Islam: What the West Needs to Know [Archive]

Queercommie Girl

24th June 2011, 16:05

Obviously I oppose Islamophobia. The real enemy is theocracy and religious fundamentalism as far as this issue is concerned, not Islam as a religion intrinsically. Historically during the Middle Ages for instance the Islamic world was far more enlightened and tolerant than the Christian West and the barbaric massacres Christian Crusaders conducted in the Middle East, and other shit such as witch-burning.

However, in the context of contemporary socialist activism, sometimes there is a point in highlighting the reactionary nature of Islamism, because frankly some leftists become too fond of Islam. Islamophobia is wrong, but then Islamophilia is also wrong.

In China for instance some reformist Maoists say non-sensical things like "the alliance between the Chinese nation and the Islamic nation against the Anglo-Saxon nation"...

Royce Gracie Of Communism

24th June 2011, 16:15

Queercommie Girl

24th June 2011, 16:17

I think all theist institutions are insane, however I do not get why some people see Islam as some encroaching threat, as if its somehow more of a danger than capitalism and monopoly capitalism and its imperialist outcome.

It is not just stupid but its basically the same thing the extreme right are doing, its like people supposedly for human liberation who want to FORCEFULLY BAN a woman from wearing religeous garb of her choice lol.

what next, ban abortion to liberate unborn women in some warped feminism akin to laura bush supporting imperialism for womens rights?

It isn't more of a danger objectively, but then leftists don't have illusions about capitalism either.

The point I'm making is that some leftists have illusions about Islam, so sometimes it's good to highlight the reactionary nature of Islamism more specifically.

Royce Gracie Of Communism

24th June 2011, 16:23

I agree some people fetish things they should not in some wierd anti american self hating way like third worldists for example.

But I seriously think islamophobia is a real problem on the left wing, as this nationalist populism has infested the left, its so ridiculous, the "islamofascists" are no threat, they are only a threat to the peoples of some other places like for example, the middle east, but there we as a political group do not as far as i am aware support the taliban or AQ but support the smaller groups fighting for genuine liberation and the peoples in these places as a whole to liberate themselves.

Queercommie Girl

24th June 2011, 16:28

Well theocratic Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia really aren't so different from fascism in the concrete empirical sense. (Of course, SA is actively supported by the US)

There is a difference between countering racism and supporting the poor masses of the Third World and actually supporting, however critically, explicitly reactionary socio-economic and political institutions that exist there.

SacRedMan

24th June 2011, 16:31

Why do we need to watch another islamophobic item that says islam is a political cult not a religeon and goes, oh, the koran has horrific shit in it. I got news for you, so does every religon, Islam has done far less damage than say christianity has and is doing across for example Africa, inspiring killing of children, murder of muslim tribes and ethnic cleansing etc etc.

Unless your calling out the video as pogrom material, then i apologise

If you don't want to watch the video just say so instead of reacting with an argument that is explained in the video.

Royce Gracie Of Communism

24th June 2011, 16:32

I do not support the Taliban or Hamas etc, I do not support dictators for "anti imperialist reasons" i just dont see why we need to be constantly told of the encroaching threat of islam.

Most muslims I know are far more normal than the christian ford focus driving cardigan wearing im going to heaven because i donated tinned peaches at the harvest festival assholes who look down at me all the time.

Not every muslim does war cries and tries to marry 4 year old kids.

SacRedMan

24th June 2011, 16:44

Queercommie Girl

24th June 2011, 16:59

Objectively in the pre-modern era, Islam was actually a lot more tolerant and peaceful than Christianity was. Remember the Crusades? Witch-hunting? Burning scientists to death on a fucking stick?

In the Middle Ages Christian Europe was a land of barbaric savages in comparison to the Oriental civilisations of Islam and China.

There is nothing intrinsically more reactionary in Islam, other than the fact that all religions are reactionary to some extent. To think that Islam is intrinsically worse than Christianity is simply Eurocentric cultural essentialist non-sense.

The only thing I'd say is that today Islam does tend to be more explicitly theocratic and fundamentalist than Christianity. But that's not because of anything intrinsic in Islam, rather it is the result of the underdeveloped nature of the Islamic world, something which is ultimately caused by Western imperialism.

ZrianKobani

24th June 2011, 19:54

I think Anti-Flag summed it up best in their song, Sodom, Gommorah, Washington D.C.

Allah, Jesus, and Muhammad
Their words have way more in common than*the Midwest or Middle East like to preach
It's a tragedy
It's a strategy
To prey on contrast to not indulge fact
Divide conquer and subcontract
The scriptures blind followers read are not as cryptic as they seem
The pages serve the sick and poor, not to serve the capitalists of endless war
Religion is the opium of the meek

ComradeMan

24th June 2011, 22:05

Objectively in the pre-modern era, Islam was actually a lot more tolerant and peaceful than Christianity was. Remember the Crusades? Witch-hunting? Burning scientists to death on a fucking stick?

There's a church in southern Italy that contains the skulls and bones of the 800 christians murdered by the Ottomans as infidels (despite being People of the Book) in the pre-modern era.

As usual, it's always anyone or anything against all Christians and Europeans.

In the Middle Ages Christian Europe was a land of barbaric savages in comparison to the Oriental civilisations of Islam and China.

Yeah, Rome, Florence, Pisa and Bologna with the oldest university in the world, Byzantine Constantinople and Southern France were all completely barbaric and inferior....

Give us a break with your narrow-minded prejudice.

By the way, serious anthropologists and historians don't go around using terms like "barbaric savages".

Does that mean that you consider some so-called "primitive" peoples today to be barbaric savages? And by what means do you justify describing people as barbaric savages?

There is nothing intrinsically more reactionary in Islam, other than the fact that all religions are reactionary to some extent. To think that Islam is intrinsically worse than Christianity is simply Eurocentric cultural essentialist non-sense.

As usual you defend one thing to the contrary of how you attack the other. There is no "one" Islam to start with, just as there is no "one" Christianity. In the mean time ask the Zoroastrians, Bahais, Coptic Christians etc how tolerant their Islamic neighbours are at times.
(Not aimed at all Muslims by any means).

The only thing I'd say is that today Islam does tend to be more explicitly theocratic and fundamentalist than Christianity. But that's not because of anything intrinsic in Islam, rather it is the result of the underdeveloped nature of the Islamic world, something which is ultimately caused by Western imperialism.

In trying to defend Islam, you actually insult it. Well done. The underdeveloped nature of the Islamic world? GTF!!!

Have you ever read the Qu'ran? :rolleyes:

manic expression

24th June 2011, 22:59

Yeah, Rome, Florence, Pisa and Bologna with the oldest university in the world, Byzantine Constantinople and Southern France were all completely barbaric and inferior....
As a city, Rome was pretty inferior until the Renaissance. For instance, in around the 600-700's (IIRC) its draining system fell apart (the visiting Byzantine Emperor stripped all the metal from the public works and no one could repair them) and the forum area filled up with sewage and wasn't really cleared out for around 700 years. The Colosseum was used as a graveyard. The papacy became a pathetic self-mockery (look up the Cadaver Trial) controlled by rival powers.

Only when 1000 rolled around did Europe start to get back on its feet. That's when the Italian city-states you mention started to become something of regional powers in a region that included the presence of Islamic and Byzantine domains.

One of the ironies here, I think, is that the Islamic world's wealth of knowledge really came from other peoples. They learned administration, math, astronomy, architecture, paper-making, philosophy and more from Byzantines, Persians, Chinese and even Visogoths (you know that horseshoe-style arch that's so closely associated with Muslim Spain? That was actually a Visogothic innovation adopted by the rulers of Al-Andalus). But the Muslims absorbed it and added to it when others couldn't, and that's what made the Islamic world such a source of knowledge for so many centuries.

Queercommie Girl

24th June 2011, 23:09

There's a church in southern Italy that contains the skulls and bones of the 800 christians murdered by the Ottomans as infidels (despite being People of the Book) in the pre-modern era.

As usual, it's always anyone or anything against all Christians and Europeans.

All peoples committed atrocities throughout history, but relatively speaking during the Middle Ages the Islamic world was generally more enlightened and tolerant. Consider for instance the treatment of Jews: Jews were treated terribly in Europe, but were tolerated in the Middle East, even though they had to pay a slightly higher tax.

Yeah, Rome, Florence, Pisa and Bologna with the oldest university in the world, Byzantine Constantinople and Southern France were all completely barbaric and inferior....

Give us a break with your narrow-minded prejudice.

By the way, serious anthropologists and historians don't go around using terms like "barbaric savages".
It's relative. There is a reason why the Middle Ages in Europe were referred to as the Dark Ages.

I might have been deliberately stressing a point, but if you note the context, it is mainly to counter the ridiculous Eurocentric cultural essentialist and Islamophobic idea that Islam is intrinsically more reactionary than Christianity. (See the video link)

For reference, have a look at Chris Harman's A People's History of the World, global history from a Marxist perspective.

Does that mean that you consider some so-called "primitive" peoples today to be barbaric savages? And by what means do you justify describing people as barbaric savages?
I used this term deliberately to counter Eurocentrism. Objectively it just means back in the Middle Ages Europe was less developed and more primitive than Asia. There is nothing discriminatory in pointing this out.

As usual you defend one thing to the contrary of how you attack the other. There is no "one" Islam to start with, just as there is no "one" Christianity. In the mean time ask the Zoroastrians, Bahais, Coptic Christians etc how tolerant their Islamic neighbours are at times.
(Not aimed at all Muslims by any means).
My point here is to counter the ridiculous idea the Islam is intrinsically worse and more reactionary than Christianity.

In trying to defend Islam, you actually insult it. Well done. The underdeveloped nature of the Islamic world? GTF!!!

Have you ever read the Qu'ran? :rolleyes:
You are truly an idiot. What does the Qu'ran have to do with anything? Do you understand anything about contemporary economics or geopolitics? How the fuck is it discriminatory in any way what-so-ever to simply point out the objective fact that the Islamic world is generally speaking significantly less developed and advanced than the West today? (Back in the Middle Ages Muslims were generally more advanced but today it is the other way around) It's like I'm Chinese but I would explicitly state that China today is still on the whole a poor developing country. Does that mean I'm self-racist towards the Chinese? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I say explicitly again that the Islamic world today is significantly under-developed, so are China and India. 99.9% of socialists would agree with my objective statement here. If you think this is racist or discriminatory, you have a serious problem with the understanding of basic concepts. A serious problem.

You seem to view history in a metaphysical and static way, which is contrary to the methods of Marxism.

Hebrew Hammer

25th June 2011, 01:11

If memory serves, the documentary is bullshit further, the West (in general) seems to know jack shit about Islaam.

Zealot

25th June 2011, 06:21

I only watched close to 20 minutes of it and came to the conclusion that these people had no idea what Islam teaches. Pure propaganda, supplying next to no sources and where they do it was twisted out of context to make a lame argument. I've read the quran and hadith and what they're trying to claim simply isn't there.

Their verses about killing were in the context of war, it wasn't encouraging psychopathic killing sprees as they seem to suggest. And what about the Jewish "massacre" of the Qurayza tribe? They broke a treaty that they had with the muslims when they decided to join the Quraysh tribe in an offensive, after the muslims won they asked to be judged by Sa'd who was a former Jew, who then proceeded to judge them with their own Jewish laws for treason.

I'm an Atheist and I would love to agree with them but I'd rather talk the truth.

ComradeMan

25th June 2011, 07:31

It's relative. There is a reason why the Middle Ages in Europe were referred to as the Dark Ages.

Dark Ages is not a term used any more, apparently, and referred to the "darkness" when Latin learning and the Latin language faded and the European vernaculars arose.

I might have been deliberately stressing a point, but if you note the context, it is mainly to counter the ridiculous Eurocentric cultural essentialist and Islamophobic idea that Islam is intrinsically more reactionary than Christianity. (See the video link)

Two wrongs don'tn make a right.

You are truly an idiot. What does the Qu'ran have to do with anything?

Well in the Islamic world I would say it might just have a slight influence.... :rolleyes:

La Comédie Noire

25th June 2011, 08:16

The Middle East is predominately Islamic, therefore they will be inspired and formulate ideas in the language of their religion. Just as early European politics was dominated by the language and symbols of Christianity. In fact a lot of early socialists were christian and used scripture to justify a communal lifestyle.

Now, I would love for their to be a secular, communist, anti imperialist movement in the middle east and recent developments, such as the emergence of the Egyptian Communist party, seem to point to that, but until then we have to let them discover secularism at their own pace.

Otherwise you wind up supporting terribly chauvinistic crap like the people who think the burqua bans or the knocking down of minarets are a victory for a secular society.

Islam does not make Muslims blood thirsty, but imperialist oppression does.

Os Cangaceiros

25th June 2011, 08:27

Islam does not make Muslims blood thirsty, but imperialist oppression does.

I don't necessarily think that Islam makes people bloodthirsty, but it is interesting to note that many of the more famous Salafists activists (such as, for example, Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Alaki or Mohammed Atta) didn't grow up in a Palestinian refugee camp or impoverished working class district, and instead were raised in comfortable upper-or-middle class settings.

La Comédie Noire

25th June 2011, 08:48

I don't necessarily think that Islam makes people bloodthirsty, but it is interesting to note that many of the more famous Salafists activists (such as, for example, Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Alaki or Mohammed Atta) didn't grow up in a Palestinian refugee camp or impoverished working class district, and instead were raised in comfortable upper-or-middle class settings.

This is true and so were a number of anarchists and communists. In societies where literacy is not wide spread it is often the intelligentsia who disseminate political ideas to the lower classes. Not that I'm saying those ideas are necessarily correct.

EDIT:

I should also add that literacy rates are not the only indicator of political consciousness, as we can see from this chart, The literacy rates of middle eastern countries varies.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/middleeast101/a/me090425b.htm

There is also a matter of sufficient leisure time to study political ideas as well as a number of other factors. I mean literacy rates in the European industrialized nations are in the 90s, but not everyone is walking around with a working knowledge of Das Kapital.

Os Cangaceiros

25th June 2011, 09:08

This is true and so were a number of anarchists and communists. In societies where literacy is not wide spread it is often the intelligentsia who disseminate political ideas to the lower classes. Not that I'm saying those ideas are necessarily correct.

*shrug* in much of the Arab world (such as, say, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon) literacy is fairly widespread, in the 90th percentile. In other countries it's much lower.

(according to this (http://www.dvv-international.de/index.php?article_id=208&clang=1))

But yes, I would go as far as to say that in any society it's the "intelligentsia" who disseminate political ideas. Turn on a television or open a newspaper and you'll see plenty of experts in given fields delivering concise soundbits that are ready for re-use as opinions.

edit: in lieu of your edited post, I would agree that it's not the only factor. There's also not a lot of publishing going on in the Arab world, or so the google machine informs me.

ComradeMan

25th June 2011, 09:21

What makes me laugh, ironically, at times is that when Christians of whatever denomination (usually minority groups) do something then it's a whole litany of how evil and reactionary Christianity is etc etc, slightly less so with Judaism but then the whole Zionist thing get's pulled into the argument. When people express valid concerns with sections of Islam they are branded Islamophobes and there is an immediate defense of Islam. :confused:

Comparing Salafists and Wahabbis to Ahmadiyya followers and Sufis... FFS :rolleyes:
I suggest reading this Al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya an Islamic refutation of Wahabbism written by the brother of the founder of Wahabbism. ;)

Hebrew Hammer

25th June 2011, 21:08

I don't necessarily think that Islam makes people bloodthirsty, but it is interesting to note that many of the more famous Salafists activists (such as, for example, Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al Alaki or Mohammed Atta) didn't grow up in a Palestinian refugee camp or impoverished working class district, and instead were raised in comfortable upper-or-middle class settings.

But if you actually read the things Osama wrote you will see that his motivations were largely political rather than religiously driven. For example, have you read his Oath to America? It talks about the killing of Palestianians, Iraqis, etc. If you look past the religious words he uses like umma and other such things, you will see that a lot of their grievances deals with political concerns within the region and Western imperialism. I think Islaam is seen as a uniting tool against oppression and imperialism hence why you see these "radical Islamist groups," popping up. Then you could argue, that even if you live in Saudi Arabia or UAE or Pakistan or places other than Palestine that you should be concerned with the plight of fellow Muslims and he who doesn't, isn't a true Muslim.

La Comédie Noire

25th June 2011, 21:08

I don't know what do you guys think. Is violent jihadism and small conspirator groups going to be supplanted by mass movements in the middle east?

I'd say in the long run yes, but for right now it seems like terror attacks are increasing and escalating:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13914252

hatzel

27th June 2011, 18:11

Dark Ages is not a term used any more, apparently, and referred to the "darkness" when Latin learning and the Latin language faded and the European vernaculars arose.

The idea of the Dark Ages is very Eurocentric. As we all know, it seemed to coincide with a glorious period in the Islamic and pre-Islamic world. But, perhaps, it was comparatively 'dark' for European standards. Still, didn't keep the ol' post-Dark Age Europeans from pretty much copying everything that had been achieved on the other side of the Mediterranean during those centuries and pretending they were friggin' awesome for 'coming up with it' :lol:

ComradeMan

27th June 2011, 20:11

Viet Minh

29th June 2011, 20:34

The idea of the Dark Ages is very Eurocentric. As we all know, it seemed to coincide with a glorious period in the Islamic and pre-Islamic world. But, perhaps, it was comparatively 'dark' for European standards. Still, didn't keep the ol' post-Dark Age Europeans from pretty much copying everything that had been achieved on the other side of the Mediterranean during those centuries and pretending they were friggin' awesome for 'coming up with it' :lol:

I'm straying off topic here, but I just read an interesting article in Fortean Times (yeah I'm one of those types!) about Phantom time hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis) it makes an interesting case..

Going back on topic these issues are not unique to Islam, bad things often happen when you mix religion and politics imo. Not because there is necessarily anything fundamentally wrong with the religions themselves, but because people misinterpret them to their own ends and the message becomes corrupted. Of the many Islamic states, none actually follow Shariah Law to the letter, except perhaps Saudi Arabia, although of course they have other laws in place above and beyond Shariah Law.

Franz Fanonipants

30th June 2011, 18:10

Iseul - A Doctor of History

Anyways, OP is full of shit and should probably be restricted for posting European Muslim Pogrom-fuel.

Franz Fanonipants

30th June 2011, 18:11

like literally guys eu gonna holocaust muslims

Franz Fanonipants

30th June 2011, 18:16

Robocommie

30th June 2011, 18:21

like literally guys eu gonna holocaust muslims

Seriously, I worry about this. All it's going to take is just a little more economic havoc, like the kind that capitalism is extremely prone to, and then more right-wing, anti-immigrant populist bullshit of the kind coming out of Europe right now, and you'll start seeing Muslims being put in "detention camps" or something. Camps to defend the liberal, rational west from the unthinking, savage, wife-beating hordes of Mohammedans. It's a genuine nightmare I have.

tracher999

30th June 2011, 18:29

i m not intrestet in islam because they are to extreme in his religion
thats the reason why you get that fucking terrorists and all that shit
i dont wanna sound like a facist but its my meaning i do not now anny
other religion that is so extreme

greetz

Franz Fanonipants

30th June 2011, 18:34

727Goon

30th June 2011, 19:58

Anti-islamism is completely legitimate. If you live in the middle east. If you're in Europe though you're basically the 21st century equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer. Sorry.

#FF0000

30th June 2011, 20:05

bcbm

30th June 2011, 20:39

Seriously, I worry about this. All it's going to take is just a little more economic havoc, like the kind that capitalism is extremely prone to, and then more right-wing, anti-immigrant populist bullshit of the kind coming out of Europe right now, and you'll start seeing Muslims being put in "detention camps" or something. Camps to defend the liberal, rational west from the unthinking, savage, wife-beating hordes of Mohammedans. It's a genuine nightmare I have.

these camps already exist, they are just for immigrants, but i think such a backlash would be directed in this way then specifically at muslims, though they are a large part of immigrant communities in many places and no doubt more hysterical propaganda would spring up.

bcbm

30th June 2011, 20:40

I have a couple for you:

Christianity and Judaism.

hinduism has its fair share of extremists as well

#FF0000

30th June 2011, 21:32

hinduism has its fair share of extremists as well

From what I understand,, the different Buddhist sects in Korea are basically like the Jets and the Sharks. I think this counts as extremism too.

Robocommie

1st July 2011, 02:53

I think the main thing to remember is that every social or cultural group/ideology has its lunatics. I'm sure everyone here can sympathize with that notion.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

1st July 2011, 03:39

Iseul - A Doctor of History

Anyways, OP is full of shit and should probably be restricted for posting European Muslim Pogrom-fuel.

Aren't you the guy who said Bahai are Zionist reactionaries? :confused:

I have a couple for you:

Christianity and Judaism.

hinduism has its fair share of extremists as well

What Robocommie said. There isn't a major religion in history, with the possible exception of Jainism, which has not produced violent fundamentalists. All you need is for the community to feel under threat (usually this feeling of threat is inflated by various interest groups) for conservative polemicists to encourage violence from the people.

Jewish extremists target Muslims, gays, secularists and Jews of less conservative or orthodox sects, etc
Christian extremists target Muslims, abortion clinics, gays, neopagan folks, other religious minorities within and outside of Christianity etc
Muslim extremists target Christians, Muslim minorities, Hindus, Buddhists, Gays, Sikhs, etc
Hindu extremists target Muslims, Christian missionaries, other Hindu sects, and there is caste discrimination which is related etc
Buddhist extremists target Hindus in Sri Lanka and Muslims in Thailand, etc
The list goes on

What you'll find is that those extremists are almost always exaggerating the importance of certain texts or historical facts and omitting others, all to encourage the sense of victim-hood which justifies the violence which they are committing or are encouraging others to commit. You'll also find voices encouraging peace or simply ignoring the calls for violence and focusing on spiritual matters-these folks are sometimes the most hated by the extremists.

The proper response isn't to think up borderline-fascist bullshit which reduces an entire religious community to the actions of a minority. It is much better to research the social and historical conditions of the people who all share this faith. The propagandistic nonsense in the OP is not a basis for this kind of research.

Robocommie

1st July 2011, 03:48

these camps already exist, they are just for immigrants, but i think such a backlash would be directed in this way then specifically at muslims, though they are a large part of immigrant communities in many places and no doubt more hysterical propaganda would spring up.

In any case, anti-Islamic hysteria can only strengthen anti-immigrant hysteria in general.

Viet Minh

1st July 2011, 17:50

Robo I share your concern, perhaps its even more stark here in the UK where we (I think) have a higher Muslim population percentage. The tabloids constantly cherrypick crap to whip up the general populous into a self-righteous frenzy, and its basicaly because of them that groups like the EDL exist.

The 'extremists' in my opinion are not muslims at all, nowhere in the Koran does it tell you to blow yourself up, in fact suicide is a major sin in Islam. Also the concept of jihad is very much misinterpreted for political ends. The mainstream of Islam completely rejects the extremists, they are almost a sect of their own much like the differences between Sunni, Shia and Sufi.

Franz Fanonipants

1st July 2011, 18:52

Aren't you the guy who said Bahai are Zionist reactionaries? :confused:

y que?

ComradeMan

2nd July 2011, 08:44

Anti-islamism is completely legitimate. If you live in the middle east. If you're in Europe though you're basically the 21st century equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer. Sorry.

That is a complete stupid attitude to take. It would be like saying that anti-nazism during the Second World War was only valid for Europeans and therefore the US were nazis for fighting the nazis? Anyway- we are not talking about nazis and the appeal to emotional shock value with "nazi sympathiser" is pathetic.

When rightwing Christian groups, who do not represent the majority of Christians, or rightwing hardcore Jewish groups- again not the majority of Judaism, propose crazy medieval stuff they are verbally trashed from all corners- the same should be valid for Islamic groups.

So if Muslim people (regardless of ethnicity) live in Europe (as they have done for centuries) and live in peace then I have no problem whatsoever. But if some nutcase is going to have his daughter burned alive for refusing an arranged marriage and then tries to play the "islam" card- he should be trashed verbally just as any other religion.

And don't try to tell me that this shit is all media hysteria- it happens. Within the diverse Islamic community in Europe (which I believe is larger than the US) there are ALSO reactionary elements and fanatics.

It is the responsibility too of the wider Islamic community to address those within the community who often speak "in the name of Islam" and subsequently cause so many problems to the community. That's why I personally would support some kind of Muslim Council for Europe.

727Goon

9th July 2011, 05:53

Islam is not a threat as a political force in Europe so singling out Islam is just jingoistic bullshit.

Comrade Crow

9th July 2011, 07:11

Speaking as a Muslim, I can say this documentary is complete bullshit.

ComradeMan

9th July 2011, 07:53

Islam is not a threat as a political force in Europe so singling out Islam is just jingoistic bullshit.

You might want to tell the victims of the London or Madrid bombings that Islamists are not a threat.

Once again, I have no problem with normal Muslims but to deny that radical and dangerous elements exist in the Islamic community (as in many communities) is foolish.

Franz Fanonipants

12th July 2011, 17:16

You might want to tell the victims of the London or Madrid bombings that Islamists are not a threat.

because islam was what the london and madrid bombings were all about

not, you know, imperialist occupation or any other mat'l conditions, but rather just islam the idea blowing shit up

ComradeMan

12th July 2011, 17:53

because islam was what the london and madrid bombings were all about

not, you know, imperialist occupation or any other mat'l conditions, but rather just islam the idea blowing shit up

Oh stfu with the apologism. If a Christian lunatic blows up an abortion clinic it's Christians this and Christians that. If Hindu nationalists do something it's much the same, but when it's done by Muslims in the name of Islam it's suddenly everyone else's fault. I am not saying ALL Muslims or ALL of Islam FFS but there's no use denying that Islam too has it's reactionary elements.

Franz Fanonipants

12th July 2011, 17:58

If a Christian lunatic blows up an abortion clinic it's Christians this and Christians that.

lol bro

bcbm

12th July 2011, 20:25

Oh stfu with the apologism. If a Christian lunatic blows up an abortion clinic it's Christians this and Christians that.

the growth of the anti-abortion movement and especially its violent fringe can be tied to deindustrialization and feelings of uselessness or powerlessness in many men who no longer have the role of "breadwinner" or a respectable career and seek to re-assert this masculinity through dominance over women's bodies.

but when it's done by Muslims in the name of Islam it's suddenly everyone else's fault. I am not saying ALL Muslims or ALL of Islam FFS but there's no use denying that Islam too has it's reactionary elements.

of course it does, but this video and a lot of the stuff like it is basically saying all islam is the enemy and part of a conspiracy to overtake the west or similar nonsense. and there is of course nothing wrong with trying to understand the material conditions that produce religious violence

Queercommie Girl

15th July 2011, 22:16

Dark Ages is not a term used any more, apparently, and referred to the "darkness" when Latin learning and the Latin language faded and the European vernaculars arose.

Well, depends on who you ask. There are always debates in academic circles, but regardless of what terms are used, most agree that the post-Roman world in Western Europe was generally less advanced and less prosperous than the classical Roman period until at least the 12th century CE, and that Western Europe during this period was less advanced and sophisticated than Asian civilisations such as China, India and the Islamic World.

Two wrongs don'tn make a right.
Except that the video is clearly Islamophobic but I wasn't being Christian-phobic in any way, merely pointing out the objective fact that the Christian world was actually behind the Islamic world on many fronts back in the Middle Ages. How is that "Christian-phobic" in any way?

Well in the Islamic world I would say it might just have a slight influence.... :rolleyes:But you are completely missing the point of what I said, as it's usually the case with you for some reason. (Like when you actually thought I was advocating something like the Borg Collective in another thread when I was merely being sarcastic) Do you understand the stance of anti-cultural essentialism? I'm an anti-cultural essentialist and I don't believe any culture or religion has any "essential qualities", either positive or negative, that differentiates it from other cultures and religions. So when I said that "the Qu'ran doesn't matter", what I meant is that the Islamic religion is not intrinsically to blame for the under-developed state and frankly reactionary elements in many "Muslim countries" or countries with a majority Muslim population in the modern world. The Qu'ran is not to blame for Islamic extremism and terrorism, socio-economic factors are. That's the essence of the Marxist historical materialist approach.

Queercommie Girl

15th July 2011, 22:23

iseul - in your worldview, where abrahamic savages eat babies and &tc is it basically hard for you to know that sino-superiority is the hidden strength of the world?

like more of a burden than a gift of superiorty cus

I don't know what you are talking about. Are you drunk or something?

Where did I ever say that I'm intrinsically "anti-Abrahamic"? In fact, I think it's too simplistic to put all of the "Abrahamic religions" into one category anyway. Sometimes there are more differences between two different Abrahamic religions than there is between an Abrahamic religion and a non-Abrahamic religion on many issues.

And where did I ever say anything that is Sinocentric? :rolleyes:

Franz Fanonipants

18th July 2011, 20:59

And where did I ever say anything that is Sinocentric? :rolleyes:

awesome

Queercommie Girl

23rd July 2011, 23:02

awesome

Are you trying to be sarcastic, because your one-liners are getting really tiresome.

Either come up with some concrete evidence that I have been Sinocentric or "anti-Abrahamic", or just shut up.

ComradeMan

24th July 2011, 11:15

Are you trying to be sarcastic, because your one-liners are getting really tiresome.

Either come up with some concrete evidence that I have been Sinocentric or "anti-Abrahamic", or just shut up.

Perhaps your, albeit-carefully worded, apologism for the Chinese occupation of Tibet?

Perhaps the fact that you have frequently used non-anthropological value judgements and terms in discussing anything to do with Western history?

:rolleyes:

Queercommie Girl

24th July 2011, 12:46

Perhaps your, albeit-carefully worded, apologism for the Chinese occupation of Tibet?

I don't support Han capitalism expanding into Tibet right now. The Maoist era though was a fundamentally different matter since China back then was still an (albeit deformed) worker's state.

But at any rate it's not "Sinocentrism". Mao Zedong may be a "Stalinist", but he was hardly "Sinocentric". Han Chinese and Tibetan traditional cultures were destroyed alike by the Red Guards.

Perhaps the fact that you have frequently used non-anthropological value judgements and terms in discussing anything to do with Western history?

Such as what? And what do you mean by "non-anthropological"? Care to give an actual example? :rolleyes:

ComradeMan

24th July 2011, 12:52

I don't support Han capitalism expanding into Tibet right now. The Maoist era though was a fundamentally different matter since China back then was still an (albeit deformed) worker's state.

But at any rate it's not "Sinocentrism". Mao Zedong may be a "Stalinist", but he was hardly "Sinocentric". Han Chinese and Tibetan traditional cultures were destroyed alike by the Red Guards.

You shouldn't support Han anything expanding into Tibet.

Such as what? And what do you mean by "non-anthropological"? Care to give an actual example? :rolleyes:

Your constant use of words like superior/inferior, barbaric, primitive, "Dark Ages" etc..... :rolleyes:

Queercommie Girl

24th July 2011, 12:55

You shouldn't support Han anything expanding into Tibet.

In the Maoist era it wasn't really "Han expansion into Tibet", but rather a class war that overthrew the ruling feudal Lamas.

Your constant use of words like superior/inferior, barbaric, primitive, "Dark Ages" etc..... :rolleyes:

Well you also mentioned that Chinese science and technology were inferior to those of Europe in recent centuries, which frankly is an objective fact. There is nothing intrinsically "offensive" about using words such as "inferior" and "dark ages" when these terms are applied in an objective context.

ComradeMan

24th July 2011, 13:16

In the Maoist era it wasn't really "Han expansion into Tibet", but rather a class war that overthrew the ruling feudal Lamas.

A class war with an ethnic dimension to it. Let's justify invading another region/country because "they" are primitve and "we" are progressive. :rolleyes:

Well you also mentioned that Chinese science and technology were inferior to those of Europe in recent centuries, which frankly is an objective fact. There is nothing intrinsically "offensive" about using words such as "inferior" and "dark ages" when these terms are applied in an objective context.

I didn't state anywhere that they were inferior- I pointed out the great stagnation in Chinese scientifc development and technology from about the 17th century onwards- as your scholar Needham also asserts.

How the fuck can you argue that qualitative terms based on value judgements can be used in an objective context? It is an inherently judgemental position. The fact that most modern academia avoids terms like "Dark Ages" in any serious historical debate.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151663/Dark-Ages

Queercommie Girl

24th July 2011, 13:27

A class war with an ethnic dimension to it. Let's justify invading another region/country because "they" are primitve and "we" are progressive. :rolleyes:

You could argue it was partly technocratic, (Maoist China was indeed semi-technocratic) but it wasn't Sinocentric. Most of the "advanced technology and culture" of Maoist China came from Western rather than Chinese sources anyway, which is why both Han and Tibetan traditional cultures were suppressed for being "primitive" to some extent during the Maoist era.

So even if you are an anti-technocrat who defends traditional cultures, why solely focus on the plight of traditional Tibetan culture, but not the plight of traditional Han culture as well? Why only mention the burning of Tibetan Buddhist temples, but not Han Chinese Daoist temples?

I didn't state anywhere that they were inferior- I pointed out the great stagnation in Chinese scientifc development and technology from about the 17th century onwards- as your scholar Needham also asserts.
If you had said that Chinese science and technology in the last 500 years was largely inferior to European science and technology, I wouldn't have accused you for being racist or Sinophobic at all. As you yourself said, one needs to give credit where it is due. Chinese science was indeed backward compared with European science in the last few centuries, that's a fact.

I guess we consider these words differently. But at least you can't say that I'm a hypocrite, because I wouldn't mind other people, such as yourself, apply such "value judgements" to China itself either.

Karl Marx actually explicitly called the Chinese "semi-barbarian". Frankly by 19th century standards, compared with countries like Britain, France and Germany, Qing Dynasty China really was semi-barbarian. So I wouldn't say Karl Marx was being racist towards the Chinese by literally calling us "semi-barbarian", because quite frankly we Chinese were semi-barbarian and literally inferior in many ways during the 19th century. But of course these things are dependent on the time period.

As I said, we don't consider these things in the same way. I come from a Marxist perspective, you come from a liberal perspective.

ComradeMan

24th July 2011, 13:43

Karl Marx actually explicitly called the Chinese "semi-barbarian". Frankly by 19th century standards, compared with countries like Britain, France and Germany, Qing Dynasty China really was semi-barbarian. So I wouldn't say Karl Marx was being racist towards the Chinese by literally calling us "semi-barbarian", because quite frankly we Chinese were semi-barbarian and literally inferior in many ways during the 19th century. But of course these things are dependent on the time period.

Karl Marx wasn't particularly PC- but who cares? He died a long time ago and lived in a different period etc. Karl Marx said a lot of stuff, it doesn't mean we have to slavishly vomit out his quotes on every single matter. Of course Karl Marx had never had the experience of being a rural agricultural labourer in Western Europe during the 19th century nor had he lived in an industrial slum.... :rolleyes:

As I said, we don't consider these things in the same way. I come from a Marxist perspective, you come from a liberal perspective.

Don't tell me what background I come from just because you've decided that your single-issues now qualify you as a Marxist or something.

Queercommie Girl

24th July 2011, 14:01

Don't tell me what background I come from just because you've decided that your single-issues now qualify you as a Marxist or something.

I'm not making a judgement on your entire background intrinsically. I'm just saying you have a liberal perspective with respect to this particular issue. (Intrinsically caring about "PC" is a liberal attitude, doesn't mean it's wrong, in fact, I think it's right in many contexts, just not this particular one) Even socialists can have "liberal attitudes" towards certain "single issues".

I'm not a dogmatic Marxist anyway. I guess in this particular case I largely agree with orthodox Marxism because of my semi-technocratic sympathies. But on other issues, like LGBT rights and sex work for instance, I don't agree with "orthodox" Marxism.

So it's not a value judgement here. I'm not saying your view is necessarily worse or "more reactionary", just pointing out that our views are different. I wish you could stop consider my views on this matter to be "worse" as well though.