British Author calls Militant Islam a "poisonous death cult"

[Christians4LessGvt]

Martin Amis in fresh attack on Islamists
By Nigel Reynolds
12/10/2007



The novelist Martin Amis renewed his attack on militant Islam last night, calling it a "poisonous death cult" and "a murderous ideology".
 
Undeterred by the recent attack on him by the Marxist academic Terry Eagleton, who compared Amis's views to those of a "British Nationalist Party thug", the novelist was critical of Western liberals who did not condemn outright an extreme idology that, he said, sought to murder apostates and beat women.

Amis said that some in the West could not or would not see that extreme Islam was "an armed doctrine that radically reduced the value of human life".

Taking part in a discussion in London at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, the author of novels including London Fields and Money said that moderate Muslims who failed to take on extremists "tacitly legitimise the extreme position".

Amis compared Islamic fundamentalism to Naziism, Trotskyism and Maoism and said that he feared the West was in for a long war against al-Qa'eda.

He said of suicide bombing: "It's a pathetic spiritual act. It signifies nothing and it's done for vulgar gain. It is the most disgusting sophistry."

The author declined to respond to a question about Professor Eagleton's attack on him.

The Marxist critic also described the novelist's father, the late Sir Kingsley Amis, as "a racist, anti-Semitic boor, a drink-sodden, self-hating reviler of women, gays and liberals".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/12/nterror512.xml

[_JS]

LOL

Martin Amis? Are you serious?

I love how you guys use anyone who agrees with you to make your point. Is it that he's British that makes him more credible? 

Let's check out some Martin Amis thoughts and see what he thinks, shall we?

Bush & Texas

All US presidents ? and all US presidential candidates ? have to be religious or have to pretend to be religious. More specifically, they have to subscribe to "born again" Christianity. Bush, with his semi-compulsory prayer-breakfasts and so on, isn't pretending to be religious... We hear about the successful "Texanisation" of the Republican party. And doesn't Texas sometimes seem to resemble a country like Saudi Arabia, with its great heat, its oil wealth, its brimming houses of worship, and its weekly executions?

Invading Iraq

The surest way by far of finding out what Iraq has is to attack it. Then at last we will have Saddam's full cooperation in our weapons inspection, because everything we know about him suggests that he will use them all. The Pentagon must be more or less convinced that Saddam's WMDs are under a certain critical number. Otherwise it couldn't attack him.

On Reagan

What is this televisual mastery of Reagan's? It is a celebration of good intentions and unexceptional abilities. His style is one of hammy self-effacement, a wry dismay at his own limited talents and their drastic elevation.

On America

Never content just to be, America is also obliged to mean; America signifies, hence its constant and riveting vulnerability to illusion.

The best thing about British Society?

The best thing has been to find myself living in what, despite its faults (despite a million ills), is an extraordinarily successful multi-racial society. This is a beautiful idea, with a good chance of becoming a beautiful reality, too.

On Snobbery

I think snobbery ought to make a comeback. Not the old "class" shit but mental and verbal snobbery. Sometimes snobbery is forced upon you. So let's have a period of exaggerated respect for rationality; and let's look down on people who use the words everybody else uses. Funnily enough, Princess Diana was also the princess of second-hand speech, of mouldering novelties, of what might be called herd-words. Seen it, done it, got the T-shirt. Had a banana - I don't think so.

[Mr_Perceptive]

I have met, talked to and even briefly lived with moderate Muslims. I have been stationed in Muslim countries many times.

Are there mdoerate Muslims? Yep. Are they generally concerned about the more radical of their brethren? Yep. Do they meet regularly on how to address this problem? Yep. Are they genuinely concerned about the repercussions with the West? Yep. Do they discuss possible ways to reign in their more radical brethren? Yep. Are they concerned about thier more redical brethren's misconceptions on the Quran? Yep. Do they effectively reign in their more radical brethren? No.

[_JS]

Do they effectively reign in their more radical brethren? No.

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

[BT]

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

Why?

The subject is radical islam.

When discussing the problem of wild packs of dogs in a neighborhood is it necessary to take a head count of outside cats?

I don't think so.

[_JS]

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

Why?

The subject is radical islam.

When discussing the problem of wild packs of dogs in a neighborhood is it necessary to take a head count of outside cats?

I don't think so.

False analogy. You're looking for a solution.

In this case it is that an extremist minority of Muslims use their religion for terrorism. One proposed solution is to force moderate Islam to go after its own extremism. The obvious question is, has that worked well in any other religion?

With your comparison it would be analagous to this:

A. Our city is faced with a feral dog problem.
B. Comissioner Jim Bob proposes that we pick up trash more often to reduce possible food attraction for the feral dogs.
C. Ah, but Hooterville tried that and did it work well?

A perfectly reasonable question. It is asked all the time, especially at the ground services level by both public and private sector.

[BT]

Jim Bob proposed a possible solution. Seeing if that solution has worked in other jurisdictions is valid.


But it doesn't address the problem at hand nor focus on it. The focus is shifted to a possible solution. In an ideal world where folks aren't jockeying for position and trying to leave a thumbprint on any step of the process,the problem needs to be defined.

In this case Radical Islam.

What is it.

What if any legitimate grievances do they have?

Are they rectifiable?

Is support from their host group soft or entrenched?

What steps up to including force are necessary to change the thinking of the radicals?



 

[Richpo64]

>>Why? The subject is radical islam. When discussing the problem of wild packs of dogs in a neighborhood is it necessary to take a head count of outside cats? I don't think so.<<

Excellent anaolgy.

Once again we see the template. The left simply doesn't seem to be able to honestly discuss muderous radical  Muslim's without disparraging Christianity. Perhaps it's because these Muslims hate Christians as much as they do? Who knows.

As for Muslim's discussing how to remove the threat of thier more zelous brothers, I'd love to see it. I see of few, mostly women, actually addressing it in the open. I see no mass movement, which I believe is the only way to stop the madness.

[Mr_Perceptive]

Do they effectively reign in their more radical brethren? No.

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

I am more conerned when a religion, whatever its name/title, is behind a 9-11 event. If you are not, then you are simply not patriotic.

[_JS]

Do they effectively reign in their more radical brethren? No.

I think the appropriate question is: does any religion?

I am more conerned when a religion, whatever its name/title, is behind a 9-11 event. If you are not, then you are simply not patriotic.

Oh, I'm not patriotic. As Ambrose Bierce once wrote:

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first.

[BT]

I am more conerned when a religion, whatever its name/title, is behind a 9-11 event. If you are not, then you are simply not patriotic.

Are you saying a religion was behind 9-11?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The debate is whether Martin Amis is qualified to hang unpleasant epitaphs on those he does not like, ie "Militant Muslims", and whether said epitaph is deserved.

I don't see this as a very useful dialogue.

Will his epitaph solve any problems, or cause anyone else to solve them?  I can't see how.

as they say, "Sticks and Stones,
"may break my Bones,
and they'll break yours,
just as easy.

Or however the saying goes...


 

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I see no mass movement, which I believe is the only way to stop the madness.

============================================================
Explain a bit how a mass movement would stop militant Islam.

Would you surround the mosques and issue catcalls, threats, or make other sounds?

Would you use your mass movement to 'vote them off the island' as it were?

Also  important, how many people would have to be in  the "mass" before you (and perhap the omnipresent frog in your pocket) might join?

[Christians4LessGvt]

I love how you guys use anyone who agrees with you to make your point.

uh?

attack the messenger/source not the message?

typical

i don't care about someone's views on asian food are if we are discussing mexican food and we both like mexican food

what does all that crap you posted have to do with radical islam the topic of my post?

nice try at attempting to change the subject

yeah we are discussing X....so bring up Y

i may not agree with my doctor's views on nationalized healthcare, but that doesn't mean I won't let him give treat me.


"Is it that he's British that makes him more credible?"

what?

the british face a huge problem with muslim immigrants and their perspective can be unique
in other words....many all over the world....are waking up to this radical islam vs. the religion of peace crap!

[_JS]

Yes, the British do face quite a different problem than we do.

My point was that you have no idea who Amis really is or are at all familiar with his writing. I suspected so when I first caught the author's name in your article. He would no more agree with you and your right wing views than you would with Tee.

Amis is a very outspoken secularist. In his eyes the entire issue of Islam (as well as Christianity, Judaism, etc) is ultimately ridiculous.

More than that, he often makes very shocking comments and then watches for the response. It is what he does. I'm not attacking him at all. I don't agree with everything he says, but he'd be much more interesting to debate than you. And a hell of a lot less pedestrian in his views.

What I note as interesting is that you, Rich, and others use anyone to make your points. It is like Rich using a vehemently anti-Catholic group and Cal Thomas to sputter his anti-Islam. Here, you are doing the same, except you're using a very adamant anti-religious author to try and pass off your viewpoints.

I find it fascinating. Not even close to convincing, but fascinating from a sociological view.