How should the Rev Left handle Islam?

[TheCuriousJournalist]

Islamic Extremists Bomb French Newspaper (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056467/Charlie-Hebdo-French-magazines-offices-torched-mocks-Prophet-Mohammed.html?fb_ref=LikeButtonTop&fb_source=home_multiline)

I'm a militant atheist, and believe the world would be a better place without religion. I feel as though many on the left share my sentiment, and are willing to say so explicitly in terms of religions like Catholicism, etc..

But when it comes to Islam, the left is often weak. You don't need to be like the right islamophobes to criticize Islam and realize Islam is another religion whose decimation would be a cause for celebration. Instead the left seems to always defend Islam. How can the middle ground be reached without succumbing to xenophobia, accusations of racism, etc

(By left in alot of this I guess I mean super politically correct liberals, and I cringe saying that lol)

[Искра]

Left is week on Islam because of opportunist and reactionary politics of „national liberation“and in today's World most of national liberation struggles are held by Muslim nations. I oppose to Islam as much as I oppose any other religion. Religion should be private thing and its dogma's shouldn't repress people or have affect on society.

[Azraella]

I will just say that I am not a militant atheist* but I think Islam can and should be criticized.

* Militant atheism is the least of my concerns as a religious person and... I think it's nowhere near as bad as the religious extremism.

[Azraella]

Religion should be private thing and its dogma's shouldn't repress people or have affect on society.
This is my attitude.

[tir1944]

Why is national liberation "reactionary"? (Sorry if i didn't quite get you).
However i think that the OP is referring to the relationship between the Left and Muslims (immigrants) in places such as the UK etc. where national liberation of course isn't an issue.I mean the Palestinians or any other ethnic group of course can't demand their own state in England etc.
Also today we witness "traditional" European religions losing members and influence every days,while Islam seems to be getting stronger...

[The Jay]

The left should tolerate all religions while criticizing them as well. Any violent action by a religion should be met as such by the appropriate people, and only then on the perpetrators. If we do not do this we are no more progressive than they.

[Fawkes]

1. Openly oppose all forms of institutional religion
2. Argue against privately held religious beliefs while still respecting the right of everyone to have them; however,
3. Openly oppose those beliefs when they manifest themselves in sexism/racism/heterosexism/etc.
4. Openly oppose and combat the anti-Arab racism that so often results from a hatred of Islam

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The problem is that anti-Islamic prejudice is a key plank of contemporary bourgeois politics, especially the more reactionary variants, and certainly by people who cheer for capitalism and imperialism, which make Bin Laden look like an amateur when it comes to death and destruction.

What is necessary is a materialist critique of religion *in general* without scapegoating a particular religion or its adherents, and while also pointing out that the capitalist system "comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." Only a socialist revolution is capable of destroying the violence of capitalism and the violence of religion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Any violent action by a religion should be met as such by the appropriate people, and only then on the perpetrators.
And who are the "appropriate people" you speak of?

[The Jay]

Those democratically elected to uphold community law, of course. If you're suggesting that I support a sectarian purge, you are quite mistaken, comrade. Besides, you seemed to echo what I said, so I don't see a problem.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you're suggesting that I support a sectarian purge, you are quite mistaken, comrade.
No worries, I wasn't suggesting that.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm all for combating the forces of reactionary fundamentalism, but when you talk about the eradication of religion you just sound ridiculous. The revolutionary left is and should be a secular movement, but it does us no good to isolate and alienate those who identify with any one particular religion along with the politics of the left. The reason why most people join religious groups is for the perceived comfort, stability, and sense of community they provide. As we advance towards a revolutionized society, this need will become less and less apparent, and may very well vanish altogether. The revolutionary left should approach Islam the very same way it approaches all religions, but it must be done within reason. Let's combat those within the religious community who hold and advocate deeply reactionary and fundamentalist views/policies, and (at the very least) tolerate those who identify with and support our movement.

Edit - I'd just like to add that I fully agree with those who say religion should remain a private matter, but shouldn't be allowed to dictate the lives and policies of others. We should also direct our efforts against the institutionalization of religion, which internalizes religion's most repressive elements to the detriment of society.

[Zostrianos]

I will just say that I am not a militant atheist* but I think Islam can and should be criticized.

* Militant atheism is the least of my concerns as a religious person and... I think it's nowhere near as bad as the religious extremism.

Militant atheists, even anti-theists, are usually respectful of others' religious beliefs. They may criticize them, but they respect everyone's right to believe what they want. Religious fanatics (Christians & Muslims especially) do not.
I think these violent reactions in the past few years by angry fanatics are the epitome of childish cruelty and disgusting savagery: "Some guy in Sweden drew Mohammed and published it! Let's go to their embassy, bomb it, and kill everyone inside!" Burning down buildings, rioting and murdering innocent people because you feel offended? Fuck you
No one should have to bow down in fear to people like this. I think every media outlet should republish and divulge those cartoons, to show the world that freedom of speech still matters.
Lock these extremists up, and throw away the key.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think these violent reactions in the past few years by angry fanatics are the epitome of childish cruelty and disgusting savagery: "Some guy in Sweden drew Mohammed and published it! Let's go to their embassy, bomb it, and kill everyone inside!"
The Danish cartoonists were being deliberately provocative, which is also childish. That's not a justification for violence, mind you.


Lock these extremists up, and throw away the key.
That's a strikingly conservative phrasing.

[Zostrianos]

That's a strikingly conservative phrasing.

What else can be done?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What else can be done?
I don't think a solution exists under capitalism. The western bourgeoisie has been quite happy to support Islamic fundamentalists when it suits them, and they're just as happy to publish controversial cartoons to get people to buy newspapers.

And if the fundamentalists blow things or people up? The bourgeoisie love that, because they can use it to further their ideological agenda, and profit from that.

That's not to say I'll cry if a violent fundamentalist gets sent to prison, but prisons don't address root causes, and the bourgeoisie and their supporters would just as happily see us locked up and the key thrown away.

[roy]

Let's not "handle Islam", but rather handle dangerous individuals, regardless of religion, ethnicity or politics.

Sure, the Qur'an has a lot of awful stuff written in it, but that goes without saying. It's up to the individual whether or not to act on those things.

As for the bombers, they should be treated the same way anyone who commits such a heinous act should be treated.

[jake williams]

While I wouldn't identify as a "militant atheist" I would identify as a "political atheist" in the sense that I'm an atheist who does think it's a problem that religion exists and who does think that the existence of religion and its effects on public policy are a matter of political debate.

I'm not a Muslim in the sense that I'm not a theist, I don't believe Muhammed to be God's prophet and I don't believe the Qu'ran to be the literal word of God, or even the word of God at all.

Islam also contains a set of explicit moral provisions, some of which I agree with to a certain extent, some of which I vehemently disagree with. But aside from this, theism and "faith" itself entail intellectually harmful epistemologies that I do in some sense find it problematic for people to believe.

In all of these regards by view of Islam is more or less what it is of other religions:

- I disagree intellectually. I think the factual claims made are incorrect, in some cases substantially so, and I think the sorts of arguments and evidence used to make these claims are harmful.

- I disagree in many cases morally. There are explicit moral arguments made that range from obviously or non-obviously really decent and human, to obviously or non-obviously awful and sadistic.


All that said, we also live in the real world. We live in a real world where most human beings identify to some degree with a religion, in its beliefs and values. We live in a real world where most religious people are basically decent human beings with a lot of irrational beliefs (and for that matter we live in a real world where lots of non-theistic individuals hold a lot of irrational beliefs). In that world religious beliefs are deeply held and not easily dislodged by, say, careful and clever argument. Or insulting berating. We live in a real world where most of the people we want to mobilize to fight for a better world come from a background of some form of religious belief, beliefs we have a right to disagree with and even struggle against but which we have to accept. And to some degree respect, not in and of themselves but as products of particular personal and cultural histories.

In addition to this, we live in a real world where Islam specifically is targetted by fascists and racists, by the leaders and apologists of the most vicious NATO imperialism and by European neo-nazi groups trying to scapegoat one of the most vulnerable parts of the immigrant working class in Europe. We live in a real world where the political (and in some cases familial) descendants of European fascism use the same rhetoric about Islam today as they did about the Jews only a few decades ago, except that now they do it in the name of Judeo-Christian civilization instead of doing it in the name of White Christian civilization. We also live in a real world where the Egyptian working class that overthrew Mubarak as part of a wave of mass democratic uprisings identifies almost entirely as Muslims.


So, there is real political significance to fighting racist attacks on Islam and Muslims while at the same time being able to honestly say that we are secular, non-theistic people who don't believe in Islam and think that some of its basic moral tenets are reprehensible.

[tir1944]

The western bourgeoisie has been quite happy to support Islamic fundamentalists when it suits them, and they're just as happy to publish controversial cartoons to get people to buy newspapers.
You're comparing a military aid campaign involving several countries with some local paper publishing cartoons...:rolleyes:


and the bourgeoisie and their supporters would just as happily see us locked up and the key thrown away.
You point? Do "we" have something in common with rel. fundies or what?
Anyway,you're still free to go on a street and protest against capitalism...but draw a cartoon and you already have embassies burning...:rolleyes:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You're comparing a military aid campaign involving several countries with some local paper publishing cartoons...:rolleyes:
My point is that the western bourgeoisie are pro-Islamic fundamentalist when it suits them, and anti-Islamic fundamentalist when it suits them, nor is this at all contradictory for them.

I suppose you think the bourgeois news media does something controversial because of "freedom of speech" and not because they think it will make them money?


You point? Do "we" have something in common with rel. fundies or what?
I was explaining why I thought the phrasing "lock them up and throw away the key" is a conservative phrasing. I don't know how you understood that to mean revolutionary leftists and religious fundamentalists have something in common.


Anyway,you're still free to go on a street and protest against capitalism...but draw a cartoon and you already have embassies burning...:rolleyes:
Fine, throw everyone in jail. That will certainly resolve the problem of religious fundamentalism. :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

I was explaining why I thought the phrasing "lock them up and throw away the key" is a conservative phrasing.
What is this "conservative phrasing" and what exactly do you mean by that phrase?


Fine, throw everyone in jail. That will certainly resolve the problem of religious fundamentalism. :rolleyes: No and i never said anything like that.
That problem should be solved by the Muslim community itself,however i'm rather pessimistic about that happening in any near future...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What is this "conservative phrasing" and what exactly do you mean by that phrase?
In America, at least, the phrase "lock them up and throw away the key" tends to be common among "law and order" conservatives as a solution to whatever the problem may be.

[Sturmovik]

I think it's much more important to focus on dealing with the recent crusades against Muslims and how immigrants with Islam as a religion are being treated around the world.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Muslims in France burn down a magazine making fun of Islam...it couldn't be that there are socio-economic conditions present in France that would make Muslims feel marginalized.

Rather, it must be dirty Arab's faults because 'INFERIOR MEMESCAPES'

[Franz Fanonipants]

Also today we witness "traditional" European religions losing members and influence every days,while Islam seems to be getting stronger...

also holy shit

[tir1944]

Muslims in France burn down a magazine making fun of Islam...it couldn't be that there are socio-economic conditions present in France that would make Muslims feel marginalized.Actually,the Roma people and some other minorities there are in a far worse position...
No one's denying that there's discrimination against Muslims present,but how is burning down newspaper offices and such going to help?


also holy shit What,did i say something that's not true or what? What the fuck are you trying to say?


and how immigrants with Islam as a religion are being treated around the world. And are for example Hindus,Sikhs or (mostly irreligious) Roma people in Europe and (mostly) Catholic Latinos in the US etc treated any better?

[Nox]

Islam is just like most other religions; filth.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Islam is just like most other religions; filth.

empty rhetoric

[tir1944]

Pot.Kettle.Black.
:laugh:

[Franz Fanonipants]

Pot.Kettle.Black.
:laugh:

where's your analysis of the situation at man?
what role does class play in it?
is the expansion of islam a "classless" process?

[Rafiq]

The same way fundemantalist christianity is and was being delt with today - through economic power. As social advancements in society are made religious fundemantalism will be crushed.

Take an economically advanced country like Turkey and compare it to, say, Yemen or Afghanistan.

Even in Islamist Iran, the regime was forced to introduce small "Social Reforms" because of the economic growth Iran went through after the death of the first Ayatollah (Not to say this is the solution to Iran's Islamism).

Altogether Islamists should be restricted, if not banned, if you want to know how Revleft should deal with it.

[brigadista]

why single out islam? i know some crazy christians.... also getting sick of all these islam threads

[The CPSU Chairman]

Things like this don't really have anything to do with Islam or any religion. Religious fundamentalism serves as a vehicle for things like this, but it isn't the cause. Obviously fundamentalism is a problem, but it's an inevitability under Capitalism. As Marx said, "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions". In other words, people turn to religion when their lives are shit. Muslims in France are treated like second-class citizens at best, and Muslims in the Muslim-majority countries are poor, oppressed, and angry about the impact of Western imperialism on their countries and region. That's where things like this come from, that's what it's about. Islamic fundamentalism just serves as a vehicle for it, and it doesn't have anything to do with Islam itself. The vast majority of Muslims are ordinary people who don't blow up newspapers, and they're our working-class comrades like anyone else.

[Rafiq]

Obviously - If you are a materialist you must understand that Religions are mere reflections of the material and social conditions.

[jake williams]

Obviously - If you are a materialist you must understand that Religions are mere reflections of the material and social conditions.
I think this is a very important point. It's kind of shocking how much it's still acceptable to claim that one is totally and absolutely opposed to religion on all levels at all times, because one is a dedicated rationalist and materialist - but still hold a totally non-materialist conception of how religion actually functions at the individual and social levels.

Religions are social phenomena that represent the material circumstances of individuals and societies. If we want to change religions, we need to change those circumstances.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"Militant atheism" can be violent too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution


During the Destruction of Four Olds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds) campaign, religious affairs of all types were discouraged by Red Guards, and practitioners persecuted. Temples, churches, mosques, monasteries, and cemeteries were closed down and sometimes converted to other uses, looted, and destroyed.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#cite_note-22) Marxist propaganda depicted Buddhism as superstition, and religion was looked upon as a means of hostile foreign infiltration, as well as an instrument of the 'ruling class'.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#cite_note-Dan_Smyer_2007-23) Chinese Marxists declared 'the death of God', and considered religion a defilement of the Chinese communist vision. Clergy were arrested and sent to camps; many Tibetan Buddhists were forced to participate in the destruction of their monasteries at gunpoint

One could say that their non-religious ideology by that point had taken the form of a competing religion thanks to the cult of personality ...

Religion isn't an evil in of itself, and its existence as a belief system is often a highly personal thing. The problem is that religious people who are alienated from society will find religion to be the most appealing and easiest social institution to organize around because it offers a common set of beliefs between all participants and because such a movement is generally welcoming to anyone who is a member of the faith. This is why socially segregated populations in the West who are Muslim are sometimes vulnerable to religious extremism. On the other hand, religious people from a socially dominant group often rally around the religion as an institution to organize reactionary politics. This is why Christians in the USA are both so opposed to Islam and Homosexuality. If particular religious communities are not so alienated or culturally and politically empowered then fanaticism dies out.

There's no reason to believe that religion in of itself would simply vanish in a socialist society, but fanaticism will certainly die out as the social realities that make it possible disappear.

[OHumanista]

I'll go with Fawkes and Kontrrazvedka in this one.
As long as it is away from politics and cannot interfere with it's dogmas on society it's okay (and even then I will still criticise it but defend it's rights). And this applies to all religions not just islam.

EDIT: As for religious terrorism it's caused by social conditions not a specific religion.

[Azraella]

There's no reason to believe that religion in of itself would simply vanish in a socialist society, but fanaticism will certainly die out as the social realities that make it possible disappear.


I want to expand on this point and apply it to revolutionary politics. There is a difference between ideology and politics too. My politics are anarchist and focus on practical ways to promote my politics. Ideology is stickier, no one in reality is ideologically pure. Ideological purism is also the same thing I am against. There are nuances to the theory that everyone interprets differently. I like libertarian Marxism and incorporate some of it's ideas to my overarching ideology, the same goes with my personal beliefs/faith, different things I'm an activist for, and my moral positions and how I incorporate these various ideas into my overarching anarchism and my personal ideology. Difference of opinion and religious views - important as it is from a philosophical point of view - should in no way prevent us from uniting in the struggle against earthly oppression and injustice. Do I believe that religion will shrivel up and die after a socialist revolution? No. I think it will flourish in healthier ways, but that is besides the point. It is critical that we criticize and attack oppressive beliefs (sexist, racist, classist, and so forth) while recognizing that Bob might believe in the Cheese Sandwich God. Telling him that his belief is "filth" or irrational is a good way to alienate Bob. In fact, I think revolutionary organizations should be agnostic about these issues, and make no definitive statement on them except religious institutions and the negative effects they have on laws and the society in which we live. It is incredibly important that we work with non-communist or anarchist religious people(especially for our religious comrades to do this) and try to get them to see politics our way.

In short: I am willing to work with anyone regardless of religious differences. The enemy is oppression not religion itself. Capitalism, organized religion, the state; these are blights that cause many oppressive things to persist but not faith itself.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I agree except for protestants they are v. clearly filth.

[black magick hustla]

well, probably communists in the middle east have a militant line against islam, in the same sense many communists in mexico have a line against the catholic church. but religion is very complex, and it constitutes more of a way of life and set of behaviors than a doctrine per se. if you attack the virgin of guadalupe in the us you will rpobably get some immigrants rowdy, but not because of religious beliefs per se, but because it would feel like a direct attack against them (and lets be honest here, the racist french media or whatever uses democratic and secular rhetoric to be fuckin racist, so it isnt that far off for muslim immigrants to think that an attack on their religion is an attack on them)

[Rafiq]

"Militant atheism" can be violent too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution



One could say that their non-religious ideology by that point had taken the form of a competing religion thanks to the cult of personality ...

Religion isn't an evil in of itself, and its existence as a belief system is often a highly personal thing. The problem is that religious people who are alienated from society will find religion to be the most appealing and easiest social institution to organize around because it offers a common set of beliefs between all participants and because such a movement is generally welcoming to anyone who is a member of the faith. This is why socially segregated populations in the West who are Muslim are sometimes vulnerable to religious extremism. On the other hand, religious people from a socially dominant group often rally around the religion as an institution to organize reactionary politics. This is why Christians in the USA are both so opposed to Islam and Homosexuality. If particular religious communities are not so alienated or culturally and politically empowered then fanaticism dies out.

There's no reason to believe that religion in of itself would simply vanish in a socialist society, but fanaticism will certainly die out as the social realities that make it possible disappear.

The CCP had every right to do away with religion, especially Tibeten Buhddism, which enslaved (both sexually and for labor) almost all of the peasants. I think the Chinese should have persecuted religion more than they did, in all honest.