The Mosque Controversy and Tolerance [Archive]

KurtFF8

20th August 2010, 20:17

Source (http://blogs.alternet.org/kurtff8/2010/08/20/the-mosque-controversy-and-tolerance/)

So I decided to get a blog at alternet, and this is the first thing I wrote on it:

By KurtFF8
There has been quite a bit of controversy over the proposed community center/mosque that is “right by ground zero” in the media lately, it’s gotten to the point where after Barack Obama decided to come out and defend the right to build a Mosque (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jFvYJ4pO4e2npkL43pcoRWVaQGvA) in the location, the White House had to come out and defend the fact that Obama is a Christian and prays daily. The White House continues to be on the defensive against the far-right of America (their apparent favorite group to try to appease). Although the far-right is gaining steam with more and more conspiracy theories introduced to the main stream by folks like Beck (a recent poll suggests that 46% of the GOP thinks that Obama is a Muslim (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0810/Poll_46_of_GOP_thinks_Obamas_Muslim.html))
So this controversy has made it “to the top” and has turned from a local issue for one city to a national debate. However, the framework of this debate is a sad site to see. Top Democrats (Howard Dean, Reid, etc.) have come out in opposition to this community center in an apparent attempt to continue the Democrats turn to the right. Even those Democrats like Pelosi and Obama who have supported the right for it to be built, have also made it clear that they don’t want to comment “on whether they support it being built or not specifically” but just that they support “the right” for it to be built (this emphasis is theirs).
Those who have come out to support it, do so for reasons that are just as ideologically loaded as the bigots who want “no more mosques” in America. The common line is that we should be preaching “tolerance” in the US. We want to demonstrate that “we’re better” than intolerant nations like Saudi Arabia, goes the line of the tolerance promoters (which to me reeks of American Exceptionalism). But is promoting tolerance problematic?
Absolutely. The idea that we should just “tolerate” groups like Muslim-Americans or “Illegal Immigrants” contains in it the idea that there is something uneasy about these groups, yet we are going to “put up with” them to achieve a moral high ground. Such idealism doesn’t come from a genuine attempt to help to change the status of the most marginalized of this society to become less marginalized, but instead is the notion that we should treat “the Other” well. This doesn’t challenge their position in society in the least. This “anti-tolerance” stance, of course, comes mainly from the Slovenian philosopher (and intellectual “rock star”) Slajov Zizek, who has written extensively on the problems of “liberal tolerance.”
Perhaps we should try to promote tolerance to those who are the most “intolerant” in society: the far-right. Their intolerance is obviously quite problematic: based on xenophobia, bigotry, etc. But does that mean that we want to promote the idea of “we should tolerate the ‘Other’ groups of society” in general?
This kind of logic leads to comments like Howard Dean’s on Muslim Americans: (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/19/headlines#8)

There’s a growing number of American Muslims. I think most of those Muslims are moderate. I hope that they’ll have an influence on Islam throughout the world, because Islam is really back in the twelfth century in some of these countries, like Iran and Afghanistan, where they’re stoning people to death.
This is based on the idea that “we can promote an Islam that fits American culture throughout the world” which is just as imperialistic as the overt hawks who are trying to promote war in places like Iran.
Instead of preaching the idea that we should tolerate groups that are considered by some to not be “mainstream,” perhaps we should be building real solidarity with the most marginalized of society. After all, those are the groups that need to be on board to build a real alternative to the insane system we currently live under.

Adil3tr

22nd August 2010, 15:04

OH MY GOD. THANK YOU.
I'm a muslim and I think think this is fantastic. Fantastic job. Maybe there is hope for this site.
:thumbup1:

al8

22nd August 2010, 16:02

mo7amEd

22nd August 2010, 16:22

LETSFIGHTBACK

22nd August 2010, 16:31

Yeah right, building solidarity by aiding and incouraging reactionary religious anti-communist bullshit amongst immigrants. If that isn't self-defeating I don't know what is.
Instead of apeasing and siding with either reactionary tendency our slogan should rather be; "Let the last rightwinger be hanged to death by the entrails of the last mullah."

You can be Muslim and still turn toward Marxism.There are many Pastors whom are very radical and are involved in Liberation Theology. There are many working class people that are religious, does that mean we shouldn't welcome them into our parties. What would you tell them to do, shed your religion at the door or your out. You don't write people off because of their religious beliefs.What do you tell people, it's either one or the other.

danyboy27

22nd August 2010, 16:58

Yes, because:
1. All muslims in the US are immigrants.

fail. muslim is a religion, not an ethnicity.

mo7amEd

22nd August 2010, 17:02

fail. muslim is a religion, not an ethnicity.

fail. i was dead serious when i wrote that.

al8

22nd August 2010, 17:18

You can be Muslim and still turn toward Marxism.There are many Pastors whom are very radical and are involved in Liberation Theology. There are many working class people that are religious, does that mean we shouldn't welcome them into our parties. What would you tell them to do, shed your religion at the door or your out. You don't write people off because of their religious beliefs.What do you tell people, it's either one or the other.

You are confusing inter-personal dynamics when recruiting for party work - and verbal support for the stupification projects to lull the prolatariat - as building a grand mosque would be. Your crazed fanatsies of quick deconvertion or nothing is an rehtorical distraction.
There is no middle ground between a materialist and a religious perspective. We should not pretend to be chummy with agents of reaction, just to bedazzle their dubed underlings. Its dishonest, treacherous and obfuscatory.

danyboy27

22nd August 2010, 17:23

fail. i was dead serious when i wrote that.

dosnt change nothing to the fact that being muslim is a religion and not an ethnicity.

The Intransigent Faction

22nd August 2010, 17:43

You are confusing inter-personal dynamics when recruiting for party work - and verbal support for the stupification projects to lull the prolatariat - as building a grand mosque would be. Your crazed fanatsies of quick deconvertion or nothing is an rehtorical distraction.
There is no middle ground between a materialist and a religious perspective. We should not pretend to be chummy with agents of reaction, just to bedazzle their dubed underlings. Its dishonest, treacherous and obfuscatory.

So presumably you aren't singling out Islam and would oppose the building of a temple/a church or other religious structure?

If so, then you should realize that antagonizing every potential Communist who's not an Atheist is counterproductive, since as far as I'm aware, Atheists are still currently a minority among workers. In case you haven't noticed, Islam has been the far right's latest boogeyman used to encourage xenophobia, so you'd just be doing the far-right a favour and scaring off potential revolutionaries. This has been said already---don't write people off because of their religious beliefs.

mo7amEd

22nd August 2010, 17:46

dosnt change nothing to the fact that being muslim is a religion and not an ethnicity.

Are you stupid or just messing with me? I know what Islam is, I USED to be a muslim, and my name is Mohamed if you haven't noticed it by the nick. I know damn well it's a religion.

danyboy27

22nd August 2010, 17:48

Are you stupid or just messing with me? I know what Islam is, I USED to be a muslim, and my name is Mohamed if you haven't noticed it by the nick. I know damn well it's a religion.

there are several muslim in the us that are not immigrant but afro-american or white, so your affirmation that all the muslim in the us are immigrant are false.

RedSonRising

22nd August 2010, 19:41

there are several muslim in the us that are not immigrant but afro-american or white, so your affirmation that all the muslim in the us are immigrant are false.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic man, in the first post and in the one where he was telling you he was dead serious about it.

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 20:30

Wow, it really does annoy me how tolerant of religion the left is these days. We've been openly atheist for years, and now ever since the collapse of the USSR every damn Communist there is has been saying some bullshit about "religious tolerance". Religion is COMPLETELY incompatible with socialism. It preaches absolute devotion and slavery to a god that we can't even be sure exists. Not to mention the abrahamic god is pretty much an insane, murderous tyrant... Just because some right wing idiots are also opposing Islam doesn't mean we shouldn't. They oppose it for ignorant, racist reasons, where as leftist anti-theists oppose it for reasons that actually make some sense. But of course, I'm not saying that we should focus only on Islam. But don't think that Islam should not be critiscized just because you don't want to offend muslims. That's like saying that we shouldn't critiscize capitalism because we might offend capitalists.

The Vegan Marxist

22nd August 2010, 20:54

These racist lunatics tend to take any brown skin colored, non-english speaking, scarf wearing person as being a Muslim. :rolleyes: I'd like for these people to go to Chechnya, & then try & find a Muslim that fits THEIR descriptions.

LETSFIGHTBACK

22nd August 2010, 20:58

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 21:12

First off, they are building a community center, not a mosque.Also, I would love to know in what way does ones belief in god have to do with overthrowing capitalism.
It's not a belief in god that stops it. Someone who believes in a god but does not follow any actual religion would be just as good as any atheist at being a communist/anarchist. The problem is the actual teachings of religion. They promote ignorance, intolerance of other people's opinions, discrimination and much, MUCH more. They are the tools of imperialism and oppression. Plus, the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism simply does not care for humanity. He puts us through so much misery and calls it "just a test!". And then we're expected to love him, and be his slave, and anyone who does not comply with his demands is threatened with being sent to hell. How is that socialist in any way? How can we be expected to tolerate religion when religion does not tolerate us?

LETSFIGHTBACK

22nd August 2010, 22:14

It's not a belief in god that stops it. Someone who believes in a god but does not follow any actual religion would be just as good as any atheist at being a communist/anarchist. The problem is the actual teachings of religion. They promote ignorance, intolerance of other people's opinions, discrimination and much, MUCH more. They are the tools of imperialism and oppression. Plus, the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism simply does not care for humanity. He puts us through so much misery and calls it "just a test!". And then we're expected to love him, and be his slave, and anyone who does not comply with his demands is threatened with being sent to hell. How is that socialist in any way? How can we be expected to tolerate religion when religion does not tolerate us?

I think the position you have about religion is one that has been handed down to us by various denominations. If you would like me to point out some examples,the Bible is a very radical book.There is over 90 passages against poverty. It criticizes the rich,and it's treatment of workers. it calls for people to not become obsessed with possessions. There are many, many radical passages in the Bible. The problem is that the right wing has hijacked religion.

You mentioned intolerance, well, the left falls into this area when it comes to a different opinion, or position.

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 22:22

I think the position you have about religion is one that has been handed down to us by various denominations. If you would like me to point out some examples,the Bible is a very radical book.There is over 90 passages against poverty. It criticizes the rich,and it's treatment of workers. it calls for people to not become obsessed with possessions. There are many, many radical passages in the Bible. The problem is that the right wing has hijacked religion.

You mentioned intolerance, well, the left falls into this area when it comes to a different opinion, or position.
While the bible does have some very left-wing ideas in it, these are pretty much insignificant when it comes to the religion as a whole. As I've said before, the abrahamic god is a tyrant who punishes those who do not worship him. Anyone who considers themselves the follower of a god like that cannot be a socialist.

And, true, we leftists can be quite intolerant. But the difference is that leftist intolerance is just "We dont like your ideas because we think they are immoral" whereas religious intolerance is "Our god is going to send you to hell for all eternity because you do not believe in him".

professorchaos

22nd August 2010, 22:27

#FF0000

22nd August 2010, 22:28

there are several muslim in the us that are not immigrant but afro-american or white, so your affirmation that all the muslim in the us are immigrant are false.

He was kidding.

#FF0000

22nd August 2010, 22:28

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 22:29

lol anti-theism is so cute!
It would be better if you actually wrote a serious, mature reply rather than just mocking me.

#FF0000

22nd August 2010, 22:49

It would be better if you actually wrote a serious, mature reply rather than just mocking me.

How's this:

This entire situation isn't about religion, and religion isn't the worst thing in the world.

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 22:59

How's this:

This entire situation isn't about religion, and religion isn't the worst thing in the world.
I never said it was. But religion definitely isn't the best thing in the world either, like a lot of leftists on here seem to think it is. We should oppose religion just as we oppose any other form of oppression. The mainstream religions of today are exploitive, oppressive and completely intolerant of new ideas. I don't see how we can somehow make the compatible with socialism.

Jimmie Higgins

22nd August 2010, 23:11

How's this:

This entire situation isn't about religion, and religion isn't the worst thing in the world.I agree, religion is a surface expression of things in society - good and bad. So when regular people are attracted to religion, it is because they can get a sense of community in a highly atomized and individualized society; they can get help from that community when they fall on hard times in a society where social programs are cut and inadequate where they do exist.

Of course, like an opiate, religion can't solve the underlying problems, but it is also not the source of problems either.

Religion is reactionary too, but the source isn't because someone believes in Jesus or Muhammed or whatnot, it comes from social issues of the day. The ruling class uses religion to promote all sorts of ruling class ideas like "traditional family" and "personal responsibility" and so on. But then again the ruling class also uses education to promote these ideas... should public education be smashed in order for there to be a revolution? I don't think so.

We should oppose religion just as we oppose any other form of oppression. The mainstream religions of today are exploitive, oppressive and completely intolerant of new ideas. Why not just oppose the opression no matter what the guise - secular, religious, etc?

So we should not "fight religion" but we should fight the reactionaries who use religion to organize their reaction (such as Hindu nationalist groups, right-wing racist/sexist Christian groups, elitist Islamic groups, etc).

Religion plays a dual nature in society and reflects society, it does not cause hatred or bigotry or intolerance that it is often used to spread - if religion was the underlying reason for divisiveness in society, then Christians would still be arguing the same prejudices they had in the middle ages: that swearing causes Jesus to bleed in heaven, that money-changing is a sin (i.e. using money to make money - profit - is a sin and that means that all of capitalism is against God!), and that women are lusty tempters of men who are always pious. Reactionary pro-ruling class Christians no longer have these bogymen, now it's different because the needs of the system are different - therefore, religion is subordinate to the economic base of society and if you radically change that base, then the surface effects will also change.

Crimson Commissar

22nd August 2010, 23:19

I agree, religion is a surface expression of things in society - good and bad. So when regular people are attracted to religion, it is because they can get a sense of community in a highly atomized and individualized society; they can get help from that community when they fall on hard times in a society where social programs are cut and inadequate where they do exist.

Of course, like an opiate, religion can't solve the underlying problems, but it is also not the source of problems either.

Religion is reactionary too, but the source isn't because someone believes in Jesus or Muhammed or whatnot, it comes from social issues of the day. The ruling class uses religion to promote all sorts of ruling class ideas like "traditional family" and "personal responsibility" and so on. But then again the ruling class also uses education to promote these ideas... should public education be smashed in order for there to be a revolution? I don't think so.

Why not just oppose the opression no matter what the guise - secular, religious, etc?

So we should not "fight religion" but we should fight the reactionaries who use religion to organize their reaction (such as Hindu nationalist groups, right-wing racist/sexist Christian groups, elitist Islamic groups, etc).

Religion plays a dual nature in society and reflects society, it does not cause hatred or bigotry or intolerance that it is often used to spread - if religion was the underlying reason for divisiveness in society, then Christians would still be arguing the same prejudices they had in the middle ages: that swearing causes Jesus to bleed in heaven, that money-changing is a sin (i.e. using money to make money - profit - is a sin and that means that all of capitalism is against God!), and that women are lusty tempters of men who are always pious. Reactionary pro-ruling class Christians no longer have these bogymen, now it's different because the needs of the system are different - therefore, religion is subordinate to the economic base of society and if you radically change that base, then the surface effects will also change.
Religion will always be reactionary. We're not going to change that in any way whatsoever. We can suppress their reactionary thoughts, but no fucking way will we ever change it completely. How is it possible to change the way religious people think when they already believe that their religion as it is now is the word of god?

KurtFF8

22nd August 2010, 23:28

Do you view Liberation Theology as reactionary, Draconid?

Crimson Commissar

23rd August 2010, 00:14

Do you view Liberation Theology as reactionary, Draconid?
No, it still has some socialist elements. But I sure as fuck don't agree with it. Religion in it's true form is always reactionary. You can try to remove those reactionary aspects of it, but by doing that you're pretty much creating a whole new religion and going against your beliefs.

LETSFIGHTBACK

23rd August 2010, 00:26

It doesn't matter how "radical" the Bible is; it is fundamentally flawed. It is predicated on unconditional submission and is inherently anti-materialistic. Socialism is entirely incompatible with both of these.

True, there are many contradictions in the Bible, old and new testiment.But the point i've been trying to make is , well, the Russians, who were Russian Orthodox,their belief in God didn't stop the people from rising up and overthrowing the Tsar.

In Cuba, 80% of the population was Roman Catholic. Also practiced was Afro-Cuban Santeria. With their belief in a God, it didn't stop the people from their revolution.

The point i'm making is that ones belief in a God doesn't make or break a revolution. Whether One does or doesn't believe in a God is not a prerequisite to overthrowing capitalism.

Crimson Commissar

23rd August 2010, 00:30

True, there are many contradictions in the Bible, old and new testiment.But the point i've been trying to make is , well, the Russians, who were Russian Orthodox,their belief in God didn't stop the people from rising up and overthrowing the Tsar.

In Cuba, 80% of the population was Roman Catholic. Also practiced was Afro-Cuban Santeria. With their belief in a God, it didn't stop the people from their revolution.

The point i'm making is that ones belief in a God doesn't make or break a revolution. Whether One does or doesn't believe in a God is not a prerequisite to overthrowing capitalism.
And yet, in the case of Russia, the USSR still became state atheist and rejected religion. Cuba is also quite anti-religious too I think, although they aren't officially atheist.

LETSFIGHTBACK

23rd August 2010, 02:17

And yet, in the case of Russia, the USSR still became state atheist and rejected religion. Cuba is also quite anti-religious too I think, although they aren't officially atheist.

Strange, it's state atheist, and the people allowed itself to turn to capitalism.When it was made up of backward religious peasants, it had a revolution.

Zeus the Moose

23rd August 2010, 02:27

No, it still has some socialist elements. But I sure as fuck don't agree with it. Religion in it's true form is always reactionary. You can try to remove those reactionary aspects of it, but by doing that you're pretty much creating a whole new religion and going against your beliefs.

I have a Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman) to introduce you to.

Adil3tr

23rd August 2010, 05:16

NGNM85

23rd August 2010, 06:28

t.shonku

23rd August 2010, 06:35

Building a Mosque is a great idea!

But will the majority of Christian American allow it to happen?I really don't think so.As far as I know churches in America are very anti-Muslim.They will carry out propaganda of every type to prevent this.

Red Commissar

23rd August 2010, 07:20

The way this news was released was for a purpose. This community center (which includes a mosque) had been in the process of planning for awhile, but it's only until now that the media outlets went overtime into it.

It's a topic, along with other things that have opposed up (say the 14th amendment and the immigration bills) to rile up a certain segment of the American public for certain political interests who wish to make some gains come November.

Devrim

23rd August 2010, 08:03

This is an excellent point. Not all criticism of Islam is automatically racist, there are very legitimate criticisms to be made. We must not allow bogus political-correctness to render us completely unable to call a spade a spade.

Islam is a viscous right wing ideology without a doubt. The point is that in the West at the moment criticism of Islam is actually being used as a stick to beat minorities with. It is like people such as the EDL going on about the threat of Islamic law to the UK. Of course religious fanatics who are a tiny minority among what is already a small minority of 3% of the population are not going to impose their archaic ideas about the legal system on the British state. That is not going to stop the EDL using it to whip or racial tensions though.

You can divorce things totally from their social context though.

Devrim

Jimmie Higgins

23rd August 2010, 08:57

Religion will always be reactionary. We're not going to change that in any way whatsoever. We can suppress their reactionary thoughts, but no fucking way will we ever change it completely. How is it possible to change the way religious people think when they already believe that their religion as it is now is the word of god?

How do you convince people that there is an alternative to capitalism when they have only been told that any attempt at revolution will just be worse?

IMO the answer is you argue politics and work with people, and show them in practice how our ideas relate to their lives. If someone clings to religion because their religion promises a better day ahead, they will never listen to you if you stand on the sidelines and criticize them for being dupes. Instead, i think it's better to try and demonstrate how life right now isn't out of our hands and that there are people who fight to keep things as they are and therefore if we organize against them, we can make a better life for ourselves right now.

This doesn't mean not-calling out the Mormon or Catholic church for supporting anti-gay politics or a synagogue or evangelical church for supporting Zionism.

From a practical perspective, we are always going to run into religious people who are still involved in strikes or rights movements and so we need to know when religion is actually a barrier to our campaign or movement and when it is simply mixed ideas or whatnot. If someone says we need a pray-in to change the bosses mind, obviously that's a time to argue for more direct methods, but if someone believes in Jesus but also in fighting against capitalism, then I see no reason to demand that they drop a belief that I don't subscribe to in order for them to be my ally.

This goes for after the revolution too. It would be a mistake to have an outright ban on religion - counter-revolutionary organizing and other direct acts are obviously something that needs to be dealt with by workers, but having faith in some magical thing needs to be open to people. People have to have the freedom to believe what they want as long as it is not part of an overt attempt to return to class-rule. A forced ban on religion does not make people more rational or enlightened any more than banning drugs in capitalism stops anyone from being an addict.

If you want to see people drop these beliefs, the best thing to do is to fight for a world where people don't feel the need to believe supernatural explanations for earthly suffering or some all-seeing consiousness that makes the world make sense to people. A more rational kind of society will allow people to look at the world more rationally.

Devrim

23rd August 2010, 09:16

I thought this was quite good in the English Guardian:

Things seem awfully heated in America right now; so heated you could probably toast a marshmallow by jabbing it on a stick and holding it toward the Atlantic. Millions are hopping mad over the news that a bunch of triumphalist Muslim extremists are about to build a "victory mosque" slap bang in the middle of Ground Zero.
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque)

Adi Shankara

23rd August 2010, 13:43

...Cuba is also quite anti-religious...

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii186/DutchPhil/Fidel_castro_pope.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_TahXQ2WiF0s/SaLNt2V7bUI/AAAAAAAAMKU/DdPOZ65aPX0/s400/Fidel+Castro+07.JPG

Adi Shankara

23rd August 2010, 13:48

This is an excellent point. Not all criticism of Islam is automatically racist, there are very legitimate criticisms to be made. We must not allow bogus political-correctness to render us completely unable to call a spade a spade.

Not all criticism of Islam is correct...or even factual.

for example, Islam doesn't endorse subordinating women and making them wear burqas and not allowing them to drive. but many opposed to Islam use that fallacy to discredit it's practitioners.

LETSFIGHTBACK

23rd August 2010, 15:05

True, there are many contradictions in the Bible, old and new testiment.But the point i've been trying to make is , well, the Russians, who were Russian Orthodox,their belief in God didn't stop the people from rising up and overthrowing the Tsar.

In Cuba, 80% of the population was Roman Catholic. Also practiced was Afro-Cuban Santeria. With their belief in a God, it didn't stop the people from their revolution.

The point i'm making is that ones belief in a God doesn't make or break a revolution. Whether One does or doesn't believe in a God is not a prerequisite to overthrowing capitalism.

Again, ones belief in a God is not a prerequisite for overthrowing capiatlism. And if it is, then explain way it was carried out in countries where the majority of the population practiced religion.

KurtFF8

24th August 2010, 02:18

LETSFIGHTBACK

24th August 2010, 02:48

I don't really understand this "we should oppose all religion all the time no matter what" attitude. I think it's a misread of the atheism found in Marx too. One has to look at the historical function of religion in a given situation/time/place. It's not always reactionary, and some times can be progressive. Look at various labor struggles, civil rights, Liberation Theology, etc. etc. There's more than 1 Christian Marxist or Christian Anarchist out there you know...

Exactly.:thumbup1:

NGNM85

24th August 2010, 03:04

Islam is a viscous right wing ideology without a doubt. The point is that in the West at the moment criticism of Islam is actually being used as a stick to beat minorities with. It is like people such as the EDL going on about the threat of Islamic law to the UK. Of course religious fanatics who are a tiny minority among what is already a small minority of 3% of the population are not going to impose their archaic ideas about the legal system on the British state. That is not going to stop the EDL using it to whip or racial tensions though.

You can divorce things totally from their social context though.

Devrim

I fully acknowledge the bile and racism that is directed at Muslims, presently. However, we should not censor ourselves for fear of sounding like we're saying something other than what we are actually saying. Just because a group is discriminated against doesn't mean they get a free pass.

Ocean Seal

24th August 2010, 03:11

The problem is the actual teachings of religion. They promote ignorance, intolerance of other people's opinions, discrimination and much, MUCH more. They are the tools of imperialism and oppression.
You should learn to not do this yourself.
Just because you and I come to a different conclusion when we look up at the sky does not make one of us a better revolutionary than the other. Just think about it, why are we fighting about such an irrelevant thing? Why is it that for everything that we disagree upon we need to have a witch hunt? At the end of the day regardless of what we think: we still want the same thing. The emancipation of our fellow man. Don't waste time arguing about something which is not relevant to it in the name of communism.

NGNM85

24th August 2010, 03:23

Not all criticism of Islam is correct...or even factual.

for example, Islam doesn't endorse subordinating women and making them wear burqas and not allowing them to drive. but many opposed to Islam use that fallacy to discredit it's practitioners.

This is a very picky distinction. No, the Koran does not provide a precise schematic of this garment, but it describes something very much like it. For example; "O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves.." and "..say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers,..."
If you were to use these passages as a guide you'd come up with something equivalent to a Burqa. This is also linked to a much broader thread running through Islam relating to temptation and proper behavior. Christianity emphasizes mastering temptation by will. Islam takes a more preemptive perspective, stressing the importance of avoiding temptation. This is sort of splitting hairs.

Devrim

24th August 2010, 07:44

Not all criticism of Islam is correct...or even factual.

for example, Islam doesn't endorse subordinating women and making them wear burqas and not allowing them to drive. but many opposed to Islam use that fallacy to discredit it's practitioners.

Rather amiss of Prophet Mohammed not to mention it seeing as the Koran was produced over a thousand years before the earliest cars.

Devrim

Devrim

24th August 2010, 07:53

I fully acknowledge the bile and racism that is directed at Muslims, presently. However, we should not censor ourselves for fear of sounding like we're saying something other than what we are actually saying. Just because a group is discriminated against doesn't mean they get a free pass.

I don't quite understand why you need to join in alongside all this 'bile and racism' though. I have no problem with a criticism of Islam, but what exactly is the point of this following argument?

This is a very picky distinction. No, the Koran does not provide a precise schematic of this garment, but it describes something very much like it. For example; "O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves.." and "..say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers,..."
If you were to use these passages as a guide you'd come up with something equivalent to a Burqa. This is also linked to a much broader thread running through Islam relating to temptation and proper behavior. Christianity emphasizes mastering temptation by will. Islam takes a more preemptive perspective, stressing the importance of avoiding temptation. This is sort of splitting hairs.

Devrim

KurtFF8

25th August 2010, 00:31

Also, to add on to what I said previously:

I don't think that the Left should uncritically support "Islam" ought right, but where has this ever happened? The Left shouldn't do that any more than it should support any other religion.

The political reality, however, is that since 9/11 Muslims themselves (especially Muslims who are people of color) have been scapegoated time and time again by reactionary forces, and especially in the defense of imperialist wars (current and promotion of desired future ones). Is it not up to the Left to point out how scapegoating is going on, and why? Isn't the Left at least partially here to defend the marginalized of society from ridiculous persecution, especially when that persecution is being done to defend aggression/scapegoat groups in times of economic crisis/etc?

And another point against the "anti-religious" question:

One only has to look at the state of politics within Christian churches in the US. The liberal-conservative dynamic exists in many churches, splits happen over things like homosexuality. But throughout the US's history, religious institutions have been ground for Leftist activity too (just look at even today's anti-war movement).

The Left could gain a lot by learning more of the politics of religion (where as in places like the US of which I can speak for, the Left is largely detached from this knowledge). Religion is a political reality in a place like the US and has been more so over the past 30+ years than prior to that. A simple "we must just oppose all religion" is far too simplistic of a response to a complex question of cultural reality and the battle for hegemony.

NecroCommie

25th August 2010, 01:23

NGNM85

25th August 2010, 03:27

I don't quite understand why you need to join in alongside all this 'bile and racism' though.

I'm not. There ARE very legitimate critisims one can make, and I'm saying we shouldn't refrain from criticozing what deserves to be criticized out of bogus political-correctness. You can be simultaneously be opposed to the racism of Rush Limbaugh, or this movement to ban the NYC mosque, and be equally outraged at Jihadist martyrs killing people, or the repression of women in the Muslim world. There is no hypocrisy, there.

I have no problem with a criticism of Islam, but what exactly is the point of this following argument?

Devrim

He said burqas aren't in the Koran. Technically, that's correct. However, it describes something virtually identical to it.

Red Commissar

25th August 2010, 04:38

Anyone got some stupid pictures of the people showing up to protest this? From what little I've seen they seem to be tea baggers, so there should at least be some gems in there.

Adi Shankara

25th August 2010, 09:05

Religion as a set of teachings is always reactionary by definition.

Considering not every leftist believes in dialectical materialism, care to explain how?

Adi Shankara

25th August 2010, 09:06

KurtFF8

26th August 2010, 00:19

I'm not. There ARE very legitimate critisims one can make, and I'm saying we shouldn't refrain from criticozing what deserves to be criticized out of bogus political-correctness. You can be simultaneously be opposed to the racism of Rush Limbaugh, or this movement to ban the NYC mosque, and be equally outraged at Jihadist martyrs killing people, or the repression of women in the Muslim world. There is no hypocrisy, there.

Yes, but the fact that you have to point out/bring up that we need to oppose "radical terrorists" when the whole topic (even of this thread) is a mosque (well actually a community center plus a mosque) is problematic.

The fact is: that's the mainstream discourse on this whole "controversy" in the first place. "We shouldn't allow a mosque to be built because....terrorism! We need to clearly oppose it!"

You can see this in the liberal "defense" of the mosque too: "They have the 'right' to build it, but I disagree with them actually acting on/expressing that right" (because they don't want to "defend Islam" either)

NGNM85

26th August 2010, 04:45

Yes, but the fact that you have to point out/bring up that we need to oppose "radical terrorists" when the whole topic (even of this thread) is a mosque (well actually a community center plus a mosque) is problematic.

The fact is: that's the mainstream discourse on this whole "controversy" in the first place. "We shouldn't allow a mosque to be built because....terrorism! We need to clearly oppose it!"

You can see this in the liberal "defense" of the mosque too: "They have the 'right' to build it, but I disagree with them actually acting on/expressing that right" (because they don't want to "defend Islam" either)

I was just responding to what Draconid was saying because I thought he had a good point. I've said about the same thing in other threads.

I think most liberals are supportive of the effort to build the mosque. However, some might suggest a change of venue simply to end all the drama and bullshit, but I don't think that's the majority view.

I'm technically opposed to it, because religion is a disease. However, as a staunch (Left) Libertarian I'm against virtually any interference in the fundamental right of these individuals to practice their religion. There's really no contradiction, there. Just like there's no contradiction betwen opposing anti-Arab racism, and being equally opposed to Islamic fundamentalism.

Devrim

26th August 2010, 08:22

You can see this in the liberal "defense" of the mosque too: "They have the 'right' to build it, but I disagree with them actually acting on/expressing that right" (because they don't want to "defend Islam" either)

I don't support their 'right' to build a mosque there let alone support the actually building of one.

What communists should do is point out that the anti-Mosque campaign is in fact a racist campaign. That doesn't mean that we should be actually out their supporting a mosque.

Devrim

KurtFF8

27th August 2010, 00:41

I don't support their 'right' to build a mosque there let alone support the actually building of one.

What communists should do is point out that the anti-Mosque campaign is in fact a racist campaign. That doesn't mean that we should be actually out their supporting a mosque.

Devrim

I think we agree here at least 99% I wasn't saying that you or anyone here was taking a liberal stance, I was simply pointing to the absurdity of its own contradiction.

GreenCommunism

27th August 2010, 00:49

He said burqas aren't in the Koran. Technically, that's correct. However, it describes something virtually identical to it.

they describe veils, and it isn't written that someone should be thrown acid in his face for not wearing it. just like there is no death for apostasy even the opposite.

NGNM85

27th August 2010, 02:31

I don't support their 'right' to build a mosque there let alone support the actually building of one.

What communists should do is point out that the anti-Mosque campaign is in fact a racist campaign. That doesn't mean that we should be actually out their supporting a mosque.

Devrim

There's a difference between wanting the structure to be built, and wanting to protect the freedom of individuals to do so.

~Spectre

27th August 2010, 04:47

I don't support their 'right' to build a mosque there let alone support the actually building of one.

What communists should do is point out that the anti-Mosque campaign is in fact a racist campaign. That doesn't mean that we should be actually out their supporting a mosque.

Devrim

Limiting the ability of the state or of people to coerce ideological minorities in a capitalist state is to the benefit of working class activism.

Besides, I think you're being a little dogmatic. There may be tactical value in actively supporting their right to build a mosque in certain areas.

Devrim

27th August 2010, 07:46

Limiting the ability of the state or of people to coerce ideological minorities in a capitalist state is to the benefit of working class activism.

Why?

I genuinely fail to see how it can at all benefit the working class to support one group of businessmen in a $100 project to build what is essentially a business centre (The facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court)

Besides, I think you're being a little dogmatic. There may be tactical value in actively supporting their right to build a mosque in certain areas.

I don't think communist make tactical gains by supporting different bourgeois groups.

Devrim

~Spectre

27th August 2010, 08:06

Why?

I genuinely fail to see how it can at all benefit the working class to support one group of businessmen in a $100 project to build what is essentially a business centre (The facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court)

These same coercions can and are aimed at working class movements. If these right wing hate movements are usually defeated, and if state intervention is successfully fought off and prohibited, working class activism will be more successful by nature of being better protected.

So it gets back to the question of bourgeoisie rights. In that context, I think it's sometimes worth affirming them just to protect worker movements if nothing else.

I don't think communist make tactical gains by supporting different bourgeois groups.

DevrimWhat's going on isn't just aimed a bourgeois group. It has become Islamophobia. By involving ourselves in this issue we can perhaps radicalize a great deal of people, particularly with the tepid support they've gotten from the liberal establishment.

Devrim

27th August 2010, 09:40

These same coercions can and are aimed at working class movements. If these right wing hate movements are usually defeated, and if state intervention is successfully fought off and prohibited, working class activism will be more successful by nature of being better protected.

The working class has to defend itself, as a class. Here though you are not talking about the working class defending these businessmen, but leftists doing it. That is very different.

So it gets back to the question of bourgeoisie rights. In that context, I think it's sometimes worth affirming them just to protect worker movements if nothing else.

I don't see how supporting somebody's right to build a business centre 'protects worker movements'. When the working class is moving though, it is a lot of a more powerful force than tiny left groups and can protect itself.

What's going on isn't just aimed a bourgeois group. It has become Islamophobia. By involving ourselves in this issue we can perhaps radicalize a great deal of people, particularly with the tepid support they've gotten from the liberal establishment.

It is yes. It is another part of the general anti-immigrant campaign. I suppose the response on it depends on how you see the role of communists. For us it is to take part and intervene in working class movements, which this isn't, not run around getting involved in every cross-class, or even bourgeois single issue campaign.

Devrim

GreenCommunism

28th August 2010, 14:21

The working class has to defend itself, as a class. Here though you are not talking about the working class defending these businessmen, but leftists doing it. That is very different.

we are not defending businessman, we are defending the muslims. by showing we defend them, they might be interested to see what we have in store for them when we clearly demonstrate that liberals are still islamophobic to some degree that we completly are not.

it doesn't look like a business center to me it sounds like a recreational center, but i guess it is a business.

Crimson Commissar

28th August 2010, 16:54

we are not defending businessman, we are defending the muslims. by showing we defend them, they might be interested to see what we have in store for them when we clearly demonstrate that liberals are still islamophobic to some degree that we completly are not.

it doesn't look like a business center to me it sounds like a recreational center, but i guess it is a business.
Why should we defend muslims? Look at any country that is officially muslim, they're reactionary as fuck. Muslims, along with Christians by the way, have always been against social justice and equality. Remember the mujahideen? They threw a god damn tantrum all because we Communists wanted to turn Afghanistan into a country that actually has some form of equality and worker's control. The way I see it, there's only two things that can happen with the left and religion. We either oppose it and become a successful and progressive movement, or we support it and submit to the will of radical christianity and islam.

KurtFF8

28th August 2010, 17:30

Why should we defend muslims? Look at any country that is officially muslim, they're reactionary as fuck. Muslims, along with Christians by the way, have always been against social justice and equality. Remember the mujahideen? They threw a god damn tantrum all because we Communists wanted to turn Afghanistan into a country that actually has some form of equality and worker's control. The way I see it, there's only two things that can happen with the left and religion. We either oppose it and become a successful and progressive movement, or we support it and submit to the will of radical christianity and islam.

Well it depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to build a movement, you can't have it be "pure leftist" in a place like the United States, you're bound to have alliances with other organizations. If you're fighting against imperialism, you're likely going to ally yourself with groups that will have many Muslims (for example Palestinian rights groups).

If you're tying to build a movement that focuses on being anti-religion, you're likely to find groups like the Tea Party amongst your list of allies.

A lot of undocumented workers are Christian, by the way, so we should probably oppose them too if we're going to focus on religion, right?

~Spectre

28th August 2010, 19:38

The working class has to defend itself, as a class. Here though you are not talking about the working class defending these businessmen, but leftists doing it. That is very different.

The issue ceased to be about the businessmen, the businessmen are already being defended by their fellow members of the bourgeois (New York Mayor defending their property rights, Fox News omitting the name of the Saudi Investor who owns shares of their corporation).

I don't see how supporting somebody's right to build a business centre 'protects worker movements'.

Because it isn't just the right to build a business center. It's a successful instance of a coercive action by those who would coerce workers. The less of those the betters.

It is yes. It is another part of the general anti-immigrant campaign. I suppose the response on it depends on how you see the role of communists. For us it is to take part and intervene in working class movements, which this isn't, not run around getting involved in every cross-class, or even bourgeois single issue campaign.

Devrim

Working class movements need support. Tactical considerations have to come in to play.

Adi Shankara

29th August 2010, 02:10

Crimson Commissar

29th August 2010, 02:46

Albania was officially atheist, and I don't care if this is seen as sectarian, but I'd say Hoxha was pretty fucking reactionary, seeing how ultra-nationalist he was.
You're ignoring the fact that pretty much every Socialist state in eastern europe was officially Atheist, not just Albania. The only difference is that Albania completely outlawed organised religion, which even I think is going a bit too far..

Devrim

29th August 2010, 03:26

it doesn't look like a business center to me it sounds like a recreational center, but i guess it is a business.

The facility's design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court

You don't think that these people are investing al that money to put on free concerts and the like in that auditorium. If course it is a business centre.

we are not defending businessman, we are defending the muslims. by showing we defend them, they might be interested to see what we have in store for them when we clearly demonstrate that liberals are still islamophobic to some degree that we completly are not. Yes, it is defending businessmen's right to develop a commercial project. I think that communists should reject what is essentially a racist campaign, and point out that it is one, but not actually end up supporting religious ventures.

I don't 'support' Muslims. I oppose the racist attacks that are going on against them in the West, but I don't 'support' Muslims.

Communists try to appeal to people in their common interests as workers, not as members of a particular religious group.

It is also worth considering if your position is so opportunist that it is based around a "we are supporting them. Maybe they will listen to us" line, what effect this sort of campaign will have on workers who consider themselves socialists from a Muslim background. Basically for most people in this group supporting building a Mosque would be massively alienating.

The UK SWP found this in their cosying up to the 'Muslim community' in England, which admittedly went further than a single issue campaign like this:

We believe that the constant adaptation to what are referred to as ‘community leaders’ in Tower Hamlets is lowering the level of politics and making us vulnerable to the attacks and pressures brought on us by New Labour. It is alienating us not only from the white working class but also from the more radical sections of the Bengali community, both secular and Muslim, who feel that Respect is becoming the party of a narrow and conservative trend in the area.

I also think that possibly you should reflect on the fact that people would not address white American workers on the basis of them being Christians. Why is it different with people from a Muslim background?

Well it depends on what you're trying to do. If you want to build a movement, you can't have it be "pure leftist" in a place like the United States, you're bound to have alliances with other organizations.

It is not about something being "pure[ly] leftist". It is about addressing political issues on a class basis.

Working class movements need support. Tactical considerations have to come in to play.

Working class movements need support from other workers on the basis of class solidarity. The working class is a majority in society. It needs to develop its independence and consciousness, not run around supporting businessmen.

Devrim

KurtFF8

29th August 2010, 04:15

Working class movements need support from other workers on the basis of class solidarity. The working class is a majority in society. It needs to develop its independence and consciousness, not run around supporting businessmen.

Do you think the Left should join in opposing this center being built then? That's what a local union is doing by refusing to build it.

I always thought that the Left was meant to take a stance against potential (and actualized) racist outbursts. This, to me, seem to be a clear case of racism and bigotry being a clear motivating factor here.

NGNM85

29th August 2010, 04:18

they describe veils,

If these instructions from the Koran were given to a tailor, who had no prior knowledge of Islam, he would probably produce something virtually identical to a burqa.

and it isn't written that someone should be thrown acid in his face for not wearing it. just like there is no death for apostasy even the opposite.

Does it say specifically; “Throw acid at young girls trying to read.”? No, of course not. However, this is a religiously motivated action, that has it’s basis in Islam. The Bible doesn’t specifically instruct one to shoot abortion providers, or to drag young homosexual men to death from the back of a pickup truck. However, the impetus for these actions is clearly religious. It is totally possible to square these actions with these respective religions. Look at two of the most brilliant philosophers in all of Christendom, Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, two of the most brilliant and influential Christian philosophers of all time; these men knew their scripture as much as anyone can. Respectively, they argued heretics should be tortured (By methods so horrifying in their brutality that they make water boarding look positively benign.) or executed. These actions are clearly totally compatible with the doctrines that inspired them. To say these are scriptures of love is to omit much of the contents.

we are not defending businessman, we are defending the muslims. by showing we defend them, they might be interested to see what we have in store for them when we clearly demonstrate that liberals are still islamophobic to some degree that we completly are not.

As a whole, liberals are not ‘islamophobic.’ In fact, (Again, generalizing.) they swing to the other extreme, suffering from a collective ostrich syndrome to the very obvious problems of violence and fanaticism within the Muslim world.

Devrim

29th August 2010, 08:31

Do you think the Left should join in opposing this center being built then? That's what a local union is doing by refusing to build it.

I always thought that the Left was meant to take a stance against potential (and actualized) racist outbursts. This, to me, seem to be a clear case of racism and bigotry being a clear motivating factor here.

I don't think that at any point I have said anything that could be interpreted in that way. No, I don't think that socialists should oppose this centre being built. I think they should also explain that the campaign against it is a racist campaign. That doesn't mean that they should support it.

Devrim

GreenCommunism

29th August 2010, 08:51

The Bible doesn’t specifically instruct one to shoot abortion providers, or to drag young homosexual men to death from the back of a pickup truck

Does it say specifically; “Throw acid at young girls trying to read.”?
it was woman who didn't wear a burka or a veil.

and it does state the death penalty for homosexuals.

As a whole, liberals are not ‘islamophobic.’ In fact, (Again, generalizing.) they swing to the other extreme, suffering from a collective ostrich syndrome to the very obvious problems of violence and fanaticism within the Muslim world.
if you think the liberals are not islamophobic it is clear that you believe the hateful documentaries that you have been fed.

If these instructions from the Koran were given to a tailor, who had no prior knowledge of Islam, he would probably produce something virtually identical to a burqa.
it would be a veil, have you read that it said? the face and the hands are allowed to be uncovered.

also i said nobody can be forced into wearing those things. if a tailor was given the koran without any prior knowledge of islam ,he would respect woman for their personality instead of their apparance, he would spare childrens and the innocents during wars, he would be against usury.

liberals still think this mosque is some kind of provocation.

Devrim

29th August 2010, 08:56

they describe veils, and it isn't written that someone should be thrown acid in his face for not wearing it. just like there is no death for apostasy even the opposite.

People are murder for apostasy. A particularly brutal example took place in this country a few years ago:

On 18 April 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity, Necati Aydin and Uğur Yüksel, were killed in the Malatya bible publishing firm murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malatya_bible_publishing_firm_murders). Having tortured them for several hours, the attackers then slit their throats. The attackers stated that they did it in order to defend the state and their religion

This was a particularly viscous example, and whilst it is not an everyday occurrence, people are killed for apostasy. People are also prosecuted for it in some countries.

For me part of the problem is that people don't stop at defending people from anti-Muslim racism, but end up defending Islam.

What comes across is some sort of idea that Islam isn't this intolerant religion as it is portrayed in the Western media. The problem is that actually it can be.

I live in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Turkey is probably the most 'liberal' or 'secular' Islamic country, and this is one of the two most 'liberal' or 'secular' cities. In Ankara you can quite happily sit outside adjacent to the street in a bar, and eat your lunch and drink a beer in the middle of Ramazan, which is being celebrated by Muslims at the moment. Nobody cares.

I was talking to a comrade who works in a small city the other day, and she was saying that of course restaurants are all closed during the day, and that if you ate there openly in public people would kill you. Perhaps she is exaggerating. Maybe you would only be badly beaten and not actually killed, but people have been murdered for breaking the fast in public here. I wouldn't like to be the one to try it. It doesn't happen often of course because people don't risk it.

I don't really understand the urge to try to defend Islam, and try to portray it as not being a reactionary religion. It is.

Devrim

synthesis

29th August 2010, 11:51

Any idea, ideology or system of belief (well, almost any idea) can be either progressive or reactionary depending on the way in which it is implemented. When Islam is portrayed in the Western media as an especially reactionary religion, it is generally to get the center-left on board with the imperialist agenda du jour.

The mosque issue, however - I'm just happy I haven't seen it suffixed with a "-gate" yet - is not such a phenomenon. It is thoroughly nationalist in character, and appeals mostly to "patriotic" sentiments. The "other" is Islam, but I would argue that the "self" is America, not Christendom.

NGNM85

29th August 2010, 18:57

it was woman who didn't wear a burka or a veil.

I was referring to the whole texts, I was generalizing.

and it does state the death penalty for homosexuals.

Yes, it does.

if you think the liberals are not islamophobic it is clear that you believe the hateful documentaries that you have been fed.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

it would be a veil, have you read that it said? the face and the hands are allowed to be uncovered.

It wasn't that specific. It depends on interpretation.

also i said nobody can be forced into wearing those things. if a tailor was given the koran without any prior knowledge of islam ,he would respect woman for their personality instead of their apparance, he would spare childrens and the innocents during wars, he would be against usury.

My point, which it seems was lost, was that these extreme behaviors come out of ideas or tendencies within the religions, as opposed to the popular belief that they are an aberration.

liberals still think this mosque is some kind of provocation.

Most liberals, again, generalizing, support the building of the Islamic center, although there are a few who endorse a change of venue not because they believe what the protesters are saying has any validity, but simply to avoid the hysteria that this has caused.

NGNM85

29th August 2010, 19:03

For me part of the problem is that people don't stop at defending people from anti-Muslim racism, but end up defending Islam.

What comes across is some sort of idea that Islam isn't this intolerant religion as it is portrayed in the Western media. The problem is that actually it can be.

This was my point. We should decry the racism that underlies this mosque controversy but in no means should that render us unable to express outrage over the oppression of women in the Muslim world, etc. A lot of the left is falling into that trap.

I live in Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Turkey is probably the most 'liberal' or 'secular' Islamic country, and this is one of the two most 'liberal' or 'secular' cities. In Ankara you can quite happily sit outside adjacent to the street in a bar, and eat your lunch and drink a beer in the middle of Ramazan, which is being celebrated by Muslims at the moment. Nobody cares.

Even in Turkey, which is one of the more moderate countries, very reliable polls show something like 70% of respondants supporting the idea of killing civilians in defense of the Prophet. This is very disturbing.

I don't really understand the urge to try to defend Islam, and try to portray it as not being a reactionary religion. It is.

Devrim

Of course it is. Just like Christianity, etc.

Devrim

29th August 2010, 20:53

This was my point. We should decry the racism that underlies this mosque controversy but in no means should that render us unable to express outrage over the oppression of women in the Muslim world, etc. A lot of the left is falling into that trap.

A lot of the left does fall into that trap. What cause it is when there are criticisms of Islam, they jump to its defence rather than saying, "so what. It still doesn't justify this racism".

What I feel uncomfortable about with your attitude though is it is not necessary to criticise Islam, and the oppression of women in the Islamic world all the time. I don't see why it should even come up in a thread like this.

I do see though that people do respond to some of the more absurd statements about Islam.

Even in Turkey, which is one of the more moderate countries, very reliable polls show something like 70% of respondants supporting the idea of killing civilians in defense of the Prophet. This is very disturbing.

I'd like to see them. I find it very surprising.

Devrim

NGNM85

30th August 2010, 04:53

A lot of the left does fall into that trap. What cause it is when there are criticisms of Islam, they jump to its defence rather than saying, "so what. It still doesn't justify this racism".

It's really more emotional than lofgical. They're wrapped up in being opposed to anti-Anab racism, and they have these subconscious beliefs that overpower their rational faculties and they construct this fictional narrative casting all Muslims as the victims.

The problem is that people are allowing their emotions and preconceptions to overrule their logical faculties. We neecto be able to approach situations rationally, and on a case-by-case basis.

What I feel uncomfortable about with your attitude though is it is not necessary to criticise Islam, and the oppression of women in the Islamic world all the time. I don't see why it should even come up in a thread like this.

I do see though that people do respond to some of the more absurd statements about Islam.

Again, I got into this discussion because Draconid had already made that argument, and I concur. However, I think any serious, thorough discussion of this issue will ultimately lead one in that direction. Whatever decision one makes, if you actually put any thought into it you'd have to consider the arguments of the opposition, in order to quantify that you'd have to think about Islam and terrorism, etc.

I'd like to see them. I find it very surprising.

Devrim

I actually did some digging to find them and I was semi-successful. I think I transposed the results from the poll, it was actually 20% in Turkey. (Still disturbing.) However, I should offer some context. This was a Pew research poll conducted in 2002, of roughly 40,000 respondants. There were a number of questions, but one specifically levelled at Muslims that asked if, in their estimation, suicide bombings and other violence was morally acceptable in defense of Islam. Part of the problem is the organization skewed the results, specifically, they rounded them down. The questions had four answers; Often, Sometimes, Rarely, or Never. However, the results were printed as simply Yes or No. Obviously, somebody who thinks blowing up civilians for Allah is 'sometimes' a good idea probably has a fairly serious problem. So, ultimately, it's about 20%, which is at the low end. I might have mistaken it with Lebanon at around 82%. There are similarly disturbing numbers; Ivory Coast 73%, Pakistan 38%, Jordan 65%, etc. If anything, I think these numbers might be lowballed. The study also did not include some of the most fanatical areas because they would not allow the polling to take place. Regardless, we are collectively talking about a terrifyingly large group of people.

Devrim

30th August 2010, 05:43

it was actually 20% in Turkey. (Still disturbing.)

Very different from 70% though.

very reliable polls show something like 70% of respondants supporting the idea of killing civilians in defense of the Prophet.

There were a number of questions, but one specifically levelled at Muslims that asked if, in their estimation, suicide bombings and other violence was morally acceptable in defense of Islam.

I also read these things very differently. If somebody talks of 'killing civilians in defense of the Prophet', it brings, to my mind at least, the idea of killing Rushdie or Danish cartoonists. Whereas the second question seems to me to be a direct reference to Palestine.

Part of the problem is the organization skewed the results, specifically, they rounded them down. The questions had four answers; Often, Sometimes, Rarely, or Never.

Which to me says they are rounded up. If people say 'rarely', they are put down as a yes.

I might have mistaken it with Lebanon at around 82%.

Probably very driven by the Palestine/Israel issue.

I think you would find a lot of people on Revleft who would 'defend people's right' to do it.

Ivory Coast 73%,

Strange, I didn't even know than the Ivory Coast was an Islamic country. It is not a member of the OIC. I have just looked it up, and Islam is the biggest religion with between 25-38%.

Devrim

synthesis

30th August 2010, 10:36

Obviously, somebody who thinks blowing up civilians for Allah is 'sometimes' a good idea probably has a fairly serious problem.

Where do you get the idea that suicide bombings always target civilians? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they really became popular when the tactic was successfully used against the U.S. Army in Lebanon in 1982.

Regardless, we are collectively talking about a terrifyingly large group of people.

You may not believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but I honestly don't understand how you aren't restricted yet.

Whereas the second question seems to me to be a direct reference to Palestine.

I suppose it would depend on the context of the question. It could also be referring to, say, the Soviets or the U.S. in Afghanistan - i.e., places considered to be the territory of the ummah.

Devrim

30th August 2010, 12:45

I suppose it would depend on the context of the question. It could also be referring to, say, the Soviets or the U.S. in Afghanistan - i.e., places considered to be the territory of the ummah.

If I was asked it in a survey that is how it would come across to me, which I suppose reflects the media focus in this country, Turkey. I also asked a few people at work, and they had the same impression.

You may not believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but I honestly don't understand how you aren't restricted yet.

I am against the whole idea of restrictions in general anyway, but I don't see how saying the rise of Islamicism in the Middle East is 'terrifying', though personally it is not how I would describe it, warrants restriction.

Devrim

Crimson Commissar

30th August 2010, 12:48

Where do you get the idea that suicide bombings always target civilians? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they really became popular when the tactic was successfully used against the U.S. Army in Lebanon in 1982.
Blowing up ANYONE in defence of a "prophet" who has been dead for over 1000 years is fucking ridiculous.

You may not believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but I honestly don't understand how you aren't restricted yet.
If anything, it is you islamophiles who should be restricted. Too many people on this forum and even IRL will defend radical islam just because they see them as the victims of racism. While that is true, that doesn't mean we should defend their religion. Defend the people themselves, but do NOT defend their religion.

I suppose it would depend on the context of the question. It could also be referring to, say, the Soviets or the U.S. in Afghanistan - i.e., places considered to be the territory of the ummah.
Territory of the "ummah"? Are you shitting me? So you think it's perfectly fine for batshit insane radical muslims to try to force out leftists who are just trying to make the middle-east a better place? And you call yourself a socialist? The US I can perfectly understand, but the Soviets only came in to defend the socialist government of Afghanistan from the mujahideen.

Devrim

30th August 2010, 13:02

Blowing up ANYONE in defence of a "prophet" who has been dead for over 1000 years is fucking ridiculous.

I don't think that the bomb at the US marine barracks was about 'defence of the prophet'. The commander of the US marines in Lebanon at the time was very clear about why he thought it had happened:

The Marine and the French headquarters were targeted primarily because of who we were and what we represented. The passive nature of the peacekeeping mission provided attractive targets that Iran and Syria were not about to pass up. It is noteworthy that the United States provided direct naval gunfire support—which I strongly opposed for a week—to the Lebanese Army at a mountain village called Suq-al-Garb on 19 September and that the French conducted an air strike on 23 September in the Bekaa Valley. American support removed any lingering doubts of our neutrality, and I stated to my staff at the time that we were going to pay in blood for this decision.

Basically despite their position as a peace keeping mission, they had become a faction in the civil war, and opposing factions responded as such.

It is also worth noting the amount of anger that there was in Beirut at the time, and in fact still is, over the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, where up to 3,500 Palestinian civilians, more than died in the Twin Towers attack, were massacred by pro-Israeli Christian militia men, who were transported to Beirut, and sent in to the camps by the Israeli army.

This happened despite US promises to safeguard Palestinian civilians when the PLO withdrew from the city less than one month earlier.

Devrim

Crimson Commissar

30th August 2010, 13:11

I don't think that the bomb at the US marine barracks was about 'defence of the prophet'. The commander of the US marines in Lebanon at the time was very clear about why he thought it had happened
Wasn't necessarily referring to that incident, I was just replying to what synthesis said about bombs not only being used on civilians.

progressive_lefty

30th August 2010, 14:48

Crimson Commissar

30th August 2010, 14:57

My perspective is just this. If we are to allow Christians into society, then Muslims should be allowed too. Simple. Once you start criticising Islam, you'll find your way to Christianity as well.
If I had my way, there would be no religions in society.
Yeah. And likewise, if we critiscise Christianity, then you should critiscize Islam too. The islamic supremacists who think that islam is a perfect religion and christianity is hateful and racist are just as bad as the right-wingers who are protesting this mosque.

synthesis

31st August 2010, 01:38

The point is, I don't believe that diagnosing "radical Islam" as a symptom of "religious fanaticism" provides a useful, materialist, or significantly accurate understanding of what is going on. I see it as fundamentally nationalist in character - that is, the "Islamic world" is perceived as a nation, not just a religious community, and we have to understand it as such. It seems to me that the phenomenon would be more aptly compared to the concept of "nationalism of the oppressed," more so than to the politics espoused by the likes of Falwell and Robertson.

People say "political Islam," but I would argue that "politicized Islam" is a more accurate term.

I am against the whole idea of restrictions in general anyway, but I don't see how saying the rise of Islamicism in the Middle East is 'terrifying', though personally it is not how I would describe it, warrants restriction.

I'm generally not in favor of restrictions, either, but the wording is important - though certainly not enough to justify restriction by itself, as I attempted to imply. He didn't say that "the rise of Islamicism in the Middle East is terrifying," he was talking of a "terrifyingly large group of people" who sympathize with Islamicism.

Do you really not see a difference between assigning such a quality to an ideology, versus assigning it to a group of people who sympathize with that ideology? I think it serves to rhetorically homogenize a heterogeneous group, a primary tactic of "otherization" and one often used to provide a platform for imperialism.

Again, I don't think that sentence, by itself, is cause for restriction. I saw it in the broader context of people accusing him of being a left-liberal with minimal revolutionary aspirations, specifically in justifying the conception of Muslims as the enemy of the West. I also don't think that's cause for restriction, but according to the forum guidelines, it would be.

If I was asked it in a survey that is how it would come across to me, which I suppose reflects the media focus in this country, Turkey. I also asked a few people at work, and they had the same impression.

Fair enough.

Territory of the "ummah"? Are you shitting me? So you think it's perfectly fine for batshit insane radical muslims to try to force out leftists who are just trying to make the middle-east a better place? And you call yourself a socialist? The US I can perfectly understand, but the Soviets only came in to defend the socialist government of Afghanistan from the mujahideen.

I don't ascribe such a sense of altruism to the machinery of 20th-century Russian imperialism, but even if I did, I don't think it was "perfectly fine." When reviewing history, nuances are crucial.

NGNM85

31st August 2010, 08:27

Very different from 70% though.

Yes, I was mistaken. However, in my defense, it is a rather minor bit of trivia, and it was some years ago.

I also read these things very differently. If somebody talks of 'killing civilians in defense of the Prophet', it brings, to my mind at least, the idea of killing Rushdie or Danish cartoonists. Whereas the second question seems to me to be a direct reference to Palestine.

Well, first of all, Palestine is more of a territorial issue for the Palestinians. However, it is interesting and informative to see the differences between Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Here's the question, as it appeared on the survey; "Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from it's enemies. Other people believe that, nomatter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you, personally, feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified,rarely justified, or never justified?"

From the way the question is phrased I think it's clear they meant it in terms of things like the Rushdie fatwa, or the Danish cartoons.

Which to me says they are rounded up. If people say 'rarely', they are put down as a yes.

No, that's the problem. They shuttled all of the respondents who checked "Rarely Justified" into the "No" column, thus rounding the results down.

Probably very driven by the Palestine/Israel issue.

Oh, there’s no question that’s a hot-button issue in Lebanon, for good reason. Still, these numbers are disturbing.

I think you would find a lot of people on Revleft who would 'defend people's right' to do it.

That doesn’t mean much. If you do some digging you can find apologetics for a number of thugs, terrorists, and dictators; Stalin, even Osama bin Laden. That’s simply a testament to the degree of lunacy that is commonplace on this forum.

Strange, I didn't even know than the Ivory Coast was an Islamic country. It is not a member of the OIC. I have just looked it up, and Islam is the biggest religion with between 25-38%.

Devrim

It was news to me, too. You learn something every day.

NGNM85

31st August 2010, 08:53

Where do you get the idea that suicide bombings always target civilians? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that they really became popular when the tactic was successfully used against the U.S. Army in Lebanon in 1982.

First of all, don't do that, the thing with my screename. Ever.

Of course suicide bombers don't always target civilians (Although, frequently, they do.) but the question was specifically regarding suicide bombings and other types of violence where civilians were deliberately targeted.

You may not believe me when I say that this is not a personal attack, but I honestly don't understand how you aren't restricted yet.

You're not making it easy to believe you.

Devrim

31st August 2010, 09:52

The point is, I don't believe that diagnosing "radical Islam" as a symptom of "religious fanaticism" provides a useful, materialist, or significantly accurate understanding of what is going on. I see it as fundamentally nationalist in character - that is, the "Islamic world" is perceived as a nation, not just a religious community, and we have to understand it as such. It seems to me that the phenomenon would be more aptly compared to the concept of "nationalism of the oppressed," more so than to the politics espoused by the likes of Falwell and Robertson.

I don't think that it is nationalist in character. I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of it.

More importantly though, the conclusions you draw wouldn't matter to us anyway. For us all nationalism is reactionary anyway.

It seems to me that the phenomenon would be more aptly compared to the concept of "nationalism of the oppressed," more so than to the politics espoused by the likes of Falwell and Robertson.

I think that a lot of the detail gets filtered out by the Western media into a singular 'political Islamism' represented by bin Laden. In reality there are lots of different forms of Islamicist politics. Take the current government of Turkey, a sort of Islamic version of the German Christian Democratic Party. There are of course people like Falwell too.

I'm generally not in favor of restrictions, either, but the wording is important - though certainly not enough to justify restriction by itself, as I attempted to imply. He didn't say that "the rise of Islamicism in the Middle East is terrifying," he was talking of a "terrifyingly large group of people" who sympathize with Islamicism.

Do you really not see a difference between assigning such a quality to an ideology, versus assigning it to a group of people who sympathize with that ideology?

'Terrifyingly' is an adverb. In this sentence it refers to the word 'large', not the people.

Devrim

progressive_lefty

31st August 2010, 10:35

Yeah. And likewise, if we critiscise Christianity, then you should critiscize Islam too. The islamic supremacists who think that islam is a perfect religion and christianity is hateful and racist are just as bad as the right-wingers who are protesting this mosque.

Yes. We should criticise Islam, but I just think, especially where I'm from, there is loads and loads of criticism of Islam. I come across soo many people that can tell me the flaws of Islam, but have no idea of the flaws of Christianity. See the point I'm making?

COMPLEXproductions

31st August 2010, 10:50

There is no middle ground between a materialist and a religious perspective.

This is where you are most wrong. You are assuming you understand all religious beliefs. I'd gladly help you understand what it is I believe, and hopefully it will give you a perspective into a different side. My religious belief system in no way conflicts with materialist perspective. I'd elaborate, but I am sleepy, and also it would stray further off(though related to) the topic at hand.
On a side note thought, according to what you believe as a materialist we should also knock down all the churches, correct?\

**The misconceptions about Islam here are ridiculous. Please study before you speak, people.

synthesis

31st August 2010, 11:40

the question was specifically regarding suicide bombings and other types of violence where civilians were deliberately targeted.Fair enough.

You're not making it easy to believe you.That is also acceptable. I simply mean that I have no personal interest in seeing you restricted. Others may differ.

I don't think that it is nationalist in character. I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of it.

If I were you, I probably wouldn't think it worth the time to explicate on this, but since I am not you, I would be interested in your reasons for saying this.

More importantly though, the conclusions you draw wouldn't matter to us anyway. For us all nationalism is reactionary anyway.

Who is "us"?

I think that a lot of the detail gets filtered out by the Western media into a singular 'political Islamism' represented by bin Laden.

That is the strain to which I am referring.

'Terrifyingly' is an adverb. In this sentence it refers to the word 'large', not the people.Yes, I understood that. It still strikes me as ignorant.

Devrim

31st August 2010, 11:58

Well, first of all, Palestine is more of a territorial issue for the Palestinians. However, it is interesting and informative to see the differences between Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Here's the question, as it appeared on the survey; "Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from it's enemies. Other people believe that, nomatter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you, personally, feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified,rarely justified, or never justified?"

From the way the question is phrased I think it's clear they meant it in terms of things like the Rushdie fatwa, or the Danish cartoons.

That is what you think it is clear that they meant. To me though it comes across that it is a coded reference to events in Palestine, which is how I, and the few people I asked understood it. In this case, as it is about questions asked to people in Islam countries, how I and my workmates perceive it is probably more relevant to people's responses than how you do.

Devrim

Devrim

31st August 2010, 12:11

If I were you, I probably wouldn't think it worth the time to explicate on this, but since I am not you, I would be interested in your reasons for saying this.

Yes, you are right.:) I am not really interested in getting into a long discussion about the nature of certain Islamicist groups. Suffice to say that even amougst the 'Jihadist' current there are many different ideas. I don't think that the idea of the 'House of Islam' is constructed in the same way as modern nationalism. Even if that were the case, there is support for specific nationalism, i.e. aligned with particular states, within that current anyway contrary to the idea of an 'Islamic nation'.

Who is "us"?
The political tendency I belong to, left communists.

What it appears that you are doing to me is defining Islamicist groups as 'nationalist' groups in a way that would allow socialist to support them as national liberation movements. Our current doesn't support national liberation movements anyway, so the argument isn't really relevant to us.

Devrim

Jimmie Higgins

31st August 2010, 12:23

Yes. We should criticise Islam, but I just think, especially where I'm from, there is loads and loads of criticism of Islam. I come across soo many people that can tell me the flaws of Islam, but have no idea of the flaws of Christianity. See the point I'm making?

Yup, good point.

"Why do people never bring up the irrational religious beliefs of native Americans? Why do people never blame blacks and arabs for the slave trade? Why do people criticize France when France has freedom of religion but the Algerian resistance of the 1950s was Islamic in nature? Why do people criticize Britian in India but never the Hindu caste system? Why do people criticize the UK in Ireland, but not mention that the Catholics want to prevent abortions and discriminate against homosexuals?"

Ok are people getting the point? We can't take criticisms of Islam in the US or UK and separate it from Imperialism (and anti-immigrant scapegoating). Does this mean that Islam isn't used to bolster class rule in parts of the world - of course not! But really other than bringing up these atrocities, what practically are anti-Islam people saying we in the US should do about it? Really the only way for the US left to have an impact on abuses in Islamic countries is to give support to and appeal to the US military and governmnet to pressure these governments and invade and replace them if they don't listen.

This is the real source of anti-Islam sentiment in the US, not concern with women's rights or freedom from religion for fuck's sake! The right wing is attacking this mosque because they want a scapgoat and they want to justify the ongoing wars and racism is about the last justification they have remaining after WMD's and all their other bogus reasons. The ideologues and right-activists who are pushing this mosque controversy could give a fuck about who's building it or what the purpose is or even that it is being built on that site.

If the US is supporting an oppressive regime somewhere then it is possible for us to build something that could expose this support and possibly even build a movement that forces the governmnet to end it's support like with South Africa.

But this whole "Why protest this and not also criticize Islamic countries" is the exact same argument you hear in the US about police brutality: "why are you criticizing this one cop who killed a black kid when last week 2 black kids killed 3 people". These kinds of arguments are abstract and their real purpose is to excuse racism and distract issues, not call attention to other oppression.

synthesis

31st August 2010, 20:37

I am not really interested in getting into a long discussion about the nature of certain Islamicist groups.

Sure, but just for clarification, I'm not talking about their "nature" - more about their context, since I think the former is derived from the latter.

Even if that were the case, there is support for specific nationalism, i.e. aligned with particular states, within that current anyway contrary to the idea of an 'Islamic nation'.

I still don't see how this would nullify my hypothesis and agenda, which you (correctly) asserted to be:

defining Islamicist groups as 'nationalist' groups in a way that would allow socialist to support them as national liberation movements

I see it as religious in form and nationalist in character - the last political refuge of oppressed peoples subjugated in pursuit of the resources underneath them and around them. However, I will of course respect your perspective on this issue.

Our current doesn't support national liberation movements anyway, so the argument isn't really relevant to us.

Obviously, that is a completely different discussion. I support national liberation movements, almost unconditionally, but that is probably because I live in the belly of the beast, so to speak.

Devrim

31st August 2010, 21:00

Sure, but just for clarification, I'm not talking about their "nature" - more about their context, since I think the former is derived from the latter.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

I still don't see how this would nullify my hypothesis and agenda, which you (correctly) asserted to be:

No, it doesn't. It was merely a statement expressing how I understood what you were saying.

I see it as religious in form and nationalist in character - the last political refuge of oppressed peoples subjugated in pursuit of the resources underneath them and around them.

What I think this lacks is class analysis. 'Oppressed peoples' are actually divided into classes.

I support national liberation movements, almost unconditionally, but that is probably because I live in the belly of the beast, so to speak.

I have never reallu understood this outlook. Sure it is the duty of socialists in the major imperialist powers to oppose their own states military interventions, but I have never quite got why people think that means you have to 'support' the 'other side'.

Devrim

synthesis

31st August 2010, 21:23

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

Yes, it was a vague statement. What I meant is that while I recognize that "Islamicism" is a heterogeneous grouping of disparate political perspectives, whatever their "nature," I see them all as originating from the processes of imperialism - their context.

What I think this lacks is class analysis. 'Oppressed peoples' are actually divided into classes.People living under imperialism generally see it as a more immediate threat to their well-being than the broader processes of capitalism as a whole. It seems to me that an international socialist movement would be more viable when people are struggling against their own national bourgeoisie rather than one that is based thousands of miles away and doesn't hesitate to wipe out whole communities to protect its investments.

Sure it is the duty of socialists in the major imperialist powers to oppose their own states military interventions, but I have never quite got why people think that means you have to 'support' the 'other side'.Because it's more than just military interventions. It's the power structure of international capitalism, something that is subverted by national liberation movements.

progressive_lefty

3rd September 2010, 08:38

The air of anti-Islam ideology always seems to come from -> we are of the Christian faith, which is far superior. If we move towards decreasing the backward conservatism amongst Islam (and no, I'm not saying all Muslims are like this), it will come from liberal ideas and thoughts, not from that 'great old Christian faith'.

A lot of people in society are moving away from pornography, including a good friend of mine, why? Because, deep down, pornography relies on women from the third world, its plays on the desperation of women in bad circumstances, it harnesses negative racial stereotypes ..etc... It's not based on some random 2000 year old book. I think that is the problem for many of these Christians, they move away from pornography because 'oh, JC won't let me in upstairs if I keep on using this, or he's going to do something bad to me'. How vacuous. It's no wonder that so many Christians are hooked on pornography, and it's no wonder that it has been scientifically proven that Christians are more likely to use porn then Atheists.

That's the major flaw in the discussion on Islam and its negative elements, the criticism always seems to come from those same people that hate homosexuals, immigrants and want to punish the poor. The left can play a role in liberalising Islam and the situation of women, but it certainly could not having anything to do with this Geert Wilders anti-Islam movement, that you have to acknowledge is becoming popular. And I think Wilders is trying to win the left over with his 'deep compassion' for homosexuals, women.. in Islamic countries, whilst obviously re-iterating his commitment to hypocrisy along the way. The EDL is connected to all of this.

I think at the core, Islamic entrance into Western countries usually produces a number of people that pull away from beliefs in a God and become atheist or non-religious. They realise that leaving a religion brings about more positive things in life. Most of the Muslim guys I have met in my city are quite liberal, and most of them have slept with more girls then me. And I think when we get to a point of a possible collision or confrontation between Islamic backward-conservatism and the Left, I think it won't be hard to present persuasive points, without having to side with homophobic and ignorant right-wing fools. Extremities are usually dealt with well by society, I think many far-right nazi/white nationalist groups would agree.

I think it's important to discuss all of this, because I do believe at some stage, some of the views amongst some(with emphasis) Islamic communities will reach a boiling point with the left, but that should be through the function of the left, not the right. Ayaan Hirsi Aliis is another individual to avoid, she seems to be about demonising Muslims as a whole, as opposed to, discussions with moderate Muslims/women of Islam, as to how to push out radicalism. And it would come to no surprise who would be bank rolling her.

Devrim

3rd September 2010, 09:52

People living under imperialism generally see it as a more immediate threat to their well-being than the broader processes of capitalism as a whole. It seems to me that an international socialist movement would be more viable when people are struggling against their own national bourgeoisie rather than one that is based thousands of miles away and doesn't hesitate to wipe out whole communities to protect its investments.

We have a very different view of imperialism. For us it is not simply the policy of the great powers, but a world system. To that extent everybody lives 'under imperialism'. The second difference that we would see is that it is impossible for nations to break out of the system. Genuine national liberation today is impossible, countries merely change their alliances within the imperialist system.

Because it's more than just military interventions. It's the power structure of international capitalism, something that is subverted by national liberation movements.

We don't think that it is 'subverted'. It is merely a matter of which powers influence a country is under.

Devrim

Devrim

3rd September 2010, 09:53

Most of the Muslim guys I have met in my city are quite liberal, and most of them have slept with more girls then me.

Think about how this would sound if you replaced the word 'Muslim' with 'Christians'.

Devrim

Crimson Commissar

3rd September 2010, 12:53

That's the major flaw in the discussion on Islam and its negative elements, the criticism always seems to come from those same people that hate homosexuals, immigrants and want to punish the poor. The left can play a role in liberalising Islam and the situation of women, but it certainly could not having anything to do with this Geert Wilders anti-Islam movement, that you have to acknowledge is becoming popular. And I think Wilders is trying to win the left over with his 'deep compassion' for homosexuals, women.. in Islamic countries, whilst obviously re-iterating his commitment to hypocrisy along the way. The EDL is connected to all of this.
It is impossible to "liberalise" Islam. Just as it has been impossible to liberalise Christianity. If we try to intergrate Islam with leftism, the reactionary beliefs will still be there. There will still be radical muslims yelling about how homosexuals should be thrown into concentration camps, just like there are Christians today yelling about the exact same thing. We cannot negotiate with the religious. Religion is completely incompatible with leftism and we must do everything we can to wipe it out. How long do we have to wait until religion finally becomes a non-issue? Will there still be religion in 2100? 2500? How about the year 3000? How long do we have to go until the reactionary mess that we call organised religion is gone for good? If we co-operate with Christianity and Islam we're doing exactly what they want us to, we're prolonging the life of their faith, allowing their reactionary and idiotic beliefs to gradually become a part of our ideology. We can't just not fight against Islam because right-wingers are doing so too. The Communists of the Russian revolution were not afraid of being openly atheist. The Communists of World War 2 were also not afraid of such a thing. And so were the Communists during the Cold War. The collapse of the USSR has unfortunately given religious leftists an opportunity to make tolerance of religion a mainstream belief amongst the left. The recent racism against middle-easterners has only made the problem worse by introducing Islamophilia to left wing ideologies. I don't see how anyone can be okay with this.

#FF0000

3rd September 2010, 16:01

It is impossible to "liberalise" Islam. Just as it has been impossible to liberalise Christianity

yeah lol because Muslims and Christians today have all the same attitudes and beliefs about society and law as the Muslims and Christians from centuries ago, right? I mean, religious folks are bound to have some stupid and backward beliefs about some things but to say that religion can't be "liberalized" at all is stupid because how people read their dumb religious books and what messages they take from them depends a lot on the social context.

So, if you're saying it's impossible for someone to be a Muslim or a Christian and be a communist or even just have a "socially liberal" outlook on things, you're wrong.

I'm openly atheist, but I don't think there's a good reason to exclude other socialists just because they have dumb personal beliefs.

But that's all besides the point.

The point is, religion has nothing to do with this mosque or anything else and has everything to do with the "Othering" of a very small and very powerless group of people in America.

Crimson Commissar

3rd September 2010, 16:20

yeah lol because Muslims and Christians today have all the same attitudes and beliefs about society and law as the Muslims and Christians from centuries ago, right? I mean, religious folks are bound to have some stupid and backward beliefs about some things but to say that religion can't be "liberalized" at all is stupid because how people read their dumb religious books and what messages they take from them depends a lot on the social context.

So, if you're saying it's impossible for someone to be a Muslim or a Christian and be a communist or even just have a "socially liberal" outlook on things, you're wrong.

I'm openly atheist, but I don't think there's a good reason to exclude other socialists just because they have dumb personal beliefs.

But that's all besides the point.

The point is, religion has nothing to do with this mosque or anything else and has everything to do with the "Othering" of a very small and very powerless group of people in America.
There definitely are some muslims who have a more liberal view of the world. But they are a very, very small minority. And even then, they are not even following islam properly by having such liberal views. Not that I care about that, but doesnt that show that something is fucking wrong with Islam? Instead of trying to liberalise reactionary and stupid religions like Islam and Christianity, why not just reject them entirely?

And yes, I agree that religion has nothing to do with the protests against the mosque. But I am not opposing just that mosque as the right-wing protests are. I am protesting ALL mosques. All churches. I am protesting every religious building and every religion that is associated with them. I am protesting everything about religion. This one mosque is irrelevant to me. The reactionary Islamic faith as a whole is what I am protesting against. And no, I am not an islamophobe. My critiscisms of Islam are not based on the race of it's followers. I criscise European muslims just as much as I critiscise Middle-Eastern or Asian muslims. I completely respect our former muslim comrades who have freed themselves from the slavery of Islam. But every muslim needs to do that. Every muslim needs to willingly give up their faith and recognise it as the bullshit that it really is. If god exists, then we cannot be free, as he is an oppressive and murderous tyrant who has enslaved humanity. But he does not exist, and so by being religious these people are willingly enslaving themselves to a god which does not and cannot exist.

Yes, a muslim can be a communist. But by being a muslim he is not being a true communist. To be a communist is to resist all forms of exploitation and oppression. The Islamic god is just like any capitalist is. He exploits humanity for his own personal gain. He oppresses humanity and lies to them, telling us that he is benevolent and forgiving, but at the same time he would send us to hell if we even dared to disobey him. A communist who is a muslim is like a communist who is still loyal to capitalism. When they say "Oh, but god cares for us and protects us!", it is just as bad as them saying "But the capitalists give us jobs and reward us if we work for them!". Muslim communists need to stand up and fight against their religion. They must resist god and religion just as they have resisted capitalism. Only then can they be a true communist.

#FF0000

3rd September 2010, 16:27

There definitely are some muslims who have a more liberal view of the world. But they are a very, very small minority.

Source, I guess? I don't see how you can make a claim like this. I remember Devrim said awhile back that most of the Muslims he knows vote for left-wing parties, in some thread long long ago.

And even then, they are not even following islam properly by having such liberal views.

Nobody is following their religion they way it was followed centuries and centuries ago. Religion is stupid, holy books contradict themselves brazenly, and people cherry-pick and weasel things out of them to fit their world-view anyway. It's not news, and it's been happening forever, and it's precisely why I give no fuck what religious beliefs people have.

Not that I care about that, but doesnt that show that something is fucking wrong with Islam? Instead of trying to liberalise reactionary and stupid religions like Islam and Christianity, why not just reject them entirely?

It depends on what you mean "reject Christianity and Islam". I personally do, being an atheist. I don't think that organizations ought to restrict membership based on religion, however (though keeping the official party line secular is obviously important). And further, I don't think we should ignore blatant bigotry and xenophobia just because the targets happen to be muslim.

Yes, a muslim can be a communist. But by being a muslim he is not being a true communist.

But by being a communist he's not being a true muslim! You just said that!

To be a communist is to resist all forms of exploitation and oppression. The Islamic god is just like any capitalist is. He exploits humanity for his own personal gain.

Yeah I'm sure an all-powerful being who is purported to have created life and the entire universe out of absolutely nothing is playing us for chumps in a cosmic ponzi scheme.

Either way, you have this whole thing backwards. Getting rid of religion isn't going to get rid of the attitudes that you seem to think come from it.

Rafiq

3rd September 2010, 16:35

Why should we defend muslims? Look at any country that is officially muslim, they're reactionary as fuck. Muslims, along with Christians by the way, have always been against social justice and equality. Remember the mujahideen? They threw a god damn tantrum all because we Communists wanted to turn Afghanistan into a country that actually has some form of equality and worker's control. The way I see it, there's only two things that can happen with the left and religion. We either oppose it and become a successful and progressive movement, or we support it and submit to the will of radical christianity and islam.

Listen buddy, I think it's a bit harsh to be against every Muslim in the world. And by the way, maybe those nations are reactionary as fuck due to Imperialist powers raping their resources and economy. Look at Europe in the middle ages, the Muslim Nations were the more secular and moderate, while Europe was Barbaric and Reactionary. This is due to limitations against Science and Education.

Crimson Commissar

3rd September 2010, 16:36

Source, I guess? I don't see how you can make a claim like this. I remember Devrim said awhile back that most of the Muslims he knows vote for left-wing parties, in some thread long long ago.[/quote
The majority of muslims are in the middle-east. And the middle-east isn't exactly an area known for liberalism or socialism...

[QUOTE]Nobody is following their religion they way it was followed centuries and centuries ago. Religion is stupid, holy books contradict themselves brazenly, and people cherry-pick and weasel things out of them to fit their world-view anyway. It's not news, and it's been happening forever, and it's precisely why I give no fuck what religious beliefs people have.Exactly! So why don't we just accept that it's fucking bullshit and just...not support it?

It depends on what you mean "reject Christianity and Islam". I personally do, being an atheist. I don't think that organizations ought to restrict membership based on religion, however (though keeping the official party line secular is obviously important). And further, I don't think we should ignore blatant bigotry and xenophobia just because the targets happen to be muslim.I mean that communists as a whole should reject religion, just as we have done before. And I never said we should ignore racism against muslims. Just don't defend their religion.

Yeah I'm sure an all-powerful being who is purported to have created life and the entire universe out of absolutely nothing is playing us for chumps in a cosmic ponzi scheme.Just because he created life doesn't mean he should be worshipped. If a capitalist built your house that you are living in, that doesn't mean you have to be a capitalist.

Either way, you have this whole thing backwards. Getting rid of religion isn't going to get rid of the attitudes that you seem to think come from it.We should be opposing both religion and the reactionary ideas it supports. If we oppose reactionary ideas but not religion, then there will still be religious fundamentalists, feudalists, theocrats and capitalists.

#FF0000

3rd September 2010, 16:48

The majority of muslims are in the middle-east. And the middle-east isn't exactly an area known for liberalism or socialism...

Uh not anymore but 50 years ago the place was a lot like Europe except with a lot more muslims and a lot of dry heat.

Exactly! So why don't we just accept that it's fucking bullshit and just...not support it?

because who gives a fuck.

I mean that communists as a whole should reject religion, just as we have done before. And I never said we should ignore racism against muslims. Just don't defend their religion.

Yeah but see you are ignoring the bigotry here because you're siding with bigots. That's the thing.

Just because he created life doesn't mean he should be worshipped. If a capitalist built your house that you are living in, that doesn't mean you have to be a capitalist.

Sounds like someone completely missed my point.

We should be opposing both religion and the reactionary ideas it supports. If we oppose reactionary ideas but not religion, then there will still be religious fundamentalists, feudalists, theocrats and capitalists.

I guess this makes sense to people who are dumb and literally think that religion spawns reactionary ideas out of nothing and things like those "material conditions" we communists are always on about and social context don't matter.

Jimmie Higgins

3rd September 2010, 16:51

Why are there never any posts demanding that we "break the working class of their irrational beliefs in Bigfoot or winning the lotto"?

It is impossible to "liberalise" Islam. Just as it has been impossible to liberalise Christianity. If we try to intergrate Islam with leftism, the reactionary beliefs will still be there. There will still be radical muslims yelling about how homosexuals should be thrown into concentration camps, just like there are Christians today yelling about the exact same thing. We cannot negotiate with the religious. Religion is completely incompatible with leftism and we must do everything we can to wipe it out. How long do we have to wait until religion finally becomes a non-issue? Will there still be religion in 2100? 2500? How about the year 3000? How long do we have to go until the reactionary mess that we call organised religion is gone for good? If we co-operate with Christianity and Islam we're doing exactly what they want us to, we're prolonging the life of their faith, allowing their reactionary and idiotic beliefs to gradually become a part of our ideology. We can't just not fight against Islam because right-wingers are doing so too. The Communists of the Russian revolution were not afraid of being openly atheist. The Communists of World War 2 were also not afraid of such a thing. And so were the Communists during the Cold War. The collapse of the USSR has unfortunately given religious leftists an opportunity to make tolerance of religion a mainstream belief amongst the left. The recent racism against middle-easterners has only made the problem worse by introducing Islamophilia to left wing ideologies. I don't see how anyone can be okay with this.

Religion reflects society - if religion did not change along with society, it would not have survived the capitalist revolutions since the feudal church was the primary institution of that class rule and promoting feudal ruling class ideology.

I don't think we should focus on trying to liberalize religion, but to argue that we have to destroy religion as a precondition for class consciousness is just a mechanistic way of looking at it and, frankly, a loosing proposition. We can prove our politics and tactics in action; we can prove our arguments; we can prove to people from their own experiences that they system doesn't work and the people who run society have interests opposed to ours as workers. We can not prove to a religious person that the non-existence of a non-provable thing and it will do no go to try and ban religion or fight religion for the sake of religion.

It's like trying to win an abortion argument by finding out at what point a fetus becomes a "baby" - you can't, you'll loose in the muck of the abstract argument, and it's a distraction: the real point is a woman's control of her own reproductive process. With revolution it's the same - if someone realizes things need to change, wants to fight for it, wants to go on strike, wants to replace the dictatorship of capital with real democracy and worker's power, who gives a fuck if they also believe in Santa Clause or UFOs?

Your argument that religion is inherently reactionary and can not change leads to disturbing conclusions. If your argument is true, then it's Judaism that's the problem in Israel, not Zionism - it's Islam in Saudi Arabia, not the ruling class - it's evangelicalism in the US, not imperialism and an aggressive ruling class.

We have to separate the two aspects of religion 1) why people are drawn to it (as said above, moreso in countries where there is high inequality) 2) the way it is used as an institution to promote reactionary or ruling class ideology. We can not change number 1 until people do so of their own free will - i.e. when people no longer feel the need to look to supernatural answers to questions. This will be given a boost through the course of revolution because as people take control over their own lives, praying to a supernatural savior will have less personal and social use. When production and our daily lives are much more rational and under our own control, we won't wonder why good people end up broke or why there is so much anger and violence and stress, because all that will not be as much of a daily issue.

As far as number 2 goes, well that means fighting reactionary ideas, protesting homophobic churches or anti-Islam christian groups on the basis of their reactionary ideas no matter what the source of those ideas.

Atheism can be used to organize reaction too - just look at the anti-Islam rhetoric in France. In the US, it's christians saying that Islam is incompatible with judeo/christian "values" - but in France, Islamophobia is organized through arguments about Islam being incompatible with secular society. So IMO we need to fight the reaction, not the vehicle it arrives in.

Devrim

3rd September 2010, 16:52

Source, I guess? I don't see how you can make a claim like this. I remember Devrim said awhile back that most of the Muslims he knows vote for left-wing parties, in some thread long long ago.

I think I remember saying this. However, it says more about the sort of people I know than Muslims in general. It is true though. Most people I know who are religious vote CHP (main 'social Democratic Party', ÖDP (smaller left party), or HADEP (left Kurdish nationalist).

The majority of muslims are in the middle-east. And the middle-east isn't exactly an area known for liberalism or socialism...

I do live in the Middle East.

synthesis

4th September 2010, 12:14

everybody lives 'under imperialism'.

I get what you mean here, but to me such a universalist definition is so broad as to be practically meaningless. People in Beverly Hills don't experience imperialism the same way as civilians in Fallujah.

Genuine national liberation today is impossible, countries merely change their alliances within the imperialist system.

What makes the present different from the past in this regard?

We don't think that it is 'subverted'. It is merely a matter of which powers influence a country is under.

Right, but hegemony adds a new layer of exploitation and oppression that is not present in a relatively sovereign state. The fewer the empire's vassal states, the weaker the empire; the weaker the empires, the weaker the global system as a whole.

Devrim

4th September 2010, 18:52

I get what you mean here, but to me such a universalist definition is so broad as to be practically meaningless. People in Beverly Hills don't experience imperialism the same way as civilians in Fallujah.

I have never been to Beverly Hills, but I would imagine that you are right and they don't. However, it doesn't mean that imperialism isn't a world system.

What makes the present different from the past in this regard?

I think that there was a point within the development of capitalism where 'independent' nations were possible in a way that is not today. Look at examples like the unification of Germany and Italy. I think upon capitalism reaching the limits of its geographic expansion, which left it with no new markets to conquer, we entered the period of imperialism and national 'independence' became an impossibility.

Right, but hegemony adds a new layer of exploitation and oppression that is not present in a relatively sovereign state. The fewer the empire's vassal states, the weaker the empire; the weaker the empires, the weaker the global system as a whole.

Only the great powers are 'relatively sovereign'. Unless capitalism is overthrown removing one 'empire's vassals' doesn't weaken the global system as a whole, but merely changes the balance of power within in. Britain was once the major world power. Its decline did not weaken the imperialist system, but merely strengthened the US, which in turn became the new world power.

Devrim

leninfan

4th September 2010, 19:55

Red Commissar

4th September 2010, 23:31

They got the most media spam they could out of it. This was joined by other stories such as the thing over the 14th amendment or Arizona's immigration law, among other things. They're played one after another and trying to carry over a right-wing rage right into the November elections.

Jimmie Higgins

5th September 2010, 00:23

Sorry to move a little way off of your discussion, but have you've noticed how the Mosque info has waned this week? I guess hurricanes and Labor Day are better for ratings. Why get everyone scared about Muslims when you should go and travel...spend your money on gas, hotels, and whatever???
I might be wrong, but I know for fact that the Islamic Center info took a back seat this week.

Yeah I read something in a mainstream newspaper that was comparing "interest in the story" to "media interest in the story" and they found that really people didn't care about the story as much as the media made it out to be. Sorry, I can't remember where I read it, but I think the drop-off in coverage reflects this.

I think the racism of the issue was becoming too obvious and apparent and so the media backed-off and there were op-eds criticizing the "tone" of the "debate". Even Pam "Pogrom" Geller told her astro-turfed bigot minions not to bring any signs to protests, but to bring flags instead. She said it was because of Labor Day, but I think the real reason is because all the images of blatantly racist signs were bringing too much heat on their little fascist scapegoat-group.