Yuku free message boards

Interesting, but for the sake of argument, let me grant that Newt Gingrich holds certain views that are typical of your average everyday American "neo-con". I would like to bring up two points.

First, I believe that Sam Harris has said several times now that if we do not begin to address the threat facing civilised people today in plain and accurate language, then it will be left to politicians who hold extreme views to do so - and they will go on to gain undeserved support.

Secondly, I believe your line of reasoning is fallacious, for the circumstances of anyone making a particular claim have no bearing on the truth value of that claim. Technically, an ad hominem argument such as yours is (so far as I can remember) called "poisoning the well", a term which comes from an attack made by Charles Kingsley on John Hendry Newman. Kingsley (a practicing Christian, who also read and supported Charles Darwin) said that Cardinal Newman's allegiance was to the RC church, and he could not therefore be trusted to tell the truth. Newman argued that accepting this made it impossible for any Catholic person to be trusted anywhere at any time, under any circumstances, and that Kingsley had poisoned the well of discourse.

Surely then, we ought to be asking whether what Gingrich is saying (regarding this particular matter: the threat posed by Islamic terrorism) is true? And if it is, then why aren't more people saying the same thing? (And when they do, why don't enough people listen to them?)

"Since, then, a prince must know how to make use of the nature of the beast, he should choose from amongst the beasts the fox and the lion; for the lion cannot defend itself from traps, while the fox cannot protect itself from the wolves. It is therefore necessary to be a fox, in order to recognise the traps, and a lion, in order to frighten the wolves: those who base their behaviour only on the lion do not understand things." (Machiavelli, "The Prince", Oxford World's Classics, p. 60.)

You make an interesting point about Gingrich, who is so far as I can make out from here on the other side of the Atlantic, a fairly typical American "neo-con" in that he advocates the use of military force in order to ensure that Islamic terrorism is defeated, when such measures may, in some cases at least, be ineffective.

The point made by Machiavelli in "The Prince" is that a virtuoso prince must be able to use force when it is necessary, but will also know when doing so would be counter-productive: "those who base their behaviour only on the lion do not understand things."

Nevertheless, since we are in agreement with what Gingrich is saying with regards Islamic terrorism being a threat to America and to the United Kingdom, I believe my earlier argument about "poisoning the well" stands. (Just because Newt Gingrich says something about jihad does not mean it isn't true.)

That's not to say that the fact that it's Gingrich saying it is irrelevant, because after all, as you say, that's only part of the story. However it's pretty easy to draw a distinction between Gingrich's proposed solution to this particular problem, and his stating the problem clearly to begin with - and that's what I was trying to draw attention to earlier.

You mentioned Tony Blair, and it is interesting to note that he has argued several times that one should not accept the claim made by "home grown" Islamic terrorists who have chosen to commit acts of treason and murder that they did so because our troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, Blair argues, the ideology which drives them was formulated long before that ever happened.

Is that true? Well, before the first attempt made by Islamic terrorists to bring down the World Trade Centre in 1993, Omar Abdul Rahman - the blind sheikh - was travelling throughout North America preaching to immigrant Muslims that they should attack the West, "cut the transportation of their countries, tear it apart, destroy their economy, burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air, or land." (Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower", Penguin, p. 177.)

It's possible to look farther back than that, and trace the connections between people like Sheikh Omar, who led the Islamic Group, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Jihad, another Egyptian group which eventually merged with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

Going back even farther, one inevitably comes across Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian author of "In The Shade of The Quran" and "Milestones" who was hanged (that is to say: martyred) by the Egyptian leadership in 1966. After visiting America, Qutb wrote, "The white man in Europe or America is our number-one enemy. […] We are endowing our children with amazement and respect for the master who tramples our honor and enslaves us. Let us instead plant the seeds of hatred, disgust, and revenge in the souls of these children. Let us teach these children from the time their nails are soft that the white man is the enemy of humanity, and that they should destroy him at the first opportunity." (ibid., p. 23)

In Islam there is no conception of giving to Caesar what is his. Qutb acknowledged that Islam provides "a complete system" of living, one which allows for no division between the state and religion. The idea of a democratic, secular government was one which rubbed many Mohammedans up the wrong way. The founder of the Muslim Brothers, Hasan al-Banna, wrote, "It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations, and to extend its power to the entire planet." (ibid., p. 25.)

Tony Blair was saying something important then, when he pointed out that the terrorists' ideology had been formed some time ago. And it seems obvious that accepting that ideology is a necessary condition for one's becoming a suicide bomber. After all, you or I might disagree with our political leaders' decisions (you might think that they were wrong to invade Iraq, for example) but we would not go down that road: one must be a believer.

And returning to my original point: why is it left to people like Newt Gingrich to criticize the ideology of Islamic terrorism in an honest, straightforward manner? People seem to be afraid of "offending" Muslims, although it's never been clear to me why this is even an issue. No one likes being told they're wrong, especially when they've invested heavily in a particular idea. I didn't really like it when my younger brother sat me down years ago, and told me in no uncertain terms that I had to sort myself out. I would much rather have held on to the idea that by drinking every hour of the day and night, I could somehow lead an enjoyable and fulfilling life. Of course I was wrong to think that, and telling me so was the best thing that anyone could have done for me. So I simply fail to see why the very thought of Mohammedans taking offence at someone expressing their own views is such a big deal.

Part of it may be that reluctance of people to criticise religion. This is something that Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have addressed several times. And there's something to this. Still, it seems to be more acceptable to criticize Christianity that it is to criticize Islam. Why does Islam get a pass?

I remember reading an article about Romney's push for the Republican nomination. The gist of it was that reporters tended to know very little about Mormonism, and so they asked the people who they thought knew most about it - the Mormons themselves. They were naturally given a watered-down, user-friendly version of Joseph Smith's religious invention. Something similar may have happened in the early post-9/11 days with regards Islam. All these years later though, and reporters on TV and in print can have no such excuse.

It's a curious phenomenon, this whole multiculturalist project. We're expected to sit tight and say nothing as Mohammadens plot to commit treason right next door to us, and while mosques go up throughout the country. We're not even supposed to believe that the Mohammedans' morality (which is tied into their political beliefs) is questionable.

What a state of affairs!

I do agree with you when you say that Islam is not "uniformly terroristic". That almost goes without saying. (I'll say it anyway.) I was careful earlier to assert only that accepting the ideology of al-Zawahiri and bin Laden was a necessary condition of one's becoming a suicide bomber.

If one conspires to detonate a rucksack full of home-made explosives aboard a London bus, then one has accepted an extreme Islamic ideology which says that carrying out a suicide bombing against "enemies of Islam" will result in one's going to Paradise as a martyr. The consequent of the previous statement must be true for the antecedent to be true. (That is to say: the consequent is a necessary condition of the antecedent.)

If you're alive, then there's air for you to breathe. The consequent is a necessary condition of the antecedent. But it's not a sufficient condition. Walk through an undertakers and there'll be plenty air for you to breathe, but there will also be people in the building who are not alive.

And it's quite true to say that there are many Muslims who are never going to strap a rucksack full of explosives on their back and try to blow up a bus.

When people went to al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in the 90s, they were indoctrinated with al-Qaeda's fundamental beliefs and goals, which according to the notes of some of those who attended, were "establishing the rule of God on Earth, attaining martyrdom in the cause of God, and purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity." (Lawrence Wright, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda's Road to 9/11," Penguin, p. 302.) America and Israel were considered "enemies of Islam" as one might expect - but "heretics" also made it on to al-Qaeda's official hit list.

In Arabic, the term for someone's being excommunicated from the Muslim community is (apparently) "takfir". Sayyid Qutb used "takfir" to help understand how other Muslims could jail members of the Muslims Brothers: they were serving Nassar's secular state, and had therefore abandoned God. (ibid., p. 29.) This idea of "takfir" was later used by men who were to become key players for al-Jihad and al-Qaeda, in order to justify the measures they were prepared to take to achieve their goals. Muslims who disagreed with them as they tried to purify Islam were considered fair game.

When al-Qaeda carried out suicide bomings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 for example, many Muslims died, but the bombings had been scheduled by al-Qaeda's leaders for ten thirty on a Friday morning, when "real Muslims" would have been in the Mosque. (ibid., p. 270.) The death of anyone who happened to be present could therefore be explained away. What I'm driving at here is that there are many people from within the Muslim community who the terrorists themselves do not consider part of their little group. Clearly, not all Muslims are terrorists.

I argued that accepting the ideology of al-Qaeda is a necessary condition for one's becoming a suicide bomber. And while I do agree that it is possible to be a Muslim and not support the efforts of al-Qaeda, I do think that being a Muslim is a necessary condition for accepting an "extremist" ideology.

Establishing the rule of God on Earth, attaining martyrdom and purifying the ranks of Islam doesn't mean much to nonbelievers like you and me. For those ideas to even matter, one must first of all believe that there is only one God. One must believe that Mohammad is his prophet. One must believe in paradise. And so forth. Only someone who already holds the fundamental beliefs of Islam can take the further steps needed to believe that the goals of people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are worth dying for.

It seems to me that all too often when religion is discussed, it is deemed acceptable to argue against some of a religion's finer points, but if you disagree with the fundamental premises which a particular religious group believe in, then that's just not cricket. One can say that God did something, or that He did not do it. One can say that He said something, or that He did not say it. It's far more difficult to come right out and say there never was a God to begin with.

One can say that Islamic terrorists are wrong to believe what they do. Well, okay. But why can't we say that their whole system is wrong, from beginning to end? Why is it okay to debate the fine points (such as "takfir") but the fundamental premises which terrorists happen to share with everyday Muslim believers are considered out of bounds?

Why does it even matter that Muslims might be "offended" at someone criticising their prophet? Why is it left to people like Newt Gingrich to talk plainly about Islamic terrorism? Why don't discussions like this occur in the media? What is everyone afraid of?

Establishing the rule of God on Earth, attaining martyrdom and purifying the ranks of Islam doesn't mean much to nonbelievers like you and me. For those ideas to even matter, one must first of all believe that there is only one God. One must believe that Mohammad is his prophet. One must believe in paradise. And so forth. Only someone who already holds the fundamental beliefs of Islam can take the further steps needed to believe that the goals of people like Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are worth dying for.

I was talking specifically about Islamic terrorism; I thought that was clear enough from the context of the discussion, especially from the previous statement. I wouldn't disagree with you that non-Islamic religious beliefs have led to extreme ideologies as well. But I am fairly confident that these two men aren't Buddhists. Neither is this fellow. Nor were the men behind this. I could provide a long list of links. And hey, if those guys only wanted to sit down in the street and set themselves on fire, I wouldn't shed any tears. But as we all know, that's not their game plan at all. Which is part of what Gingrich was pointing out in that original clip on youtube.

Well you can hardly be an Islamic terrorist without being a Muslim, can you? - Rambo123UK

So... why is it necessary to be a Muslim to accept the extremism of Al Queda? - Rambo123UK

Again: because the idea of Mohammad being God's last prophet, and of one's going to paradise after death, and all the other core Islamic beliefs just don't mean a lot to non-Muslims. And those core Islamic beliefs form part of the fundamental thinking of the "extremism of Al Qaeda." That's pretty obvious. (So why isn't it said more often?)

If we're agreed that being a Muslim (and holding the usual core Islamic beliefs) is a necessary condition for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist, then why isn't it acceptable to criticise those core Islamic beliefs as well as say, the idea that one should not blow up buses full of passengers in the name of Islam? The terrorist that carries out such acts will use different premises and sub-arguments to support his final conclusion - that throwing the switch is a good thing. Some of the fundamental premises on which much of his reasoning rests are also core Islamic beliefs. Why can't we lay out the terrorist's reasoning and criticise it wherever we think it's wrong, from Premise No. 1 right through to his Conclusion? Why can some of the premises and logical steps in his (or her) reasoning open to criticism, while other premises are not?

I wouldn't disagree with you that non-Islamic religious beliefs have led to extreme ideologies as well. - GB

I take your point that non-Islamic ideologies have fuelled terrorist acts. One could hardly disagree with this! (Note that I didn't do so.) So what though?

The VC used suicide bombers. The Japs had kamikaze pilots. The UK had commandos who knew they were going on what were effectively suicide missions in WWII. Germany and Russia both used ramfighters ..

These two gadgies were arrested on terrorist charges after flying into Heathrow on Tuesday.

There was no problem with criticising "the other side" in any of the conflicts you mention. Yet nowadays, people are falling over backwards to placate Muslims everywhere rather than "offend" them. Why is that? I did draw a distinction between Muslims and Islamic terrorists - as you put it, I was trying to differentiate between those two groups - while acknowledging that one must be a member of one group before becoming a member of the other - which, I would argue, opens up the beliefs of both groups to legitimate criticism.

So what is "unique" about Islamic terrorism then is that we need to concern ourselves about it. World War II on the other hand, is over. It may be possible to look at the psychology of the Japanese pilots who signed up to ride the divine wind, and that may shed some light on what drives Islamic terrorists. I don't know if they've ever been compared; the only time I can recall reading about them both is when Christopher Hitchens slagged off both groups in his book. Other than that, I suppose one could look to the past and put together an argument by analogy & say that we've had to deal with suicide bombers before, and we have to deal with them now ... we defeated them by the use of force before ... and so ...

First of all, I agree that there is no way anyone ought to be criticising Islam with a view to eradicating that religion completely. That's an unrealistic goal, to put it mildly!

And just to clarify: I agree too (and said earlier in this thread) that not all Muslims are terrorists. Nevertheless, I have also argued that the core Islamic beliefs ought to be challenged.

One's holding extreme Islamic beliefs (as they have become known) is a necessary condition for one's carrying out a suicide bomb attack here in the UK. That's plain enough.

And I'll repeat here that many people hold fundamental Islamic beliefs, and will never be persuaded to carry out such a terrible act. Holding such "mainstream" beliefs, in and of themselves, won't get you to cross that line.

But the group of people who hold extreme Islamic beliefs come from the group who hold those core Islamic beliefs. (As I have argued.) Holding the fundamental beliefs of Islam then, is also a necessary condition for one's becoming an Islamic terrorist.

I think that the ideology behind Islamic terrorism should be criticized from beginning to end, inside and out. No part of it should be off limits. As I said, if anyone really thinks that one fine day there will be no believers in Islam anywhere on earth, then they're kidding themselves. But as a nation, we ought to be able to fight people who have declared themselves to be our enemy on all fronts. And we need to understand that enemy, at least as much as we are able to. It seems to me then that being able to discuss and criticise Islam (here in the UK) is a necessity.

Looking at earlier cases of suicide bombing, and considering our current troubles in light of any knowledge we gain from that may be useful. It might also be worth thinking about how Christianity has lost its sting in the UK, and considering whether Islam could also be drained of whatever power it has in a similar way.

Personally, I would aim at something fairly modest: Mindful of the way in which atheist message boards appear to have helped many people to deal with their lack of faith, I would hope that allowing an environment to exist in the UK where young men and women brought up in a religious environment can discuss (quietly, perhaps) the fundamental beliefs of Islam in a critical way would allow them to seriously consider the possibility of nonbelief.

If one does not become a Muslim in the first place, one is not going to go on and accept the extreme ideology of Islamic terrorists. (As I said to Mac earlier, if you don't think that Mohammad was God's final prophet, or that there are a bunch of virgins waiting for you in paradise, etc. then you're certainly not going to accept the finer points of Islamic thinking that are used to justify suicide bombing.) If the number of potential jihadis is reduced, then that would serve us well. And if more people can be persuaded that it's okay not to believe that Mohammad split the moon with his finger (for example) or flew around the sky on a horse, then maybe in the long term Islam will lose some of its power. That too would serve us well.

Is it possible though, to discuss Islam in such ways, here in the UK? I'm not so sure it is.

I came across this report the other day. You might find it interesting. It complements your first paragraph quite nicely, I think. The link on the right hand side of the page allows you to download an Adobe document.

I'm heading off to work tomorrow, yes an extra shift on Saturday, what can you do? I'll get back to my laptop tomorrow or the day after though.