidence.Hassan has spared no effort in promoting his own version of events and taking control of his own case. He has sent The News a dozen handwritten letters -- two under the false authorship of his mother -- and fired two of his lawyers since his incarceration.
If he hadn't beheaded his wife, this propagandist could easily find gainful employ with the Palestinian PR machine, or any number of Leftist publications.
A News reporter met with Hassan and discussed the possibility of conducting an extensive interview with him in the future, in the presence of his lawyer.Hassan said he would agree to an extended interview on two main conditions: That he determines when and where the story would run and that he would be the only person interviewed for it.
The Buffalo News refused those terms, quoting instead from last week's meetings and his letters.
Hassan has never publicly denied killing his wife. Instead, he has suggested he will build his court defense on the grounds that as a long-abused spouse, he finally snapped and killed his wife in a desperate bid to end the psychological abuse inflicted upon him.
He stated last week that in cases where battered women kill their abuser, they "overkill" them -- shooting the abuser five times instead of once, for example. And they rarely try to run or hide after the homicide, he said, clearly attempting to draw parallels to his own case.
Police have accused Hassan of repeatly stabbing, then beheading his wife after meeting with her alone in their Orchard Park television studio.
Aasiya had filed for divorce a week before her death and told others she feared for her safety. She had filed multiple police complaints, received orders of protection, produced photos of her injuries, and signed an extensive divorce affidavit attesting to her trauma. Her husband was also investigated by Child Protective Services.
Hassan, however, contends he is the one who suffered immense psychological abuse and humiliation during his seven-year marriage to a wife who publicly nurtured a false image as a kinder and more sympathetic woman.
"All abuse happens behind closed doors, thus NO witnesses," Hassan stated in his most recent letter. "All abuse is psychological, emotional wounds are not visible, thus NO evidence. . . . What a perfect crime! Only the poorly trained abusers use physical violence and get caught, for physical abuse leaves behind evidence."
Domestic violence advocates are unimpressed by Hassan's defense....
Many of Hassan's letters include hand-drawn charts chronicling the "spiral of abuse" and other abuse statistics and theories, or articles about battered men.
He stated that he repeatedly tried to get his wife to face the fact that she needed psychological help, without success, and that his claims of abuse were dismissed by local domestic violence victim advocates because he was a man subjected to "sexist ideology."
"Anytime I sought outside help, I got falsely accused of sexual misconduct or physical abuse -- more than 12+ police reports, each in response to my reaching out for help from counselors, my family or her family," he stated.
He said he sought help from more than two dozen domestic violence professionals in Erie County but was told he was "blaming the victim," or "in denial." He said last week that when he told an Orchard Park police officer at his home in 2006 that his wife was abusing him, the officer laughed in his face.
But those familiar with the Hassan case say Hassan's profile fits all the markers for an abuser, not a victim.
In his defense, Hassan said he has more than 2,000 e-mails between himself and his wife dating back to 2000 showing Aasiya to be an emotionally unstable, abusive and manipulative woman who came from a troubled family. He offered to share some of the e-mails if The News agreed to his terms.
Aasiya stated in her divorce papers that in December 2007, when a child-neglect proceeding was pending against Hassan, he forced her to tell him her e-mail password, then logged into her account and sent out messages pretending to be her.
Hassan denied the charge, saying that if he was capable of forcing his wife to hand over her e-mail account password, why wasn't he able to require her to get the psychological counseling that experts "agreed" she needed during their years of marriage?
Recurring theme
He also denied allegations that he not only abused Aasiya, his third wife, but also his second wife by arranged marriage, Sadia Hussain Hassan. They divorced after 13 months with the intervention of the Muslim community in Rochester.
He said he took out an order of protection against his second wife and eventually divorced her because she, too, was abusing him, not the other way around.
"I moved out of home with Sadia Hussain due to her extreme abuse," he wrote. "She continued her abuse with letters to M&T Bank CEO [Hassan's former employer]. The bank helped me get a protection order against her. And the court granted me divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment by Sadia."
Those who assisted with his second wife's divorce said that while Hassan attempted to force Sadia to say she abused him in divorce proceedings by holding her immigration status over her, she refused.
Yes, clearly beheading was your only remaining option, Mo.
After reading the whole sorry article above, it's easy to see that the Mohammedan is engaging in classic "Blaming the victim." In this case, two victims, who had the bad luck to be married to this sociopath. Anyone who could behead anyone else is evil, end of story. Hmmm...Warlord Mohammed was a beheader...
"Hassan has never publicly denied killing his wife. Instead, he has suggested he will build his court defense on the grounds that as a long-abused spouse, he finally snapped and killed his wife in a desperate bid to end the psychological abuse inflicted upon him."
Hogwash! If he was so abused by his wife and was "desperate...to end the psychological abuse inflicted upon him" he wouldn't have gone to their house after he was served with the divorce papers and try to break in. Wouldn't he have been relieved that she was divorcing him so he could get away from his 100-lb-soaking-wet abuser.
There is a lesson in here though. If Muslim men are so easily thrown off balance by embarrassment and humiliation we need to exploit that theme, big time.
From this account I get the impression that he thinks his defense "strategy" is going to be successful. Yea, this is just the sort of immigrant we need.
After reading, day after day after day, of the atrocities committed by muslim men, I've come to the conclusion that they are all seriously deranged.
The only sane ones are apostates.
Muzzammil Hassan didn't immediately flee to Pakistan, as he might have, so therefore he must be innocent.
This opens a brand-new line for defense lawyers.
And in his understanding of Gandhi's satyagraha, he apparently overlooked the part -- the central part -- about non-violence.
It will be fun, however, for the new field of forensic email specialists, to show -- it won't be hard -- how he wrote emails in her name.
"Bridges"
Those "bridges" were burned 1350 years ago. The Potemkin "Bridges" of the smylers with the knyf under the cloke -- the Muslims engaged in hiding what is contained in the texts, and tenets, of Islam, the ones who express one thing to fellow Muslims and quite a different view to an audience of unwary Infidels, may find that the constant effort to provide shiny new coats of paint on those bridges, those Interfaith ("three abrahamic faith") Healing Racket bridges, can't hide the rot, or the coming collapse, as too much evidence piles up, from all over the world, of Muslim violence and aggression toward non-Muslims, and -- as here -- toward Muslim women who dare to get out of line.
The texts are there, the tenets, the attitudes that naturally arise from them, and what might be called the "atmospherics" of societies and states -- or even families -- suffused with Islam. And even a lone individual, even one who arrived in the West with parents who fled, say, Khomenini's Iran, can if he meets with failure find solace in a return to that Old-Time Religion, the Religion of Islam that tells you everything about everything, and you no longer need think for yourself about anything, and we know where that leads to.
That leads to an attempt to run down fellow students tanding around talking at "The Pit" near the Davis Library on the bucolic campus of Chapel Hill. This leads to various formerly "quiet" and "unassuming" boys rushing off to Somalia to join the Al-Shebaab, or to some friendly paterfamilias -- neighbors are confounded, because "he was always ready to help, he was just the nicest guy you'd ever hope to meet " -- turning out, turning up, to be involved in a plot to kill non-Muslims.
What keeps the problem down is fear of a strong reaction by non-Muslims. Where there is no such fear, we see -- as in parts of England and France -- the beginnings of blatancy in the attacks. Meanwhile, the demographic conquest continues, and while our soldiers -- who hope to go home, and have families, with one or two or maybe three children -- find themselves in Iraq, where every family has 8, 10, 12 children, and ditto in Afghanistan, and The New York Times runs a front-page article on the "miseries" of Gazan Arabs which begins with sympathy expressed for a 28-year-old woman, already with her "eighth child," and a husband who can't work because he's "depressed," and we all know that the Octomom of Gaza is being supported, in the end, both by the tons of stuff the Israelis supply, and what the Infidel taxpayers -- Americans and Europeans -- supply to pay for the neverending, ever-expanding, largesse of UNRWA.
And while Iraq had 3 million people in 1920, it has 27 million today. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran -- it's everywhere the same story. In the Netherlands, where the total population has remained steady, the Muslim population has gone from 1,500 in 1960 to 15,000 in 1970 to 400,000 in 1997 to a million in 2004, and what do you think it is today? The French census is afraid to publish the real figures about Muslims. Look up the figures, and find out whether you think Houari Boumediene was wrong when, at the U.N. in 1974, he predicted that "we" will "conquer Europe through the wombs of our women" and whether Qaddafy was wrong in 2006 to predict the same thing, and whether the triumphalism of Muslims, as shown in two postings right at this site yesterday, are not the kind of thing that everyone should know about, and be properly alarmed, and instead of saying "but it's too late" do, do something.
Here are those comments:
#1.
My name is Boutek Allouf from Algeria. I am one of this immigrantes in France that refuse to accept the style and corrupted way of living of Western World. I like my culture, my religion, my way of seeing the world. Islam is right. Europe is wrong. They same way you invaded Africa, South America, Asia, now is your turn to have us inside you. That´s the price you have to pay. I hate your hipocrisy of saying that you live in a free society, but we´ll use this as a tool to reach our means. You can not stop the flux of History. We´ll retake what is ours with the help of God.
Boutek Allouf,
Saint Denis France
(07.17.10)
#2.
Roland | July 17, 2010 4:51 PM | Reply
I am a very peaceful person and want to apologise to you if you were deliberately hurt. Equally I want to sympathise if you were hurt accidently and to any EDL members who were deliberately looking for trouble - I have nothing to say to you.
What I will say though is that there are dull periods of history where nothing much happens (like the 60s)and there are those where fundamental changes are likely to take place.
Indeed you are lucky to see fundamental changes in the West over the next two decades. Imagine how the Indian or the African felt when (200 years ago) he saw the British walk into their town, built clubs and cantonements and then subjected the locals to serve them - imagine if you will that the Indian and 10 of his subsequent generations were subjected to the same colonism/occupation call it what you will.
Ofcourse you see this and say "we were the superior power with the more advanced weaponery and we even introduced christianinty to those poor (Masih surnamed) beggers now in Pakistan.
Now however over the next 2 decades the roles are to be reserved. Allah is in the house in the West - and (according to you) barbarians, their ancient faith and laws will be bearing fruit in your towns and streets.
Ofcourse not all of you will enjoy the fruit, but please, I want you to accept it nevertheless like the Indian and 10 of his generation thereafter did in India.
One point to note please: the British stupidly abondoned their posts and moved out. Islam in the West will make no such mistake, muslims will stay, and like the Christian Misahs in Pakistan, many of you will be the Khans and the Butts and the Afridis when you accept the faith.
You are most welcome as will be 10 generations after you, remember Allah is most merciful - get a head start.
"After reading, day after day after day, of the atrocities committed by muslim men, I've come to the conclusion that they are all seriously deranged."
Agree. And why? Because their belief system is seriously deranged. Just as Fascism and Nazism are seriously deranged.
I have been married at least twice to the wives from H-ll...
At no time did I behead anyone...One dragged me into court on
domestic items 19 times in two years, nine years after we were divorced...She won none of her motions...I was accused in open court of about 20 complaints, ranging from minor annoyances to felonies...None of them provable because I was not guilty of any of them...She even tried to enter into evidence something I said in 1981...the judge said...'Well we like to stay a little bit more current'...
I had to get a restraining order from her, recommended to me by the sheriffs office...I never thought of beheading her, but I did consider throwing her off a cliff, but since there were no handy cliffs around here, I got over it...
"What I will say though is that there are dull periods of history where nothing much happens (like the 60s)" - the Muslim terrorist roland, above
What, are you joking? Nothing much happened in the '60's? LOL!
"Now however over the next 2 decades the roles are to be reserved. Allah is in the house in the West - and (according to you) barbarians, their ancient faith and laws will be bearing fruit in your towns and streets." - the Muslim terrorist roland, above
That's a veiled (no pun intended) threat if I've ever heard one. So, when does the Jihad slaughter of us "Infidels" start, roland?
Two classic articles by one 'David Thompson', on the subject of Muslim grievance theatre and the pantomime of victimhood.
1. It's OK to Dislike Islam
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/intimidation_re.html
and 2. 'The Passive-Aggressive Jihad'
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/03/the_passiveaggr.html
From the first article, 'It's OK to Dislike Islam', a passage that seems to me to be completely relevant to the case of the despicable wife-beheading Muzzammil who is now loudly crying 'victim' and 'I was only defending myself!'
"One of the creeping, unanalysed myths of our time is that it is somehow wrong to dislike Islam, or any part thereof, and wrong to take a dim view of its tenets and demands, and wrong to take a still dimmer view of the figure who founded it.
"I can practically hear the distant tutting and grunts of disapproval. Poor Islam. Poor Muslims. Their beliefs are being mocked. How hurtful. How 'racist.' How terribly unfair.
"No. It's not unfair at all.
"What's unfair is a demand for unearned deference and a unilateral exemption from the testing of ideas.
"What's unfair, indeed despicable, are efforts by Islamic groups to cow dissent and stifle criticism with a well-rehearsed pantomime of victimhood and the projection of false motives.
"**Pretending to be hurt in order to assert one's will over others, even violently, or to gain unreciprocated favours, or to exert control over what others may say and think, is cowardly and malign. Let me say that once again. It's cowardly and malign**". END QUOTE.
"Cowardly and malign" is *exactly* the proper description for Mr Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan
Hey Hassan - this ain't Paki my friend - good luck with that line of defense.
It's too bad that legal ethics probably preclude your ex-lawyers from talking about the case. I guess they should just consider themselves lucky that they just got fired and not beheaded, huh??
Just a few figures in support of Hugh:
country-----1960 pop.--2010 pop.---avg annual increase
(population figures in millions)
U.K.---------52.4--------61.1--------0.31%
France-------46.6--------64.4--------0.65%
Italy--------50.2--------58.1--------0.29%
Russia------119.6-------140.0--------0.32%
*****
Pakistan-----50.4-------174.6--------2.57%
Bangladesh---54.6-------156.1--------2.12%
Egypt--------26.8--------78.9--------2.22%
Algeria------10.9--------34.2--------2.31%
******
note: the 2010 European figures include the millions of Moslem immigrants, and do not reflect the fact that the indigenous European populations are declinging, not increasing
The following quote from Hassan jumps out at me:
"Only the poorly trained abusers use physical violence and get caught, for physical abuse leaves behind evidence."
Note that Hassan says "poorly TRAINED abusers" and "use violence and GET CAUGHT". "Get caught", not "get killed".
In other words, Hassan is (probably unintentionally) revealing that he feels that domestic abuse is a systematically taught tactic, and one which is a valuable weapon in marital/social warfare. The ones who learn their lessons well don't get caught and put in jail.
An astute prosecutor might sit down with the koran and use its verses to help prove that Hassan, as muslim devout enough to quit his lucrative job as a banker & start a pro-islam TV station, learned this tactic from the writings he considered sacred and therefore felt he was entitled or obligated to obey them.
That same prosecutor might also look at how the very same scriptural references require muslim women to behave. Subservience, deferential demeanor, modesty, accomodating her husband's every desire...all followed by no reward in the afterlife other than Hell or an eternity spent with the same self-centered husband she was shackled to on earth, and use this to convince the jury that no muslim women with even a single, sane brain cell, would do anything that might risk hastening that sentence of eternal damnation.
I very rarely ask God for anything when I pray. Instead, I thank Him for what He has given me. One of the greatest blessings He has bestowed on me is to be born in America, where the vast majority of American men value and truly respect women as human beings, will come to our aid if needed, and have forged a society which will punish those who try to harm us.
Every day I thank God for all the hundreds of millions (billions?) of decent, non-muslim men who quietly help keep the barbarians at bay on a daily basis, often armed only with their sense of justice and their steadfast resolve to not let civilization disintegrate.
And why isn't the manufacturer of the axe not in court? That company is culpable. No axe, no crime - maybe. And the guy who sold the axe to him? He should be in court, too. No sale, no murder weapon available. Etc....
Is this guy for real? He cuts off his wife's head with an axe, but he's the injured party!
Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan lives in a wonderful world of denial, self-righteousness and self-pity, projecting his own fears, crimes and attitudes unto those he does harm.
I say not it is the sole sign of a criminal, but certainly it is something typical of those brought up into the Quran. We see it rather often and I cannot help but wonder why.
Anyone who knows anything about child psychology, knows that children and adolescents always blame others for their actions. This is a classic sign of immaturity. Any book about raising children says that you must make them accountable for their actions. Children only learn by being made to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. NEVER PLACATE OR GIVE IN TO THEM. muslims, and indeed islam as well, seem to suffer from this very same case of perpetual immaturity. "Perpetual" because they have never been made to take responsibility for their actions. "It's NOT my fault! You MADE me do it!" seems to be their constant whine. I sincerely believe that child psychology, as applied to muslims, should be a required course for all elected and law enforcement officials.
In his defense, Hassan said he has more than 2,000 e-mails between himself and his wife dating back to 2000 showing Aasiya to be an emotionally unstable, abusive and manipulative woman who came from a troubled family.
Because his wife married him and stayed with him, he's right: she was mentally unstable. All Muslimas are mentally unstable (as are all Muslim men, of course).
At least she had the minimal presence of mind toward the last few years to try to seek legal ways to try to control him. She wouldn't be the only person, however, who would have believed him manageable by legal means. Would it not have been better, knowing what we know now, had she taken illegal, pre-emptive means to stop this Frankenstein monster she had married? It would have been warranted by only one datum -- that he is a Muslim -- then further augmented by a second datum -- his ongoing abuse of her. There is no crystal-clearer 20/20 hindsight than that afforded by a severed head.
MUSLIMS ARE ALWAYS THE VICTIMS
This self perception among Muslim men who act according to the tenets of Islam is actively supported by the "progressive" left.
In liberal multicultural Sweden the victim status of Muslims is the official policy and the law of the land. You can't blame people for being Muslims. That would be racism or islamophobia as this recent Swedish example shows.
In February, 2010 a Swedish court ruled in favor of a Muslim man who lost unemployment benefits after refusing a female executive's handshake, court documents indicate. Stockholm District Court ordered Sweden's National Public Employment Agency to pay $8,000 to the man, who was withdrawn from a labor market training program after refusing the handshake at a company with which he was going to intern.
The court ruled the agency knew the man's religious convictions prevented him from shaking hands with women he did not know. The company decided to cancel the internship offer, saying he did not have required skills and experience. The agency dropped him from the training program and as a result the man lost his job seeker's allowance in May 2006. He reported the experience to Sweden's Discrimination Ombudsman, who found in the man's favor.
The court ordered the payment in compensation for violation of religious freedom. Although the violation appeared to have occurred unintentionally, the court said, the man had as a result suffered significant consequences and financial loss.
By modern leftist terminology this Muslim became a victim because of structural, indirect and unintentional discrimination. When a wronged part makes himself the victim of discrimination then there is at the same time an accusation made towards the surrounding society (all of us) that we because of our behavior have contributed to the discrimination of a minority. Maybe we did nor realize that our actions had such consequences. Nevertheless blame is put on the whole society and this is also demonstrated in the competition between the elites to show morality by distancing themselves from hate of foreigeners, racism and nationalism.
Today the perception of discrimination is not just seen as direct discrimination (apartheid) but in a much wider and relevant sense as so called indirect or structural discrimination where habits and traditions have a tendency to form social and cultural patterns even if those are not explicitly intended.
In official campaigns against discrimination (in Europe) much of the focus is not only upon fighting the obvious and direct discrimination, but also to eliminate those habits, traditions and cognitive patterns that result in the indirect discrimination. Consequently anti-discrimination-campaigns very much become an attack on the civil society itself because it is nothing more than the sum of all our conscious or unconscious preferences, prejudice, sympathies and antipathies, societies and organizations.
This guy quotes Gandhiji on satyagraha but forgets that Gandhi was a staunch advocate of non-violence and would never have even dreamt of beheading anyone.
If Mo was truly being tortured by Aasiya, he should have been celebrating that she was divorcing him. Why would he kill her instead, unless in his muslimest-best thinking, he thought that being divorced by his wife was humiliating and he needed to take his revenge on her for getting away from him.
islam is such a warped cult.
"All abuse happens behind closed doors, thus NO witnesses," Hassan stated in his most recent letter. "All abuse is psychological, emotional wounds are not visible, thus NO evidence. . . . What a perfect crime! Only the poorly trained abusers use physical violence and get caught, for physical abuse leaves behind evidence."
I'll bet Hassan recorded the murder, and his accomplice chickened out. ~ His plan probably called for a 'mystery disc' to eventually surface showing him !somehow innocent. The accomplice realized after the fact that he/she would be caught if they 'find a video'.
..there's probably a fixer in the mix at Bridges TV, keeping things going til the POS goes to prison.
IS HE A SOCIOPATH?
A recent book describing how to recognize sociopaths -- few of them are murderers, by the way -- is that when they are caught being manipulative, they seek to play the victim and to play on your compassion. According to the book, about 5% of people are sociopaths, i.e., 1 in 20. Few of them are killers, but apparently they all have little or no conscience.
Ahhh, another muslim with a penchant for black-humor. His "Bridges TV" was going to "educate" the locals about the "real" islam.
And he most surely succeeded at that, eh?
"Sociopath" doesn't adequately describe Muslims.
First of all, "sociopath" makes sense as a tiny minority relative to a population of normal people. Since all Muslims are compromised by their disease, this particular label by which to denote that disease would present a problem.
Secondly, Muslims are only "sociopathic" relative to non-Muslim society: in undiseased society (i.e., most non-Muslim societies), the Muslim is "sociopathic" -- i.e., he has no conscience in terms of that society's ethics; he has no interest in developing a cross-cultural interest about the Other; he has no cultural equipment by which to transcend tribalism and to develop a trans-cultural conscience by which the symbolism mankind attains its luminosity of a common humanity; and finally, the nail in the coffin: the Muslim not only lacks interest, and cultural equipment to assist him, in evolving a cross-cultural conscience -- he has been inculcated in a positive hostility against such a psychological and philosophical evolution, based in a white-hot fanaticism which feeds off of fear and hatred of the Other and which is structured by a blueprint for waging war by hook or by crook against their Others around them in the world.
However, the Muslim, in terms of his microcosm of Islam (a microcosm so large, so geographically extensive, so rich, so historically venerable, it attains the level of its own cosmos), does indeed have a conscience: the conscience, that is, of the tribalistic defender of the Tribe.
Sociopaths in the West lack such a comprehensive (let alone multi-national and historically ancient) system to plug their sociopathy into (with a few rare and small-scale exceptions of certain cults here and there, or perhaps partnerships of two or more sociopaths). Sociopaths in the West simply live in, and for, their own ego and its fantasy of self-preservation and self-pleasure. Muslims through their Islam are afforded a massive society in which to indulge their diseased and retarded egos: a Superego, indeed, composed of a trans-national network of a Supertribe of 1.3 billion brothers and sisters and structured richly with attitudes, behaviors, mores and laws -- a Superego that does not control and repress the Id (other than to moderate it when the Enemy is stronger), but is rather fused with its darkest urges.
Just had a quick scan for Bridges TV. Didn't see much to do with bridge-building yet, but I'm sure some pearls of wisdom are laying undiscovered 'neath the silt. As for Hassan's prior employment at M&T bank, it'd be interesting to know if he was involved in the sharia side. Just a thought.
Whenever I make a comment on JihadWatch, I have to click a button that says "Submit." Does that bother anybody else? Can you change that button to "Post" or something?
The pain for Aasiya had gone the day she pushed him too far. Taking over the radio station pushing those buttons and his buttons, she pushed him too far. Wanting to muscle in on meetings, overriding his business agenda meetings setting the agendas herself, he was being pressured from all directions.
Ideend the man is suffering everyday now.
And it is VACATION time in Denmark, and time for the yearly visits back to the old country.
Today alone we see two stories in the news, concerning two women who have not returned from Turkey and Bosnia-Herzegovina respectively: one honor-abduction and one honor-killing feared. That´s not bad for one day.
Well, too many for one day.
Reminds me of an old Jewish joke about a young man who murdered both his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Hesperado,
You have a tendency to think in absolutes. For example...
"Since all Muslims are compromised by their disease...."
This is simply not true. Many Muslims ignore or are ignorant of the dictates of their faith and live lives that are exemplary by even WESTERN standards. Other Muslims choose to interpret their religion in as benign a manner as possible and also live good, decent lives by anybody's standards.
Needless to say, Islamic doctrine contributes to a psychopathology-turned-sociopathology that affects a significant percentage of Muslims...which is why, for example, immigration controls and religious profiling are necessary. It's simply impossible to know who is or who will in the future be prone to pathological behavior in conformance with Islamic theological dictates.
Still, if we're rational, fair-minded people, it behooves us to acknowledge that not all Muslims are "compromised" by their "disease"...that many are just ordinary folks. This is no way validates Islam as a belief system, which should and must be fought at every turn. But so help me God, language is important...and I'd hate to watch us sink into the sewer of demonizing the "other" with the same kind of blood libels they use to demonize us.
Hmmm. First of all, if traeh is correct about 5% of the human race being sociopathic, this is not a "tiny minority." It would mean that at least 300 million people are sociopathic. You want to call this "tiny?"
Second point. If Muslims are only sociopathic "relative to non-Muslim society," do you not see that you are still talking about at least 15% (probably more like 22%) of the human population? That's some kind of "relative."
Third point. Just because Muslims live in a self-contained world doesn't mean they are not sociopathic, however large their numbers. And it won't do to say that Muslims have a kind of conscience (thus denying sociopathy). Such conscience is a false conscience, a deeply erroneous conscience. Might as well say the same thing about a "regular" sociopath, to wit, that it's more accurate to descrbie a sociopath as one possessed of a conscience but a very warped one at that.
Final point. Even assuming you are correct (notwithstanding all I have stated above) that the term sociopath "doesn't adequately describe Muslims," it still as hell accurately describes my mother-in-law.
Sounds like a made for TV movie. "The Burning Bed of Islam", starring Fara Faucett in the role of the wickedly clever Aasiya and Gallager, welding his hammer, as Hasam.
OT:
Fresh, depressing news from the U.K.
"BURKA EMPOWER WOMEN: TOP TORY WOMAN INSISTS FREEDOM TO WEAR MUSLIM VEIL IS A RIGHT"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295665/Banning-burkas-UK-British-says-Green.html
Robert wrote, succinctly:
"Never would the Muslims who accuse non-Muslims of "hate" for "linking Islam with terrorism" ever look to themselves, see the responsibility for the link as being within the Muslim community rather than outside it, and challenge those jihadists instead."
And that, my friends, encapsulates the problem we are facing.
oops, Hassan. There is no plot device. Just the flaying, the exploitation of the shock value of bad boundries, peppered with a few lighter moments, with no clear winner in sight.
And this OT cheery bit while I'm at it:
"MUSLIM BUS DRIVERS REFUSE TO LET GUIDE DOGS ON BOARD"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html#ixzz0u5SR0N2K
This is simply not true. Many Muslims ignore or are ignorant of the dictates of their faith and live lives that are exemplary by even WESTERN standards.
In my view none of those Mahoundians are pious, and then not really Mahoundians at all...If anyone is ignorant of his faith, how can he claim he has one?
..in 1981 a lightly regarded Pakistani Bridge Team came from nowhere to make the championship round of 'the' most prestigious bridge tournament in Port Chester NY(the US won) ..at about the same time a 17 year old Hassan arrived in the US from Pakistan. (he might think "Bridges" is a game cleverly played to win)
The 1981 Pakistani team produced a national hero who went on to win 14 North American championships.
Ordinarily, I agree with what you write, duh_swami, but I must convey to you here my disagreement with you respecting your contention that "If anyone is ignorant of his faith, how can he claim he has one?" People from all major religions of the world (minor ones too) are often not only ignorant, but even profoundly ignorant, of their faith and yet count themselves as fervent devotees of the religion they were raised with (converts to any religion actually tend to be better informed about their religion of choice than those brought up with it). In my experience, raised a Christian as I was but no longer one, a very large number of Christians I have spoken to over the years have revealed to me deep ingorance of their faith's teachings and history, but yet nonetheless count themselves as Christians through and through. Even members of my own family would fit this description.
"IS HE A SOCIOPATH?"
Who knows?
The only thing that seems evident is that the so called prophet Muhammad is the prototype of a successful sociopath, perhaps the most successful in human history. The pathologies in the society he created is evident and have been reproduced to this very day by dutiful Muslims imitating this "perfect man".
As a devout Muslim you are not faced with any moral choices, you just have to follow the divine instructions to the letter, then you are doing the right thing. If in any doubt Islam offers only one abstract principle to follow: Act in such a way that you bring the society closer to the ultimate goal of Islam.
A Muslim is not allowed to ask the fundamental question whether the goal of Islam is ethically defensible, because then he doubts if Allah is omnipotent. Also he is not allowed to ask the question whether reaching the divine goal of Islam justifies all means for the same reason.
Islam claim to be the natural religion and in a peculiar way it is. It is reducing the Muslims to the “moral” level of animals in the sense that instead of instincts as behavioral agents you have unchangeable commands and prohibitions you must submit to without ever questioning if they are right or wrong, good or bad. Just like animals can not question their instincts and act against them, so is it with Muslims.
From the behaviour and example of their parents and later strict instruction into the tenets of Islam Muslims are permanently denied the possibility to ask the ethical question. To ask such questions they must mentally move outside the Islamic paradigm and that makes them apostates who should be killed in the eyes of the Muslims. History shows that escaping the mental regime of Islam is extremely difficult.
Muslim men are not deranged. The problem is that your perspective is overly complicated.
Women Under islam
One short paragraph
It takes as yet an untold number of bodies to conquer the world. You need to control the wombs of your women to do that. Women have the honor of being the breeding stock of Allah's martyrs.
It's not complicated at all.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that Hassan was being "emotionally tortured" by his wife, who by all accounts was terrified by her soon-to-be ex-husband.
Let's say it was true, though—that she really was a horrible, verbally abusive b*tch, who mistreated her poor husband terribly—why wouldn't Muzzammil be *glad* that Aasiya was divorcing him? Apart from some joint dealings regarding the children, and the dissolution of any financial ties, he would have few further dealings with her. His "emotional torture"—the worst of it, in any case—was soon to be over. No—wait—she had a restraining order out *against him*. The worst *was already* over.
The "battered woman" comparison in no way holds water—this only applies to women (or men) who are in immediate *physical* danger from their partners—individuals who have a history of violence against the killer, and who's violence has frequently been escalating.
The idea that Muzzammil Hassan—who is more than a head taller than the petite Aasiya and outweighed her by a very considerable amount—is so absurd that even Hassan does not even attempt to make the argument that his wife presented any sort of physical danger to him.
So—responding to "emotional torture"—even if such existed—with *physical violence*—is no rational defense at all. So what is going on here?
More:
Hassan, however, contends he is the one who suffered immense psychological abuse and humiliation during his seven-year marriage to a wife who publicly nurtured a false image as a kinder and more sympathetic woman.
..................
"Humiliation"—I believe that is the key, here. Aasiya, no matter how traditionally Muslim in most respects, was well-educate, professional, and *divorcing* her husband.
Islam has a long 'tradition'—we see it every day—of regarding physical violence—even murderous physical violence—as a perfectly acceptable response to any sort of supposed "humiliation".
Muslim parents in England defended their son's physically assaulting a Kanon-Muslim boy, because the Kaffir had "looked at him".
The Muslim thug in Sweden who beat an elderly man and murdered his elderly wife was "driven" to violence because the old Infidels had had the temerity to ask him to move his car out of the handicapped spot so that they could park there. How else could a Muslim act, in the face of such "provocation"?
Muslim Arabs feel "oppressed" by the mere existence of tiny Israel—what sort of "provocation" does the presence of non-Dhimmi, successful Infidels—Jews, yet!—present to Muslims? How can they respond in any other way than with massive violence.
It also brings up the idea of "defensive Jihad", which is the only sort supposedly allowed in the absence of a functioning Caliphate. But the term is essentially meaningless when you realize that any sort of perceived slight or "humiliation" is seen as valid grounds for launching "defensive Jihad".
Anywhere that Muslim men do not solely rule—in an Infidel society, in a place where any non-Muslims enjoy any sort of rights, in a marriage where the wife or wives do not unconditionally submit—how can a Muslim feel anything other than "humiliation"?
More:
"Anytime I sought outside help, I got falsely accused of sexual misconduct or physical abuse -- more than 12+ police reports, each in response to my reaching out for help from counselors, my family or her family," he stated.
He said he sought help from more than two dozen domestic violence professionals in Erie County but was told he was "blaming the victim," or "in denial." He said last week that when he told an Orchard Park police officer at his home in 2006 that his wife was abusing him, the officer laughed in his face.
..................
Well, this was predictable—poor Muzzammil was "failed" by Infidel society. If only they had seen that having a Muslim wife who at least occasionally stood up for herself in the face of abuse *itself* constituted a form of "humiliation" and "abuse" to a Muslim husband, perhaps he wouldn't have been forced to *behead* the mother of his children.
The execrable "roland" wrote:
The pain for Aasiya had gone the day she pushed him too far. Taking over the radio station pushing those buttons and his buttons, she pushed him too far. Wanting to muscle in on meetings, overriding his business agenda meetings setting the agendas herself, he was being pressured from all directions.
Ideend (sic) the man is suffering everyday now.
..................
"roland" here adds speculation that Muzzammil might have suffered further emasculation by not merely having an uppity wife, but one who meddled in the business dealings of the station of which she was a partner.
How could the man stand such supposed meddling? Clearly, cutting the woman's head off was the only thing that would end his torment.
Except—the "torture" isn't over. His murdered wife is—somehow—still making him suffer for her disobedience, even after he has separated her head from her body.
What a repulsive creed Islam is—horrifically, murderously violent, yet whining and claiming victimhood at every turn.
With an attitude like that, then I hope to God that YOU aren't married ...
"What a repulsive creed Islam is—horrifically, murderously violent, yet whining and claiming victimhood at every turn."
Spot on, Graven ...
Fortunately, Ipso Facto, Christianity (Judaism also) does offer the believer "moral choices," intellectual ones too I would add. As David Hume observed, the only true Christian is a skeptic.
Christian doctrine allows for such skepticism (even though many Christians for centuries didn't grasp this) and Islamic doctrine doesn't. Christianity and Judaism produce thinkers. Islam, by contrast, produces something less than thinkers and often nothing more than robots, as your communication to traeh implicitly conveys. And no, Avicenna and Averroes types in Islamic history won't really do. As Bertrand Russell observed in his A History Of Western Philosophy, "Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators." Russell futher opined that "Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters." Damning. True. Still true. Always will be true.
...are often not only ignorant, but even profoundly ignorant, of their faith and yet count themselves as fervent devotees of the religion they were raised with...
"If anyone is ignorant of his faith, how can he claim he has one?"
I suppose someone can say 'I'm ignorant of my faith but I believe it anyway'...but if someone said that to me, it would be the end of the conversation because there is nothing more to talk to that person about...because being ignorant, he can't explain it...
Ignorance is Ignorance...Pig headed ignorance is Islam...
You don't need to know much of anything to be a fervent devotee...But if your going to talk about it, it helps to not be too ignorant...If you are ignorant of your faith, you can't talk about it period...
Apostates seem to get beyond that...
"Final point. Even assuming you are correct (notwithstanding all I have stated above) that the term sociopath "doesn't adequately describe Muslims," it still as hell accurately describes my mother-in-law."
lol
I almost had a mother-in-law like that. She was from Turkey and had married an American. She was a Muslim, but this was way back in the early-mid '90's and I never thought about Muslims - ever - and she never mentioned Islam, ever. Her son my boyfriend also never mentioned these things, or anyone else in the family. She was Westernized as all-get-out, except for the occasional "ma'shallah" (however you spell it) that I definitely do remember hearing.
She was mean as a snake. The meanest person I have ever known.
"The pain for Aasiya had gone the day she pushed him too far. Taking over the radio station pushing those buttons and his buttons, she pushed him too far."
So Roland proved my point. We need to find these buttons and push the heck out of them. Shouldn't be hard though...read Roland's posts for lots of useful information.
WELLINGTON: "Even assuming you are correct (notwithstanding all I have stated above) that the term sociopath "doesn't adequately describe Muslims," it still as hell accurately describes my mother-in-law."
Like Kim, I cracked up when I read that...even shared it with my wife. Good one!
I so hope this man gets the death sentence.
"...that the term sociopath "doesn't adequately describe Muslims," it still as hell accurately describes my mother-in-law."
That craaaaacks me up! ...mine too!! Hey do like me, and don't talk to her any more. Amazing how much more peaceful your life will become, awwww ....
Citizen Warrior - Your comment made me laugh out loud! I didn't see it until you mentioned it. VERY REFRESHING!!
CateLaurel,
I'd noticed it, but never saw fit to comment on the irony. I believe Citizen Warrior has done a number of other rather clever things, too. I suppose he is the very same "citizen warrior" who wrote a rather brilliant article called the Terrifying Brilliance of Islam. Worth a read.
Hesperado,
I agree with some of the distinctions in your last comment. No doubt there is at best only a partial analogy between being strictly Islamic and being a sociopath.
Of course, "partial analogy" is redundant anyway. Every analogy breaks down at some point (though some analogies break down much more quickly than others, or were never even really there to begin with), and furthermore, every analogy is revealing precisely because of that eventual breakdown. If there were identity between two things analogized, so that the analogy never at any point broke down, the "analogy" in such a case would in fact reveal nothing at all, would not even really exist. Two identical things strictly speaking would not be two things, they would be one and the same thing, so in that particular case, not only would the "analogy" "between" "them" never break down; it would never even exist, since only a single thing would be in question, whereas one needs two things for there to be any analogy.
Pardon the trivial digression.
In my earlier comment, admittedly, I asked if the guy was a sociopath. I did not ask if there was an analogy, but rather if that's what he is. However, I did put it as a question, because mainly I wanted to point out the overlap in certain respects between the sociopathic m.o. and this Muslim wife beheader's m.o.
As I recall, another typical characteristic of the sociopath -- perhaps even more typical than a lack of conscience -- is a complete or almost complete inability to empathize with others and their pain. But if I recall correctly, the two characteristics -- lack of conscience and lack of empathy -- are just two sides of the one sociopathic coin, the obverse and reverse of a single reality. But I think it's possible for sociopaths to be healed...
In domestic violence situations, abusers usually employ a tactic called "crazy making" wherein the abusers harass and pick at and abuse and corner their victims systematically until the victims finally defend themselves or lash out, often hysterically over pent up and built up fear, anger, and desperation. Then, the abuser claims their victim is crazy and that the abuser is the real victim, thus deflecting all responsibility onto the original victim. Such behavior is sanctioned in Sharia law and men are given the "right" to beat, torture, and even kill women who "rebel" against male authority and complete domination/control. The strategy can also be seen in the pattern of subjugating all non-Muslims in violent, hateful, and deceitful ways and then claiming to be the victims when called to account for the behavior.
There is a logical disconnect here. If he was abused, why did he react only after she tried to get a divorce? That should be relief not a final straw of abuse, unless you see yourself as the owner of the true victim.
{^_^}
Cornelius,
You have a tendency to think in absolutes. For example...
"Since all Muslims are compromised by their disease...."
This is simply not true. Many Muslims ignore or are ignorant of the dictates of their faith and live lives that are exemplary by even WESTERN standards. Other Muslims choose to interpret their religion in as benign a manner as possible and also live good, decent lives by anybody's standards.
This is sheer conjecture on your part, based on outward appearances. From everything we know about Islam, it is a dangerously reckless conjecture. You just haven't fully digested the horror of Islam from Mt. Jihad Watch.
Wellington,
"First of all, if traeh is correct about 5% of the human race being sociopathic, this is not a "tiny minority." "
The phrase "tiny minority" is not scientific. It is subjective, for which in any given context persuasive arguments may be made to defend its use. Certainly, the absolute high end of the definition of "minority" would be 49.9%. As we go down in numbers from there, at some point we reach "small minority", and from there "tiny minority". 5% seems a reasonable figure for the latter. Your use of the actual numbers it translates to for world population is misleading. Sure, 300 million people sounds like a lot, but 5% is still tiny out of 100.
Secondly, and more importantly, this quibble over the meaning of "tiny" in this context is irrelevant to my point. The category of sociopathic refers to the abnormal relative to the normal -- the latter denoting the majority and normative in a society. My point is that Islamic disease is itself the norm in Islam, so it turns the term sociopathic on its head. A further complication is that Islamic disease is not relative to our civilization (however much Wilsonian humanitarians would like to comfort themselves with figuring out ways to make Muslims fit humanity by trying to make the square peg of Islam fit into the round hole of the West and the Rest of Humanity, thus superimposing our ways onto them): Islamic disease is unique, and makes sense, such as one can make of it, within the unique cosmion of Islam. A similar problem of analysis would occur were we to be invaded by hostile Martians, when in subsequent years during our defense of Earth we would try to understand their sociology and psychology. One can try to use analogical and metaphorical models to understand this unique collection of beings -- such as the model of colonies of army ants, or bee colonies, or the virus or bacteria, or perhaps coral reefs, or more imaginatively from science fiction, "the Borg", etc. -- but all such models will have cracks and defects, due to the fact that they are superimposing processes and systems from our world onto their unique world. When reaching for models, however, we should not err wildly in the Wilsonian direction and make grandly casual assumptions as you made to duh swami in response to his statement that "If anyone is ignorant of his faith, how can he claim he has one?" -- by responding that:
"People from all major religions of the world (minor ones too) are often not only ignorant, but even profoundly ignorant, of their faith and yet count themselves as fervent devotees of the religion they were raised with (converts to any religion actually tend to be better informed about their religion of choice than those brought up with it). In my experience, raised a Christian as I was but no longer one, a very large number of Christians I have spoken to over the years have revealed to me deep ingorance of their faith's teachings and history, but yet nonetheless count themselves as Christians through and through. Even members of my own family would fit this description."
This superimposition onto Muslims of the model of the psychology and sociology of members of other religions is sheer conjecture and prejudicial assumption. You just assume as a given that it must be the case, and so you declare it to be so. The only evidence we have is superficial and circumstantial. Given everything we know (or should know) about Islam, this is a dangerously reckless conjecture to make -- let alone to be making in such a casually apodictic manner.
Third point. Just because Muslims live in a self-contained world doesn't mean they are not sociopathic, however large their numbers.
They can only be sociopathic in the conventional and technically real-world sense (i.e., pertaining to the world non-Muslims inhabit) if they belonged to our world. Muslims, however, do not. So the term is not only flawed, but misleading: it tends to inculcate, or telegraph between the lines, that Muslims belong, or can belong, to our world.
Your fourth point is amusing, but of course specious.
traeh,
Of course, "partial analogy" is redundant anyway.... If there were identity between two things analogized, so that the analogy never at any point broke down, the "analogy" in such a case would in fact reveal nothing at all, would not even really exist. Two identical things strictly speaking would not be two things, they would be one and the same thing...
Yes, analogy refers to similarity between two things, not to identity of two things. Sometimes, however, there can be two things that are identical for the purposes of a certain context: for example, two apples can be considered identical such that an analogy between them would be pointless, even though they still exist as two things and not one self-same thing.
In my earlier comment, admittedly, I asked if the guy was a sociopath. I did not ask if there was an analogy, but rather if that's what he is.
My point is that "sociopath" only makes sense in the context of non-Muslim society so that, at best, one would be using the term analogically, not descriptively. I went on to argue, however, that given the substance of the meaning of "sociopath" and given the fact that Islamic disease is the norm in Islam -- i.e., that what we would term mental, spiritual and social disease is, in Islam, actually health -- then the term is not only flawed, but misleading, for it tends to telegraph between the lines the notion that Muslims somehow belong to our world, or can belong to our world. A Muslim can only have a chance of joining our world by ceasing to be himself, and becoming his hated Other -- i.e., by genuinely apostasizing.
Sounds like a real stand up guy. Enjoy the rest of your life in Attica Correctional Facility,you murdering swine!
HESPERADO: "This is sheer conjecture on your part, based on outward appearances. From everything we know about Islam, it is a dangerously reckless conjecture. You just haven't fully digested the horror of Islam from Mt. Jihad Watch."
Now I'm put in the uncomfortable position of defending Muslims. We all know the creed inspires otherwise normal people to perpetrate violence and hatred. But there IS clear statistical evidence - simply by counting acts of violence - that the overwhelming majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide are not practitioners of violence (though again, they are disproportionately violent compared to any other faith).
I certainly concede don't know what's necessarily in their hearts or minds. All we know of them is from their words and deeds.
I had a Bangladeshi family of Muslims living next door. The wife did not wear a head scarf...she drove and she worked outside the home. One day, she locked herself out and came over and used my phone. We were alone together in my house and she never batted an eye. This person was not an extremist, at least by her behavior.
There are probably tens of millions like her around the world. This does not mean I want them here; unlike you, I acknowledge the reality that many Muslims are NOT extreme and NOT dangerous, but as has been pointed out so often by Robert, it's impossible to know who is and who isn't (or for that matter, who isn't now but will become so in the future).
When you use the words "all Muslims" in describing extremism, you're making an all-encompassing, blanket accusation that could easily be characterized as "dangerously reckless conjecture".
Thanks to Quran 18:74-81, you can kill an INNOCENT youth just by FEARING that the youth will grow up to disappoint parents or "show ungratefulness toward Allah". Being so the case, seems that a wife could be killed as well with that creepy surah passage.
Cornelius,
If ten bottles of water are on the table before you, and you know that at least some of them contain deadly poison, while you suppose that some don't contain deadly poison, and you have no way of telling the difference, then pragmatically, in the interest of your own safety, unless you are insane or brain-damaged or being forced at gunpoint against your will, you will treat all the bottles the same -- as containing deadly poison.
To stand around and quibble about how some of them probably are harmless, how you are even convinced that some, or most, of the bottles are harmless, meanwhile you admit the deadly quandary they collectively represent -- ..."as has been pointed out so often by Robert, it's impossible to know who is and who isn't (or for that matter, who isn't now but will become so in the future)... -- is preposterous and, if translated into policy, more likely than not dangerous.
P.S.:
The wife did not wear a head scarf...she drove and she worked outside the home. One day, she locked herself out and came over and used my phone. We were alone together in my house and she never batted an eye. This person was not an extremist, at least by her behavior.
I thought you conceded that Robert was right, that it's impossible to tell the difference. Now you seem to be saying that by seeing a Muslim woman 1) without a head scarf; 2) who drives and works outside the home; and 3) who used your phone while the two of you were alone in your house together -- it can be proven that that Muslim woman was harmless.
Or are you trying to say that ostensible non-extremism by outward appearances and behavior is relevant to our safety?
Hesp,
The point is that to insist that "ALL" the bottles are poisonous is inaccurate if they do not "ALL" include poison. Meanwhile, we're dealing not with an inanimate substance here but with human beings. To call someone ("ALL" Muslims) an extremist who isn't one is ethically and practically wrong.
I admit the deadly quandary that Muslims represent, hence my support for religious profiling and immigration restrictions. My problem is with the inexactitude of your language, specifically the absolutism in your use of the word "ALL". Wouldn't the term "many"...or "many if not most"...or even "most"...have been much more appropriate?
It may sound like semantics, but in fact it is an important distinction.
As for your PS, unless my neighbor was an Al Qaeda spy under deep cover (an admittedly unlikely prospect), her eschewing of the head scarf and her Westernized ways were certainly indicative of an absence of extremism. In fact, a deep-cover Al Qaeda spy - particularly female - would in all likelihood adhere to the standards of fundamentalist dress and behavior for the long period before activation.
Re Muslims and psychopathy/ sociopathy.
Psychiatrists and psychologists seem to be inclining to the view that there are a percentage of human beings who are - tragically - *born* with what we might call psychopathy/ sociopathy. They are, so to speak, empathically handicapped. They are 'strange' and dangerous even as children. Some grow up to become serial killers, or serial fraudsters, and a few given opportunity may become the likes of Chairman Mao...or Mohammed. And they are born into unlucky families and societies all over the world.
In any human society that has an awareness of the golden rule, of truth-telling, Agreement and Reciprocity - and even very primitive tribal societies usually have *some* sense of that - the born-psychopath is a monster, in direct collision with the norms of his society, and may sooner or later, if exposed and caught, be dealt with. He will be viewed with horror rather than admiration - even if he manages to become a bandit chief, robber baron or tyrant.
Now, it seems to me that what Islam does is take the born-neurologically-normal, as well as the smaller percentage who are born-psychopaths (and who would be so in any society) and forcibly program into them all a psychopathic/ sociopathic behaviour pattern. The born-neurologically-normal (those whose genetics don't code for psychopathy, and who would become quite rational, empathic humans if raised from birth in a non-Muslim home) are 'out of tune' with this forcibly-superimposed pattern - they will be damaged by a sharia society, no matter how hard they try (by 'inner struggle') to fit in. It *is* 'against the grain'. But the non-normal, the born-psychopaths (who would become serial killers even if raised within a non-Muslim society) will on the other hand be perfectly at home with the sharia programming, and take to it like ducks to water. Since *their* 'born'' self is the 'norm' in a sharia society - Mohammed the malignant narcissist/ psychopath warlord being the example par excellence held up for everyone to admire - they may well end up as imams, sheikhs, and despots; so you have 'natural' psychos reigning over, and terrorising, 'artificial' psychopaths.
That's the way I think about it; because, given that the human genome is at least 100 000 years old, whereas Islam has only been around for 1400 years, I doubt very much that Islam has succeeded in producing a state of affairs whereby *every single last human* within dar al Islam - including every child born to any Muslim parent who breeds with an originally-non-Muslim partner - is *born* a bred-in-the-bone dyed-in-the-genes intractably unchangeable 'natural psychopath' (especially since it has NOT been a completely closed genetic pool - the randomly selected influxes of forced converts and kidnapped women, would surely have brought in plenty of 'normal' gene patterns, in every generation).
Dumbledores,
Astute analysis.
Ballad for Sociopaths:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKQSlH-LLTQ&feature=related
"If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly." Kurtz