when will the left oppose radical islam.

[learningaboutheleft123]

Im not saying every socialist doesn't oppose radical islam, but here in the UK, I see the EDL being criticised all the time, but not organisations such as the MAC, the radical islamist group, who today have planned to cause chaos and upset at 11 o clock for the 2 minutes silence for the world war 1 heroes and veterans aswell as all those who died in Afghanistan. I don't agree with the war, but I think its important to respect those who have fought in a war not worth fighting.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

All organized religion is sooooooo overrated.

[The Idler]

If the leaders of wars were serious about respecting those fighting the wars, they wouldn't wage war.

As for socialist criticism of radical Islam, the SWP are regarded as soft on radical Islam, the AWL are regarded as much more critical of radical Islam. Likewise anarchists don't generally shy away from criticising Islam altogether as with all other religions.

[Revolutionair]

A couple of years ago.
God and the State anyone?

[Milk Sheikh]

I get a little suspicious whenever anyone talks about 'opposing radical Islam'. Why? Because most of the time, opposing radical Islam is just a clever way of opposing all brown-skinned people. So the real motive is to attack brown people under the pretext of 'opposing radical Islam.'

Enough said.:)

[Sasha]

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/ABUGRIFFINcopy.jpg

but, and lets make that an nice fat but, oposition against orthodox/radical islam should come first and foremost out of the islamic comunity itself.
waging campaigns against radical islam by non muslims, espacily insincere, smacking of racism, campaings by white imperialists are only counter productive.
as the left we should support leftist strugle by muslims/people from an muslim background against orthodox/fundamentalist islam, not dictate it nor let ourself be used by the rascist imperialists like the EDL rank and file.

[learningaboutheleft123]

abu hamza and nick griffin both have dodgy eyes loool.

[L.A.P.]

I get a little suspicious whenever anyone talks about 'opposing radical Islam'. Why? Because most of the time, opposing radical Islam is just a clever way of opposing all brown-skinned people. So the real motive is to attack brown people under the pretext of 'opposing radical Islam.'

Enough said.:)

Just because we oppose Islam doesn't mean we oppose Arab people, it's a stupid fucking religion and it's not being racist it's being rational.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

There's no point in focusing energy on opposing radical Islam. Radical Islam in western society is represented by a very small minority, that poses no real threat to us. Our real enemies are capitalists and state powers so why waste time opposing Islam? It is not a powerful force in itself that represents class antagonisms, therefore it is not a direct enemy.

If anything, radical Islam is a by-product of the class divisions of the world, so we should look at the broader picture and attack the real enemy.

[learningaboutheleft123]

I get a little suspicious whenever anyone talks about 'opposing radical Islam'. Why? Because most of the time, opposing radical Islam is just a clever way of opposing all brown-skinned people. So the real motive is to attack brown people under the pretext of 'opposing radical Islam.'

Enough said.:)

wtf, brown skinned people ? Islams a religion not a race. Theres plenty of brown skinned people who are christians, sikhs, hindus etc.

[learningaboutheleft123]

There's no point in focusing energy on opposing radical Islam. Radical Islam in western society is represented by a very small minority, that poses no real threat to us. Our real enemies are capitalists and state powers so why waste time opposing Islam? It is not a powerful force in itself that represents class antagonisms, therefore it is not a direct enemy.

If anything, radical Islam is a by-product of the class divisions of the world, so we should look at the broader picture and attack the real enemy.

Yes, but there are many muslim communities in the west. Therefore, if they become brainwashed by the minority, they turn into the majority, becoming a threat.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Yes, but there are many muslim communities in the west. Therefore, if they become brainwashed by the minority, they turn into the majority, becoming a threat.
But they aren't a genuine threat. There's no real need to oppose them until they become a qualitative influence on society, like fascists can and do.

The most radical elements of Islam here in the UK are usually 30 man demos in which they burn a poppy, the truth is that there is no threat from that level of activity. Islam isn't represented in any powerful institutions here, and doesn't have any real say in how society works and how governments run, so we might as well focus on the big things, like the savage cuts that are being made by white males in parliament.

I think that the best thing to do is see radical Islam as a response to our system, and then try to build genuine radical movements that unite all kinds of people in opposing the system that governs, rather than playing into ideological battles that create divisions in society and lead to more elements of radical Islam, thanks to the alienation of the Muslim community based on the actions of a few.

[learningaboutheleft123]

But they aren't a genuine threat. There's no real need to oppose them until they become a qualitative influence on society, like fascists can and do.

The most radical elements of Islam here in the UK are usually 30 man demos in which they burn a poppy, the truth is that there is no threat from that level of activity. Islam isn't represented in any powerful institutions here, and doesn't have any real say in how society works and how governments run, so we might as well focus on the big things, like the savage cuts that are being made by white males in parliament.

I think that the best thing to do is see radical Islam as a response to our system, and then try to build genuine radical movements that unite all kinds of people in opposing the system that governs, rather than playing into ideological battles that create divisions in society and lead to more elements of radical Islam, thanks to the alienation of the Muslim community based on the actions of a few.

But how do you know that some other muslims support what these 30 man demos are doing ? I'm not saying they do, but you don't know. Due to organisations such as the EDL, the mainstream muslims are going to join organisations such as MAC because they feel they are doing right for their religion.

[learningaboutheleft123]

and if that happens, we won't be around for much longer. We need to attract mainstream muslims to our organisations, but we do not condone religion.

[L.A.P.]

But they aren't a genuine threat.

Genuine threat or not I'm still opposing them.

[Dean]

Im not saying every socialist doesn't oppose radical islam, but here in the UK, I see the EDL being criticised all the time, but not organisations such as the MAC, the radical islamist group, who today have planned to cause chaos and upset at 11 o clock for the 2 minutes silence for the world war 1 heroes and veterans aswell as all those who died in Afghanistan. I don't agree with the war, but I think its important to respect those who have fought in a war not worth fighting.

-It is largely muslims who have been killed in those illicit wars.

-We already oppose radical Islam.

-Piss off child.

[The Count]

-It is largely muslims who have been killed in those illicit wars.

It was not "largely Muslims" who were killed in World War 1 & 2.


-We already oppose radical Islam.Yes, we do. However, learningaboutheleft123 was pointing out the hypocrisy that he has witnessed when it comes to the hesitence of some Socialists to criticize Islamic fundamentalist groups.

I think that most Socialists would agree that all kinds of religious fundamentalism should be opposed.

[learningaboutheleft123]

-It is largely muslims who have been killed in those illicit wars.

-We already oppose radical Islam.

-Piss off child.

already oppose radical islam ? so by 'we', do you mean every single socialist out there ? because I would beg to differ *****.

[gorillafuck]

Im not saying every socialist doesn't oppose radical islam, but here in the UK, I see the EDL being criticised all the time, but not organisations such as the MAC, the radical islamist group, who today have planned to cause chaos and upset at 11 o clock for the 2 minutes silence for the world war 1 heroes and veterans aswell as all those who died in Afghanistan.
Because the radical left should not attack insignificant groups that are being used as scapegoats. Opposing ones own domestic bourgeoisie and domestic government is most important, so in the UK radical leftists should not further their own governments scapegoating of Islam.


I don't agree with the war, but I think its important to respect those who have fought in a war not worth fighting.Respecting your own countries soldiers who have died more than the opposing sides soldiers who have died is nationalism.

[Dean]

already oppose radical islam ? so by 'we', do you mean every single socialist out there ? because I would beg to differ *****.
You're obviously not a leftist and you have an irrational fear of Islam. The contemporary usage of military fetishism is to support and further the West's war on Muslims.

And you're an accessory to this by furthering their rhetoric.

[gorillafuck]

You're obviously not a leftist and you have an irrational fear of Islam. The contemporary usage of military fetishism is to support and further the West's war on Muslims.

And you're an accessory to this by furthering their rhetoric.
Why are so many leftists really hot headed and impatient when faced with questions that a lot of people would ask?

[learningaboutheleft123]

You're obviously not a leftist and you have an irrational fear of Islam. The contemporary usage of military fetishism is to support and further the West's war on Muslims.

And you're an accessory to this by furthering their rhetoric.

No No No that is not true. I actually have many muslim friends and I understand that these 'extremists' as we call them are a minority. The majority of Muslims in this country are peaceful and don't want to cause harm. I'm just bewildered by some left wing parties who dont oppose it.

[Imposter Marxist]

already oppose radical islam ? so by 'we', do you mean every single socialist out there ? because I would beg to differ *****.

There is no need for that, Comrade.

[learningaboutheleft123]

There is no need for that, Comrade.

I only asked a question...now everyone is shitting themselves over it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Im not saying every socialist doesn't oppose radical islam, but here in the UK, I see the EDL being criticised all the time, but not organisations such as the MAC, the radical islamist group, who today have planned to cause chaos and upset at 11 o clock for the 2 minutes silence for the world war 1 heroes and veterans aswell as all those who died in Afghanistan. I don't agree with the war, but I think its important to respect those who have fought in a war not worth fighting.

Someone that refers to "WW I heroes" and radical Islam in the same sentence...seems a little fishy, but nevermind.
Anyway, I'd agree with the disruption of the proceedings which have to do with bloody imperialist wars. Even more so I would not respect those that have chosen to fight in Afghanistan (if they did in fact choose; if they didn't, IMO the best way to honor their deaths would be to prevent further bloodshed). Should we respect the military as well? The guardians of liberty?

I don't see a problem with what you mentioned. And I wouldn't think that ths disruption is something specific to "radical Islam".
On the other hand, sure, my opposition to any theocratic regime is firm and solid.

[learningaboutheleft123]

Someone that refers to "WW I heroes" and radical Islam in the same sentence...seems a little fishy, but nevermind.
Anyway, I'd agree with the disruption of the proceedings which have to do with bloody imperialist wars. Even more so I would not respect those that have chosen to fight in Afghanistan (if they did in fact choose; if they didn't, IMO the best way to honor their deaths would be to prevent further bloodshed). Should we respect the military as well? The guardians of liberty?

I don't see a problem with what you mentioned. And I wouldn't think that ths disruption is something specific to "radical Islam".
On the other hand, sure, my opposition to any theocratic regime is firm and solid.

Thankyou, atleast your not impatient and hysterical like the rest of em.

[L.A.P.]

I only asked a question...now everyone is shitting themselves over it.

don't worry too much about it, there are a lot of idiot Leftists that will cheerlead for groups such as Hamas, Al-Queada, and the Taliban and if you don't support them then they accuse you of not being a Leftist because real Leftists support theocracy and religious fundamentalism.:thumbup1::rolleyes:

[Sasha]

already oppose radical islam ? so by 'we', do you mean every single socialist out there ? because I would beg to differ *****.


have an verbal warning for predjuidiced language, dot use these kind of insults (or any insults at all actualy).

and also an verbal warbing all around, lets all keep it civil and have patience with those willing to learn.

[Sosa]

I oppose radical islam. I oppose all religions and all their extremists too.

[Hiero]

Just because we oppose Islam doesn't mean we oppose Arab people, it's a stupid fucking religion and it's not being racist it's being rational.


That is not being rational. You think calling people stupid is being rational? You think you are going to bring migrants and people form migrant background to left-wing secular movement by calling them stupid?

[Sosa]

That is not being rational. You think calling people stupid is being rational? You think you are going to bring migrants and people form migrant background to left-wing secular movement by calling them stupid?

To be fair they said the religion was stupid..not the followers of it.

[Hiero]

To be fair they said the religion was stupid..not the followers of it.

I know, but what does that imply for the followers?

[Sosa]

I know, but what does that imply for the followers?

I personally know smart christians and muslims, it doesn't stop me from telling them how stupid the religion they follow is.

[WeAreReborn]

I know, but what does that imply for the followers?
It just implies they are brainwashed. I think a lot of religions are stupid due to the irrational nature, but I respect a lot of the followers, the non extreme ones that is. I understand that they can be smart, nice and overall good people but they are just brainwashed or it was forced onto them. I also realize a situation could have triggered their need for something to follow.

[Hiero]

I personally know smart christians and muslims, it doesn't stop me from telling them how stupid the religion they follow is.


That is Christians and Muslims you know personally, and has little relation to mass work. If you are an anarchist or communist activist you think about the attitude of the masses, not your friends who may tolerate your offenses.



It just implies they are brainwashed. I think a lot of religions are stupid due to the irrational nature, but I respect a lot of the followers, the non extreme ones that is. I understand that they can be smart, nice and overall good people but they are just brainwashed or it was forced onto them. I also realize a situation could have triggered their need for something to follow.


I don't think you understand how ideology works. There is no brainwashing going on, the leadership the Mullahs and the Pope believe in their respective religions beliave just as much as their follows. Ideology arises from material conditions and "represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence" (Althusser). Ideology constitues the subject. It provides the individiual with their subjectivity, their identity, their worldviews and also it provides them with a real immediate community and a larger imagined community. Religion is an ideaology, and submission to ideology has no correlation to intelligence and all people submit to ideology. As ideology is a specific function for humans it is not "stupid". The statement "religion is stupid" is stupid.

[Sosa]

religion is stupid...nuff said

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Religion? Not my kind of opiate, sorry.

... if there was an omnipotent, omniscient being, she would be a goddess not a god.

[Sam_b]

Oh great, another thread where we go over all the stuff that was in another thread.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Jesus Christ, really?!

When will the left oppose radical islam?.... shall we say.... December 9th? About 2:15GMT?

Can I get seconded?

[WeAreReborn]

I don't think you understand how ideology works. There is no brainwashing going on, the leadership the Mullahs and the Pope believe in their respective religions beliave just as much as their follows. Ideology arises from material conditions and "represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence" (Althusser). Ideology constitues the subject. It provides the individiual with their subjectivity, their identity, their worldviews and also it provides them with a real immediate community and a larger imagined community. Religion is an ideaology, and submission to ideology has no correlation to intelligence and all people submit to ideology. As ideology is a specific function for humans it is not "stupid". The statement "religion is stupid" is stupid.
There is brainwashing going on. Sure a lot of them might not be brainwashed, but there are plenty of people who grow up in a Christian environment who are forced into believing it. Be it enforced by physical or emotional means is regardless. When you are forced into an ideal I consider it brainwashing. The rest are out of ignorance and they need a source of hope. It is understandable to grasp to such a concept of eternal and perfect life in such a horrible world we currently live in. But they should grasp something more concrete and realistic. So sure maybe the phrase "religions are stupid" may not be too intelligent, but I think everyone can agree "religions are destructive" is a fact.

[Property Is Robbery]

There is brainwashing going on. Sure a lot of them might not be brainwashed, but there are plenty of people who grow up in a Christian environment who are forced into believing it. Be it enforced by physical or emotional means is regardless. When you are forced into an ideal I consider it brainwashing. The rest are out of ignorance and they need a source of hope. It is understandable to grasp to such a concept of eternal and perfect life in such a horrible world we currently live in. But they should grasp something more concrete and realistic. So sure maybe the phrase "religions are stupid" may not be too intelligent, but I think everyone can agree "religions are destructive" is a fact.

Yep I was brainwashed into Catholicism when I was little and once I started thinking for myself when I was like 9 or 10 I realized it was bullshit.

[brigadista]

not another "islam "thread again with no context or global analysis...

[Nolan]

Trash thread. Infract OP.

[Hiero]

There is brainwashing going on. Sure a lot of them might not be brainwashed, but there are plenty of people who grow up in a Christian environment who are forced into believing it. Be it enforced by physical or emotional means is regardless. When you are forced into an ideal I consider it brainwashing. The rest are out of ignorance and they need a source of hope. It is understandable to grasp to such a concept of eternal and perfect life in such a horrible world we currently live in. But they should grasp something more concrete and realistic. So sure maybe the phrase "religions are stupid" may not be too intelligent, but I think everyone can agree "religions are destructive" is a fact.

You didn't actually respond to any of my points but the one about brainwashing. Which to do so requried you to ignore the major content of my post.

I am not talking about false hope or ignorance or the coercion that you are talking about. I am talking about the force choice. For alot of people the force choice feels unreflexive. A forced choice is like the incest rule, one is given the choice to accept the incest rule or to reject it, it is a forced choice because rejecting incest rule is exclusion from society. As you mentioned some people are born into Christian environment. That environment gives them identityy, subjectivity, membership in community and it defines their world outlook, it tells them left from right. In that sense it is positive, not destructive. It creates the individual. This is not in a moralist sense, but a sociological sense.

Saying "they need to grasp something more realistic" ignores context. It can not be drawn down to a simple free willed choice. That is also the contradiction in your statement, at one level they are coerced at another it is choice. I am saying that there are huge social forces and structures at work that determine one's very being.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Jesus Christ, really?!

When will the left oppose radical islam?.... shall we say.... December 9th? About 2:15GMT?

Can I get seconded?
It should be in February at the peak of my irritability in the early morning when I hate everyone and everything.

EDIT: end of the month...

[Turkocialist]

If you had done your research you would find that, the Twisted group of ''Muslims'' who burnt the poppy's in the silence campaigned and leafleted around a community of 30 thousand Muslims, only to be able to gather a petty 25 supporters. Every religion has its nut jobs (same as any organised society) Islam with a huge following is more likely to have more nut jobs. If 500 Muslims went on the streets opposing radical Islam i doubt the Media or the Islamophobes would take any notice, Talk about double standards? And i am not a Muslim even though i am Turkish, i just happen to have many Muslim friends and i can assure you that they are not calling for the destruction of anything western.

T

[IndependentCitizen]

Being blind in my right eye, I fear for my future. Every fascist/**** in general in politics has an issue with one of their eyes...

If you had done your research you would find that, the Twisted group of ''Muslims'' who burnt the poppy's in the silence campaigned and leafleted around a community of 30 thousand Muslims, only to be able to gather a petty 25 supporters. Every religion has its nut jobs (same as any organised society) Islam with a huge following is more likely to have more nut jobs. If 500 Muslims went on the streets opposing radical Islam i doubt the Media or the Islamophobes would take any notice, Talk about double standards? And i am not a Muslim even though i am Turkish, i just happen to have many Muslim friends and i can assure you that they are not calling for the destruction of anything western.

T
It amazes how countries like Iran, and Turkey's Muslim population are some what the least radical in the world, and seem to accept some Western culture. I saw pictures of women in Iran who were dressed fashionably which was influenced by fashion in the west which was still acceptable with Islam. And the Turks just seem so relaxed, every Turkish person I've met has been so chilled out, it's if you're all stoners :D

[WeAreReborn]

You didn't actually respond to any of my points but the one about brainwashing. Which to do so requried you to ignore the major content of my post.

I am not talking about false hope or ignorance or the coercion that you are talking about. I am talking about the force choice. For alot of people the force choice feels unreflexive. A forced choice is like the incest rule, one is given the choice to accept the incest rule or to reject it, it is a forced choice because rejecting incest rule is exclusion from society. As you mentioned some people are born into Christian environment. That environment gives them identityy, subjectivity, membership in community and it defines their world outlook, it tells them left from right. In that sense it is positive, not destructive. It creates the individual. This is not in a moralist sense, but a sociological sense.

Saying "they need to grasp something more realistic" ignores context. It can not be drawn down to a simple free willed choice. That is also the contradiction in your statement, at one level they are coerced at another it is choice. I am saying that there are huge social forces and structures at work that determine one's very being.
There is not contradiction I said some weren't and I was speaking for those who weren't. I also did not address the rest of the statement because I choose not to as I didn't see a point in it. I wanted to focus on one topic and did so. It creates the individual into one way of thinking. Would it be positive for a Fascist community to raise a kid who becomes a Fascist? You should give them identity but also open the child up to more then one linear way of thinking.

[gorillafuck]

Trash thread. Infract OP.
It's good to know that you vehemently oppose questions from people who are named "learning about the left".

To OP: The so called threat of radical Islam isn't actually something that exists in Britain, why should it be vocally opposed? Muslims are 3.3% of the population of England (and even less so in other parts of the UK), and only a tiny, tiny fraction of those are radical Islamists. You can see why it's basically a non-issue, and so being vocally opposed to it would only serve to advance the fearmongering campaign that Britain has been pursuing against Muslims.

[ClicheGuevara]

MAC burnt poppies for political not religious reasons. I don't agree with their actions but I think it's an important point that the media have strangely left out.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

wtf, brown skinned people ? Islams a religion not a race. Theres plenty of brown skinned people who are christians, sikhs, hindus etc.
And all sorts of Pagans.

[Rottenfruit]

Yep I was brainwashed into Catholicism when I was little and once I started thinking for myself when I was like 9 or 10 I realized it was bullshit.
I do oppose it , radical Islam is just as evil and dangerous as christian fundamentalism if not more so

[Dude]

All abrahamic religions are problematic. It would be a healthy thing to do to eradicate all of them.

[Trigonometry]

liberal Muslim here, not only am I opposed to radical Islam but also the huge organised religion of Islamic "scholars" "jurors" "judges" "hadiths" that is generally considered "moderate" and quite frankly openly against the ideas advocated by the prophet Muhammad himself.

[Milk Sheikh]

liberal Muslim here, not only am I opposed to radical Islam but also the huge organised religion of Islamic "scholars" "jurors" "judges" "hadiths" that is generally considered "moderate" and quite frankly openly against the ideas advocated by the prophet Muhammad himself.

Prophet Mohammed was one of the greatest men that ever lived and perhaps the greatest freedom fighter in history. He's an inspiration to all of us, theist or not.

[Widerstand]

He's an inspiration to all of us, theist or not.

speak for yourself

[Trigonometry]

Prophet Mohammed was one of the greatest men that ever lived and perhaps the greatest freedom fighter in history. He's an inspiration to all of us, theist or not.

Indeed I think it would be hard for anyone who has actually read about the life of Mohammad to say he was anything but radically progressive at the time, I myself might even say revolutionary.
Though I'd be reluctant to advocate this, as most of the supposedly highly enlightened intellectuals who have clearly seen through all the tricks and games and have made a most informed decision he is infact just an old pedophile :p and that clearly anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent and blatantly wrong and blindly following.

Some of the posters here remind me of Salafist sheikhs

[Widerstand]

Indeed I think it would be hard for anyone who has actually read about the life of Mohammad to say he was anything but radically progressive at the time, I myself might even say revolutionary.
Though I'd be reluctant to advocate this, as most of the supposedly highly enlightened intellectuals who have clearly seen through all the tricks and games and have made a most informed decision he is infact just an old pedophile :p and that clearly anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent and blatantly wrong and blindly following.

Some of the posters here remind me of Salafist sheikhs

Explain why following a dead, mystified figure should have any importance in my life.

[Hit The North]

Perhaps after we've settled our account with capitalism?

[RojoBandera]

I'm generally opposed to all religon, especially the more radical forms of it. But usually when people talk about opposing "radical Islam" what they really mean is hatred for any Muslim.

But any good commie is opposed too any kind of radical religion, because usually the end goal of those people is theocracy.

[Milk Sheikh]

Explain why following a dead, mystified figure should have any importance in my life.

Who's asking you to follow anybody? But one can always learn from the great men of the past, how they stood up to injustice and all that, even if we may not like them for other reasons.

[Yazman]

I do oppose radical islam. It isn't anything particularly unusual coming out of a gigantic world religion though, in my opinion.

[Black Sheep]

I find the statement/proposition of 'Opposing radical islam' inadequate and hypocritical.

As i do not only oppose imperialism, but capitalism as well, as i do not only oppose christian evangelism but christianity as well, i will oppose Islam all together and not just 'radical islam'.

For cryin out loud.

[Yazman]

Let me be perfectly clear then because I was drawn into the topic title myself.

I oppose Islam in a general sense as I am an anti-theist ideologically, but no more than I oppose christianity or hinduism or any other religion.

[Optiow]

I agree with the topic creator. We should always oppose such radicals from any religion, just as we would oppose a Nazi or a capitalist. They don't help the working class, so why should we support them?

[Crimson Commissar]

Indeed I think it would be hard for anyone who has actually read about the life of Mohammad to say he was anything but radically progressive at the time, I myself might even say revolutionary.
Though I'd be reluctant to advocate this, as most of the supposedly highly enlightened intellectuals who have clearly seen through all the tricks and games and have made a most informed decision he is infact just an old pedophile :p and that clearly anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent and blatantly wrong and blindly following.

Some of the posters here remind me of Salafist sheikhs
If he was a revolutionary he wouldn't be preaching about how we should all be slaves to god and how we should all worship him, he'd be preaching AGAINST that sort of bullshit.

[timbaly]

-It is largely muslims who have been killed in those illicit wars.

-We already oppose radical Islam.

-Piss off child.


Why do you think it's ok to reply with "piss off child" to new member who is trying to learn about the left? What makes it worse is that you're a moderator.

[psgchisolm]

If he was a revolutionary he wouldn't be preaching about how we should all be slaves to god and how we should all worship him, he'd be preaching AGAINST that sort of bullshit.
Slaves to God? How we should worship him? I'm pretty sure he never said anything about becoming enslaved to god, nor did he say to worship him. If anything he said the opposite(at least in the worshiping him part). It's like buddha, He told his followers he wasn't a god but they treated him as such and now today it's a major religion.

[Queercommie Girl]

Slaves to God? How we should worship him? I'm pretty sure he never said anything about becoming enslaved to god, nor did he say to worship him. If anything he said the opposite(at least in the worshiping him part). It's like buddha, He told his followers he wasn't a god but they treated him as such and now today it's a major religion.


You are right about the Buddha, (buddhas are more advanced than humans but they are not intrinsically superior, they are just like "teachers") but judging from primary historical sources, that's not what the "Abrahamic God" said. Though some people say early Christianity was directly influenced by Greco-Buddhism from Central Asia.

[TheGeekySocialist]

I oppose religious fundementalism, regardless of the religion

I am a Humanist as well as a Socialist

[PhoenixAsh]

For me it is very simple...I have no issue with faith. You can believe all you want, pray to everything you like and have as many immaginary friends as you feel you need...the way I see it that is something between you and your respective god or gods.

...a soon as it turnes into a religion and as soon as your faith steps into the public domain with the intent to enforce a set of believes....

That is when I will start to opose it.

Religion is a form of opression....

For me there is no difference between, for example, Christianity, Islam, Zionism, Judaism. The radical versions of these are IMO even worse.

So yes....I am anti-zionist, anti-Israel but also anti Hamas, Fatah en every other religiously inspired bunch of fanatics.

[PhoenixAsh]

this topic is....... yawnnnnnnn. it has been discussed ad nauseam, now let's move on and stop destroying brain cells.

And yet you bumb this after it being two days abandoned?

:thumbup1:

A subject being discussed over an over again doesn't mean this discussion is a waste of time. There are new members that probably have an opinion or two as well ;-)

[ddof5]

I get a little suspicious whenever anyone talks about 'opposing radical Islam'. Why? Because most of the time, opposing radical Islam is just a clever way of opposing all brown-skinned people. So the real motive is to attack brown people under the pretext of 'opposing radical Islam.'

Enough said.:)

you do realize that arabs are caucasian.

[#FF0000]

you do realize that arabs are caucasian.

That doesn't stop people from being racist against arabs or persians or south asians though. Do you think it does?

[NGNM85]

I get a little suspicious whenever anyone talks about 'opposing radical Islam'. Why? Because most of the time, opposing radical Islam is just a clever way of opposing all brown-skinned people. So the real motive is to attack brown people under the pretext of 'opposing radical Islam.'

Enough said.:)

In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. We should have enough faith in eachother and ourselves that we are smart enough to tell the difference. I abhor the resurgent racism that has become commonplace since 9/11, infecting our national discourse. However, this does not render me incapable of pointing out the fact that Islam is just as backward and hateful as it's older siblings.

[#FF0000]

In some cases it is, in some cases it isn't. We should have enough faith in eachother and ourselves that we are smart enough to tell the difference.

IIIII don't think that most people are actually.

[NGNM85]

IIIII don't think that most people are actually.

That's very possible, I was speaking mostly in terms of those of us, here, on this forum, but that doesn't necessarily negate your thesis. However, I doubt you would put yourself in that category.

[#FF0000]

That's very possible, I was speaking mostly in terms of those of us, here, on this forum, but that doesn't necessarily negate your thesis. However, I doubt you would put yourself in that category.

Oh, yeah I think most people on Revleft are smart enough to know the difference. I don't think most other atheists are, though.

[NGNM85]

Oh, yeah I think most people on Revleft are smart enough to know the difference. I don't think most other atheists are, though.

If anything, I think atheists are, generally, smarter than theists.

Regardless, my point is, simply, that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be hamstrung to the point where we can't call a spade a spade.

[#FF0000]

If anything, I think atheists are, generally, smarter than theists.

Maybe. I think a lot of atheists play it up for the same reason a lot of kids become libertarians out of nowhere. It makes people think you're smart and it's low-hanging fruit. I mean honestly the arguments we use are thousands of years old and no one cares how smart you sound when you parrot Epicurus for the billionth time.

But yeah "radical Islam" is some dumb shit.

[Crimson Commissar]

Maybe. I think a lot of atheists play it up for the same reason a lot of kids become libertarians out of nowhere. It makes people think you're smart and it's low-hanging fruit. I mean honestly the arguments we use are thousands of years old and no one cares how smart you sound when you parrot Epicurus for the billionth time.

But yeah "radical Islam" is some dumb shit.
Denying that radical islam exists isn't going to make it go away.

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe. I think a lot of atheists play it up for the same reason a lot of kids become libertarians out of nowhere. It makes people think you're smart and it's low-hanging fruit. I mean honestly the arguments we use are thousands of years old and no one cares how smart you sound when you parrot Epicurus for the billionth time.

But yeah "radical Islam" is some dumb shit.

Well don't you think that religious "kids" become religious for even more frivolous reasons than atheists? Especially those simple-minded evangelical types.

Hey I believe in God so this gives me a free fast ticket to eternal happiness in Heaven! :rolleyes:

Not just frivolous but actually somewhat delusional, don't you think?

And talking about Epicurus, well there are hundreds of atheist and humanist philosophers in ancient times, and they weren't all from Greece either. Confucius was a rational humanist too, for instance.

And for how many thousands of years and how many billions of times have the simplistic mythologies of the bible being repeated ad naseum? Yet people can still be respected as "scholars" simply for having the ability to memorise these mythological tales from antiquity.

Also right-wing political Islam (not "radical Islam", which can potentially mean anything, you could even say that Islamic socialism is "radical") is not just some "dumb shit", but is actually an immensely oppressive system that can be just as bad as fascism in some cases. People die due to oppression they suffer under right-wing theocracy. If one only strongly opposes fascism and Nazism but not right-wing theocracy, then frankly one does not even deserve the name "socialist".

[NGNM85]

I think it's important, at this point, to indicate the limitations of the term 'radical Islam.' I have actually used this term, myself, we could suggest a number of alternatives; fundamentalist Islam, Islamic extremism, etc. however, these terms are not without their own problems. The point is that this variety of Islam is not 'extreme' in the sense that it varies substantially from the core beliefs, in fact, for the opposite reason. Also, it is not 'extreme' or 'radical' in the sense that it is a marginal fringe, statistics show that, while a relatively small number of Muslims actually engage in religious terrorism, there is a frighteningly large demographic that support and sympathize with those who do.

[~Spectre]

I have actually used this term, myself, we could suggest a number of alternatives; fundamentalist Islam, Islamic extremism, etc. however, these terms are not without their own problems. The point is that this variety of Islam is not 'extreme' in the sense that it varies substantially from the core beliefs, in fact, for the opposite reason.

That's what "fundamentalist" means.

[NGNM85]

That's what "fundamentalist" means.

I was suggesting it as an alternative to 'radical' Islam, the term used by the OP.

[#FF0000]

Denying that radical islam exists isn't going to make it go away.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I was saying that radical islam is stupid.


Well don't you think that religious "kids" become religious for even more frivolous reasons than atheists? Especially those simple-minded evangelical types.

Hey I believe in God so this gives me a free fast ticket to eternal happiness in Heaven! :rolleyes:

Not just frivolous but actually somewhat delusional, don't you think?I think it's more likely that they believe it because they were raised with it. It's mind bogglingly stupid but as long as they shut the fuck up I'm fine.


And talking about Epicurus, well there are hundreds of atheist and humanist philosophers in ancient times, and they weren't all from Greece either. Confucius was a rational humanist too, for instance.
I know. I am just saying people being smug because they can drop a 1,000 year old quote is annoying.


And for how many thousands of years and how many billions of times have the simplistic mythologies of the bible being repeated ad naseum? Yet people can still be respected as "scholars" simply for having the ability to memorise these mythological tales from antiquity.I am pretty sure there are other reasons people are regarded as religious scholars but whatever. This is equally as dumb and I never suggested that it wasn't.

[Queercommie Girl]

The main problem in any case is not "radical Islam" (what if it's "radical" but in a progressive direction for instance), but right-wing political Islam.

As long as religion is secular, it is not really a big deal, but as soon as religion and politics combine into a theocracy, then it becomes an enemy of socialism for sure.

Theocracy must be explicitly and militantly opposed, just like fascism is.

In a socialist society, religions can only be secular and fit in with socialist laws and regulations, any political religion must be banned completely.

[Queercommie Girl]

I know. I am just saying people being smug because they can drop a 1,000 year old quote is annoying.


Are you saying Chen Duxiu, the great founder of the Chinese Communist Party, is "annoying"?

(To be fair though, Chen Duxiu didn't just "drop a quote" like your average Western petit-bourgeois on the street, he actually did a very good analysis of Confucianism)

Excerpts from Confucius and China, Chen Duxiu's Collected Works:

在现代知识的评定之下，孔子有没有价值？我敢肯定的说有。 　　孔子的第一价值是非宗教迷信的态度；自上古以至东周，先民宗教神话之传说，见之战国诸子及 纬书者，多至 不可殚述，孔子一概摈弃之，其设教惟德行、言语、政事、文学四科（见《论语·先进》），又“子 以四教：文、 行、忠、信。”（见《论语·述而》）

"According to the standards of modern knowledge, does Confucius have any value? I can definitely say yes. The primary value of Confucius is that he has a rational stance against religious superstition. From the most ancient times to the Eastern Zhou period, the Chinese had accumulated a huge amount of religious and mythological literature. Confucius threw all of them away, and created an education system based on the four subjects of Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics and Literature. (See Lunyu/Xianjin) And Confucian ethics is primarily based on four elements: "literary education, effective action, loyalty and faithfulness". (See Lunyu/Suer)"

科学与民主，是人类社会进步之两大主要动力。孔子不言神怪，是近于科学的；孔子的礼教，是反民 主的。人们把 不言神怪的孔子打入了冷宫，把建立礼教的孔子尊为万世师表，中国人活该倒霉！

"SCIENCE and DEMOCRACY are the two main dynamos of human social progress. Confucius does not talk about gods and spirits, in this he is close to SCIENCE, but the feudal rites of Confucius are anti-Democratic. The Chinese forgot about the scientific Confucius that does not talk about gods and spirits, yet established the Confucius of reactionary feudal rites as the "teacher of ten thousand generations". No wonder the Chinese suffered ill fates in history!"

[Obzervi]

The main problem in any case is not "radical Islam" (what if it's "radical" but in a progressive direction for instance), but right-wing political Islam.

As long as religion is secular, it is not really a big deal, but as soon as religion and politics combine into a theocracy, then it becomes an enemy of socialism for sure.

Theocracy must be explicitly and militantly opposed, just like fascism is.

In a socialist society, religions can only be secular and fit in with socialist laws and regulations, any political religion must be banned completely.

But laws are a major part of Islamic doctrine, so how is it possible to separate the two?

[NGNM85]

But laws are a major part of Islamic doctrine, so how is it possible to separate the two?

This is an excellent point, I was thinking the same thing. To the extent that the Koran and the ideas contained within are central to Islam there is no seperating it from the rest of the world.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Fascist or fundmentalist (insert religion here).

Which is worse, who should we oppose?

The ideal answer is both. Who, though, should we focus on? Really it depends on where you live, which has stronger influence.

Fundamentalist islam has little influence in the UK or USA. It, however, has strong influence in muslim nations. Vica versa with fascism.

It's also nice to note that religion and fascism oft go hand in hand.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's not "fundamentalist religion" but theocracy or political religion that should be opposed.

In a socialist society, people should have the democratic right to be evangelical religionists, as long as they don't interfere in politics.

Secularism must be an absolute political principle for socialists.

[Sam_b]

Denying that radical islam exists isn't going to make it go away

Neither will this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1981640&postcount=59 . You've been asked to back up your bigotry countless times and keep running away with your tail between your legs. I've reminded you of this thread in Visitor Messages and you haven't even had the gumption to reply.

So, when will you go away?

[Queercommie Girl]

^

Not to agree with Crimson's extreme anti-religion position, but generally speaking in a real socialist society we'd expect to see the gradual fading away of all superstitious and irrational religions. Marxism is itself an atheist, materialist and rational humanist philosophical tradition. Religions, after all, in Marx's own words, are the "spirit of an un-spiritual world". When the world is no longer "un-spiritual", this "spirit" is no longer needed.

Science and Democracy are the two main dynamos of human social progress, as China's socialist May 4th movement states, not religion.

As much as socialists should believe in the democratic rights of free belief, we shouldn't actually actively promote any religious system.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is an excellent point, I was thinking the same thing. To the extent that the Koran and the ideas contained within are central to Islam there is no seperating it from the rest of the world.

Early Islam had a partly progressive character. You will find that during the Middle Ages, the Islamic World was far superior to most of Europe.

While I completely reject any kind of theocratic system (in many ways theocracy is just as bad as fascism while in other ways not so much) and believe that any socialist must be a firm secularist, I find the notion of intrinsically and completely rejecting any cultural system to be somewhat cultural imperialist.

I'm a cultural internationalist and believe strongly in cultural pluralism. I believe the great spirit of the Enlightenment can potentially connect with any cultural system, including Islam.

[PhoenixAsh]

It's not "fundamentalist religion" but theocracy or political religion that should be opposed.

In a socialist society, people should have the democratic right to be evangelical religionists, as long as they don't interfere in politics.

Secularism must be an absolute political principle for socialists.


Could you explain what you mean with "politics"?

Because evangelical religions, especially the more fundamentalist/literal believe structures do have a tendency to repress certain freedoms. I am offcourse mainly refering to the right of women within religions. This does not happen in politics but in daily life.

[Queercommie Girl]

^

I'm not a militant anti-theist/religionist but I'm a militant secularist. I oppose all forms of theocracy and believe in the firm separation of religion and politics.

But I also support the democratic right of free belief. Marxist is an atheist philosophical tradition, but not an "atheist theocracy".

If fundamentalist groups (of any religion) try to interfere in local or national politics in any way, then this should of course be firmly opposed, but not the entire religion itself.

If fundamentalist groups (of any religion) culturally promote certain reactionary ideas, such as racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia, or say things which are fundamentally anti-socialist, but do not actually interfere in political or civil society, then we can't actually completely ban them politically just for this. But the socialist government should actively and publicly criticise these reactionary views through the media.

[Means to a end]

No one other than the very small minority that partake in radical Islam in society support it.

Get a average man and a average woman walking down the street, 10 times out of 10 they would be against radical Islam. I am, I think everyone on here would be as well, it is a form of fascism, no worse than the EDL.

So why should people be expected to speak out against something which nearly everyone is against and are in such a small group.