Why is Islam isolated...

[Lyev]

as a particularly oppressive religion? I was prompted to start this thread after (1) the discussion on the banning of burqa in France, (2) because I found the passage below quite interesting. And thirdly because I got into a discussion with a chap at college today (who was also pro-Iraq war) that had this idea - which I've heard once or twice before - that one of the reasons Islam is linked to many regimes in the form of theocracy (such as Iran) is because it's a relatively young religion, and therefore at a later stage in it's development hence why there's no Jewish or Christian regimes around the world. If this is the case, how, then, would we define Israel? Is Judaism tightly linked to Israel's law-making, system of politics etc.? It might seem obvious that is perhaps, but I want be careful of congealing Judaism and Zionism together here: what I mean is that this near-apartheid regime in Israel, Palestine, the Gaza Strip isn't simply because on two halves there's Muslims and Jews.

Anyway, with the supposition (and it's a rather erroneous one) that Islam is a particularly oppressive faith, and that Iran, especially, is an Islamic theocracy, this chap regarded the religion as a rather dangerous force, in a global context. And also because it perpetuates conflict in the middle-east. How close to reality are any of these claims? Anyway, as regards Islam and its link to politics I found this rather interesting:
Foucault was also fully justified in emphasizing Shia Islam's potential for serving as the ideological vehicle for a democratic-egalitarian movement: the opposition Sunni versus Shia is, in political terms, one of hierarchical state organization versus the egalitarian opening of the event. In contrast to both Judaism and Christianity, the two other religions of the book, Islam excludes God from the domain of paternal logic: Allah is not a father, not even a symbolic one —God as One is neither born nor does He give birth to creatures: there is no place for a Holy Family in Islam. This is why Islam emphasizes so much the fact that Muhammad himself was an orphan; this is why, in Islam, God intervenes precisely at the moments of the suspension, withdrawal, failure, "blackout," of the paternal function (when the mother or the child are abandoned or ignored by the biological father). What this means is that God remains thoroughly in the domain of the impossible-Real: He is the impossible-Real beyond the father, so that there is a "genealogical desert between man and God." (This was the problem with Islam for Freud, since his entire theory of religion is based on the parallel of God with the father.)



More importantly still, this inscribes politics into the very heart of Islam, since the "genealogical desert" renders impossible a grounding of the community in the structures of parenthood or other bonds based on blood: "the desert between God and Father is the place where the political institutes itself". With Islam, it is no longer possible to ground a community in the mode of Totem and Taboo, through the murder of the father, the ensuing guilt bringing brothers together—thence Islam's unexpected actuality. This problem is at the very heart of the (im)famous umma, the Muslim "community of believers"; it accounts for the overlapping of the religious and the political (the community should be grounded directly on God's word ), as well as for the fact that Islam is "at its best" when it grounds the formation of a community "out of nowhere," in the genealogical desert, as the egalitarian revolutionary fraternity—no wonder Islam succeeds when young men find themselves deprived of a traditional familial safety network. (p. 115-16, In Defense of Lost Causes, Zizek)



There's also something else that springs to mind, I think I remember reading somewhere that the word "Islam" is to be distinguished from "Islamism", the latter being a poltico-religious doctrine that hopes to establish a pan-Arabic empire of Islamic states, or something. I don't know much about myself; could someone elaborate on the concept? I think this isn't something that most Muslims uphold, and that it's also used by Zionists or Zionist apologists to defend Israel and it's actions, because it's surrounded by a "hordes of hostile Arab, Islamic nations", or something to that effect. It's a complex subject and I think much of the speculation can be reduced to a demonization of Islam in general (similar to the red scare, McCarthyism etc. in the '50s) to perpetuate and create support for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. What does everyone else think on the subject.

[blake 3:17]

Hopefully others will offer some informed thoughts on theological/religious questions.


as a particularly oppressive religion? I was prompted to start this thread after (1) the discussion on the banning of burqa in France, (2) because I found the passage below quite interesting. And thirdly because I got into a discussion with a chap at college today (who was also pro-Iraq war) that had this idea - which I've heard once or twice before - that one of the reasons Islam is linked to many regimes in the form of theocracy (such as Iran) is because it's a relatively young religion, and therefore at a later stage in it's development hence why there's no Jewish or Christian regimes around the world.

The theocracies are actually pretty rare -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and... Afghanistan doesn't really fit.

I think there are fairly recent conditions which have linked more conservative trends in Islam with certain forms of national liberation and class struggle. Western imperialism has been particularly vicious in attacking secular movements in the Middle East. Iraqi and Palestinian society were amongst the more gender equitable. Despite the theocracy Iran has a very rich secular culture.

[Start a Fire]

What you said about Islam being a young religion is a good point. Realize that in western countries, a wide variety of religions and philosophies are not only tolerated, but are accessible to the masses through the internet, free media etc. This type of religious freedom has only really been seen within the past few hundred years. Religion and oppressive governments really have a chokehold on the middle east, similar to Europe only a few hundred years ago. Give the middle east a few hundred years to progress, and I bet views on Islam will be more liberal, people will have more basic freedoms, and gender roles will change. This may be wishful thinking, but I think it's bound to happen sometime relatively soon.

People point out the lack of liberties in the middle east and use that to justify fear mongering and discrimination of muslims in western countries. The idea that muslims are trying to overpopulate in western countries and make the countries Islamic theocracies/destroy western culture is a delusional fantasy. Sure, there may be some fringe groups who want Sharia law, but do anybody take them seriously?

[Sir Comradical]

Islam is isolated because muslims happen to be sitting on a lot of oil.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, what we know as "Islamic terrorism" is in fact a hybrid of Asiatic feudalism and imperialism. It had been created to counter the spread of revolutionary ideologies in the oil rich middle east so that they will remain in imperialist grab. But, this strategy is now backfiring. How can we forgot that both Talibans and Bin Laden himself had been trained and armed by CIA. In 1980, the USA and its NATO allies boycotted Moscow Olympics to show solidarity with "Afghan freedom fighters". In Rambo III, Rambo fought beside the Taliban and jihadis against "communist murderers". Now, the freedom fighting is in the stage of 9/11, then whom the imperialist have to blame other than themselves.
This "Islamic terrorism" is their own created menace and they have to face it for a long time.

[Sir Comradical]

So, you think racism has nothing to do with it?

The cause is the imperialist quest for resources, racism is the means by which the cause can be justified.

[Sir Comradical]

Why cannot racism and national oppression be both the cause and the means by which Islamophobia is carried out?

If someone asks you "why is there so much racism towards muslims?", will you respond with "because there's racism towards muslims"? No. A materialist answer is much more fulfilling.

[AK]

We don't notice how oppressive Christianity is because most of the oppressive practises advocated by it (killing homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, women who are not virgins on the night of their weddings, all non-Christians and anyone who works on the Sabbath. Also the bible advocates things such as slavery) have since been outlawed. It doesn't really do much to answer your question, Lyev, but it shows that sometimes the oppressive nature of other religions is hidden, rather than non-existent. Islam is far from unique.

[NGNM85]

as a particularly oppressive religion? I was prompted to start this thread after (1) the discussion on the banning of burqa in France, (2) because I found the passage below quite interesting. And thirdly because I got into a discussion with a chap at college today (who was also pro-Iraq war) that had this idea - which I've heard once or twice before - that one of the reasons Islam is linked to many regimes in the form of theocracy (such as Iran) is because it's a relatively young religion, and therefore at a later stage in it's development hence why there's no Jewish or Christian regimes around the world. If this is the case, how, then, would we define Israel? Is Judaism tightly linked to Israel's law-making, system of politics etc.? It might seem obvious that is perhaps, but I want be careful of congealing Judaism and Zionism together here: what I mean is that this near-apartheid regime in Israel, Palestine, the Gaza Strip isn't simply because on two halves there's Muslims and Jews.

Although religion certainly plays a role, Israel/Palestine is more of a political, territorial issue.

That Islam is a comparatively younger religion is not the issue. The problem is for various historical reasons, the Middle East never experienced anything like the Enlightenment. Christianity used to be just as oppressive. People were tortured and executed for heresy, etc., just as they are today, in some parts of the Muslim world. Christianity and Judaism are no less barbaric. The difference is we have had years of secularization, which has pushed religion back. “ For many, many years in the West there was no separation between the church and the state, the cardinal rule was the ‘divine right of kings’, the idea that the monarchy inherited it’s authority from god, himself. Then came people like Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., leading to the development and popularization of the idea of democracy, of a secular state where the power came from the people, from the bottom up. Since that time, in the West, religion has been largely in retreat. The religion itself is unchanged, what has changed is what Western society will tolerate.


Anyway, with the supposition (and it's a rather erroneous one) that Islam is a particularly oppressive faith, and that Iran, especially, is an Islamic theocracy, this chap regarded the religion as a rather dangerous force, in a global context. And also because it perpetuates conflict in the middle-east. How close to reality are any of these claims? Anyway, as regards Islam and its link to politics I found this rather interesting:

Islam isn’t any more inherently oppressive than Christianity. The difference is, as I said, the Muslim world has not gone through this process of secularization, pushing religion back.

Religious extremism is always dangerous because it is fundamentally irrational and, thus, people become deranged by it. The Abrahamic faiths, in their most undiluted and virulent form, are especially dangerous for the concepts and attitudes that are integral to these religions. Today these beliefs are more dangerous than ever. The combination of preindustrial religious dogma and 21st century technology is a volatile mix, to say the least. In the atomic age the Abrahamic faiths now have the power to unleash violence of truly Biblical proportions.

This kind of religious fanaticism is incredibly corrosive to society. In the Middle East you also have great poverty, war, and political strife, mixed in with religious fanaticism to create a ‘perfect storm.’



There's also something else that springs to mind, I think I remember reading somewhere that the word "Islam" is to be distinguished from "Islamism", the latter being a poltico-religious doctrine that hopes to establish a pan-Arabic empire of Islamic states, or something. I don't know much about myself; could someone elaborate on the concept?

I dislike the term ‘Islamism’, I think words like ‘Whabbism’, ‘Qutbism’, ‘Islamic Jihad’, etc., are better phrases to describe this phenomena.

Jihadists are not nationalists, they define their community as religious, so, state boundries are sort of irrelevant. The ultimate goal of Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups is to conduct Islamic Jihad (“Holy War’) to the ends of establishing a pan-national radical Islamic caliphate. Here’s an excerpt from a memo published by Al-Qaeda presenting their goals for the next ten years;

1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries and engage the US in a long war of attrition.
4. Convert Al Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7th, 2005 London bombings.
5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the US will collapse, and a Wahabbi caliphate will be installed across the region.

This is relevant because it establishes their real target, not the West, but the Middle East, itself. That’s the ultimate target, the people of the Middle East, who are to be subjected to an international religious dictatorship.



I think this isn't something that most Muslims uphold,

Most, definitely not. However, these beliefs, or sympathy for those who hold them, while a minority view, are still held by a disturbingly large amount of people. Remember, Islam represents around a quarter of the worlds’ faithful, around one and a half billion, if even one percent are extremists, or sympathize with extremists, that’s a big problem.


and that it's also used by Zionists or Zionist apologists to defend Israel and it's actions, because it's surrounded by a "hordes of hostile Arab, Islamic nations", or something to that effect.

Israel could reduce it’s security concerns immensely, starting by capitulating to the international consensus supported by the UN, the Arab League, and even Hamas and Hezbollah. That would do more to bolster Israel’s security than all the military ordinance they could buy, or all the barriers they could build.


It's a complex subject and I think much of the speculation can be reduced to a demonization of Islam in general (similar to the red scare, McCarthyism etc. in the '50s) to perpetuate and create support for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. What does everyone else think on the subject.


Well, unfortunately recent events have stirred up a lot of anti-Arab racism. However, one must be able to differentiate between a very legitimate concern about violent religious extremism, and the thinly veiled racism, such as that which surrounds the present ‘Mosque’ controversy in New York.

[pranabjyoti]

What most have mentioned here as "Islamic" are basically feudal ideology and practices. The roots of feudalism is strong in Asia and for a long time, imperialism had watered this kind of mentality to prohibit the spread of Marxism and revolutionary ideologies in Asia, to be more specific in the oil rich middle east. How can we forget that most of those practices have been in practice by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the great world police of democracy, USA has never raised a finger against it and there is very little chance that it will do in future
Basically this kind of hypocrisy gives birth to what today known as "Islamic terrorism". It's basically an inevitable and unavoidable result of imperialism. In this case, tragically (or comically) the product of imperialism is now giving imperialism some tough time.
On one hand, you gave "political asylum" to Posada, on the other you bombed Afghanistan to find Laden, why history will tolerate such hypocrisy. After all, history always find some way to go forward while idiots are thinking that they are successful in stopping its flow.

[Kiev Communard]

Although religion certainly plays a role, Israel/Palestine is more of a political, territorial issue.

“ For many, many years in the West there was no separation between the church and the state, the cardinal rule was the ‘divine right of kings’, the idea that the monarchy inherited it’s authority from god, himself. Then came people like Hobbes, Rousseau, etc., leading to the development and popularization of the idea of democracy, of a secular state where the power came from the people, from the bottom up. Since that time, in the West, religion has been largely in retreat. The religion itself is unchanged, what has changed is what Western society will tolerate.

This is the most rational explanation. Also note that Islam has historically been integrated with the state power since the very outset, while Christianity has retained some vestiges of its anti-establishment tenets of the early period of its existence (mostly theoretically).