Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The default of believers is to deny whatever is negative towards their religion, otherwise their faith [eeman] will not work. Absolute total positive acceptance of the Scripture is one pillar of eeman.
The fact is the 'us versus them' impulse is instinctual to all human beings.
In this thread I would like to explore all knowledge and articles on this topic of 'us versus time' to raise this awareness to Muslims [those who disagree] and others.
Here is one introductory article to the topic of 'us versus them';
Henri Tajfel's greatest contribution to psychology was social identity theory.
Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership(s).
Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.
In order to increase our self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For example, England is the best country in the world! We can also increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudice views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!
Therefore, we divided the world into “them” and “us” based through a process of social categorization (i.e. we put people into social groups).
This is known as in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory states that the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-image.
The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.
Prejudiced views between cultures may result in racism; in its extreme forms, racism may result in genocide, such as occurred in Germany with the Jews, in Rwanda between the Hutus and Tutsis and, more recently, in the former Yugoslavia between the Bosnians and Serbs.
Henri Tajfel proposed that stereotyping (i.e. putting people into groups and categories) is based on a normal cognitive process: the tendency to group things together. In doing so we tend to exaggerate:
1. the differences between groups
2. the similarities of things in the same group.
We categorize people in the same way. We see the group to which we belong (the in-group) as being different from the others (the out-group), and members of the same group as being more similar than they are. Social categorization is one explanation for prejudice attitudes (i.e. “them” and “us” mentality) which leads to in-groups and out-groups.
Examples of In-groups – Out-groups
o Northern Ireland: Catholics and Protestants
o Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis
o Yugoslavia: the Bosnians and Serbs
o Germany: Jews and the Nazis
o Politics: Labor and the Conservatives
o Football: Liverpool and Man Utd
o Gender: Males and Females
o Social Class: Middle and Working Classes
Thus in Islam: Muslims versus Non-Muslims.
Quote:
The final stage is social comparison.
Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups.
If our self-esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare favorably with other groups.
This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.
Competition and hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources (like in Sherif’s Robbers Cave) like jobs but also the result of competing identities.
A Social Identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.[1] As originally formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s and the 1980s,[2] social identity theory introduced the concept of a social identity as a way in which to explain intergroup behaviour.[3][4][5]
Social identity theory is best described as a theory that predicts certain intergroup behaviours on the basis of perceived group status differences, the perceived legitimacy and stability of those status differences, and the perceived ability to move from one group to another.[3][5]
This contrasts with occasions where the term "social identity theory" is used to refer to general theorizing about human social selves.[6]
Moreover, and although some researchers have treated it as such,[7][8] social identity theory was never intended to be a general theory of social categorization.[2]
It was awareness of the limited scope of social identity theory that led John Turner and colleagues to develop a cousin theory in the form of self-categorization theory,[1][5][9] which built on the insights of social identity theory to produce a more general account of self and group processes.[2][5]
The term social identity approach, or social identity perspective, is suggested for describing the joint contributions of both social identity theory and self-categorization theory.[5][9][10]
Contents
1 Aspects of the theory
1.1 The interpersonal-intergroup continuum
1.2 Positive distinctiveness
1.3 Positive distinctiveness strategies
1.3.1 Individual mobility
1.3.2 Social creativity
1.3.3 Social competition
Pascal Boyer, who teaches in both the anthropology and psychology departments at Washington University in St. Louis, has written extensively about the evolutionary roots of religion (cf. Boyer, 2001).
He has convincingly argued that religion is an exaptation, namely a by-product of evolution.
Specifically, he proposes that religion utilizes in its service cognitive mechanisms that evolved for other purposes.
Coalitional thinking is one such example in that humans have evolved the cognitive and perceptual penchant to view the world via the ‘us versus them’ mindset, which religion is famously good at exploiting.
“So before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.”
The last sentence of the latter quote is rooted in an Islamic principle wherein the world is divided into dar al-harb (house of war) and dar al-Islam (house of Islam) (cf. Lewis, 1998, p. 121-122). Now there is some coalitional thinking!
Of course, this ability to recursively split the world into binary camps is not restricted to Arab and/or Islamic societies. It is a universal penchant that is operative irrespective of one’s cultural, ethnic, or religious heritage.
To be completely fair, "Us vs Them" is a natural human impulse. As with most religions, Islam discourages it. This hasn't stopped virtually every religion that ever was from generating a massive "Us vs Them" complex. Based on the tenets of their own faiths, Christianity and Islam should have coexisted quite happily, but human nature drove them to wage war against each other instead. In Myanmar, anyone who is not Buddhist is garbage, is unwelcome and actively persecuted. Both Christians and Muslims waged terrible bloody wars over internal doctrinal disagreements. Other examples are to numerous to list.
Marxism -- the religionless utopia that it was supposed to be -- created one of the most massive "Us vs Them" divisions in human history.
To be completely fair, "Us vs Them" is a natural human impulse. As with most religions, Islam discourages it. This hasn't stopped virtually every religion that ever was from generating a massive "Us vs Them" complex. Based on the tenets of their own faiths, Christianity and Islam should have coexisted quite happily, but human nature drove them to wage war against each other instead. In Myanmar, anyone who is not Buddhist is garbage, is unwelcome and actively persecuted. Both Christians and Muslims waged terrible bloody wars over internal doctrinal disagreements. Other examples are to numerous to list.
Marxism -- the religionless utopia that it was supposed to be -- created one of the most massive "Us vs Them" divisions in human history.
It's human nature, like I said.
It is very much Human nature for people associate most close with those that are similar.
Even among Muslims you you find division. Arab vs Non-Arab, White vs Black, Western vs Oriental etc That does not give it any religious basis.
The Qur'an 49:13.
All groups are to know each other rather than wage war against each other.
49:13 O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another.
Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.
Yes, in general [loosely] all nations and tribes may come to know one another. Note it is only in general but not in reality.
In reality, there are many who do not believe in Allah of the Quran, at least 4.5 billion, i.e. 75% at present and probably more than 90% when Muhammad started.
Another point is Allah deliberately created disbelievers by sealing their hearts and torture them in Hell.
So 49:13 is not an effective verse to prevent "us versus them" rather it is Allah that deliberately differentiate Muslims [us = good] from non-Muslims [them = evil]
On a side point:
49:13 [Asad part] Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all-knowing, all-aware.
The bolded 'noblest' and "most deeply conscious" implied intensity and degree, ranking and grades of deep god consciousness, i.e. eeman and tagwa.
49:14 imply the wandering Arabs do not such a degree of deep consciousness of Allah, i.e. eeman and tagwa. That is why Allah implied in 49:14 the wandering do not have strong eeman [believe] but they only have strong submission [aslama].
The wandering Arabs are not amongst the noblest in the sight of Allah but they are amongst the lowest grade in the sight of Allah.
To be completely fair, "Us vs Them" is a natural human impulse.
That is what I have been stating all along.
Quote:
As with most religions, Islam discourages it.
NO!
As I have listed 29:5-29 it is obvious the Quran identified the disbelievers as a separate group [them] from Muslims [us =good], and condemn the disbelievers [non-Muslims] is very derogatory terms.
Prove to me I am wrong on this?
In addition, Allah deliberately create disbelievers [kuffar, infidels] by sealing their hearts and then torture them in Hell.
[16:108] Such are they [infidels] whose hearts and ears and eyes Allah hath sealed. And such are the heedless. [disbelievers - infidels]
There are many such verses where Allah had deliberately created disbelievers and preventing them from being believers again by sealing their heart.
Quote:
This hasn't stopped virtually every religion that ever was from generating a massive "Us vs Them" complex. Based on the tenets of their own faiths, Christianity and Islam should have coexisted quite happily, but human nature drove them to wage war against each other instead.
Agree.
But what is critical is the nature of contents in the holy that is associated with this massive "us versus them."
While Christianity has an overriding maxim to stop violence arising from this 'us versus them' impulse, Islam do not have a stop cork to stop SOME Muslims who are evil prone from being driven by the massive "us versus them" impulse to be influenced and inspired by the evil laden elements in the Quran.
Quote:
In Myanmar, anyone who is not Buddhist is garbage, is unwelcome and actively persecuted. Both Christians and Muslims waged terrible bloody wars over internal doctrinal disagreements. Other examples are to numerous to list.
The violence in Myanmar were committed by Buddhists who are born with evil tendencies but these evil prone Buddhists were not inspired by any Buddhist Sutras [texts] at all. Thus the violence committed by evil prone Buddhists has nothing to do with Buddhism.
On the other hand the violence committed by evil prone Muslims are inspired by the Quran. That is the difference.
Quote:
Marxism -- the religionless utopia that it was supposed to be -- created one of the most massive "Us vs Them" divisions in human history.
Marxism apply the 'us versus them' but it ideology do not single out the "them" for violence.
Nazism on the other hand is very strong on the "us versus them" and condone violence on the non-Nazis just as in Islam [in part not whole] and its evil laden verses influencing evil prone Muslims [25%]
Quote:
It's human nature, like I said.
Yes and very necessary.
But the related context and contents are most critical.
It is very much Human nature for people associate most close with those that are similar.
Even among Muslims you you find division. Arab vs Non-Arab, White vs Black, Western vs Oriental etc That does not give it any religious basis.
The 'us versus them' is basic instinct and human nature. Basically it has nothing to do with religions or other subjects. Thus the 'us versus them' do not has a religious basis but will have an impact when combine with religious elements.
What is critical here is the contexts and contents [good or evil] that are related to this primal 'us versus them' impulse.
If one group separate out another group but still love them, there is no issue. This is what happened with Christianity which naturally separate out the enemies [them] from Christians [us], but nevertheless exhort Christians to love even their enemies [them].
Islam on the other hand focus on the "them" [disbelievers, non-Muslims] like a lion in its prey, in more than 55% of the 6,236 verses and direct contempt and hatred at "them" while praising and favoring Muslims [us].
55% is obviously massive and generate great influence on SOME Muslims who are born evil prone to be very anti-non_Muslims with contempt and rage.
With massive amounts of other evil laden elements in the Quran combining with this 55% of us versus them, it is a recipe for disaster to humanity which is in fact a glaring reality common to all humans on Earth.
The 'us versus them' is basic instinct and human nature. Basically it has nothing to do with religions or other subjects. Thus the 'us versus them' do not has a religious basis but will have an impact when combine with religious elements.
It is human thing and it all began with jealousy/envy from the outset. It happened between Iblis and Adam and between Adam's sons.
It can't have basis in religion, partiularly in Islam which is very much against envy. The same applies to Christianity. But there is us v them between Catholics and protestants, and between Sunni and Shia sects. There is no basis for such behaviour in any of these two religions and, therefore, it has to be from the elements outside these religions that triggered the them v us impulse..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
