Anti-Muslim ,Dutch MP barred from Britain whilst Swedish anti-semite welcomed

[graffic]

Other leaders welcomed into the House Of Lords include members of Hizbullah and fundamentalist Egyptian zealots.

I believe in free speech and I think the dutch man with his backward views should have been allowed into Britain to show his video to a small number of politicians in the House Of Lords.

No matter how vile they were, so long as they do not incite violence there should not be an issue, which they didn't.

The problem with the decision was that it was heavily authoritarian and a stab in the chest for free speech.

Another inconvenient truth is that the government is much softer on letting in fundamentalist muslims to preach vile racism.

I hate to say this but I believe we are scared of challenging Islam in this country. Ben Elton commented on this and got shut down in parts of the liberal press and wrongly labelled "Islamophobic".

It's not about muslims, it's about a growing backward faith which is threatening freedom. Whether it's christianity, hinduism or whatever. Today it's Islam and people should not be afraid to say that the Koran sucks.

All religions are bad but it's a clear double standard when faiths get treated differently.

[BobKKKindle$]

I hate to say this but I believe we are scared of challenging Islam in this countryThen you need to open your eyes more instead of coming out with reactionary prejudices like this, which echo the claims of far-right groups such as the BNP. Almost the whole of the British press agreed to publish the Mohammad cartoons that were originally created by a Danish newspaper in 2006, despite the fact that these cartoons did nothing to encourage honest and open debate about Islam and merely gave additional legitimacy to the widespread prejudices against Muslims which represent one of the last acceptable forms of racism in British society, particularly since the initiation of the 'War on Terror'. There are still cases of violent attacks against mosques, such as the Shajala mosque incident in 2005 (link (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-leaders-warn-of-mounting-islamophobia-after-attacks-on-mosques-498493.html)) and a similar incident in Manchester the following year (link (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/226/226178_thugs_in_mosque_attack.html)) and Muslims continue to face discrimination in their daily lives. In respect, Britain is following a general trend that can also be observed in other European countries, such as France, where both teachers and students are now banned from wearing the hijab and other religious garments inside schools.

[graffic]

Okay, first off Muslims are not a race of people. It has nothing to do with racism.

And how exactly is it a reactionary prejudice?

What is reactionary about attacking a backward religious faith?

It's racist to attack Islam but attacking Judaism is fine.

Thats the double standard that needs to be erased.


I think its good teachers don't wear the hijab. You need to see a teachers face when they are teaching you.

I don't know about you but I enjoy living in a liberal, democratic society where secularism comes first.

[BobKKKindle$]

Okay, first off Muslims are not a race of people. It has nothing to do with racism.In western societies such as the UK, the Muslim community generally corresponds closely with certain ethnic groups within the immigrant community, such as immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, and so the effect of encouraging unsupported myths about what Muslims believe (for example, claiming that Muslims want all non-believers to be put to death, or that Muslims condone terrorist attacks when they are carried out in the name of their religion against civilian targets) is to legitimize racism. It is entirely possible for a policy or set of attitudes to be implicitly racist even if they do not directly target a specific ethnic group.


What is reactionary about attacking a backward religious faith?Intellectual discussion is not the preferred method of attacking Islam in western societies. In fact, opponents of Islam tend to do other things, like carrying out attacks against mosques, and organizing local campaigns against the construction of new mosques on the grounds that allowing construction to take place would lead to the community's traditional culture and values being disrupted and replaced with a foreign belief-system. The reason for this is that opposition to Islam is not intellectual and secular in nature - it is bound up with opposition to immigrants and multiculturalism. In some ways, this is nothing new, as western hostility towards Islam and the essentialist characterization of Muslims have always been prominent features of cultural discourse, as Edward Said explained in 'Orientalism'.


It's racist to attack Islam but attacking Judaism is fine. Attacking Jews is also unacceptable, but the fact of the matter is that, in the context of the 'War on Terror', Muslims are the main targets of prejudice in western societies. This is partly why the BNP's publications are now devoid of antisemitism and they proudly publicize the fact that they have several Jewish members of the party.


I think its good teachers don't wear the hijab. You need to see a teachers face when they are teaching you.Actually, the hijab generally leaves the whole of the face open, as it's main purpose is to hide the hair. In any case, the debate over government restrictions of the hijab has never been about the competence of teachers as there is no reason to assume that just because a teacher decides to wear a hijab she will not be able to impart knowledge - the supporters of restrictions have always claimed that wearing the hijab could be seen as promoting Islam in the classroom, despite the fact that members of other faiths are still allowed to wear religious symbols such as crucifix necklaces, and in Germany it is customary for schools to have a cross fixed to the wall of each classroom. These restrictions are fueled by and serve to promote islamophobia, and that is why it is so disgraceful that various left-wing groups have chosen to support such government intrusion.

[Demogorgon]

Okay, first off Muslims are not a race of people. It has nothing to do with racism.

What exactly is a race of people? I hope you don't think it is anything biological. Race is really whatever society defines it as and society in the west plainly defines Muslims as a race and the intolerance is suffered as a result.

Anyway as for this case, both should have been let in and after the experience with Wilders, people should be throwing up their arms in thanks that this guy was allowed in without trouble, after all Wilders would have gotten no publicity at all had he been allowed in, but got vast amounts for being refused. Do you want the anti-semite to get that kind of publicity?

[graffic]

In western societies such as the UK, the Muslim community generally corresponds closely with certain ethnic groups within the immigrant community, such as immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, and so the effect of encouraging unsupported myths about what Muslims believe (for example, claiming that Muslims want all non-believers to be put to death, or that Muslims condone terrorist attacks when they are carried out in the name of their religion against civilian targets) is to legitimize racism. It is entirely possible for a policy or set of attitudes to be implicitly racist even if they do not directly target a specific ethnic group.

It's not about tarring all Muslims with the same fundamentalist brush.

Of course there is a clear distinction between islam and islamism.

I still can't see how you have connected racism with attacking a faith. The point is people should not be scared to stand up and say "Islam is shit" or "Christianity is shit".

The former would cause huge public outrage whereas the latter would cause nothing. This to me is a double-standard. It doesn't matter what rhetoric the BNP uses, I don't see how this has anything to do with the point.



Intellectual discussion is not the preferred method of attacking Islam in western societies. In fact, opponents of Islam tend to do other things, like carrying out attacks against mosques, and organizing local campaigns against the construction of new mosques on the grounds that allowing construction to take place would lead to the community's traditional culture and values being disrupted and replaced with a foreign belief-system. The reason for this is that opposition to Islam is not intellectual and secular in nature - it is bound up with opposition to immigrants and multiculturalism. In some ways, this is nothing new, as western hostility towards Islam and the essentialist characterization of Muslims have always been prominent features of cultural discourse, as Edward Said explained in 'Orientalism'.

That sucks that there is violence against Mosques. The guy from holland wasn't doing or inciting that though.

And people rightly have a problem with an oppressive religion flourishing around them.

Whether they were Mormons or Hindus, it wouldn't matter, people would still be unhappy about a rapid growth of something they think is untrue and oppressive.

I support multi-culturalism. In order to have a multi-cultured state all cultures should get the same equal treatment. You can bash Islam and you can bash Judaism. Freedom of speech is strongly connected to multi-culturalism.

The problem today is that you can scream and shout about Jesus but when you scream and shout about Mohammed you are instantly labelled "islamophobic" or even worse "racist".

[RGacky3]

Almost the whole of the British press agreed to publish the Mohammad cartoons that were originally created by a Danish newspaper in 2006, despite the fact that these cartoons did nothing to encourage honest and open debate about Islam and merely gave additional legitimacy to the widespread prejudices against Muslims which represent one of the last acceptable forms of racism in British society, particularly since the initiation of the 'War on Terror'.

So? Its a cartoon, would you protest an offensive picture of Jesus? I doubt it, why the double standard?


In respect, Britain is following a general trend that can also be observed in other European countries, such as France, where both teachers and students are now banned from wearing the hijab and other religious garments inside schools.

Which I agree is rediculous and unfree, then again European governments tend to not really understand 'free speach' most of them are just for free speach that liberal people don't find offensive. Which is'nt free.


In western societies such as the UK, the Muslim community generally corresponds closely with certain ethnic groups within the immigrant community, such as immigrants from the Indian sub-continent, and so the effect of encouraging unsupported myths about what Muslims believe (for example, claiming that Muslims want all non-believers to be put to death, or that Muslims condone terrorist attacks when they are carried out in the name of their religion against civilian targets) is to legitimize racism. It is entirely possible for a policy or set of attitudes to be implicitly racist even if they do not directly target a specific ethnic group.

That does'nt make them a race, there are black muslims and white muslims, is critizising Catholicism racist? Considering in California most Catholics are Latino?


The reason for this is that opposition to Islam is not intellectual and secular in nature - it is bound up with opposition to immigrants and multiculturalism.

That may or may not be true depending on the person, but either way, that does'nt justify taking away free speach.

[synthesis]

So? Its a cartoon, would you protest an offensive picture of Jesus? I doubt it, why the double standard?

In a predominately Christian society, an offensive representation of Jesus is not the same as one of Mohammed. It has entirely different connotations and I am surprised that you would even need to ask this question.

[RGacky3]

In a predominately Christian society, an offensive representation of Jesus is not the same as one of Mohammed. It has entirely different connotations and I am surprised that you would even need to ask this question.

What are the connotations with Mohammed? Both are mocking the religion. Why does the predominance of one religion change the connotations?

[synthesis]

What are the connotations with Mohammed? Both are mocking the religion. Why does the predominance of one religion change the connotations?

Mocking Jesus in a Christian environment equates to mocking your own traditional society. Mocking Mohammed in a white, Christian environment with a lot of poor Muslim immigrants generally translates to "we should deport or do bad things to those nasty brown people and their silly/hateful foreign ways of life." I'm honestly a little embarrassed, having to spell this out for you.

You can't win a community over by trashing on them from an outsider's perspective. I can mock Christianity because, growing up, I went to church every Sunday and I know exactly who my audience is. The correct solution to Islamic intolerance is fostering free-thinking within their own society, not self-righteously enforcing it from the outside.

[RGacky3]

Mocking Mohammed in a white, Christian environment with a lot of poor Muslim immigrants generally translates to "we should deport or do bad things to those nasty brown people and their silly/hateful foreign ways of life."

So its only not racist to mock religions that are dominant, and are made up of mostly white people (which I doubt is the case with christianity)?

Mocking mohammed would NOT be racist in Saudi Arabia, however, when its done in Denmark its racist? Simply because of the enviroment? BTW since when did muslim equal "brown people" the joke was on Muslims, not Arabs, or Persians, or Pakistanis, the attack was on the religion, which is part of Muslims way of life, which they believe IS hateful and silly.


You can't win a community over by trashing on them from an outsider's perspective. I can mock Christianity because, growing up, I went to church every Sunday and I know exactly who my audience is. The correct solution to Islamic intolerance is fostering free-thinking within their own society, not self-righteously enforcing it from the outside.

I agree 100%, but let me remind you, it was a ... CARTOON. I don't think he was trying to win them over, I think he was trying to make a Cartoon.

You don't need a lisence to mock something, just because you did'nt experience it does'nt mean your not allowed to mock it, its comedy, not scholarly books.

Even if he was blatently just being racist, freedom of speach requires he is allowed to be that way. But he was'nt.

[synthesis]

Mocking mohammed would NOT be racist in Saudi Arabia, however, when its done in Denmark its racist? Simply because of the enviroment?

Well... yes. It's not as simple as you construe it to be, but that's basically it.


BTW since when did muslim equal "brown people" the joke was on Muslims, not Arabs, or Persians, or Pakistanis, the attack was on the religion, which is part of Muslims way of life, which they believe IS hateful and silly.

The attack was on Muslims. Muslims in Denmark are overwhelmingly non-white. Racists don't make the same distinctions as you have made here.

[synthesis]

One more thing.


I don't think he was trying to win them over, I think he was trying to make a Cartoon.The purpose of those cartoons was not simply entertainment. They were specifically intended as an act of disrespect towards Muslims. I cannot stress this enough. The cartoons were made specifically to challenge the Islamic tenet that the Prophet isn't supposed to be visually portrayed, and then the authors acted surprised when some Muslims treated it as the challenge that it was. The message of the cartoon was, "Your way of life ain't shit, do something." And some Muslims did something.

[RGacky3]

Well... yes. It's not as simple as you construe it to be, but that's basically it.

Racism is a motivation for doing something, you can't be accidently racist by doing something in the wrong enviroment, either your racist or your not.


The attack was on Muslims. Muslims in Denmark are overwhelmingly non-white. Racists don't make the same distinctions as you have made here.

That being the case does'nt make an attack on Muslims automatically racist. If I make a Catholic Joke here in LA am I racist against Latinos?

[danyboy27]

The attack was on Muslims. Muslims in Denmark are overwhelmingly non-white. Racists don't make the same distinctions as you have made here.


a lot of african are christian, same goes for a number of asian, if you insult jesus you dont insult black people or asian.

[synthesis]

That being the case does'nt make an attack on Muslims automatically racist. If I make a Catholic Joke here in LA am I racist against Latinos?



a lot of african are christian, same goes for a number of asian, if you insult jesus you dont insult black people or asian.

This is not a debate, and I'm not going to treat it as one. This is the application of context to events and political currents, which is apparently something both of you are incapable of doing, for whatever reason. Just try and think about what I've said and try to prove my last sentence wrong. This isn't worth any more effort on my part.

[RGacky3]

The purpose of those cartoons was not simply entertainment. They were specifically intended as an act of disrespect towards Muslims. I cannot stress this enough. The cartoons were made specifically to challenge the Islamic tenet that the Prophet isn't supposed to be visually portrayed, and then the authors acted surprised when some Muslims treated it as the challenge that it was. The message of the cartoon was, "Your way of life ain't shit, do something." And some Muslims did something.

So? He was disrespecting their religion, and what? Its freedom of speach. The message was'nt "Your way of life ain't shit, do something," it was look I'm doing something you say I"m not supposed to do. Would you support the right of a gay parade to go through a conservative town? Its pretty much the same thing. Its free speach.

[RGacky3]

This is not a debate, and I'm not going to treat it as one.

Yes it is, and a very important one at that, its about the nature of racism, and free speach.

[danyboy27]

One more thing.

The purpose of those cartoons was not simply entertainment. They were specifically intended as an act of disrespect towards Muslims. I cannot stress this enough. The cartoons were made specifically to challenge the Islamic tenet that the Prophet isn't supposed to be visually portrayed, and then the authors acted surprised when some Muslims treated it as the challenge that it was. The message of the cartoon was, "Your way of life ain't shit, do something." And some Muslims did something.

okay, first of all do you have any proof that those guy did it on purpose? that they planned that there would have massive riot, and extremely violent protest? maybe they where just pissed off about extremism and they made cartoon of mahomet beccause of that!

your not better than me to really know WHY they did those cartoon, all you can do is to express some supposition about the motive.

at worst, the guy who made the cartoon where inconscient dumbass, at worst.

[RGacky3]

okay, first of all do you have any proof that those guy did it on purpose? that they planned that there would have massive riot, and extremely violent protest? maybe they where just pissed off about extremism and they made cartoon of mahomet beccause of that!

Your missing the point, the guy is saying that he did it to disrespect muslims, not to cause riots.

My point is that there should be nothing legally wrong with disrespecting someones religion, and that it does'nt equate to racism, (even if it did it should'nt be illigal).

[synthesis]

Yes it is, and a very important one at that, its about the nature of racism, and free speach.

OK, you got me.


Racism is a motivation for doing something, you can't be accidently racist by doing something in the wrong enviroment, either your racist or your not.

Racism is a lot of things. You can sympathize with someone who is accidentally racist, but that doesn't make them not racist. You can be a good person and still be racist in some ways if it's something you've inherited from society.

And again, your statement that "you're either racist or you're not" is reflective of a drive to oversimplify that thoroughly permeates our mainstream political discourse. It's more complex than that, and can be very subtle at times.


That being the case does'nt make an attack on Muslims automatically racist. If I make a Catholic Joke here in LA am I racist against Latinos?

Well, it depends on the nature of the Catholic joke. If it's attacking them for not using birth control and thereby "polluting the gene pool," then obviously that would be racist. If it's a joke about burning incense, then obviously that would not be racist.



a lot of african are christian, same goes for a number of asian, if you insult jesus you dont insult black people or asian.

Again, you wish to oversimplify things to the level of a 3rd-grader. Different contexts means that comparisons like these simply don't apply.


So? He was disrespecting their religion, and what? Its freedom of speach. The message was'nt "Your way of life ain't shit, do something," it was look I'm doing something you say I"m not supposed to do. Would you support the right of a gay parade to go through a conservative town? Its pretty much the same thing. Its free speach.

Well, you have a good point there. That's often the contradiction in situations like these. The gay paraders are thinking they're just doing something they're not supposed to, while the conservative town regards it as an attack on their way of life. In some ways, it might be counter-productive, but the parade is still intended to accomplish something positive.

But you miss one key distinction. The cartoons would be more aptly compared to, say, the Westboro Baptist Church parading through San Francisco, in that they originate from the majority and are aimed at the minority. That's the big difference - Muslims in Europe are a minority, exploited for cheap labor and alienated from the majority in almost every way possible.

[danyboy27]

Your missing the point, the guy is saying that he did it to disrespect muslims, not to cause riots.

My point is that there should be nothing legally wrong with disrespecting someones religion, and that it does'nt equate to racism, (even if it did it should'nt be illigal).

but even that there is no way to know why they did it, unless they released a statement saying they did it beccause they hated muslim religion and muslim folks. hoo wait here is a statement!

"I have no problems with Muslims. I made a cartoon which was aimed at the terrorists who use an interpretation of Islam as their spiritual dynamite," he said.
The cartoonist, who describes himself as an atheist, has lived in five different safe houses since security police told him of the murder plot in November and will soon move to a sixth.

[RGacky3]

Racism is a lot of things. You can sympathize with someone who is accidentally racist, but that doesn't make them not racist. You can be a good person and still be racist in some ways if it's something you've inherited from society.

How can yoy be accidently racist? How can you accidently hate someone or think they are lesser people? Either you do or you don't, its like accidently believing on God or something.


And again, your statement that "you're either racist or you're not" is reflective of a drive to oversimplify that thoroughly permeates our mainstream political discourse. It's more complex than that, and can be very subtle at times.

It depends what you mean by racist. I take racism (real racism) seriously, its a strong word that describes people who think certain races are inherently better, or who discriminate based on race. To trivialize it by make it a broad term to describe anything that someone might take offense too is something I don't agree with. Racism is the motivatoin behind racist actions, thats why I say your either racist or your not, because its a way of thinking, a specific idea.


Well, it depends on the nature of the Catholic joke. If it's attacking them for not using birth control and thereby "polluting the gene pool," then obviously that would be racist. If it's a joke about burning incense, then obviously that would not be racist.

First of all, its a joke, so the motivation behind it would be to get a laugh, not to show one races supeeriority or something. Polluting the gene pool MIGHT be racist, if the person is implying that they are a lesser race (although most likely if its a joke he's saying it for shock value mocking racist beliefs as many comedians do). However making a Catholic joke, say something offensive about Maria, or something, is NOT racist, its offensive to catholics, thats it. Not to say its any more or less offensive, but calling those type of things racist to make the sound worse is dishonest.


The gay paraders are thinking they're just doing something they're not supposed to, while the conservative town regards it as an attack on their way of life. In some ways, it might be counter-productive, but the parade is still intended to accomplish something positive.

I agree with you, (although the gay parade might just be doing it for shock value, to show they don't care), but its all about view point, it does'nt matter if you or me think its positive or not, or offensive or not, the point is, every view point should be allowed to express it self.


The cartoons would be more aptly compared to, say, the Westboro Baptist Church parading through San Francisco, in that they originate from the majority and are aimed at the minority. That's the big difference - Muslims in Europe are a minority, exploited for cheap labor and alienated from the majority in almost every way possible.

Thats true, as a whole, but as soon as you make that distinction, saying that the only thing ok to offend is the majority, or the status quo, and the thing you not allowed to offend is the minority, your making a unjust double standard, just because Muslims are the minority in europe, and generally more poor, does'nt mean you should'nt be allowed to attack their religion, also the westboro baptist church parading through San Fran would be just as bad as a gay parade going through a conservative town, because there are a lot of gay people in parts of San Fran, and not alot of people that believe like that church in San Fran.


"I have no problems with Muslims. I made a cartoon which was aimed at the terrorists who use an interpretation of Islam as their spiritual dynamite," he said.

That may be the case, but the argument should'nt be why he made the cartoon, that should be niether here nor there, it should'nt matter.

As far as racism goes, I just think we are using different definitions, I believe racism to be a set of ideas, whereas you believe racism to be a circumstance (in a way, I don't really know how to put it), correct me if I'm wrong.

[synthesis]

How can yoy be accidently racist? How can you accidently hate someone or think they are lesser people? Either you do or you don't, its like accidently believing on God or something.http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_harlem_diners_shockingly_civil_bill_orei.html

A cop who considers himself to not be racist and yet mistakenly shoots a black man reaching for his wallet - that's much worse than a plumber who believes in a "master race."


Thats true, as a whole, but as soon as you make that distinction, saying that the only thing ok to offend is the majority, or the status quo, and the thing you not allowed to offend is the minority, your making a unjust double standard, just because Muslims are the minority in europe, and generally more poor, does'nt mean you should'nt be allowed to attack their religion, also the westboro baptist church parading through San Fran would be just as bad as a gay parade going through a conservative town, because there are a lot of gay people in parts of San Fran, and not alot of people that believe like that church in San Fran. Nobody ever said that it should be illegal to criticize Islam. The point was always that you cannot simply equivocate the ridicule of Jesus in a white, Christian environment and the ridicule of Mohammed in a white, Christian environment, especially when the Muslims in that environment are overwhelmingly racial minorities.

Just like you can't equivocate a gay parade in a homophobic nation with a WBC parade in a homophobic nation.

[danyboy27]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_harlem_diners_shockingly_civil_bill_orei.html

A cop who considers himself to not be racist and yet mistakenly shoots a black man reaching for his wallet - that's much worse than a plumber who believes in a "master race."



Nobody ever said that it should be illegal to criticize Islam. The point was always that you cannot simply equivocate the ridicule of Jesus in a white, Christian environment and the ridicule of Mohammed in a white, Christian environment, especially when the Muslims in that environment are overwhemingly racial minorities.

Just like you can't equivocate a gay parade in a homophobic nation with a WBC parade in a homophobic nation.

so, if some muslim would have made some cartoon of mohamet with a suicide belt it would have been okay?

make me thinking of the N word, if a black call another black the N word its okay, but if a withe guy say the N word in the same sitution its wrong.

[synthesis]

so, if some muslim would have made some cartoon of mohamet with a suicide belt it would have been okay?

It would have been okay with me.



make me thinking of the N word, if a black call another black the N word its okay, but if a withe guy say the N word in the same sitution its wrong.

Again, that's acceptable to me. There's no word that evokes centuries of oppression and exploitation of white people by black people, because that has never happened.

[RGacky3]

A cop who considers himself to not be racist and yet mistakenly shoots a black man reaching for his wallet - that's much worse than a plumber who believes in a "master race."


I agree it is much worse, however worse does not mean more racist, the cop could have done that out of racism, or it could have been different factors, this is Harlem, do you think that guy would have been shot had he been in Beverly Hills? A black man in Beverly Hills? Probably not, do you think a similar irresponsible cop might respond the similar way to a white biker in "peckerwood" country? Probably, I don't know. Or young Hispanic "cholo" looking guy in east LA? Perhaps.

Harlem is known to be a dangerous area, with a lot of shootings. Now was the cop justified? Not at all, should he be held accountable? Definately, was his reaction definately due to racism? No, not nessesarily. Is his reaction much worse than a racist plumbing saying dumb racist things in a bar? Of coarse.


Nobody ever said that it should be illegal to criticize Islam. The point was always that you cannot simply equivocate the ridicule of Jesus in a white, Christian environment and the ridicule of Mohammed in a white, Christian environment, especially when the Muslims in that environment are overwhemingly racial minorities.

Just like you can't equivocate a gay parade in a homophobic nation with a WBC parade in a homophobic nation.

I agree, the circumstances are different, and the effect might be different, but the principle is the same, and the motivation cannot be judged only by the circumstances.

But I do agree that the effects probably would be different.

[synthesis]

I agree it is much worse, however worse does not mean more racist, the cop could have done that out of racism, or it could have been different factors, this is Harlem, do you think that guy would have been shot had he been in Beverly Hills? A black man in Beverly Hills? Probably not, do you think a similar irresponsible cop might respond the similar way to a white biker in "peckerwood" country? Probably, I don't know. Or young Hispanic "cholo" looking guy in east LA? Perhaps.

Again, you wish to equivocate everything.

"Keith Payne (2001) and Joshua Correll et al. (2002) were among the first to publish findings, providing converging evidence from psychological experiments that when the decision must be made quickly, a black man in the United States is more likely to be mistakenly perceived as holding a gun than a white man. Eberhard and colleagues (2004) conducted similar experiments with police officers which revealed that they took longer to decide to not shoot an unarmed black target than an unarmed white target, and were quicker to decide to shoot an armed black target than an armed white target."


Harlem is known to be a dangerous area, with a lot of shootings. Now was the cop justified? Not at all, should he be held accountable? Definately, was his reaction definately due to racism? No, not nessesarily.

I think this statement proves that your definition of racism is the one that is truly impotent.


I agree, the circumstances are different, and the effect might be different, but the principle is the same, and the motivation cannot be judged only by the circumstances.

But you still have to hold people accountable for it. Very few things in this world can be defended solely on the basis of "principles."

[RGacky3]

I think this statement proves that your definition of racism is the one that is truly impotent.

I don't know what you mean by "impotent" but at least its honest.


But you still have to hold people accountable for it. Very few things in this world can be defended solely on the basis of "principles."

Not defended morally, however treating people based on principles, means you treat everyone equal under the law. IF your treating peoples rights differently based on the circumstances then you need someone who is making the judgement call whether or not something should apply.


][/B]Again, you wish to equivocate everything.

"Keith Payne (2001) and Joshua Correll et al. (2002) were among the first to publish findings, providing converging evidence from psychological experiments that when the decision must be made quickly, a black man in the United States is more likely to be mistakenly perceived as holding a gun than a white man. Eberhard and colleagues (2004) conducted similar experiments with police officers which revealed that they took longer to decide to not shoot an unarmed black target than an unarmed white target, and were quicker to decide to shoot an armed black target than an armed white target."[/QUOTE]

There are many other explinations for that then simply "racism", also those are ajust 2 studies. The fact is poor people are more likely to commit violent/street crime, and because of historical injustices, there are proportionately more poor black people in America. Now that is just one thing people take into consideration when making judgement calls, there are other things as well. I'm sure if you made a study about cops making judgement calls on shaved headed young white men, you'd find something similar. Doese that mean that the Cops purpously discriminate against shaved headed white men out of predjudice? No. Your also probably more likely to find a man more suspected in a domestic abuse case. There are many different variables, all based on different things.

Like I said, A black man wearing a suit in a rich neighborhood is not going to be treated the same way as a black man in a poor neighborhood, chances are he'll be treated similarly to a white man wearing a suit in a rich neighborhood, unless the person is racist.

[QUOTE]so, if some muslim would have made some cartoon of mohamet with a suicide belt it would have been okay? It would have been okay with me.

I guarantee you, muslims would be MUCH MUCH more offended at that, considering the muslim making the cartoon would be viewed as betraying his religion and being a hypocrite.


Again, that's acceptable to me. There's no word that evokes centuries of oppression and exploitation of white people by black people, because that has never happened.

Its not about acceptable or no acceptable. When a black man uses the word nigger refering to another black man, the intention is a friendly one. Almost always when a white man uses it refering to black person, its an attack, because it would'nt make sense for a white guy to use it in the same context as a black dude would. But is a white guy using it as an attack "acceptable," Not any less then using any other attack, the guy is trying to hurt someones feelings, trying to provoke a reaction, its not about acceptable or not. The same with a Black person using Cracker, obviously its not going to have the same effect because of history, white people were never subjegated as a race, so its not hurtful, but the point is, the intent is to hurt someone, so saying somethings acceptable or not does'nt fit.

[synthesis]

You're still oversimplifying through equivocation.


I don't know what you mean by "impotent" but at least its honest.Impotent, meaning that such a worldview is incapable of addressing the most deeply-rooted and far-reaching forms of racism in our society.


I'm sure if you made a study about cops making judgement calls on shaved headed young white men, you'd find something similar.Your certainty about this doesn't make it true. There are plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate subconscious racial bias in people with authority in this country. I feel like if I gave you twenty more such studies, you'd just say, "well, that's just a set of studies."

These are things I know to be true from personal experience (well, that of many people close to me) yet that's not a good line of argument on the Internet. So I'm doing what I can to show you why racism goes beyond what you think it does, but it's not worth that much effort.


I guarantee you, muslims would be MUCH MUCH more offended at that, considering the muslim making the cartoon would be viewed as betraying his religion and being a hypocrite.Yet that would be internal dissent, not conflict instigated by external forces which also happen to be imperialist and exploitative. Big difference.

[RGacky3]

Impotent, meaning that such a worldview is incapable of addressing the most deeply-rooted and far-reaching forms of racism in our society.

Which IS'NT racism, or more specifically, is'nt caused by racism, racism is a Cause.


You're still oversimplifying through equivocation.

How is this equivocation, I'm just pointing out the cause-effect that your claiming is'nt as clear cut and certain as you think.


Your certainty about this doesn't make it true. There are plenty of studies that clearly demonstrate subconscious racial bias in people with authority in this country. I feel like if I gave you twenty more such studies, you'd just say, "well, that's just a set of studies."

What I was pointing out is those studies don't take in many other variables that come into play in these studies, your making the cause for this to be simply racism ignores the many other variables.


Yet that would be internal dissent, not conflict instigated by external forces which also happen to be imperialist and exploitative. Big difference.

From your point of view, however form the muslims point of view chances are it would be more offensive. Also where the opinion comes from does not validate or disvalidate the opinion, nor can you assertain the motive simply by where it comes from.

You are over simplifying the circumstances by implying that any discrepencies between the races, even an attack on a religion, comes from racism, ignoring any other variables. I am saying there are other factors that come into play, not just malicious racism.

[ibn Bruce]

Of course there is a clear distinction between islam and islamism.

Please define the difference? Amongst people I talk to I rarely find anyone capable of differentiating between Shia and Sunni, let alone between a Wahhabist and a Traditionalist Sunni. Yet the defamation of Muslims is based on statements made by Salafist/Wahhabists and is defined as being a 'Muslim' issue, rather than based on the beliefs of small groups.

The cartoons depicted the Rasul'Allah SWS, the basis for the faith of ALL Muslims. This is not an attack on Wahhabists, if they wanted to do that, they could draw cartoons of Abdul ibn Wahhab, ibn Tammiya or Sayyid Qutb, but they do not. To call the Prophet Mohhamed sws a terrorist, is to call all Muslims terrorists, as he is the basis for the life of every Muslim.

The same newspaper turned away a cartoon of Christ earlier in that year because it was 'too offensive to Christians' and the man calling for the cartoons in the first place wrote a book in which he called for the Qu'ran to be publically defiled with menstrual blood. Denmark is the most racist country in Europe, with 30% saying they wish to live in all-White neighbourhoods.


Anyone who thinks 'Muslim' isnt treated like a race should try seeing the difference between wearing a khufi and a beard, and not. I'm white and I can assure you, the difference is MASSIVE. Two jobs and being called a terrorist on numerous occasions massive. And I'm not even arab or a woman! Try being either and Muslim on top!

[RGacky3]

The same newspaper turned away a cartoon of Christ earlier in that year because it was 'too offensive to Christians' and the man calling for the cartoons in the first place wrote a book in which he called for the Qu'ran to be publically defiled with menstrual blood.

That does'nt mean that the person should'nt be allowed to do that, however, if that man found himself in an alley facing a couple muslims and they were about to beat his ass, I would quietly walk by.

Heres the point, I'm trying to make, I don't support disrespecting anyone, or their religion, or their race (however I also don't think people should be identifying themselves based on race anyway), BUT, niether do I believe that disrespect should be criminalized.

So whether or not it was an attack on all muslims, whether or not it was supposed to be a joke, even whether or not it was racist, are really non issues in its legality.

Whether or not its racist is a different issue, racism is not discrimination, its discrimination based on race, so if your discriminated against because of your faith, that is wrong, just as bad as racism, but its not racism.

BTW, that person who called for the Qu'ran to be publicly defiled with menstrual blood, I would gladly watch him getting his ass beat, as I would someone who wishes to disrespect any one that way simpy to disprespect them. If someone went to the Vatican and tried to piss on the cross, or went to some other Catholic area, say in Mexico or whatever, and did that, I would feel the same way, but as far as the State getting involved? Its none of their business.

[ibn Bruce]

The thing is that such things do not occur in a vacuum. Why is it that racist hate speech is bad? Because it is offensive or incorrect? No. It is not allowed because it encourages discrimination and in some cases violence. I am yet to see anything that distinguishes between anti-Muslim hate speech and racial hate speech, as both result in violence and discrimination. There is a difference between freedom of speech and yelling 'fire' in a crowded room.

In a racist country like Denmark, such broad discriminatory falsities only further encourage descrimination.

Also notably, such people won't get their ass beat, because they afforded protection by the state.. something which in my experience, Muslims are not.

[RGacky3]

I am yet to see anything that distinguishes between anti-Muslim hate speech and racial hate speech, as both result in violence and discrimination. There is a difference between freedom of speech and yelling 'fire' in a crowded room.

One is discrimination based on religions the other is based on race. Now we can argue whether or not that makes a difference or not.

Insulting a religions is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded room, and you know that.


In a racist country like Denmark, such broad discriminatory falsities only further encourage descrimination.

Yeah, but that does'nt mean it should'nt be allowed.


Also notably, such people won't get their ass beat, because they afforded protection by the state.. something which in my experience, Muslims are not.

I agree, because Denmark, like many European countries have double standards when it comes to free speach.

[ibn Bruce]

One is discrimination based on religions the other is based on race. Now we can argue whether or not that makes a difference or not.

Happily I will state my perspective in a few statements.

I believe that there is no objective thing called 'race'.

I believe that racism relies upon the construction of false 'groupings' based upon appearance, cultural identities and belief systems in order to justify oppression.

I do not think that there is any difference between rhetoric of groupings like 'Muslims' or 'Blacks' as both are not monolithic identities, nor do either represent any 'objective' reality. Admittedly the basis for the generalisation is less tangible in one than the other, however this is offset by the fact that the grouping 'Muslims' generally comprises a majority of non-White people.


Insulting a religions is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded room, and you know that.
Literally it is not, metaphorically it is. Encouraging discrimination (yelling fire) in an already dangerous situation (crowded room).


Yeah, but that does'nt mean it should'nt be allowed.

Would you view it the same if the group in question were Black or Jewish, if stereotypical racist cartoons were printed in a public newspaper and then repeated in many other countries in support of 'free speech'?


I agree, because Denmark, like many European countries have double standards when it comes to free speach.

A Muslim's freedom to speak offers no protection. Even if the standards were universal (say what you like) it would only result in more racist bs, not less, it would also make it even harder for minorities to defend themselves.

[Wanted Man]

I can hardly feel sorry for Wilders, the MP in question. Freedom? He wants to abolish the 1st article of the Constitution, which says that all people are to be treated equally, he wants to abolish freedom of speech by banning sermons in non-Dutch languages, he wants to abolish freedom of religion by banning the construction of mosques for five years, and he wants to abolish freedom of education by banning Islamic schools for five years.

What else is there? He wants to abolish habeas corpus, and institute "administrative detention" (arresting and imprisoning people without a trial, for as long as the government wants) for anyone suspected of "terrorist activities or sympathies". He wants to ban the Koran and completely stop all immigration for five years. He wants to permit the police to use live ammunition against "football hooligans (Moroccan or otherwise), squatters, anti-globalists or other deplorable scum".

So, please hold me while I shed tears about this infringement of Wilders' freedom of speech. :crying: It is annoying though, he can put himself in an underdog role, and make it look as if he is standing up for the common man against the "leftist, multi-cultural establishment". And he has now earned himself international attention.

[Devrim]

The purpose of those cartoons was not simply entertainment. They were specifically intended as an act of disrespect towards Muslims. I cannot stress this enough. The cartoons were made specifically to challenge the Islamic tenet that the Prophet isn't supposed to be visually portrayed, and then the authors acted surprised when some Muslims treated it as the challenge that it was. The message of the cartoon was, "Your way of life ain't shit, do something." And some Muslims did something.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Muhammad-Majmac-al-tawarikh-2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Maome.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Muammad-as-youth-meeting-monk-bahira-compendium-persia-1315-edin-550.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Banul_nadir.jpg

Obviously, not all Muslims see it the same way as you do.

Devrim

[Devrim]

so, if some muslim would have made some cartoon of mohamet with a suicide belt it would have been okay? It would have been okay with me.

There are two problems with this. The first is that the term Muslim refers to a follower of a religious belief, not a member of an ethnic group, so therefor it would be logical to assume that a 'Muslim' wouldn't draw that picture.

The second is that if what you mean is somebody from a Muslim background, I doubt that any living in a Muslim country would dare to do it, as they would be scared to.

Devrim

[synthesis]

Obviously, not all Muslims see it the same way as you do.

Obviously not, and I agree that "tenet" was perhaps too strong of a word - "tradition" would have been better. But the cartoonists knew what they were doing.


There are two problems with this. The first is that the term Muslim refers to a follower of a religious belief, not a member of an ethnic group, so therefor it would be logical to assume that a 'Muslim' wouldn't draw that picture.

Well, look at the "Shopping Christ" picture in the Religion section. I don't know if the artist is Christian, and I doubt it, but if he is, it would have been easy to interpret it as: "Look what our religion has become." And it's not hard to see how a Muslim doing that picture could be interpreted similarly.


The second is that if what you mean is somebody from a Muslim background, I doubt that any living in a Muslim country would dare to do it, as they would be scared to.

Well, yes, I agree. It wasn't that long ago that secularists, atheists, free-thinkers, heretics, and blasphemers were getting killed for their beliefs and actions in Christendom - our secularism was and is an uphill battle, and I don't think the Islamic world will be any different. Ultimately I hope to see the Islamic world follow Western Europe in terms of the decline of religion, which cannot happen without some degree of internal conflict. It just isn't going to happen as a result of outside influence.

[Pogue]

I don't like the Muslim bashing in this country, its worrying and I've spoken out about it, but I think its important to make a distinction between criticsing a religion or ideology (if you apply it politically, i.e. you want an Islamic state or whatever) and critcising a people.

E.g.: Muslims are nutters - racist, reacitonary, predjudice, if I heard this I'd probably have a go at the person. Not good.

Islam is a completely illogical and reactionary religion (like the rest of them) which justifies homophobia, class collaboration etc. Just like pretty much every other religion. You can attack a belief system but not a people. When you say Muslim, it has that racial, BNP twinge, if you say you disagree with Islam, thats what I'd expect from a leftist. Obviously you have to do it in a constructive way, without just being arogant or insulting.

I don't buy into the 'We're too scared to challenge Islam' wank that you here spewed over here. Thats straight out of the tabloids and simply isn't true. Sure, like with any religion or belief system, there will be some idiots who would call for you to be killed or whatever for crticising their religion, we seen that in Christianity with the fundies (all gays should go to hell, lynchings etc) and some radical 'Muslims' (inverted because my Muslim friends say they don't consider the extremist types to be real Muslims) would be unresponsive to crticisms of Islam. But in the moajrity I find people willing to engage. I have quite a few mates who are Muslims and they've always been happy to discuss their religion constructively, and I've never had any fear discussing or challenging the religion with Muslims. I honestly think this is a typical example of mass phobia being constructed by the Mail, Sun etc and latched onto by morons who want to lament the state of society.

I suppose it could come down too, defend Muslims not Islam, because the religion is shit, like all religions, but the people, in my experience, are very nice, and yes they do suffer predjudice in this country, from the patronising hypocritical borderline Islamaphobic press and from the usual cadre of nationalist racists. See the distinction as with Jews and the persecution they received in the 30s. This idea of a race of plotting, evil people. Thats what people (BNP etc) are trying to do with Muslims, and by extension people from countries with a high Muslim population, like Arab countries. Its just them trying to veil they're hate for Asians by saying 'Oh no, we're just against their religion, which is predjudiced, we're just defending freedom, st george, sieg heil blah blah blah'. So its dangerous. If I criticised Islam, I'd make it clear I was attacking a belief system/tool of the bourgeoisie not a group of people/ethnicity.

Slighty unrelated but sort of relevant, there was this sort of like anecdote that used to go around in the 70s/80s when the NF were big, and it used to go around amongst racist British people who engaged in arguments with anti-fascists. They'd say:

'Yeh, but my friend married one of them (Asian person, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc - they weren't clever enough to realise that thse regions have about 4 dominant religions, they assumed everyone who was brown was Muslim, basically) and they make her wear the headscalf around and rarely let her out of the house!'

Too which the response was: 'Yeh right, as if your sister would marry an Asian person'

I hear fights came from that :D

It shows how dumbass the racist types are. They expected us to believe that the reason they're so predjudiced is that they experienced some sort of persecution first hand, and thats the shit they use, exgaeration, generalisation, lies, basically. So much fucking batshit bullshit ignorance, but what do you expect from BNPites.

[Devrim]

Well, yes, I agree. It wasn't that long ago that secularists, atheists, free-thinkers, heretics, and blasphemers were getting killed for their beliefs and actions in Christendom - our secularism was and is an uphill battle, and I don't think the Islamic world will be any different.

Obviously it isn't.


The Sivas massacre (Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language): Sivas Madımak Olayı or Sivas Katliamı) refers to the events of July 2, 1993 which resulted in the deaths of 37 Alevi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi) intellectuals. The victims, who had gathered for a cultural festival in Sivas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivas), Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey), were killed when a mob of radical Islamists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamists) set fire to the hotel where the group had assembled.

Devrim

[synthesis]

That whole Satanic Verses ordeal, which sparked that massacre, if I understand correctly, helped form my opinions regarding secularism in the Islamic world. I agreed with what Rushdie was trying to do, but his Western support made me uneasy in several ways.

Some people were genuinely interested in global secularism, but others used it to promote the image of an "intolerant religion", implying that it should be deconstructed with external assistance if necessary, in turn only serving to promote Western imperialism.

[Bitter Ashes]

If you're a Dutch MP who wants to show an anti-theist film then you're deported. If you're a rapper who wants to have a homphobic rally, whoops, I mean gig, then you're welcomed with open arms.
Talk about hypocracy.:rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

If you're a Dutch MP who wants to show an anti-theist film then you're deported. If you're a rapper who wants to have a homphobic rally, whoops, I mean gig, then you're welcomed with open arms.
Talk about hypocracy.:rolleyes:
Which rapper is that? Anyway, the MP is not an "anti-theist".

[Pirate Utopian]

Yeah I'm not sure most people know what type of guy Wilders is like.
I'm all for critism of any religion including islam, but he made some flimsy movie and his "critique of islam" is mostly a front for his anti-immigration and anti-arab bullshit.

Still, he should be (and if I remember it right he already is) allowed into the UK.
Free speech and all.

[Wanted Man]

For Scaeme's benefit: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1375629&postcount=37

Anyway, I think the "free speech" thing is pure hypocrisy, since Wilders is not a supporter of free speech at all. I don't support state bans on people because of their opinions. But if a Holocaust denier gets banned or jailed, I'm certainly not going to go outside and picket. The same principle applies to Wilders. Let him fight for his own rights, lord knows he's got plenty of corporate backers who would love to have a prime minister who wants to silence trade unionism, lower their taxes, etc.

The only sad thing about Wilders not being allowed into England is that it gives him more support amongst people who think he's sticking it to "the man". When in fact, he represents the most reactionary part of the ruling class.

[RGacky3]

Anyway, I think the "free speech" thing is pure hypocrisy, since Wilders is not a supporter of free speech at all.

Free speach does'nt depend on someone believing in it.


I don't support state bans on people because of their opinions. But if a Holocaust denier gets banned or jailed, I'm certainly not going to go outside and picket. The same principle applies to Wilders. Let him fight for his own rights.

I agree, but that does'nt mean that the ban is right, or justified.


If you're a rapper who wants to have a homphobic rally, whoops, I mean gig, then you're welcomed with open arms.


First of all, they are rappers, so who cares, if anyone is taking socio-political cues from rap they are idiots, the same way with cartoons.

[ibn Bruce]

I suppose it could come down too, defend Muslims not Islam, because the religion is shit, like all religions, but the people, in my experience, are very nice

Considering that being Muslim is to a large extent defined by religious adherence, how on earth does that work?

Forgive me, I feel exceedingly patronised by your post. I appreciate your good intentions, but 'everything you believe is absolute bs, but its ok because a lot of you are nice people' is fairly insulting.

I mean thank you for offering to aid our self defence, but I just thought I would let you know because you wanted to say things 'in a constructive way, without just being arrogant or insulting'.

[Devrim]

defend Muslims not IslamIn the West, it seems like a pretty good slogan to me. There is a racist campaign against Muslims, and socialist should defend the victims of any racist campaign. However, there is a tendency amongst some 'socialists' to defend Islam itself. We have seen it on this board with people quoting suras to try to show that Islam has 'socialistic tendencies'.


Considering that being Muslim is to a large extent defined by religious adherence, how on earth does that work?

But actually, it is not 'Muslims' who are being victimised in the West. It is people from the Middle East and South East Asia. As a very small personal example, my wife was in Italy last year staying in a hotel, and was told by a waiter that she was a terrorist. Now, I am sure that he didn't ask about her religious belief before saying this. In fact she is not a Muslim, she is an atheist. Though it says Muslim on her id card. Similarly, I had anti-Muslim insults thrown at me, and my family is (nominally) Christian. It is not my belief (or complete lack of it) that caused it. It was speaking Turkish in the street in Germany. Generally I don't think people ask theological questions before throwing racist insults.


Forgive me, I feel exceedingly patronised by your post. I appreciate your good intentions, but 'everything you believe is absolute bs, but its ok because a lot of you are nice people' is fairly insulting.

It is not 'OK because a lot of you are nice people'. Islam is a reactionary anti-working class ideology regardless of whether 'a lot of Muslims are nice people'.

Devrim

[benhur]

Generally I don't think people ask theological questions before throwing racist insults


Goes on to show that whether or not Islam is reactionary, an attack on Islam is usually a disguised racist attack on Muslims.

[al8]

Considering that being Muslim is to a large extent defined by religious adherence, how on earth does that work?

Forgive me, I feel exceedingly patronised by your post. I appreciate your good intentions, but 'everything you believe is absolute bs, but its ok because a lot of you are nice people' is fairly insulting.

I mean thank you for offering to aid our self defence, but I just thought I would let you know because you wanted to say things 'in a constructive way, without just being arrogant or insulting'.

Ibn Bruce, you deserve no respect for your stupid religion.

To others; See, look at what he wrote. He think he deserves automatic respect because of his atherence to a religion. No matter how you tip-toe, people like ibn Bruce are insatiable.

Sure you can sometimes have polite decussions with some, but mockery, ridicule and insults should not be off the table. They are often needed and useful, and racists have no exclusive and sole ownership of that. Maintaining isults to be solely in the domain of racists is wrong, concidering that religious people are easy to take offence and atheists have for a long time been insulting sensiblities as well as engaging in relaxed conversation all depending on the context.

[Wanted Man]

Umm, what? He didn't demand respect, he just said that he doesn't need patronising "help".

Anyway, what do you think about this topic?

[al8]

Charming Man, my view on this topic is that anti-racist struggle and anti-religious struggle should not hamper each other. And as communists we need to work towards a merger of these struggles so they can work in harmony. That entails that communists must get things right with anti-racists struggles and struggles against religion, and be at the forfront at those fights in the separate camps that fight for these causes, and seek a harmonious merger by showing example and having useful and undevisive suggestions to ways in which these strands can connect and stand stronger together.

Saying such things as "critisizing Islam is usually a racist attack" as Benhur did and having that same kind of attitude runs totally contrary to that. It is absurd, devisive and alienating towards people working in the rightful struggle against religion.

[synthesis]

There is a racist campaign against Muslims, and socialist should defend the victims of any racist campaign. However, there is a tendency amongst some 'socialists' to defend Islam itself.

In terms of the major world religions, Islam certainly doesn't stand out as progressive. If people are condemning Islam alongside other Abrahamic religions, that's totally acceptable as long as people make sure to avoid "bourgeois atheism."

But there are also leftists who have bought into the endless deluge of anti-Islamic propaganda in the West which portrays Islam as a religion that is "particularly bad." For example, some believe that Islam demands that all non-believers be killed, an argument in denial or ignorance of both the actual content of the Qu'ran (6:109, 109:6) and elementary Islamic history.

So before you castigate people for defending Islam, first ask what they are defending it against.


But actually, it is not 'Muslims' who are being victimised in the West. It is people from the Middle East and South East Asia. As a very small personal example, my wife was in Italy last year staying in a hotel, and was told by a waiter that she was a terrorist. Now, I am sure that he didn't ask about her religious belief before saying this. In fact she is not a Muslim, she is an atheist. Though it says Muslim on her id card. Similarly, I had anti-Muslim insults thrown at me, and my family is (nominally) Christian. It is not my belief (or complete lack of it) that caused it. It was speaking Turkish in the street in Germany. Generally I don't think people ask theological questions before throwing racist insults.

And yet for many ignorant people, their perception of the religion inspires and directs their racist insults. Of course, it goes both ways, but at least in the U.S., I know that if more people were educated about Islam then there would be less racism against people from predominately Muslim countries.


Islam is a reactionary anti-working class ideology

But not especially so.


Ibn Bruce, you deserve no respect for your stupid religion.

To others; See, look at what he wrote. He think he deserves automatic respect because of his atherence to a religion. No matter how you tip-toe, people like ibn Bruce are insatiable.

Sure you can sometimes have polite decussions with some, but mockery, ridicule and insults should not be off the table. They are often needed and useful, and racists have no exclusive and sole ownership of that. Maintaining isults to be solely in the domain of racists is wrong, concidering that religious people are easy to take offence and atheists have for a long time been insulting sensiblities as well as engaging in relaxed conversation all depending on the context.

Don't be a prick. If you want to convince a religious person that his religion is stupid, the policy must always be "show, don't tell". "Showing" requires dialogue and dialogue requires respect. It might feel good to be a dick, but in doing so you alienate a lot of people who you should be in solidarity with.


if anyone is taking socio-political cues from rap they are idiots

Or children. And there are plenty of idiots and children out there.


Considering that being Muslim is to a large extent defined by religious adherence, how on earth does [denigrating the religion while praising its adherents] work?

Well, it's nothing new. If you want to see how it can be done, watch this.

http://www.southparkzone.com/episode.php?vid=712

[rioters bloc]

But actually, it is not 'Muslims' who are being victimised in the West. It is people from the Middle East and South East Asia. As a very small personal example, my wife was in Italy last year staying in a hotel, and was told by a waiter that she was a terrorist. Now, I am sure that he didn't ask about her religious belief before saying this. In fact she is not a Muslim, she is an atheist. Though it says Muslim on her id card. Similarly, I had anti-Muslim insults thrown at me, and my family is (nominally) Christian. It is not my belief (or complete lack of it) that caused it. It was speaking Turkish in the street in Germany. Generally I don't think people ask theological questions before throwing racist insults.

Whereabouts do you live, Devrim? In Australia, it is definitely Muslims who are being vilified, and not just anyone who looks Arab or Indonesian. I'm not just talking about racists who abuse hijabis and men in abayas, but about the discourse that exists around Muslims in government rhetoric and policy, and within the media - this discourse is far more dangerous in my opinion than any random insult I might cop from some ignorant wanker on the street.

Not to say that ethnic minorities are not also victimised, that is of course a given, just pointing out that Muslims as a minority group are also targeted for being Muslim and not just for being (predominantly) non-white.

[benhur]

Saying such things as "critisizing Islam is usually a racist attack" as Benhur did and having that same kind of attitude runs totally contrary to that. It is absurd, devisive and alienating towards people working in the rightful struggle against religion.

Al8, I didn't mean that at all. You're right that fanatically religious people deserve no respect, whether Muslims or christians or whoever. But there are many Muslims (and other non-western people) who're totally westernized and who have absolutely no interest in religion. But because they're ethnically Muslim and have brown skin, they're being attacked by racists under the false assumption that because they're brown, they must be following Islam. In other words, they're being attacked for their skin color, NOT because they're following a reactionary religion (which they're not, btw). This attitude is wrong.

[graffic]

Saying such things as "critisizing Islam is usually a racist attack" as Benhur did and having that same kind of attitude runs totally contrary to that. It is absurd,

It's also the same as saying "criticizing Israel is usually disguised as a racist attack against Jews".

Of course this is complete bullshit.

[synthesis]

It's also the same as saying "criticizing Israel is usually disguised as a racist attack against Jews".

Of course this is complete bullshit.Actually, neither are bullshit. In the same way that many ignorant Westerners have associated all Muslims with the atrocities of a militant few who claim to be acting in the interest of all Muslims, many ignorant people elsewhere have bought into the Israeli propaganda that the government represents all Jews everywhere.

That's why you see anti-Semitism surge whenever the Israeli government conducts its latest experiment in ethnic cleansing. People who have never known any Jews in their life often associate all of them with the soldiers who participate in barbarism. In that case, yes, a criticism of Israel has been disguised, or rather devolved into a racist attack against Jews.

That's tragic for everyone - except those who profit from the conflict, whether financially or politically, although the line between those is blurry at best.

[Wanted Man]

Charming Man, my view on this topic is that anti-racist struggle and anti-religious struggle should not hamper each other. And as communists we need to work towards a merger of these struggles so they can work in harmony. That entails that communists must get things right with anti-racists struggles and struggles against religion, and be at the forfront at those fights in the separate camps that fight for these causes, and seek a harmonious merger by showing example and having useful and undevisive suggestions to ways in which these strands can connect and stand stronger together.

Saying such things as "critisizing Islam is usually a racist attack" as Benhur did and having that same kind of attitude runs totally contrary to that. It is absurd, devisive and alienating towards people working in the rightful struggle against religion.
Umm, okay. You're addressing me, but you're going off on some kind of tangent. :confused: I did not agree with what benhur said, I only responded to your attack on ibn Bruce.

I can elaborate a bit on why. It reminded me of what basically happens here. There are a lot of young children of immigrants from Morocco and other Islamic countries who "demand respect". Why? Because they're tired of being systematically targeted and seen as a "problem demographic" by the elite, its politics and its media. They want respect for who they are and where they come from, instead of living like second-class citizens.

The most common reaction from the ultra-right is something like: "You and your backwards religion don't deserve any respect until you assimilate. Just look at what you're saying: you think you deserve automatic respect. No matter what we do, you people are insatiable, you just keep demanding more." I found it funny that your post was basically a carbon-copy of a common line of argument used by the fascists.

I'm not suggesting it's the same thing. But it's a pretty obvious consequence of your prejudiced attitude. Criticism of Islam obviously isn't discriminatory, but bigotry against muslims is.

[RGacky3]

But because they're ethnically Muslim and have brown skin, they're being attacked by racists under the false assumption that because they're brown, they must be following Islam.

I don't know, are they attacking Mexicans and Hindus assuming they are Muslim? Also whats ethnically Muslim? The ethnicity is Arab, Persian, Pakistani, Afghani, Turkish, East African, North African, Slavic, and so on and so forth.

Most are attacked because they are assumed Muslim by their dress, or because they are clearly muslim.

Stop trying to make it a racist issue because racism sounds worse than discriminating based on religion.

[Devrim]

Whereabouts do you live, Devrim?

As it says on my profile Ankara, which is the capital of Turkey.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

Al8, I didn't mean that at all. You're right that fanatically religious people deserve no respect, whether Muslims or christians or whoever. But there are many Muslims (and other non-western people) who're totally westernized and who have absolutely no interest in religion. But because they're ethnically Muslim and have brown skin, they're being attacked by racists under the false assumption that because they're brown, they must be following Islam. In other words, they're being attacked for their skin color, NOT because they're following a reactionary religion (which they're not, btw). This attitude is wrong.Why would it be a good thing that people are 'westernised'? This 'Westernisation' usually involves a total selling out to everything that encapsulates Neo-Liberal Democratic values. The 'Western, Secular Muslims' I know mostly have the social consciousness of a gnat. They turn their backs on their brothers and sisters because 'getting paper makes them treat us like we almost White, almost'.


Ibn Bruce, you deserve no respect for your stupid religion.I do not believe I was asking for any respect. Regardless, I expect respect, not as a Muslim, but as a human being. If you are not willing to respect your brothers and sisters in humanity, then that is on you, not on me.


To others; See, look at what he wrote. He think he deserves automatic respect because of his atherence to a religion. No matter how you tip-toe, people like ibn Bruce are insatiable. Insatiable? Only for profiterole cake... mmh profiteroles :D

I guess I make the assumption that people will treat each other with at least a base civility, regardless of their beliefs. That is my opening assumption, if you then want to do a disservice to yourself by getting up in my face and calling my a 'stupid mfer', then I will happily leave you to your bigotry.


Sure you can sometimes have polite decussions with some, but mockery, ridicule and insults should not be off the table. They are often needed and useful, and racists have no exclusive and sole ownership of that. Maintaining isults to be solely in the domain of racists is wrong, concidering that religious people are easy to take offence and atheists have for a long time been insulting sensiblities as well as engaging in relaxed conversation all depending on the context.
Leading the revolution, one disrespected person at a time. I guess they had it all wrong, you shouldn't change peoples minds through logic and clarity, lets just call them a bunch of retards, that'll learn em!

Next time some dude calls me a towel-head and spits on me, I'll thank him, after all, he was just giving me an education.

[spice756]

The cop shot him because he is black a racist cop or he was stereotyping.

stereotyping-an oversimplified standardized image of a person or group


racist -irrational dislike or hatred, fear of a race.

racist does not =stereotyping or stereotyping does not = racist .

The cartoon was racist .Bashing a religion is not racist .But Bashing muslims and islamic is do to misinterpretation of the viewer.

[spice756]

I don't know, are they attacking Mexicans and Hindus assuming they are Muslim? Also whats ethnically Muslim? The ethnicity is Arab, Persian, Pakistani, Afghani, Turkish, East African, North African, Slavic, and so on and so forth.

Most are attacked because they are assumed Muslim by their dress, or because they are clearly muslim.

Stop trying to make it a racist issue because racism sounds worse than discriminating based on religion.

Well socialists should not be bashing religion but poiting out the problems with religion .And cartoons are stupit is not going to make people less religious if any make more wars and conflits .

Well separation of church and state is a must .People must learn to get along and religion belongs in the church and home.

The socialists should not mock or bash religion but point out the problems.

[rioters bloc]

As it says on my profile Ankara, which is the capital of Turkey.

Devrim

My bad, I should have checked :)

Anyways, just wanted to point out what the dynamics in Australia are like, and have been like especially under the Liberal Party - although I don't think that Labour party are going to be much better.

For me, racism isn't just what racists say and do to people who are "different" to them, it is a whole system that is enforced and upheld by the actions and rhetoric of governments and other powerful institutions, as well as individuals.

[al8]

Leading the revolution, one disrespected person at a time. I guess they had it all wrong, you shouldn't change peoples minds through logic and clarity, lets just call them a bunch of retards, that'll learn em!

Next time some dude calls me a towel-head and spits on me, I'll thank him, after all, he was just giving me an education.


You have a faith, end of decussion. There is nothing logical about faith. Faith is unreasonable by definition. So there is really no reason engaging with you in something you ultimatly consider worthless and unimportant. Thus you are retard. I'll say it now and I'll say it again; retard, retard, reatard.

And to emphasize what what a retard you are, you think if someone call you a retard for being a retard, that it's because of your race. It's a tacky evasion and shows how blind you really are. And what's most irritating about you being a retard is that you really don't have to be. Your like a person that can walk perfectly well on his two feet, but thinks he requires a wheelchair to move about at all times.

[rioters bloc]

You have a faith end of decussion. There is nothing logical about faith. Faith is unreasonable by definition. So there is really no reason engaging with you in something you ultimatly consider worthless and unimportant. Thus you are retard. I'll say it now and I'll say it again; retard, retard, reatard.

And to emphasize what what a retard you are, you think if someone call you a retard for being a retard, that it's because of your race. It's a tacky evasion and shows how blind you really are.

Lmao.. so eloquent.

Thanks for that, it makes it easier to write you off completely :)

[al8]

And making eloquent prose about religion would make it imposible to write me off? Which side are you on?

[benhur]

I don't know, are they attacking Mexicans and Hindus assuming they are Muslim?


Yes. Many hindus and sikhs have been attacked, especially after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, due to the mistaken brown=muslim=terrorist logic of the racists. Since majority of Muslims are brown, this is a real problem. Why else do you think Devrim and his wife were abused, even though they are westernized and hardly religious Muslims?

[benhur]

Why would it be a good thing that people are 'westernised'? This 'Westernisation' usually involves a total selling out to everything that encapsulates Neo-Liberal Democratic values.

But isn't that better than being a religious fanatic? Westerners, for instance, have a better chance of becoming socialists than people who're brought up in religious environments, like Pakistan or Saudi. Liberal values, whatever the flaws, are always superior to religious/conservative ones.


The 'Western, Secular Muslims' I know mostly have the social consciousness of a gnat.

Most of them are highly educated, contribute to society with their knowledge and skills, unlike religious bigots.


They turn their backs on their brothers and sisters because 'getting paper makes them treat us like we almost White, almost'.


Who are these brothers and sisters? And why do you associate westernization with skin color, when the former is a culture and NOT a race.

[Wanted Man]

Which side are you on?
I can't speak for her. But probably on the side of the anti-fascists who try to make a stand against bigoted witch hunts waged against muslims by people such as your fine self.

[RGacky3]

Well socialists should not be bashing religion but poiting out the problems with religion .And cartoons are stupit is not going to make people less religious if any make more wars and conflits .

Well separation of church and state is a must .People must learn to get along and religion belongs in the church and home.

The socialists should not mock or bash religion but point out the problems.

In my opinion, Socialists should'nt even be talking about religion, we should be talking about class struggle, thats our objective. Religion is a different issue.


I do not believe I was asking for any respect. Regardless, I expect respect, not as a Muslim, but as a human being. If you are not willing to respect your brothers and sisters in humanity, then that is on you, not on me.

I would hope, and I"m dead serious when I say this, that any leftist would automatically have respect for another person and his belief no matter what, I would be ashamed if a fellow wobbly was seen being disrespectful to someone else because of their beliefs. To me some of the things that should stand out about a Socialist is his respect for the dignity of other people, after all, thats part of what we are fighting for, human dignity.


stereotyping-an oversimplified standardized image of a person or group


racist -irrational dislike or hatred, fear of a race.

racist does not =stereotyping or stereotyping does not = racist .

Good point, everything cannot be labeled blatent racism.


And making eloquent prose about religion would make it imposible to write me off? Which side are you on?

Hopefully the said that does'nt disrespect other people without reason like a pompus asshole.


Yes. Many hindus and sikhs have been attacked, especially after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, due to the mistaken brown=muslim=terrorist logic of the racists. Since majority of Muslims are brown, this is a real problem. Why else do you think Devrim and his wife were abused, even though they are westernized and hardly religious Muslims?

Well then I stand corrected.

Although it could be teh case that it was a case of stereotyping a look as a religion, rather than actual racism.

[al8]

I would hope, and I"m dead serious when I say this, that any leftist would automatically have respect for another person and his belief no matter what, I would be ashamed if a fellow wobbly was seen being disrespectful to someone else because of their beliefs. To me some of the things that should stand out about a Socialist is his respect for the dignity of other people, after all, thats part of what we are fighting for, human dignity.

And you do not respect people by encouraging or tolerating nonsense in them, that is; let them stand uncorrected when wrong. That is simply cowardess and fear of necessary struggle.

[al8]

I can't speak for her. But probably on the side of the anti-fascists who try to make a stand against bigoted witch hunts waged against muslims by people such as your fine self.

Communist in Iran that had your line are in mass graves now. By muddled anti-facism you align with other reactionaries. Not good.

[RGacky3]

And you do not respect people by encouraging or tolerating nonsense in them, that is; let them stand uncorrected when wrong. That is simply cowardess and fear of necessary struggle.

What? Faith is faith, and its none of my business, its not cowardess and my struggle is'nt against faith its against class society and oppression. Your saying that their aith is nonsense, is your opinion, and thinking that their faith should'nt be tolerated is bigoted at best, and I would be ashamed to be called your comrade if thats your attitude toward other people, its a shame, we are out to help people liberate themselves against class oppression.

[ibn Bruce]

But isn't that better than being a religious fanatic? Westerners, for instance, have a better chance of becoming socialists than people who're brought up in religious environments, like Pakistan or Saudi. Liberal values, whatever the flaws, are always superior to religious/conservative ones.

The assumption is that a Muslim is either 'Westernised' or a religious fanatic. This is an extremely harmful assumption. It is assumed that the 'moderate' Muslims come in the form of 'Secular' Muslims, however that is just another form of extremism. The Middle way in the Muslim community, is the Traditionalist movement. This is not to be confused with the Extremist, reformist movement (Salafis, Wahhabis, Taliban etc.).

A misunderstanding of what constitutes religious conservatism in Islamic thought leads to the assertion that it is better that they be 'liberal'. I am a Traditionalist, conservatively religious by Islamic standards. Yet I happily embrace many of the tenets of the 'revolutionary left'. The secularists are the capitalists and the extremists are the fascists.


Most of them are highly educated, contribute to society with their knowledge and skills, unlike religious bigots.
They contribute to Capitalism and themselves. The Traditionalists I know are usually more educated. They often choose more society based professions while secularists choose business.


Who are these brothers and sisters? And why do you associate westernization with skin color, when the former is a culture and NOT a race.

Because in Australia that is what it manifests itself as: aggressive, racist cultural imperialism. The upper classes of this country are almost exclusively white. Western culture is considered by most of the world to be 'white people culture' in the same way as Islam is seen as 'brown people culture'. Broad generalisations to be sure, but on the whole understandable.



I assume that al8 is simply trolling and will not give her or him satisfaction in replying to posts with so much bigotry.

[al8]

What? Faith is faith, and its none of my business, its not cowardess and my struggle is'nt against faith its against class society and oppression. Your saying that their aith is nonsense, is your opinion, and thinking that their faith should'nt be tolerated is bigoted at best, and I would be ashamed to be called your comrade if thats your attitude toward other people, its a shame, we are out to help people liberate themselves against class oppression.

It's not just my opinion its a fact. And I am just as 'bigoted' against racism as I am against religion. They are both strands of reaction that support and consolidate class society and oppression. It is a hinderence to our struggle and should be taken head on, just as with other reaction.

That religion should be such an untouchable arena for you is as worrying as if you would have said; "My struggle isn't against racism it's against class society and oppression."

[Devrim]

Anyways, just wanted to point out what the dynamics in Australia are like, and have been like especially under the Liberal Party - although I don't think that Labour party are going to be much better.

For me, racism isn't just what racists say and do to people who are "different" to them, it is a whole system that is enforced and upheld by the actions and rhetoric of governments and other powerful institutions, as well as individuals.

Absolutely you are right. It is Muslims who are being targeted by the media and governments. It is just that when it comes down to the ground many people throwing abuse on the streets are that disconcerting about what religion people are.

BenHur has it right here:


Yes. Many hindus and sikhs have been attacked, especially after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, due to the mistaken brown=muslim=terrorist logic of the racists.

I am not quite sure about this one though:


Since majority of Muslims are brown, this is a real problem. Why else do you think Devrim and his wife were abused, even though they are westernized and hardly religious Muslims?

Are most Muslims 'brown'? I suppose from a UK perspective where most Muslims are SE Asian, it may appear that way. People in the Middle East aren't very brown. Personally I am not, and neither is my wife.

Abuse was thrown at me in Germany because I was walking in the streets speaking Turkish. I am neither a Muslim nor an ethnic Turk, the sort of people who shout things like 'dirty Muslims' and 'Turks out' tend not to check people's ethnic backgrounds before they do it. I don't imagine that the people in Solingen, politely knocked on the door to enquire if they were Turks, or Kurds, or Laz, Muslim or Alevi before they burned five women to death.

My point being that although the campaign is against Muslims, it is not only Muslims who are the victims of it.

Devrim

[Bilan]

You have a faith, end of decussion. There is nothing logical about faith. Faith is unreasonable by definition. So there is really no reason engaging with you in something you ultimatly consider worthless and unimportant. Thus you are retard. I'll say it now and I'll say it again; retard, retard, reatard.

And to emphasize what what a retard you are, you think if someone call you a retard for being a retard, that it's because of your race. It's a tacky evasion and shows how blind you really are. And what's most irritating about you being a retard is that you really don't have to be. Your like a person that can walk perfectly well on his two feet, but thinks he requires a wheelchair to move about at all times.

This is a discussion, and this sort of obnoxious personal attack is not appropriate. If you can offer a critique of the religion, or of religion generally, or whatever, please do so. But this is not an appropriate manner of doing so.

[Bilan]

The assumption is that a Muslim is either 'Westernised' or a religious fanatic. This is an extremely harmful assumption. It is assumed that the 'moderate' Muslims come in the form of 'Secular' Muslims, however that is just another form of extremism. The Middle way in the Muslim community, is the Traditionalist movement. This is not to be confused with the Extremist, reformist movement (Salafis, Wahhabis, Taliban etc.).

A misunderstanding of what constitutes religious conservatism in Islamic thought leads to the assertion that it is better that they be 'liberal'. I am a Traditionalist, conservatively religious by Islamic standards. Yet I happily embrace many of the tenets of the 'revolutionary left'. The secularists are the capitalists and the extremists are the fascists.

May I ask how you see these two are compatible (That being, Traditionalist Islam and Revolutionary Left politics)?



Because in Australia that is what it manifests itself as: aggressive, racist cultural imperialism. The upper classes of this country are almost exclusively white. Western culture is considered by most of the world to be 'white people culture' in the same way as Islam is seen as 'brown people culture'. Broad generalisations to be sure, but on the whole understandable.


The former part of this is indeed, true, and stems from the origins of "Australia" (Referring to both the colonisation of Australia, but more so to the Federation, and the principles of Federation). But this can't be seen as an actual cause of the nature of Australian society, but as interlinked with the expansion of capitalism. The fact that Australia was colonised by Anglo-Saxons is purely circumstantial (For two reasons: 1/ Other countries had their 'eye' on Australia, primarily France 2/ Capitalism developed in Europe, and the most dominant capitalist economies were those which were successful in their expansion - U.K., France, (the) Ottoman Empire, and later America).
But this can't be seen as a basis for revolutionary politics. "Race" is a construct, and is a by-product of the economic mode. Therefore revolutionary activity on purely a "racial" is incorrect (that saying, that doesn't mean racism is irrelevant), and considering that the mode of production, capitalism, is the central aspect of it, the revolutionary movement should be centred on this.

[Wanted Man]

Communist in Iran that had your line are in mass graves now. By muddled anti-facism you align with other reactionaries. Not good.
Yes, because fighting bigotry and prejudice against specific religious groups is the same thing as allying with theocrats. For someone who spends a lot of time calling religious people "retards", you certainly have a lot of backwards dogmatic views.

[ibn Bruce]

May I ask how you see these two are compatible (That being, Traditionalist Islam and Revolutionary Left politics)?

To be blunt, may I ask why you believe they are not?

I guess this is kind of what I am referring to when I talk about the generalisations that occur around Muslims. It is assumed that 'reformist' movements in the Islamic world are good, and 'conservative' movements are bad. This is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic teaching. The reformist movement, not the traditionalists are those who produce al-Qa'eda, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Jamaat-Islammiya and other such movements. These movements are far more anti-other-Muslims than they are anything else.

Answer why you think they are incompatible and I will be happy to get back to you :D


But this can't be seen as a basis for revolutionary politics. "Race" is a construct, and is a by-product of the economic mode. Therefore revolutionary activity on purely a "racial" is incorrect (that saying, that doesn't mean racism is irrelevant), and considering that the mode of production, capitalism, is the central aspect of it, the revolutionary movement should be centred on this.

So people should just stand around getting their brown butts beat, while waiting for a multicoloured revolution to save them? I am sorry, but this aspect of theory never translated well in reality for me.

[Devrim]

To be blunt, may I ask why you believe they are not?
...
Answer why you think they are incompatible and I will be happy to get back to you :D

Religious belief is incompatible with Marxist politics. It is incompatible with the historical method used. To put it quite simply how can you believe on the one hand that the working class has to struggle to become a class for itself and to exert its dominance over society, and on the other that divine intervention can change society (and in the case of Islam that everything is predestined anyway).

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

t is incompatible with the historical method used. To put it quite simply how can you believe on the one hand that the working class has to struggle to become a class for itself and to exert its dominance over society, and on the other that divine intervention can change society (and in the case of Islam that everything is predestined anyway).

My understanding of Marxism, simplistic as it is, is that it almost constitutes economic pre-determinism. Believing that structures of class and society define individual action removes individual agency. That is why Marxists believe that the fall of capitalism and the rise of socialism and then true communism is inevitable. Am I wrong?

I would also think that the revolutionary left is not purely defined by the Marxism you believe in, or Marxism at all.

If you believe that Allah Most High is the cause and the effect both, what is the problem? Also what is the contradiction? I mean no insult but I think maybe you need to hone either your knowledge of Islamic religious belief or alternatively your knowledge of what constitutes Marxism or even the Left.

[Devrim]

My understanding of Marxism, simplistic as it is, is that it almost constitutes economic pre-determinism. Believing that structures of class and society define individual action removes individual agency. That is why Marxists believe that the fall of capitalism and the rise of socialism and then true communism is inevitable. Am I wrong?

Basically yes, you are wrong. I would say that only the most crude Stalinists believe that.


I would also think that the revolutionary left is not purely defined by the Marxism you believe in, or Marxism at all.

But in general, what calls itself the 'revolutionary left' is based on the Marxist historical method.


I mean no insult but I think maybe you need to hone either your knowledge of Islamic religious belief or alternatively your knowledge of what constitutes Marxism or even the Left.

Again without trying to be rude, I think that my knowledge of both Islam and the left is reasonably well honed, and most probably much greater than yours.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

Basically yes, you are wrong. I would say that only the most crude Stalinists believe that.

So having ideas based around structural determinism doesn't equate to a complete loss of agency. It is not a critique of Marxism, I am fine with it, but everything any Marxist has said to me has been this, and you are the only one who has said otherwise.


But in general, what calls itself the 'revolutionary left' is based on the Marxist historical method.
Which does not mean that there are not vast swathes of different approaches to what constitutes someone believing in revolutionary leftist ideology.


Again without trying to be rude, I think that my knowledge of both Islam and the left is reasonably well honed, and most probably much greater than yours.

If so, mash'Allah, so tell me how a Marxist critique is incompatible with Ash'ari or Matarudi Aqidah? Or indeed how the belief in God is somehow incompatible with holding Marxist politics (seperate from belief in the Sha'riah, I am not a Marxist)?

Saying that 'Religious belief is incompatible with Marxist politics' is a big claim. And your explanation:
'It is incompatible with the historical method used. To put it quite simply how can you believe on the one hand that the working class has to struggle to become a class for itself and to exert its dominance over society, and on the other that divine intervention can change society'
was not really explanatory of the conflict you apparently see.

I asked my Sheikh, Sheikh Naeem Abdul Wali who has Ijaza to teach Aqidah, Arabic and Hanafi Fiqh about the compatibility between a Marxist political critique and a belief in the Shahada. He did not see any conflict other than when Marxism is put into practice (as apposed to its historical critique and methodology) which I do not embrace anyway.

Do you know better his religion than he? A painter knows a painting better than a photographer who takes pictures of it.

[Devrim]

If so, mash'Allah, so tell me how a Marxist critique is incompatible with Ash'ari or Matarudi Aqidah? Or indeed how the belief in God is somehow incompatible with holding Marxist politics (seperate from belief in the Sha'riah, I am not a Marxist)?

Saying that 'Religious belief is incompatible with Marxist politics' is a big claim. And your explanation:
was not really explanatory of the conflict you apparently see.

I asked my Sheikh, Sheikh Naeem Abdul Wali who has Ijaza to teach Aqidah, Arabic and Hanafi Fiqh about the compatibility between a Marxist political critique and a belief in the Shahada. He did not see any conflict other than when Marxism is put into practice (as apposed to its historical critique and methodology) which I do not embrace anyway.

Do you know better his religion than he? A painter knows a painting better than a photographer who takes pictures of it.

Sorry, but I am not interested enough to bother.

I come here to discuss politics. If I wanted to discuss theology, I would go and sit with my next door neighbour, the imam, and chat with him about it, not with some silly Western boy who has been foolish enough to convert to Islam.

Devrim

[PRC-UTE]

Other leaders welcomed into the House Of Lords include members of Hizbullah and fundamentalist Egyptian zealots.

I believe in free speech and I think the dutch man with his backward views should have been allowed into Britain to show his video to a small number of politicians in the House Of Lords.

No matter how vile they were, so long as they do not incite violence there should not be an issue, which they didn't.

The problem with the decision was that it was heavily authoritarian and a stab in the chest for free speech.

Another inconvenient truth is that the government is much softer on letting in fundamentalist muslims to preach vile racism.

I hate to say this but I believe we are scared of challenging Islam in this country. Ben Elton commented on this and got shut down in parts of the liberal press and wrongly labelled "Islamophobic".

It's not about muslims, it's about a growing backward faith which is threatening freedom. Whether it's christianity, hinduism or whatever. Today it's Islam and people should not be afraid to say that the Koran sucks.

All religions are bad but it's a clear double standard when faiths get treated differently.

funny that you're not in a huff that British army regiments openly show their support for the violently religious fundamentalist fraternity the Orange Order.

only when it's 'wogs', I guess.

[ibn Bruce]

Sorry, but I am not interested enough to bother.

I come here to discuss politics. If I wanted to discuss theology, I would go and sit with my next door neighbour, the imam, and chat with him about it, not with some silly Western boy who has been foolish enough to convert to Islam.Sorry, I thought you were the one who brought it up? :S

[Bilan]

To be fair Ibn, he is quite alot older (assuming you're the same age as RB :p), and as it says on his profile, from Turkey. I wouldn't push it. :p

Although, I think this is one part of it:




The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjection. They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.



The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.



Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely,[32] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#32) value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour time by the magnitude of that value.[33] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#33) These formulæ, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulæ appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.[34] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#34)


If Devrim can be bothered, he could probably do a better, more consistent analysis which is more related to Islam than the above quote from Marx.

[ibn Bruce]

To be fair Ibn, he is quite alot older (assuming you're the same age as RB http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif), and as it says on his profile, from Turkey. I wouldn't push it. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_tongue.gif

I'm older than her :D but only by a little bit. I find my debates with Turks to be just as productive as my debates with anyone else lol, I should get my Sheikh to come on and throw down in the lingo lol.




Although, I think this is one part of it:

None of those things at all address Islam. Either in form or belief. Critiques that are aimed at Christianity miss Islam completely, because in form and theology there are almost no similarities. If there is a quote by Marx about Judaism it might be easier for me to engage with..

[graffic]

Marxism and religious faith are compatible :lol::lol:

[graffic]

funny that you're not in a huff that British army regiments openly show for t their support he violently religious fundamentalist fraternity the Orange Order.

only when it's 'wogs', I guess.


No, not at all, that is equally bad.