suicide bombers

[_beastie]

I don't think it can be logically disputed that in the past few decades, Muslim theologians have provided a way to allow for suicide. My point was always that without this allowance, suicide terrorism would never have become popularized in this particular conflict. Hence, it is logical to state that the suicide bombers believe they are doing God's will. Whether or not Islam is being distorted to provide this allowance is another question, one which I am not informed enough to judge.

To Pahoran -

It is entirely reasonable to state that people who believe that God does tell individuals to kill other people are being hypocritical when they criticize the Islamic terrorists. In fact, it isn't even an "atheist versus theist" debate, which you have repeatedly insisted. Not all theists believe that God tells people to kill other people - either currently or in the past.

Truth Dancer and I once had a long and interesting conversation with another former believer who commonly used this exact question to help him understand what kind of belief theists were embracing. I was struck by how insightful it was. "Do you believe in a God who tells human beings to kill other human beings?" This is a question that reveals an inordinate amount of information. It is far more than the fact that sometimes killing other people is moral and justified. No one has to ask God whether or not to kill someone if killing them is the only way to stop him/her from killing an infant, for example. People normally only need to be commanded by God to kill when the killing in question seems to contradict natural intuitive morality. There are very few people who would think it was obvious Nephi should kill Laban to get the plates. In fact, even Nephi shied away from that, and only did so when commanded by God.

So the question is not whether or not it is ever right or moral to kill someone - the question is whether or not you are someone who believes that God can and has ordered his followers to kill people in situations in which the followers' normal moral instincts would condemn killing?

This is not redefining the argument. This has always been my argument. That is why the fact that suicide terrorism did not become popularized within the radical Islamic movement until their teachers provided a way for believers to think that God has sanctioned this particular form of suicide was crucial, because it demonstrated these terrorists were trying to do God's will.

So if you aren't the type of theist who believes that God will tell his followers to kill other people when said killing contradicts their natural moral inclinations, then there is no hypocrisy in criticizing the Muslim suicide terrorists. But if you think that God does, indeed, tell people to kill other people when said killing contradicts their natural moral inclinations, then it is hypocritical to criticize them for their actions. It is obvious the terrorists believe they are doing God's will, whether or not you agree. It is obvious that they, like you, believe God does tell people to kill other people when it contradicts the natural moral impulse to do so.

You may not believe God actually did tell them to kill people. But the point is that they believe God told them to do it. So it's hypocritical to criticize them for doing what they believe to be God's will. You (generic you meaning theists who do believe God will tell believers to kill other people even when it contradicts natural moral impulse and Islamic suicide terrorists) both believe God will, in fact, tell people to kill other people even when said killing seems to contradict God's other commandments and natural moral instincts. The only difference is that the Islamic terrorists believe God told them to do it in this specific case, and you (generic you) think God did NOT tell them to do so, and they were misled.

Of course, that leads to an insoluble difference of opinion, once you accept God will tell his followers to kill others when it contradicts moral impulse to do so, because people from different religious traditions think that God is "really" speaking clearly to their own group, and the "other" group has been misled.

So, in effect, you are taking the position of saying "Sure God may tell his followers to kill others at times when doing so seems to contradict his former teachings and natural moral instincts. But since I know God better than group X does, I can categorically state that they are wrong to claim that God told them to kill other people in this particular instance."

[_Pahoran]

Anyone can safely conclude suicide is forbidden in Islam. In the disturbing reality of Islamic suicide bombing, we hear this assertion over and over again by journalists and academians. But is it really that simple?

No. It's even simpler.

What you are pleased to call "Islamic suicide bombing" is political suicide bombing carried out by Muslims.

The most prolific suicide bombers in the world have been and continue to be the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeylam, a Sri Lankan insurgent group. Their cultural milieu is Hindu, but their specific ideology is marxist-leninist, i.e. atheist. (Most Americans haven't heard of them because by and large Americans are an extraordinarily narcissistic people with little awareness that there even is a rest of the world, let alone that anything actually happens in it. They've only heard of Muslim suicide bombers because they hit American targets; the Tamil Tigers do not.) Muslim terrorist groups borrowed their suicide bombing methods from the Tamils, who in turn got them from Hindu extremists on the Indian mainland.

Thus, suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic did not originate with Muslims; therefore it is egregiously disingenuous to pretend that Muslim theology causes it.

The last statement clearly refers to the Palestinians. You don’t hear Islamic authorities condemning Palestinian suicide bombers because it is overwhelming consensus in Islam that Palestinians are at war with Israel.

Exactly. Just as there isn't a whole lot of condemnation from the west of Israel for bombing civilian settlements in time of war, either. After all, we have done and will continue to do the very same thing in war.

Some say classical Islamic jurists would not have condoned the killing of innocents. Dan Peterson, in an article written for Meridian Magazine, said Al Ghazali would not have approved the killing of innocent women and children. He was dead wrong.

That's right. You're a far better qualified Islamist than DCP is.

We know Ghazali had no problems suggesting the use of catapults knowing perfectly well innocent women and children were likely to be killed, and we know Muhammed sent thousands of warriors on the front lines into certain death the same as suicides,

Yes, and?

General Stonewall Jackson once asked a member of his staff why a messenger boy was late. The officer replied that the boy had been killed. Stonewall replied, "very commendable. Very commendable." Societies that value honour and duty more than "rights" have traditionally taken such a view; this is not even slightly a Muslim peculiarity.

It's an extraordinary stretch to say that front-line soldiers are "the same as suicides," and you are adopting a mighty double standard here. Western armies used catapaults and shock troops too. Will you argue from that fact to the conclusion that Christianity causes suicide bombing, or not?

And if not, why not? There is a large Christian minority among Palestinian arabs, and they have contributed a number of suicide bombers also. Yes, even without the lure of 72 virgins for their personal pleasure.

And perhaps it might give you some pause to consider that the most famous group of men to have flown planes into targets weren't shouting "Allah akbar," they were screaming "banzai!"

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I don't think it can be logically disputed that in the past few decades, Muslim theologians have provided a way to allow for suicide.

I don't think anyone has tried to dispute this.

My point was always that without this allowance, suicide terrorism would never have become popularized in this particular conflict.

And I'm not sure why you think this point helps your cause. Muslims would not commit suicide if someone hadn't found a way to justify it to them.

Hence, it is logical to state that the suicide bombers believe they are doing God's will. Whether or not Islam is being distorted to provide this allowance is another question, one which I am not informed enough to judge.

It doesn't matter. The facts are as follows:

1) Suicide bombings by secular groups predate those by Muslim groups.
2) Suicide bombings by secular groups outnumber those by Muslim groups.
3) Therefore, normative Islam is not the cause of suicide terrorism, and may in fact tend to suppress it.

To Pahoran -

It is entirely reasonable to state that people who believe that God does tell individuals to kill other people are being hypocritical when they criticize the Islamic terrorists. In fact, it isn't even an "atheist versus theist" debate, which you have repeatedly insisted. Not all theists believe that God tells people to kill other people - either currently or in the past.

Truth Dancer and I once had a long and interesting conversation with another former believer who commonly used this exact question to help him understand what kind of belief theists were embracing. I was struck by how insightful it was. "Do you believe in a God who tells human beings to kill other human beings?" This is a question that reveals an inordinate amount of information. It is far more than the fact that sometimes killing other people is moral and justified. No one has to ask God whether or not to kill someone if killing them is the only way to stop him/her from killing an infant, for example. People normally only need to be commanded by God to kill when the killing in question seems to contradict natural intuitive morality. There are very few people who would think it was obvious Nephi should kill Laban to get the plates. In fact, even Nephi shied away from that, and only did so when commanded by God.

So the question is not whether or not it is ever right or moral to kill someone - the question is whether or not you are someone who believes that God can and has ordered his followers to kill people in situations in which the followers' normal moral instincts would condemn killing?

This is not redefining the argument. This has always been my argument.

See, I knew you wouldn't believe the thread wasn't all about you. This may well have always been your argument, but it was not the original argument of the thread. It was certainly not the argument of the OP.

That is why the fact that suicide terrorism did not become popularized within the radical Islamic movement until their teachers provided a way for believers to think that God has sanctioned this particular form of suicide was crucial, because it demonstrated these terrorists were trying to do God's will.

No, it tried to demonstrate that. All it succeeded in demonstrating was that suicide terrorism is not inherent to Muslim theology.

So if you aren't the type of theist who believes that God will tell his followers to kill other people when said killing contradicts their natural moral inclinations, then there is no hypocrisy in criticizing the Muslim suicide terrorists. But if you think that God does, indeed, tell people to kill other people when said killing contradicts their natural moral inclinations, then it is hypocritical to criticize them for their actions. It is obvious the terrorists believe they are doing God's will, whether or not you agree. It is obvious that they, like you, believe God does tell people to kill other people when it contradicts the natural moral impulse to do so.

Your accusation of hypocrisy, like most of your accusations, is quite intentionally false.

You may not believe God actually did tell them to kill people. But the point is that they believe God told them to do it. So it's hypocritical to criticize them for doing what they believe to be God's will. You (generic you meaning theists who do believe God will tell believers to kill other people even when it contradicts natural moral impulse and Islamic suicide terrorists) both believe God will, in fact, tell people to kill other people even when said killing seems to contradict God's other commandments and natural moral instincts. The only difference is that the Islamic terrorists believe God told them to do it in this specific case, and you (generic you) think God did NOT tell them to do so, and they were misled.

Ah--no, that is not the case.

And by this you demonstrate, yet again, as you have so many times before, and will do so again, that you do not understand LDS theology, and probably never did.

When the Spirit constrained Nephi to kill Laban, he was (1) entirely within his legal rights, and (2) receiving a direct commandment from God. By contrast, Muslim theology holds that Muhammad was "the seal of the prophets," i.e. the last one, and the Qur'an is God's final and perfect revelation; there can be none since.

Therefore, it is manifest that not only have contemporary Muslim leaders not received direct revelation requiring them to kill anybody, they do not, because they cannot, even claim to have done so. The very best they can manage is to claim to find some interpretation of the Qur'an which allows such a course of action in a given set of circumstances; but they do not claim to have received any commandment similar to "thou shalt wipe out them damn Yankees."

Of course, that leads to an insoluble difference of opinion, once you accept God will tell his followers to kill others when it contradicts moral impulse to do so, because people from different religious traditions think that God is "really" speaking clearly to their own group, and the "other" group has been misled.

So, in effect, you are taking the position of saying "Sure God may tell his followers to kill others at times when doing so seems to contradict his former teachings and natural moral instincts. But since I know God better than group X does, I can categorically state that they are wrong to claim that God told them to kill other people in this particular instance."

Better: I categorically state, contra your lazy, uninformed, asinine ASSumption, that they don't claim that God told them to kill other people in this particular instance. The best they can do is claim that their scripture permits killing in circumstances similar to those that presently obtain.

This might put ordinary garden-variety Christians into the kind of dilemma that you and Curelom tried to fashion for us; but it doesn't impact us at all. We don't have to rely exclusively upon revelation given in another time and a vastly different world; we have living prophets. God speaks to us today.

And he doesn't condone suicide bombing.

In the meantime, you have failed entirely to show any secular criteria by which the actions of the suicide bombers are always and invariably wrong. You have tried, in the plenitude of your anti-Mormon dishonesty, to taint us by association with them, because (and only because) they are a hiss and a byword in the west; but that is only because they are the "other guys." If those on your side were doing the same things, for the love of freedom and democracy, you might have a harder time articulating exactly why it is wrong.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

See, I knew you wouldn't believe the thread wasn't all about you. This may well have always been your argument, but it was not the original argument of the thread. It was certainly not the argument of the OP.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. You’re responding to ME, and I’m not supposed to think you’re talking about MY points???? Good grief.

beastie wrote:
That is why the fact that suicide terrorism did not become popularized within the radical Islamic movement until their teachers provided a way for believers to think that God has sanctioned this particular form of suicide was crucial, because it demonstrated these terrorists were trying to do God's will.

No, it tried to demonstrate that. All it succeeded in demonstrating was that suicide terrorism is not inherent to Muslim theology.

Before (and IF, depending on whether or not I’m in the mood to pound my head bloody against a wall while the wall repeatedly calls me an evil liar) I deal any further with your largely ad hom and so typical response, please answer me this:

Do Islamic suicide terrorists believe they are doing God’s will?

[_truth dancer]

Here is the bottom line for me....

If someone believes God can or does command/ask/desire/want/wish/require/is happy with, the killing of another (or others), they should not condemn others who kill because they believe God commands/asks/desires/wants/wishes/requires/or is happy with their killing.

The "God said" excuse is used by all sorts of believers. :-(

~dancer~

[_Mister Scratch]

for what it's worth, the Lafferty Bros. said that they felt they were guided by revelation and the Spirit in their murders of Brenda Lafferty and her baby. It's hard to see how politics could have figured into that.

[_beastie]

by the way, Pah, all your blow-hard commentary about continuing revelation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHEN God issued the command, only that he did.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

for what it's worth, the Lafferty Bros. said that they felt they were guided by revelation and the Spirit in their murders of Brenda Lafferty and her baby. It's hard to see how politics could have figured into that.

Mister Scratch

Thank you for remembering Brenda and her baby...and no politics had nothing to do with that.....

Suicide bombers are so complex in their thinking and how easily they are manipulated and how they are meant to feel disenfranchised from society...how brainwashed they have become....the real leaders and the real terrorists are still alive...
suicide bombers are not the ones I am afraid of...I am afraid of the leaders that are still alive.....recruiting the next suicide bombers....

[_beastie]

This exchange is a good example of why I said, on RFM, that Pahoran's main posting style consists predominantly of repeating, in various ways, "you are a deliberately lying scumbag."

This belief in in his own omniscience is beginning to look a tad crazy, in my opinion. The way he keeps telling people "you KNOW you are lying" or some variant, has gone beyond normal internet craziness into potential real life looniness.

[Guest]

Pahoran,

Thus, suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic did not originate with Muslims; therefore it is egregiously disingenuous to pretend that Muslim theology causes it.

I never said suicide bombing originated with Muslims, but for you to say Muslim theology cannot be a cause simply because the practice didn’t originate with Muslim theology, is just plain absurd. (pay attention asbestosman, or whoever said Pahoran’s logic was excellent)

Your assertion that the bombings are merely political is just assertion. In Islam there is hardly any distinction between the political and religious, so your comment is just a PC driven statement based in ignorance. The Palestinian agenda to this day is to see Israel destroyed.

Again, I already provided all the evidence I need to make the case, and none of you have touched it. Suicide bombers do not die for the sake of Palestine. They claim to be dying for Allah’s sake. That makes it religious, period. They rely on suicide because it is the most effect means given their inadequate arsenal. When little girls are interviewed about being potential suicide bombers, they usually respond with something like, “if God wills it.” Again, religious reasoning.

Incidentally, I think the Palestinians would receive wider sympathy if they simply started commiting suicide without the bombs. That would create a global uproar, as it would be unprecedented to see an entire population try to kill itself off. That would be proof beyond a doubt that they are truly suffering beyond what humans can endure; that they prefer death. But then, if their plight were as horrible as they seem to believe, why reproduce at twice the global average? And why are Sudanese and Rwandans, who suffer far more than the Palestinians, not initiating suicide attacks against their oppressors? These are all interesting questions that usually go ignored.

Exactly. Just as there isn't a whole lot of condemnation from the west of Israel for bombing civilian settlements in time of war, either.

You’re equivocating here in an attempt to make suicide bombings of innocent bystanders somehow equivalent to conventional bombing in an attempt to kill terrorists. In what dimension of the universe does this count as good logic?

That's right. You're a far better qualified Islamist than DCP is.

Bad logic again. Ignore the fact that DCP was wrong and revert to sarcasm in an attempt to take focus off the error.

Yes, and?

And … (drum roll) …DCP was wrong. I thought the point was clear. Academics have a tendency to argue points they think are true and they imagine evidence from places it doesn’t exist in order to see their preferred models realized. This is especially true in Middle-East Studies where scholars generally strive and compete with one another in making the most PC statements possible - unfortunately DCP is no exception.

General Stonewall Jackson once asked a member of his staff why a messenger boy was late. The officer replied that the boy had been killed. Stonewall replied, "very commendable. Very commendable." Societies that value honour and duty more than "rights" have traditionally taken such a view; this is not even slightly a Muslim peculiarity.

And that’s fine since I never said otherwise.

Soooo… what’s with the fallacious argument from DCP which says Al Ghazali would not approve of current Muslim war tactics? According to DCP (emphasis mine):

Obsession with martyrdom via suicide, the intentional individual and mass murder of civilian noncombatants—these are neither traditional expressions of Muslim piety nor venerable instruments of Islamic statecraft. This is not the Islam of the poet Rumi, the theologian al-Ghazali, the philosopher Avicenna, or the scientist and historian al-Biruni.

Here is what Ghazli said:

…one must go on jihad at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need... (Al-Ghazali. Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. - English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.)

I am not arguing the amorality of these tactics, I am arguing against any attempt to paint modern Islamic killing of innocents as some kind of aberration that would be rejected by Islam’s historic figures. The agenda here was clearly to drive an enormous wedge between these acts and “true Islam.” This is not surprising since it seems this is a self-ordained mission by too many academics.

It's an extraordinary stretch to say that front-line soldiers are "the same as suicides,"

But that is precisely how it is viewed by Muslim authorities who see its justification – I am not justifying it, they are! - and it isn’t totally without merit. The purpose in both cases is to kill people on the other side; in both cases they have full knowledge of the fact that they will not be coming back alive. If someone believes they are going to die today while killing infidels, it wouldn’t really matter the means. Some might prefer suicide bombing since it is quick and painless and is ultimately more productive (killing more people) than hand-to-hand combat.

and you are adopting a mighty double standard here. Western armies used catapaults and shock troops too.

You obviously don’t understand what a double-standard is; quite surprising from someone who is thought to be good at logic. You’re diverting. I never said anything about the merits, of lack thereof, of the tactics of “western armies.”

Will you argue from that fact to the conclusion that Christianity causes suicide bombing, or not?

You cannot possibly be this ignorant. You are not aware of the fact that Christianity and Christendom are not the same? Please say it ain’t so, before you lose whatever reputation asbestosman has managed to salvage for you.

There is a large Christian minority among Palestinian arabs

They used to represent about 10% of the population but now around 1-2%. According to David Rosenberg, “The Christian community in the West Bank is close to extinction." (The Christian Exodus, The Jerusalem Report, Nov. 15, 1990)

But I guess it takes a rhetoric… er, I mean, “logic” expert to see through the haze of reality to find a “large minority” somewhere in there.

and they have contributed a number of suicide bombers also. Yes, even without the lure of 72 virgins for their personal pleasure.

I have heard this before but only by internet apologists for Hamas. Nobody thus far has been able to document any specific cases for me. Would you care to do us the honors? I hope the example is not a Timothy McVeigh “Christian.”

Incidentally, DCP was also wrong when he and Hamblin, immediately after 9-11, wrote up a piece that referred to Timothy McVeigh as a Christian. This was their poor way of saying Christians have terrorists too. Too bad for them their only example ended up not being a Christian.

And perhaps it might give you some pause to consider that the most famous group of men to have flown planes into targets weren't shouting "Allah akbar," they were screaming "banzai!"

And alas, a straw man from our resident logic specialist. Who would have thunk it?