There's something I learned in a programming course once that stuck: For every bug you find in your code, there are ten more you haven't found yet. Finding (and fixing) bugs does make your code more stable than it actually was, but much less stable than you thought it was. So in a way finding and fixing bugs makes your code less stable, not more. This doesn't sound so counterintuitive when you turn it around: The more buggy the code is, the easier it is to find bugs. And in my experience this is true. The more bugs I've had to fix in a particular piece of code in the past, the more likely that code is to cause problems for users in the future. Bugginess is a byproduct of bad design, and you can't patch that. You can fix a few of the symptoms, but in the end it's often better to just rewrite it all from scratch.

I wonder if the same is true for terrorism. I've lost count of how many potential terrorist plots have been prevented the last few weeks all over Europe, how many terrorists arrested, how many lives saved. Latest: A possible suicide attack against a soccer stadium in the UK. All these arrests have obviously made us safer, but should they make us feel safer? Not if for every terrorist you find there are two, five or ten more you haven't found yet. In that case every arrest makes us less safe - less safe than we thought we were.

Like bugginess is a byproduct of bad design, terrorism is a byproduct of bad culture. It's what people turn to when they haven't been vaccinated against totalitarian ideas, when they prefer the blinding sharp vision of the World Khalifat to reality's fuzzy and dull alternatives. That's where terrorists come from, from bad cultures. They're not a constant of human nature. There's something in the environment they've lived in that makes suicidal terrorism seem like a good option for the right kind of people, the way it seems like a bad option for genetically similar people elsewhere.

And unless we can honestly say that our counter-terrorism measures are so good that nearly all terrorists are bound to be caught, (and where else but in a police state could we say that?), we must admit that police work can not make us fully safe. It can patch up a few wounds here and there, but if the cause is big enough, the police will be as helpless as me trying to hold together a very badly written piece of code.

We can stop the analogy here. I'm not suggesting a "rewrite" of Muslim cultures. But that's where a lot of the work must be done: In the cultures terrorism is a byproduct of. The events of the last years, and particularly the last few weeks, have taught us that these cultural conditions aren't unique to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. They're here, now, in Europe. They've been allowed to spread in immigrant communities. Extremist Mullah's are respected or tolerated, anti-semitism has become mainstream, hatred of Western ideals is common. There's a major design flaw here, in the cultures that permit this. It's a flaw we prefer to ignore, partly as an overreaction to our own racist past, and partly because we believe in weaker (though none-terrorism inducing) versions of the same ideas. It's not a flaw that can be fully fixed from above or outside, but it can be fixed. And it must be. We're arresting the symptoms, and to judge from their numbers we have a really unstable piece of code on our hands.

Yes, we have so far only been dealing with the symptoms. The cause is spelled I-S-L-A-M, perhaps in a combination with the most insane parts of the Western Left, who are very eager to confirm that terrorism against "Western oppression" is understandable. It's about time we recognize that, and move on.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article214733.ece

Survey states Mullah Krekar creates fear

Eight of the ten surveyed claimed that people have become more sceptic towards immigrants due to the Mullah Krekar case. The negative attitude is evident nation wide.

yes, yes, you have nailed it Bjørn, there is something WRONG with their culture.Muslims settle down in Europe and they will never give up nor moderate their reptile culture, but what is the solution to this problem? round them up in camps? invade Iran?

The prevented terrorist attack in Manchester(old trafford)would have(if the medievalist were to succeed)done the trick for us Norwegians, it would not only be an attack deep in the heart of English culture, but also our own. Maybe this is what *must* happen --- before we take the necessery measures, that would be, no more muslim immigrants.

What is the solution to these problems Bjørn? personally I don't know, there is nothing but confusion around the issues, note, politicians talk of better integration of our new citizens,i don't believe they will succeed with their "monkey training".

Did feminism and capitalism bring western Europe to its knees? have we amused ourselves to death? I know you can cut off my head, i'm certainly putting my head in the guillotine (you know the French invention).

*Smack!!!*

again?

I don't think your analogy holds up, though. Software bugs are all individual. Terrorists, no matter how well their internal security works, are invariably linked to other terrorists in some way. Look at the Madrid case - many of them were linked by family, by education, by mosque attendance, by mobile phone records etc. Once you catch one, you can quickly reel in a whole lot of others, assuming a competent investigatng team that is not (as they too often have been in the past) blinkered by political correctness.

Martin: Yes, but just how difficult is it to plan a terrorist attack in secret? It doesn't sound very difficult, if you're knowledgeable about what does and does not attract police attention.

Take communication and information storage. Encryption tools are free and practically unbreakable, and you're not likely to be tortured to reveal your passwords.

Many or perhaps most terrorists are too dumb to do things right, but even they can be lucky. And what I fear is that we're only arresting the dumb/unlucky terrorists, while the smart/lucky ones are still there.

Ali: The cause is not Islam in general, but particular Islamic strains that are popular or tolerated in a larger number of places. The cure is not to convert people from Islam, but to modernize Islam. The rhetoric about how terrorists somehow show the "true" face of Islam is similar to the rhetoric of how the Crusades and Inqusition show us the "true" face of Christianity. There's no such thing as the true face of any religion, only a multitude of currents, shifting in strength over time.

OG: "Muslims settle down in Europe and they will never give up nor moderate their reptile culture, but what is the solution to this problem? round them up in camps? invade Iran?"

Why would they never moderate their culture? And we're not talking about curing the entire Muslim population of Europe of Islamism here, only of the mindset that tolerates or does not bother to fight the Islamists among them. Other bad aspects of their culture are not my concern here, only that which is helpful to terrorism.

"Did feminism and capitalism bring western Europe to its knees? have we amused ourselves to death?"

Who's dead? We have fallen for bad ideas, but we're nowhere near beyond rescue. Europe is not doomed. And the solution on our part is not to abandon our _good_ ideas (feminism, capitalism, the freedom to enjoy yourself without purpose), but the _bad_ ones (neo-pacifism, anti-Westernism, leftism).

Bjorn: exactly how much do you know about Islam? If you knew anything at all, you would know that the "authentic" Islam is the Islam of the terrorists, and the "moderate" Islam is that of those who do not fully practice it.

The hardliners will always win the battle, because they are the ones with the most authentic scriptural justifications behind them.

Those who practice "peaceful and tolerant" Islam got their ideas/influences from other religions.

The police are there to preserve history - the crime scene - police are reactive.

Administrations and armed forces are proactive.

---

Ali, Bjorn is correct -- The cause is not Islam in general, but particular Islamic strains that are popular or tolerated in a larger number of places. The cure is not to convert people from Islam, but to modernize Islam. --

We need to drag enough of them into the 16/17 or if we're really, really lucky, 18th century so they can modernize.

Or modernization will be forced upon them. The only other alternative is Islam is a footnote in history.

--And we're not talking about curing the entire Muslim population of Europe of Islamism here,---

Yes we are, Bjorn. Islam and Islamism are not the same, Islamism is the political movement.

Sandy P: Islam was a political movement from its first days of foundation. There is no difference between Islam and "Islamism."

Politics is inextricably entwined with Islam as even a cursory reading of Islamic law manuals will prove.

Susan: "exactly how much do you know about Islam? If you knew anything at all, you would know that the "authentic" Islam is the Islam of the terrorists, and the "moderate" Islam is that of those who do not fully practice it."

But as an outsider and a nonbeliever you are by definition not qualified to say what form of Islam is the most "authentic". Most _common_, yes, but authentic? That implies belief.

Now, if you look at what forms of Islam people actually do practice, never mind what you think they ought to be believe to be "authentic" Muslims, we find that the Islamism of terrorists is relatively rare and modern. There are many backwards aspects in Islam that are common and old, but the idea that you should massacre civilians to create paradise on earth is not one of them. That is new, it was thought up by the Muslim Brotherhood. Wahhabism is somewhat older, but it was always a tiny sect.

Criticize mainstream Islam all you want. I'm not fond of any religion, and least of all those that don't translate well to modern conditions. But terrorism and Islamism is not part of mainstream Islam. Toleration and rationalization of terrorism has perhaps become mainstream Islam, but the actual beliefs themselves, the eagerness to die in the cause of the Wahhab World Khalifat, isn't.

Sandy: "--And we're not talking about curing the entire Muslim population of Europe of Islamism here,--- Yes we are, Bjorn. Islam and Islamism are not the same, Islamism is the political movement.

Yes. I meant to say that what we must cure Europe of is not Islamism, but the toleration of it.

"There are many backwards aspects in Islam that are common and old, but the idea that you should massacre civilians to create paradise on earth is not one of them."

Yes, it is, Bjorn.

Read the history of Islam and the Islamic conquests. The REAL history, as told by the conquered people, not the apologistic nonsense of the multiculturalists.

Between 50 to 80 million were killed in India alone under Islamic rule. With full approval of the Islamic clerisy because under Islam, "polytheists" (i.e. Hindus and Buddhists) only have a choice between Islam or the sword. People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are allowed to hang onto their lives if they submit to Islamic rule and a host of humiliating laws. But "polytheists" are not allowed to live at all under Islamic law. The same goes for athiests (which I presume you are.)

India is the birthplace of Buddhism. Have you ever wondered why it has all but disappeared from India?

All of this is contained in the Koran and the Sunnah and the books of Islamic law. All of it has been practized since Islam was founded -- except for the brief period in colonial times when Islam's aggressiveness was largely checked by British and French colonialism in the Middle East/India from the 17th to 20th centuries, as well as Ataturkism in Eurasia which arose in the early 20th century.

Regarding Khalifat, that too is required by Islamic law and has been the norm of Islamic civilization up until only 1923. The ABSENCE of Kahlifat in Islamic religious polity is the anomaly, not the Khalifat itself. Khalifat is required by Islamic religious law. The Khalifa is "God's shadow on earth" the temporal as well as spiritual head of the Islamic ummah.

Regarding what is and isn't "authentic" Islam, I think you should spend some time on "moderate" Islamic websites such as The Modern Religion. I guarantee you will find much there to disturb your assumptions of what "moderate" Muslims actually believe.

PS -- The Khalifat can be established anywhere, it does not need to hail from Constantinople/Instanbul. At various times it was headquarted in Dascasus and Baghdad; at various other times there were competing Khalifats headquartered in Spain, Egypt and other places. But to imply that Khalifat is not required by Islam as you have stated is absurd.

Susan: "Read the history of Islam and the Islamic conquests. The REAL history, as told by the conquered people, not the apologistic nonsense of the multiculturalists."

So if the authentic form of Islam is the one that revealed itself through conquest and oppression, does that mean that the authentic form of Christianity is the one that revealed itself through equally brutal conquests, crusades, religious wars, inquisitions etc.? Many Christians would disagree. Listen - you can't argue with a billion Muslims who don't believe in a totalitarian Islamic world government established through terrorism. You can't.

"Regarding Khalifat, that too is required by Islamic law and has been the norm of Islamic civilization up until only 1923."

Yes, but this is not the Khalifat bin Laden is fighting for. The relationship is perhaps something like that of the Third Reich to the earlier German empires. The Islamist world khalifat is a modern totalitarian fantasy. Nothing like it has ever been put into practice, and few until the 20th century ever wanted to.

"Regarding what is and isn't "authentic" Islam, I think you should spend some time on "moderate" Islamic websites such as The Modern Religion. I guarantee you will find much there to disturb your assumptions of what "moderate" Muslims actually believe."

Regarding what is and isn't authentic Islam, you and I can have no useful opinion. And I spoke of mainstream Islam, not moderate Islam. If your point is that mainstream Islam is reactionary in many parts of the world, you're absolutely right. If you're implying that mainstream Islam - ie. houndreds of millions of people all across the Islamic world - have turned to radical Islam, I'd like to see some evidence.

You can't just lump all the things you don't like about Islam into one big heap and label that "Islamism". Islamism is a particular ideology. It's different from reactionary Islam, imperial Islam, or whatever other form of Islam you're aganst.

Bjorn,
Thank you for another interesting essay. I am a big fan of your blog and as an American of Norwegian heritage (Mother is from Bergen) I find it very reassuring to know that there is diversity of thought in Norway beyond what I read in Aftenposten.

The analogy, that finding individual terrorists is similar to de-bugging software, is interesting and correct to a certain extent. Islam is similar to code in that it is a meme; just as liberalism, Nazism, communism and Christianity are all memes. They are ideas that infect peoples heads and reproduce themselves in the heads of others. When they reproduce in sufficient numbers they create a "super organism" not unlike a biological or mechanical organism. We can think if these memes as the software that controls the super organism.

Islam is a deeply flawed and destructive meme. The question is, can this meme be "debugged" or will the whole program have to be deleted because it is incompatible with the other memes that are floating around the planet? I am hopeful that Islam can reform (debug) itself some day. However I am also fearful that this debugging will only come at the expense of millions of human lives. History and current events have shown that wherever Islam bumps up against another culture (meme) there is bloodshed and violence. Furthermore, wherever Islam has taken hold in a country, that country has become plagued by ignorance, poverty and violence. Unfortunately, the ignorance, poverty and violence that appear to be the three pillars of Islam appear to only reinforce the strength of the meme in the host brain.

Now Europeans are finding that the software of Islam has infected their hard drive (culture). So the question becomes, how will these two memes engage each other? Will they peacefully co-exist or will they eventually tear each other apart?

Personally, I am willing to bet, that within my life time we will see the Europeans first shut off immigration from Muslim countries and then begin mass deportations shortly after. This will probably be followed by all out warfare.

Maybe I am just fiiling pessimistic today.

Franko

"You can't just lump all the things you don't like about Islam into one big heap and label that "Islamism". Islamism is a particular ideology. It's different from reactionary Islam, imperial Islam, or whatever other form of Islam you're aganst."

Bjørn and Sandy P: I respect both of you, but you are wrong on this one. Susan is right, as she usually is. Let me quote Ibn Warraq: "There is no basic difference between Islam and Islamism. At most, there might be a difference in degree, but not in kind." Islamists aren't extremist muslims, muslims are lazy Islamists.

As for "imperial" Islam: Islam IS imperialism, Arab cultural imperialism disguised as a religion. Read this by the ex-muslim Anwar Shaikh:

http://www.atour.com/government/docs/20000609n.html

"Personally, I am willing to bet, that within my life time we will see the Europeans first shut off immigration from Muslim countries and then begin mass deportations shortly after. This will probably be followed by all out warfare."

A very likely scenario. This might happen sooner than we think, with major terrorist attacks in European cities, possible with WMD. Perhaps with a nuclear response at some point against Mecca or other cities. I am Norwegian, too. I don't like this, but right now, I do believe it will take place, yes.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/

http://jihadwatch.org/

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

And with all the hackers in the US, and United Kingdom, no one thought to once strip the bank accounts of terrorist organizations.

Covert measures. Transfer of funds. Ect.

Small thinking minds seem to be running the war machine.

Bjorn wrote: "So if the authentic form of Islam is the one that revealed itself through conquest and oppression, does that mean that the authentic form of Christianity is the one that revealed itself through equally brutal conquests, crusades, religious wars, inquisitions etc.?"

I would indeed believe the same thing about Chistianity, IF Christian religious scripture, like Islamic religous scripture, specifically called for the conquest and subjugation of non-Christians by military force, the establishment of a Christian theocracy, the murder of "polytheists" etc. in very detailed ways, as outlined in the Koran, the Sunnah and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence based on those sources.

However, I'm unaware of Christian scripture that qualifies in the same areas as Islamic religious scripture does. Therefore the case for what is "authentic" religion is far greater in the case of Islam than of Christianity. Your equating Islam and Christianity is the tired moral relativism of the left, based on only superficial knowledge of both belief systems; I would have not thought such an argument to surface at this blog of all places.

"The Islamist world khalifat is a modern totalitarian fantasy. Nothing like it has ever been put into practice, and few until the 20th century ever wanted to."

Frankly, I don't think you are qualified to make such a judgement. Totalitarianism has ALWAYS existed in Islam; any "difference" has been solely due to the discretion of various Muslim rulers, scholars who sought to soften Islam's totalitarianism for political practicality. (As in the case of the Persian shahs who lifted some of the discriminatory laws against non-Muslims in order to keep economically valuable Persian Jews within their Empires.)

Immediately after Muhammad died, thousands of Arabs tried to leave Islam and follow a new prophet called Musalayma. Since Islam states that Muhammad was the last prophet that made the followers of Musalayma apostates, for whom the punishment is death.

They were violently suppressed by armed force wielded by Muhammad's successor, Abu Baker.

Contrary to what you have posted, Syed Qutb and A.A. Mawdudi are NOT "new" thinkers (neither was al-Wahab either) they are merely re-embracing the political philsophies of countless Islamic scholars before them, such as Ibn Tamiyyah and Al-Ghazali, both of whom lived and wrote centuries ago.

The main thing "new" about today's Khalifat supporters is that they have wedded techonology to the totalitarian bones of Islam to make it far more deadly and all-encompassing.

"You can't just lump all the things you don't like about Islam into one big heap and label that "Islamism". Islamism is a particular ideology. It's different from reactionary Islam, imperial Islam, or whatever other form of Islam you're aganst."

Well, you said above that it isn't up to me to decide what is "Islam" and what isn't. But now you are doing the same thing. Turnabout is fair play?

I've studied Islam extensively, and I don't see any difference between "Islam" and "Islamism." Both are political movements with totalitarian and collectivist tendancies. Perhaps Bjorn, you would care to elucidate exactly where you see the differences occuring?

Franco wrote, "The question is, can this meme be "debugged" or will the whole program have to be deleted because it is incompatible with the other memes that are floating around the planet? "

Very perceptive Franco, and this has been the question about Islam for 1400 years. Sadly no one has ever come up with an acceptable answer. Those cultures who survived contact with Islam did so at the cost of becoming very violent and militant societies themselves. Those who were not willing to pay Islam back in its own kind were obliterated.

In the former category would fall the Indian subcontinent, the Balkans and Spain, each of which has at one time reacted to Islamic totalitarianism by out-Islamizing Islam. Ask a Sikh to explain why their religion requires them to wear a ceremonial dagger and not cut their hair; it is to defend themselves against Islamic jihad.

Bjørn,

So what you're saying is Islam is to Europe as Microsoft's .NET is to programming?

Ali: "Islamists aren't extremist muslims, muslims are lazy Islamists."

That depends on there being one particular form of Islam which has somehow captured the essenced of Islam better than any other. I don't believe in such essences, and that's why I object to all this talk about "authentic" Islam and "muslims are lazy Islamists". I also sense a slippery slope argument here: "A may not be so bad, but it leads inevitably to B which is very bad". Ie. the Islam most people actually practice isn't so evil, but it somehow leads directly to Islamism, which is. I'm very skeptical of slippery slope arguments, because they're so easy to abuse, so you need to convince me that there really is an Islamist hiding inside most muslims. Quoting the Koran is not enough. I'm interested in what people actually believe, not the text that supposedly (but never really) tells them what they should believe. Big difference.

"As for "imperial" Islam: Islam IS imperialism, Arab cultural imperialism disguised as a religion. Read this by the ex-muslim Anwar Shaikh:"

Much of what he says (non-believers going to hell, believers told to abandon their family) applies equally well to Christanity. And the one thing he says that supports your argument, that Islam has always been an Arab Nationalist movement, seems to be based only on the fact that you're supposed to show reverence to Mecca. Huh? That's all it takes? The world was smaller on Muhammed's time. Nothing odd about setting up your favourite city as the center of your religion. I suppose the Jewish reverence of Jerusalem makes them all irredeemable nationalists and imperialists as well?

Susan: "I would indeed believe the same thing about Chistianity, IF Christian religious scripture, like Islamic religous scripture, specifically called for the conquest and subjugation of non-Christians by military force, the establishment of a Christian theocracy, the murder of "polytheists" etc. in very detailed ways, as outlined in the Koran, the Sunnah and the Islamic schools of jurisprudence based on those sources."

The Old Testament says and the Jews practiced all those things - imperialism in the name of God, merciless slaughter of infidels, etc. And the Christians who did the same thing later must surely have found at least moral support of what they were doing in the more evil books of the OT.

But in the end none of this matters much. What the scriptures says is relevant _only_ to the degree that it is practiced. If the Bible says that you shall execute all witches, (and it does), but neither Jews nor Christians feel inclined to do so, then that commandment is simply not a part of common Judaism/Christianity. Beliefs are all in the head. Holy scriptures are just tools that aid the transmitting of beliefs from head to head, they're not the beliefs themselves.

"Therefore the case for what is "authentic" religion is far greater in the case of Islam than of Christianity."

No case for one form of religion being more authentic than another is ever solid. If you believe that, you owe me a definition of "authentic". More true? Of course not. More true to scripture? Irrelevant, as scriptures are only a small part of any religion, and are common to many different variants of the same religion. More true to the essence of the religion? Talk about essences border on mysticism. Don't exist.

All we can say as outsiders is that some forms of Islam are common and others are rare, some forms are good and others are bad.

"Your equating Islam and Christianity is the tired moral relativism of the left, based on only superficial knowledge of both belief systems; I would have not thought such an argument to surface at this blog of all places."

I did not equate Islam with Christianity. I applied your argument to Christianity to expose the flaw in the argument. There are many similarities between Christianity and Islam, but Christianity has adapted to (and played an important role in making possible) modern liberal democracy.

"Totalitarianism has ALWAYS existed in Islam; any "difference" has been solely due to the discretion of various Muslim rulers, scholars who sought to soften Islam's totalitarianism for political practicality."

Totalitarianism is more than oppression, more than imperialism. It's state control of _all_ aspects of private and public behavior. This was not even possible on a large scale until the 20th century. So how can it have always existed in Islam?

"they are merely re-embracing the political philsophies of countless Islamic scholars before them, such as Ibn Tamiyyah and Al-Ghazali, both of whom lived and wrote centuries ago."

Unless I'm mistaken neither made much impact on Islam at the time. There are _roots_ of Islamism going way back, but as a movement Islamism was created in the 20th century.

"Well, you said above that it isn't up to me to decide what is "Islam" and what isn't. But now you are doing the same thing. Turnabout is fair play?"

You can say what Islam commonly is. You can give labels to different aspects of Islam. You can _not_ say what authentic Islam is, that one particular form of Islam is somehow more "true" than the others.

"I've studied Islam extensively, and I don't see any difference between "Islam" and "Islamism." Both are political movements with totalitarian and collectivist tendancies. Perhaps Bjorn, you would care to elucidate exactly where you see the differences occuring?"

Perhaps you've studied Islam so closely you've lost sight of the billion+ people who actually follow it. Are they all Islamists? Do they all, or even a majority, share bin Laden's particular vision of the ideal government? If not, there is a difference between common Islam and Islamism. Religion is in the head, not the text. If most muslims of the world don't want to live in Taliban style societies, then they are no less Muslims than those who interpret the scriptures in ways you believe are more correct.

"Ie. the Islam most people actually practice isn't so evil"

Ths common Islam still includes the death penalty for apostasy. That's not bad?

"Totalitarianism is more than oppression, more than imperialism. It's state control of _all_ aspects of private and public behavior. This was not even possible on a large scale until the 20th century. So how can it have always existed in Islam?"

Tha totalitarian MINDSET has always existed in Islam, modern technology has made it easier to implement, yes.

Very rational Bjørn, you should get into politics. My impression of Islam is that it is always an easy group of people to agitate.There is something right under the surface which at any time is ready to blow, if some event triggers it. But, christian fanatics are also easy to "get going", its the mixture of these religions in a population (if both of them get big enough) that will always end --- in civil war.

It could be that my blood-suger is a bit low, and that is why i'm such a pessimist these days.

Bjorn wrote: "Unless I'm mistaken neither made much impact on Islam at the time."

Al-Gazali and Ibn Taymiyyah were both Sheikh al-Islam in their respective times -- a position somewhat akin to the Pope in Christianity. Al-Gazali in particular had an ENORMOUS impact on Islam.

Are you sure you have read either of them?

Regarding totalitarianism, the early Islamic state as portrayed in the books of the Sunnah seemed pretty totalitarian to me. History was expunged and rewritten, whole tribes of people were ethnically cleansed, political opponents were assassinated with express approval from "the top," whole groups of people were forced to confess a belief system they did not believe in -- on pain of death.

Susan: "Are you sure you have read either of them?"

No I haven't read anything by them. This is obviously a field where you know more than I do, so feel free to enlighten me. I'm particularly interested in how you relate al-Gazali to Islamism. I was thinking of Ibn Taymiyyah when I wrote that, and didn't take time to check up on al-Gazali. You're right - he appears to have been very influential. But he doesn't seem (from casual browsing) such a clear-cut puritan as Taymiyyah. What is the connection?

"whole groups of people were forced to confess a belief system they did not believe in -- on pain of death."

Yes, that was how Christianity arrived in Norway. Ethnic cleansing, assasination of heretics, all this has been done in the name of the Christian God. So you either have a too loose definition of totalitarianism, or you're not applying it fairly to all cultures.

To put it differently: Is there a difference to you at all between totalitarianism and political/religious oppression?

What connection? Well since I don't see much of a difference between "Islam" and what you call "Islamism" I don't really know. It all sounds very much alike to me. For example the four Imams (founders of the four schools of Sunni Islamic Law) quibbled over this and that interpretation but the basic foundations of the law are all the same.

Al-Gazali is often presented as a reformist and "enlightened" jurist, an influence on Sufism, but much of his writings (that I've read) are extremely intolerant (particularly those about women.) I see echoes of al-Gazali in the treatment of women under the Taliban for instance. His famous treatise on the "handicaps" that God supposedly afflicted women with sounds very Taliban-like.

Ibn Taymiyyah greatly expounded upon jihad, dhimmitude and fanatical monotheism, and was the influence on al-Wahab as well as the Muslim brotherhood.

I'm not an expert on either one, I've just read essays of both posted on the Internet, as well as many other essays by famous Islamic scholars, but I know more than some.

Bjørn: Your posts are getting worse. Shape up and try to write posts that couldn't pass as April Fools day posts. I am utterly disappointed by this "My civilization is superior" propaganda you have reverted to. Shame on you! What books have you been reading lately?

Anders, Oslo . . .

I'm disappointed in YOU. You are engaged in wishful thinking. At least Bjorn and Susan are actually reading about Islam and Islamicism. You, however, are implying that Bjorn's view of Islam can't be true because you don't want it to be true. Sorry, that's not good enough these days. Politically correct thinking only works if there aren't real dangers facing people.

Anders: And why is it necessarily bad to say that one civilization is superior to another? I have no qualms in saying that a culture based on individual liberty, human rights and democracy is infinitely superior to one based on Islamic law.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/index.php

Now, now, if Anders believes a culture which supports female circumsion, honor killings for females, using women as punching bags, taxing those who are not of the same beliefs and either throwing homosexuals off buildings head first or toppling walls on same is equal or superior to Western Civ, who are we to argue?

However, I really don't think Anders will be packing his bags any time soon to practice what he preaches.

Anders is all hat, no cattle.

He's either not paying attention, listening or reading, Or he's a misogynist and secretly admires said culture.

Now before going into a full discussion of this let me just make sure I read you right. The implication of your posts (totoro, Sandy and Ali) is that the world is a better place without Islam? Basically, you suggest that Islam should be eradicated? A final solution?
From your earlier posts I have noted that violent eradication is your preferred approach to any problem/"obstacle for the USA" in international politics.

You are right that I don't own any cattle. May be you do? If yes, be nice to them and don't kill them all if one of them has a moo that sounds a bit like: "moo...Alllah akbar...moooh". (This pastoral sequence is included to try to avoid your ordinary criticism of "my talk-talk, wishy-washy intellectual approach". Do y'all Like it?)

The moment you engage in "civilization rating" you are crossing a line that is problematic. You are going from saying "what I believe in is good" to "what everyone else believes in is wrong". Ali: Could you give me your top three and bottom three civilizations? (And I don't mean the smashing game from Sid Meier!) Maybe you should write a book: "Civilizations I like, and dislike".

What do you think of the feeble President of the USA? Why has he repeatedly argued that: "Islam is Peace"? Any posts from you should answer the following question: Is Bush an apologetic Islam-appeaser or is he just lying? HA-HA!! This time Dubya is on my side!! I love America and its freedom of religion!! Does anyone know of a ranch for sale? :-)

Anders: "Your posts are getting worse. Shape up and try to write posts that couldn't pass as April Fools day posts. I am utterly disappoint by this "My civilization is superior" propaganda you have reverted to. Shame on you! What books have you been reading lately?"

But of course our civilization is superior. I'm aware that's not a correct thing to say, and your reaction here, the secular version of shouting "heresy!", is the usual response from those who value correctness over being correct - condescending and non-factual, a quick slap on the wrist to correct my ways. Not impressed.

This is an old view of mine, but now that you ask, yes I did read a book lately. You may have read it yourself, the Bookseller in Kabul by Åsne Seierstad. It's a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Seierstad writes about an Afghan family she lived with after the fall of the Taliban. The book is full of sad stories about the prison-like existence of Afghan women. The Taliban took oppression of women to an extreme, but the roots go deep in Afghan culture, and much of it remains. Now, I believe that holding women as slaves is the mark of an inferior culture. Killing women for the sake of family honor is inferior. So is denying them the right to an education, a life, even a physical appearance of their own. All this is done today in Afghanistan, not by Taliban decree, but because that's how many people believe things should be done. And that way of doing things is inferior to our own, where women are the full equals of men. (The book, btw, has been translated to English, and is highly recommendable.)

With superiority I don't mean superior in every way, or inherently superior. I just mean that all in all, the way we in the West have organized our societies - and women's rights are just one of many aspects of this - is better, more ethical, than the way most other cultures have organized their societies. If you disagree with this, I'm more than willing to be specific. But drop the condescension, and the assumption that you being right is obvious to right-thinking people. You're not in the Norwegian sandbox any more.

"What do you think of the feeble President of the USA? Why has he repeatedly argued that: "Islam is Peace"? Any posts from you should answer the following question: Is Bush an apologetic Islam-appeaser or is he just lying?"

I think he actually believes what he's saying is the truth. Which is a problem. Of course, the US President shouldn't go public with claiming that Islam is an aggressive religion, but neither should he say stuff like that. No, I don't like it.

Your sarcasm is misplaced. If all cultures and civilizations are equal, why didn't Europe just remain in the Dark Ages? It would have been all the same to you, I take it?

You are changing the subject. Your initial post was about Islamic societies' remarkable potential for producing terrorists. You're trying to twist off, by doing just what you accused me of doing: Saying something politically correct. (There's normally not much of political correctness in this sandbox...that's for sure.) Where's your link? How did you get from lack of women's rights to producing terrorists? Most suicide bombers are men. Stop talking about women's rights in Islam when we're discussing terrorism.

Your second post is a lot better than the first "April Fool's Day" style one. That is because you criticize a specific attribute of Islam (to which I basically agree) instead of taking the grand cultural "looking down from my pedestal view."

Anders

very good, don't give in...

Blood-sugar is up again!

Anders: Oh come on. First you reply to my very specific criticism of Muslim cultures (toleration and respect of Islamists) with a vague and general cry of "heresy!" When I reply to _that_ accusation, you turn meta on me. If you disagree with what I wrote in the post, please say how and why. Stop playing hide and seek.

I disagree with your initial post because as already stated: I believe that the business of rating civilizations is an unfruitful one. It is inherently ethnocentric. But it does not seem like we are getting anywhere on this.

Anders: "I disagree with your initial post because as already stated: I believe that the business of rating civilizations is an unfruitful one. It is inherently ethnocentric. But it does not seem like we are getting anywhere on this."

I've noticed, but it's not for lack of me trying. I've made a lot of statements you could hook onto, for instance that a culture that oppresses women is inferior to one that doesn't. If it is unfruitul to make a statement like that, is it also unfruitful to say that oppression of women is wrong? It amounts to the same thing. Forget the word "superior" for a moment. Ask yourself, "would I rather live in a culture that oppresses women or one that doesn't?" I think the answer is obvious. But what if I ask you _why_ you'd rather live in a culture where women are free? Would you be able to answer that without implying that one way of doing things is somehow better than the other? I encourage you to try.

I suspect that what you mean by unfruitful is not that it would be untrue or wrong to hold some cultures as superior to others, but that it would be frowned upon to do so. And it would. It would look very, very bad on your CV. But it's still not rational. If this is a dogma to you, that it "just is" meaningless to rate cultures, then we really won't get anywhere on this. If it isn't a dogma, defend it. Very simple. (Remember that you entered this debate with all guns blazing. This works in the regular media, where nobody would respect you any less for arguing on the "Shame on you!" level on an issue like this. It does not work here.)

Every time I come over here I'm reminded of why I like this blog. Well reasoned and reasonable debate (in Bjorn's case, in the face of what I would probably consider provocative and personal attacks if they were directed at me) with a minimum of name calling.

The only think that makes me uncomfortable with the analogy in the original post is the 'delete the buggy code and start over' solution. You explicitly reject that, of course. Perhaps its a lingering aftertaste of the argument: that's an unreasonable quibble, but there you are.

One of the things I like most about this blog, Bjorn, is your faith in human corrigibility. I wish I shared it, or at least had the mental energy for it.

"If this is a dogma to you, that it "just is" meaningless to rate cultures,"
This is close to dogma to me. Dogma is dangerous. But possibly not as dangerous as labeling people of a certain culture inferior and more prone to terrorism than others. This is discrimination which is a root cause of terrorism. What do you think of the crusades, IRA, ETA, LTTE and Baader-Meinhof?

To argue for dogma is not necessary, but I would claim that the information you can get from such "civilization rating" is useless. The moment you try to do anything with that information, you have said 'A' to an argument where 'B' is: we should spread our way of life and subdue their way of life. 'C' of course is kill and eradicate the worthless barbaric scum, who do not deserve to be on the face of the earth. Some of the regulars in this forum share the latter view. I beg to differ ;-)

Anders: "But possibly not as dangerous as labeling people of a certain culture inferior and more prone to terrorism than others."

I did _not_ say the first. Bad cultures are inferior to good cultures. The people of bad cultures are not inferior to the people of good cultures. That must be judged on an individual basis.

The latter is just statistics. In the same way that 18 year old boys are more prone to crashing their cars than 40 year old women, angry Muslims are more prone to believe in terrorism than angry Christians. Hard to argue with that.

"The moment you try to do anything with that information, you have said 'A' to an argument where 'B' is: we should spread our way of life and subdue their way of life."

No you haven't. That's ridiculous. First - no method of solving the problem ("subduing") is implied. Second - any solution must focus on the particular aspects of a culture that are bad, not on the culture as a whole. So the B here is this: If Muslim cultures defend or tolerate terrorism, then it would be a good thing if we could find a way to make them less tolerant of terrorism. This is not to "subdue" Muslim cultures and replace them with Western culture. What should happen to them is what happened to us when we had the patriarchal and authoritarian aspects of our Norwegian culture replaced with modern (and foreign) democratic ideals. Are we any less Norwegian for it? Does anyone want to return to the old ways?

These are the types of people we have dying for you Anders until you get your head out of your colon because it's so far up your ass... and realize you're moving up in the food chain:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4815441/?GT=3256

If subduing their way of life means they stop blowing children up, got my vote. If subduing their way of life means women can go grocery shopping by themselves, drive by themselves, leave the country w/o a man's permission, leave the faith w/o being killed, then subdue away.

Your moral relevancy will kill you, Anders, they're working off your assumptions.

--How did you get from lack of women's rights to producing terrorists?--

Who's home all day? Who's raising them? In a violent household were it's the norm? What kind of society dresses their children up as splodydopes and jihadis for family photos?

Gold Meir was right, until they start loving their children more than death, this won't end.

--From your earlier posts I have noted that violent eradication is your preferred approach to any problem/"obstacle for the USA" in international politics.--

Anders, if we believed in violent eradication, it would have already been done. We're doing it the hard way, hoping they'll reform themselves. The Japanese did. Ali and Susan and others are looking far down the road. They get it, you don't.

America will never surrender. We'll fight them to a draw, but depending on the core of my people, hit us hard enough and we're going to put our foot down.

If we don't/can't the Chinese or Indians will. Understandably you don't want to wrap your brain around it, but any one with reasonable knowledge of us and watched the towers come down filed that in the back of their mind. It's just not out there for general consumption. Why agitate needlessly? Try and reform them.

If you live in a tenement w/rats and a rat bites your baby, do you find the rat that did it or get rid of all of them?

Their culture celebrates death. That's what they want, fine by me. The moderates are quiet, it's been almost 3 years! There actually was a rational piece in a Pakistani paper recently. But I can't find the link.

You really need to start reading Friday Prayer roundup at MEMRI.

Listen to what they're telling you and have been telling you. "When someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him."

--What do you think of the feeble President of the USA? Why has he repeatedly argued that: "Islam is Peace"? --

Now why do you want to get 1 billion people even more stirred up than they are?

We're not ready yet.

BTw, in some parts it called the Religion of Pieces.

Anders - your discussing airy, one-worlder, fluffy bunny/chicks/ why can't we all get along ideas.

We're dealing w/reality.

--This is not to "subdue" Muslim cultures and replace them with Western culture--

Not replace, Bjorn, adapt. Which is one of the reasons why we're fighting.

Anders - peace - Islamic or Western definition?

Most of the world wants "peace." We're just arguing which definition will reign supreme.

Bjørn: "Does anyone want to return to the old ways?"

Ah.. Don't we all yearn for the days of youre when we could rape and pillage our way from fjord to fjord while intoxicated by gallons of mead and hallucogenic mushrooms?

To exist in a time and place where noone would look at you crosseyed if you'd come running butt-naked out of a monastery with a virgin slung over your shoulder, while waving a bloody sword? (The term 'going berserk' actually relates to this very practise. Berserk basically means 'without clothes'.)

And none of that infernal technology that so hampers society today. What bliss to live in a world whitout the constanting bleepings of cell phones, honking of car horns, and pimpled 14-year old neighbour kids with newly purchased Marshall-amps and zero guitar skills.

Makes me all misty-eyed, it does!

Seriously, though, I think Anders is just being wilfully contrarian here. Or perhaps I'm just underestimating Norwegian naivety again.

--Finnish police have reportedly seized over 200 kilograms of illegal explosives at the parking place of the Vermo trotting-track in Espoo, just outside Helsinki. The police had reportedly made the finding in a trailer that had been parked near the trotting track. The police suspected that this was the largest amount of illegal explosives ever seized in Finland. According to the Finnish news agency STT, the police did not yet know when, why or by whom the explosives were brought to the parking place.--

Wonder if it's part of the Norweigan haul?

Anders, I think you should visit and exchange views w/the people who visit the forums Ali gave us links to in the post below, IIRC.

Via LGF from Ralph Peters:

...The failure of Arab civilization in our time is the greatest such disaster in mankind’s history. And, bitter though we find the proposition, the failure is so colossal that it cannot be neatly contained. Whether in Iraq today or elsewhere tomorrow, we cannot fully extract ourselves from this problem simply because our enemies won’t let go.

If Iraq chooses failure, we can leave. But we’ll be back, somewhere in the Middle East. Because, as we saw on 9/11, the Middle East will continue to come to us. Blame is the opium of the Arabs, and the sweetest blame for their failures is that directed at the United States (and, of course, Israel). It is our power itself, not its uses, that enrages Arabs trapped in their self-made weakness.

The oft-cited examples of the Arab world’s problems, from a lack of interest in secular education and a poor work ethic to staggering corruption and the oppression of women, are symptoms, not root causes, of Arab failure. Past a certain analytical point, we come up against the wall of our own taboos - we cannot admit that the psychological premises of an entire civilization might be dysfunctional. Arab failure isn’t about that which has been done to the Middle East, but that which the Middle East has done to itself.

Iraq still has a chance, if a slimmer one than we had hoped. But even if Iraq’s Arabs disappoint our ambitions, our efforts will have been worthy and our losses not in vain. Intervention was unavoidable, whatever the critics say. Continued passivity in the face of the Middle East’s implosion would only have made the price higher in the end.

We all would be better off were the Arabs to surprise us by building healthy, prosperous, modern societies. We would be foolish not to wish them well. But we would be equally foolish not to prepare ourselves for the consequences of their accelerating failure....

---

I am convinced the moral equivalence you are arguing about will go boom one day. We're headed for a lot of booms in our future.

Sandy: "We're headed for a lot of booms in our future."
Of course we are....if we are steering right into them. Now if your "hardliner kick-ass bad-MF tactics" should be pursued, the clash of civilizations is actively chosen. In my opinion we're not quite there yet. Now if you were the President we'd be there in a few days I believe. I have a strange reluctance to total world war between the largest civilizations of the world.
You would probably classify this non-pacifist, but judicious, attitude: apologetic, naive, softy quibble-appeasment.

I am living a relatively happy life with shadows of terrorism. I don't consider Western civilization to be in a countdown to extinction. I refuse to live my life on red alert. And yes there is a minute chance that this will result in poor little me being blown to little bits by a terrorist bomb. But I refuse to live my life in fear like the terrorists (a few VERY bad men) want me to. They are not in control of my life. Have yo got a gas mask and Duckt tape? Are you living in fear?

Always remember 11. September, but if there is room for one more thought how about keeping in mind that the war against Islam you seem to want
is excactly what Bin Laden wanted..... Bin Laden??? OOOpppsss we forgot about him while sending coffins back from Iraq.

What do you think of the marvellous development in Iraq these days? Is it possible that the situation had been different with a UN-mandate?

Anders: "But I refuse to live my life in fear like the terrorists (a few VERY bad men) want me to."

I understand the desire not to let your life or our society be controlled by terrorists, but if somebody threatens you with a gun, it is foolish not to take that into account when you decide what to do next. Your life depends on the right response - surrender, flight, or attack.

We would rather not change our way of life, but now that the _conditions_ our society depend on have changed, it is simply irrational not to adapt to the new conditions. Those conditions include the presence of hundreds or thousands of potential terrorists who live in hiding all across Europe, preparing for a European 9/11. It may be tempting to refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, but we won't feel that way when our own family and friends become the next victims.

Anders - if we had hard-liner tactics - the ME would be glass.

Europe's been jaw-jawing for how long now?

And a wonderful job you've done.

Look to the Barbary Pirates.

Anders - Iraq is a piece of the puzzle. You don't see the big picture. They're wobbling, why do you think they're fighting so hard?

I also haven't changed my way of life, but I am more observant.

I never wanted a war against Islam - you really need to start discussing it w/those on the sites Ali posted on this blog.

You still don't get it.

No, the situation would not be different - WE are the muscle and the frogs would have sold us out like they did in Kosovo. - everyone else chose to spend their money on social items. Besides, $10 - $40 billion in oil profit kind of makes one go Hmmmm, I wonder what their real motive was?

Has it ever occurred to you that if the Turkish scullery maid actually decided to date the average Joe instead of falling for the promises of her Frog Prince that the 4th ID would have been in Fallujah instead of on the water in ships?

Gee, now why would the Ba'athists want to fight US? I mean, I'd go gently into that good night after being kicked out of power, money and access after 35 years, wouldn't you?

Why would the black turbans of Iran (Najaf) want to take us on??? Think, Anders, look at the players.

Dear Bjorn,

I am not a blogger. I write a political satire/wining and dining "chronicle." I do this to raise funds for the Parkinson's Disease Foundation, the Alzheimer's Disease Foundation and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
When I was doing research on how much more effective the Europeans have been actually in capturing and bringing to justice terrorists than the United States has been, I ran across your blog. I got some useful information from you, and I thought possibly you would not mind helping spread the news of my satirical fundraising newsletter to your audience. Would you consider doing this?
My web site is: www.grindstaffchronicles.com

As a United States citizen who was raised in Mexico, I bring my own perspective to U.S. politics.
Thank you so much for considering spreading the word about the Grindstaff Chronicles,
Christian Randolph

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/667