Islamophile leftist

[Das war einmal]

None of you here need to be informed that there is a most dangerous development going on in The Netherlands and the rest of Europe. There is a trend going on to persecute Muslims. There is of course, much resistance coming from the far left.

There is no excuse to exclude people on behalf of their beliefs.

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Islam whole together.

What is slightly amusing and a bit frustrating at the same time is that these persons are the same who ignorantly go on a hate rampage against (former) socialist countries.

They seem to have lost every reason concerning both cases. As unforgiving and unscientifically they treat the former Eastern bloc (ex. people who say 'I'm glad the workers overthrew the statecapitalist USSR', 'I'm gonna celebrate the fall of the wall' ), as reclessly they defend Islamic movements ('The Hamas deserves our full support', leftist supporting the European-Arabic Liga, a nationalist movement) or 'forget' to mention the downright reactionary policies of certain Islamist movements.

What are the reasons? What do they attempt to achieve? How are they gonna think this serves the socialist cause? Why is there an unequal treatment of critique on religion A and religion B?

[leninpuncher]

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Islam whole together.

What is slightly amusing and a bit frustrating at the same time is that these persons are the same who ignorantly go on a hate rampage against (former) socialist countries.

How about you substantiate these claims. I mostly hear defences of Hamas from Stalinists and Maoists. Sometimes I hear it from Trotskyist groups like the SWP, but they don't use the state-capitalist attack on the USSR, so you can't be aluding to them. I suppose you're aluding to the libertarian left? I don't think I've ever heard an anarchist defending Hamas.

[Dimentio]

I have seen some delusional leftists, not so much associated with any party as with magazines and think tanks start to glorify islam ("the religion of peace") and some even claiming that islamism is a revolutionary leftist ideology. It is often loudmouths without any root in any movement at all who stress those ideas.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I support what Hamas wants in terms of freedom for the Palestinians and a state on 1967 borders, but otherwise I do not support them.

[Wanted Man]

I have seen some delusional leftists, not so much associated with any party as with magazines and think tanks start to glorify islam ("the religion of peace")

Isn't that simply used sarcastically? Like in: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Spawn of Stalin]

How about you substantiate these claims. I mostly hear defences of Hamas from Stalinists and Maoists. Sometimes I hear it from Trotskyist groups like the SWP, but they don't use the state-capitalist attack on the USSR, so you can't be aluding to them. I suppose you're aluding to the libertarian left? I don't think I've ever heard an anarchist defending Hamas.
The SWP do refer to the Soviet Union as state capitalist. As do many Trotskyists.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

How about you substantiate these claims. I mostly hear defences of Hamas from Stalinists and Maoists. Sometimes I hear it from Trotskyist groups like the SWP, but they don't use the state-capitalist attack on the USSR, so you can't be aluding to them. I suppose you're aluding to the libertarian left? I don't think I've ever heard an anarchist defending Hamas.
As motionless says, the SWP do use the state capitalist line, and they're also the major pro-Hamas group on the UK left. I dunno about the Netherlands, but it makes sense that the Dutch section of the IST would have the same line.

[leninpuncher]

The SWP do refer to the Soviet Union as state capitalist. As do many Trotskyists.
I thought trotskyists rejected that label in favour of "deformed workers state".

[Das war einmal]

I thought trotskyists rejected that label in favour of "deformed workers state".


Not the Tony-Cliff types (the IST)

[Ravachol]

None of you here need to be informed that there is a most dangerous development going on in The Netherlands and the rest of Europe. There is a trend going on to persecute Muslims. There is of course, much resistance coming from the far left.

There is no excuse to exclude people on behalf of their beliefs.

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Islam whole together.

What is slightly amusing and a bit frustrating at the same time is that these persons are the same who ignorantly go on a hate rampage against (former) socialist countries.

They seem to have lost every reason concerning both cases. As unforgiving and unscientifically they treat the former Eastern bloc (ex. people who say 'I'm glad the workers overthrew the statecapitalist USSR', 'I'm gonna celebrate the fall of the wall' ), as reclessly they defend Islamic movements ('The Hamas deserves our full support', leftist supporting the European-Arabic Liga, a nationalist movement) or 'forget' to mention the downright reactionary policies of certain Islamist movements.

What are the reasons? What do they attempt to achieve? How are they gonna think this serves the socialist cause? Why is there an unequal treatment of critique on religion A and religion B?

This is an interesting point of debate indeed. It has been discussed before though, so instead of re-iterating my views on the matter I will refer to my previous posts and subsequent (interesting) discussion with Jethro Tull on Far-Right Islamism, Islamophobia and general Identity Politics:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1586954&postcount=75
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1587517&postcount=80
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1587960&postcount=83

I hope that is of some use.

[Lyev]

None of you here need to be informed that there is a most dangerous development going on in The Netherlands and the rest of Europe. There is a trend going on to persecute Muslims. There is of course, much resistance coming from the far left.

There is no excuse to exclude people on behalf of their beliefs.

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Islam whole together.

What is slightly amusing and a bit frustrating at the same time is that these persons are the same who ignorantly go on a hate rampage against (former) socialist countries.

They seem to have lost every reason concerning both cases. As unforgiving and unscientifically they treat the former Eastern bloc (ex. people who say 'I'm glad the workers overthrew the statecapitalist USSR', 'I'm gonna celebrate the fall of the wall' ), as reclessly they defend Islamic movements ('The Hamas deserves our full support', leftist supporting the European-Arabic Liga, a nationalist movement) or 'forget' to mention the downright reactionary policies of certain Islamist movements.

What are the reasons? What do they attempt to achieve? How are they gonna think this serves the socialist cause? Why is there an unequal treatment of critique on religion A and religion B?

Well it is an interesting and quite sensitive subject, I think. Of course I hate the Islamaphobia because the immense majority of it stems from absolute ignorance, hence why I defend Islam on that account. To add, I think most people that discuss the issues of Islamic extremism and the subjugation of women under Islam don't fully know what their talking about, or have been fed lies by the media. Some guy that sits next me in my history class the other day starting going on about "Islamic terrorists" and I asked him if he had actually even gone hear a Koran, let alone read one. (This isn't to say I've read the Koran either) however, I think the majority of people that practice Islam are, of course, normal, intelligent, level-headed people. If you look in any holy book I'm sure you can find many things that can interpretated with a sexist/extremist stance. TBH I don't like most religion for it's dogmatism and indoctrination, but I don't mouth off about it because it's none of my business to say what people do and don't, unless it's the abuse of women.

[Honggweilo]

leftist supporting the European-Arabic Liga, a nationalist movement) Small note; the AEL is not or was not ever a Muslim party, but a secular left ba-athists party.

[Das war einmal]

Small note; the AEL is not or was not ever a Muslim party, but a secular left ba-athists party.

That might be so, but look at this quote at the welcoming page in Dutch:


Ik zweer bij Allah de Almachtige dat ik noch mijn geloof, noch mijn taal, noch mijn afkomst verloochen. Ik vervloek Philips II en de etnocentristen van vandaag. Ik vervloek Muley Nunez en de geassimileerden van vandaag. Ik zweer trouw aan mijn voorouders, zoals zij dat aan hun voorouders hebben gedaan. Moge Allah mij de kracht en dapperheid geven van de martelaren van Alpujjares.

With all respect, this does not sound really secular to me (to English only people: Its something along the lines of 'I swear by Allah the Almighty that I shall not condemn my religion, language or heritage. (...)I swear allegiance to my forefathers, like they did to our forefathers. May Allah give me the strength and courage of the martyrs of Alpujjares.)

[Ravachol]

That might be so, but look at this quote at the welcoming page in Dutch:



[/FONT][/I][/B]With all respect, this does not sound really secular to me (to English only people: Its something along the lines of 'I swear by Allah the Almighty that I shall not condemn my religion, language or heritage. (...)I swear allegiance to my forefathers, like they did to our forefathers. May Allah give me the strength and courage of the martyrs of Alpujjares.)


To be fair that sounds more like Islam as part of the national identity (pan-arabic in this case if i'm correct) than Islam as the primary identity and ideological focuspoint. But then again, it's not desirable and this is nitpicking :p

It does tell us something about their political outlook though. The AEL does not seem Islamist to be, but rather ethno-nationalist.

[Dimentio]

Isn't that simply used sarcastically? Like in: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Nope. They are serious.

The prime example is Andreas Malm.

[Dimentio]

Small note; the AEL is not or was not ever a Muslim party, but a secular left ba-athists party.

Left ba'athism sounds like strasserism in my ears. :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Nope. They are serious.

The prime example is Andreas Malm.

And who is that?

[Robocommie]

I defend Islam in general because in general it's under attack by imperialists and chauvinists, and I feel most of the negative perception of Islam is fueled by xenophobia and the legacy of colonialist stereotypes. Certainly I feel there are problems within the broad world that is described by the word "Islam" but given that we're talking about a billion people it would be ridiculous for there not to be. I do not see how there is anything inherently negative about Islam, but then I do feel that a lot of anti-theists in general attribute too much of religion's wrongs to spirituality or religious tradition at large, rather than recognizing the influence of economic exploitation and reactionary sentiment turning religion to it's own ends. Religion is not inherently reactionary, if that were so then men like John Brown would not have been so motivated by his faith to violently put down the institution of slavery.

The Islam we are witnessing today is largely a product of imperialism, a reactive backlash to everything that has gone wrong politically in Islamic areas, and we have to recognize that it is capitalism that has done this. There are a lot of reactionary elements in Islam, but these are political developments peculiar to THIS era and it's unfair and culturally biased to saddle the entire religion and the entire MASSIVE demographic it represents with it.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Religion is not inherently reactionary, if that were so then men like John Brown would not have been so motivated by his faith to violently put down the institution of slavery.

Motivated by his faith, or motivated by humanistic impulses that found expression through the medium of faith but could equally well have been expressed in another form?

[Dean]

None of you here need to be informed that there is a most dangerous development going on in The Netherlands and the rest of Europe. There is a trend going on to persecute Muslims. There is of course, much resistance coming from the far left.

There is no excuse to exclude people on behalf of their beliefs.

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Islam whole together.

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Judaism whole together."

Doesn't sound very savory, does it? The fact is, Muslims have been made into a boogeyman. If you say the same about any other religious or ethnic group, it sounds horrible, racist and backwards. But since Europeans and Westerners have a comfy view of the "imperial Muslim," a view echoing the historical conflicts of religious war, it seems perfectly legitimate to blame Islam for social and political woes of Islamic nations and groups.

But its not, the same way that Jewish banking wasn't some proof of some 'Jewish capitalist conspiracy.' Is it so hard to see how similar the rhetoric is to the historical Antisemitism of Europe?

[Robocommie]

Motivated by his faith, or motivated by humanistic impulses that found expression through the medium of faith but could equally well have been expressed in another form?

Well, that's a good question, and it's a hard question to answer. I don't think it's necessarily a freak coincidence that so much abolitionism in the 19th century took on a religious character. But then there were pro-slave preachers in the South, as well. However, much of the concept of natural born rights, the inherent value of the human being, the equality of each human being as a child of God, naturally these are somewhat mystical concepts somewhat rooted in philosophies started by religion.

Almost every religion on Earth tends to have at the heart of it the idea of doing good for the sake of doing good. The major world religions condemn greed, cruelty, selfishness, and promotes kindness, charity, peace. They encourage avoiding excess and the trap of seeking fulfillment through consumption. I feel all of these things are Socialist values as well.

There is homophobia, there is racism, there is sexism, but I think much of these things are based either on conflicting cultural practices (For example, much of the sexism found in Islamic cultures today are rooted in pre-Islamic practices which Qu'ranic scripture expressly disapproves of) or are based on outdated readings or understandings of religious doctrine which can and, I believe will eventually be phased out through a gradual process of evolution.

Ultimately, I just hate hearing people say how religion is always about misleading people, that it's inherently reactionary and it's something that has to be destroyed for the sake of social justice. I don't believe that at all, my own beliefs drive me to be a more caring, compassionate person and compels me to struggle for a more just and equal society whether we win or not. I know many will disagree with me, some heatedly so, but I know others will understand me.

[Robocommie]

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Judaism whole together."

Doesn't sound very savory, does it? The fact is, Muslims have been made into a boogeyman. If you say the same about any other religious or ethnic group, it sounds horrible, racist and backwards. But since Europeans and Westerners have a comfy view of the "imperial Muslim," a view echoing the historical conflicts of religious war, it seems perfectly legitimate to blame Islam for social and political woes of Islamic nations and groups.

But its not, the same way that Jewish banking wasn't some proof of some 'Jewish capitalist conspiracy.' Is it so hard to see how similar the rhetoric is to the historical Antisemitism of Europe?

Very well said, my sentiments exactly. Islam's perception in the West did not come about in a vacuum, and objectivity is difficult in a post-colonial world.

[Absolut]

And who is that?

Swedish leftist. Has written a few books, about everything from Palestine to the climate change, all of which Ive read are brilliant. His last book is called The Hate Against Moslems and goes through, well, the hate against Moslems. Its a 700 pages long tome, where he brings up the far-right arguments against "getting rid" of moslems and completely dissects and counter them. I assume thats the book hes reffering to. Dont know if its availible in any other language than Swedish though. If it is, you should read it. Everyone should.

[9]

However, there is another trend that is negative aswell. In response to these allegations from the right, certain groups and individuals now seem to favor to defend the Judaism whole together."

Doesn't sound very savory, does it? The fact is, Muslims have been made into a boogeyman. If you say the same about any other religious or ethnic group, it sounds horrible, racist and backwards. But since Europeans and Westerners have a comfy view of the "imperial Muslim," a view echoing the historical conflicts of religious war, it seems perfectly legitimate to blame Islam for social and political woes of Islamic nations and groups.

But its not, the same way that Jewish banking wasn't some proof of some 'Jewish capitalist conspiracy.' Is it so hard to see how similar the rhetoric is to the historical Antisemitism of Europe?

Yes, these are interesting points; when I first saw this thread, I just sort of shook my head and considered starting a new one called "Judeophile leftists", but I actually thought I might be banned for it if I did, in spite of the fact that I am Jewish myself.

There is an interesting double standard in the treatment by many leftists of discrimination against Jews and discrimination against Muslims. The former is treated with grave seriousness and opposition (most of the time) and regarded as racism while the latter is treated as acceptable and legitimate criticism of the Islamic religion, even when it clearly goes beyond that (e.g. supporting the Swiss ban of minarets). I understand that this is largely a consequence of the history of the 20th century persecution of Jews, and the fact that - because the Western ruling class presently has little interest/ability in using the Jews as scapegoats, Jews are generally no longer victims of systemic oppression (at all, really, in the West). As a result, it is socially acceptable to acknowledge a great deal of the persecution from the previous centuries because doing so does not jeopardize any ruling class privileges and can be used as a nice anti-racist posturing and a partial justification for imperialist adventures in the Mid East.

Muslims, on the other hand, are one of the most useful scapegoats to the Western ruling classes at the present time, much as Jews were a century ago. As a result, vicious baldfaced racism against Muslims is socially legitimate and refusing to engage in such behavior - or recognizing that the idea that Muslims present a substantial and unique threat to "European values" and "things that Europeans have fought for" is pure chauvinism - is seen as "Islamophilia", and even on the left, is mocked and ridiculed. And the ruling class would have it no other way than to ensure that, even amongst radicals, it is seen as illegitimate or absurd to recognize the gravity and danger of anti-Muslim sentiments, (even when they are poorly disguised as "opposition to Islam as a religion" taking the form of religious discrimination/persecution), because such sentiments serve the bourgeoisie in such a fundamental way (i.e. dividing the working class and creating the illusion of a sinister alien "enemy among us" to scare and manipulate proletarians into allying with their national bourgeoisie against an illusory threat, believing the danger comes from a religious minority group rather than their own bourgeoisie).

What this all basically means to me is that the same leftists who make a lot of noise about "Islamophilia" and who make a point of singling out Islam as uniquely dangerous to "things Europeans have fought for" are the very same leftists who would be justifying anti-Semitism were it only one hundred years earlier - when it was very socially acceptable and seemingly 'impartial' and 'judicious' to do so - by suggesting that Judaism represents a unique danger to "European values", and that the threat posed by Judaism in Europe must be seriously acknowledged by genuine leftists.

I realize logically the importance of separating emotional reactions from political analyses (as often as I fail at this in practice), but I can't help feeling personally insulted by these supposed "leftists" who seem so oblivious to something so serious - particularly when they simultaneously insist on going on about the present dangers of anti-Semitism, as though it were fifty+ fucking years ago and the ruling class's scapegoat of choice was still the Jews. If fascism makes a genuine recovery in the West, I feel very certain that it will be a pro-Zionist outwardly "Jewish friendly" form, if only out of political necessity. Times and conditions have changed, and so has the scapegoat.


Of course, none of this means I think positively of Islam - I don't at all; Islam is a religion, and religion is generally reactionary. Having said that, I don't believe you can view religion in a vacuum, as an isolated force removed from any broader political context. And just as importantly (if not moreso), one cannot view individual religions (let alone individual Abrahamic religions) in isolation - as uniquely dangerous or uniquely reactionary, as though there is some kind of dinstinction between any given religion and religion as a whole - and criticize them on that basis. Modern religion is a reflection of material conditions; it is the variation in conditions between, for example, Afghanistan on one hand and Britain on the other, which is the predominant factor in determining the role religion plays in each country and the character it takes. This, as opposed to being a reflection of differences inherent in the two regionally-dominant religions themselves. The point, though, is that Islam is no more inherently reactionary than Christianity or Judaism, and vice versa, etc. all the way down the line.


Well, that's a good question, and it's a hard question to answer. I don't think it's necessarily a freak coincidence that so much abolitionism in the 19th century took on a religious character. But then there were pro-slave preachers in the South, as well. However, much of the concept of natural born rights, the inherent value of the human being, the equality of each human being as a child of God, naturally these are somewhat mystical concepts somewhat rooted in philosophies started by religion.

Almost every religion on Earth tends to have at the heart of it the idea of doing good for the sake of doing good. The major world religions condemn greed, cruelty, selfishness, and promotes kindness, charity, peace. They encourage avoiding excess and the trap of seeking fulfillment through consumption. I feel all of these things are Socialist values as well.

I want to make the point - and I have made it before - that it doesn't actually matter very much at all at this point what the scriptures say; that they (I am primarily using Abrahamic scriptures for the purposes of familiarity) are such vague, outmoded, frankly bizarre, contradictory doctrines from which one could draw with relative ease the exact opposite values of the ones you've listed above and honestly conclude that these opposite values are the ones at the heart of these religions. And even if the holy books weren't so ambiguous and contradictory, people will find methods of reading into them new and different meanings; I can attest to this quite directly, having had a grandfather and two uncles who were rather erudite Kabbalists... what better example to illustrate my point than Kabbalah, which provides various numerological/mathematical formulae which are utilized to calculate infinite numerical values of the letters and words of the scriptures in order to derive new meanings entirely from the texts.
And the point I'm making is that it is largely irrelevant what the scriptures themselves say because the function of religion in a given society is not determined by millennia-old "divine laws" and texts; the function it serves today is determined by material conditions today.



There is homophobia, there is racism, there is sexism, but I think much of these things are based either on conflicting cultural practices (For example, much of the sexism found in Islamic cultures today are rooted in pre-Islamic practices which Qu'ranic scripture expressly disapproves of) or are based on outdated readings or understandings of religious doctrine which can and, I believe will eventually be phased out through a gradual process of evolution.

Ultimately, I just hate hearing people say how religion is always about misleading people, that it's inherently reactionary and it's something that has to be destroyed for the sake of social justice. I don't believe that at all, my own beliefs drive me to be a more caring, compassionate person and compels me to struggle for a more just and equal society whether we win or not. I know many will disagree with me, some heatedly so, but I know others will understand me.I don't think religion is only about misleading people (although it's often used to that end; another example where Kabbalah is relevant).
But I understand very, very much why people might feel the need to turn inward to religion to lead what they see as a more fulfilling, more hopeful life.
Religious belief may not be rational, but the reasons for it usually are. It is, like everything else, the product of material conditions. One of the ways it is often used is almost a form of self-medicating. There is no justice under capitalism and the reality for working class people is often unbearable and devastating; it is, therefore, often out of emotional necessity that people turn to (or become more deeply immersed in) religious belief; it provides a sense of comfort, hope, and the promise of justice when the "worldly" availability of such consolations is seemingly nil.
However, I do believe that part of the process of working toward developing a sound political analysis (if one has this as an objective) probably necessarily involves discarding religious belief.
I actually relatively recently read a brief-but-interesting article by the LRP somewhat related to this, called 'Why Marxists Are Atheists' which may (or may not) be of interest to you: http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/atheistsPR66.html

[Das war einmal]

I think people misunderstand me, I am not in any way attacking people who rightfully defend muslims who are being discriminated. I am having problems with leftists who unconditionally defend extremist muslim-organisations who are having a reactionary agenda. That is downright class betrayal.

[Robocommie]

Hehe, I can tell already you're a pretty formidable counterpart in a conversation, Apikoros. I don't agree with all your feelings on the issue but I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness of your position. :)



I want to make the point - and I have made it before - that it doesn't actually matter very much at all at this point what the scriptures say; that they (I am primarily using Abrahamic scriptures for the purposes of familiarity) are such vague, outmoded, frankly bizarre, contradictory doctrines from which one could draw with relative ease the exact opposite values of the ones you've listed above and honestly conclude that these opposite values are the ones at the heart of these religions.

Well, I don't really think so. The values I mentioned have been relatively consistent throughout the history of these religions. Christianity has never been a religion that approves of the spoils going to the strong, for example, and Christians have always at least paid lip service to the idea of compassion for it's own sake being an unqualified good. The same with Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism. Anyone can interpret scripture anyway you want, but no established and respected view of theology has ever departed completely from these values.

Similarly, scripture for it's own sake has a great deal of value. I'm not Christian, have not been for some years, I'm doing more of an Eastern thing. But even so I've often read passages from the Bible, particularly Proverbs, or sections of the New Testament, that I've found very stirring in their message.

You want my evidence that religion tends towards justice and liberation, just look at how the Conservapedia fools are wanting to edit the Bible to make it NOT left-leaning. They've come to the conclusion that the very same Bible they've been reading all along is a piece of leftist propaganda.

Besides, I then also have to point out, not actually being a follower of an Abrahamic faith, that those aren't the only holy books or scripture in the world. Zen koans don't tend to be very contradictory except on purpose.



I don't think religion is only about misleading people (although it's often used to that end; another example where Kabbalah is relevant).
But I understand very, very much why people might feel the need to turn inward to religion to lead what they see as a more fulfilling, more hopeful life.
Religious belief may not be rational, but the reasons for it usually are. It is, like everything else, the product of material conditions. One of the ways it is often used is almost a form of self-medicating. There is no justice under capitalism and the reality for working class people is often unbearable and devastating; it is, therefore, often out of emotional necessity that people turn to (or become more deeply immersed in) religious belief; it provides a sense of comfort, hope, and the promise of justice when the "worldly" availability of such consolations is seemingly nil.That is one thing that religion does, however it can fuel a search for justice, as liberation theology demonstrates. I think it's unfair to dismiss liberation theologists as simply twisting their beliefs to suit their politics as that implies that secular truth and spiritual truth cannot intersect. But as I've said elsewhere, it is my philosophical beliefs that bring me to Socialism, it is not my Socialism that brings me to religion and philosophy.

Also, I must insist that there is another purpose to religion entirely, one which even many religious people do not appreciate, and that is the seeking out of contentment of heart and mind. When all the demands of the world are met, and the needs of the flesh are satisfied, there is often a remaining dissatisfaction. Spirituality can and does serve as an avenue to address this lingering unease. There have been several times in my personal life when, in moments of profound grief and trauma, I have found the peace of mind necessary to get through a crisis from meditation.

The thing is, I basically believe that Socialism is the answer for the material needs of mankind, the needs of the flesh and bones. But the needs of our hearts and minds must be addressed in it's own way, and I feel that spirituality can be one of those ways. It's MY way, and I derive a great deal of strength and conviction from it. It's not a bad thing, and I believe it no more needs to be shed from mankind than mankind's appreciation of music or poetry needs to be.

[Homo Songun]

Hamas is a legitimate, and whether we like it or not, quite popular expression of the national liberation struggle of one of the most oppressed peoples on the planet. As such, it is essentially more "leftist", in practical terms, than the sum total of most of the disparate and various "tendencies" represented on this board.... the hand-wringing liberalism is amusing though, I thank you for that :laugh:

[Dean]

Yes, these are interesting points; when I first saw this thread, I just sort of shook my head and considered starting a new one called "Judeophile leftists", but I actually thought I might be banned for it if I did, in spite of the fact that I am Jewish myself.

There is an interesting double standard in the treatment by many leftists of discrimination against Jews and discrimination against Muslims. The former is treated with grave seriousness and opposition (most of the time) and regarded as racism while the latter is treated as acceptable and legitimate criticism of the Islamic religion, even when it clearly goes beyond that (e.g. supporting the Swiss ban of minarets). I understand that this is largely a consequence of the history of the 20th century persecution of Jews, and the fact that - because the Western ruling class presently has little interest/ability in using the Jews as scapegoats, Jews are generally no longer victims of systemic oppression (at all, really, in the West). As a result, it is socially acceptable to acknowledge a great deal of the persecution from the previous centuries because doing so does not jeopardize any ruling class privileges and can be used as a nice anti-racist posturing and a partial justification for imperialist adventures in the Mid East.

Muslims, on the other hand, are one of the most useful scapegoats to the Western ruling classes at the present time, much as Jews were a century ago. As a result, vicious baldfaced racism against Muslims is socially legitimate and refusing to engage in such behavior - or recognizing that the idea that Muslims present a substantial and unique threat to "European values" and "things that Europeans have fought for" is pure chauvinism - is seen as "Islamophilia", and even on the left, is mocked and ridiculed. And the ruling class would have it no other way than to ensure that, even amongst radicals, it is seen as illegitimate or absurd to recognize the gravity and danger of anti-Muslim sentiments, (even when they are poorly disguised as "opposition to Islam as a religion" taking the form of religious discrimination/persecution), because such sentiments serve the bourgeoisie in such a fundamental way (i.e. dividing the working class and creating the illusion of a sinister alien "enemy among us" to scare and manipulate proletarians into allying with their national bourgeoisie against an illusory threat, believing the danger comes from a religious minority group rather than their own bourgeoisie).

What this all basically means to me is that the same leftists who make a lot of noise about "Islamophilia" and who make a point of singling out Islam as uniquely dangerous to "things Europeans have fought for" are the very same leftists who would be justifying anti-Semitism were it only one hundred years earlier - when it was very socially acceptable and seemingly 'impartial' and 'judicious' to do so - by suggesting that Judaism represents a unique danger to "European values", and that the threat posed by Judaism in Europe must be seriously acknowledged by genuine leftists.

I realize logically the importance of separating emotional reactions from political analyses (as often as I fail at this in practice), but I can't help feeling personally insulted by these supposed "leftists" who seem so oblivious to something so serious - particularly when they simultaneously insist on going on about the present dangers of anti-Semitism, as though it were fifty+ fucking years ago and the ruling class's scapegoat of choice was still the Jews. If fascism makes a genuine recovery in the West, I feel very certain that it will be a pro-Zionist outwardly "Jewish friendly" form, if only out of political necessity. Times and conditions have changed, and so has the scapegoat.


Of course, none of this means I think positively of Islam - I don't at all; Islam is a religion, and religion is generally reactionary. Having said that, I don't believe you can view religion in a vacuum, as an isolated force removed from any broader political context. And just as importantly (if not moreso), one cannot view individual religions (let alone individual Abrahamic religions) in isolation - as uniquely dangerous or uniquely reactionary, as though there is some kind of dinstinction between any given religion and religion as a whole - and criticize them on that basis. Modern religion is a reflection of material conditions; it is the variation in conditions between, for example, Afghanistan on one hand and Britain on the other, which is the predominant factor in determining the role religion plays in each country and the character it takes. This, as opposed to being a reflection of differences inherent in the two regionally-dominant religions themselves. The point, though, is that Islam is no more inherently reactionary than Christianity or Judaism, and vice versa, etc. all the way down the line.

I generally agree, except for one point: I think that the Israeli state and aggressive zionism is in fact very anti-semitic. It seeks to place the Jews into a nation-ghetto which is constantly under attack due to its character as an expansionist foreign entity. For many poor Jews, the financial benefits of joining a settlement are a real way out of poverty. I would say that Israeli settlements are a way for the Israeli state to basically sacrifice the safety and dignity of portions of the Jewish population in order to maintain a victimisation image and the false image of a defensive war in order to seize more land. I think its a very deliberate oppression of the Jewish and Muslim people there.