Discussion on Muslim workers split from factory occupation

[cyu]

how does the person who posted it here know that these workers are Muslims? Certainly, some of them seem to be wearing headscarves, but judging from the pictures and the article (the word 'many' not 'most') it seems to be a minority.

From the article: "The workers present, overwhelmingly women (many wearing the traditional Islamic headscarf)" - true this doesn't imply that most were Muslim, but even if most weren't Muslim, the fact that Muslim women are partipating in the occupation means the headline is technically correct.

Anyway, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia: "Based on the 2000 census, approximately 86.1% were Muslims." I'd say with demographics like that, in all likelihood, they are in fact mostly Muslims.

As for why I put "Muslim women" in the headline - well, this is a mostly English forum. As it turns out, most English-speaking countries have a certain view of Muslim women that is almost completely different from what is described in this article - so yeah, it's a bit of sensationalism to put it in the headline - if I just said "Indonesian garment workers", that's pretty boring, and I'd personally get tired of seeing stuff like that after a while. Sometimes you have to emphasize the unusual or interesting bits if you want people to listen to your propaganda - which isn't to say people on revleft aren't automatically interested in stuff like this - that statement was more directed at people who would want to spread stuff like this to the general population.

[al8]

As if the workers took direct inspiration from Imams and scripture. Nonesense. It's despite all that crap and that's great. All power to them.

[Devrim]

From the article: "The workers present, overwhelmingly women (many wearing the traditional Islamic headscarf)" - true this doesn't imply that most were Muslim, but even if most weren't Muslim, the fact that Muslim women are partipating in the occupation means the headline is technically correct.

Anyway, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia: "Based on the 2000 census, approximately 86.1% were Muslims." I'd say with demographics like that, in all likelihood, they are in fact mostly Muslims.

Again, it comes down to what the word 'Muslim' means. Does it mean somebody who comes from that particular religious background or does it mean somebody who believes in that religion?

Your statistics are pretty meaningless. In our country, for example 99.9% of the population are officially Muslim, including according to their identity cards every single member of our political organisation except myself. Of course they are not Muslims at all. They are communists.


Sometimes you have to emphasize the unusual or interesting bits if you want people to listen to your propaganda

Except, I don't find it that interesting because actually it isn't unusual at all. There are strikes involving women in 'Muslim' countries all the time.

I personally find the whole attitude towards 'Muslims' incredibly patronising.

Devrim

[benhur]

I am sure the OP had good intentions while starting this thread, but for some of us, it comes across as a little patronizing toward Muslims. It's like saying, "Hey look, us leftists were saying Muslims weren't ready for socialism. Looks they're not so bad after all, considering what happened in Indonesia."

See what I mean?

Either leftists go to extremes and defend every Islamic reactionary with zero critical analysis, or they antagonize moderate Muslims with such condescending behavior. And we wonder why we don't make friends.:rolleyes:

[al8]

Moderates are nothing but a shield and propagation catalyst for the genuines, i.e the extremists.

[al8]

I never said anything of 'evil'. I'm just decribing their function. That they are so cuddly and likeble is all part of the strategy of keeping religion relevant and socially acceptable. And it's done because, unfortunatly, it seems to work.

The thing is not to get duped. One wouldn't trust a moderate racist or facist that were very nice guys, polite, that had a very liberal reading of Mein Kampf, taking almost everything as a metaphor, etc. I highlight this because we do not get bamboozeled the same way by other reactionaries. Why does it all of a sudden become different when it comes to religion?

[ibn Bruce]

Moderates are nothing but a shield and propagation catalyst for the genuines, i.e the extremists.

So, according to your tag-line, I guess that would make the centre-left your shield?

[al8]

So, according to your tag-line, I guess that would make the centre-left your shield?

I'm not so sure of that. Could you begin please by being more specific with what you refer to as center-left? Do you have in mind a communist spectrum or the bourgeois parlimentarian spectrum?

[cyu]

it comes down to what the word 'Muslim' means. Does it mean somebody who comes from that particular religious background or does it mean somebody who believes in that religion?


Don't ask me - ask the census takers there - after all, I'm just quoting data from their census. There's also the matter of degree - here, for example, there are some people who go to church every Sunday. Others only go during Christmas and Easter. Some never attend church at all but still say they believe in Jesus. Are they all Christian?


I don't find it that interesting because actually it isn't unusual at all. There are strikes involving women in 'Muslim' countries all the time.

Exactly. That is because you live in Turkey and I live in the US. We hear about different things. You write for your audience - I write for mine. In the US, when we hear the word "Muslim" in the news, it is usually followed by words like "terrorist" or "suicide-bomber". So a story mentioning Muslims and workplace democracy - well, that's something unusual - maybe not for your audience, but for mine.


I personally find the whole attitude towards 'Muslims' incredibly patronising.

What if I had left out the word "Muslim" and just said "Women assume democratic control of factory" - would women find that patronizing? What if it said "Garment workers assume democratic control of factory" - would garment workers find that patronizing? What if it said "Indonesians assume democratic control of factory" - would Indonesians find that patronizing?

[cyu]

As if the workers took direct inspiration from Imams and scripture. Nonesense. It's despite all that crap and that's great. All power to them.


Probably not - from the article itself, it sounded more like plain old trade union activity to me, that then escalated. However, that doesn't mean all interpretations of Islam would call for their submission to the capitalists.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anarchism

Muslim anarchists believe that only Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) has authority over humanity and reject a submissive compliance to the fatwas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) of Imams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam), relying instead on the concept of Ijtihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad) for a non-authoritarian interpretation of Islam. This is further elaborated by the Islamic concept of "no compulsion in religion".

[Devrim]

Exactly. That is because you live in Turkey and I live in the US. We hear about different things. You write for your audience - I write for mine. In the US, when we hear the word "Muslim" in the news, it is usually followed by words like "terrorist" or "suicide-bomber". So a story mentioning Muslims and workplace democracy - well, that's something unusual - maybe not for your audience, but for mine.

What if I had left out the word "Muslim" and just said "Women assume democratic control of factory" - would women find that patronizing? What if it said "Garment workers assume democratic control of factory" - would garment workers find that patronizing? What if it said "Indonesians assume democratic control of factory" - would Indonesians find that patronizing?

The reason I found the it patronising is explained in the the first of your paragraphs quoted above.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Probably not - from the article itself, it sounded more like plain old trade union activity to me, that then escalated. However, that doesn't mean all interpretations of Islam would call for their submission to the capitalists.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anarchism

Muslim anarchists believe that only Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) has authority over humanity and reject a submissive compliance to the fatwas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) of Imams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam), relying instead on the concept of Ijtihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad) for a non-authoritarian interpretation of Islam. This is further elaborated by the Islamic concept of "no compulsion in religion".

I have never met a 'Muslim anarchist' and would go as far as to say it is a contradiction in terms, nor does you link refer to any 'Muslim anarchists'.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

i think western leftists have a tendency to treat muslim people as defenseless cultural artifacts. i agree with devrim. the other day i was talking to my dad (who is kindof a muslim but not really- he is middleeastern) about the episode where that guy threw a shoe at bush in iraq. everyone thought this was so deep and profound and tried to culturally analyze it. you know, people bsing about how the heel of the shoe means something really bad in islam or whatever. he said that he probably just threw it because it was the only thing he had that was throwable.

muslim folk arent as different from westerners as they might think. this thread reeks a little of orientalism.

[black magick hustla]

I have never met a 'Muslim anarchist' and would go as far as to say it is a contradiction in terms, nor does you link refer to any 'Muslim anarchists'.

Devrim

i am sure they exist but probably in very academic circles. You know, like the muslims who make a political defense of homosexuality by giving a really odd interpretation of the quran.

[cyu]

I have never met a 'Muslim anarchist' and would go as far as to say it is a contradiction in terms


Someone who grew up in the US probably doesn't know as much about Islamic theology as someone who grew up in Turkey, but some might say it is not a contradiction in terms because of the concept of tawhid. Perhaps not in terms of defying all authority, but at least in terms of defying human authority.

I've never met a supporter of liberation theology either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Oscar Romero was no anarchist, but what he said the day before his murder might be considered quite anarchist by some:

My brothers, they are part of our very own people. You are killing your own fellow peasants. God's law, "Thou shalt not kill!" takes precedence over a human being's order to kill. No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is against God's law. No one has to obey an immoral law.

I don't know how Islam forbids idolatry, but the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Washington, D.C. states it as:

Thou shalt not make any graven image, or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.

I can easily see how one can see the anarchist implications of that.

[Devrim]

Thou shalt not make any graven image, or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.

I can easily see how one can see the anarchist implications of that.

Well it means that you should bow down before God.


I've never met a supporter of liberation theology either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

No, but I you heard of them, and I have never heard of 'Muslim anarchists'. Actually, I have met supporters of libertarian theology though.


Oscar Romero was no anarchist, but what he said the day before his murder might be considered quite anarchist by some:

You could probably find a vaguely 'anarchistic' sounding quote from anybody from Stalin to Tony Blair. It doesn't make them anarchists.

Devrim

[GracchusBabeuf]

The thing is not to get duped. One wouldn't trust a moderate racist or facist that were very nice guys, polite, that had a very liberal reading of Mein Kampf, taking almost everything as a metaphor, etc. I highlight this because we do not get bamboozeled the same way by other reactionaries. Why does it all of a sudden become different when it comes to religion?It is different because the Koran is hundreds of years old. The same old hateful stuff is there in the Bible and the Jewish religious texts. By your logic, around 1/2 of the planet is fascist because they belong to an Abrahamic religion?

Why single out Muslims only?

[al8]

By your logic, around 1/2 of the planet is fascist because they belong to an Abrahamic religion?

No, that is not my logic. I did not imply that. Religion and facism are both reactionary, but that does not mean that I say religion and facism are the same thing to such a degree that the terms are interchangeble. That would be playing loose with terms.


Why single out Muslims only?

I generally do not. We are 'singling out' muslims now in this thread, because muslims are the decussion topic.

[AnthArmo]

It is different because the Koran is hundreds of years old. The same old hateful stuff is there in the Bible and the Jewish religious texts. By your logic, around 1/2 of the planet is fascist because they belong to an Abrahamic religion?

Why single out Muslims only?


Absolutely right. If we were to interpret the bible literally, we'd see people raping disobediant women and discriminating against disabled people. The problems only begin when you take a fundamentalist or extreme interpretation of these "Holy" books.

[ibn Bruce]

There are many people who define themselves as 'Anarcho-Muslims'. They even have a facebook group and a wikipedia page lol.


I guess its 'one God, no Masters'.

[Devrim]

There are many people who define themselves as 'Anarcho-Muslims'. They even have a facebook group and a wikipedia page lol.

I don't know anything about facebook, but I think that the wikipedia page actually supports my point:


Current figures and trends


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_Islam&action=edit&section=4)] In the Muslim World


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_Islam&action=edit&section=5)] In the West

Peter Lamborn Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lamborn_Wilson), who writes under the pen-name Hakim Bey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakim_Bey), has combined Sufism and neo-Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Paganism) with anarchism and situationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International). He is most known for his concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone), which influenced the "reclaim the streets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_streets)" movement and events such as the Love Parade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Parade). However, it is debatable whether he can be described as either a Muslim or an anarchist, as opposed to being influenced by both ideologies.
On June 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_20), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), Yakoub Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakoub_Islam), a British-based convert to Islam, published his online Muslim Anarchist Charter (http://www.bayyinat.org.uk/manarchist.htm). The charter asserted a set of basic principles for anarchist thought and action founded on a Muslim perspective. These reaffirm some of the core principles of Islam, including a belief in God, the prophecy of Muhammad and the human soul, but assert the possibility that a Muslim's spiritual path might be achieved by refusing to compromise with institutional power in any form, be it judicial, religious, social, corporate or political.


Notice that they mention absolutely nobody in the 'Muslim world', and in the West they have exactly two Western converts, one of whom is combining 'sufism and neo-paganism', and is also a public supporter of peodophilia.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

Notice that they mention absolutely nobody in the 'Muslim world'

A lot of people describe Sayyid Qutb's literalism as a anarcho-Islam.


(I am not an anarcho Muslim and would never support a literalist nutcase like Qutb)

[Devrim]

I suppose it depends what you see anarchism as. I see it as an internationalist part of the workers movement. Qutb was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and an Arab nationalist. I have never heard his ideas described as anarchism by anybody.

You are on very week ground here.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

Anarchism is a rejection of hierarchy as inherently exploitative. It does not say that a society without such structures is possible, merely that the less power individuals have over each other, the better things will be. This usually ends up with a focus upon the value of 'autonomy' and, according to the nature of the current world, often an emphasis on achieving this autonomy through the destruction (through various means) of such hierarchies. This often causes an ideological conflict between anarchists and other parts of the left who believe that the goal of both (small autonomous collectives) is to be acquired through more authoritative means (the dictatorship of the proletariat). Thus anarchism can't really be seen as the 'internationalist' part of workers movements, rather it is a movement within the broad scope of various workers political projects. Anarchism has less of the 'drone' feel of many socialist organisations.

Sayyid Qutb, in his rejection of all laws, which he says are 'Man-Made' and therefore unworthy of being followed, did not enshrine Khalifa as a 'title' in the way many in the Muslim brotherhood and other such movements do today. He reffered to Khalifa more in the meaning of 'agency' and associated it with autonomy from imposed systems of belief.

Thus he has been described as an 'internationalist, 'Islamic' anarchist' as he advocated smashing all existant structures of class and authority, replacing them with individual 'khilafa' for all people (with naturally the emphasis on Muslims). Of course the manifestation of much of his belief ended up in movements who took not only him, but thinkers like Ibn Tammiyya and created various 'Islamic, revolutionary internationalist movements' that desired to spread the literalist vision of both thinkers, with much input from Abdul ibn Wahhab, in a global Khalifa.

I am open to correction in my understanding of Anarchism, obviously it is simplified in the extreme.

[Devrim]

I am open to correction in my understanding of Anarchism, obviously it is simplified in the extreme.

I don't think it is simplified, just absolutely wrong.


Thus he has been described as an 'internationalist, 'Islamic' anarchist' as he advocated smashing all existant structures of class and authority,

Please find a quote describing him as an anarchist in Arabic (hint:there isn't really an a word for anarchist in Arabic).

Devrim

[cyu]

Well it means that you should bow down before God.


If someone follows their God, but not the commands of their head of state, government, or religious interpreter, what would you say he is? Not an anarchist, but a _____?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism Leo Tolstoy (the writer of War and Peace) considered himself a Christian anarchist.

Christianity and Islam have similar prohibitions against idolatry. What would you say is different between the two that makes one more open to anarchism, but not the other? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

[ibn Bruce]

I don't think it is simplified, just absolutely wrong.I take the Islamic compulsion to seek knowledge very seriously, if I am wrong in this, please show me how? :D


Please find a quote describing him as an anarchist in Arabic (hint:there isn't really an a word for anarchist in Arabic).
One does not need to be described in another language as something in order for it to be an apt description. The first romantic poets did not describe themselves as such, does not mean that they were not romantic poets.


Christianity and Islam have similar prohibitions against idolatry. What would you say is different between the two that makes one more open to anarchism, but not the other? (This is not a rhetorical question.)Christians allow idolatry with Christ, with Saints etc. etc. the ONLY time a Muslim is EVER allowed to bow(literally or metaphorically) is in prayer, and not so much 'to God' (God having no direction or place) but in recognition of one's own contingent reality. The respect given to Sheikhs only comes from the knowledge they have, it does not however give them authority as such. Similarly authority in the form of a 'Khalif' only comes through merit and democratic mandate. I am not an anarchist as such, but nor I am a mindless follower, submissive to anyone in a Turban (by the way Devrim, what is the punishment for wearing a turban in Turkey?). I guess Talib Kweli said it fairly well 'just because the Lord is my shepherd, doesn't mean I have to be a sheep'

[Kambing]

Hi, this is my first time posting to this site – this thread is quite relevant to my interests.


Although I am neither Muslim nor an anarchist, I do know several people who are both, mostly linked to the Indonesian hardcore punk and/or student movement. They certainly do not view it as any kind of irreconcilable contradiction, although in my experience they do tend to view them as parallel philosophies rather than a unified world-view – they are anarchists and Muslimsrather than 'anarcho-Muslims'. They tend to adopt interpretations of Islam that emphasise one's personal relationship with God, rejecting the institutionalised authority of clerics, and some also take a somewhat Sufi or even deist approach, seeing God and the natural material universe as more or less synonymous. Hence 'submission to God' becomes a commitment to social and environmental praxis. But they still follow many specifically Muslim practices and (arguably) beliefs.


Really, this shouldn't be surprising, even if you view Islam and anarchism as fundamentally opposed – people often hold contradictory ideas, and contradictory political movements abound. I am honestly surprised by Devrim's assertion that he doesn't know of any Muslim anarchists in Turkey, but he may well be defining them out of existence.


As for the factory occupation, of course most participants will be Muslim, of varying degrees of piety. Frankly, it doesn't seem that relevant to this action, which by all accounts has little to do with political Islam or religious identity. (BTW, while headscarves can be used as a rough indicator of piety among Indonesian women, this is far from reliable. Wearing a headscarf can also be fashionable, or to project a 'modest' appearance in an attempt to protect their personal safety – especially for those female workers who may have to return home late). Their gender is much more relevant to the issue, as it often plays a role in their exploitation as workers and in the anti-union violence they face. Women have long been at the forefront of labour struggles in SE Asia, because they make up most of the workforce in textiles and many other manufacturing industries. I tend to agree with those posters who find the fixation on 'Muslim women taking action!' somewhat patronising, though I guess it could have some merit in challenging certain prejudices among people with little awareness of society or politics in Indonesia or the Muslim world. Which sadly seems to include significant sections of the European and American left.


Lawan!

[Knight of Cydonia]

There are many people who define themselves as 'Anarcho-Muslims'. They even have a facebook group and a wikipedia page lol.

could you provide a link?
i never heard of Anarcho-Muslims, is this a new kind of anarchism?

[cyu]

This is the description from facebook:

Islam and Anarchism

Although anarchism is commonly associated with atheism and rejection of organised religion, there have been some important religious anarchists, like Leo Tolstoy and the Christian anarchism movement. While Islam is often associated with authoritarian regimes and criticised for human rights violations in some majority Muslim countries, there have also been significant anarchist undercurrents throughout the history of Islam. This became increasingly the case at the end of the 20th century with the rise of the liberal Islam movement, when the concept of Muslim anarchism first appears.

Muslim anarchism is based on the strict interpretation of Islam as "submission to God", and the concept of "no compulsion in religion". Muslim anarchists believe that only God has authority over Muslims and reject rules issued by people in position of authority, relying instead on the concept of Ijtihad for a personal interpretation of Islam. The anti-authoritarian tendencies in Islam and many Muslim anarchists are associated with Sufism and Sufi literature.

Anarchist Criticism of Islam
Since much of the anarchist movement occurred in countries under the influence of the Christian church, most of the criticism of religion was targetted against Christianity. But much of this criticism can be applied against any organised religion, since they all attempt to structure the society based on holy scriptures. Islam is often seen as a political religion which dictates all aspects of society and daily conduct, and as such goes against the principles of anarchism.

The most commonly criticised parts of Islam by anarchists include the treatment of women and homosexuals. Many Muslim countries are extremely patriarchal and women have few rights, are forced to wear a veil, and are denied basic rights like voting and education. In many of them, homosexuality is illegal and subject to harsh physical punishment. It is disputed, however, how many of these issues are tied to the religion specifically and how many stem from the regional customs and cultures of the region. The wearing of the veil, for instance, is not grounded in either the Qur'an or the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (Hadith).

But even the basic Islamic teachings offer points of contention. For example, Islam prohibits homosexuality, and assigns different roles to men and women, something that goes against what most anarchists believe in. Also problematic is the Islamic treatment of apostates and non-Muslims. The concept of Jihad (which is a traditionally controversial topic among Islamic scholars) is often understood to mean a holy war against unbelievers. Also unclear is the concept of the religious law based on Qur'an and early Muslim traditions, called Sharia. It calls for harsh physical (even corporal) punishment for transgressions against religious teachings. Most Muslim states today do not implement Sharia laws.

In the 19th and 20th century, there have been a rising number of liberal Muslims who question the orthodox interpretations of Islam. These Muslims concentrate on the concept of self-realisation, called Ijtihad, which calls for personal interpretation of religious texts, instead of relying on clerical decrees. Many liberal Muslims call for complete equality of men and women, accept homosexuality, and reject Sharia laws and religion-based politics, thus removing many of the differences between Islam and anarchism. Many liberal Muslims do not see their movement as a reformation, but rather a return to the essence of Islam, which they say was corrupted through the years.

Similarities Between Islam and Anarchism
Although Islam is an organised religion, there are also some similarities between it and anarchism. These can be roughly grouped into the views on property, social considerations, and oppression and violence. Anarchism advocates free association of free individuals, the absence of state and any form of oppression, and is a socialist theory which advocates abolition of capitalism and private property in the capitalist sense, focusing instead on cooperation and mutual aid. Muslim anarchists claim that Islam shares many of these ideas.

Islamic views on property
According to the Islamic belief, everything on Earth belongs to Allah alone, and people are only entrusted with managing them, and live off the Earth and its products. This is contrary to the capitalist concept of ownership based on the Roman doctrine of "the right to use and abuse". It also lays foundation for ecology, as the creations of Allah (including plants and animals) should only be destroyed if absolutely necessary. This is similar to the concept of private possessions, introduced by Proudhon in his work "What is Property?" and shared by most anarchists.

Unlike many organised religions, Islam specifically prohibits usury, including charging interest on loans. Qur'an states: "The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if you give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold". Because of this, many so called "Islamic" banks claim to operate at zero interest. Usury in this sense also applies to overcharging for products during trade. This makes it very difficult to reconcile Islam with capitalism, but represents a very strong parallel to anarchism.

Islam and socialism
In addition to opposing interest and needless accumulation of property, Islam also supports the redistribution of wealth. The religious tax, zakat, requires that each Muslim gives 2.5% of his wealth to the needy every year. In general, great wealth differences are discouraged and generosity towards the needy encouraged.

Islam also encourages formation of communities where people know each other and practise mutual help. This formation of tightly-knit communities which practice mutual aid is reminiscent of anarchist collectives and different from the capitalist labour markets where work is bought and sold as a commodity.

Another specific feature of Islam is the lack of religious hierarchy. There is no institution comparable to the church, or a hierarchy of priesthood. Imams in Islam are people who have studied Islam and amassed knowledge, but their role is that of advisors, not authority. In that sense, Islam is a personal religion, and each Muslim has a personal relationship with God, without middlemen. Much to the contrary, Muslims believe in the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of all people.

It is exactly this aspect of equality that provides a bridge between Islam and Anarchism. As Islam avoids creating hierarchical religious institutions, many of the Anarchist criticisms of organised religion (based on the criticism of the church) do not directly apply. Because of this, some liberal Muslims do not see a conflict between the two, as Islam only implies submission to God, and never submission to priesthood.

Islam on the use of violence
While Christian anarchists reject the use of violence completely, most anarchists agree that the use of violence is justified in self-defense. This idea is also found in the Qur'an, which says "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors". Although Muslims are often accused of spreading religion by the sword, the Qur'an is specific that there should be no compulsion in religion.

Furthermore, Islam doesn't support oppression. One hadith states "O My servants, I (Allah) have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another". This led some Muslims to reject all oppression, ultimately rejecting the state altogether. Indeed, although early Muslims had leaders, the daily conduct was governed by Islam and the citizens themselves, and not laws and institutions laid forward by a sovereign. Therefore, Muslims believe that they should ultimately act based on their religion and not on earthly laws. Muslim Anarchists argue that if the religion allows violence only in self-defense, and prohibits oppression and compulsion in religion, the logical conclusion is a stateless, classless society without hierarchy.

Historical Anarchist Tendencies in Islam
Throughout history, there have been anti-authoritarian movements within Islam, but they are not well-documented and have not made a large impact on mainstream Islam.

The first recorded strand of anti-authoritarian Islam dates all the way back to the death of prophet Muhammad. The early Muslims had a disagreement about who should succeed him as the leader of Muslims, resulting in the Shia - Sunni split. There was a third group, however, the Kharijites, who opposed both the Sunni and Shia sects, and claimed that any qualified Muslim could be an Imam. They held that all people were individually responsible for the good or evil of their acts. They challenged all authority and encouraged all, especially the poor and dispossessed, to see the struggle against injustice as being divinely sanctioned. It should be noted, however, that although Kharijites saw all believers completely equal regardless of any social differences, they believed that non-believers had no rights, and could be killed.

As both Sunni and Shia strands of Islam developed into authoritarian ideologies, the libertarian ideas within Islam continued most strongly through Sufism, the mystic strand of Islam. Sufism was very common at the edges of the Islamic empires, in secluded areas, and developed under the influence of eastern philosophy, and anti-authoritarian and revolutionary ideas are present throughout its history. Many Sufi orders and Sufis advocated and struggled for women's equality and social justice.

Sufism also provided much of Islamic poetry and literature where these tendencies are visible. One of the most famous Sufi poets was the Persian writer Farid al-Din Attar, who lived in the 13th century CE. In one of his books, "Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat al-Auliya' (Memorial of the Saints)", Attar tells a story of a Sufi teacher Fozail-e Iyaz (supposed to have lived in 8th century CE) and the 5th Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid. As Harun looks for a person in his kingdom who can reveal the truth about him, he finds Fozail, who is the only person who speaks honestly and without fawning. Fozail tells Harun that he respects no authority and that "to obey God for one moment is better than a thousand years of people obeying you".

Although there are examples of anti-authoritarian tendencies throughout the history of Islam, the main developments happen in the 20th century, which reintroduces liberal interpretations of Islam and sees mixing of radical left ideas and Islam.

The French cartoonist Gustave-Henri Jossot, a frequent contributor to anarchist magazines, converted to Islam in 1913, citing "simplicity, no priests, no dogmas and almost no ceremonies" as reasons. After the change, he continued to criticise the idea of a fatherland, demanded equal payment for all, rejected political action, violence and formal education. He rejected social action, with the rationale that change is only possible on an individual level.

An important and influential figure in the 20th century was Ali Shariati, one of the ideologues of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and of whom Jean Paul Sartre said: "I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's". After the Islamic Revolution took on a particularly vicious authoritarian note, Shariati was imprisoned for his lectures, which were extremely popular with the students, and was forced to flee Iran. He was assassinated shortly afterwards.

Although Shariati was not an anarchist, his vision of Islam was one of a revolutionary religion siding with the poor. He believed that the only true reflection of the Islamic concept of Tawhid (unity and oneness of God) is a classless society.

Current Figures and Trends
Despite the anti-authoritarian ideas throughout history, the real mixing of Islam with the modern theory of anarchism happens at the end of the 20th century.

One of the most influential modern Muslim anarchists is Peter Lamborn Wilson, also known as Hakim Bey. This controversial Sufi anarchist figure combined Sufism and neo-Paganism with anarchism and situationism. He is most known for his concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones, which influenced the "reclaim the streets" movement and events such as the Love Parade.

Recently, there has also been some discussion based on Natural Islam (http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/natural_islam.html (http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/natural_islam.html)), which is a green-anarchist, anti-consumerist vision of Islam.

Modern Muslim Anarchism and the Internet
In the last few years, there has been discussion regarding the idea of Islamic anarchism, primarily from the US-based punk Muslim Michael Knight. But there has been sparse evidence of any coherent online presence of Muslim anarchists until June 20th 2005, when Yakoub Islam, a British-based Muslim, published his online Muslim Anarchist Charter (http://www.bayyinat.org.uk/manarchist.htm).

The charter asserted a set of basic principles for anarchist thought and action founded on a Muslim perspective. These reaffirm some of the core principles of Islam, including a belief in God, the prophecy of Muhammad and the human soul, but assert the possibility that a Muslim's spiritual path might be achieved by refusing to compromise with institutional power in any form, be it judicial, religious, social, corporate or political. Muslims are thus challenged to establish a society where spiritual growth is "uninhibited by tyranny, poverty and ignorance". It is in the fervent assertion of the principle of no compromise, driven by a utopian vision of humanity living in peace and co-operation, that the faith of Islam and the politics of anarchism are said to meet.

Yakoub is cautious in describing himself as a Muslim anarchist (or an anarchist Muslim), rather than talking about Islamic anarchism, because the evidence from social research points to a considerable diversity within the Muslim community or ummah, with some anthropologists reluctant to talk about a single 'Islam'. Neither is there, of course, a single 'anarchism.'


References and Links
http://www.bayyinat.org.uk/manarchist.htm The Muslim anarchist Charter
http://raforum.apinc.org/article.php3?id_article=20 An article on Gustave-Henri Jossot
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=977 A collection of articles on Islam and anarchism
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=884 Diversity in Islam for Absolute Beginners
http://uk.geocities.com/faridesack/ Information on the radical cleric Farid Esack
http://www.illegalvoices.org/knowledge/general_articles/natural_islam.html Natural Islam

[ibn Bruce]

The first recorded strand of anti-authoritarian Islam dates all the way back to the death of prophet Muhammad. The early Muslims had a disagreement about who should succeed him as the leader of Muslims, resulting in the Shia - Sunni split. There was a third group, however, the Kharijites, who opposed both the Sunni and Shia sects, and claimed that any qualified Muslim could be an Imam. They held that all people were individually responsible for the good or evil of their acts. They challenged all authority and encouraged all, especially the poor and dispossessed, to see the struggle against injustice as being divinely sanctioned. It should be noted, however, that although Kharijites saw all believers completely equal regardless of any social differences, they believed that non-believers had no rights, and could be killed.

Furthermore, anyone who did not take their version of Islam as the only Islam was therefore an unbeliever and should be killed. These were not anarchists, they were murderous, schizmatic nutcases.


both Sunni and Shia strands of Islam developed into authoritarian ideologies, the libertarian ideas within Islam continued most strongly through Sufism, the mystic strand of Islam. Sufism was very common at the edges of the Islamic empires, in secluded areas, and developed under the influence of eastern philosophy, and anti-authoritarian and revolutionary ideas are present throughout its history. Many Sufi orders and Sufis advocated and struggled for women's equality and social justice.


Tasawuf (Sufism) cannot exist without Sha'riah, so Sufis will still be either Sunni or Shia, and will still follow the law. Most of the Turkish Ulema were of the Naqshabandi Tariq (a Sufi path). Most other later scholars were also, Al-Ghazzali, Imam Nawawi etc. along with the best contemporary scholars, Abdul Hakim Murad, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Seyyid Hossein Nasr etc.

[black magick hustla]

i think it has a lot to do with the stupid fascination of western whites with the whole "exotic mysticism" garbage

[PRC-UTE]

The interest of some Western leftists in Sufiism seems very strange to me. Today it is generally associated with right-wing politics. Turgut Özal the Prime Minister installed by the army after the 1980 military coup in Turkey was a Naqshbandi as is the current PM, Tayyip Erdoğan.

I hear a lot of hippies talking about it. The way they made it sound it was tolerant and all that. a real shock, a hippy would get something wrong :lol:

[ibn Bruce]

Perhaps, I am defining them out of existence. I would define an anarchist as a member of an anarchist organisation. There are/have been anarchist organisations in Turkey, but they are/have been based on communist principles and are not religious. It may be possible that there are some hippy idealists out there who call themselves both anarchists and Muslims. Fortunately, I haven't come across them.

Anarchism and Socialism are two DIFFERENT idealogies in methodology and organisation. Look around this forum and you will see what I mean.

I am really not at all interested in a dialogue with you. I am only correcting some of the inacurracies in what you write. Buy a book.

Correcting implies that you have succesfully explained something to me, or made a point at all, rather than simply said 'you are wrong' while yourself making wrong assertions.


Er...nothing*, here is a picture of the President and the Prime Minister with their wives and the President's daughter all wearing turban:
That is not a Turban. The punishment for wearing a Turban in Turkey was 1 years hard labour and 1000 dollar (equivalent) fine. It was also a criminal offence to say the word 'Sha'riah' at a Public gathering. My Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds were on the recieving end of such things, including the beating of his wife by a group of Turkish soldiers and 4 different assaults upon his person by the police because of his choice of clothing. Secularism ftw.


Actually, they were a radical egalitarian current who struggled against those who they considered had usurped power.

And their struggle for equality involves killing anyone who doesn't agree with them and taking their wives and children as slaves? You seriously aren't justifying the Kharijites are you?


The interest of some Western leftists in Sufiism seems very strange to me. Today it is generally associated with right-wing politics. Turgut Özal the Prime Minister installed by the army after the 1980 military coup in Turkey was a Naqshbandi as is the current PM, Tayyip Erdoğan.

It is not strange when you realise that such people are thinking of 'universal sufism' an ideology that has absolutely nothing to do with Tasawuf. It is a wacked out mix of hinduism, buddhism and Islam, more akin to Shah Ackbar's reforms than any Muslim movement.

In terms of revealing bias, I am a Naqshabandi.

[Devrim]

That is not a Turban. The punishment for wearing a Turban in Turkey was 1 years hard labour and 1000 dollar (equivalent) fine. It was also a criminal offence to say the word 'Sha'riah' at a Public gathering. My Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds were on the recieving end of such things, including the beating of his wife by a group of Turkish soldiers and 4 different assaults upon his person by the police because of his choice of clothing. Secularism ftw.

That is exactly what Turban means in Turkish, it means the Islamic female headscarf. Of course if you wrote in English without peppering it with Arabic words all the time, I would have assumed it was the normal English usage of the word Turban.

The punishment for a man to wear a turban may well be 1 years hard labour and a 1000 dollar fine. However I am sure that this punishment wasn't received by your friend has they haven't been implemented for years and years. They are a bit like the laws in parts of the UK that you can't hang male and female underwear on the same lines.

It is possible to see protesting outside a mosque near my house a bunch of fools dressed in the sort of clothes that they imagined were worn in the time of Mohammed.

It is not, and never has been, a criminal offence to say the word 'sharia' at a public gathering. It is illegal to advocate it, but then it is also illegal to advocate 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', 'ethnic separatism' or indeed under article 301 of the criminal code to say anything that 'insults Turkishness'. I will leave it to others to imagine how these laws are implemented with an Islamic party in government.

I find the bits about four different assaults by the police and the assault by Turkish soldiers almost impossible to believe. Basically, it sounds as unreal as any of your other comments referring to Turkey.


Correcting implies that you have succesfully explained something to me, or made a point at all, rather than simply said 'you are wrong' while yourself making wrong assertions.

No, it doesn't. I am correcting things for the benefit of others, not you.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

That is exactly what Turban means in Turkish, it means the Islamic female headscarf. Of course if you wrote in English without peppering it with Arabic words all the time, I would have assumed it was the normal English usage of the word Turban.I haven't peppered my words with Turkish. The Arabic word for Turban in English is Turban as far as I know.


The punishment for a man to wear a turban may well be 1 years hard labour and a 1000 dollar fine. However I am sure that this punishment wasn't received by your friend has they haven't been implemented for years and years. They are a bit like the laws in parts of the UK that you can't hang male and female underwear on the same lines.So until the recent changes the Hijab was allowed in Universities? My Sheikh was fined though not imprisoned (he was a Westerner, it would look bad). How can you justify such things when they are so obviously an attack on the working class? The Middle and Upper classes are happy unquestioningly taking on Western Capitalist values and attire, it is the sisters coming from the working class who wear Hijab that are being targetted by such laws. 60% of Turks define themselves as Muslim first and Turkish second, which is HIGHER than Saudi Arabia. Political parties in your country are BANNED for being 'too Muslim'. Are not women wearing the scarf STILL not allowed to hold public office? In 1981 when such laws were instituted in the Turkish education system, 1.5 MILLION women were pushed out! I know you don't call yourself a leftist and support that?


It is possible to see protesting outside a mosque near my house a bunch of fools dressed in the sort of clothes that they imagined were worn in the time of Mohammed.Why are they protesting?


It is not, and never has been, a criminal offence to say the word 'sharia' at a public gathering. It is illegal to advocate it, but then it is also illegal to advocate 'the dictatorship of the proletariat', 'ethnic separatism' or indeed under article 301 of the criminal code to say anything that 'insults Turkishness'. I will leave it to others to imagine how these laws are implemented with an Islamic party in government.Again that goes contrary to what I hear from people on the recieving end. That is why people say the Turkish for 'sacred law' rather than Sha'riah in the Arabic. Is it not also true that early on the Adhan had to be made in Turkish? That the Fez was banned? That is not secularism, it is European cultural imperialism.


I find the bits about four different assaults by the police and the assault by Turkish soldiers almost impossible to believe. Basically, it sounds as unreal as any of your other comments referring to Turkey.They are not comments by me, they are things that occured to people who grew up under those things, things that you, living where you do, believing as you do, will probably never have experienced. It is hard for middle class white people in my country to believe that Indigenous people get bashed and harrased by the police too.


No, it doesn't. I am correcting things for the benefit of others, not you.Correcting implies correction, which you have not done.

[Devrim]

How can you justify such things when they are so obviously an attack on the working class?

I didn't justify them. I reported the facts.


My Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds were on the recieving end of such things, including the beating of his wife by a group of Turkish soldiers and 4 different assaults upon his person by the police because of his choice of clothing.


My Sheikh was fined though not imprisoned (he was a Westerner, it would look bad).


They are not comments by me, they are things that occured to people who grew up under those things,

Make up your mind. Is he 'a westerner' or someone 'who grew up under those things'?

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

I didn't justify them. I reported the facts.

Well not really. One would expect, supposedly being for the working class, you would be AGAINST the way secularism is used as a tool of oppression in your country, yet instead you define such people as 'fools'.


Make up your mind. Is he 'a westerner' or someone 'who grew up under those things'?
My Sheikh is not my only source of information; 'they are things that occurred to people who grew up under those things,' this is a reference to the many people I met, both in Turkey and here that testified to such treatment. My Sheikh was not Turkish but his wife, Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds on the whole mostly were.

[Devrim]

Well not really. One would expect, supposedly being for the working class, you would be AGAINST the way secularism is used as a tool of oppression in your country, yet instead you define such people as 'fools'.

Actually, we do reject secularism, which as well as Islamicism and religion is another tool used to divide the working class.

But then you didn't ask about that.

I don't know who I am supposed to be referring to as fools.



My Sheikh is not my only source of information; 'they are things that occurred to people who grew up under those things,' this is a reference to the many people I met, both in Turkey and here that testified to such treatment. My Sheikh was not Turkish but his wife, Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds on the whole mostly were.


My Sheikh and his fellow Mureeds were on the recieving end of such things, including the beating of his wife by a group of Turkish soldiers and 4 different assaults upon his person by the police because of his choice of clothing.Maybe it is a problem with your English, but who else should I suppose the word 'his' refers to. Your story seems very confused to me.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

I don't know who I am supposed to be referring to as fools.

You said that you can find fools protesting outside your local mosque. Those were the people you said were fools.

Actually, we do reject secularism, which as well as Islamicism and religion is another tool used to divide the working class.

How exactly would a traditionalist Islamic movement within Turkey (where the majority of the population define themselves as being Muslim before being Turkish) divide the working class? Considering the lack of hierarchy in Sunni Islam, it seems a strange thing.


Maybe it is a problem with your English, but who else should I suppose the word 'his' refers to. Your story seems very confused to me.

His person... he was assaulted but not imprisoned. An assault is difficult to prove when the assault is by the police (a fact I know only two well), however imprisoning an American national any length of time would cause serious problems.

[Devrim]

How exactly would a traditionalist Islamic movement within Turkey (where the majority of the population define themselves as being Muslim before being Turkish) divide the working class? Considering the lack of hierarchy in Sunni Islam, it seems a strange thing.

Look to Kahramanmaraş, Sivas, or Gazi for incidences of Sunni Muslims massacring members of religious minorities. It has nothing to do with hierarchy. It is connected to sectarianism, and religious intolerance.

But please don't bother to reply again because as I stated before Ihave no interest in conducting a dialogue with you. Now that there is nobody else on this thread, I won't continue any longer.

Devrim

[ibn Bruce]

Kahramanmaraş
Wasn't that perpetrated by the 'Grey Wolves', who are ultranationalist? Considering that Sunni fiqh is against any form of Nationalism, being aggressively pluralist, it is an odd claim indeed.


Sivas

Again, perpetrated not be traditionalist Sunnis, but by reformist movements completely removed from mainstream Sunni thought. Would you say that the 'Kurdish Workers Party' represents your particular brand of thought in its massacres?


Gazi

Not sure what you mean by this.. are you referring to Ghazi, as in warrior? Or a place?


But please don't bother to reply again because as I stated before I have no interest in conducting a dialogue with you.

I think it is important to reply, considering that you make many points against me, then leave the thread as though they stand up to no critique. You use the word 'Sunni' in the broadest possible sense, taking no care to differentiate different varieties of Sunni thought, not only that but you use the term 'Islamicist', which is never used by any group to describe themselves, rather it is a term coined in Europe and America to describe any Islamic movement that is anti-colonialist, and in doing so papers over the numerous differences within such groups.