Islam - A big F**king problem

["Red Scum"]

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion. It goes completely against socialism. We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.

The real problem is not in combatting islamic ideas here- thats pretty much a non issue because muslims, let alone extreme muslims will never be a majority in this country. The very idea is laughable. I don't know what Islam4uk are even trying to achieve, what do they think that millions of britons watching tv are going to see a bearded pakistani immigrant in a dress screaming obscenities in a language they don't understand and they'll jump up from their seats and shout- "I see clearly now! everything I believe is wrong! Allah be praised!".

Seriously guys.

The real problem here is that the idiotic, meandering rantings of islamist groups give fodder to the BNP and EDL. The idiocy of a few, annoying, idiotic muslims generates hatred towards ALL muslims, even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly. This must stop now.

But what can we do? Any kind of anti-islamist action attracts racists, the government does nothing. This is why the BNP are growing in power- because nobody else is willing to do anything about the extreme muslims for fear of being branded a racist- when the only option outstanding is actual racists.

I'm all for multiculturalism, under the understanding that it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms and other cultures in the society. Islamic fundamentalists whether militant or not, take the fucking biscuit so to speak. They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups, and use it to try and propagate their disgusting, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, fascist ideologies.

So what can we actually do to combat islamic extremism without supporting blanket racism towards all asians or being accused of being and being joined by fascist whites?

(inb4 "zionist")

[Dimentio]

Attack Islam, but don't attack muslims.

[BobKKKindle$]

even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly.

Who is "our", and what culture do "we" have?

[Ravachol]

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.


For Islam? I don't think so. I've stated my opinion on this matter many times before and I am of the opinion that far-right Islamism (Which is not the same as Islam) needs to be combatted.



Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion.


Excuse me?
'Islam' is nothing in itself, it's too diffuse to be branded 'homophobic' in itself. Several strains are, yes, but not all of them. Secondly, most Islamist strains aren't fascist, as I've argue before. And the accusition of racism is just bullshit. There are virtually no race-oriented permutations of Islam (save for some black supremacist versions).



It goes completely against socialism.


As does all religion.



We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.


'The Muslims'? Since when does the left homogenize groups, especially if this socially constructed 'identity' is very,very diffuse.



The real problem here is that the idiotic, meandering rantings of islamist groups give fodder to the BNP and EDL. The idiocy of a few, annoying, idiotic muslims generates hatred towards ALL muslims, even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly. This must stop now.


I agree partially on this one, the language and arguments in the first part of your post aren't helping though. What I do object to is the phrase 'even those who assimilated into OUR culture perfectly'. First of all, that assumes 'we' (whoever that may be) have a homogenic culture (I sure hope that's not the case), secondly it assumes a 'national identity' to which one has to conform in order to be 'ok', instead of thinking along class lines and progressive values. Values are not to be measured against 'national identity', but against progressive values and class lines.



They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups, and use it to try and propagate their disgusting, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, fascist ideologies.


I suggest you read this (http://libcom.org/library/croisants-roses), a great piece arguing against thinking in terms of 'communities'. Ethnic lines are irrelevant. We should organise along class lines. It is the class war that matters, not the 'race question', whatever that may be.

["Red Scum"]

I should be more specific- I'm referring to extreme muslims.

Extreme Islam buys the BNP most of its votes, if we cut out the (counter socialist) source of the perceived problem then the BNP and EDL wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

["Red Scum"]

And when I said assimilated into our culture, I meant more our society. And when I said that I meant the British society (which I thought gores without saying as I'm talking about the BNP and EDL). I'm far from a nationalist, and the cultures of immigrants to the UK should be cherished and celebrated like all others- this is a multicultural society. But no individual culture should work for the oppression of other points of view. Not a white culture, a black one, asian, oriental, none of them. Each to their own but I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to abide by religion- whether its islam, christianity, judaism or any other.

["Red Scum"]

Excuse me?
'Islam' is nothing in itself, it's too diffuse to be branded 'homophobic' in itself. Several strains are, yes, but not all of them. Secondly, most Islamist strains aren't fascist, as I've argue before. And the accusition of racism is just bullshit. There are virtually no race-oriented permutations of Islam (save for some black supremacist versions).

The Qu'aran says that homosexuals should be killed. How is that not homophobic? Its certainly sexist, only a complete and utter idiot would try to argue against that and that alone should be repugnant to anyone within the left.

[Sasha]

The Qu'aran says that homosexuals should be killed. How is that not homophobic? Its certainly sexist, only a complete and utter idiot would try to argue against that and that alone should be repugnant to anyone within the left.


so does the bible and the thora, do we also need "an plan of action for" christianity or judeaism?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Islamic fundamentalism needs tackling in Islamic communities. However we do not need a nation wide campaign thats just paranoia.

["Red Scum"]

so does the bible and the thora, do we also need "an plan of action for" christianity or judeaism?

Absolutely yes.

[Ravachol]

I should be more specific- I'm referring to extreme muslims.

Extreme Islam buys the BNP most of its votes, if we cut out the (counter socialist) source of the perceived problem then the BNP and EDL wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Who cares about 'extremism'? If you can read German, I recommend this (http://projekte.free.de/lotta/pdf/33/extremismusformel.pdf) article in LOTTA #33. The 'extremism' construct (EC) is created by liberal-bourgois discourse and serves us no purpose. The EC serves to heap together ideologies as diverse as fascism, Islamism, Marxism and Anarchism. Ever wondered why radically anti-abortionist conservative Christianity is never grouped under the EC umbrella in Europe whilst conservative Islamism is? Rejecting and ideology based on whether or not it falls within the EC umbrella is succumbing to the logic and discourse of the liberal bourgoise state. I don't care whether a far-right Islamist group poses in an 'extreme' manner or not, I disapprove of it no matter what. The danger with the EC is accepting far-right Islamist groups preaching fully non-violent, non-provocative building of homogenic communities (non-Jihadist Salafism) in order to gain power and exert control over a community and implent a reactionary world-view. The same goes for 'decent' fascists who don't use violence but embed themselves in public opinion, media, debate and social structures in order to spread their world view. These reactionary ideologies are to be combatted no matter what, so the EC serves us no purpose at all.

Also, far-right Islamism doesn't cause the growth of the BNP, labour and conservative policies and the abandonment of several impoverished working class areas by labour kickstarted the process with conservative media and petit-bourgois opportunists jumping on the bandwagon causing an influx into the BNP.


The Qu'aran says that homosexuals should be killed. How is that not homophobic? Its certainly sexist, only a complete and utter idiot would try to argue against that and that alone should be repugnant to anyone within the left.

Because a lot of Muslims don't give a shit whether it's in the Qu'aran or not. They choose to ignore it. Religion itself, whether homophobic or not is repugnant to me since it's anti-materialist and irrational but I'm not going to prevent people from believing in fairy tales as long as they are stripped from anti-progressive values. And this is the case with certain strains of Islam. Secondly, I agree homophobia and sexism should be combatted within Islam, but that doesn't mean we should start running around in circles screaming "U HOMOPHOBS GIV UP ISLAM". It means we should confront homophobic discourse EVERYWHERE. Eventually religion will wither away under socialism yes, but simply banning it and burning books isn't going to solve anything. Just like banning 'capitalist talk' and burning 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Free to Choose' isn't going to stop capitalist cultural hegemony.

[Devrim]

And when I said assimilated into our culture, I meant more our society. And when I said that I meant the British society

Oh, the way that you were talking one would imagine that you lived in Saudi Arabia, or Iran, not in a country where Muslims are a tiny minority who make up a mere 2.8 of the population (last census).

I find the idea of 'our' culture very worrying and not that far removed from the ideas of the right, who incidentally the entire anti-Islam campaign stems from.

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

Britian's not experiencing "Islamisation". That's just racist paranoia.

Organizing against any religion is a stupid idea, but organizing against a religion of which the members are often victimized and are a tiny portion of the population is an even stupider idea.

[Hit The North]

But no individual culture should work for the oppression of other points of view.

Except it seems that this is exactly what you're arguing for.

[Quail]

Shouldn't we focus more on promoting the idea that any form of religious extremism is a bad thing? At the moment the media focuses very much on the threat from Islamic terrorism which is leading to people getting scared of muslims and racism, and anything specifically against Islamic religious extremism only adds to what seems to be pretty widespread paranoia, which in turn attracts racists and also makes people consider voting BNP to protect us from the "Islamic invasion."

(I might rephrase this later, I'm a little high)

[Ravachol]

Shouldn't we focus more on promoting the idea that any form of religious extremism is a bad thing?


This is the 'extremism' construct again. If you want to organise against the reactionary opiate that is religion, then organise against religion itself, no matter what incarnation. The rethorical device of 'extremism' is, as I said before, a double-edged sword. This is also the reason I avoid the usage of the terms like 'extremist racists', as if racism isn't to be crushed if it's not "extremist" (whatever that may be).

[Guerrilla22]

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion.

You clearly don't know much about Islam if you actually beleive this.

[Steve_j]

Shouldnt this be in the religion sub forum?

[bcbm]

They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups

the generosity of the ruling class knows no bounds.

[IrishWorker]

I always believed that freedom and equality to express what ever religion a person chooses was a corner stone of Socialism.
Islam for the most part is a peaceful ideology and when left to there own devices the Islamic community will peacefully co exist.
Modern extremism within Islam stems directly from Imperialist expansion into Islamic countries by the west Palestine Iraq Afghanistan Yemen Iran etc etc all breed Islamic fundamentalism and export terrorism because of the threat from western capitalist natural resource greed.
Fundamentalist Islam has some disgraceful practices but the rise in modern fundamentalist Islam is a product of Imperialist aggression and occupation the only “cure” for Islamic extremism is the destruction of Imperialism and Capitalism.

Islam4UK are a product of the British Intelligence Agencies MI5 helped set up this group to monitor extremists within the UK borders the existence of Islam4UK is essential for MI5 to be able to operate as it identifies young Muslims who hold extremist views to the intelligence community as historically these groups have been near impossible to infiltrate.
If you have a problem with Islam4UK I would suggest you take it up with MI5 as that’s who pulls its strings.

[Steve_j]

Islam4UK are a product of the British Intelligence Agencies MI5 helped set up this group to monitor extremists within the UK borders the existence of Islam4UK is essential for MI5 to be able to operate as it identifies young Muslims who hold extremist views to the intelligence community as historically these groups have been near impossible to infiltrate.
If you have a problem with Islam4UK I would suggest you take it up with MI5 as that’s who pulls its strings.

And how do you know this?

[IrishWorker]

And how do you know this?
We have a long history of British inspired black ops here in Ireland this is there MO.

[Steve_j]

So your assuming..... as long as your not working for them and know it for fact :)

[Ravachol]

So your assuming..... as long as your not working for them and know it for fact :)

His speculations aren't far-fetched and very plausible.
I suggest you look into the history of various state-sponsored extremist groups, especially in the 80's. Groups like the Brigate Rosse and the 2nd and 3rd generation of the RAF where heavily infiltrated and the belgian Cellules Communistes Combattantes where completely run by state intelligence. Islam4UK seems a very usefull tool from the point of view of MI5.

[IrishWorker]

So your assuming..... as long as your not working for them and know it for fact :)
How do you know I’m not sitting in MI5 HQ right now looking at your pic on the screen?????

Always be aware.

But yes it is a calculated guess but MI5 and the Brit army intel FRU have done similar things in Ireland.
Never underestimate the bastards.

[The Red Next Door]

Islam is not a big fucking problem, fundamentalist sides of every religion is a big fucking problem. Not the religion itself so instead of demoralizing a whole religion remember that there are those of that faith that are not like that you can not take everything in the koran and bible as literal to that religion, remember these book was written by idiots who problem were hearing voices in their heads. They ideas problem contradict religion.

[jake williams]

...
You sound like Ayn Rd.

[Steve_j]

How do you know I’m not sitting in MI5 HQ right now looking at your pic on the screen?????

Would be an interesting situation, but im of no interest to MI5, would feel kinda flattered though.


But yes it is a calculated guess but MI5 and the Brit army intel FRU have done similar things in Ireland.
Never underestimate the bastards.

And I believe they have done alot worse, if it is the case (MI5 pulling the strings here)... i wonder if they are handling any up any Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi fans. Now that would be interesting.

["Red Scum"]

Its idiotic to accuse me of sympathising with the far right, because if you read my post for what it is rather than skim reading it while looking for islamophobia so you can rip on me you'd see all I've said is that radical islam needs to be countered because it oppresses everything it touches, its a fascist ideology intertwined with antisemitism, conservatism, sexism and homophobia. I also pointed out the need for something visibly to be done about the likes of Islam4UK because when the only group willing to do anything is the BNP, and many britons want (fairly or not) something done about it, well we're fucked basically.

[Ravachol]

Its idiotic to accuse me of sympathising with the far right


I didn't accuse you of that and neither did most posters in this thread.


I've said is that radical islam needs to be countered because it oppresses everything it touches


If by 'radical' you mean far-right Islamism, yes it must be opposed.



, its a fascist ideology


No it is not, stop using the term 'fascist' for every reactionary opressive movement, honestly.



because when the only group willing to do anything is the BNP, and many britons want (fairly or not) something done about it, well we're fucked basically.

That's not the logic we should follow. I agree Islam4UK needs to be opposed (how and when is a tactical choice) but we don't need to oppose it because 'popular sentiment' (which is, as we know, largely the result of capitalist hegemony) demands it. If, during the red scare, 'popular sentiment' demanded the hanging of the revolutionary left, would we have to comply? We follow the road of class struggle and emancipation not that of the populist handyman. If the class war is served by opposing reactionary groups like Islam4UK it should be done, if it isn't we shouldn't. But don't oppose something because it's all over the media and 'popular opinion'. Secondly, 'popular opinion' is a social construct as well, it serves to spread that opinion as much as it 'represents' it, especially if the media keeps on insisting 'popular opinion holds that X is true', which will lead to people conforming to X simply because it is 'popular opinion'. The construct of 'popular opinion' is a dangerous one.

[Sam_b]

Extreme Islam buys the BNP most of its votes

Show me some figures. I would argue that local community issues that the BNP effectively postures itself at, combined with a vast swathe of extreme anti-EU sentiment has accumulated the majority of BNP votes.

[Sasha]

Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.

and the other religions already did? and all the moslim force their religion upon others? please explain to me how this statement is not completly racist?

[Quail]

This is the 'extremism' construct again. If you want to organise against the reactionary opiate that is religion, then organise against religion itself, no matter what incarnation. The rethorical device of 'extremism' is, as I said before, a double-edged sword. This is also the reason I avoid the usage of the terms like 'extremist racists', as if racism isn't to be crushed if it's not "extremist" (whatever that may be).

I might not have explained myself very well, but my point was that we should be educating people that it isn't just Islam that gives rise to terrorism, the vast majority, if not all religions do. Perhaps extremism is the wrong word to use. But according to dictionary.com

–noun a tendency or disposition to go to extremes or an instance of going to extremes, esp. in political matters: leftist extremism; the extremism of the Nazis.
doesn't the term fit? There are people in every religion who are extremely zealous and their unusually strong devotion to their religion can affect their behaviour.

This is dangerous no matter the religion, and at the moment when people only seem to fear the dangers of very devoted muslims, wouldn't it make sense to start by trying to educate people that all religions can cause "extremism" and are therefore all damaging? This would attempt to combat the current problem - that people are focussing too much on Islam as being the only dangerous religion.

["Red Scum"]

and the other religions already did? and all the moslim force their religion upon others? please explain to me how this statement is not completly racist?

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

Someone hasn't heard of Christian Voice or whatever their name is.
Probably is bigoted glossing over, seems to be you're whole schtick in this thread.

[Ravachol]

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:

http://nowlebanon.com/ContentPictures/Kataeb-Lf-420-061609095932.jpg

Ask these guys what they think about Islam :rolleyes:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/godhatesfagsfuneral.jpg

Oh boy ...

http://www.nation.co.ke/image/view/-/527474/medRes/62305/-/maxw/600/-/5589x6z/-/AFR03_CONGO-DEMOCRATIC-LRA_.jpg

These good christians actually make belts out of the body parts of non-believers.

http://radioislam.org/islam/english/terror/JDL-Jew-Thug-Finger.jpg

These guys'd love to have a talk with you about Palestine :rolleyes: Their Dutch section (when it still existed) even provided security for far-right marches and actively gathered intel on the radical left.

So don't give me that, I didn't even bother to find pictures of "God's Army" and the likes.

[lines]

The forces of interntional capitalism are using the media to make people islamophobic in order to justify the genocide of arab peoples so that they can steal oil from the middle east. Islam is not a problem. Crime however is an issue for law enforcement to deal with. The problem is the capitalist system which oppresses all people, a system which ought to be replaced with communism.

[Sasha]

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

so when did you see that then? every time you go to the post office or the pub? oh on television... well if you would have paid atention you could also have seen:

ultra orthodox jews rioting over an plannend parking lot thats open during sjabat:

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=105332

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/783633.html

orthodox christians trying to murder gays in serbia and moscow:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58O3MV20090925

riots between hindoes and christians:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/india.riots/index.html

and ever heard about this lovely group of child soldier abusing group of christians:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army


Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:it certanly seems so.

[ls]

And when I said assimilated into our culture, I meant more our society. And when I said that I meant the British society (which I thought gores without saying as I'm talking about the BNP and EDL). I'm far from a nationalist, and the cultures of immigrants to the UK should be cherished and celebrated like all others- this is a multicultural society. But no individual culture should work for the oppression of other points of view. Not a white culture, a black one, asian, oriental, none of them. Each to their own but I'll be damned if I'm going to be forced to abide by religion- whether its islam, christianity, judaism or any other.

That's fine, but the fact you feel you need to be "hard on Islam and Muslims" is simply not fine, you are buying right-wing media claptrap, have you ever had prolonged contact with Muslims in this country?

90% of them are only as extreme as 90% of every other religion.

[Revy]

a little experiment to try. Replace "Islam" and "the Muslims" with Judaism and the Jews and see how it sounds.

[ls]

And 90% of all Atheists as well actually, are just as extreme as those from any religion too.

["Red Scum"]

How about just fuck religion? And to everyone throwing non-UK hate groups at me, I was (as can be seen in my post) referring to within Britain.

My whole point was and is that groups like Islam4UK boost BNP/EDL support by shooting themselves in the foot. If a Jewish group was benefiting the BNP in the same way, i'd be talking about them. This isn't about Islam itself but about how its benefiting fascist groups here. Hence why its in anti-fascism not religion.

[Sam_b]

Cool, still going to give me statistics to your assertion that fundamentalist Islam attributes to the majority of BNP support?

["Red Scum"]

Cool, still going to give me statistics to your assertion that fundamentalist Islam attributes to the majority of BNP support?

As I'm not a BNP MP or member I'd like to know how you think I'd get that information. I'd also like to know what makes you think that kind of information even exists. A quick look at the campaigns they run should be sufficient. And are you a facebook user? Try typing Islam4uk or wootton basset into the search bar and take a look at the user comments on the walls of related groups. Then come back and try to tell me extreme islam isn't contributing to the racial tensions that are the backbone of the BNP.

[Sam_b]

As I'm not a BNP MP or member I'd like to know how you think I'd get that information

Well maybe the moral of the story is not to make claims you can't back up to try and prove your pretty weak point. So perhaps you should drop your assertion that "Extreme Islam buys the BNP most of its votes" if you can't even provide evidence.

[Sasha]

And to everyone throwing non-UK hate groups at me, I was (as can be seen in my post) referring to within Britain.


you ask, we serve: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1978

heard of islam4uk buying any politicians to push through sharia law? the christian taliban are doing though...

and what about the seperation of church and state, seems that the uk's OFFICIAL STATE religion is growing more and more fundamentalist aswell: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/coe_fundamentalism.html

[progressive_lefty]

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion. It goes completely against socialism. We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.


Pathetic.

Hows your account on stormfront going.. You probably fit in much better there then here.

[ls]

Oh, the way that you were talking one would imagine that you lived in Saudi Arabia, or Iran, not in a country where Muslims are a tiny minority who make up a mere 2.8 of the population (last census).

I find the idea of 'our' culture very worrying and not that far removed from the ideas of the right, who incidentally the entire anti-Islam campaign stems from.

Devrim

You are right essentially, but at the same time, I think "Red Scum" is kind of confused about what he's saying, his opinion seems to change with each post completely anyway..

[brigadista]

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:

those groups are not under attack

[Hiero]

Yeah, let's divert all working class politics for a campaign to suppress the movement and speach of the muslim horde...

If you think Islam is a huge problem, then you are quite blind to the real problems of the world working class. It is quite common that at times of economic or politica turmoil, take the economic crisis or the wars in the middle east, to displace these problems onto another group, much like a sympton.

For instance the "Jews" as an imaginary group have beared this burden of displacement time and time again, from Rome to modern European states. If in the middle of war in the middle east, an economic crisis in the imperialist centre, lose of security of workers in the centre and rise of far right in Europe you find that Islam and "Muslims" are a "big fucking problem" then you are suffering the same age old sympton.

[BobKKKindle$]

"[The materialist conception of history] does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; and accordingly it comes to the conclusion that all forms and products of consciousness cannot be dissolved by mental criticism, by resolution into “self-consciousness” or transformation into “apparitions,” “spectres,” “fancies,” etc. but only by the practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug; that not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history, also of religion, of philosophy and all other types of theory."

The German Ideology, 1845

[Devrim]

Its idiotic to accuse me of sympathising with the far right, because if you read my post for what it is rather than skim reading it while looking for islamophobia so you can rip on me you'd see all I've said is that radical islam needs to be countered because it oppresses everything it touches, its a fascist ideology intertwined with antisemitism, conservatism, sexism and homophobia.

I didn' accuse you of sympathising with the far right. What I said was this:


I find the idea of 'our' culture very worrying and not that far removed from the ideas of the right, who incidentally the entire anti-Islam campaign stems from.

Right-wing ideology is more sophisticated than a simplistic "Let's kick out the darkies" articulated by some fascist boot-boy. It can even take on a 'democratic' veener as in a 'defence of free speach and democratic values'. The point is that there is a racist campaign being run by the mainstream media in the UK, and other western countries, which is much more subtle than the propaganda of the BNP. It is not directed against immigrants, or non-whites because stuff like the Conservatives Party's "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, Vote Labour." billboard campaign would not be at all acceptable today. Instead it is directed against 'Islamic extremists', who are 'bent on destroying our democratic values and our way of life', but then it charecterises Islam as backward and medieval and it ends up with all Muslims being 'loonies', who are just waiting to strap a bomb to themselves, and murder innocent people.

Of course there is some truth in it. If it was all a complete lie then it wouldn't work. You say that Islam is a 'fascist ideology intertwined with anti-Semitism, conservatism, sexism and homophobia'. Take out the fascist part, and I would agree with all the things that it is intertwined with. However, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are 'anti-Semitic, conservative, sexist, homophobes'. However, in the caricature created by the media, 'they' cease to be normal people like the rest of 'us', who have the noraml contradictions that most people have and, for example, go to the Mosque on Friday morning, and then go out and get drunk in the pub on Friday night, and all become religious fanatics. People probably won't fall for this if they live in Bradford, and the bloke who works next to them is a Muslim, but if you live in small town England, or have little contact with people who are Muslims it becomes very believable.

Basically, the entire media campaign is an attempt to demonise people from Middle Eastern and South Asian backgrounds, and it works by appealing to 'progressive' sympathies. Many honest workers have been dragged along in the wake of this campaign, and I object to the labelling of people as rightists and Islamophobes as happens all too often on here. Still that doesn't mean that communists shouldn't try to understand what is going on with this campaign, and denounce it as a campaign, if not everybody who falls for it as some sort of racist.

Devrim

[Chambered Word]

And 90% of all Atheists as well actually, are just as extreme as those from any religion too.

Oh yeah, we can't forget those horrible 'atheist extremists'. :laugh::laugh:

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Behead those who insult rationality!

[Wanted Man]

Oh yes, Islam is a big fucking problem. Just yesterday, I was walking around on the street, and I was suddenly jumped and mugged by a piece of halal meat! :crying:

It's kind of hard to make sure what exactly the OP's point is, because it seems to differ between the thread title and the actual content of the first post. Nevermind his other posts in this thread, which look like pure back-peddling to me.

EDIT:


And 90% of all Atheists as well actually, are just as extreme as those from any religion too.

Actually, most atheists seem quite tolerant, progressive at best, apathetic at worst. But of course, there is the fringe that is utterly hateful towards anyone who is not atheist, and who kiss the very ground that Dick Dawkins and Pat Condell walk on. I always find them a little amusing. They are probably the same people who put obnoxious atheist ads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign) on UK buses, or try to ban Christmas trees (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pfp-member-received-t125486/index.html?t=125486) in California. Surely we can do without them. The religious often want to have a monopoly on truth, but some "militant atheists" are little different.

[ls]

Actually, most atheists seem quite tolerant, progressive at best, apathetic at worst. But of course, there is the fringe that is utterly hateful towards anyone who is not atheist, and who kiss the very ground that Dick Dawkins and Pat Condell walk on. I always find them a little amusing. They are probably the same people who put obnoxious atheist ads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_Bus_Campaign) on UK buses, or try to ban Christmas trees (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pfp-member-received-t125486/index.html?t=125486) in California. Surely we can do without them. The religious often want to have a monopoly on truth, but some "militant atheists" are little different.

Actually, the UK Atheist bus things no longer exist, they have been replaced not-so-mysteriously with ads saying "have you thanked jesus today?". ;)

I really don't agree with your last part though, I am not for any religion myself and see all of them as essentially reactionary, but that doesn't somehow make Atheists any better. There are plenty of Atheists I've met who had just as ignorant-as-usual views (especially on immigration I hasten to add). In fact, if you must, I've met quite a lot of Christians who had pretty right on views about immigration, at least three very Christian families I know have taken people in, who were going to be deported and attempted to protect them. There's plenty of very selfish "materialistic" Atheists who are just as or even more small minded than any ultra-religious hack in actual truth, imo.

Some of the Catholic churches here have taken immigrants in and given them legal help as well, I think that is quite a commendable act whether or not you hate the church in question, some mosques have done this too.

[danny bohy]

you sir are an idiot.

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion. It goes completely against socialism. We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.

The real problem is not in combatting islamic ideas here- thats pretty much a non issue because muslims, let alone extreme muslims will never be a majority in this country. The very idea is laughable. I don't know what Islam4uk are even trying to achieve, what do they think that millions of britons watching tv are going to see a bearded pakistani immigrant in a dress screaming obscenities in a language they don't understand and they'll jump up from their seats and shout- "I see clearly now! everything I believe is wrong! Allah be praised!".

Seriously guys.

The real problem here is that the idiotic, meandering rantings of islamist groups give fodder to the BNP and EDL. The idiocy of a few, annoying, idiotic muslims generates hatred towards ALL muslims, even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly. This must stop now.

But what can we do? Any kind of anti-islamist action attracts racists, the government does nothing. This is why the BNP are growing in power- because nobody else is willing to do anything about the extreme muslims for fear of being branded a racist- when the only option outstanding is actual racists.

I'm all for multiculturalism, under the understanding that it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms and other cultures in the society. Islamic fundamentalists whether militant or not, take the fucking biscuit so to speak. They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups, and use it to try and propagate their disgusting, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, fascist ideologies.

So what can we actually do to combat islamic extremism without supporting blanket racism towards all asians or being accused of being and being joined by fascist whites?

(inb4 "zionist")
Islam is no where near as bad as the catholics or the orthodox jews in terms of racism and sexism. it is only small factions (like the Taliban)that are racist and sexist. and taliban was funded by the US as im sure you know. other extremist groups such as hammas are not like this and are only fighting for their country.

And i may not live in England but ive never meet a muslim who forced his religion on me. its the mormons who are knocking on my door every sunday.

I do agree with you that religion in general is bad but islam does teach good values and Christianity and judiasm (orthodox) are much greater problems for the left.

[Robocommie]

Go ahead and "combat Islam." I'm sure they won't know how to deal with it, having never confronted any kind of bigotry and intolerance before.

[Wanted Man]

Actually, the UK Atheist bus things no longer exist, they have been replaced not-so-mysteriously with ads saying "have you thanked jesus today?". ;)

I really don't agree with your last part though, I am not for any religion myself and see all of them as essentially reactionary, but that doesn't somehow make Atheists any better. There are plenty of Atheists I've met who had just as ignorant-as-usual views (especially on immigration I hasten to add). In fact, if you must, I've met quite a lot of Christians who had pretty right on views about immigration, at least three very Christian families I know have taken people in, who were going to be deported and attempted to protect them. There's plenty of very selfish "materialistic" Atheists who are just as or even more small minded than any ultra-religious hack in actual truth, imo.

Some of the Catholic churches here have taken immigrants in and given them legal help as well, I think that is quite a commendable act whether or not you hate the church in question, some mosques have done this too.

These are all good points, and I agree with you about these atheists. But I am of the opinion that they are only a very obnoxious and vocal minority among the rest of us infidels. That might very well be wishful thinking from me, however.

Hmm, haven't seen Red Scum lately. :rolleyes:

[Kayser_Soso]

you sir are an idiot.

Islam is no where near as bad as the catholics or the orthodox jews in terms of racism and sexism. it is only small factions (like the Taliban)that are racist and sexist.


The Taliban is not racist- and in fact far more Muslims are sexist, but not much more so than most people in the world today. Sexism is a really serious problem worldwide, because at least in a large part of the world people shun or speak out against open racism. Can't say the same for sexism. Plus, victims of racism automatically resist it, because they can't help it. But sexism has a built-in advantage because it is reinforced by centuries if not millennia of social conditioning of both men and women, where women themselves have in many ways been conditioned to behave in ways that reinforce sexism. But I digress...



and taliban was funded by the US as im sure you know.

Actually it was the warlords who were funded directly by the US. The Taliban grew up in Pakistan and filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the DRA in 1992.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'd say that the OP is way off the mark - directing your anger at Islam can only lead to one sad outcome, which need not be raised here.

For sure we do not promote religion of any sort. Indeed, we would do even worse to promote one particular religion. By the same token, the worst thing we could do, as Socialists, is to start condemning one religion in particular. I don't really feel the need to either condemn or defend Islam in particular - all religions have their fundamentalists who are wholly unacceptable, and their moderate individual worshippers who should be allowed to practice what they want in their own private sphere. You only have to look at the US to see the ridiculous Christian fundamentalism that exists, and to Israel and the West Bank to see some of the worst Zionist fundamentalism you could ever imagine.

As IrishWorker has succinctly said, the rise of fundamentalism correlates with the rise of imperialism and indeed, establishment racism. Put an animal into a corner and it will turn aggressive. This, is what I believe happens to religions when they are under attack - when Israel is attacked, rightly, for being an imperialist, racist regime directed by war criminals and in possession of the worst WMDs imaginable, it attacks and it kills. The likes of Choudhary, Abu Hamza and indeed Iranian theocrats such as the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini and Ahmedinajad turn to a particularly nasty form of fundamentalism precisely when they are threatened by the passage of racist laws (as is the case in Britain) or swirling imperialism, as has been the case with Iran.

This is not to condone right wing religious reactionaries. However, what it is to say, is that if one opposes and defeats imperialism, then the anger of such individuals and groups such as Islam4UK is mollified, and their raison d'etre is nullified to an extent, making the defeat of their stated aim - the spread of organised religion - something achievable.

[Sam_b]

Where do you think Red Scum has run off to?

Not that i'm taking his username literally, of course. He isn't seemingly 'red'.

[pastradamus]

Show me some figures. I would argue that local community issues that the BNP effectively postures itself at, combined with a vast swathe of extreme anti-EU sentiment has accumulated the majority of BNP votes.

In all honesty and seriousness the BNP has attacked Islam in the past. Especially using vehicles such as Dead Troops in Iraq and The London bombings as means of anti-Islamic propaganda. Maybe its not the major issue - But it definitely plays a part in their hate-filled machine.

[pastradamus]

you sir are an idiot.

Islam is no where near as bad as the catholics or the orthodox jews in terms of racism and sexism. it is only small factions (like the Taliban)that are racist and sexist. and taliban was funded by the US as im sure you know. other extremist groups such as hammas are not like this and are only fighting for their country.

Why is Islam not as bad as Judaism or Catholicism? - All religions do is feed people with lies - Promise them an afterlife and so encourage them to do as little as possible about the present circumstances. ie. Revolution.



And i may not live in England but ive never meet a muslim who forced his religion on me. its the mormons who are knocking on my door every sunday.

Indeed, nothing annoys me more than an organisation coming to my door and asking me to become a member of their faith for a subscriptive fee.


I do agree with you that religion in general is bad but islam does teach good values and Christianity and judiasm (orthodox) are much greater problems for the left.

ORGANISED RELIGION is a problem for the left. I have no quarrel with someone being religious but it usually occurs when something is organised it tends to develope its own political, moral and social views of how a society should be. Sadly no religion is of a leftist approach.

[danny bohy]

The Taliban is not racist- and in fact far more Muslims are sexist, but not much more so than most people in the world today. Sexism is a really serious problem worldwide, because at least in a large part of the world people shun or speak out against open racism. Can't say the same for sexism. Plus, victims of racism automatically resist it, because they can't help it. But sexism has a built-in advantage because it is reinforced by centuries if not millennia of social conditioning of both men and women, where women themselves have in many ways been conditioned to behave in ways that reinforce sexism. But I digress...



Actually it was the warlords who were funded directly by the US. The Taliban grew up in Pakistan and filled the vacuum left by the collapse of the DRA in 1992.
thanks i sometimes speak without full proof to prove a point and these areas are very hard to research their so distorted in all forms of the media

[Tyrlop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXvhbW5LmjU

[Montag451]

Muslim Defnese League? What the hell is this now?

[The Feral Underclass]

I always believed that freedom and equality to express what ever religion a person chooses was a corner stone of Socialism.

Express it where and how, though? In a public, organised way?

[pastradamus]

Moving this to religion. It has no real place in the anti-fascist section.

[ComradeMan]

If I may something... A lot of people are talking about Islam here, and with all due respect I think everyone is arguing and talking about something different. There is also a lot of posturing going on and some people are making statements which a reading of Islamic literature just doesn't support.

Islamic scrpitures are bloody reactionary from anyone's point of view, just as reactionary if not more so than Old Testament Judaic halakha (roughly speaking Jewish Law) and the application (as opposed to the words of Jesus) of Christianity. If I started stoning people for Sabbath breaking it would because of my interpretation of scripture and therefore people would have a right to question my behaviour? Okay, so if Islamic countries have oppressive laws that do not respect human rights and those laws are based on Islamic laws then we have to be able to call into question Islamic laws and the belief system and writings that have created them without fear of being branded Islamophobes.

Why is it than when the topic of Islam comes up many suddenly back off? I don't mean here, I mean in general. Why is it that an instant comparison to other reactionary currents in Christianity and Judaism is also asserted as some kind of justification for Islamic reactionary themes? I don't think we should even get into qualitative arguments about which religion is more reactionary than the other and when offer an analysis we have to base it on what is written in the various holy books and scriptures and also the interpretations of those scriptures by various groups. The problem here is with the interpretation thereof. Just exactly which schools of Islam and which interpretations are we dealing with? That has great bearing on the whole discussion.

I also include a few links here (okay these people probably do have an axe to grind but at the same time they are talking from the inside out):-

Salman Rushdie
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm

And also this link on why Islamic teachings violate human rights, written by an ex-muslim
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/apostates/abulk/articles/Islams_violation_of_HR.htm


Now before the howls of "Islamophobe" come my way again, I acknowledge that not all Muslims are reactionary and/or choose to interpret literally the reactionary material in Islamic scriptures but that does not mean we cannot critique Islam per se inasmuch as a critique of Judaism (theologically) is not anti-Semitic (I have issues with circumcision for example) or a criticism of Christianity is not per se an attack on groups that are Christian.

I also state that putting a post entitled "Islam a big fucking problem" was moronic and perhaps the former-member should have read up a bit more on his chosen subject. His comments that lead to banning also left me somewhat shocked, but the debate has moved on from Red Scum here. I suggest the Mods or Admins change the title promptly if they can as it is a blot on the forum.

My final comment, is that the worst thing in all of this is that the itjihadist schools and the progressive voices in Islamic movements go unheard because of tosspots like Islam4UK.:cool: I also think that it is a sad fact that many on the Left do not seem to want to criticise Islam for fear of being branded Islamophobes- remember Peter Tatchell? This in turn gives rightwing wankers like the BNP and the EDL a platform too.
Salem!

[ls]

Peter Tatchell is a fucking idiot "..the Islamic Republic of Iran is an 'Islamo-fascist state'". :rolleyes:

He thinks that murdering of gays in Iran = islamofascism, when it's essentially state sanctioned in the USA though he's so moronic and blind as to simply miss it, yeah I don't buy it.

[Yazman]

All religion is a big problem, and it will remain so until these people are capable of keeping it to themselves 100% of the time.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course Islam is fascist, people. Notice the similarities... :rolleyes:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/nazislam.jpg

http://www.strongisrael.org/no_confidence/nazi%20salute.jpg

[Kayser_Soso]

Of course Islam is fascist, people. Notice the similarities... :rolleyes:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/nazislam.jpg

http://www.strongisrael.org/no_confidence/nazi%20salute.jpg

These guys apparently have a coordination problem. Hitler's got his hand straight back(as he usually did), and the rest aren't exactly sure what to salute at apparently.

[Tyrlop]

some muslims did actually help hitler, and los moros in spain. but this doesn't conclude that muslims are nazis..

[ComradeMan]

Peter Tatchell is a fucking idiot "..the Islamic Republic of Iran is an 'Islamo-fascist state'". :rolleyes:

He thinks that murdering of gays in Iran = islamofascism, when it's essentially state sanctioned in the USA though he's so moronic and blind as to simply miss it, yeah I don't buy it.

So what would you call killing gays in Iran and justifying it by Islamic law? Seems pretty damn "islamofascist" to me....

And where is state sanctioned murder of gays in the USA prevalent?

Funny there is a San Francisco Pride March which is famous the world over but I've never heard of a Pride march in Teheran, Riyadh etc etc.

[Belisarius]

So what would you call killing gays in Iran and justifying it by Islamic law? Seems pretty damn "islamofascist" to me....

And where is state sanctioned murder of gays in the USA prevalent?

Funny there is a San Francisco Pride March which is famous the world over but I've never heard of a Pride march in Teheran, Riyadh etc etc.
usa have made it into a caricature. it is a kind of repressive tolerance (read Marcuse): some things are accepted in society, but they are made so ridiculous that noweone would really want to be a part of it (like the liberal party in east germany).

of course i don't agree with killing gays, but i wouldn't call it islamofascism. it's fundamentalism. fascism is a horrible production of capitalism and fundamentalism a horrible reaction to capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

usa have made it into a caricature. it is a kind of repressive tolerance (read Marcuse): some things are accepted in society, but they are made so ridiculous that noweone would really want to be a part of it (like the liberal party in east germany).

of course i don't agree with killing gays, but i wouldn't call it islamofascism. it's fundamentalism. fascism is a horrible production of capitalism and fundamentalism a horrible reaction to capitalism.

The USA does not punish people with death for being gay.

With all due respect, I think that is just side-stepping the issue.

(From a quick Wiki lookup)

Fascism is not really a capitalist ideology, fascism supports a kind of state corporatism or "Third Way" form of "nationalist socialism".

Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democraciesfor its creation and communists for exploiting the concept
Welch, David. Modern European History, 1871-2000. p. 57. Books.Google.com (http://books.google.com/books?id=-Dyb7RFhnVAC&pg=PA57&dq=fascism+opposes+democracy&lr=)

Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level. Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed "national corporatism", "national socialism" or "national syndicalism".The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Fascism on homosexuality.

Fascist movements and governments opposed homosexuality. The Italian Fascist government declared it illegal in Italy in 1931.The British Union of Fascists opposed homosexuality and pejoratively questioned their opponents' sexual orientation.The Romanian Iron Guard opposed homosexuality as undermining society
Volovici, Nationalist Ideology, p. 98, citing N. Cainic, Ortodoxie şi etnocraţie, pp. 162–4.)

Nazism

Well we all know what happened to homosexuals in Nazi German.
Experiences such as these can account for the high death rate of gay men in the camps as compared to the other "anti-social groups." A study by Ruediger Lautmann found that 60% of gay men in concentration camps died, as compared to 41% for political prisoners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the _Holocaust

Iran recognises no real rights for homosexuals and homosexuality is punishable by death.

The Netherlands grants asylum rights to gay Iranians on the grounds of undeniable persecution.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/10/18/netherlands-asylum-rights-granted-lesbian-and-gay-iranians

The application of the law in Iran.
Extract from Wikipedia.

Male homosexuality
Sodomy is a crime for which both partners can be punished by death. If the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide. A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a punishment of 74 lashes. (Articles 108 to 113) Sodomy is proved either if a person confesses four times to having committed sodomy or by the testimony of four righteous men. Testimony of women alone or together with a man does not prove sodomy. (Articles 114 to 119). "If sodomy, or the lesser crimes referred to above, are proved by confession, and the person concerned repents, the Shari'a judge may request that he be pardoned. If a person who has committed the lesser crimes referred to above repents before the giving of testimony by the witnesses, the punishment is quashed. (Articles 125 and 126).

Note- Shari'a law, Shari'a judge- i.e. religious law.

[ComradeMan]

PS. Islam is not fascist, any more than Christianity is fascist, the problem is with the current interpretations, the root ideology and the application thereof. There are many Islams but I am not scared to call an islamofascist an islamofascist when it is undoubtedly the case as with the Iranian regime, they are holocaust deniers too... interesting.

[LOLseph Stalin]

PS. Islam is not fascist, any more than Christianity is fascist, the problem is with the current interpretations, the root ideology and the application thereof. There are many Islams but I am not scared to call an islamofascist an islamofascist when it is undoubtedly the case as with the Iranian regime, they are holocaust deniers too... interesting.

Not all muslims deny the holocaust. :rolleyes: Keep your stereotypes to yourself.

[ComradeMan]

Not all muslims deny the holocaust. :rolleyes: Keep your stereotypes to yourself.

No stereotypes at all.

I know all Muslims do not deny the Holocaust but the Iranian regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do, that's what I was referring to- which was clear. :cool:

Quote-
"Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


Holocaust a myth, says Iranian president" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/14/iran.secondworldwar). Guardian.co.uk. Associated Press. 2005-12-14. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/14/iran.secondworldwar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/14/iran.secondworldwar). Retrieved 2008-10-21

[Yazman]

Its obvious just from READING that quote that the myth he's talking about is that of zionism and the state of Israel, which was created in the name of the Holocaust. He's not saying the myth itself is the holocaust.

[ComradeMan]

Its obvious just from READING that quote that the myth he's talking about is that of zionism and the state of Israel, which was created in the name of the Holocaust. He's not saying the myth itself is the holocaust.

Yeah, perhaps but add that to all his other comments such as:-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html

"Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people ... to bar their progress," Ahmadinejad said in the letter."
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-08-28-ahmadinejad-holocaust-was-made-up

He has made numerous conveniently ambiguous statements about the holocaust and hosted Holocaust deniers at conferences in Iran, when speaking to the "West" he has since backtracked and taken a sitting on the fence style of approach.

Anyway, this thread isn't about Zionism and Israel. It's about islamic radicalism and islamofascism and whatever the reasons I don't think anyone can hold Iran up as a shining example of anything despite the fact that their opponents leave a lot to be desired too.

[Yazman]

1. Ahmadinejad: In your new link its clear that he's talking about the creation of the state of Israel and the false/mythical reasoning used to back its creation. The media just cherry picks certain phrases in order to make it appear as if its holocaust denial, when in context of the overall letter its clear he's talking about the creation of the state of Israel.

2. "islamofascism", lmao. You have got to be joking to use such a term.

What about all the shit the US government, presently and historically a christian one, does and has done in the name of its god?

Again. Islam is not a problem any more than Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions are. Religion, when given political power, generally manifests the same style of rule over and over again. I can't think of any reason to attack one religion in particular as being "worse" than the others, unless you are religious yourself (or believe in a god), or you are a white nationalist (and I know you're not). Do you believe in a god? Or are you religious?

[ComradeMan]

Yaz,

Ahmadinejad: In your new link its clear that he's talking about the creation of the state of Israel and the false/mythical reasoning used to back its creation. The media just cherry picks certain phrases in order to make it appear as if its holocaust denial, when in context of the overall letter its clear he's talking about the creation of the state of Israel.

I don't think it is that clear to be honest. But we'll leave it there. However that's not the point. The Holocaust denial is just one more link in the chain. The original point was about Iran being an Islamic state with reactionary and fascist tendencies.

2. "islamofascism", lmao. You have got to be joking to use such a term.

Why? Accusations of Fascism and Nazism have been levelled now and in the past against Christianity for example despite the fact that Christ's words were of forgiveness and turning the other cheek. The theory and the practice don't necessarily match up.

By using the term "islamofascism", one is actually showing respect to Islam in a sense by making the distinction between "Islam" as a religion and the radical currents who use Islam for their own oppressive and reactionary aims.

What about all the shit the US government, presently and historically a christian one, does and has done in the name of its god?

Yeah what about them? I don't hold a big candle out for them either. But you can't defend yourself in court by saying "what about all the other people ?". The faults of others are not a defence. When someone has to mitigate it is tantamount to admitting guilt.

Again. Islam is not a problem any more than Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions are.

And no one is saying it is- in theory. But attacking radical Islam is not an attack on Muslims anymore than attacking Christian fundamentalists is an attack on all Christians is it? What irritates me is that on the Left these days as soon as there is justifiable critique of radical and highly reactionary elements in Islam there is a sudden backtracking or pointing at other religions and saying what about them whilst avoiding the actual critique of reactionary Islam.

Religion, when given political power, generally manifests the same style of rule over and over again. I can't think of any reason to attack one religion in particular as being "worse" than the others, unless you are religious yourself (or believe in a god), or you are a white nationalist (and I know you're not). Do you believe in a god? Or are you religious?

Your quite right, but in the modern world most states are secular or fairly secular other than the theocratic regimes of the Islamic world so it's an assymetrical argument.

This last comment is a non sequitur. So, we cannot, for example, criticise the appalling treatment of homosexuals in Iran in a manner which is comparable to both fascism and Nazism and investigate the parallels between the fundamentalist Iranian Islamic state and fascism?

White nationalists are idiots who will attack anything that isn't white- despite the irony in the fact that most of their policies would be acceptable in Iran viz. gay rights, abortion, death penalty etc. I have no time for people who talk about Islam who no jack shit about the religious beliefs and schools of Islam. I have always spoken up for the Islamic Progressive Movement and tried to make it clear what I am against.

I also don't think you can bundle all religions together either. You have to first look at the actual teachings and then look at the actual interpretations thereof.

If seems to be if someone criticises Christianity it is okay, if someone criticises Judaism it is okay, in fact all other religions seem fair game but if someone attacks Islamic tendencies then it is not okay and they are branded an "Islamophobe racist".

[Lodestar]

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion. It goes completely against socialism. We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.

The real problem is not in combatting islamic ideas here- thats pretty much a non issue because muslims, let alone extreme muslims will never be a majority in this country. The very idea is laughable. I don't know what Islam4uk are even trying to achieve, what do they think that millions of britons watching tv are going to see a bearded pakistani immigrant in a dress screaming obscenities in a language they don't understand and they'll jump up from their seats and shout- "I see clearly now! everything I believe is wrong! Allah be praised!".

Seriously guys.

The real problem here is that the idiotic, meandering rantings of islamist groups give fodder to the BNP and EDL. The idiocy of a few, annoying, idiotic muslims generates hatred towards ALL muslims, even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly. This must stop now.

But what can we do? Any kind of anti-islamist action attracts racists, the government does nothing. This is why the BNP are growing in power- because nobody else is willing to do anything about the extreme muslims for fear of being branded a racist- when the only option outstanding is actual racists.

I'm all for multiculturalism, under the understanding that it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms and other cultures in the society. Islamic fundamentalists whether militant or not, take the fucking biscuit so to speak. They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups, and use it to try and propagate their disgusting, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, fascist ideologies.

So what can we actually do to combat islamic extremism without supporting blanket racism towards all asians or being accused of being and being joined by fascist whites?

(inb4 "zionist")


Singling out Islam for criticism while sparing its equally barbarous cousins (Judaism, Christianity...) and its equally ludicrous superstitious counterparts elsewhere in the world is unfair. The criticisms you have made of Islam are valid of all religious thinking; as Marxists, we are materialists, and the idealism and spiritual hocus pocus of the faithful do not impede our conception of reality through the scientific method. Religious belief is an obstacle to human progression, and to socialism, yes, but it's a symptom of a system that requires delusions in order to be bearable to billions of human "hearts and minds."

That in itself is an indictment of the inhumanity of the class system, even today's capitalism. In order to bear exploitation, we must literally deceive ourselves, allowing religious dogmas to entirely constrain us from apprehending reality and the Universe as it is.

[Tatarin]

It is funny that at the same time Islam and Muslims are going into the same way Judaism and Jews did in the 1920's and 30's, right-wing, xenophobic, anti-homosexuality and almost every sort of this propaganda have stepped up heavily. I have yet to see Islamic extremist propaganda, yet violent nazi groups have their banners and papers glued to every material that can be glued on.

It such a tragedy, really. And we haven't even passed the 100-years mark since the last time.

[ComradeMan]

It is funny that at the same time Islam and Muslims are going into the same way Judaism and Jews did in the 1920's and 30's, right-wing, xenophobic, anti-homosexuality and almost every sort of this propaganda have stepped up heavily. I have yet to see Islamic extremist propaganda, yet violent nazi groups have their banners and papers glued to every material that can be glued on.

It such a tragedy, really. And we haven't even passed the 100-years mark since the last time.


Not really. I have seen islamic radical protesters with boards chanting "Behead tbose who insult Islam" and "God bless Hitler". These are not normal Muslims, but they do represent a current within Islam that is worrying.

You cannot compare Muslims with the Jews in Europe in the 1920's.

All white people are not neo-nazis but I would guess all neo-nazis are white- the same way I say that all Muslims are not islamofascists but all islamofascists are muslims, this is the difference and what needs to be addressed. When people who attack Zionism are accused of being anti-Semitic it is said to be cowardly Zionist propaganda isn't it? So when people attack "islamofascism" and these groups hide behind the old "you're discriminating against us- we are a peaceful religion" etc is it not similar?

[RHIZOMES]

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:

You know how absolutely fucking tiny that demonstration was? Then some right-wing rags got a hold of photos of the demonstration and now those insane fundies are treated like representatives of all of Islam.


How about just fuck religion? And to everyone throwing non-UK hate groups at me, I was (as can be seen in my post) referring to within Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice_(UK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Voice_%28UK%29)


Not really. I have seen islamic radical protesters with boards chanting "Behead tbose who insult Islam" and "God bless Hitler". These are not normal Muslims, but they do represent a current within Islam that is worrying.

See above.


You cannot compare Muslims with the Jews in Europe in the 1920's.

I am so glad you are restricted now. How are they not comparable to Jews when they seem to get just as scapegoated by the ruling class nowadays? I'd love to see your convoluted attempts at logic with this one.


All white people are not neo-nazis but I would guess all neo-nazis are white- the same way I say that all Muslims are not islamofascists but all islamofascists are muslims, this is the difference and what needs to be addressed. When people who attack Zionism are accused of being anti-Semitic it is said to be cowardly Zionist propaganda isn't it? So when people attack "islamofascism" and these groups hide behind the old "you're discriminating against us- we are a peaceful religion" etc is it not similar?

Because the concept of "Islamofascism" is a fucking stupid concept that doesn't make any sense. Plus, Zionism is a colonialist ideology, we are criticizing Zionism for being colonialist and imperialist. It could be committed by any ethnic/religious group and it would still be fucked. Hence the calls against anti-Zionists being "anti-semitic" is bullshit. There are anti-Zionists who play into Jewish stereotypes like the "Pro-Israeli Lobby" bullshit but that isn't the reason for anti-Zionism itself, just an appendage. Islamofascism on the other hand is a right-wing buzzword which doesn't make any sense (Ravachol wrote a pretty awesome post a while back on why it's so dumb).

[ComradeMan]

@Arizona

You know how absolutely fucking tiny that demonstration was? Then some right-wing rags got a hold of photos of the demonstration and now those insane fundies are treated like representatives of all of Islam.

Do you know how small most neo-nazi and skinhead rallies are in comparison to population size? Do you know how small the EDL march in Stoke was? As for the strawman here, no one serious does say that nutters like Islam4Uk represent Islam.


I am so glad you are restricted now. How are they not comparable to Jews when they seem to get just as scapegoated by the ruling class nowadays? I'd love to see your convoluted attempts at logic with this one.

Well, I'd like to say I'm glad your back...:cool:

Well, shall we begin with the fact that the most of the Jews in Germany were German citizens who spoke German and had done for generations- they were fully integrated into German culture for the most part? For goodness sake, Yiddish is a dialect of German!!! This includes people like Otto Frank who had served in the German Imperial Army in WW1.
So there is a sociological difference there to start with.

Shall we then look at the fact that in the 1920's and 1930's there was no Jewish state as such or any country in which Jews were not a minority, in the world, unlike the Islamic states of today?
Again, another sociological factor.

Shall we also look at the fact that the anti-semitism in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's had roots in i) historical anti-Semitism in Europe, ie the "deicides, blood libels" etc and the Christian polemics of centuries ii) the fact that Jews were seen as "bourgeois" and rich and this was used against them for economic purposes- the first anti-Semitic acts were aggressively economic in nature iii) the Jews were blamed for having aided and abetted Communism in Russia and thus the "Jews" were seen as part of the communist threat to Western European and more specifically German morality and values.

The Jews were in addition perceived as a "race" whereas no one talks about an Islamic race. The problem with stuff like Islam4Uk is quite simply that you have bigots on both sides fanning the flames of intollerance.

Were there groups like Judaism4Weimar in the 1920's and 1930's?

I don't think you could argue that Muslims in Britain are scapegoated by the ruling class in Britain. LOL!!! Football teams, Harrods itself, small business and not-so small business owners.... Not a good comparison. Racist bigots exist everywhere, but I don't think you can make a case that Muslims are necessarily being singled out here.

Like all places and in all times there are prejudices between "them and us" mentalities but they are not the same, do not have the same roots and should not be tarred with the same brush.

Because the concept of "Islamofascism" is a fucking stupid concept that doesn't make any sense.

Why is it a stupid concept that doesn't make sense? Just explain why instead of making statements that you can't back up. There are plenty of reactionary currents in Islam and if you look at the current Islamic states of Iran and Saudi Arabia there are many parallels with fascist states in Europe. I repeat, this is not saying that all Muslims fall into the category of bigots, but some do- just as with all groups and I don't see why they should be exempt from critique.

Plus, Zionism is a colonialist ideology, we are criticizing Zionism for being colonialist and imperialist. It could be committed by any ethnic/religious group and it would still be fucked. Hence the calls against anti-Zionists being "anti-semitic" is bullshit.

You didn't read what I said did you? So I'll simplify it for you. I said that when Zionists accuse people of being anti-Semitic and hide behind religion is it not similar to "Islamofascists" accusing their critics of being Islamophobic?

As for being colonialist and imperialist, how come you call your base New Zealand and not Aotearoa? :)

Islamofascism on the other hand is a right-wing buzzword which doesn't make any sense (Ravachol wrote a pretty awesome post a while back on why it's so dumb).

Let's have a look at the origin of the term shall we...

Oh, my my....

Albert Scardino writes that the term "seems to have appeared first" in a Washington Times piece, in which Muslim scholar Khalid Duran used it "as a criticism of hyper-traditionalist clerics." According to the Times, this piece appeared in July 2001.
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-scardino_6-0) Scardino, Albert. "1-0 in the propaganda war" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1405605,00.html). The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1405605,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1405605,00.html). Retrieved 2006-04-19.
^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-7) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/01/20060901-090752-7525r/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/01/20060901-090752-7525r/)

Right-wing nutters may also use the word, but that doesn't change the fact it originated with a Muslim scholar. The definitions may be controversial too, but then so are the definitions of a lot of things, hell, Stalin called himself a communist. :)


As for ordinary people---

Well, my Morrocan cousins would probably have a lot to say about this, as well as my Palestinian, Algerian and Islamic friends from other parts, as well as having lived in a muslim country too--- but then we wouldn't know anything would we? I supposed sitting down there in Aotearoa which, according to my rough stats has a Muslim population of 0.9% it makes you an expert.

Like, I said before- so glad you're back.:cool:

:- Edit 26/01- Sorry for the sarky tone, but shall we endeavor perhaps not to insult people in replies to posts from now on? :)

[Yazman]

Well my Morrocan cousins would probably have a lot to say about this, as well as my Palestinian, Algerian and Islamic friends from other parts, as well as having lived in a mulism country too--- but then we wouldn't know anything would they? I supposed sitting down there in Aotearoa which, according to my rough stats has a Muslim population of 0.9% it makes you an expert.

Everybody in this thread should feel free to completely ignore this part of ComradeMan's post, as it constitutes an argument to authority.

[BUDDHA]

We kind of need to figure out a plan of action for Islam.

Islam is a fascist, homophobic, sexist, racist, oppressive religion. It goes completely against socialism. We need to eventually move towards removing the extreme islamist groups like islam4uk. Trying to force any religion on anyone is not ok. The muslims are yet to learn this.

The real problem is not in combatting islamic ideas here- thats pretty much a non issue because muslims, let alone extreme muslims will never be a majority in this country. The very idea is laughable. I don't know what Islam4uk are even trying to achieve, what do they think that millions of britons watching tv are going to see a bearded pakistani immigrant in a dress screaming obscenities in a language they don't understand and they'll jump up from their seats and shout- "I see clearly now! everything I believe is wrong! Allah be praised!".

Seriously guys.

The real problem here is that the idiotic, meandering rantings of islamist groups give fodder to the BNP and EDL. The idiocy of a few, annoying, idiotic muslims generates hatred towards ALL muslims, even those who assimilated into our culture perfectly. This must stop now.

But what can we do? Any kind of anti-islamist action attracts racists, the government does nothing. This is why the BNP are growing in power- because nobody else is willing to do anything about the extreme muslims for fear of being branded a racist- when the only option outstanding is actual racists.

I'm all for multiculturalism, under the understanding that it does not infringe on other peoples freedoms and other cultures in the society. Islamic fundamentalists whether militant or not, take the fucking biscuit so to speak. They abuse a system which is in place for peaceful, happy cooperation between ethnic groups, and use it to try and propagate their disgusting, sexist, homophobic, racist, xenophobic, fascist ideologies.

So what can we actually do to combat islamic extremism without supporting blanket racism towards all asians or being accused of being and being joined by fascist whites?

(inb4 "zionist")


You have given me faith back in the left wing;)

[BUDDHA]

To be fair, I don't see christian or jewish groups walking around the streets here with placards demanding "Behead those who insult christianity/judaism" or "british soldiers go to hell" or "convert to christianity/judaism or die".

Maybe thats just my bigoted eyes glossing over them though :rolleyes:


These radical Islamic groups are peaceful loving people when they are not building bombs etc to blow up busses and tubes.

Islamic radicals are a problem and unless the left deals with this ,they will be swept aside by nazi's like the bnp.

Wake up:thumbup1:

[BUDDHA]

Someone hasn't heard of Christian Voice or whatever their name is.
Probably is bigoted glossing over, seems to be you're whole schtick in this thread.


Trouble is they dont go around blowing tubes up:blink:

[BUDDHA]

Well maybe the moral of the story is not to make claims you can't back up to try and prove your pretty weak point. So perhaps you should drop your assertion that "Extreme Islam buys the BNP most of its votes" if you can't even provide evidence.


Get back into the real world of course the bnp are using extream Islam to build themselves up.

If you dont know this you should not be in politics:confused:

[ls]

BUDDHA, that "red scum", a supposed "anarchist" who was in fact, a fake racist twat who compared black people to monkeys if I recall correctly got banned and you will soon be banned too.

[ComradeMan]

BUDDHA, that "red scum", a supposed "anarchist" who was in fact, a fake racist twat who compared black people to monkeys if I recall correctly got banned and you will soon be banned too.


I don't recall his every comparing black people to monkeys so don't come out with lies.

He was not capable of wording his argument and came out with some very insular-minded thinking re Britain and Haiti- he was banned. But don't jump on the polemicizing bandwagon of strawman arguments please...

Secondly, why should Buddha be banned? For daring to criticism Islamic reactionaries....? For daring to spell out some things as they are.

I have been to Britain, and I have heard what working class British people think about Islam... most of it comes from opinion based on 7/7 and radical/reactionary Islamist groups- this in turn gives groups like the BNP and EDL a platform to preach their hate. I don't think what Buddha is saying in unreasonable.

Now....

An attack on reactionary/radical Islamist groups is not a blanket attack on a) Islam as a whole or b) Muslim people in general- just like a critique of US foreign policy is not an attack on all American people nor a critique of Stalinism an attack on Russians... do you get the concept?

But if everytime someone dares speak out against radical Islamists, people from the LEFT, of all bloody places, refuse to acknowledge the issues then this will give rightwing groups a platform to preach their lies and do no good to the left. Bear in mind too that radical Islam hates the left too..

[ls]

I don't recall his every comparing black people to monkeys so don't come out with lies.

He was not capable of wording his argument and came out with some very insular-minded thinking re Britain and Haiti- he was banned. But don't jump on the polemicizing bandwagon of strawman arguments please...

Secondly, why should Buddha be banned? For daring to criticism Islamic reactionaries....? For daring to spell out some things as they are.

I have been to Britain, and I have heard what working class British people think about Islam... most of it comes from opinion based on 7/7 and radical/reactionary Islamist groups- this in turn gives groups like the BNP and EDL a platform to preach their hate. I don't think what Buddha is saying in unreasonable.

Now....

An attack on reactionary/radical Islamist groups is not a blanket attack on a) Islam as a whole or b) Muslim people in general- just like a critique of US foreign policy is not an attack on all American people nor a critique of Stalinism an attack on Russians... do you get the concept?

But if everytime someone dares speak out against radical Islamists, people from the LEFT, of all bloody places, refuse to acknowledge the issues then this will give rightwing groups a platform to preach their lies and do no good to the left. Bear in mind too that radical Islam hates the left too..

Yes, he did compare black people to monkeys albeit unintentionally, but it showed his racist mentality and your best friend, The Anarchist Tension, correctly banned him for racism as well as crypto-national chauvinism (it states that racism is one of the reasons TAT chose to ban him in the "Admin actions" thread so go check it out).

Now, your whole argument is based on a presumption that radical Islam is a "big problem" when it just isn't. In this country there are fucking barely any Muslims at all, the only reason they could/would get radicalised to the extent that they'd kill people is because of a disgusting system that marginalises them at every opportunity. Attacking Islam as a reactionary belief is one thing, attacking "radical" Muslims is usually racist though, attacking the system that causes all of this is completely different and what you should be focusing on, not attacking an irrelevant "radical Islamic" minority of people.

Face the reality arsehole, attacks such as bombings by all kinds of radical fanatics whether white supremacists or muslims who feel marginalised as shit are going to happen until the reasons for these attacks are taken away. Being a racist fucking bastard is not going to do fuck all to help it.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, he did compare black people to monkeys albeit unintentionally, but it showed his racist mentality and your best friend, The Anarchist Tension, correctly banned him for racism as well as crypto-national chauvinism (it states that racism is one of the reasons TAT chose to ban him in the "Admin actions" thread so go check it out).

Here we go again....:laugh:

Just exactly where did he compare black people to monkeys? He may have had some dodgy ideas but you can't just make up things people said.

Now, your whole argument is based on a presumption that radical Islam is a "big problem" when it just isn't.

Well as Buddha pointed out, it was a pretty damn big problem for the victims of 7/7.... Again, you fail to see the point that we are not talking about ordinary Muslim people, we are talking about reactionary groups of Muslims/Islamists. If you look further up the thread I did also point that out to RedScum.

In this country there are fucking barely any Muslims at all, the only reason they could/would get radicalised to the extent that they'd kill people is because of a disgusting system that marginalises them at every opportunity.

Yeah sure.... 1.5 million Muslims in Britain and about 600,000 in London. By no means a vast majority but you can hardly say "barely" any either.

As for being marginalised etc... very odd, spent a lot of time in London, Harrods is owned by a Muslim, and most of the Muslims I met were all employed and there children were going to university and/or working and seemed to be fairly well integrated into society, a walk up Edgware Road and all the shops and bazaars and the cafés also seemed to indicate that people were doing fairly well. The of course there was Mohammad Sarwar, who became Britain's first Muslim MP in 1997, of course he nearly had to step down for fear of attacks after he received death threats for his role in the extradition of Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid and Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq after they fled to Pakistan. The said three were jailed for life for the abduction and racially aggravated murder of teenager Kriss Donald,a Scottish fifteen-year-old white male who was kidnapped, beaten, castrated and murdered in Glasgow in 2004 in a racially-motivated attack. Five asian men were later found guilty of racially-motivated violence; those convicted of murder were all sentenced to life imprisonment.

Now I cannot speak with exact certainty, and I doubt the stats are availabe to verify this anyway, about every single Muslim person in the UK, but your way of putting things across is by no means a balanced view or by any means irrefutable based on facts and stats.

By the way, found this....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/England-subdivisions-Muslim-population-2001.png


Attacking Islam as a reactionary belief is one thing, attacking "radical" Muslims is usually racist though, attacking the system that causes all of this is completely different and what you should be focusing on, not attacking an irrelevant "radical Islamic" minority of people.

Why is attacking reactionaries and radical religionists racist? For a start Muslim "radicals" do not belong to a race, secondly if we can attack, from a leftist point of view, any reactionary/radical religionist group why is an attack on one particular group deemed as racist? As for an irrlevent group, well, once again, tell that to the victims of their deeds....

Face the reality arsehole, attacks such as bombings by all kinds of radical fanatics whether white supremacists or muslims who feel marginalised as shit are going to happen until the reasons for these attacks are taken away. Being a racist fucking bastard is not going to do fuck all to help it.

Do I get you right here but are you indirectly justifying bomb attacks, even by white supremacists?- Oh well, I feel marginalised so I am going to blow stuff up and kill/mame innocent people- workers who were going to work on the tube and bus.... It seems as if you are also defending white supremacists. The reasons for these attacks are what we are trying to get at it, and the reason for radical islamist attacks is radical/reactionary Islam, which we are not allowed to criticise at all because of the likes of you spouting on about racism at the drop of a hat when it has nothing to do with it.

As for the rest of your inflammatory and foul-mouthed tone, well, it's what I, for one, have grown to expect from you. You seem to be incapable of having a discussion without flying all over the place and becoming abusive when people criticise your positions. I suggest you go and sort your politics out.
:thumbup1:

[synthesis]

I think the development of the term "Islamofascism" is quite interesting. Its users barely even try to conceal its origin as a political tool for mustering sympathy among the "soft left," so to speak, for the Western imperial agenda. In actuality, it is an utterly useless term when seeking to accurately describe reality, much like the "degenerate worker's state." "Islamofascism" is simply too large of an umbrella to be of any real purpose, except, of course, as propaganda.

[synthesis]

As for being marginalised etc... very odd, spent a lot of time in London, Harrods is owned by a Muslim, and most of the Muslims I met were all employed and there children were going to university and/or working and seemed to be fairly well integrated into society, a walk up Edgware Road and all the shops and bazaars and the cafés also seemed to indicate that people were doing fairly well.

Don't you think that's too limited a perspective to make such a sweeping judgment? I mean, you wouldn't say that racism has vanished from the U.S. just because Oprah is a billionaire and some minorities live comfortably.

Or maybe you would. It would certainly tell us a lot if you did.


Why is attacking reactionaries and radical religionists racist?

He said it was "usually racist." This is because in the West, the people who do this are usually white, and the people they attack are usually not.


The of course there was Mohammad Sarwar, who became Britain's first Muslim MP in 1997, of course he nearly had to step down for fear of attacks after he received death threats for his role in the extradition of Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid and Mohammed Faisal Mushtaq after they fled to Pakistan. The said three were jailed for life for the abduction and racially aggravated murder of teenager Kriss Donald,a Scottish fifteen-year-old white male who was kidnapped, beaten, castrated and murdered in Glasgow in 2004 in a racially-motivated attack. Five asian men were later found guilty of racially-motivated violence; those convicted of murder were all sentenced to life imprisonment.

What's the point of this information? How does this fit into your argument?


Now I cannot speak with exact certainty, and I doubt the stats are availabe to verify this anyway, about every single Muslim person in the UK, but your way of putting things across is by no means a balanced view or by any means irrefutable based on facts and stats.

By the way, found this....

Again, what's the point of this? The graph seems to work against your assertion that Muslims in Britain are anything less than a small minority. Unless I'm misreading it, the vast majority of Britain is less than 2% Muslim, and they don't even go over 20% in the most concentrated Muslim neighborhoods of London.



Do I get you right here but are you indirectly justifying bomb attacks, even by white supremacists?- Oh well, I feel marginalised so I am going to blow stuff up and kill/mame innocent people- workers who were going to work on the tube and bus.... It seems as if you are also defending white supremacists.

You should be more conscious of the difference between justifying something and placing it in its proper context, so as to avoid constructing straw men such as these.

Powerlessness breeds anger, and anger breeds violence. Again, I think you are being remarkably presumptuous in your appraisal of the situation. To deny that "political Islam" originates in political concerns... I just don't see how you're getting where you're going.


The reasons for these attacks are what we are trying to get at it, and the reason for radical islamist attacks is radical/reactionary Islam, which we are not allowed to criticise at all because of the likes of you spouting on about racism at the drop of a hat when it has nothing to do with it.

Again, your reasoning comes up short. You're looking for the reason behind the attacks? The cause of radical Islamic activity is indeed radical Islam, but what is the cause of radical Islam? (Hint: it's neocolonialism. The Islamic world has been turned into a colonial object of the West, and some aren't happy about it.)

Here's something you should remember: Nothing ever comes to be called "radical" without a radicalizing force behind it.

And it's not that you're racist for criticizing radical Islam. It's that you're criticizing it without placing it in its proper context. You're isolating one element (or symptom) of the problem and thereby blaming the victim. Nobody posting here would agree with radical Islam in an ideological vacuum, but that analysis produces useless results and useless conclusions. Context is everything.

[ComradeMan]

Don't you think that's too limited a perspective to make such a sweeping judgment? I mean, you wouldn't say that racism has vanished from the U.S. just because Oprah is a billionaire and some minorities live comfortably.

Well I did say I didn't have figures and probably none exist, but quite honestly from my experience in London, which has the biggest Muslim population of Britain, I didn't see any sign that people were marginalised in the way Is makes out. You would think we were talking about the cotton fields of the deep south from what Is says.

He said it was "usually racist." This is because in the West, the people who do this are usually white, and the people they attack are usually not.

Well that is racist in itself isn't it? No group is allowed to criticise another group for whatever reason? Again, Is' comment is not based on any facts as such. Inasmuch as there are racist whites who ignorantly attack Islam because it's not seen as white, there are plenty of non-white voices and Islamic voices who are critics of radical Islam. The "usually" word is non-empirical.

What's the point of this information? How does this fit into your argument?

The point was to show that Britain's first Muslim MP was nearly forced out of office for defending a vicious crime against a white person- in turn to show that the "marginalised" and racially divided society is not always what people make it out to be- on either side. The other information was in response to Is' ridiculous comment, there are "barely" any Muslims. 1.5 million people is not a majority, but you can't say there are hardly any Muslims either- that's ridiculous.


Powerlessness breeds anger, and anger breeds violence. Again, I think you are being remarkably presumptuous in your appraisal of the situation. To deny that "political Islam" originates in political concerns... I just don't see how you're getting where you're going.

More excuses and a complete reactionary line that white supremacists and groups like the BNP and EDL feed on too. Some forms of radical Islam have their origin in a radical agenda of some Islamist groups, just like other reactionaries....



Again, your reasoning comes up short. You're looking for the reason behind the attacks? The cause of radical Islamic activity is indeed radical Islam, but what is the cause of radical Islam? (Hint: it's neocolonialism. The Islamic world has been turned into a colonial object of the West, and some aren't happy about it.)

Not sure I agree. One of the perpetrators of 7/7 was an asylum seeker who had come to Britain from Somalia at the age of 7- most of the families of the perpetrators were shocked by what happened and recently the Nigerian debacle at Amsterdam airport- the son of a Nigerian millionaire with exclusive flats in London... People aren't going to buy this excuse making all the time.

Here's something you should remember: Nothing ever comes to be called "radical" without a radicalizing force behind it.

Like before, then you could justify the Nazis, the Fascists, the KuKluxKlan coudln't you...?

And it's not that you're racist for criticizing radical Islam. It's that you're criticizing it without placing it in its proper context. You're isolating one element (or symptom) of the problem and thereby blaming the victim.

No, I don't think I am really.

Nobody posting here would agree with radical Islam in an ideological vacuum, but that analysis produces useless results and useless conclusions. Context is everything.

Most of the comments were in response to Is' rather inflammatory remarks and also within a British and European context which is very specific.

[BUDDHA]

BUDDHA, that "red scum", a supposed "anarchist" who was in fact, a fake racist twat who compared black people to monkeys if I recall correctly got banned and you will soon be banned too.


Comparing black people to monkeys is just racist shite.

Why will I get banned?

[BUDDHA]

I don't recall his every comparing black people to monkeys so don't come out with lies.

He was not capable of wording his argument and came out with some very insular-minded thinking re Britain and Haiti- he was banned. But don't jump on the polemicizing bandwagon of strawman arguments please...

Secondly, why should Buddha be banned? For daring to criticism Islamic reactionaries....? For daring to spell out some things as they are.

I have been to Britain, and I have heard what working class British people think about Islam... most of it comes from opinion based on 7/7 and radical/reactionary Islamist groups- this in turn gives groups like the BNP and EDL a platform to preach their hate. I don't think what Buddha is saying in unreasonable.

Now....

An attack on reactionary/radical Islamist groups is not a blanket attack on a) Islam as a whole or b) Muslim people in general- just like a critique of US foreign policy is not an attack on all American people nor a critique of Stalinism an attack on Russians... do you get the concept?

But if everytime someone dares speak out against radical Islamists, people from the LEFT, of all bloody places, refuse to acknowledge the issues then this will give rightwing groups a platform to preach their lies and do no good to the left. Bear in mind too that radical Islam hates the left too..


Thanks mate ,we could do with more people like you in the UK.

A couple of years ago we got verbally attacked by swp for having a leaflet that said bin bush ,bin blair,bin laden. We were told it could cause racial tensions.:confused:

The left on a whole needs to get back to grass root conections with the working class.

[Steve_j]

Most of the left has grass roots connections with the working class, but that doesnt mean we should jump on an anti muslim bandwagon just because some of the working class are on it. Look at nazi germany? Should the communists then have jumped on the anti jewish bandwagon because a large number of the working class swallowed that bulllshit? Think not.

[Belisarius]

Steve j is right. i think there are bigger problems to be dealt with. most of those muslim fundamentalists live in some remote region in the middle east, in other words thousands of miles away from here. maybe we should focus on our current problems in our own concrete lives(and i haven't met many islam fundamentalists), which is already hard enough, like they way unemployment is "solving" the economic crisis.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Do I get you right here but are you indirectly justifying bomb attacks, even by white supremacists?- Oh well, I feel marginalised so I am going to blow stuff up and kill/mame innocent people- workers who were going to work on the tube and bus.... It seems as if you are also defending white supremacists. The reasons for these attacks are what we are trying to get at it, and the reason for radical islamist attacks is radical/reactionary Islam, which we are not allowed to criticise at all because of the likes of you spouting on about racism at the drop of a hat when it has nothing to do with it.


I don't think Is was trying to "defend" bomb attacks. He was probably just providing a possible explanation as to why some occur.

Many sociologists, psychologists and criminologists have found that income inequality correlates quite significantly with crime, for example. When income inequality declines within a region, crime there tends to do so as well and vice-versa, or so they claim.

Now are these social scientists merely contriving excuses for people who commit crime or justifying crime in general? I don't think so. They're just attempting to analyze its complex etiology.

Do you not believe that there's a difference between justification and explanation?

[ComradeMan]

Most of the left has grass roots connections with the working class, but that doesnt mean we should jump on an anti muslim bandwagon just because some of the working class are on it. Look at nazi germany? Should the communists then have jumped on the anti jewish bandwagon because a large number of the working class swallowed that bulllshit? Think not.

Re your point.

Jewish groups in Nazi Germany, to my knowledge at least, did not form radical religionist groups nor did they go round calling for people to be beheaded for printing cartoons about the Jews... just imagine in Nazi Germany... nor did they blow things up either. I never heard about fanatical Jews in Nazi Germany who called for halakhic law to be adopted by the German state either.

As for some of the other points mentioned elsewhere-

1. The BNP and EDL as well as Forza Nuova are relatively small, minority groups and quite insignificant on the political spectrum yet there is plenty of time to have protests against them and (with good reason) be concerned about them. Small vociferous minorities have their way of getting heard more than the silent majority and bullying people as well. Let's not forget that the Nazis started as a small vociferous gang of bullies...

2. Radical Islamists (I use the word Islamist and not Muslim) are often connected to Saudi Arabia and the extremist wahabbi school of Islam. Saudi Arabia is not by any means a poor, downtrodden and marginalised state at all.


As for the rest, well- as the British would say, "bollocks to them" :)- hope I got that right!!! LOL!!!

As far as I am concerned, I have leftist principles and I am not going to support reactionary groups whatever their creed, colour, origin or presumed fight against imperialism because that is utter nonsense. I don't give a hoot whether they say they are this or that, anyone who has reactionary values that are totally in conflict with leftist principles is not on my side, even temporarily, and that counts for the whole darn lot of them. I don't care either if one lot of reactionaries i.e. the EDL or BNP are against another lot of reactionaries, i.e. Islam4UK, I support NEITHER and I am not going to be bullied into some position of sympathy for one or the other.

My final point, seeing as I have a lot of very decent and kind Muslim friends and relations I hear all too often their despair at radical Islamists for hijacking the name of Islam and also causing a lot of hatred and ignorance against ordinary Muslim people through their words and deeds- so perhaps I have "double" the sense of irritation at these groups.
:cool:

PS Note to Belisarius- Muslim fundamentalists do not live in some remote corner of the Middle East either--- the people who were victims of 7/7 were not in some remote corner of the Middle-East and in these days were the world is only 24 hours away via air-travel it's not an argument that holds much sway.

[Steve_j]

Jewish groups in Nazi Germany, to my knowledge at least, did not form radical religionist groups nor did they go round calling for people to be beheaded for printing cartoons about the Jews... just imagine in Nazi Germany... nor did they blow things up either. I never heard about fanatical Jews in Nazi Germany who called for halakhic law to be adopted by the German state either.

Im not saying the two are the same, ofcourse they are not, but just because elements of the working class are concerened about something that they percieve to be a threat doesnt mean the left should support their prejudice.

[Agnapostate]

The issue with Islam is the nature of its influence over the domestic affairs of entire nation-states. While the "big three monotheisms" all contain similarly authoritarian doctrines and repressive facets, Islam exerts an influence over society that Christianity, for example, does not. There's no issue with Islam specifically, I'm convinced, as Christianity would likely be just as oppressive a force (enforcement of chastity laws, harassment of nonbelievers, prohibition of secular influences), were its adherents to possess power that matched that of Islamic clerics. We have seen Christianity exert such influence in the past, and the consequences were atrocities along the lines of the Spanish Inquisition.

It's easy to condemn the theocratic ruling class of Iran or more appropriately, Saudi Arabia, but also not difficult to imagine a James Dobson or Tony Perkins in their places if they had such an opportunity. It's not difficult to imagine the consequences of the implementation of the religious social authoritarianism of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, proponent of racial segregation, who claimed that, "The true Negro does not want integration.... He realizes his potential is far better among his own race."

What of Christian Reconstructionism founder Rousas John Rushdoony (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony), who declared that, "In colonial New England the covenantal concept of church and state was applied. Everyone went to church, but only a limited number had voting rights in the church and therefore the state, because there was a coincidence of church membership and citizenship. The others were no less believers, but the belief was that only the responsible must be given responsibility. One faith, one law, and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state, and it has worked towards reducing society to anarchy."

[synthesis]

Well I did say I didn't have figures and probably none exist, but quite honestly from my experience in London, which has the biggest Muslim population of Britain, I didn't see any sign that people were marginalised in the way Is makes out. You would think we were talking about the cotton fields of the deep south from what Is says.Exploitation and marginalization aren't synonymous terms, although they certainly aren't mutually exclusive, either.


Well that is racist in itself isn't it? No group is allowed to criticise another group for whatever reason?There are multiple definitions of the word racism. The one you're using describes the act of separating "us" from "them" on the basis of constructed racial categories. The racism to which we are referring is institutional racism, that is, the political structure of a global economic order dominated by the West.


Inasmuch as there are racist whites who ignorantly attack Islam because it's not seen as white, there are plenty of non-white voices and Islamic voices who are critics of radical Islam. The "usually" word is non-empirical.I think you should probably learn what the word "empirical" means before you use it haphazardly.



The point was to show that Britain's first Muslim MP was nearly forced out of office for defending a vicious crime against a white person- in turn to show that the "marginalised" and racially divided society is not always what people make it out to be- on either side."Defending a vicious crime against a white person?" I'm going to assume you misspoke. Sarwar negotiated the return of the attackers to England for prosecution. You still haven't explained how this is relevant to the discussion.


1.5 million people is not a majority, but you can't say there are hardly any Muslims either- that's ridiculous. Statistically, it is still a small minority. Even the 20% high in select areas of London is entirely underwhelming for an American such as myself. Look up the demographics of East Los Angeles and get back to me.


More excuses and a complete reactionary line that white supremacists and groups like the BNP and EDL feed on too. Some forms of radical Islam have their origin in a radical agenda of some Islamist groups, just like other reactionaries....I challenge anyone reading this thread to make any sense whatsoever out of any aspect of these two sentences. You have started speaking entirely in non sequiturs, which I hope you will avoid in the future.



Not sure I agree. One of the perpetrators of 7/7 was an asylum seeker who had come to Britain from Somalia at the age of 7- most of the families of the perpetrators were shocked by what happened and recently the Nigerian debacle at Amsterdam airport- the son of a Nigerian millionaire with exclusive flats in London... People aren't going to buy this excuse making all the time.It is rather frustrating to think that I could have adequately responded to your entire post by copy-pasting the respective statement to which you were responding, but I will continue nonetheless.

Again, the issue is not that the attackers themselves were motivated by neo-colonialism. They were inspired by an ideology that was motivated by neo-colonialism.

This isn't really a line of argument so much as it is a statement of fact. Read about Sayyid Qutb if you want to learn more. He basically created "radical Islam" as a political agenda, and explicitly defined Western imperialism as its basis.


Like before, then you could justify the Nazis, the Fascists, the KuKluxKlan coudln't you...? You should be more conscious of the difference between justifying something and placing it in its proper context, so as to avoid constructing straw men such as these.

I'm not justifying the Nazis when I inform you that they would not have came to power without a radicalizing force behind them - that is, the worldwide Great Depression.



Most of the comments were in response to Is' rather inflammatory remarks and also within a British and European context which is very specific.It is very specific, in fact it is too specific. You cannot have any sort of meaningful understanding of the motivations behind radical Islam until you understand the history of Western domination of the Islamic world through the use of brutal proxy dictatorships that consolidate their power with Western guns and money.

Again, if you wish to learn more, I recommend that you read up on Western support for regimes such as those of Suharto in Indonesia, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Reza Khan in Iran. We might forget, but they don't.

I don't really think this conversation can proceed until you learn more about the things of which you speak. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to teach you everything that would make you change your mind, so hopefully your willingness to learn will overcome your desire to turn a symptom into the disease itself.

[ComradeMan]

Exploitation and marginalization aren't synonymous terms, although they certainly aren't mutually exclusive, either.


Agreed- but the way they are being used in this thread by one member implied this, look to the original comments.
There are multiple definitions of the word racism. The one you're using describes the act of separating "us" from "them" on the basis of constructed racial categories. The racism to which we are referring is institutional racism, that is, the political structure of a global economic order dominated by the West.


I disagree here- you are changing the meaning of racism. You could argue that class struggle were a race struggle on that ground. We are also not referring to the political structure of a global economic order here- we are referring to small groups of religious nutters who call for people to be beheaded and blown up in the UK. I also don't see how you can transpose racism onto this issue. There are no doubt some anti-islamic voices that are primarily concerned with the fact that anything and everything Islamic is seen as "other" and thus are motivated by racism, but the issue in itself is not a race issue.
There has been an Islamic presence in the UK since 1707 and Islam as a religion was legalised in the UK in 1812. There may have been a presence in Britain as early as Chaucer and the first mosque was built in 1860. I believe Yemenis are the most "historical" Muslim group in Britain. Whatever, there has been a long and fairly peaceful co-existence with Islam in Britain, albeit as a minority, for centuries- how come now with the rise of groups like Islam4UK is this turning sour?
Anjem Choudary, leader of Islam4Uk was born in Britain. He is a British citizen, he was educated at Southampton University and lives in the South of England. Amongst other things, Choudary- born and educated in Britain and a former solicitor too, praised the 7/7 attacks . WTF!!! I don't think Choudary somehow fits the exploited and marginalised profie.
If you look at the profiles of the people involved in the attack, they were all born in Britain and some educated at British Universities, bar one of Jamaican origin who converted to Islam and according to newspaper reports was a former drug dealer who hated white people.
I think you should probably learn what the word "empirical" means before you use it haphazardly.


Usually was being used rather sneakily in the text. How much or how often is "usually"? The word was not based on any hard fact or source, observatio- mere opinion here- within the thread, hence the comment.
"Defending a vicious crime against a white person?" I'm going to assume you misspoke. Sarwar negotiated the return of the attackers to England for prosecution. You still haven't explained how this is relevant to the discussion.


I confess I miswrote that :blushing: I meant to say he intervened in a highly controversial race killing in which the victim was white and the perpetrators were Asian and had them extradited from Pakistan.
The main point was about his being Britain's first Muslim MP... again if Is' original comments are viewed you'll see the relevance.
Statistically, it is still a small minority. Even the 20% high in select areas of London is entirely underwhelming for an American such as myself. Look up the demographics of East Los Angeles and get back to me.


I agree, I said that too- but Is said "barely any"- that implies practically none and 1.5 million people cannot be said to be practically none. According to The Indian newspaper the numbers could actually be higher, 2.4 million see http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/muslims-rise-while-christians-fall-in-britain_100149769.html. Not a majority by any means, but hardly Is' original comment "barely any".

I challenge anyone reading this thread to make any sense whatsoever out of any aspect of these two sentences. You have started speaking entirely in non sequiturs, which I hope you will avoid in the future.


No, because if you look in Is' original comments then you'll notice he mentioned white supremacists. The rationale suggested for these groups as well left me wondering.
Again, the issue is not that the attackers themselves were motivated by neo-colonialism. They were inspired by an ideology that was motivated by neo-colonialism.


Bollocks! Italian fascism was anti-capitalist in many ways. This sounds like a good bit of excuse making at best. Again, you could argue that the system of capitalism has produced small marginalised groups of white males who feel left out of society and thus resort to football hooliganism and neo-nazism. They too would claim that they were exploited, marginalise and so on, they too could be viewed as "victims" of capitalism- but does that mean we have to support them or justify them? Does it change things?
Islamism is imperialistic in itself, so if there Islamist groups who maintain that they are fighting imperialism, by and large, it is because this neo-colonialist imperialism threatens their own reactionary ideology. They are not leftists, they do not hold leftist ideals and I don't think they should be supported by people on the left.
This isn't really a line of argument so much as it is a statement of fact. Read about Sayyid Qutb if you want to learn more. He basically created "radical Islam" as a political agenda, and explicitly defined Western imperialism as its basis.


Wahhabism started in Ottoman Southern-Arabia over 200 years ago or so.
You should be more conscious of the difference between justifying something and placing it in its proper context, so as to avoid constructing straw men such as these.


No strawmen. Responding to other points. What I see here and on the "real" left, i.e. the real world, is that the same people who condemn Christian fundamentalists and Zionists and any other aggressive theocratic ideology suddenly do an about turn when it comes to Islamist groups.
I'm not justifying the Nazis when I inform you that they would not have came to power without a radicalizing force behind them - that is, the worldwide Great Depression.


I don't think I did say you were justifying them.... but sitting around academically analysing radicalising forces is all well and good- let's deal rather with the problems in the here and now too.

It is very specific, in fact it is too specific. You cannot have any sort of meaningful understanding of the motivations behind radical Islam until you understand the history of Western domination of the Islamic world through the use of brutal proxy dictatorships that consolidate their power with Western guns and money.


I repeat, Islamic radicalism started with wahhabbism in southern Arabia under Ottoman domination. Saudi Arabia is the seedbed for most of this...

Again, if you wish to learn more, I recommend that you read up on Western support for regimes such as those of Suharto in Indonesia, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Reza Khan in Iran. We might forget, but they don't.


I suggest you also read up on western support for the Bin Ladin family, the Taliban and covert collaboration with Hamas et alia.... In fact, ironically, Islamists are inasmuch tools in the oppression of workers as any other reactionary group and historically have been in and out of bed with their so-called Western oppressors....

I don't really think this conversation can proceed until you learn more about the things of which you speak. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to teach you everything that would make you change your mind, so hopefully your willingness to learn will overcome your desire to turn a symptom into the disease itself.


A very high and lofty attitude here and also we are digressing from the subject. But we are not talking about a philosophical issue here alone, we are talking about the fact that there are small groups of radicals who are dedicated to an imperialistic theocratic ideology and who kill people. I am not going around and shouting about "Eurabia" or following the lines of the ignorant neo-fascist right, but at the same time I am well aware that the radicalisation of Islam is a problem that needs to be addressed and discussed without this burying of heads in the sand all the time.
PS I draw most of my information from Muslim sources, Muslim friends and based on three years living in an Islamic country, so although I do not wish to make an appeal to authority, I do think you should patronise someone else- especially in the light of some of the comments of dubious historicity which you have made.

[synthesis]

I disagree here- you are changing the meaning of racism. You could argue that class struggle were a race struggle on that ground. We are also not referring to the political structure of a global economic order here- we are referring to small groups of religious nutters who call for people to be beheaded and blown up in the UK. I also don't see how you can transpose racism onto this issue. There are no doubt some anti-islamic voices that are primarily concerned with the fact that anything and everything Islamic is seen as "other" and thus are motivated by racism, but the issue in itself is not a race issue.

I don't really see how you can completely separate British Islamophobia from anti-immigrant tendencies and, well, racism. When I described "institutional racism," I was referring to the process by which the first form of racism becomes a socio-political tool for maintaining the status quo and serving its interests. Should have made that clear - sorry.


There has been an Islamic presence in the UK since 1707 and Islam as a religion was legalised in the UK in 1812. There may have been a presence in Britain as early as Chaucer and the first mosque was built in 1860. I believe Yemenis are the most "historical" Muslim group in Britain. Whatever, there has been a long and fairly peaceful co-existence with Islam in Britain, albeit as a minority, for centuries- how come now with the rise of groups like Islam4UK is this turning sour?Why do you think? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism)


Anjem Choudary, leader of Islam4Uk was born in Britain. He is a British citizen, he was educated at Southampton University and lives in the South of England. Amongst other things, Choudary- born and educated in Britain and a former solicitor too, praised the 7/7 attacks . WTF!!! I don't think Choudary somehow fits the exploited and marginalised profie.

Again, the issue is not that "Islamists" are necessarily exploited and/or marginalized. It is that "Islamism" feeds on exploitation and marginalization, and it is an internationally-oriented political philosophy. The relationship is symbiotic.

What is an extremist? I tend to agree with Bobby Kennedy, who argued that an extremist is not defined by how zealously he promotes his ideology or organization, but by how zealously he attacks that of his enemies. Neo-colonialism forces resistance movements to become extremist because of its equally extreme nature. The colonial power no longer has to account for the atrocities committed by its proxy states, neither to its own people nor to its colonial subjects, except, of course, when the chickens come home to roost.


I agree, I said that too- but Is said "barely any"- that implies practically none and 1.5 million people cannot be said to be practically none. According to The Indian newspaper the numbers could actually be higher, 2.4 million see http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100149769.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/muslims-rise-while-christians-fall-in-britain_100149769.html). Not a majority by any means, but hardly Is' original comment "barely any".I guess that's a matter of opinion. To me, 3-5% still qualifies as "barely any" in the big picture.


Islamism is imperialistic in itself, so if there Islamist groups who maintain that they are fighting imperialism, by and large, it is because this neo-colonialist imperialism threatens their own reactionary ideology. They are not leftists, they do not hold leftist ideals and I don't think they should be supported by people on the left.

I'll put it like this. I would have supported Chiang Kai-Shek against the Japanese empire, but not against Mao or instead of Mao.


Wahhabism started in Ottoman Southern-Arabia over 200 years ago or so.I would still encourage you to read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb) in the world's most accurate encyclopedia. You can't have any understanding of radical Islam in the present day until you understand Qutb and where he's coming from.


I don't think I did say you were justifying them.... but sitting around academically analysing radicalising forces is all well and good- let's deal rather with the problems in the here and now too.

How can we deal with problems that we don't fully understand?

The danger, of course, is the delusion that the problem is fully understood when it is not. You can take medication for the flu, but that doesn't really help if you have AIDS.


I suggest you also read up on western support for the Bin Ladin family, the Taliban and covert collaboration with Hamas et alia.... In fact, ironically, Islamists are inasmuch tools in the oppression of workers as any other reactionary group and historically have been in and out of bed with their so-called Western oppressors....Sure, but this doesn't address the origin of anti-imperial sentiments throughout the modern Islamic world for which radical Islam is the only politically viable form of expression. You can't dismiss them just because their leaders have been co-opted by the international imperial machine.


PS I draw most of my information from Muslim sources, Muslim friends and based on three years living in an Islamic country, so although I do not wish to make an appeal to authority, I do think you should patronise someone else- especially in the light of some of the comments of dubious historicity which you have made.

Fair enough. I don't believe that I have made any "comments of dubious historicity," although you're welcome to point them out if you can find any. I still don't believe that you have an accurate grasp of the situation as it exists today, but ultimately it's on me to show that to you, and I agree that a patronizing tone doesn't help. At the same time, it's hard to resist when it seems as though someone is not genuinely attempting to engage with my arguments. I'll try harder next time.

[ComradeMan]

I don't really see how you can completely separate British Islamophobia from anti-immigrant tendencies and, well, racism. When I described "institutional racism," I was referring to the process by which the first form of racism becomes a socio-political tool for maintaining the status quo and serving its interests. Should have made that clear - sorry.

What is British Islamophobia exactly? The rantings of a few rightwing newspapers? The actions of minority groups of extreme rightwingers who tend to hate everyone anyway? Anti-immigrant tendencies? The British state, as states go, is pretty damn open to immigrants. No doubt racism exists in Britain as it does in all places but I think you are turning this issue around to build a strawman. It is not about racism in Britain, Islamophobia or whatever else- it's about vociferous groups of reactionary Islamists who seem to be trying the patience of a lot of people in the UK- when leftists begin to complain I begin to listen... From my own experience in Britain I didn't see much racism at all, perhaps I am wrong...

Again, the issue is not that "Islamists" are necessarily exploited and/or marginalized. It is that "Islamism" feeds on exploitation and marginalization, and it is an internationally-oriented political philosophy. The relationship is symbiotic.

Firstly, the point about exploitation was in response to Is' rant in which he seems to confuse Islam, Muslim and Islamists and then goes on seemingly to justify them.

Islamism feeds on exploitation and marginalisation that it creates in order to self-perpetuate. The Islamists are againt integration, the Islamists are the ones ranting about "kufr" laws and institutions, the Islamists are the ones who are against secular authorities, laws and institutions and so on. As for it being an internationally-oriented philosophy, well- which major socio-politically oriented philosophy isn't it?

What is an extremist? I tend to agree with Bobby Kennedy, who argued that an extremist is not defined by how zealously he promotes his ideology or organization, but by how zealously he attacks that of his enemies. Neo-colonialism forces resistance movements to become extremist because of its equally extreme nature. The colonial power no longer has to account for the atrocities committed by its proxy states, neither to its own people nor to its colonial subjects, except, of course, when the chickens come home to roost.

Well you could argue that the Nazis were extremists couldn't you? They were pretty damn zealous in their attacks on their enemies and pretty damn efficient too. Shifting the blame to neo-colonialism is also dubious. I would argue that we have corporate-colonialism that casts its shadow over the state but anyway, that's a different matter. Whatever the case, there is no justification in promoting reactionary "values" on pain of death.

I guess that's a matter of opinion. To me, 3-5% still qualifies as "barely any" in the big picture.

Well, that's a convenient way of using statistics, because 1.5-2.4 million people is not hardly by any means. By the same token you could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were hardly any given the entire population of Europe. But I don't think anyone is going to use that argument (quite rightly).

I'll put it like this. I would have supported Chiang Kai-Shek against the Japanese empire, but not against Mao or instead of Mao.

Supporting reactionaries against reactionaries, i.e. reactionary means, leads to reactionary ends. You are also comparing different periods of history, circumstances, ideologies and so on.

I would still encourage you to read this article in the world's most accurate encyclopedia. You can't have any understanding of radical Islam in the present day until you understand Qutb and where he's coming from.

Qutb was a reactionary misogynist, anti-semite and anti-modernist with a bizarre vision of an Islamic world with no leaders, no governments etc but everyone subservient to Shariah law instead. It could be argued that some of his ideas were downright fascist in semblance.


The Muslim world had ceased to be and reverted to pre-Islamic ignorance known as jahiliyyah, because of the lack of sharia law. Consequently all states of the Muslim world are not Islamic and thus illegitimate, including that of his native land Egypt.
The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world, attaining leadership of humanity. While those who had been "defeated by the attacks of the treacherous Orientalists!" might define jihad "narrowly" as defensive, Islamically-correct Jihad (according to Qutb) was in fact offensive.
A quick perousal of his other works reveal

In Qutb's article "The America that I Have Seen." He was critical of many things he had observed in the United States: its materialism, individual freedoms, economic system, racism, brutal boxing matches, "poor" haircuts, superficiality in conversations and friendships, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, lack of artistic feeling, "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (which went on even in churches),and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle.

Qutb's article "Amrika allati Ra'aytu" (The America That I Have Seen)
Qutb, Milestones, p.139
Calvert, John (2000), "`The World is an Undutiful Boy!`: Sayyid Qutb's American Experience," Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations, Vol. II, No.1, pp.87-103:98.

It is interesting to note how he complains about racism but look further down about Jazz...

We also find:

the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it. [David Von Drehle, A Lesson In Hate.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html

And American taste in music:

“Jazz” music is [the American's] music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy..."
http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/said-qutb-on-the-arts-in-america

So let's rule a line under Qutb shall we? I don't think the left has much ideological common ground with this individual.


How can we deal with problems that we don't fully understand?

Who doesn't understand what exactly?

The danger, of course, is the delusion that the problem is fully understood when it is not. You can take medication for the flu, but that doesn't really help if you have AIDS.

Who doesn't understand what?

Sure, but this doesn't address the origin of anti-imperial sentiments throughout the modern Islamic world for which radical Islam is the only politically viable form of expression. You can't dismiss them just because their leaders have been co-opted by the international imperial machine.

Is that really true? I don't think so. What about the Islamic radicalism of Iran and the oppression of Iranian workers? What about Hamas firing on striking workers? You see, you make the mistake of assuming that because one group is pitted against another group they are ideologically opposed. Britain and France were two great imperial powers, when they fought was one therefore anti-imperialist? When one mafia clan fights another, is it an anti-mafia group? As far as I am concerned Islamist radicals are just another expression of reactionary imperialism albiet a non-western form.

Fair enough. I don't believe that I have made any "comments of dubious historicity," although you're welcome to point them out if you can find any.

Well, your attributing the origins of Islamic radicalism to Qutb and ignoring wahhabism was the main one.

I still don't believe that you have an accurate grasp of the situation as it exists today, but ultimately it's on me to show that to you, and I agree that a patronizing tone doesn't help. At the same time, it's hard to resist when it seems as though someone is not genuinely attempting to engage with my arguments. I'll try harder next time.

Well basically you don't have an argument other than these groups are fighting the West so we should support them whatever. The other point is that you conveniently "interpret" things along your own line without wishing to face some of the hard unpalatable truths about these reactionaries you feel we ought to support.

[Kayser_Soso]

"Well, that's a convenient way of using statistics, because 1.5-2.4 million people is not hardly by any means. By the same token you could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were hardly any given the entire population of Europe. But I don't think anyone is going to use that argument (quite rightly)."

Perhaps I missed something, but are you arguing that 1.5-2.4 million people in Britain are radical Islamists?

[ls]

"Well, that's a convenient way of using statistics, because 1.5-2.4 million people is not hardly by any means. By the same token you could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were hardly any given the entire population of Europe. But I don't think anyone is going to use that argument (quite rightly)."

Perhaps I missed something, but are you arguing that 1.5-2.4 million people in Britain are radical Islamists?

Of course they are, he knows there are 1.5-2.4 millions in the UK altogether roughly, so clearly they are all dangerous muzzie terrorists who need to be deported.

[ComradeMan]

"Well, that's a convenient way of using statistics, because 1.5-2.4 million people is not hardly by any means. By the same token you could argue that the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust were hardly any given the entire population of Europe. But I don't think anyone is going to use that argument (quite rightly)."

Perhaps I missed something, but are you arguing that 1.5-2.4 million people in Britain are radical Islamists?


No, because the point was about Is' remark- he stated that there were barely any Muslims in Britain and I pointed out that between 1.5-2.4 million people- at upper limits about half the population of Norway- could hardly be described as barely any. Nowhere did I say that all of these were Muslim fanatics and elsewhere I have quite clearly stated that the harm these vociferous minorities do is in a great way to the peaceful majority who they claim to represent/defend or whatever.

No straw for this man....:cool:

As for Is' comments-- well, no comment other than what you say reflects more on your prejudices than perhaps on what you perceive others' to be.

[Salabra]

You clearly don't know much about Islam if you actually beleive this.

You clearly don't know much about islam (or judaism or christianity) if you don't.

Wanna trade verse for verse? Shall we start a thread on ‘Women and Religion’?


Still that doesn't mean that communists shouldn't try to understand what is going on with this campaign, and denounce it as a campaign, if not everybody who falls for it as some sort of racist.
Devrim

Nicely said, Devrim — ‘understanding what is going on’ and refusing to capitulate to a primary tactic of capitalism (setting one group against another) is crucial for revolutionaries.

Still, “march separately — strike together” and “support for the oppressed” does not mean refraining from criticism of one’s allies’ programmatic stances.


Why is Islam not as bad as Judaism or Catholicism? - All religions do is feed people with lies - Promise them an afterlife and so encourage them to do as little as possible about the present circumstances. ie. Revolution.
ORGANISED RELIGION is a problem for the left. I have no quarrel with someone being religious but it usually occurs when something is organised it tends to develope its own political, moral and social views of how a society should be. Sadly no religion is of a leftist approach.

Much kudos, comrade!

But not only organized religion — The much-despised ‘Dick’ Dawkins and the much-admired Comrade Redstar 2000 were both right when they said that teaching children that faith is a virtue, that they should blindly accept things just because ‘someone’ (be it a teacher or the invisible friend in a ‘holy’ book) says so, and that the more improbable are the things believed, the more virtuous are the children, is a positive enabler of the next crusade or jihad.


If I may something... A lot of people are talking about Islam here, and with all due respect I think everyone is arguing and talking about something different. There is also a lot of posturing going on and some people are making statements which a reading of Islamic literature just doesn't support.
Islamic scrpitures are bloody reactionary from anyone's point of view, just as reactionary if not more so than Old Testament Judaic halakha (roughly speaking Jewish Law) and the application (as opposed to the words of Jesus) of Christianity. If I started stoning people for Sabbath breaking it would because of my interpretation of scripture and therefore people would have a right to question my behaviour? Okay, so if Islamic countries have oppressive laws that do not respect human rights and those laws are based on Islamic laws then we have to be able to call into question Islamic laws and the belief system and writings that have created them without fear of being branded Islamophobes.
Why is it than when the topic of Islam comes up many suddenly back off? I don't mean here, I mean in general. Why is it that an instant comparison to other reactionary currents in Christianity and Judaism is also asserted as some kind of justification for Islamic reactionary themes? I don't think we should even get into qualitative arguments about which religion is more reactionary than the other and when offer an analysis we have to base it on what is written in the various holy books and scriptures and also the interpretations of those scriptures by various groups. The problem here is with the interpretation thereof. Just exactly which schools of Islam and which interpretations are we dealing with? That has great bearing on the whole discussion.
I also include a few links here (okay these people probably do have an axe to grind but at the same time they are talking from the inside out):
Salman Rushdie
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm
And also this link on why Islamic teachings violate human rights, written by an ex-muslim http://www.apostatesofislam.com/apostates/abulk/articles/Islams_violation_of_HR.htm
Now before the howls of "Islamophobe" come my way again, I acknowledge that not all Muslims are reactionary and/or choose to interpret literally the reactionary material in Islamic scriptures but that does not mean we cannot critique Islam per se inasmuch as a critique of Judaism (theologically) is not anti-Semitic (I have issues with circumcision for example) or a criticism of Christianity is not per se an attack on groups that are Christian.
I also state that putting a post entitled "Islam a big fucking problem" was moronic and perhaps the former-member should have read up a bit more on his chosen subject. His comments that lead to banning also left me somewhat shocked, but the debate has moved on from Red Scum here. I suggest the Mods or Admins change the title promptly if they can as it is a blot on the forum.
My final comment, is that the worst thing in all of this is that the itjihadist schools and the progressive voices in Islamic movements go unheard because of tosspots like Islam4UK.
I also think that it is a sad fact that many on the Left do not seem to want to criticise Islam for fear of being branded Islamophobes- remember Peter Tatchell? This in turn gives rightwing wankers like the BNP and the EDL a platform too.
Salem!

I quote this post in its entirety because it deserves a BIG round of applause — I sincerely hope that the poster wasn’t restricted because of it!

And I quote this one almost in its entirety for the same reason:


@Arizona
You know how absolutely fucking tiny that demonstration was? Then some right-wing rags got a hold of photos of the demonstration and now those insane fundies are treated like representatives of all of Islam.
Do you know how small most neo-nazi and skinhead rallies are in comparison to population size? Do you know how small the EDL march in Stoke was? As for the strawman here, no one serious does say that nutters like Islam4Uk represent Islam.
I am so glad you are restricted now. How are they not comparable to Jews when they seem to get just as scapegoated by the ruling class nowadays? I'd love to see your convoluted attempts at logic with this one.
Well, shall we begin with the fact that the most of the Jews in Germany were German citizens who spoke German and had done for generations- they were fully integrated into German culture for the most part? For goodness sake, Yiddish is a dialect of German!!! This includes people like
Otto Frank who had served in the German Imperial Army in WW1.
So there is a sociological difference there to start with.
Shall we then look at the fact that in the 1920's and 1930's there was no Jewish state as such or any country in which Jews were not a minority, in the world, unlike the Islamic states of today?
Again, another sociological factor.
Shall we also look at the fact that the anti-semitism in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's had roots in i) historical anti-Semitism in Europe, ie the "deicides, blood libels" etc and the Christian polemics of centuries ii) the fact that Jews were seen as "bourgeois" and rich and this was used against them for economic purposes- the first anti-Semitic acts were aggressively economic in nature iii) the Jews were blamed for having aided and abetted Communism in Russia and thus the "Jews" were seen as part of the communist threat to Western European and more specifically German morality and values.
…Were there groups like Judaism4Weimar in the 1920's and 1930's?

Your point that European anti-semitism and the current climate of anti-muslim sentiment are not even vaguely comparable is valid and well-argued.


I don't think you could argue that Muslims in Britain are scapegoated by the ruling class in Britain. LOL!!! Football teams, Harrods itself, small business and not-so small business owners.... Not a good comparison. Racist bigots exist everywhere, but I don't think you can make a case that Muslims are necessarily being singled out here.

Here I must disagree — many muslims were brought to Western Europe as cheap labour to fuel the ‘economic miracle’ of the post-WWII period, and then discarded by their own bourgeoisies when they became ‘surplus to requirements.’ Many of them have rotted in ghettoes on the outskirts of European cities for 30 years.

So yes, let’s ‘defend’ (there’s that naughty word again, Devrim) muslims against racism, against scapegoating by the bourgeois state and against capitalism’s divide-and-rule tactics. But, please, let’s ‘defend’ them as people who happen to belong to different ethnic groups and happen to have a different set of beliefs and cultural practices — let’s not try to ‘defend’ the beliefs and practices themselves, just because they give consolation to the oppressed.


Plus, Zionism is a colonialist ideology, we are criticizing Zionism for being colonialist and imperialist. It could be committed by any ethnic/religious group and it would still be fucked. Hence the calls against anti-Zionists being "anti-semitic" is bullshit.
You didn't read what I said did you? So I'll simplify it for you. I said that when Zionists accuse people of being anti-Semitic and hide behind religion is it not similar to "Islamofascists" accusing their critics of being Islamophobic?

Yes.


Trouble is they dont go around blowing tubes up

That’s true, but their christian ideological counterparts in the US do seem to have a penchant for murdering doctors who perform abortions.

And this just about says it all


…Secondly, why should Buddha be banned? For daring to criticism Islamic reactionaries....? For daring to spell out some things as they are.
…An attack on reactionary/radical Islamist groups is not a blanket attack on a) Islam as a whole or b) Muslim people in general- just like a critique of US foreign policy is not an attack on all American people nor a critique of Stalinism an attack on Russians... do you get the concept?
But if everytime someone dares speak out against radical Islamists, people from the LEFT, of all bloody places, refuse to acknowledge the issues then this will give rightwing groups a platform to preach their lies and do no good to the left. Bear in mind too that radical Islam hates the left too (emphasis added)..

An important point, ComradeMan — eventually those leftists who try to kowtow to religious obscurantism will hit a brick wall when the bricks-with-dangly-bits who rely for their inspiration on invisible friends point out to them that communism is blasphemous and that it and its adherents have no place in the world.


I am not going to support reactionary groups whatever their creed, colour, origin or presumed fight against imperialism because that is utter nonsense. I don't give a hoot whether they say they are this or that, anyone who has reactionary values that are totally in conflict with leftist principles is not on my side, even temporarily, and that counts for the whole darn lot of them. I don't care either if one lot of reactionaries i.e. the EDL or BNP are against another lot of reactionaries, i.e. Islam4UK, I support NEITHER and I am not going to be bullied into some position of sympathy for one or the other.

Well said!



Again, if you wish to learn more, I recommend that you read up on Western support for regimes such as those of Suharto in Indonesia, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Reza Khan in Iran. We might forget, but they don't.


I suggest you also read up on western support for the Bin Ladin family, the Taliban and covert collaboration with Hamas et alia.... In fact, ironically, Islamists are inasmuch tools in the oppression of workers as any other reactionary group and historically have been in and out of bed with their so-called Western oppressors....



Or Western support for the Afghan mujahadin against the PDPA and the Red Army, for the muslim states which were formerly part of the USSR, or for the muslim separatists in western China. Not to mention John Foster Dulles’ comment in 1950 that, “The religions of the East are deeply rooted and have many precious values. Theirspiritual beliefs cannot be reconciled with Communist atheism and materialism. That creates a common bond between us.” (emphasis mine).

Imperialists play one side against the other, often using the same tools to ‘support’ both.

Ain’t none of us clean, Kun Fanâ.



I don't really think this conversation can proceed until you learn more about the things of which you speak. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to teach you everything that would make you change your mind, so hopefully your willingness to learn will overcome your desire to turn a symptom into the disease itself.


A very high and lofty attitude here and also we are digressing from the subject. But we are not talking about a philosophical issue here alone, we are talking about the fact that there are small groups of radicals who are dedicated to an imperialistic theocratic ideology and who kill people. I am not going around and shouting about "Eurabia" or following the lines of the ignorant neo-fascist right, but at the same time I am well aware that the radicalisation of Islam is a problem that needs to be addressed and discussed without this burying of heads in the sand all the time.



Nicely condescending rhetoric there, Kun Fanâ. And I can bet that ComradeMan feels the same way about fundamentalist christiantiy, judaism and galaxian ultra-orthodoxy as he does about ‘radical islam.’


Qutb was a reactionary misogynist, anti-semite and anti-modernist with a bizarre vision of an Islamic world with no leaders, no governments etc but everyone subservient to Shariah law instead…
“…the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it. [David Von Drehle, A Lesson In Hate. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...nce-feb06.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html)”
So let's rule a line under Qutb shall we? I don't think the left has much ideological common ground with this individual

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Once again, I hope that it wasn’t this post that got ComradeMan restricted.

Oh, and the paragraph quoted from Drehle is not a ‘political’ analysis so much as a peek into the can of maggots that was the tragically perfervid brain of Sayyid Qutb.


Sure, but this doesn't address the origin of anti-imperial sentiments throughout the modern Islamic world for which radical Islam is the only politically viable form of expression [emphasis mine]. You can't dismiss them just because their leaders have been co-opted by the international imperial machine. .

What about Marxism,? Oh, that’s right — the ‘international imperial machine’ and its co-opted leaders killed that.

[ls]

No, because the point was about Is' remark- he stated that there were barely any Muslims in Britain and I pointed out that between 1.5-2.4 million people- at upper limits about half the population of Norway- could hardly be described as barely any. Nowhere did I say that all of these were Muslim fanatics and elsewhere I have quite clearly stated that the harm these vociferous minorities do is in a great way to the peaceful majority who they claim to represent/defend or whatever.

No straw for this man....:cool:

As for Is' comments-- well, no comment other than what you say reflects more on your prejudices than perhaps on what you perceive others' to be.

There are roughly 61.4m (2008 stats) people in the UK of which at most 2.4m are muslims, but even that is underestimated by at least 2k if you don't count NI in (as NI is/should be considered part of Ireland and not the UK): "The vast majority of Muslims in the UK live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census,[7] 1,536,015 were living in England and Wales,[8] where they form 3% of the population; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.84% of the population[9]; and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.[10] For details of Islam in each country, see:"

That IS hardly any and in Italy it's even less at just 1.4% so how about this: stick your racist garbage where the sun don't shine.

[ComradeMan]

There are roughly 61.4m (2008 stats) people in the UK of which at most 2.4m are muslims, but even that is underestimated by at least 2k if you don't count NI in (as NI is/should be considered part of Ireland and not the UK): "The vast majority of Muslims in the UK live in England and Wales: of 1,591,000 Muslims recorded at the 2001 Census,[7] 1,536,015 were living in England and Wales,[8] where they form 3% of the population; 42,557 were living in Scotland, forming 0.84% of the population[9]; and 1,943 were living in Northern Ireland.[10] For details of Islam in each country, see:"

That IS hardly any and in Italy it's even less at just 1.4% so how about this: stick your racist garbage where the sun don't shine.


What's racist about anything I have said? If you consider millions of people hardly any then I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. Instead of flaming and jumping on bandwagons and pasting from wikipedia too :thumbup1: without sources why don't you grow up? If all you can do is squawk "racist" like a parrot all the time whenever it touches on this particular subject then it doesn't say much.

Furthermore, righting off people as hardly any and therefore not worth wasting time on is quite racist in itself in a reverse sort of way. If this were not about radical islamists but say, neo-nazis- who are also even more "barely any" then would you say it was not worth talking about?

[Kayser_Soso]

What's racist about anything I have said? If you consider millions of people hardly any then I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee. Instead of flaming and jumping on bandwagons and pasting from wikipedia too :thumbup1: without sources why don't you grow up? If all you can do is squawk "racist" like a parrot all the time whenever it touches on this particular subject then it doesn't say much.

Furthermore, righting off people as hardly any and therefore not worth wasting time on is quite racist in itself in a reverse sort of way. If this were not about radical islamists but say, neo-nazis- who are also even more "barely any" then would you say it was not worth talking about?



Even in this post you are conflating the Muslim population with radical Islamists. Yes there may be a couple million Muslims but only a tiny minority of those agree with fundamentalist ideals, and an even smaller segment would actually resort to violence to put them into action.

[ComradeMan]

Even in this post you are conflating the Muslim population with radical Islamists. Yes there may be a couple million Muslims but only a tiny minority of those agree with fundamentalist ideals, and an even smaller segment would actually resort to violence to put them into action.

That's what I have always said.

Re the population stats, well, I did not say that there were between 1.5 and 2.5 million Islamists, I said Muslims- this was in response to Is' pitiful comment about their being hardly any Muslims in Britain, it was in no way, shape or form saying that all Muslims are Islamists and this ought to be quite clear to anyone who reads through the thread. Is' cannot go around saying that there are "hardly" any Muslims in the UK, I don't call 2.5 million people hardly any, and furthermore, Is' is the one who seems to confuse Muslim with Islamist, not me.

I challenge you to find a single post where I have equated being a Muslim with being an Islamist. I have always sought to distinguish between Muslim and Islamist, hence my use of the term "Islamist" all along and on other posts. Nowhere have I ever said that Islamists were any more or less reactionay than other groups and have made the parallels.

Let's stop this bullshit now. Islamists, i.e.. Islamic radicals are just as reactionary as any other reactionary group and the left is foolish to bury its head in the sand on this matter just because the particular reactionary group in question is perceived to be struggling against imperialism, or is a non-white, bourgeois group- i.e. the traditional "enemy".

[ls]

That's what I have always said.

Re the population stats, well, I did not say that there were between 1.5 and 2.5 million Islamists, I said Muslims- this was in response to Is' pitiful comment about their being hardly any Muslims in Britain, it was in no way, shape or form saying that all Muslims are Islamists and this ought to be quite clear to anyone who reads through the thread. Is' cannot go around saying that there are "hardly" any Muslims in the UK, I don't call 2.5 million people hardly any, and furthermore, Is' is the one who seems to confuse Muslim with Islamist, not me.

I challenge you to find a single post where I have equated being a Muslim with being an Islamist. I have always sought to distinguish between Muslim and Islamist, hence my use of the term "Islamist" all along and on other posts. Nowhere have I ever said that Islamists were any more or less reactionay than other groups and have made the parallels.

Let's stop this bullshit now. Islamists, i.e.. Islamic radicals are just as reactionary as any other reactionary group and the left is foolish to bury its head in the sand on this matter just because the particular reactionary group in question is perceived to be struggling against imperialism, or is a non-white, bourgeois group- i.e. the traditional "enemy".

Now you are just misrepresenting both what I and you have said. Your position amounts to attacking a group because they are reacting against a complete government that puts them under siege and oppresses them (and your bullshit comments about how this government is "so accommodating to muslims" is complete shit - you know nothing about the oppression that goes on in communities here).

Here's a tip: check out the bradford, oldham, brixton, notting hill and burnley race riots, check out the racist skinheads who gathered outside Finsbury park mosque when Abu Hamza was under arrest chanting shit about "pakis", check out John Laidlaw who went outside Finsbury Park tube station and around Islington and shot random "pakis" and other non-white people, see the amount of segregation of schools in London and up north, throughout the UK there are loads of them that are either 99% of one whole minority or 99% white - so stop talking about something you know nothing about.

'self-segregation': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1702799.stm. It is a massive problem that exists throughout the UK, not just in the areas mentioned and you have no idea of what you're talking about. Multiculturalism absolutely encourages communities of different races to live "side by side" and people like you encourage this.

When this happens: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6823767.ece or like in Harrow, when Muslims come out to fight fascists they are deemed as fascists and told to "go back to wherever" but actually they are completely right to come out against fascist twats and people like you are attacking them, come along to an anti-fascist gathering here and you will be denounced.

[ComradeMan]

Now you are just misrepresenting both what I and you have said. Your position amounts to attacking a group because they are reacting against a complete government that puts them under siege and oppresses them (and your bullshit comments about how this government is "so accommodating to muslims" is complete shit - you know nothing about the oppression that goes on in communities here).

Yeah because Islam4UK are and Choudhary are really oppressed by the British government.....

You are the one who is besmirching Muslims by equating the actions of the imperialist factions in countries far away with the actions of reactionary oppurtunists in the UK who, with time no doubt, will be revealed to be in the pay of the people who they claim to oppose- i.e. the imperialists.

Where did I say the British government is "accommodating to Muslims"? As far as I am concerned British citizens are British citizens, I don't see why any distinction should be made by race, colour or creed. The same goes for reactionaries. The original post led into a discussion about Islam4Uk if you recall. As for the British government, I find it hard to believe that a government that has Mulsim MP's is so radically anti-Muslim....

Here's a tip: check out the bradford, oldham, brixton, notting hill and burnley race riots, check out the racist skinheads who gathered outside Finsbury park mosque when Abu Hamza was under arrest chanting shit about "pakis", check out John Laidlaw who went outside Finsbury Park tube station and around Islington and shot random "pakis" and other non-white people, see the amount of segregation of schools in London and up north, throughout the UK there are loads of them that are either 99% of one whole minority or 99% white - so stop talking about something you know nothing about.

Here's a tip. Learn that statistics prove that statistics prove nothing. Learn about islamists calling for the beheading of those who insult their beliefs and waving banners saying "God bless Hitler". As much as I deplore nazis and fascists my heart bleeds little for Abu Hamza, some medieval wahabbist, bigamist and hypocrite who amongst other things applied for legal aid from the very institutions he so despised when he was in the shit.
I also quote a Muslim, Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain and who has also written for the leftwing newspaper The Guardian and is a critic of US and UK policies in the Islamic world, nevertheless on Hamza "This man has alienated the public from Muslims with his vile rants. British Muslims are growing impatient that he is still able to tarnish them with these remarks. He is not welcome at any mosque in the country and we have nothing to do with him."

As for quoting instances of various reactionaries and racists, well, what about the kid in Scotland who was murdered in a race attack by people of Asian origin? What about the Jewish cemeteries that were vandalised with swastikas and anti-Israeli propaganda by Islamist sympathisers? What about this and what about that-? - It doesn't stop Islam4UK and similar groups from being reactionaries and deserving no support from the left.

As for the rest of your pitiful rant, people "like me"? What people like me whose grandparents sacrficed a hell of a damn lot in the struggle against reactionaries, fascists, nazis, and groups like Islam4UK and/or fanaticism of any kind? People like me who can see through the bullshit of these organisations whatever their so-called cause?

It's absolutely hilarious. When the "hated Zionists" are attacked they classically hide behind anti-Semitism and are usually condemned for it, yet when "Islamist" groups are criticised the same tactic is used, i.e. denouncing everyone as Islamophobic and racist and yet strangely it seems to work.

As for the Biriming incident. Well? Where those Muslims, along with many others, who were quite justifiably protesting against the EDL part of Islam4UK?

You seem to have a problem separating "islamist" from Muslim---- how very reactionary of you.


I suggest you base your politics on deeper insights instead of the shit you hear down your local pub in Barking and Dagenham or wherever else it might be. If you can't do any better than "what about...." arguments and strawmen it doesn't say much.
;)

[ls]

Now you are just misrepresenting both what I and you have said. Your position amounts to attacking a group because they are reacting against a complete government that puts them under siege and oppresses them (and your bullshit comments about how this government is "so accommodating to muslims" is complete shit - you know nothing about the oppression that goes on in communities here).

Yeah because Islam4UK are and Choudhary are really oppressed by the British government.....

You are the one who is besmirching Muslims by equating the actions of the imperialist factions in countries far away with the actions of reactionary oppurtunists in the UK who, with time no doubt, will be revealed to be in the pay of the people who they claim to oppose- i.e. the imperialists.

Where did I say the British government is "accommodating to Muslims"? As far as I am concerned British citizens are British citizens, I don't see why any distinction should be made by race, colour or creed. The same goes for reactionaries. The original post led into a discussion about Islam4Uk if you recall. As for the British government, I find it hard to believe that a government that has Mulsim MP's is so radically anti-Muslim....

Here's a tip: check out the bradford, oldham, brixton, notting hill and burnley race riots, check out the racist skinheads who gathered outside Finsbury park mosque when Abu Hamza was under arrest chanting shit about "pakis", check out John Laidlaw who went outside Finsbury Park tube station and around Islington and shot random "pakis" and other non-white people, see the amount of segregation of schools in London and up north, throughout the UK there are loads of them that are either 99% of one whole minority or 99% white - so stop talking about something you know nothing about.

Here's a tip. Learn that statistics prove that statistics prove nothing. Learn about islamists calling for the beheading of those who insult their beliefs and waving banners saying "God bless Hitler". As much as I deplore nazis and fascists my heart bleeds little for Abu Hamza, some medieval wahabbist, bigamist and hypocrite who amongst other things applied for legal aid from the very institutions he so despised when he was in the shit.
I also quote a Muslim, Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain and who has also written for the leftwing newspaper The Guardian and is a critic of US and UK policies in the Islamic world, nevertheless on Hamza "This man has alienated the public from Muslims with his vile rants. British Muslims are growing impatient that he is still able to tarnish them with these remarks. He is not welcome at any mosque in the country and we have nothing to do with him."

As for quoting instances of various reactionaries and racists, well, what about the kid in Scotland who was murdered in a race attack by people of Asian origin? What about the Jewish cemeteries that were vandalised with swastikas and anti-Israeli propaganda by Islamist sympathisers? What about this and what about that-? - It doesn't stop Islam4UK and similar groups from being reactionaries and deserving no support from the left.

As for the rest of your pitiful rant, people "like me"? What people like me whose grandparents sacrficed a hell of a damn lot in the struggle against reactionaries, fascists, nazis, and groups like Islam4UK and/or fanaticism of any kind? People like me who can see through the bullshit of these organisations whatever their so-called cause?

It's absolutely hilarious. When the "hated Zionists" are attacked they classically hide behind anti-Semitism and are usually condemned for it, yet when "Islamist" groups are criticised the same tactic is used, i.e. denouncing everyone as Islamophobic and racist and yet strangely it seems to work.

I suggest you base your politics on deeper insights instead of the shit you hear down your local pub in Barking and Dagenham or wherever else it might be. If you can't do any better than "what about...." arguments and strawmen it doesn't say much.
;)

lol @ the stuff about your grandparents, you're a complete toolbox and you would do well to shut up, seriously, the above is such a load of conservative sounding garbage. The Muslim council of Britain is indeed a racist pro-multiculturalist load of shite, but even them - for your information - have rightly attacked the government for their racist bias, yes that's right you tool http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8482030.stm.

Like I said, you don't understand the situation over here at all and by the sounds of it, you don't understand the one in Italy either.

[ComradeMan]

lol @ the stuff about your grandparents, you're a complete toolbox and you would do well to shut up, seriously, the above is such a load of conservative sounding garbage. The Muslim council of Britain is indeed a racist pro-multiculturalist load of shite, but even them - for your information - have rightly attacked the government for their racist bias, yes that's right you tool http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8482030.stm.

Like I said, you don't understand the situation over here at all and by the sounds of it, you don't understand the one in Italy either.

Apart from your general abusive nature, ad hominems always show when the argument is failing, you have little power for rational and logical argumentation. The Italian situation is not comparable to the British situation for umpteen reasons.

What the hell is conservative garbage about my partisan Italian ancestors, my Polish/Jewish family and my British ancestors fighting against fascism? What have you ever done? They fought a freakin war, you've probably just sat on the dole complaining for the most of your life. Now, I am not saying that my ancestors should be lauded as saints, for they certainly were not, but at the same age that most of your generation, and mine probably, were text messaging and get worked up down the pub about bullshit, they were fighting the fucking Nazis and the Black Shirts, so you can fuck off with your disrespect.

Not one of your comments has any validity.

The facts remain-
1. You've made wildly misrepresentative comments.
2. For a so-called anarchist you seem to have your ideas very confused.

It's simple.

Islam4UK are reactionaries who give normal Muslims a bad name and from a libertarian-communist point of view I no more support them than I do the BNP, Forza Nuova or any other reactionary group- period.

[ls]

Apart from your general abusive nature, ad hominems always show when the argument is failing, you have little power for rational and logical argumentation. The Italian situation is not comparable to the British situation for umpteen reasons.

What the hell is conservative garbage about my partisan Italian ancestors, my Polish/Jewish family and my British ancestors fighting against fascism? What have you ever done? They fought a freakin war, you've probably just sat on the dole complaining for the most of your life. Now, I am not saying that my ancestors should be lauded as saints, for they certainly were not, but at the same age that most of your generation, and mine probably, were text messaging and get worked up down the pub about bullshit, they were fighting the fucking Nazis and the Black Shirts, so you can fuck off with your disrespect.

You sound exactly like a right-wing conservative here, no I'm serious, that's exactly what they talk about "my dad's generation did this". Full marks there!

What your grandparents did or did not do, doesn't make your opinion any more correct than mine, the fact that I do or do not claim welfare also doesn't make your opinion right either, sorry to tell you this. :rolleyes: I know you've got a problem with terrible welfare leeching vagrant unemployed workers, but fortunately it has little bearing on whose opinion is correct and based on fact.


Not one of your comments has any validity.

The facts remain-
1. You've made wildly misrepresentative comments.
2. For a so-called anarchist you seem to have your ideas very confused.

It's simple.

I'm not an anarchist so you needn't worry about that, as for wildly misrepresentative comments, you've said that at most, 5% of the population "isn't a minority" which is a farce.


Islam4UK are reactionaries who give normal Muslims a bad name and from a libertarian-communist point of view I no more support them than I do the BNP, Forza Nuova or any other reactionary group- period.

So in fact it's you that conflates Islam4UK with Muslims saying it "gives Muslims a bad name" when most people do not conflate the two, congrats, you accused me of doing this then do it yourself.

[ComradeMan]

You sound exactly like a right-wing conservative here, no I'm serious, that's exactly what they talk about "my dad's generation did this". Full marks there!

Well, that's up to them--- doesn't stop you from being insulting and disrespectful.

What your grandparents did or did not do, doesn't make your opinion any more correct than mine, the fact that I do or do not claim welfare also doesn't make your opinion right either, sorry to tell you this. :rolleyes: I know you've got a problem with terrible welfare leeching vagrant unemployed workers, but fortunately it has little bearing on whose opinion is correct and based on fact.

More strawmen, never said any of that stuff about welfare leeching etc.... But if the cap fits as the British say....

I'm not an anarchist so you needn't worry about that, as for wildly misrepresentative comments, you've said that at most, 5% of the population "isn't a minority" which is a farce.

Interesting. Your use of unspeak is hilarious. I said quite simply you cannot say that between 1.5 and 2.5 million people are "barely any", I didn't talk about minorities. Nice strawmen here...

So in fact it's you that conflates Islam4UK with Muslims saying it "gives Muslims a bad name" when most people do not conflate the two, congrats, you accused me of doing this then do it yourself.

Where have I conflated the two? Just show me where. In fact it is you who seems to conflate things when it suits.... Please show me, or shut the fuck up. You seem to be very good at lying, hell, you were saying that RedScum called black people monkeys, which he didn't, now you are starting with this bullshit here. Damn, you must have a lot of straw in your backyard...

So do you defend Islam4UK? Do you not feel that reactionary groups who claim to speak in the name of Islam and Muslims do not give Muslims a bad name, do not cause prejudice where there need not be any?

You really ought to sort your politics out....