Islam,the absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin,is a rotting corpse which poisons our life.-Ataturk.
Don't mean to bore anyone by re-quoting this,but has anyone ever summarized it better?

As a matter of self protection is there anyone reason to issue visas to Moslems? What if the Saudi elites couldn't do their shopping or whoring in The West? Wouldn't that be too bad?

Posted by renminbi at May 8, 2008 03:52 PM

It's simply, really...

It's "obvious" and (generally) unspoken that all must Submit. Submission (Islam) may be either as Muslim or as Dhimmi, but it's clearly what must be done.

Refusal to submit can only happen from fear of submission (Islamophobia).

Therefore, one form of Jihad is to push against the fear of submission.

Maybe that wasn't very clear. I hope someone else can better translate what I was trying to say.

Posted by Dishman at May 8, 2008 04:18 PM

Hmmm. Boris Goodunov?

The problem Boris faces is that Gordon is going to hang on as long as he can, and when he calls a general election then Boris will be a convenient stick to beat the Tories with.

There will be no shortage of commissions, think-tanks and academic reports that the media, especially the BBC, will be able to quote showing exactly what a disaster area London under Boris has been.

Old ladies will be dying of cold because Nasty Boris took away their cheap Venezualan oil. Pigeons will be choking in Trafalgar Square if he abandons the ridiculous Green zone, (or whatever Ken's stupid lorry tax scam is called). Education, health, transport etc. are all going to collapse even if Boris leaves them alone. Crime will be rampant, (it is now, but that's the police's fault, not Ken's), and the problems of immigration will go from the back pages to the headlines.

It goes without saying that the Olympics will be a disaster for London, but under Ken they would have been a roaring success.

As for Islam, when there is any problem, any terrorist act, quotes such as these will be dragged out and the blame will be pinned on poor old Boris.

We need Boris, (and the national Tory party), to stand up under all this pressure. To come out fighting and call the media on their bias and partisanship, but seeing that Boris quote about the 'religion of peace' does not give me much hope.

Posted by Kevin B at May 8, 2008 05:29 PM

Give old Bozza a chance, that's what I say. How can he be worse than Ken?

These days we need to be grateful for small mercies. And a London Mayor who isn't hugging mad mullahs and brown-nosing terrorist leaders and dictators is, alas, a small mercy.

(I'm Mary Jackson, by the way. I used to post a lot at Harry's Place, and I'm delighted to see that there are more and more Boris fans. Plus David T was in the Daily Mail with a "political correctness gone mad" story about Muslims. Who'd a thunk it?)

Posted by Old Peculier at May 8, 2008 10:07 PM

Having read the Koran, and as theological texts go its definitely my favourite.

It could be argued that there is no such thing as
Muslim terrorism, just as there is no such thing as Muslim alcoholism.

The worshippers of the All-Merciful are they who tread gently upon the earth, and when the ignorant address them, they reply, "Peace!"
(25:63)

When the enemies of the Muslims kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. They strive to create disorder in earth, and Allah loves not those who create disorder." (28:78).

admittedly these are the only two quotes that come close to backing up this argument, and from what I can tell your still allowed to cut someones head off so long as you think they of a sound mind intellectually.

Posted by liminal at May 8, 2008 11:46 PM

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia - fear of Islam - seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke

Sigh, Borrie has got it wrong.

Even to use the term Islamophobia is to accept battle on the enemys terms.

If fear is a natural, or rational, reaction to becoming informed it cannot be a phobia.

I dispute the existence of Islamophobia at all, and I don't use the term other than to rubbish it as a piece of misdirection and dishonest propaganda.

The more informed I become, the less respect I have for this tripe. Nothing phobic about it, and I refuse to accept their self serving definition.

Posted by countingcats at May 8, 2008 11:51 PM

Counting Cats

I entirely agree with you about Islamophobia, indeed, I think I did an entire posting here on that exact topic, along exactly the lines of your comment. It is indeed a bullshit word.

The point of this posting, however, is not that Boris has everything spot on, but that, however falteringly, the man who has just been elected Mayor of London has in the past said some pretty rough stuff about Islam. And I do mean Islam, rather than just "the few extremists who abuse it and misinterpret it", blah blah blah.

Posted by Brian Micklethwait at May 9, 2008 12:05 AM

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC)(Link) recently released a report on Islamophobia - has anyone else read this dishonest piece of garbage(Link)?

Posted by countingcats at May 9, 2008 12:12 AM

Brian,

Fair point, although I got to admit, I see red every time I see the word.

The problem we have here is that muslims are a significant voting block, and for a London politician to alienate them is potentially electoral suicide. Although, how many votes would be picked up as a result of an honest speech is unknown.

Thing is, even the tories pander to the multiculties in the Guardian and Independent these days, and the only acceptable line with these guys is Religion of Peace, hijacked by tiny handful of extremists, yada yada yada.

This is so transparently dishonest that it is corroding what little respect is left for the whole political process. Muslims know it is nonsense - see Ed Hussein, and anyone reads newspapers or watches TV knows it is nonsense. But the politicians, including Boris? Not only do they say it, but they act on it as well.

Posted by countingcats at May 9, 2008 12:40 AM

We need Boris, (and the national Tory party), to stand up under all this pressure. To come out fighting and call the media on their bias and partisanship, but seeing that Boris quote about the 'religion of peace' does not give me much hope.

They can't. As I've said before, the Left understand why, and the rest of us still haven't got our heads around it. And we need to, if we're going to get anywhere.

Politicians can only operate within the consciousness created by the cultural hegemony, as a Gramscian might say. For instance, if the hegemonic consciousness is patriotic, then no politician can make an unpatriotic statement, however well argued, without suffering condemnation. Politicians thus do not challenge the hegemonic consciousness. They have little power to change it, and are utterly subject to it. The Left figured this out ages ago, and have thus set about creating a cultural hegemony which reflects their goals.

Boris or the Tory party could try standing up to it if they like, but it would get them nowhere. You have to change the views promulgated by hegemonic institutions, thus changing the hegemonic consciousness and...

all this marxism, head asplode. Boom.

This is, in a sense, why the idea of setting up new political parties (e.g. The Libertarian Party) is a waste of time. Within the current cultural hegemony, they'll never gain traction. If you can change the cultural hegemony, then the main parties (who are always two very mildly differing representations of the hegemonic value system) will follow and do what you want, so you don't need another party. The Left understand this, and work primarily outside the formal political system. That's why politically they're such an enormous success. It's why the so-called right wing party have had to appoint a progressive statist as leader, and why Boris, as soon as he required serious political traction, has had to become one too. And it's why a reshuffle of our provincial government at the next general election won't change a thing.

Posted by Ian B at May 9, 2008 03:28 AM

Ian,

Politicians can only operate within the consciousness created by the cultural hegemony
...
You have to change the views promulgated by hegemonic institutions, thus changing the hegemonic consciousness and

Damn that was good. Ever considered lecturing in sociology?

Although, circumstances arise where society is ripe for change, and it takes only a slight pressure to tip. We are seeing this in Canada right now, where the cases against Steyn and Levant seem to be setting off an avalanche of demand for change.

Really, given enough pent up anger, all it takes is a single high profile claim of 'Bollocks" for the paradigm to shift.

Posted by countingcats at May 9, 2008 05:11 AM

I dont think that there is anything irrational or bigoted about fearing and hating an ideology that has openly stated its intention to destroy my way of life and make me live by their medieval standards

Posted by Andy at May 9, 2008 07:53 PM

Thanks for the link to Mary Jackson and from there to the New English Review.
Ms. Jackson now goes into my 'favourites', joining you lot,Tom Paine and Melanie Phillips among others.

Posted by Kevyn Bodman at May 10, 2008 12:29 PM

Ian B & CC,

There is a mechanism available that is worth recalling.

The term 'Bully Pulpit' was coined by president Teddy Roosevelt. There is at least one clear case in my political life where it served well the cause of freedom.

Ronald Reagan was wrong on many of the things he did and was right on many others. But what he did that is most overlooked is change the frame of reference, the terminology and the assumptions of the 'cultural hegemony' of the time. While he was not particularly successful in political terms of rolling back government and advancing personal liberty, he brought into being the context in which good things happened. Things that were beyond his direct influence he none the less indirectly influenced. I do not think the steady restoration of the right to self defense as demonstrated by the state-by-state institution of gun rights over the last ~25 years could have happened without him.

And perhaps the most pivotal moment in the second half of the 20th Century was when, standing before the Brandenburg Gate, Ronald Reagan changed the world's meta-context.

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

. . .

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Posted by Midwesterner at May 10, 2008 05:47 PM

There is a perhaps sometimes unsurprising amount of anti-Islamic feeling expressed on this site, for example in the quote of the day and in the comment above which follows it. Islam ("Submit"), like it or loathe it, once it sets root in any society, it is there to stay and we had better get used to it. Look at the example of Turkey: Though it may have been rooted and then routed in Turkey (and despite Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as quoted in above comment by renminbi), look at how its roots there are settling back into dominance even now.

The quote and subsequent comments above are probably mostly true and correct, and I presume that the authors are sincere in what they write, but, I suspect from what they write that their knowledge and understanding of the history of Islam is sorely limited - i.e., they are relatively ignorant. The same could probably be said of a majority of religious "believers" - be they Muslim, Christian or Jew, Agnostic, or Atheist(!) - and some of the comments on this site would certainly seem to support this supposition. We are all ignorant - it is the human condition to live in this darkness - and the best we can hope for is to become slightly less ignorant during the course of our short lives.
>
Here is my attempt to dispel some of the darkness, and I hope it helps someone to better appreciate the religious context of the quote of the day and to make more sense of the comments on this site - all of which will have some validity:
The “god of the desert” is a common ancestry for the monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islamism, and you might therefore expect the relevant scriptures for these to reflect this commonality - and so they do - but the scripture of the Islamic religion is different in a very special way. Because Mohammed was born about 570 years after the death of Christ (i.e., c. 570 AD), he would have studied the Old Testament, and Jewish and Christian teachings, and the teachings of the banifs who rejected idolatry. You only have to read the Koran to see it scattered with references to characters (e.g., including Noah, and Moses) from the Old Testament. Thus, essentially, we all worship the same one God.
>
So where is the difference? The difference is simply this: whereas the Old Testament and the New Testament are collections of material written by different authors - for example, in the latter the authors include Matthew, Luke, and John - the Koran/Quran has no author. It is the only book that is purportedly actually the *word of God*, as spoken by an angel of God to Mohammed in about 610AD, and as recited later by Mohammed to others - “Koran” means “The Recital”. In this role as reciter, Mohammed had thus been chosen by God to be the vessel to communicate God’s word to the people.
The Koran is a fascinating book to read - regarded by many scholars as being the earliest and by far the finest work of classical Arabic prose, and for Muslims it is of course the infallible word of God, a transcript of a tablet preserved in heaven, revealed to the prophet Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. Except in the opening verses and some few passages in which the Prophet or the Angel speaks in the first person, the speaker throughout is God.
>
No other religion has this - the actual, unadulterated, unexpurgated word of God. Only Islam has this. To be an Islamist is to believe absolutely in the truth of the Koran as being the unequivocal and infallible word of God. So when you read the Koran, you cannot pick and choose what to accept. It is absolute and pure, and it must all be accepted. It might be difficult to understand in a few places, for some people, but by and large it is simple and straightforward, even down to instructing how some common disputes and the allocation of inherited monies are to be resolved in society (e.g., a man may engage in fornication with a female slave because a slave is a chattel; a man may receive all of his rightful inheritance, but a woman receives only half). Though Westerners may find such rules unacceptable or even offensive today, in c. 610 AD they would probably have been entirely suited to the prevailing social structure and the needs of society to have some structure and laws governing their behaviours. From this developed the Shariah law, which is a bedrock for Muslim societies in different countries - e.g., in the UK, in Palestine.
>
So do Muslims have an issue with Christians and Jews? Well, yes and no.
>
No, because they all worship the same one God, though the Muslims would prefer it to be “Allah”, because that is the pure word used for God in the language spoken to Mohammed and as he subsequently recited. The three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as “tawhid” in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the “Shema”, or the Jewish creed of faith: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1,500 years later by Jesus when he said “…The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)
Mohammed came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:
“And your God is One God: there is no God but He…” (Quran 2:163)
>
Yes, because:
(a) Neither the Jews nor the Christians have converted to Islam. For an explanation of what this means, read on.
>
(b) The Jews are regarded as having it badly wrong: The Koran describes Christ as a true prophet of God, but the Jews rejected Christ as a prophet - so that was historical blasphemy - and the Jews continue to deny Christ as the prophet, so the blasphemy is compounded. If the Jews had accepted Christ, then they would have converted to Christianity, QED. Of course, they ignored the next true prophet of God (Mohammed) as well. If the Jews had accepted Mohammed, then they would have converted to Islam, QED.
>
(c) The Christians are regarded as having it badly wrong: The Koran describes Christ as a true prophet of God and a mortal. So Islamists see the prophet Christ as a mere mortal - just as they regard the prophet Mohammed. However, Christianity is regarded as having seriously digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, by committing a blasphemy. They imposed a vague and mysterious doctrine that was invented and formulated during the fourth century (i.e., c. 400 AD). This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the “Holy Trinity”. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being, where Christ is at the same time the Son of God and part of God. This is really a double blasphemy: that is, not only giving a mortal (Christ) the status of God, but also dividing up the Oneness of God into three bits. Add to this that, if the Christians had later accepted Mohammed, then they would have converted to Islam, QED.
>
(d) In the Koran, God instructs that Islam must be the dominant religion in any society where it may find itself, so this applies to all unbelievers, not just the Jews and Christians. There is thus this enormous responsibility for the Muslims - because God has instructed them directly to do this, and it goes way further than the Christians being simply encouraged by prophets to “spread God’s word”. This is an absolute command coming directly from God. What to do? Well, the Koran (God is speaking) tells Muslims pretty clearly, and repeats the instructions in several separate verses throughout the book, so it is difficult to miss the point. There are essentially two main methods: force, and guile, and these have probably been honed to perfection over hundreds of years trial and error:
>
(i) Force: It goes like this: Basically, every Muslim is commanded to work to convert the unbelievers (anyone who is not a Muslim) to Islam, and if they are peaceful and won’t convert, then you leave ‘em alone - more or less (they will be dealt with by force/guile later) - but, if they won’t convert and give you any aggro or try to force or convert you to their heretical beliefs, or if they invade your lands and won’t convert, well then, they just have to die, and God assures us that their souls will burn in hell. As an added incentive, God says that if you lose your life in fighting the unbelievers, then you will be a martyr for God and will go straight to Paradise. Paradise is described as having things like lots of fresh running streams and green orchards laden with fruit, and where you will be able to recline on long seats with pillows, and have nice-looking young boys waiting on you, plus - and this could be the clincher for some - there will be 70 or so dusky-eyed virgins awaiting you as a reward. This might appeal to the blokes, but not necessarily to the wimmin’, and God does not seem to say what lies in store for the second-class citizens - the women - anyway, beyond that they can get into Paradise with their husbands, if they have been faithful wives. So, it is a bit of a mystery as to where all the virgins come from or how they get there in the first place, and what happens if a married man martyrs before his wife dies, then gets given the virgins and then his wife dies and joins him in Paradise. Lots of potential for domestic disruption there, but I suppose the man could marry the virgins to make it right (polygamy is OK). Before anyone asks, I haven’t made any of this up, but it brings to mind Lord Rama’s bridge which many Hindus apparently believe was built by Ram and his army of monkeys - I kid you not.
>
(ii) Guile: Given that the Muslims have this huge responsibility wherever they may be, in every country they settle in, they must ensure that Islamism becomes dominant. The Koran describes a set of behaviours, domestic and commercial, for Muslims, which makes them keep to themselves - to the exclusion of unbelievers - e.g., marry only other Muslims or converts; breed within the Muslims and raise/convert their children to Islam; trade and fraternise amongst themselves rather than with unbelievers, unless they absolutely have to. The prick of fear is there to ensure that Muslims keep in line - e.g., deviation from Shariah law could find you stoned to death or hung; apostasy is punishable by death. In any society, the Muslims follow an approach to deliberate change that is very similar to the old Russian hegemonic communist approach - Infiltrate, organise, agitate - but it is done in a low-key way, and the steps are incremental. Little by little, the thin ends of many small wedges are drifted into the social structure. What on the face of it might seem perfectly reasonable special laws, special regulations and special facilities are progressively introduced and implemented that support the Islamic faith, and particularly when it comes to education, because that is where the teaching of Islam will eventually start to become mandatory. Control over education and teaching curricula are very important for Islamic dominance, not only to enforce Islamic teaching to the susceptible young (same as Roman Catholicism) but also to avoid the risk of the unbelievers teaching blasphemies to Islamic children and weakening their faith/belief in Islam. In executing this change process, Muslims are allowed to engage in any trickery, obfuscation or duplicity and use artificial objectives to conceal their real objectives and hidden agendas, as deemed necessary to achieve their main objectives for Islamic dominance in society. These are behaviours that are only permissible where you are carrying out God’s directions.
>
Don’t forget to include here the Shariah law (Islam’s bedrock) - the governing part of any Muslim society. The implementation of this set of laws in any unbeliever society is an objective to be realised in parallel with Islamic dominance. Once implemented, it is a powerful tool to ensure the self-perpetuation of Islamic dominance.
>
The guile method could be regarded as being infinitely more powerful and effective than the force method, and all it takes is time and determined effort. Look around the world where Islamic communities progressively succeed in obtaining various special exemptions and rights for Muslims. Look at America. There in the DoD library you will be able to find a document dated 22 May, 1991, which a group - the Muslim Brotherhood - of 29 Islamic American-based organisations signed their names to. The document is entitled “An explanatory memorandum on the general strategic goal for the group in North America”. This document was essentially about the strategy for Islamic domination in the US, and it was absolutely in line with the Koran and aligned to use the guile approach and take advantage of and use American systems and services in legitimate ways in order to meet the objective of Islamic dominance in the US. This strategy, as well as being absolutely in line with the Koran - or maybe because it is - is flawless. An analysis carried out by the DoD led to a report by LTC Joseph C. Myers (Senior Army Advisor, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB Montgomery, AL) that described the document and the organisations that contributed to it as a threat. In the DoD library, the document is listed as exhibit: Bate #ISE-SWI 1B1010000413. LTC Myers’ notes include the statement that “This analysis begins to provide clear I&W for domestic threats that DoD, DHS and the USG must come to terms with.”
>>
I am an agnostic, but, if you have got this far, then you might be able to understand why I sometimes think that the best approach for humanity could be for everybody to convert to Islam now, and then we could all get on with pulling together on constructive endeavours under the umbrella of that ideology and with that paradigm, rather than continuing to fight and kill each other interminably - as at present - over whose political or religious ideology is best. Then again, if we did that, we would probably find something else to fight over - certainly the Middle-Eastern countries dominated by Islam do seem to war amongst themselves.

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 10, 2008 11:37 PM

I suspect from what they write that their knowledge and understanding of the history of Islam is sorely limited - i.e., they are relatively ignorant.

Now there is a statement of ignorance in itself.

I sometimes think that the best approach for humanity could be for everybody to convert to Islam now,

Bingo.

No - fucking - way.

If your kiddie fucker had such a wonderful message, why can't you just come out and admit your agenda straight up?

In Christianity, Satan is named "The father of lies." In Islam, a lie, told for the benefit of the Muslims, is a virtue. Makes one wonder about the source of your message, doesn't it? Islam would have a great deal more success, with me anyway, if its proponents weren't so bloody dishonest all the time.

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 12:24 AM

countingcats, thankyou for your comment re my post. I like your attitude. I would compare it to the sort of "in your face" independent and freedom-loving attitude expressed in the brilliant metal-gangsta-rap song "It's Open Season", by Stuck Mojo - though I usually dislike such music.

I should say:
(a) I am absolutely ignorant, but continually strive to make myself less so. I do not advocate deriding or doing an argumentum ad hominem on those whom I disagree with or whom I feel are ignorant, because, if I did, then I would merely be compounding my own ignorance and encouraging others to do the same. I focus on the arguments put forward.

(b) My comment above was a genuine attempt to dispel the gloom. The final part of my comment was not a recommendation that Western society cave in to Islam or accept/negotiate dhimmitude. It's just that, because Islam becomes systemic in any society where it sets foot - remember that it absolutely has to do that to obey God's instructions - the only options would seem to be:

(i) Convert (submit) to Islam. Islam = "submit". Would it be so bad? I know this option would probably be abhorrent to most free thinkers and is antithetical to the concepts of freedom and democracy that Westerners cherish.

(ii) Accept/negotiate dhimmitude. Well, history shows that that approach leads to (i).

(iii) Fight the bastards to death or submission. However, Muslims must never submit, and history shows us that this option leads to enormous bloodshed and societal dissonance and disruption.

History also shows that, when the dust settles after the bloodshed, the Muslims are still not quelled (e.g., a case in point is Turkey) and will have to recommence the guile approach, subtly backed up by the force approach (don't forget the Shariah law). Once Islam has become systemic, it is a bit like a cancer - as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk suggested - and it is malignant and terminal, but only to non-Muslims.

So, do we take the vaccine for the cancer? The vaccine is (i). Oh dear, we seem to have come in a circle.

This demonstrates the power of the Islamic ideology and paradigm. It is a near-perfect - albeit crude - self-sustaining system for wielding power and control over human society. Case in point could be any non-secular Islamic-dominated country.

I suspect that you would probably prefer option (iii). I am not so certain that I would - given the rationale above. However, when I reflect on my uncertainty, I hear these words stinging my conscience, ringing down through history:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill.

My fear for us all is that we will indeed have to fight, but that it may be "...with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival", simply because we will have allowed our societies' leaders to procrastinate rather than confront the real and dangerous issue of Islamic hegemonism whilst we could "easily win without bloodshed". This procrastination will be added to by our own laws for aiding secularism, freedom of speech, thought, and religious practice, compounded by the excesses of liberal fascists in our society (check out what's happening re the Human Rights Commission in British Columbia (Canada). These are all regarded by Muslims as weaknesses of the unbelievers, and will all be used against them by the Muslims (who are obliged by God to do this), to drive the wedge that will open the door to Islamic dominance and fascism in each country where they have a footprint.

Peace, bro', and I mean that very sincerely.

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 11, 2008 01:51 AM

I sometimes think that the best approach for humanity could be for everybody to convert to Islam now,

No no no a thousand times NO. That would be the WORST thing of all. If the entire population of Earth converted to any one religion it would be one of, if not THE, most catastrophic events in human history. This is not because of anything in particular in Islam but because the lack of conflict over fundamentals would remove one of the major avenues through which reason could prevail in men's minds.

For so long as there are religions that are utterly incompatible with each other, their contradictory existence and clashes serve as stark evidence that feelings are in no way indicators of the truth, that instead feelings arise solely as a result of people judging things subconsciously using what they've been taught or concluded for themselves as the standard of value. If there are two or more people with completely contradictory feelings about anything (particularly religious dogma), yet each believes with total sincerity, this can and does give pause to anyone who cares to think honestly about religion and the proper methods of discerning truth.

I recall one fundamentalist (a Christian) complaining about children being taught about the existence of other religions precisely because it lead to children questioning the foundations and merits of any one religion in particular. There are many things that are irredeemably evil about multiculturalism, but learning about others' way of life without being expected to adopt those ways is not one of them. The attempt to teach all religions as equally important necessarily means teaching that they are all equally unimportant. Good! More, and faster please!

and then we could all get on with pulling together on constructive endeavours under the umbrella of that ideology and with that paradigm, rather than continuing to fight and kill each other interminably - as at present - over whose political or religious ideology is best.

If there is to be any hope for humanity then people must be able to reason and question. If the whole world were to convert to a single religion then that would make it harder for people to hold dissenting opinion. It would be more difficult for people to hold bases on which to question their own beliefs, and of those who do and would, being an honest and candid thinker would become an infinitely harder life. That difficuly would be especially great if there are people like you stating that want of peace and tranquility should take precidence over the asking of pertinent questions that would anger others to violence. There will NEVER be any "constructive endeavours" if any anti-reason belief system were to become monolithic.

I would like all religion to fade away quietly, leaving behind only history. Since that's not going to happen, the next best thing would be for no one of them to become predominant. That way their incessant fighting, bloodletting and the irreconcilably conflicting beliefs which cause that would be plain for the world to see. I want the death and destruction to stop - but NOT at the price of abandoning reason and independent thought. While it is best for there not to be killings at all, it is better that there be killings of the people's bodies than killings of their minds. It is only through uncompromising use of reason that in the immediate future people might escape from being killed, and that in the further future the killings may be greatly mitigated or stopped altogether.

JJM

Posted by John McVey at May 11, 2008 03:34 AM

I think Slartibartfarst was being ironic. His/her analysis of Islam was spot on.

Posted by Mary Jackson at May 11, 2008 04:51 AM

Mary,

I think Slartibartfarst was being ironic. His/her analysis of Islam was spot on.

Yes and no. The phraseology used was from someone who habitually thinks or writes from an Islamic perspective. It is also heavily slanted, subtly, but heavily. Look at it closely, and it becomes obvious.

If Slarti had been honest about this my response would have been to engage him/her in polite debate, but the whole presentation was dishonest, and deserved a blunt response.

The people on this site are, contrary to his initial claims, very well informed about both the history and theology of Islam.

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 06:04 AM

Cats, I tend to agree with Mary: I am just not seeing what you are seeing - can you point out anything specific?

John McVey: I don't think that there is a danger of a universal religion for any extended period of time. Even today within Islam there are many factions that are seen as incompatible with each other. And, after all, Islam itself "sort of" grew out of Judaism and Christianity. Something new will eventually* grow out of Islam.

*That is not to say that I would like to go through that transitional phase in my lifetime:-|

Posted by Alisa at May 11, 2008 08:14 AM

Alisa: Any one religion in particular, no, I don't think so either, but that wasn't my point. I was simply indicating to Slarti what the consequences of his throwaway line would be. I had also thought about factions, but they just don't have the same oomph that the existence of totally alien systems has as cause for questioning the foundations of beliefs.

I don't agree with Cat's suggestion that Slarti is a shill for Islam. Rather, I saw something worse, more along the lines of the lunatics of the anti-war feel-their-pain infantilising left: Chamberlainesque peace-at-any-price, mind the nuances, and if we just try to see and accommodate their PoV then everything will be a bit more rosy because it will blunt their anger etc etc. Screw that. There is no excuse for that sort of attitude. What is really needed is the full protection of those who dare to question and pure scorn for those who would shut others down. We don't need nuances and Koranic exegesis to understand that. If there are those who get violent because of it, then the right thing to do is some variant of whacking them down for it, not to try to pander to their irrationality. Muslims are adult human beings like the rest of us, and we should treat them as such whether for good or for ill.

JJM

Posted by John McVey at May 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Cats, I'm afraid that you were right.

Posted by Alisa at May 11, 2008 01:39 PM

What an interesting set of comments!

I am all for having a logical, structured argument, and so I would suggest that, to move things forwards, we could now focus our cognitive surplus and engage and apply critical thinking, focussed on understanding the central implicit/explicit arguments. At the same time, it would probably help us to focus if we:

* Desist from discussing the merits or otherwise of previously held personal opinions, cherished beliefs or points of view. (These are not relevant to structured argument unless they can be substantiated and/or used in the pursuit of a conclusion to the argument.)

* Desist from pursuing argumentum ad hominem (which is a logical fallacy), or other irrelevancies and non-sequiturs - e.g., casting insults or making irrelevant aspersions as to the nature, motives etc. of people making the comments, or making assertions about whether people engaged in sex with children.

So, without further ado:
(a) If the analysis - provided in my first post - is correct, and,

(b) If the response options to address the problem - provided in my second post - are appropriate - i.e.,:
(i) Convert (submit) to Islam.
(ii) Accept/negotiate dhimmitude.
(iii) Fight the bastards to death or submission.

Then:
1. What is the appropriate starting premise that we need to state here?
2. In Islamism, are there symptomatic/causal problem(s) for Western (or other) non-secular, free/democratic societies to address, of the sort implied?
3. If so, then what is the definition of the problem(s)?
4. What responses other than those given would be appropriate?
5. How could any responses identified be made in order minimise the risks to the host society - relevant Western (or other) non-secular, free/democratic societies?

So far, I think we have this:

(a) The analysis looks more or less correct. (Mary Jackson kindly said that it was "...spot on", and so far no-one has pointed out or corrected any errors in the summary).

(b) The 3 responses look sufficiently comprehensive, and so far nobody has suggested any others. "Do nothing" could be one, I suppose, but that is probably likely be a precursor to (i) or (ii) - i.e., Islamism is not going to ignore God's directions, and therefor would be unlikely to just "up and go away" of its own volition.

1. Premise: The people in Western (or other) non-secular, free/democratic societies, through many wars and including two world wars, have arrived at their current state and consider it to be valid, important for the development of humanity, and exceedingly hard-won. Therefore, they would wish to maintain - if not further develop - the strength of the features of freedom and democracy which they currently enjoy. That is, it would not be required or acceptable to change to what could be regarded as retrograde political/religious fascist ideologies or paradigms.

Therefore:
2. There are causal and symptomatic problems, actual and potential.

3. Definition of problems (suggested):
3-1: Symptomatic problem: The growth of Islamic populations with hegemonic drivers, in host societies, leading to a systemic Islamic footprint in those societies, leading to a gradual erosion of existing political and religious ideology and paradigms, which are to be incrementally and progressively replaced by Islamic fascist religious and political ideology and paradigms, against the wishes of the members of the host society.

3-2: Causal problem:
* The freedom for Islamic immigration into the host societies.
* The freedom to practice religion of choice in the host societies.
* Any welfare state support for the Islamic immigrants to the host societies or the Islamic religion.

4. Other responses. (What suggestions are there for responses that would not end up contributing to further reinforcing the fight/guile drivers of Islamist ideology?)

5. Risk mitigation: (For the 3 responses defined, what are the suggestions for ensuring risk-mitigation?)

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 11, 2008 02:56 PM

I am just not seeing what you are seeing - can you point out anything specific?

Slarti's English is good, but he is clearly not a native speaker. Nor is he Western European.

Over the years I have been told a number of times, by Russians, that my writing style is far closer to what they were taught at school than that of anyone else they ever met in the west. Having read Russians writing, in English, I can see what they mean. Start looking for it, and you can see it. Slarti's style is too florid, it is far more Eastern than it is Western, and it is absolutely not Anglo. Combine that with the unconsciously arrogant assumption of our ignorance about Islam, and the insinuations of the advantages, whatsoever they may be, to our all converting, and, oh, a whole load of other things in both what he says and the manner in which it is said, and I am left with the firm opinion that here we have someone trolling for Islam through misdirection and deceit.

Cats, I'm afraid that you were right.

Yeah, although the second message is definitely better, not as blatant.

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 03:02 PM

Start looking for it, and you can see it.

I meant, start looking at differences in peoples writing styles and they become easy to see.

In fact, once you start becoming aware of them, they leap out at you, without you looking for them. As did slarti's to me.

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 03:17 PM

countingcats, you make me smile because you jump to such amusingly erroneous conclusions about me. I would respectfully suggest that discussion regarding my use of English, possible ethnic origins, and possible religious bias or motivation is irrelevant to, and likely to frustrate efforts to seriously focus on understanding the central implicit/explicit arguments. If we focus on the latter, then this could help us to dispel the gloom (ignorance) - including my own. Armed with knowledge and understanding, we are better able to confront the issues and problems in life, and address their resolution.

As a follow-on from my previous post, I came across this post from someone called "Ashley" at: http://uppompeii1.uppompeii.com/2007/08/02/islam-on-track-to-be-uk-religion-of-state.aspx

"It is time that the politicians and PC elite understood and respected the inescapable fact that Islam is a totalitarian, anti-humanitarian, political ideology that uses religion to give divine sanction to fascism and in particular to fascist regimes. It is an outdated, failed ideology which has been tried and tested in the laboratory of time and has failed to make its way from the 7th to the 21st century. They can do with it what they may, lie about it, pray about it, roar, sue, spit, threaten, start a jihad, burn a flag, bomb an embassy, shoot an elderly nun in the back, whatever, but the facts remain. It is time they stopped, stopped the deception, be it self deception or otherwise, but it has to stop."

It is an articulate and, factually, relatively accurate expression of a valid POV of the non-Muslim, but I am perplexed as to how all this "stopping" might be brought about effectively. I suspect that asking Muslims to stop what they are doing and change their behaviours and be nice from now on is not going to deflect them. Why should they stop following the infallible word of God? They have been following it for 1,400 years now.

In the absence of any considered, consistent and effective response to incremental Islamic hegemony, then it will likely be only a matter of time before systemic Islamic dominance is successful in a any given society. History would seem to support that.

Could it be that the age of free thought and secularism is drawing to a close? Is it time to consider submitting to the fascist ideology and dogma of Islam? Do we need to consider surviving first, so that we can argue later - or maybe just survive and forget about the arguing?

"But look here where it says so in the Koran!" could become almost as compelling an argument as the sound of a loaded pistol being cocked behind your ear.

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 11, 2008 04:01 PM

countingcats, you make me smile

Thank you sir,

If all I achieve for the day is to make one person smile, then the day has been well spent.

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 04:38 PM

"But look here where it says so in the Koran!" could become almost as compelling an argument as the sound of a loaded pistol being cocked behind your ear.

Hearing the double click behind my ear is not a persuasive argument. It's my cue to pivot outside, sweep and grab, inside strip, and beat the mother****er's skull in with his own gun. I could almost care what the Koran does or doesn't say.

People want to move west, let them change to accomodate us. We do not prevent you from playing with your beads, avoiding alcohol, and beating your face on the pavement five times a day. But we will not abandon our own individual lives to suit you. And BTW, beating wives is illegal here.

Do we need to consider surviving first, so that we can argue later - or maybe just survive and forget about the arguing?

Our survival is not at risk. You may have suicide bombers. We have air forces. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

BTW, Cats, somehow I suspect you're right about Slartibartfast. Innocent people usually deny accusations rather than sidestep.

Posted by Sunfish at May 11, 2008 04:53 PM

Slarti,

As you will be aware, Islam offers People of the Book three choices – submit and accept a designedly shitty subordinate status where they have no rights and are screwed for exorbitant taxes, convert (revert) to Islam and get to spend half my life pleading with the laws of physics, or die. Pagans and atheists, on the other hand, don’t get that submit option; their choice is convert or die.

Me, I am an atheist, not a Person of the Book, no dhimmi status available for the li’l old cat counter. So, what do I do? Am I going to fall to my knees and start keening pointless prayers to the fantasy of that mass murdering kiddie fucking moral cripple? No way José.

So, what is my option as far as Islam is concerned? Why, to have my throat cut. In a few short words – Islam wants me dead.

ISLAM WANTS ME DEAD.

I guess I need not lay out just what opinion I have of any belief system that has that as an objective, or of any individual who espouses it.

Loadsa love and respect,

CC

Posted by countingcats at May 11, 2008 05:36 PM

Countingcats, I suspect you're one of those people about whom it can be said,
EVERYONE WANTS YOU DEAD!
Let's not blame mohammedanism for that. Just keep taking the pills.

Posted by nick g. at May 12, 2008 08:05 AM

Charmlessly gratuitous there Nick g.

I'm with CC on this one.

I'm a simple soul!

"Better to die for a noble cause

Than to live and die a slave"

The Last Poets

And the Noble Cause is Western Civilisation
Messy and imperfect though it is.

Slarti. Thanks for your massive posts.
Unfortunately you have told me nothing I dont already know.

Perhaps you could do something that is easier on the eye....

Like the fiddly bits of Norway, perhaps? ;-)

Posted by RAB at May 12, 2008 03:32 PM

Slarti,
Unlike Cats, I am one of the people of the book. However, I'm sort of happy with the faith I already have (aside from an Archbishop who will not be named who seems to like your religion better than his own sometimes). I also, alas, have gotten used to being the alpha pig of this particular pack and don't think I'd enjoy the second-class status that you have for me.

So, it just wouldn't work. However, should you ever feel the need for either a baptism or a briss, I know just the men and would be pleased as punch as to make the proper introductions.

RAB,
his name is, um, not important.

Posted by Sunfish at May 12, 2008 07:55 PM

No you're wrong Sunfish
Names do matter.
This one wants to be a planet shaper!

But when you lose your name you gain a number in a survaillance socialist society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUz88-xoqY&NR=1

Posted by RAB at May 12, 2008 10:46 PM

The problem with Slarti was not his beliefs, but his approach. This was a fishing trip for him, looking to find nibbles, but he chose to be dishonest in his presentation. This is one of my major beefs with Islam, the way it inverts morality. Lies, rape, theft, murder, can all be acceptable. Although, to a devout muslim this is not true, because rape is not rape, theft is not theft, and murder is not murder when carried out by a good muslim.

Just as here, to Slarti, his misrepresentation is fair and valid.

Posted by countingcats at May 12, 2008 11:52 PM

Is anybody there? The lights are on, but it seems that only a few are at home.

Shame on you. We are told that this site is:

"A blog for people with a critically rational individualist perspective. We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people."

Sounds great! But wait - where are these marvellous people? All I seem to see is a majority of people who seem to have ADD and a predilection for violent abreaction and argumentum ad hominem. How have these approaches ever solved anything? How will they solve anything now? How will they ever solve anything? I do not understand this form of madness where one repeats prior behaviours, expecting the outcome to be different.

I suggested 3 possible responses to Islam. No-one disputed these.

RAB has it right. Slartibartfarst was a planet-shaper, but, so are we all - each and every one of us. Why will we not accept responsibility for the resolution of the world's problems that we have created?

Can you not see that of the 3 possible responses to the Islamic threat, none of them is a pragmatic response to mitigate the risk to the premise that:

The people in Western (or other) non-secular, free/democratic societies, through many wars and including two world wars, have arrived at their current state and consider it to be valid, important for the development of humanity, and exceedingly hard-won. Therefore, they would wish to maintain - if not further develop - the strength of the features of freedom and democracy which they currently enjoy. That is, it would not be required or acceptable to change to what could be regarded as retrograde political/religious fascist ideologies or paradigms.

So how can this issue be addressed?

As the saying goes, "If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." Are you, or is this not correct?

What is the solution?

If this is all just too hard, then don't worry. Sit back and watch others implement the solution that Islam has for you - because Islam can do that. It has been doing it for 1,400 years. King Canute you are not.

Freedom, democracy - and all those other ideals and concepts of a "corrupt" society - they will be ephemeral in the face of a 1,400 year old fascist ideology and paradigm. Allah is great, and you are not.

Or is he? Who was made in God's image?
(With apologies to any atheists reading this.)

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 13, 2008 12:33 PM

Slarti,

So what are the options for action? Care to make some suggestions? Bearing in mind that for me, and I suspect many others here, adoption of Islam is the least desirable option.

No one was attacking ad hominem, I dare say you could be a thoroughly decent fellow, but, from my point of view, dishonesty severely damages any argument.

Posted by countingcats at May 13, 2008 03:11 PM

Slarti's thesis is that Islamists are like the Borg: mindless (or, more accurately, possessed of a hive mind), relentless, innumerable, and nearly indestructible. Resistance is futile; we will be assimilated. We can fight them, he says, but after the bloodshed is over a few will remain to start over. Sort of like cockroaches, or Night of the Living Dead. Perhaps.

So be it. I vote for his option (b)(iii): Fight the bastards to death or submission. We can live with a few cockroaches as long as we call the exterminator from time to time. We just can't let them have the run of the place.

Posted by Laird at May 13, 2008 08:47 PM

countingcats, you say:
(a) "So what are the options for action?"
(b) "No one was attacking ad hominem...dishonesty severely damages any argument."

In answer:
(a) I already suggested 3 possible options, as above, and then suggested that none were viable in terms of minimising the risks to human lives and the way of life as per the premise. I have no other suggestions and was rather hoping that this forum might be able to come up with some. Sadly - though I could be wrong, of course - no fresh ideas/thinking seem to have yet emerged from the comments above.

(b) Sorry, I do not follow your reasoning here. If you are not attacking ad hominem, then who are you accusing of dishonesty in developing an argument? In any event, I would suggest that discussion on this point is a red herring and takes our attention off the main issues.

Laird, you say:
(a) "Slarti's thesis is that Islamists are..." and then go on to dehumanize the Islamists - for example, by comparing them to fictional characters (Borgs) and insects (cockroaches).
(b) "I vote for his option (b)(iii): Fight the bastards to death or submission."

In answer:
(a) It would always be helpful if someone could improve the clarity of the thesis I put forward, but please avoid translating it into something which it is not. The thesis stands as is. The Islamists are humans - they are just like you or I. Each of us is deserving of our place under the sun, and, unless we are psychopaths, the life of each is as precious as our own. Dehumanizing people does nothing for the development of any rational approach to solving a problem - which is what I trust we are about here.
(However, dehumanization of a class of people is usually most useful for helping soldiers identify the enemy as something worthless and deserving of death - which helps them overcome any inhibitions they might have about taking another's life. Of course, psychopaths have a head start on us there, having already arrived at that state as regards the rest of humanity, for whom they have a callous disregard.)

(b) The option you vote for would seem to be non-viable, QED. How can you kill something that has already become part of yourself? As Atatürk suggested, it is like a cancer. I would suggest that something that has already become systemic in your society cannot be removed by regarding it as a civil uprising. Are you able to suggest a new option or approach?

Last night, in thinking around this subject, I came to the conclusion that the causal problem in the analysis I provide in the comments above may be wrong - or rather, it is probably not the causal problem, though it may be a symptomatic problem:

3-2: Causal problem:
* The freedom for Islamic immigration into the host societies.
* The freedom to practice religion of choice in the host societies.
* Any welfare state support for the Islamic immigrants to the host societies or the Islamic religion.

I would suggest that the causal problem lies somewhere else - ourselves - in that we have massively irrational minds. Thus we can enter a state of Ahamkara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara). Ahamkara is a state where an illusion is created by the mind of a person - an illusion that seems like reality for that person. In that illusion, the concept of the Self (Aham) becomes bound up with "a created thing" (Kara).

So, on the one hand, the majority of Islamists could be seen to be in a state of Ahamkara regarding the Koran and Sharia'h law - for example - and this sets their paradigms rock solid. On the other hand, most members of Western society could be seen to be in a state of Ahamkara regarding liberty, common law, freedom of thought, secularism, Christianity, Judaism - for example - and this sets their paradigms rock solid. The two paradigms are each antithetical to the other. People from each group believe they are "right" and the others are "wrong", and are intellectually unable to see the world as the other sees it, and so of course are unable to accept the other's perception as valid.

The answer would therefore seem to be - the two need to change their paradigms so that they have more in common. This will probably not be easy. In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn defined a "paradigm" as:

"a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions and practices shared by a community which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way a community organizes itself".

Thus, a paradigm is an overarching mindset, a worldview, a particular perception of the way things are. Moreover, a paradigm is shared by the members of a broad community. The fact that it is a shared belief system makes paradigms at once powerful and yet difficult to discern. Frequently, paradigms are implicit and hidden assumptions. What gives paradigms their subtle power is that we generally do not distinguish between what is being thought and the paradigm it is being thought through. In demonstrating this point, Kuhn traces scientific disciplines in their shifting of gears over the past 400 years, and he points out three surprising patterns:

* A dominant paradigm is seldom, if ever, stated explicitly; it exists unquestioned.
* Once paradigms are accepted, our minds cling to them tenaciously.
* The unfolding of a new paradigm is always discontinuous. Intellectual and emotional resistance inevitably arise when a new way of looking at the world is presented.

There is evidence of these in the comments in this forum. Currently, if this forum is a microcosm, then I find it difficult to envisage how a collaborative recombining of the two paradigms could take place in the macrocosm of the human minds that shape this world. This issue is unlikely to go away wherever Islamism has become systemic - even if only partially systemic - in our societies, because it cannot go away.

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 14, 2008 03:29 AM

Currently, if this forum is a microcosm, then I find it difficult to envisage how a collaborative recombining of the two paradigms could take place in the macrocosm of the human minds that shape this world.

It couldn't. What now?
Posted by Alisa at May 14, 2008 06:03 AM

It couldn't. What now?

Can you prove that it couldn't? Why ask me? Why such a helpless one-liner response? It seems to lack the Samizdata "social individualist meta-context", don't you think? Are you unable to contribute some independent thinking to suggest a possibly novel resolution?

Maybe this is all just too hard to think about.

Perhaps the next step would be to just pop around to the nearest local mosque and submit. I mean - could it really be so bad? We might also be able to avoid a lot of ugly potential conflict and unpleasantness that way.

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 14, 2008 07:04 AM

The Islamists are humans - they are just like you or I. Each of us is deserving of our place under the sun, and, unless we are psychopaths, the life of each is as precious as our own.

They are not just like me. I didn't fly three airplanes into buildings seven years ago and kill 3000 people. I didn't lock the doors to a girls' school from the outside, causing the girls inside to burn to death for the supposed 'crime' of not being properly dressed. I didn't order that a woman be stoned to death for the supposed 'crime' of being raped. Nor would I, ever.

They are bipedial primates. If I have sex with an Islamist woman (highly unlikely) then there is a chance of a child being born, and said child will also be capable of reproduction. That makes them biologically human, but their views of and interactions with the outside world are utterly foreign to me. Let them believe as they may, but when they act on their beliefs, nothing but sorrow results.

Perhaps the next step would be to just pop around to the nearest local mosque and submit. I mean - could it really be so bad? We might also be able to avoid a lot of ugly potential conflict and unpleasantness that way.

You're just not getting it, are you? Submission to an outside bully might be very nice and all, for a coward. The problem is, there are too many people who believe that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and aren't willing to go along with 2+2=5 just for the sake of getting along.

As for your reply to Alisa:

Her one-line response didn't look 'helpless' from here. It's a very simple statement of fact. Whether actually correct or not, it's an improvement from the circuitutous tapdancing crap that someone else unloaded on this threat. And the "what now" is the logical question following: the two world-views are in fundamental conflict and cannot be united. So where do you go from here?

If this is all just too hard, then don't worry. Sit back and watch others implement the solution that Islam has for you - because Islam can do that. It has been doing it for 1,400 years. King Canute you are not.

Good luck. Ask Japan how that worked for them in my grandfather's day. You think you're going to have our submission?

You'd best pack a lunch.

Posted by Sunfish at May 14, 2008 08:15 AM

Can you prove that it couldn't?

Yes: just as submission is built into Islam, so is unwillingness to submit is built into the Western paradigm.

Why ask me?

This was not a request for a solution, only an invitation to respond.

Are you unable to contribute some independent thinking to suggest a possibly novel resolution?

The fact that I reached a conclusion you do not favor, does not mean that the thinking that led to it was not independent.

Maybe this is all just too hard to think about.

No, not at all.

We might also be able to avoid a lot of ugly potential conflict and unpleasantness that way.

You seem to presume that I am willing to avoid it at any price, which couldn't be farther from truth.

The Islamists are humans - they are just like you or I.

Unlike Sunfish, I have to agree that, unfortunately, they are humans. I do agree with him that they are very different kind of humans.

...unless we are psychopaths, the life of each is as precious as our own.

Now we are getting somewhere.
Posted by Alisa at May 14, 2008 09:45 AM

I didn't say they weren't human. What you just saw was really lousy editing. There was a sentence that was supposed to be the beginning of a tangent that I decided to drop, but I apparently didn't get rid of everything.

This is what I get for trying to post while simultaneously tired and sober. I make even less sense than usual.

Posted by Sunfish at May 14, 2008 11:04 AM

There is another option apart from (i) brain death, (ii) cowardice, and (iii) war. It is to publish cartoons, satire, and the truth illustrating the depravity of that abomination known as Islam, and to laugh our asses off.

Posted by tdh at May 14, 2008 11:33 AM

Definately with you on that one tdh.

But I'll keep the shotgun cleaned
in case option 3 is the only choice left.

Posted by RAB at May 14, 2008 01:39 PM

Interesting responses. Thankyou for your input.

If the hypothesis of the two antithetical paradigms is more or less valid, then what conclusions are we able to draw about the implications for Western society as per the premise?

In particular, how might we be able to go about resolving the issue in any way differently to the 3 (apparently failed) options previously discussed? i.e., how might we be able to do it differently and yet leave the preferred Western civilisation and way of life intact?

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 14, 2008 03:01 PM

Alisa said, à propos of psychopaths:

"Now we are getting somewhere"

Psychopaths - personality disorder. Psychopathic. Psycopath.

In the film The Corporation, they reviewed the personality disorder "psychopathy". (A psychopath is a person with chronic psychopathy, esp. leading to abnormally irresponsible and antisocial behaviour.)

They gave this checklist of criteria to identify the disorder.

1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
3.Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
4.Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit.
5.Incapacity to experience guilt.
6.Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.

In the film, these criteria were shown to be met by the legal entities known as "corporations", thus demonstrating that society has legalised these special kinds of psychopaths to operate in society, where they can cause (and do) tremendous harm - e.g., a deadly environmental footprint.

Maybe an authorised religiion, with a fascist ideology and paradigm could also be regarded as being psychopathic. If so, then which religions could possibly reasonably be included under this heading? Christianity? Islamism? Scientology? Moonies? Hell's Gate? (With apologies to the Christians - I am just using you for ridiculous contrast.)

Posted by Slartibartfarst at May 14, 2008 03:18 PM

...how might we be able to go about resolving the issue in any way differently to the 3 (apparently failed) options previously discussed?

Option 3 has failed? Your conclusion is a bit premature, don't you think?

If so, then which religions could possibly reasonably be included under this heading?

Hmmm, tough one...
Posted by Alisa at May 14, 2008 03:41 PM

Slarti,

In my analysis of your speech patterns I left out two possibilities that also conform with your florid terminology -

1) That you are a member of what the MSN would call the green ink brigade,

2) That you are not a muslim, but are nonetheless a member of some other belief group, trained in how to interest others in your ideas.

Reading all your writings, I am coming around to 3). You may not be a muslim, but you may be some other. Are you willing to come clean?

In terms of dehumanisation, I have to agree with you. One of the major problems with multiculturalism is the inability of the multiculti proponents to accept that others really and truly have different world views. As I wrote elsewhere, about those who claim America had it coming -

It is the unacknowledged ethnocentrism of the ‘liberals’ which never ceases to amaze me. While on the one hand liberals are the drivers of multiculturalism, on the other there are vast numbers who don’t appreciate that there are people who are not reacting to American/European actions, but are driven by their own personal and cultural motivations. Motivations they would hold regardless of anything we were to do.

They really do seem to believe that only Westerners are free actors, and don’t comprehend the depth of the racial and cultural contempt this implies. I might not like the actions of Jihadis and Islamists, but I do them the courtesy of acknowledging that they are not automatons, acting only in reaction to me, but are functional human beings making decisions on the basis of their own free choices.

I must disagree with Laird here. Islamists are not roaches, they are human beings acting on their own motivations. I may regard them as evil, but to be truly evil, you must have the ability to choose, and that makes them human.

Just as a BTW, Corporations may be legal entities, but they are not human individuals. Criteria developed to describe human behaviour is not applicable, and the comparison is invalid. Any corporation which displayed these characteristics would only do so as a result of individual human action, so the individuals would be psychopathic, not the organisation. A corporation is an abstract concept and legal fiction, humans are concrete entities.

Posted by countingcats at May 14, 2008 03:56 PM

They gave this checklist of criteria to identify the disorder.

1.Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2.Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.
3.Reckless disregard for the safety of others.
4.Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit.
5.Incapacity to experience guilt.
6.Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours

Sounds like an accurate precis of Islam to me!

Posted by RAB at May 14, 2008 06:20 PM

I haven't seen "The Corporation" (and am unlikely to), but from your summary I suggest that its premise is fatally flawed. "Psychopathy" only applies to human beings. A corporation or other similar entity is a "fictitious person" for certain legal purposes, but is not a real person. The same is true for religions. It is simply meaningless to characterise either as "psychopathic", any more than you could so charactise a tree or a train. So your question is both meaningless and off-topic.

You don't like my analogy of Islamists to the Borg? Too bad. I think it's spot-on, if your (extended) analysis of the Islamic mind-set is accurate; certainly no one else here has objected to it. (And it's a hell of a lot shorter!)

You offered us three options, and when I selected #3 you stated that it's "non-viable" because you can't "kill something that has already become a part of yourself." Conclusory and inaccurate. You certainly can kill something which is a part of yourself (ever hear of amputation? Or excision of a tumor?), but in any event I don't accept the premise. Islamists are an infection in western society, but clearly (by their own choice) not a part of that society. Which is why my "cockroaches" analogy is accurate: not because it "dehumanizes" them (although I have no problem with that, as they themselves view non-Muslims as sub-human and thus deserve the same treatment from us), but because cockroaches are simply a fact of life in any apartment building in any large city. They're an annoyance but can be lived with if kept in check. That's the mindset we're going to have to adopt.

From your subsequent posts it has become clear that countingcats was correct from the beginning, that you are an apologist for Islamofascists and want us all to convert to that medieval and anti-humanist mythology. Undoubtedly there are cowards who will do so, and it's entirely possible that large portions of the West will fall to them (the French in particular seem unwilling to resist the incursion, but that's hardly a surprise). At the end of the day, though, I think there are large numbers of us who will not so easily surrender our freedom, our rationality, or our scientific worldview. Molôn Labé!

Posted by Laird at May 14, 2008 09:13 PM

...but to be truly evil, you must have the ability to choose, and that makes them human

Finally someone who gets it - I have been banging about this for ages. Dehumanizing evil is taking the easy path. It is much more difficult to live with the notion that evil is purely and exclusively human attribute.
Posted by Alisa at May 14, 2008 09:58 PM

Countingcats, for what it's worth, I did not say that Islamists are cockroaches, I said that they are "sort of like" cockroaches. It's an analogy, useful only up to a point. But still useful.

And frankly, I don't much care if you want to characterise Islamists as "evil" (a human attribute) or simply a force of nature (like a tidal wave). Either is destructive and we need to protect ourselves from it. What's wrong with "taking the easy path"?

Posted by Laird at May 14, 2008 10:40 PM

What's wrong with "taking the easy path"?

Nothing, if it reflects on reality - in this case it doesn't. "Know thy enemy" and all that.
Posted by Alisa at May 14, 2008 11:12 PM

Sorry, Alisa, but I'm not following you. "Know thine enemy" applies as much to forces of nature (or, for that matter, to wild beasts) as to humans. If you understand how a force operates you can prepare for it. One doesn't need to anthropomorphicize a hurricane to predict its course or to prepare for its effects; why do you feel a need to "humanize" an enemy to deal with him?

Posted by Laird at May 15, 2008 06:03 AM

why do you feel a need to "humanize" an enemy to deal with him?

I feel no such thing, as the enemy is not for me to humanize: the objective reality is that it is human, regardless of my feelings. The obvious difference between a hurricane and a human is that the latter possesses free will, as Cats pointed out. This little detail is material to the possible prediction of its course or preparation for its effects.
Posted by Alisa at May 15, 2008 06:40 AM

If you recognise the enemy as human, but the enemy does not recognise you as human, doesn't that leave your enemy with more options?
But if you attempt to dehumanise the enemy, the better to open up your own options, you lower yourself from human to subhuman, as your own actions become coarser. So you might be able to fight better, but you lose what was worth preserving.
Ain't philosophy fun?

Posted by nick g. at May 15, 2008 07:15 AM

If you recognise the enemy as human, but the enemy does not recognise you as human, doesn't that leave your enemy with more options?

No, it does not.
Posted by Alisa at May 15, 2008 10:19 AM

This is a response trying to cover the salient comments that followed after some of mine.
In this response, I should say at the start that I try to employ a method called "critical thinking", where:
* We think with what we know.
* We use reason/logic to harness our thoughts and construct logical arguments.
* We use language to articulate our thinking and communicate our thinking to others.
* We avoid the use of logical fallacies.

Sunfish says of Islamists [fundamentalists/terrorists] "They are not just like me." Well, Sunfish, I suspect that, despite what you might say to the contrary, you might find that they are human beings, just like I would presume you to be. If you were put beside each other, then, under normal conditions, I suggest that there would be no discernible, significant anatomical difference. They are, to all intents and purposes, human beings, and I suggest that you - like others in the free world - would probably fight for their human rights. Therein lies a problem - a sort of circular moral bind that the Western societies have got themselves into.

As pointed out above:
(a) Islamists [fundamentalists/terrorists] could be described as being in Ahamkara with - for example - the ideological concepts, doctrines and rules of the Islamic faith. They believe them implicitly, and do not question them. They might be prepared to risk losing their lives as martyrs for the Allah's cause. Their paradigms will probably be set rock solid.

(b) If you were brought up and educated in Western society, then you could perhaps be described as being in Ahamkara with - for example - the ideological concepts of freedom/liberty, democracy, and perhaps a religious doctrine such as Christianity, even if you did not practice it. You might believe in them implicitly, and might not question them. You might be prepared to go to war and risk losing your life, to fight for freedom in your country (say) or another. Your paradigms will probably be set rock solid.

How then are you so different? It is only your respective paradigms that are antipathetic. You would be pretty much identical except for that. You only have to look at some of the photos and video clips of Muslim protesters in London, following the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2006, for example, to realise that they have what might be quite shockingly different beliefs in ideology to Western beliefs and seem to believe that deadly violence towards others is a valid/legitimate response to people who do not share the same mindset - e.g., placards saying things like, "FREEDOM GO TO HELL", "SLAY/BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM", "EUROPE YOU WILL PAY, EXTERMINATION IS ON ITS WAY", and "BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST!", "ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD". All this over some silly cartoons? Absolutely, yes.

Sunfish, you refer to the Japanese defeat in WWII. This is a good example of option (iii) - Fight the bastards to death or submission - and it worked. However, it might not have been so effective and long-lasting if the Americans had not identified and addressed two systemic causal problems in Japanese society - the Shinto religion and the emperor's state rites, both being embedded in the Japanese paradigm, along with "patriotism". The politicization of Shinto was typified by a Japanese Ministry of Education ruling of 1932 which acknowledged that Shinto shrines were non-religious establishments for fostering patriotism. State Shinto became a mouthpiece for the militarist regime of the 1930s. After Japan's defeat in 1945 the American Occupation authorities decreed Shinto's disestablishment, ending State Shinto. The emperor's state rites were recategorized as the private rites of the imperial family. End of problem - apparently.

Now, if we try to apply option (iii) as per the Japanese model, to the population affected by the Islamic cancer (as Atatürk called it), then we can quickly see that it would be unlikely to work, because:

1. Unlike the Japanese, Islamists are not a race from any particular country and which you can conveniently target and bomb into submission. In this sense they are again - as well as purportedly having the infallible word of God - unique. Let us suppose that you could target them like that though: well, it would still be no good, because they are unable to submit except to the Koran, so they will - they must - fight to the death for Islam - as God has directed them. They have been promised Paradise if they do. Some might go underground for a while, then re-emerge later on the same path to Allah. So it would take something like genocide to have any effect, which Western society has disallowed anyway since the Holocaust - assuming that it happened, as the Iranian nation's leader apparently seems to doubt.

2. Unlike the Japanese, you cannot tell Islamists to disestablish their religion - Islam - or their religious custom (based on Shariah law). The people are the religion and the religion is the people, and they are inextricably intertwined. Islam is the ideology that sets their paradigm rock solid. So it would be no good. Nor would it be any use trying to reason with them. John McVey commented earlier that "It is only through uncompromising use of reason that in the immediate future people might escape from being killed, and that in the further future the killings may be greatly mitigated or stopped altogether." Though this would be generally true, it would seem to be unlikely to work with Islam, simply because it presupposes the effective use of reason. The thing is, you cannot argue or reason with a man who believes that he has the infallible word of God in his hand. He doesn't need to reason and indeed he must not - he has submitted to the will and word of God. He only needs to read the Koran to know how and what to think. If the guy also has an AK47, then the outcome is likely to be "Death to the unbeliever!".

3. The cancer is spreading and systemic in each country. The Islamists are amongst most, if not all countries, therefore you cannot drop a bomb on them without risking killing yourself. If an oncologist removed a systemic cancer that way, then he would kill the host body. Once it is systemic, it is likely to be terminal, and the only vaccine for this cancer - to avoid death - is option (i) - submit. QED. Oh dear.

4. Sure, you could blow up some few concentrations of them - for example - justify a retaliatory war for the hideous crime of 9/11 - e.g., Afghanistan - and maybe Iraq? - but your ethics force you to be careful to only target and kill the "bad" ones - e.g., the Taliban. The bad ones who don't look like Taliban or profess not to be could thus escape to fight another day. The ones that are yet to pupate into the "bad" ones are still to be conceived, or are unborn, or are in the cradle (and yet to be indoctrinated in Islam) - and women and innocent children must not be killed, so you can't stop them breeding and pupating. The children will be indoctrinated in Islam - as they must be; it is God's instruction that they be believers. It is thus a bit like Hydra - you cut off one head here, and it just sprouts a head or two somewhere else.

5. So you cannot exterminate them like cockroaches - using the metaphor suggested by Laird - so put the insecticide away, and anyway, it's probably toxic for all human beings if you read the label. You cannot weed them out, isolate and kill them, or send them "back home" (wherever that may be), because your own laws and paradigms prevent you from repeating what Westerners say the Nazis did to the Jews - e.g., committing genocide. Your paradigms also force you to, for example, fight for the freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to practice one's religion of choice, and human rights generally. This is the circular moral bind described above. For example, look at the current agonising in the UK over the proposed 42-day detention plan for suspected terrorists. Fundamental Islamists consider this bind to be a weakness of corrupt Western society, and take all advantage of it with the "guile" method for Islamic dominance (as described somewhere above) - and remember, in this, they are only following God's directions or "Just obeying orders" (to quote a catch-phrase from the Nuremberg trials). Imagine how light you might feel if God takes all that responsibility off your shoulders. The abrogation of responsibility - moral or otherwise - for one's actions.

So, as I say: like it or loathe it, Islamism seems to be here to stay. This is not my opinion - it is an observable, historical fact. 1,400 years is a L-O-N-G time in mankind's social history. Of the 3 religions/ideologies of the "God of the desert", Judaism is the oldest, Christianity is next and Islamism is the new kid on the block (c. 610 AD). Democracy and freedom? Embryoinc by comparison - the Reformation and the Age of Reason arguably only kicked off around 1600 AD - that's only about 400 years ago. So why is Islam still here, and how is it now surpassing Roman Catholicism as the world's most populous religion (as statistics show)? The answer is that it seems to be an incredibly well-designed and successful, self-sustaining, self-perpetuating and self-replicating hegemonic and fascist system for progressive dominance in any society. An engineer might say that, as a system, it is a near-perfect design, and Islamists would probably agree, saying "Of course it is. It was given to us by God. How could it not be perfect?"

Still don't believe in the possibility of the persistence of Islam? Look at the intent. In a televised interview with Sheik Ali Al-Faqir (former Jordanian minister of religious endowment), which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 2, 2008, the Sheik said:

"We must declare that Palestine, from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, is an Islamic land, and that Spain - Andalusia - is also the land of Islam. Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic. Furthermore, we will reach beyond these countries, which are lost at one point. We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again."

If the Islamic system can be described as devilishly clever, then that may throw some light on its origins. It pits man against man by forcing people into two camps - Muslims and unbelievers; "You're either with us or against us!". Its God would seem to be the very antithesis of the God of love declared by Christ. As countigcats says, the Christians call Satan "The father of lies." Certainly, it would seem to be the work of evil and a hideous lie to have God's loved ones invent a toxic, anti-life and fascist system of religion that would enslave its followers and oblige His loved ones to sink into hell and turn against each other, so that they will kill each other freely and with pure hate - the opposite of love - all in the name of God. This would be evil at work, and evil is done by man and by choice - as countingcats suggests. The hideousness is compounded by this inherently sick and toxic religion implying that its God is the genuine updated version of the same loving God proclaimed 2,000 years ago by Christ, and it has been doing this, gnawing away at mankind and our souls for 1,400 years.

I have been slightly depressed by the apparent lack of structured or critical thinking (not mine, you understand) - evidenced in this forum, but I have persevered because I care for how we could shape our world. The saddest thing for me is the apparent alacrity with which some of the people in this forum seem to be able to jump into this hell, with an inimical hate-and-kill mindset towards Muslims, without apparently even wishing to understand them, thus becoming indistinguishable to and certainly no better in that regard, than the object of their hate. This would please the real Enemy greatly, and merely serves to confirm the efficacy of the monster it has cultivated. This world could be heaven for everyone, as Freddie Mercury's swansong put it, but probably not whilst we are so assiduously and unwittingly trying to turn it into hell.

In the film "The Thin Red Line", which is based on an autob