NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, yet another thread on religion.

Anyway, recently, I read an article (dunno where it was from, I read it on a piece of copied paper) that specifically mentioned how many muslims, who grew up as muslims, have a hard time living with people who converted.

And I am also reading "Oranges are not the only fruit".

In both cases, I see the following developing:
The muslim converts put themselves so much into the rules of Islam that they become fundamentalists, reading everything literally and so on. Furthermore, they are far more enthusiastic than your average muslim, who just grew up with that and feels that it's perfectly normal.

In the same way, I find that the christian family portrayed in "Oranges are not the only fruit" (a converted family) is also extremely fundamentalist, creating massive limits and viewing much of the world as evil and so on. Most christians probably don't even bother to go to church (depending on which group of course).

Basically, all these born-again people always seem to be so much worse than people who just grew up with a religion and either refused or accepted it.

I am wondering if people agree that converts are typically more extreme than others, as they have put themselves deeper into the mindset.

You see the same thing with Chritianity (evangelicals *shiver*), and probably every other religion as well. Of course, there are going to be exceptions to the rule, but that's the trend.

It takes more to enter a religion than to just not leave it.

Someone who "converts" is generally more insecure in the foundation of their beliefs than someone who has spent time immersed within a faith and taken the time to study it and analyse it themselves. The reason some converts have more of a tendency to over-zealotise comes from this insecurity - a sense of compensation, almost.

However, in my mind, conversion is an unnecessary step in any philosophy. At any given moment, I could genuinely call myself Hindu, Buddhist, Baha'i, Christian, Jew or whatever else (though I'd have more trouble justifying Islam; their idea of God is considerably more necessarily specific than my own) - the Conversion process itself is simply what one does to make a big deal of a change in identification.

1. If true, your point would be true about any religion.

2.:
The muslim converts put themselves so much into the rules of Islam that they become fundamentalists, reading everything literally and so on. Furthermore, they are far more enthusiastic than your average muslim, who just grew up with that and feels that it's perfectly normal.

What you don't get it's that those are people who have converted to Wahhabism. You would have nothing to say about other converts - and you probably never noticed them (since they are not violent, and thus not in the news). Let's see: out of millions, the Moslems in Bosnia, converted by the Ottomans.

3. In a sense, all Wahhabis are newly-converted. Read a bit about what happened at the end of WWI, with the Saudis and the dissapearence of the Ottoman Caliphate (also, note that some Muslim believers had proposed that Kemal Atatürk become the next head of the Caliphate).

Half-truth just doesn't work.

It takes more to enter a religion than to just not leave it.

It depends where your starting from though. A person born and raised in a christian family will often never really question the beliefs or even be strongly religious, but will still be a christian. whereas someone converting to a religion has to be strongly religious or they just wouldnt bother.

It depends where your starting from though. A person born and raised in a christian family will often never really question the beliefs or even be strongly religious, but will still be a christian. whereas someone converting to a religion has to be strongly religious or they just wouldnt bother.

Yeah that agrees with what I said, doesn't it?

You would have nothing to say about other converts - and you probably never noticed them (since they are not violent, and thus not in the news). Let's see: out of millions, the Moslems in Bosnia, converted by the Ottomans.

Balkan Muslims (former Yugoslavians in particular) are mixed up in all kinds of terrorism. And a bunch of them fought for Hitler.

1. If true, your point would be true about any religion.

2.:


What you don't get it's that those are people who have converted to Wahhabism. You would have nothing to say about other converts - and you probably never noticed them (since they are not violent, and thus not in the news). Let's see: out of millions, the Moslems in Bosnia, converted by the Ottomans.

3. In a sense, all Wahhabis are newly-converted. Read a bit about what happened at the end of WWI, with the Saudis and the dissapearence of the Ottoman Caliphate (also, note that some Muslim believers had proposed that Kemal Atatürk become the next head of the Caliphate).

Half-truth just doesn't work.

That's why I mentioned it in Oranges are not the only fruit. They're no better. Might even say they're worse.

The article specifically mentions people converting in order to remain married to a muslim. As they convert, the other muslim simply cannot stand how "muslim" the other person is, and then leaves.

1. If true, your point would be true about any religion.

::snip::
Half-truth just doesn't work.

No shit he specifically mentions Christians as well. Can you not read more than the word "muslim" or are you just a fucking moron.

Many Born-again Christians are just as bad as the extreme Muslims. The only reason they aren't blowing people up is because they feel they can just infiltrate the government and get shit done that way. Muslims have no chance of that.

Balkan Muslims (former Yugoslavians in particular) are mixed up in all kinds of terrorism. And a bunch of them fought for Hitler.
Your "point" is absurd:
1. there are no "Balkan" Muslims - I'm willing to bet you can't even distinguish between groups (show me a Pumak fundamentalist, for example)
1. not considering that they were victims of other religious fundamentalism repression just a while back, probably two were "found" (alleged) to be in connection with terrorism - and that would be Iranian (not Al Quaida, and not "all kinds" - they couldn't be). The proportion is equal to the number of Christian converts involved in Al Quaida terrorism, and , as I have specified, fighting for the Al Quaida involves a conversion even for Muslims (in order to have to accept tenets that are un-traditional, and Wahhabi). The basic Islam in the Balkans was loyalist to the Ottoman crown - whereas Wahhabism was anything but.
2. there is no logical connection between Islamic fundamentalism and Hitler. You are disregarding that, while "a bunch" (note your own wording) fought for Hitler, virtually all Croats did it (Catholics, i.e.). The interesting point: Bosnian Muslims were fighting on the Eastern Front (were they had been drafted by the SS), while Croats killed their families at home (in the name of Croat Nazism).

So, read beyond generalities and newspeak paranoia, and you'll get more of the actual world.

No shit he specifically mentions Christians as well. Can you not read more than the word "muslim" or are you just a fucking moron.

Many Born-again Christians are just as bad as the extreme Muslims. The only reason they aren't blowing people up is because they feel they can just infiltrate the government and get shit done that way. Muslims have no chance of that.
If supposed cretins wouldn't take my statements out of context, then they would perhaps see what I mean. Did you read anything else in my post, poupee?
For starters: "any religion" refers to even beyond the Islam-Christianity thing. That's why I had written that down.

If supposed cretins wouldn't take my statements out of context, then they would perhaps see what I mean. Did you read anything else in my post, poupee?
For starters: "any religion" refers to even beyond the Islam-Christianity thing. That's why I had written that down.

True.

So do you believe that this would be true for converts to other religions? Western people converting to buddhism and so on for example?

True.

So do you believe that this would be true for converts to other religions? Western people converting to buddhism and so on for example?
I did not say that it was necessarily real. What I said was that, if real, it would have to apply to all religions.
Some might, even for Buddhism (keeping in mind the requirements of Buddhism, as they me be interpreted by the convert). Think Ashoka and the frenzy-building of stupas throughout India.
Otherwise, I think all evidence is corrupted by the fact that this is a cliche. Also, it would have to assume that we all agree on what "extreme" means.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/g_d.jpg

THIS IS SO TRUE I EVEN CREATED A MARKETING PHRASE FOR IT.

SELL IT BY ZEALOT.

If supposed cretins wouldn't take my statements out of context, then they would perhaps see what I mean. Did you read anything else in my post, poupee?
For starters: "any religion" refers to even beyond the Islam-Christianity thing. That's why I had written that down.

The original post was general in the first place referring to born again religous people in general. Thus when you go on and state the exact same fact again it's entirely pointless.

You then focus exclusively on Muslims to make a point while ignoring the other example. Shoddy. But whatever lets move beyond that.

I would imagine that converts in general are more "extreme" than people who have grown up in a religion in every world religion. Converts are in search of something to fill a void and thus tend to jump into it while others are just fed religion from birth whether they really need it or not. Of course there is no way to actually prove this as with almost all sociological questions.

1. If true, your point would be true about any religion.
It is. True about any religion that is.

2.:


What you don't get it's that those are people who have converted to Wahhabism. You would have nothing to say about other converts - and you probably never noticed them (since they are not violent, and thus not in the news). Let's see: out of millions, the Moslems in Bosnia, converted by the Ottomans.

3. In a sense, all Wahhabis are newly-converted. Read a bit about what happened at the end of WWI, with the Saudis and the dissapearence of the Ottoman Caliphate (also, note that some Muslim believers had proposed that Kemal Atatürk become the next head of the Caliphate).

Half-truth just doesn't work.
1.Who are Wahhabbis?
2.What does this have to do with violent Muslims? Fundamentalist and extremist don't mean violent.
3.I like the red highlights. Coolio.

1.Who are Wahhabbis?

See this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabis

2.What does this have to do with violent Muslims? Fundamentalist and extremist don't mean violent.

I did not say even that. The usual process of branding/prejudice is violent=fundamentalist=Islam. It's way too much trouble arguing against the first term (violent=fundamentalist) - and, frankly, I myself don't see this particular relation as too far off the mark (although a fallacy in pure words).

3.I like the red highlights. Coolio.

Thanks, I guess.