Is anyone going out to combat the Islamic extreme Fascists.

[Nightingale27]

As I can not of yet post links.

Google Islam4uk

click on the side Procession march for Shariah.


Peoples thoughts?

[Stand Your Ground]

Is there anything called "Islamo fascism"? I think not. Its just a scare tactic employed by the racist and genocidal right wingers and neocons. Discuss.
I think there may be a few select Islamo fascists but not very many. Generally it's what you stated.

[9]

I think there may be a few select Islamo fascists but not very many. Generally it's what you stated.

Maybe the word you're looking for is "fundamentalists", I don't know; but as it stands, it certainly sounds like you're making an enormous capitulation to imperialist propaganda.

[ls]

As I can not of yet post links.

Google Islam4uk

click on the side Procession march for Shariah.


Peoples thoughts?

yawn

Tired old racist's anti-muslim resource is tired, so tired it decided to not even to open, the site is down.

[Steve_j]

yawn

Tired old racist's anti-muslim resource is tired, so tired it decided to not even to open, the site is down.

Do you know what Islam4uk is? It is the website of a radical muslim group that supports sharia law in the uk, so hardly an anti muslim resource.

Whilst Nightingale27 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26206) was a troll we do need to look at this

Yes anjem choudary and his friends will be out and about. And yes they should be opposed, but what looks quite interesting is that the EDL might split the demo and have a joint contingent with SIOE. So two demos's london and leeds. Could be interesting and something we should be speaking about.

From the EDL forum


ok to avoid confusion i have been on phone all day with main organisers, many of you may know me from facebook, lady england, i go to all demos, it was decided that as many ppl down south cant get to leeds but are willing to travel to london why not have a show out against the very thing the edl was set up for ? to oppose militany islam and sharia law, S.I.O.E and other groups will also be in london, of course you are still welcome to go to leeds protest, but we are big enough to be able to hold 2 on same day. and to be honest all those that are down the south coast have said will get to london but leeds is way to far, this is the time to show anjem and his ilk that no matter what he says or where he goes we can still oppose him at the drop of a hat and he will not have his say

So should we just let the idiots fight it out.... or turn up and shut them both down?

[ls]

Do you know what Islam4uk is?

Ye..no Steve, never heard of it.


It is the website of a radical muslim group that supports sharia law in the uk, so hardly an anti muslim resource.

Your point?


Whilst Nightingale27 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26206) was a troll we do need to look at this

No we don't fucking need to look at islam4uk, it's fucking meaningless pissbollocks that the right trumps up as being a massive threat, so no we don't fucking need to look at it.


So should we just let the idots fight it out.... or turn up and shut them both down?

Shutting down SIOE and EDL is much more important.

[Steve_j]

No we don't fucking need to look at islam4uk, it's fucking meaningless pissbollocks that the right trumps up as being a massive threat, so no we don't fucking need to look at it.

So we should ignore theologist nationalism? I dont see the sense in that, their short term aim is essentially the same as a group like the edl, and the two are essentially working against each other for a common goal, so why the fuck shouldnt we look at them?

[ls]

So we should ignore theologist nationalism? I dont see the sense in that, their short term aim is essentially the same as a group like the edl, and the two are essentially working against each other for a common goal, so why the fuck shouldnt we look at them?

Because it's a fact that islam4uk is irrelevant, EDL aren't a terrible massive army themselves but we should focus on shutting them down.

[Steve_j]

Ok so so you think people should turn up in london aswell as leeds..... And just focus on the EDL and SIOE? ignoring the Islam4uk presence?

Hence my first post, indicating it is something we should be talking about.

[JimmyJazz]

Religious fundamentalism =/= fascism

[ls]

Ok so so you think people should turn up in london aswell as leeds..... And just focus on the EDL and SIOE? ignoring the Islam4uk presence?

Hence my first post, indicating it is something we should be talking about.

But you said we should shut islam4uk down as well? What are you talking about.

Incidentally, idk why you thanked JJ's post, if you had basic knowledge of maths you would realise that means "not equal to"..

[Steve_j]

Im asking your opinion. I gave my, i wanted discussion not to dictate, sorry if it came out that way. And yes as i stated i think we should shut them down. They may not be a major group, and i dont think they will be any time soon but none the less, the EDL and Islam4uk are feeding off each other for a common goal. As long as one is on the streets it promotes the existence of the other. Hence why i think we need to tell them both to fuck off. They will be in the same place at the same time. So as i asked, you think we should just show up and ignore Islam4uk? doesnt make sense to me.

I thanked jj's post because i agree.

[Afro]

you get fash in diffrent shades with diffrent faiths.

EDL/BNP/Islam4UK all the same! They all hateful dividing scum that are blinding us from the reality that we must challange the status quo (bankers, politicians police etc.)

[Melbourne Lefty]

Look its sad but the reason why us on the left tend not to oppose the not very nice fundamentalists in the islamic communities is because..

1. we are looking for the support of such communities in the struggle against racism

2. The islamic community, being used to attacks by racists from the outside would just close ranks

3. we may just get our arses kicked.

When we eliminate racism from the white population, maybe then we can have the moral high ground to pick out the religious crazies.

Its not perfect, its a long fucking way from perfect, but sadly its the way it is.:(



No we don't fucking need to look at islam4uk, it's fucking meaningless pissbollocks that the right trumps up as being a massive threat, so no we don't fucking need to look at it.


So we only need to look at scumfuckers when they are white? Thats the sort of shit that the BNP latches onto.

Islam4UK seems to have only a small following, but the events at Harrow and the videos of their leader dude Choudry making speeches looked like they have quite a bit of appeal.

Shouldnt SOME effort be made to nip this in the bud? I ask this sadly knowing that none will be made for the reasons stated above.

[chris h]

well, i dont know

[MaoTseHelen]

If the Left ignores the fundamentalism and authoritarianism pushed for by the religious in favor of pulling wool over our eyes, then the Right will fill that gap and appeal to people using it. It's that simple. If we just say "Oh it's Muslims so anyone who says hey maybe the idea of mandatory burkhas is really totalitarian and insane must be racist" - we're fools. This sort of thing has to be opposed in all forms, not just ones we're comfortable with opposing.

In short, scratch another notch for the "We need to talk about it." crowd.

[Kukulofori]

You could read a book, realise that several aspects of sharia are actually quite progressive and that no islamic state currently existing even vaguely resembles sharia law, and therefore your assumptions are as asinine as people who think Brezhnev's USSR is the society communists strive for. Then you could research what exactly these organisations support and if you still dislike them you could remain critical of them while working with them when your interests overlap and learning from them.

OR you could alienate a large and growing, increasingly repressed and therefore potentially revolutionary segment of the population. This revolution is for white people only brah.

EDIT: Since I know you won't, here're two resources to get you started that describe particularly progressive ideologies that you would be hard pressed to argue as a step backwards from the present day.





What is the Caliphate?
Introduction
Tony Blair on 16th July 2005 at the Labour Party National Conference delivered his famous ‘evil ideology’ speech where he discussed, in his view the vision of the extremists. He said:

They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations. We don’t have to wonder what type of country those states would be. Afghanistan was such a state. Girls put out of school. Women denied even rudimentary rights. People living in abject poverty and oppression. All of it justified by reference to religious faith.

Many Western politicians, commentators and thinkers have also begun to discuss the Caliphate, in many cases describing it as a medieval, backward, seventh-century terrorist state that’s establishment would usher in a new era of oppression and tyranny for the world.

Although these allegations are totally unfounded, the Caliphate has become an easy target for those wishing to plant misconceptions and blatant distortions in people’s minds about its institutions and rule.

First and foremost this is due to the absence of a Caliphate that can practically show people that it is in fact a progressive and advanced state that is a force for good in the world.

Secondly the knowledge of the Caliphate has been brutally suppressed by the despotic governments in the Muslim world. The books on the Caliphate are banned and the scholars and political parties working for its re-establishment through peaceful political means are imprisoned or boiled alive and massacred as happens in Uzbekistan.

Some aspects of the life under the Caliphate are discussed here to illustrate that the re-establishment of the Caliphate will usher in a new era of peace, stability and prosperity for the Muslim world. These points are elaborated in more detail on the rest of the site.

The Caliphate

The Caliphate (khilafah) is a unique political system from the ideology of Islam that bears no resemblance to any of the Muslim Governments today. Although many commentators and historians have tried to interpret the Caliphate within existing political frameworks, it is in fact a unique political system, built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed that is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/user.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&user=638008)[/URL]Caliphate is not a dictatorship

The Caliph (khaleefah) is the name given to the head of state in the Caliphate. The Caliph’s authority to rule must be given willingly by the people through a special ruling contact called bayah. Without this bayah he cannot be the head of state. This is totally opposite to the post of a King or Dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion and force. The tyrant Kings and Dictators in the Muslim world are ample examples of this, imprisoning and torturing their own people and stealing their wealth and resources.

This bayah contract stipulates that the Caliph must be just and rule the people by Islamic Law (shari’ah). He is not sovereign and cannot legislate laws from his own mind that suit his personal and family interests. Any laws he wishes to pass must be derived from the Islamic legal sources through a precise and detailed methodology called ijtihad. If the Caliph legislates any law contrary to this or commits oppression against his people, the highest and most powerful court in the State called the Unjust Acts Court (mahkamat muzalim) can impeach the Caliph and order his removal from office.

Caliphate is not a theocracy

The Caliph has been likened to a Pope, who is the Spiritual Head of all Muslims, infallible and appointed by God. This is not the case as the Caliph is not a priest. His post is an executive post within the Islamic government. He is not infallible and can make mistakes, which is why many checks and balances exist to ensure he and his government remain accountable.

The Caliph is not appointed by God rather he is elected by the people and assumes authority through the bayah contract. The Caliphate is not a theocracy since its legislation is not restricted to religious and moral codes that neglect the problems of society. Rather shari’ah is a comprehensive system that legislates on ruling, social, economic and judicial matters to name but a few. Economic progress and enhancing the living standards of the people is one of its major objectives. This is totally opposite to backward, medieval theocracies found in Europe where the poor were oppressed and forced to work and live in squalid conditions in return for the promise of heaven. Historically the Caliphate was a very wealthy state with a flourishing economy, high standard of living and world leader in industry and scientific research for many centuries.


Caliphate is not an Empire

The Caliphate does not favour the state’s capital or any of the lands it rules over above any others. Nationalism and racism have no place in Islam and are totally prohibited. The Caliph can be from any race or colour and from any school of thought such as Sunni or Shia as long as he is Muslim. Historically the capital of the Caliphate moved as the State expanded. Medina , Kufa, Baghdad , Damascus and Istanbul have all been capitals of the previous Caliphate, and the Caliph’s have been from many different tribes and races. As for the Caliph being Muslim, the head of state in any country must believe in the ideology or law being implemented. This is usually embodied in the oath of allegiance sworn by the head of state when taking office. This is why as an example a Communist could never be accepted as the US President.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567872797)Rights of non-Muslims

Non-Muslims have an honourable status in the Caliphate. Non-Muslims are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract) in the Caliphate, which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

He who abuses a dhimmi [non-Muslim citizen] then I will be his rival and dispute him on the Day of Judgment.

The rights of non-Muslims are enshrined within statutory Islamic Law (shari’ah) and cannot be reversed by legal precedent or the whims of any government. This provides stability and security to the non-Muslims allowing them to live their lives without fear of losing their rights some time in the future. Contrast this with western governments who are introducing more and more draconian anti-terror legislation targeting the Muslim community in the name of combating terrorism and national security.

Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said:

It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem , it protected the holiest Church in Christianity. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.

Accountable Open Government

The Caliph and his government believe in Islam and their motivation for strictly adhering to the letter of the law is their belief in accountability for all their actions when they die. This belief will create trustworthy and responsible politicians, not politicians who say one thing and do something else. They are chosen for their merit rather than due to ‘political favours’. Having said this, members of the government are not divine and can make mistakes and can commit crimes. For this reason a strong and effective accountability process exists through an independent judicial court called the Unjust Acts Court (mahkamat muzalim), which has the power to impeach any government official including the Caliph if they breach their ruling contracts and commit injustice.

Each Muslim has a responsibility in accounting the Caliph and his government. The action of accounting is one of the best and noblest tasks in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

The best of Jihad is to say a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.

Therefore anyone in the State whether they are individuals, members of political parties or in the media, has the right to account and criticise the Caliph. They cannot be arrested or criminalised for speaking out as we find happening to many people in Britain, such as Walter Wolfgang the 82 year old man who dared say the word “nonsense” during the foreign secretary Jack Straw’s speech on Iraq in September 2005.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567872905)Representative Government

Consultation is one of the pillars of ruling and a House of Representatives (majlis al-Ummah) will exist in the capital with regional assemblies in the provinces of the Caliphate. This is an elected house consisting of men and women from all religions and ethnic groupings within the state.

Unlike in Democracy, this House of Representatives is not a legislature. The only resolutions passed by the House that are binding on the government, are those related to the practical implementation of government policy and those related to removing government officials. The House acts as another counterbalance to the executive powers of the government.

The House has the right to account the Caliph regarding all the actions that the state has executed, whether domestic or foreign, financial, military or the like. Also the House can pass resolutions expressing dissatisfaction with the Governors, Mayors and Assistants (mu’awin), and the Caliph must remove them.

The Rule of Law

The Caliph does not have immunity from prosecution and nor do any of his Cabinet. If any of them commit a criminal offence they will be taken to court and tried before a judge. The judge applies the sentence without regard to their status or government position. Even the Caliph can be impeached and removed from office if he violated his ruling contract (bayah).

The Caliphate cannot suspend habeas corpus by interning any of its citizens. It is has been reported on the authority of Abdullah ibn Zubayr in the hadith book Abu Dawood:

The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before a judge.

Therefore any citizen whether Muslim or non-Muslim must be brought before a judicial court and their case investigated by a judge. The detaining of ‘foreign terror suspects’ without trial for years in some cases would never happen in a Caliphate.

The burden of proof required to convict someone of an offence in an Islamic Court is far higher than in the West. The court does not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim are allowed to give testimony.

Many miscarriages of justice have occurred in Britain due to flawed forensic evidence such as the Birmingham six trial or due to convicted criminals giving testimony. Confessions are investigated to ensure they were not extracted under duress or torture as is prevalent in Muslim countries today.

The Presumption of Innocence exists in an Islamic Court and the onus is on the plaintiff to provide the evidence. This legal principle cannot be overturned by the government of the day, as Tony Blair is trying to do by introducing more summary offences. Narrated in the hadith book by Al-Baihaqqi, the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves.

All these legal principles are exemplified in the famous legal trial that took place between Caliph Ali and one of his Jewish citizens in the 7th century. The Jew stole a coat of armour from Ali so he took the matter to court and brought his son as a witness. The judge ruled against Ali even though he was the head of state (Caliph), stating that a son cannot be a witness for a father in court. When the Jew witnessed such fairness he voluntarily confessed that he stole the shield and embraced Islam.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567873023)Progressive Economy

The Caliphate’s currency is based on the Gold Standard providing economic stability for domestic and international trade, as well as low inflation. There are no interest rates so wealth is created through investment as opposed to savings. This investment led economy where wealth is constantly circulating coupled with a stable currency will produce strong economic growth, and low unemployment.

Private companies cannot own natural resources such as oil and gas. These are owned by the people and managed by the government, with their revenues going to the Treasury (Bait ul-Mal). Revenue gained from natural resources must be used for the interests of the people, and the House of Representatives will advise the government on where the money is spent.

Taxation in the Caliphate is on excess wealth and not income, and there are no regressive taxes like VAT. The only taxes on companies are the agricultural land taxes (ushur and kharaj) that are a percentage of the agricultural produce or the land value. Non-agricultural companies do not pay this. Muslim owned companies will also pay the alms tax (zakat), but non-Muslim companies are exempt from this.

Non-Muslim men must pay a nominal tax called Jizya that gives them full citizenship rights, exempting them from National Service and taxes specific to Muslims such as zakat . Jizya is means tested and there are different bands for different levels of wealth. Caliph Omar imposed three bands for the Jizya tax – 4 dinars (£108) for the rich, 2 dinars (£54) for the middle class and 1 dinar (£27) for the poor. The Jizya tax rate is much lower than that of zakat, therefore the tax burden of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims in the Caliphate.

The Caliphate does not have National Insurance to pay for health care, pensions and other state benefits. A modern efficient Health Service must be provided free of charge to the people. This includes free dental care, optician costs and prescriptions. There are no pensions or state benefits as such within the Caliphate. All pensioners, women, children, unemployed and those with disabilities must be provided for financially by their families. Only if they had no family or the family cannot provide for them will the government then intervene.

Community Life

Non-Muslims will not be isolated in to ghettos, with poor housing and low government funding. Muslims and non-Muslims will live together side by side, as neighbours in the community. Neighbours have many rights over each other, designed to keep the home and community a place of peace and tranquillity. A place where children can play safely without fear of abuse. Nuisance Neighbours and yobs roaming the streets are a growing problem in Britain due to selfishness and individualism. Muslims do not hold these ideas, and instead believe in responsibility to their neighbours and community. It has been reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Aishah in the hadith books Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

Jibril (Angel Gabriel) kept recommending treating neighbours with kindness until I thought he would assign them a share of inheritance.

People cannot distress their neighbours by playing loud music, growing high hedges, parking irresponsibly or even backbiting them. They must enquire about their neighbour’s welfare and aid them as much as they can.

Anti-social behaviour on the streets is not tolerated and Inspectors (qadi hisbah) with the power to impose immediate sentences will patrol the neighbourhoods, accompanied by Police. Pubs and clubs that sell alcohol are prohibited and there is a strong punishment for those found drunk and disorderly on the streets. Non-Muslims however can drink and trade alcohol amongst themselves as long as it remains in their private homes and bars.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567873161)Caliphate is not a Police State

The Caliphate cannot intrude on peoples private lives by spying on its Muslim or non-Muslim citizens and arbitrarily detain people and hold them in prison without trial. Torturing anyone including prisoners of war is absolutely prohibited, and the perpetrators will face a severe punishment. Any evidence obtained via torture or wiretapping is not legally admissible in an Islamic Court.

Right of expression exists within the Caliphate. People are free to criticise the government and bring them to account for their actions and they cannot be arrested or imprisoned for this. Criticism and expressing opinions must be done within the limits of decency and respect. Lying, slandering, false accusations and blaspheming of any religion, member of the public or politician will not be tolerated. This allows for constructive, respectful debate within the society without the divisive and degrading reporting prevalent in much of the western press. The demonising of Muslims within the western press and the publishing of blasphemous and insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) are just some examples of this.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/user.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&user=638008)International Relations

The Caliphate does not go to war based on lies and deceit. Its sole purpose in fighting a war is to remove injustice and bring a new system for the people to live under. Although America and Britain cited the same objectives in Iraq the reality is far from this. Their use of depleted uranium, torturing and killing of civilians and imposition of another corrupt system would never happen with the Caliphate. Historically the Caliphate won the hearts and minds of the people on the lands it occupied. It never mistreated them and as opposed to an Empire, it didn’t impoverish them in order to enrich the capital.

In the classical book ‘Kitab Al-Kharaj’ Abu Yusuf gives the following report:

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj , news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.’ When this was delivered to the dhimmi and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!’

The Caliphate’s army must follow strict rules of engagement when fighting war (jihad). The soldiers do not fight the enemy out of anger or hatred, but to please their creator – Allah. Hence, atrocities committed by US troops such as the infamous 1968 My Lai massacre of 500 villagers in Vietnam or the recent massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians by US marines in Haditha would not happen under a Caliphate. In the Battle of Khandaq 627CE, Ali (who later became a Caliph) was about to kill one of the enemy soldiers when the soldier spat in his face. Instead of killing him, Ali lowered his sword because he didn’t want to kill him out of anger. This is an example of the high values held by soldiers in the Caliphate’s army.

The Caliphate is not isolationist and must abide by the international agreements it signs. It will encourage non-Muslims from other countries to visit it, study in its universities and conduct trade. Economic and cultural treaties will be signed to facilitate this. Any non-Muslim visiting the Caliphate from a country that the Caliphate has a treaty with, can enter without the need for a visa. They are called a Mu’ahid and have full protection under the state similar to the dhimmi. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

The one who kills a Mu’ahid (people with whom the State has treaties) without right he will not smell the fragrance of jannah (heaven) even if its smell was forty years travelling distance. [Reported in the Hadith book Ahmed]

Historically scholars and scientists from across Europe flocked to the Caliphate and studied in the universities of Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad.
(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567873781)Caliphate is a mainstream view

The aspiration of restoring the Caliphate is not a minority view held by extremists and terrorists as all Muslims believe in the idea of a Caliphate or Imamate as Shia refer to it although both are synonymous.

On January 14th 2006, the Washington Post published an article ‘Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical’ by Karl Vick. The article heading was “Restoration of Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims” and he quotes many ordinary Muslims in Turkey traditionally the most secular country in the Muslim World. ‘I wish there was a caliphate again, because if there was a caliphate all the Muslims would unite,’ said Ertugul Orel, in a sweater and tie at the sidewalk cafe he owns outside Istanbul’s vast Hagia Sophia, an iconic building to both Christians and Muslims. ‘There would be one voice. But I know neither the American nor the Europeans will ever allow it.’ From the next chair, gift shop owner Atacan Cinar added, ‘Before the end of the Ottoman Empire , there was no problem in the Islamic countries.’ ‘The concept of the caliphate is very much alive in the collective memory of society,’ said Ali Bulac, a columnist and author of several books on Islam and Turkey. ‘There is absolutely nothing to keep Muslim society together at the moment.’

Majority of Muslims want the Caliphate

The Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan published a survey in 2005 entitled Revisiting the Arab Street in which they interviewed numerous population samples throughout the Middle East. Some of their conclusions clearly highlight the desire of Muslims in the Middle East to live by the Shari’a in a Caliphate. Quoting from the survey it,

Asked whether Shari’a should be the only source of legislation, one of the sources of legislation, or not be a source of legislation, most Muslims believed it should at least be a source of legislation. Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, where approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari’a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be ‘one of the sources of legislation’. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favoured the view that Shari’a must be one of the sources of legislation.

The report continued:

In contrast, neither education nor age seems to explain attitudes toward the role of the Sharia in legislation. Pooled data from Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt indicate that 58% of respondents with low education, 59% of those with moderate education, and 56% with higher education believe that Sharia must be the only source of legislation in their countries. Similarly, the pooled data found that approximately 50% of respondents in all age groups wanted to see the Sharia become the only source of legislation, another 36-40% across age groups wanted to see it as a source of legislation, and 10-13% preferred that the Sharia not become a source of legislation.

Conclusion

These are just some aspects of life under a future Caliphate that will make it a force for promoting good within the world. Clearly this vision completely contradicts what many western commentators, thinkers and politicians such as Tony Blair would have us believe. The restoration of the Caliphate will usher in a new era of peace, stability and prosperity for the Muslim world and beyond, ending years of oppression by some of the worst tyrants this world has ever seen such as Islam Karimov of Uzebkistan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and finally solving the long running problems of Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Chechnya to name but a few.

[url]http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/politicaleconomy/ (http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=563727&topic=51615936&message=567873891)

[9]

If the Left ignores the fundamentalism and authoritarianism pushed for by the religious in favor of pulling wool over our eyes, then the Right will fill that gap and appeal to people using it. It's that simple. If we just say "Oh it's Muslims so anyone who says hey maybe the idea of mandatory burkhas is really totalitarian and insane must be racist" - we're fools. This sort of thing has to be opposed in all forms, not just ones we're comfortable with opposing.

In short, scratch another notch for the "We need to talk about it." crowd.

Superficially, this may sound reasonable enough. However, scratching the surface and getting to the substance of the argument proves otherwise. What it boils down to is that you're arguing that there is a need for the revolutionary left to address the "threat" of "Islamic extremism" taking governmental hold in the UK. The fact of the matter is that no such "threat" exists; the probability of Islamists obtaining governmental power in the UK and enforcing Sharia Law on Europeans is none - it is non-existant. On the contrary, the perceived presence of such a "threat" - far removed from reality - is the essence of fear-mongering. It is a fear manipulated and enforced by right-wing xenophobes and racists to foster further repression and malice against an already oppressed minority community. The fact that this thread was created by a banned anti-Muslim racist does well to attest to that fact.
Just to repeat, there is no threat of reactionary Islamists gaining parliamentary influence in the UK to impose their religious doctrine on the powerless white Europeans. And to pay any serious attention to such an imaginary "threat" is to play directly into the hands of the racist right-wing groups (the BNP, for example) who themselves, largely by propagating such manufactured "threats", really do pose a serious threat of gaining sway and coming to political prominence in the UK (and elsewhere).
It is absolutely critical that revolutionaries, of all people, do not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by such specious manufactured fears.

[AntifaAustralia]

Islam is not it any way NATIONALIST! no religion is! and fascist? i dont think so.

Like kukulofori above said there are other factors, those factors are eg. religious opression, palestine, poverty, war.

Islam respects chrisitans jews and other humans, but they almost fiercely disrespect Atheists and Polytheists. Islamic extremists just want to dominate the world and teach the world the good faith of Islam and allah/god.

Islam is totally pathetic, but i believe that schizophrenic Muhammad made islam pretty darn well.

Islam minus God = socialism i believe, the same with other religions too.

[Devrim]

Islam minus God = socialism i believe, the same with other religions too.

God is a pretty important part of Islam. Even without God though, Islam isn't particulary socialistic. There have been, historically, millennial sects in both Islam and Christianity, which were quite socialistic. Mainstream Islam though emerged as the religion of the mercantile class. Mohammed himself was a merchant. It doesn't have the ideas of common property that came up amongst more radical fringe religious groups, but envisages a world where the rich gave charity to the poor instead.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

The empires always need enemies, whether fictional or actual, provoked or unprovoked, to make the process of foreign domination more efficient and acceptable to the people back home.

It's much more popular to say; "We have to fight Islamo-fascism" than "We have to fight to get more oil".

[Djehuti]

As I can not of yet post links.

Google Islam4uk

click on the side Procession march for Shariah.


Peoples thoughts?


Islamists are not fascists but they are reactionaries. In Stockholm a month ago a group of anti-semitic islamists where celebrating the Al-Quds day and held up posters of Khomeini etc. They were met by thousands: Antifa, various left-wing groups and a whole lot of Iran exiles, who threw eggs on the islamists. There were also 10-15 nazis among the islamists.

http://www.pbase.com/irandemonstrationsthlm/root&page=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0662TWURUps


In Sweden the pro-palestinian movement is very left-wing oriented, so the islamists want to start their own movement, but they are very isolated and shall remain so.

[MaoTseHelen]

Islamists are not fascists but they are reactionaries. In Stockholm a month ago a group of anti-semitic islamists where celebrating the Al-Quds day and held up posters of Khomeini etc. They were met by thousands: Antifa, various left-wing groups and a whole lot of Iran exiles, who threw eggs on the islamists. There were also 10-15 nazis among the islamists.

This is the sort of thing I refer to, and I'm happy it panned out that way. Every single group has it's right-wing extremists, and that includes the muslim community. Are we suppose to ignore when they go out protesting, and only address the EDL? I think if we do that, we isolate a big part of the working class by being frankly blind and hypocritical.

Just because they're brown doesn't mean they can't be fascists. Quite the contrary, it comes in all forms and colors.

[Kukulofori]

or protest the reactionary elements in your society without yourself becoming a reactionary racist media shill.


It doesn't have the ideas of common property that came up amongst more radical fringe religious groups, but envisages a world where the rich gave charity to the poor instead.

Not entirely true. It more supports a welfare state supported by a tax on muslims. It also has common ownership of natural resources.

[Steve_j]

Are we suppose to ignore when they go out protesting, and only address the EDL? I think if we do that, we isolate a big part of the working class by being frankly blind and hypocritical.

You hit the nail on the head for me. I know there is a lot of sensitivity on the left in regards to Islam because of the discrimiation that they face in our society and whilst i support it to a certin extent. We have people on the streets preaching intolerance we should oppose them. Although this discussion would generally be better suited to another forum, but the EDL and SIOE are palnning to make an appreance so what are we suppose to do? Tell them to fuck off whilst ignoring the people that are preaching sexist, homophobic and theological/totalitarian ideas in the same vicinity.

Whilst Islam4uk are a marginalised aspect of the muslim community they and the EDL/SIOE are trying to divide our communities into muslim and non muslim. I really think we need to make a stong stand against them to make it clear that its not gonna be tolerated.

[ls]

Not entirely true. It more supports a welfare state supported by a tax on muslims. It also has common ownership of natural resources.

And you support that?


Just because they're brown doesn't mean they can't be fascists. Quite the contrary, it comes in all forms and colors.


:rolleyes:

Oh yeah that's exactly what people were saying, clearly because they are brown that's why the left ignores them.

You are a complete tool. Religious fundamentalism that wants to spread across the entire world is not isolated to Islam, do you know many left groups that go out to specifically counter-protest Christian fundamentalist groups?

I didn't fucking think so shithead, this is essentially what you're asking people to do, except it's different because it's Islam. :rolleyes:

There is no problem with what Djehuti was saying, because it seems to imply knowledge that they are A) not fascist and B) marginalised badly, also saying they must stay that way, also I'm sure by what's said that the organsations Djehuti describes go out to protest against Christian fundamentalists and other religious fundamentalists too.


Whilst Islam4uk are a marginalised aspect of the muslim community they and the EDL/SIOE are trying to divide our communities into muslim and non muslim. I really think we need to make a stong stand against them to make it clear that its not gonna be tolerated.
__________________

Except you're a tool who thinks they are terrible fascists and want to build a massive caliphate, also that ENGLISH SOCIETY is in grave danger!

[MaoTseHelen]

Religious fundamentalism that wants to spread across the entire world is not isolated to Islam, do you know many left groups that go out to specifically counter-protest Christian fundamentalist groups?

I didn't fucking think so shithead, this is essentially what you're asking people to do, except it's different because it's Islam.

It's not uncommon for Christian fundamentalists to be met with protest in the States, actually. You see it most starkly in the abortion debate, as the Catholic Church tends to be a rallying point and organizational structure for the pro-life side of things.

There's no reason to treat fundamentalist Islam differently. And yes, I am saying people are treating them different out of fear of being called racist. I'm not saying "If they're Muslim you ought to go and protest them" - I'm saying if they preach authoritarianism and the imposition of their views on the masses, they should be opposed like any other group, including shitheads like the BNP, or the DPP, or anyone else.

[Steve_j]

Except you're a tool

Well its great to see you label anyone who doesnt agree with you a "Tool"
Very constructive.


who thinks they are terrible fascists

I distinguish a difference between theology and fascism. And theology along the lines of these nutters can be just as bad.


and want to build a massive caliphate

Um well yes, they do, thats what they are promoting, thats the reason for the existance of their group.



also that ENGLISH SOCIETY is in grave danger!

:) yes as someone who is an imigrant, anti nationalist, who only know a handful of english people, has no interest in "ENGLISH" culture...... I feel "ENGLISH SOCIETY" is in grave danger. Great conclusion there.

[ls]

It's not uncommon for Christian fundamentalists to be met with protest in the States, actually.

Really?

I've never heard of it happening, not once, that a left-wing group turned up specifically to protest against a fundamentalist Christian group, not even once, to be fair I don't hear that much about left-wing groups turning up to protest against fundamentalist Islamic groups either, in the USA.


There's no reason to treat fundamentalist Islam differently.

So fundamentalist religious zeal is directly as bad as fascism then? Great logic.


And yes, I am saying people are treating them different out of fear of being called racist.

I'm just pointing out the contradictions, there are militant Christian marches and marches for the homecoming of the troops here with a distinctively Christian theme, it's not really something that the left targets.

Most of the left do not target Islamic fundamentalism either, mostly because it's pointless.


I'm not saying "If they're Muslim you ought to go and protest them" - I'm saying if they preach authoritarianism and the imposition of their views on the masses, they should be opposed like any other group, including shitheads like the BNP, or the DPP, or anyone else.

But they aren't fascists, there is a simple inability to see this as the case, funnily enough you haven't called christian fundamentalists fascists either, seemingly because you think radical islam is a lot worse than radical christianity.

Don't worry, it seems to be a common theme.


I distinguish a difference between theology and fascism. And theology along the lines of these nutters can be just as bad.

But it's not in the cases in point, so what you're saying is nulled.


Um well yes, they do, thats what they are promoting, thats the reason for the existance of their group.

So what? It's a ridiculous idea that's never going to catch on, the idea of an ethnonationalist GB however is abit more realistic, thus the group is bigger.


:) yes as someone who is an imigrant, anti nationalist, who only know a handful of english people, has no interest in "ENGLISH" culture...... I feel "ENGLISH SOCIETY" is in grave danger. Great conclusion there.

It's that or you're a total tool.

[gorillafuck]

No such thing as Islamo-fascism, it's a word made up by imperialist right-wingers. Islam isn't a good religion (all religions are pretty bad) but setting out to oppose it is ridiculous when Muslims are discriminated against and victimized. Though I personally think militant atheism in general is a bad idea.

[Steve_j]

But it's not in the cases in point, so what you're saying is nulled.

If it were a reverse situation im sure you would be activily opposing a nationalist minority aswell.


So what?

Well you were just stated the opposite, which leads me to believe that you dont know what the fuck your talking about.


the idea of an ethnonationalist GB however is abit more realistic, thus the group is bigger.

Granted, and it looks like they might be in the same place at the same time an you propose we only go after one group? Top fucking work there, why dont we just team up with Islam 4 UK? Idiot.

[ls]

If it were a reverse situation im sure you would be activily opposing a nationalist minority aswell.

There are no big examples of that, because it's very much mostly not a threat. Now you are just making up scenarios that almost never happen in the UK. I've heard that antifa have targeted not just pro-white groups before, but ones that were actually causing distress to communities and not a tiny proportion of morons which is what islam4uk is.


Well you were just stated the opposite, which leads me to believe that you dont know what the fuck your talking about.

I am perfectly aware of what you're talking about and what I'm saying in relation to it, maybe you have some kind of blockage which prevents you from following the discourse of the thread, idk, but don't take it out on me.


Granted, and it looks like they might be in the same place at the same time an you propose we only go after one group? Top fucking work there, why dont we just team up with Islam 4 UK? Idiot.

:rolleyes: You've really proven my original point, you're a complete tool, you've also approached this from completely the wrong angle.

[Melbourne Lefty]

God is a pretty important part of Islam.


Really? Is that so?:laugh:

Seriously though the arguments in favour of ignoring the VERY reactionary strains of Islam are not very good.

I dont think we have much of a chance of changing left wing opinion in the subject.

People dont want to take on Islamic extremism because muslims are so under attack from racists.

[9]

Seriously though the arguments in favour of ignoring the VERY reactionary strains of Islam are not very good.
I don't know that anyone has said we should "ignore" religious fundamentalism; I don't think we should. However, I think if we are to address the issue, it should either be in the context of "religious fundamentalism as a whole" (as opposed to singling out one brand of religious fundamentalism which, I'm sure by complete and total coincidence... just happens to be the religious fundamentalism of an acutely persecuted and widely-hated minority), or if we are going to single out a particular brand of religious fundamentalism, it ought to be the brand which is the most dominant in our particular society and which poses the greatest threat.
So, as I said, I certainly don't think we should be oblivious to religious fundamentalism. I do, however, think we should ignore the right-wing lie which claims there is a real danger in the UK (or US, etc.) of Islamists gaining a foothold, becoming a powerful force in the region, and imposing Sharia law on Europe (or the US, etc). I think it should be obvious whose interests are served by the propagation of such a lie.

I dont think we have much of a chance of changing left wing opinion in the subject.If by "we" you are referring to those elements within the "left" who find appealing the idea of further victimizing the Muslim communities of predominantly white "western" countries, I certainly hope you don't have a chance.

People dont want to take on Islamic extremism because muslims are so under attack from racists.Also because it isn't a threat which warrants singling out and "taking on" in the way that this thread was proposing. Absolutely, fundamentalist Islam is a reactionary ideology, and I believe those here who have suggested that it isn't (or indeed, that it is inherently progressive) are also extremely confused, albeit in a significantly different, less sinister way than those in favor of singling out UK Muslims for victimization.

[Devrim]

I don't know that anyone has said we should "ignore" religious fundamentalism; I don't think we should. However, I think if we are to address the issue, it should either be in the context of "religious fundamentalism as a whole" (as opposed to singling out one brand of religious fundamentalism which, I'm sure by complete and total coincidence... just happens to be the religious fundamentalism of an acutely persecuted and widely-hated minority), or if we are going to single out a particular brand of religious fundamentalism, it ought to be the brand which is the most dominant in our particular society and which poses the greatest threat.

I have two points here. The first is that this is an international board, and although Muslims may be an 'acutely persecuted and widely-hated minority' in Washington state, where I live, and where other posters on this board live, they are not.

Secondly, even in the West, there is a difference between defending Muslims against discrimination, and defending Islam and its practices.

Devrim

[9]

I have two points here. The first is that this is an international board, and although Muslims may be an 'acutely persecuted and widely-hated minority' in Washington state, where I live, and where other posters on this board live, they are not.
Yes, I am fully aware of that, but the discussion in this thread* is predicated on "Islam4uk", so the context to which I was speaking was intended specifically to be Muslims in the UK.

*The OP:

As I can not of yet post links.

Google Islam4uk

click on the side Procession march for Shariah.


Peoples thoughts?

I tried to be very clear in reinforcing the fact that I was talking about the UK (or another region with similar "demographics" and racial sentiments, relatively speaking) throughout the post from which you quoted me:

...in the UK (or US, etc.) of Islamists gaining...
...imposing Sharia law on Europe (or the US, etc)...
...victimizing the Muslim communities of predominantly white "western" countries...
... out UK Muslims for...The only time in that post that I made any reference to Muslims or Islamists without specifically referring to the region to which I was speaking was in the sentence which you quoted, and you are correct; I should have been clear in that statement that I was referring specifically to the United Kingdom.



Secondly, even in the West, there is a difference between defending Muslims against discrimination, and defending Islam and its practices.
Again, I am aware of this; you've quoted a small ambiguous portion of my post and left off the parts of it which provided more clarity about what I was actually trying to say:

...fundamentalist Islam is a reactionary ideology, and I believe those here who have suggested that it isn't (or indeed, that it is inherently progressive) are also extremely confused...

[Devrim]

Again, I am aware of this; you've quoted a small ambiguous portion of my post and left off the parts of it which provided more clarity about what I was actually trying to say:

It wasn't particularly aimed at you. It was more a general comment and if it had any direction it was aimed a people who claim that Islam isn't inherently reactionary, and who do offer a defence of Islam, for example people on here who have claimed that there is something socialistic about Islam or that it is not anti-gay.

Devrim

[Melbourne Lefty]

If by "we" you are referring to those elements within the "left" who find appealing the idea of further victimizing the Muslim communities of predominantly white "western" countries, I certainly hope you don't have a chance.


So opposing religious extremism in majority communities is righteous, but in minority communities which are the subject of discrimination it is not?

Double standards like that give an inch for far right groups to stick a crowbar in.

[9]

So opposing religious extremism in majority communities is righteous, but in minority communities which are the subject of discrimination it is not?
My comment was not about "opposing" it, it was about holding a public demonstration against it.
So early 20th century Odessa, you'd have been all for mobilizing a large predominantly-gentile protest against the threat of Judaism? Because doing anything else would be a double standard which would play into the hands of far right groups, correct? Conversely, may I inquire, whose hands would a public protest against the religion of the intensely-persecuted Jews of early 20th-century Odessa have played into?


Double standards like that give an inch for far right groups to stick a crowbar in.I don't believe that paying heed to racist sentiments among a majority population in a particular region and bearing this factor in mind when considering potential consequences of a public demonstration against a persecuted minority population in that region is a "double standard". I think its responsibility. I think its not being so blinded by dogma that you ignore the potential consequences of your actions.

[Steve_j]

Conversely, may I inquire, whose hands would a public protest against the religion of the intensely-persecuted Jews of early 20th-century Odessa have played into?

Who here is proposing a protests against a religion? We are proposing action agaisnt fringe groups and individuals who want to stir up racial/religious tensions.


I don't believe that paying heed to racist sentiments among a majority population

Either does anyone else on this thread. Quite the opposite, its about creating a clear and firm position against prejudice.


and bearing this factor in mind when considering potential consequences of a public demonstration against a persecuted minority population

Why are you equating "Islam 4 UK" with the muslim population? Thats half the problem, the EDL and others are equating this lot with the muslim population. We need to differentiate the two and i dont think we will do that by confronting the EDL whilst ignoring Islam 4 UK.

[Melbourne Lefty]

I don't believe that paying heed to racist sentiments among a majority population in a particular region and bearing this factor in mind when considering potential consequences of a public demonstration against a persecuted minority population in that region is a "double standard".


And if you think it wont be seen as a double standard by the general population I have a bridge to sell you.:laugh:

[Salabra]

Islam respects christians jews and other humans, but they almost fiercely disrespect Atheists and Polytheists.

Are Atheists and Polytheists not human, then?

And given that militant atheism is a virtual sine qua non for Marxists, I guess that puts most of us on RevLeft (OK, maybe just me) firmly in the basket marked 'fiercely disrespected.'

[Holden Caulfield]

Kind of unrelated but I've recently, and for my sins, been having to delve deep into the relms of American Neo-Cons, and I had started a love/hate relationship with Chris Hitchens.

Now he hates all religion, and one would think being as intelligent as he is he would be able to make good arguments on other things that don't directly relate to religion, but he can't.

He justifies the Iraq war and dams muslims as most other American Right Wingers do, however correct his anti-theistic line might be we should not support his campaigns. It is simply to justify Imperialism, in the same way that when Ireland was struggling for National Liberation conservatives in the UK criticised Catholocism, claiming 'Home Rule is Rome Rule'. In no way do I defend the Catholic faith, or extremists in the religion but we must not join in the chorus of attacks as leftists we must be objective as to why they are occuring.

Now on the same note the newspaper sensationalism supported by the BNP et al against Muslim extremists are much the same thing. It is not that we defend Islam as a faith it is that we see why these attacks occur and we put them in context. White Supremacists have bombed and planned to bomb the UK more times than Muslims. White Supremacists have been prejudice against women, gays, and trade unions and now they point and scream at a tiny minority of Muslims to create fear which will in turn fuel their rise.

We do not defend Islam, we do not defend any faith. No gods, no masters.

Again I use this maxim to show my point:
I am anti-theist, but I would not join in with Hitler to criticise Judaism.
(I am anti-theist, but I would not join in with Ian Paisley to criticise Catholicism)
(I am anti-theist, but I would not join in with Nick Griffin to criticise Islam)