Are Muslims a problem?

[Elysian]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism. In India, commies support Muslims, yet Muslims regularly attack commies. In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.

So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.

[Nox]

Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

There is nothing wrong with muslims.
The only thing is that they are ruined by religion.
So basically religion is the problem not the people.

[Ned Kelly]

Are you being sarcastic?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

All religious groups are capable of being as intolerant and uncooperative as any political party / pressure group. Orthodox christians would support a lot of fash ideas (death penalty, pro-life, anti-gay), zionists enjoy a lot of support from mainstream capitalist parties...I think muslims can be as difficult to work with as any other group, religious or no.
It's always worse in states founded on strict religious teachings too, again be it Islam or Catholicism or whatever

[Ned Kelly]

Are you being sarcastic?

To Nox

[Azraella]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism. In India, commies support Muslims, yet Muslims regularly attack commies. In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.

So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.

I view you as a troll, but I'll say this: heterogenous groups like Muslims and Christians can't be seen as a monolith.

Humans devolve into Us vs Them, pretty much continually. I'm not aware of studies off the top of my head (feel free to chime in if you know of some) but the polarization of a group is a tactic in politics dating back as far as I've ever read.

We do this in all aspects of our existence, we love to draw little imaginary lines between groups of people, and define them as "Good" (aka Us) and "Bad" (aka Them). It doesn't matter if you're drawing line between JCLS and Baptist, Young and Old, American and Soviet, Communist and Capitalist, Northern and Southern, Democrat and Republican... any of them work. After a while, as people start pointing the flaws in the other, and trumpeting up why they're so great more and more people fall to one side or the other naturally.

It becomes if you are not X then you are Y.

And the group starts defining itself not only by what it *is* but also by what it *is not*... aka the other guys, or what "the other guys" are defined as being by your group.

I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers, but I know that the actual Taliban and other extremists that are an actual threat to anyone is a tiny tiny insignificant portion of the Muslim population. And yet the world at large seems to be drawing the idea that "If you are a Muslim, you are likely a terrorist or at least weird and suspect". Because culturally the western world drew a large circle around "Us" and lumped every trait indicative of a Muslim in "Them".

And not even sensibly. I had a coworker a few years ago who decided to shave his beard and not grow one again. He was a third generation American of Mediterranean (Greek IIRC) ancestry. So everywhere he went in the US he was watched and searched by security. Because culturally the US decided that Beard + Non-White Skin = Muslim Terrorist.


I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's a Human Thing.

[Delenda Carthago]

In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.
I think the word is "massacred".

[Ocean Seal]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism.
Yep we have to make everyone an atheist before starting the class war. Nope not idealism at all.


In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.
Yes, one incident makes all Muslims guilty of attacking Antifa


So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.
In every country with the bourgeois state communists have been massacred Muslim, Christian, or secular.



Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.
I was going to lecture Elysian about being a troll, but you are the bigger problem. I don't know if you realize this, but an Islamophobic remark using leftist vocabulary is still an Islamophobic remark.

[El Oso Rojo]

No, the Christain majority are a problem.

[Ned Kelly]

No, the Christain majority are a problem.

Capitalism is the problem

[Jimmie Higgins]

Catholics in France helped ship Jews to Nazi Germany, the Pope supported right-wing terrorists against communist forces. Because of the relationship between religions and ruling groups and social forces generally in history, if you want to you can find any religion to blame for a whole number of things. But this would be a superficial and impressionistic way to look at things.

Religion is one field in which social conflicts are often played out in history, but it's not the cause or driving force any more than you can say tanks are the reason there are wars.

[Drosophila]

Not all Muslims are the "beat your wife and leave her in the house" types. Of course, there are many sects within Islam that are very reactionary.

[Elysian]

Capitalism is the problem

That's reductionist.

[Azraella]

That's reductionist.

And your hasty generalizations are any better?

[gozai]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism. In India, commies support Muslims, yet Muslims regularly attack commies. In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.

So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.
The actions of some muslims is not the responsibilty of all muslims.

[hatzel]

Elysian's incessant flaunting of his bigotry is the problem. With this forum, that is.

[Deicide]

Yes, they're all terrorists, A priori.

EDIT - Pssssstt.. for those that don't recognise my particular brand of eye-gauging sarcasm... this is sarcasm.

[hatzel]

Yes, they're all terrorists, A priori.

B-b-b-b-but my friend's a Muslim and she di'n't ne'er blow nuttin' up! :sneaky:

...or maybe she's...keeping secrets from me...

[Caj]

Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.

Nox is a problem.

[Azraella]

I lost a brother in 9/11. It led to a very dark time in my life. I'm getting tired of people trying to justify hateful attitudes towards Muslims. I have gotten over my knee jerk hate and you'd expect the fucking left to be better about it.

Fun fact: reactionary ideas are not limited to political ideology, religious beliefs, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, philsophy.

[Raúl Duke]

I do not blame the muslim, christian, or jew (they're all individuals with the capacity to make independent conscious judgements and actions) but more the religion itself.

IN Iran, some of those "commies" were probably muslims to some extent.

Instead of engaging in stereotypes, we should judge individuals fairly.
Sure, there are quite a substantial amount of muslim fundamentalists, like there are christian ones and jewish ones, all which think communism is ungodly and evil; but not every practitioner is like this.
People's commitment to religion varies, I've seen muslims who drink booze.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Islam is a very reactionary religion, there's no denying that. But the other two great monotheisms are just as reactionary - the reason we forget that is because they've been watered down by the secularization of western culture.

[NGNM85]

Islam is a problem, as it contains inherently Reactionary, and anti-modern elements. However; this is not unique to Islam, the same could be said for Christianity, etc.

[l'Enfermé]

While it's true that as a religion, Modern Islam is much more reactionary and filthy than any other Abrahamic religion, especially since Muslims are generally more religious than Christians or Jews, is it actually wise to call such a large portion of mankind a "problem"? Muslims aren't a "problem", Islam is.

[NewLeft]

While it's true that as a religion, Modern Islam is much more reactionary and filthy than any other Abrahamic religion, especially since Muslims are generally more religious than Christians or Jews, is it actually wise to call such a large portion of mankind a "problem"? Muslims aren't a "problem", Islam is.
You're the one to talk about reactionary views.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Replace Muslim with Jew.
Welcome in 1930's Germany.
Geez that we still have to argue about this is really ridiculous.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism. In India, commies support Muslims, yet Muslims regularly attack commies. In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.

So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.

It depends. Just like Christianity there are lots of variants of Islam. In fact, I created a thread recently about Wahhabist Islam. Islam such as the variants of Wahhabism and Salafiyya that regard modernization and secular society as an enemy to be eradicated are a problem for sure, but other variants which many more Muslims subscribe to are more tolerant and willing to fight for communism.

I am an atheist and believe a better world would exist without religion, yet I am not going to force atheism and non-belief on people, nor would such force actually be productive. The only thing to do is be tolerant of other beliefs just like you want others to be tolerant of your beliefs and work side by side with revolutionaries, no matter their religion, race, etc.

[DinodudeEpic]

I'm a muslim, enough said.

And, I am fine with homosexuality, pro-gender equality, tolerant of other religions (have more atheist friends then muslim friends.), and pretty much despise fundamentalists, of any religion, that engage in bigotry.

[l'Enfermé]

You're the one to talk about reactionary views.
Would you care to point out a single reactionary view I hold?


Replace Muslim with Jew.
Welcome in 1930's Germany.
Geez that we still have to argue about this is really ridiculous.
The persecution of Jews in Germany was racial, not religious.

[#FF0000]

People who call groups of people "a problem" are problems.

[#FF0000]

Also people who treat religion like a set of ideas instead of a complicated social phenomenon (see: dipshit anti-theists, "New Atheists") are mind numbingly fuckin dumb


EDIT: I'm talking to you, Borz, Nox, Must - Crush - Capitalism, NGNM85 etc. etc. etc.

[Yugo45]

I'm not so sure about the claims thato Islam is the most reactionary Abrahamic religion, like many people in this thread say. They're all pretty reactionary. Yes, it's true that in the West, many reactionary pratices have been abolished, while in the Muslim world they're still there. But in core Christianity is still as much as reactionary (very possibly even more) then Islam. Hell, I'd even dare to say that Islam is more compatible with Socialism then any other abrahamic religion, sect or whatever. Keep in mind that I said "more compatible then others", not "Islam is fully compatible with leftist ideologies".

That said, no, I do not beilive that muslim people are "a problem". While I do agree that religion is shit, I also believe that people should belive whatever the fuck they want.

Also, you say that Muslims would never accept communism, which is a really stupid thing to say. There have been many examples of Muslim Socialists from the Russian Revolution to today. There was even a regiment of muslims in the Red Army in the Civil War, and Muslim communes in the Soviet area which very much supported Communism. I still don't see how, in any way, Muslims are a bigger "problem" then Christians, Jews or whoever.

[Red Noob]

I'm dating a Muslim girl. There's a difference between Muslim and Islamist. Learn it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also people who treat religion like a set of ideas instead of a complicated social phenomenon (see: dipshit anti-theists, "New Atheists") are mind numbingly fuckin dumb


EDIT: I'm talking to you, Borz, Nox, Must - Crush - Capitalism, NGNM85 etc. etc. etc.

Just for the sake of argument; explain plz. I don't often/ever see anyone iterating what they mean by this, rather than just making the charge that it is what people do. You can't just accuse someone of something without explaining the accusation, and expect them to learn anything.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

All religious belief have the possibility of making someone insane.

[The Machine]

Islam is a problem in the Middle East. In the west the religious reaction is Christian. Criticism of Islam in the west is often a front for racism and xenophobia as Muslims are generally immigrants and have virtually no political power in the west. That said I take issue with calling criticism of Islam "Islamophobia" or whatever, because fuck Islam.

[#FF0000]

Just for the sake of argument; explain plz. I don't often/ever see anyone iterating what they mean by this, rather than just making the charge that it is what people do. You can't just accuse someone of something without explaining the accusation, and expect them to learn anything.

Put most simply, folks who cry forever about "oh man the bible/qu'ran/whatever is sooooo reactionaryyyyyy it promotes bigotry and war and violence and sexism oh noooo" do this while completely ignoring the fact that there are plenty of adherents to these religions who, uh, don't hold bigoted or 'reactionary' beliefs.

Religion isn't a set of ideas and frankly you have to be sorta divorced from reality to not see how people cherrypick and 'interpret' these texts. For example, in the US's southern states, preachers would quote the bible to extoll the virtue and rightness of slavery, while at the very same time, the african slaves would read from the very same book and find comfort in it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Put most simply, folks who cry forever about "oh man the bible/qu'ran/whatever is sooooo reactionaryyyyyy it promotes bigotry and war and violence and sexism oh noooo" do this while completely ignoring the fact that there are plenty of adherents to these religions who, uh, don't hold bigoted or 'reactionary' beliefs.

Religion isn't a set of ideas and frankly you have to be sorta divorced from reality to not see how people cherrypick and 'interpret' these texts. For example, in the US's southern states, preachers would quote the bible to extoll the virtue and rightness of slavery, while at the very same time, the african slaves would read from the very same book and find comfort in it.

So basically New Atheists charge believers to be consistent, which means they don't understand religion.

... I agree with that actually. The point isn't consistency, but to find comfort, direction, and identity. ... sound about right?

[#FF0000]

So basically New Atheists charge believers to be consistent, which means they don't understand religion.

... I agree with that actually. The point isn't consistency, but to find comfort, direction, and identity. ... sound about right?

Yeah pretty much. Folks also gotta recognize that people shape and mold religion just as much as religion shapes them.

There's also this article (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/09/the-weaponization-of-atheism/)that makes a ton of good points about how new atheism is a buncha bullshit, and there was a good one a few months back from Mark Steel in the Guardian which I can't seem to find...

[The Machine]

wait revelfters still care about new atheism? i thought franz fanonipants was banned.

but real shit i dont see why everyone gets their panties in a twist about new atheism and anti-theism. dawkins is a pretty cool guy imo. plus pretty much every revolution that was successful throughout the 20th century was anti-theistic to some degree (at least the ones I like). i mean you didnt see the iww doing the catholic church's apologism for it because irish catholic immigrants had it rough back in the day.

[#FF0000]

but real shit i dont see why everyone gets their panties in a twist about new atheism and anti-theism.

basically because it's dumb shit that leads folks to saying stuff like 'yup the war on terror is okay because fundamentalism"


plus pretty much every revolution that was successful throughout the 20th century was anti-theistic to some degree

that's because 1) there was a revolution and 2) the church took a side, tho.


i mean you didnt see the iww doing the catholic church's apologism for it because irish catholic immigrants had it rough back in the day.i dont see anyone doing any apologism for any religious group today either. just sayin that people's assessment of religion is p. shitty in general!

[Raúl Duke]

I'm dating a Muslim girl. There's a difference between Muslim and Islamist. Learn it.

I have a very few muslim friends, from lebanon.

One of them is an ex-girlfriend of one of my best friends

In the past, I visited her family. Nice people. They're not "bad."

As Much Crush Capitalism said,


Islam is a very reactionary religion, there's no denying that. But the other two great monotheisms are just as reactionary - the reason we forget that is because they've been watered down by the secularization of western culture.

My friend from Lebanon, and perhaps many Lebanese, are quite secularized. They're still muslim, but they're mostly not fundamentalist. Some drink, some are commies, etc.

[WanderingCactus]

wait revelfters still care about new atheism? i thought franz fanonipants was banned.

but real shit i dont see why everyone gets their panties in a twist about new atheism and anti-theism. dawkins is a pretty cool guy imo. plus pretty much every revolution that was successful throughout the 20th century was anti-theistic to some degree (at least the ones I like). i mean you didnt see the iww doing the catholic church's apologism for it because irish catholic immigrants had it rough back in the day.

New Atheism: Organized religion without the god.

[corolla]

Islam is a problem in the Middle East. In the west the religious reaction is Christian. Criticism of Islam in the west is often a front for racism and xenophobia as Muslims are generally immigrants and have virtually no political power in the west. That said I take issue with calling criticism of Islam "Islamophobia" or whatever, because fuck Islam.

Best post in this thread, in my opinion.

[Zealot]

Never support Communism? Do you realize that the PFLP, a Communist party, is the second largest faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the first being Fatah? And that the third largest faction is the DFLP, also a Communist party? Yeah, they have a reactionary religion and many muslims are reactionary but guess what, so are many non-muslims and it's not a good reason to make a sweeping generalization and make good Comrades, who actually are muslim, look bad

[Revolution starts with U]

New Atheism: Organized religion without the god.


Ya, with all that formal dogma, ritual, hero worship, and moral proscriptions... they might as well be a religion.

Oh wait... you meant that they don't compromise their atheism... my bad :blushing:

[l'Enfermé]

Never support Communism? Do you realize that the PFLP, a Communist party, is the second largest faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the first being Fatah? And that the third largest faction is the DFLP, also a Communist party? Yeah, they have a reactionary religion and many muslims are reactionary but guess what, so are many non-muslims and it's not a good reason to make a sweeping generalization and make good Comrades, who actually are muslim, look bad
Neither are Communist parties, they're Stalinist, but I get your point. The DFLP, by the way, was founded and is still lead by a Christian. The DFLP has a newspaper (http://www.alhourriah.org/), where they occassionally post some interesting content, but it's in Arabic only. This is PFLP's site, in Arabic (http://www.pflp.ps/). And here is the English version. (http://pflp.ps/english/)

[Elysian]

Ya, with all that formal dogma, ritual, hero worship, and moral proscriptions... they might as well be a religion.

Oh wait... you meant that they don't compromise their atheism... my bad :blushing:

Game, set, and match.

[SacRedMan]

I know a muslim friend that is in some sort of way communist.

But then again, the problem is the religion itself, just as all religion out there, not the person himself. You can't blame the victim of a parasite of having that parasite, but blame the parasite itself.

[El Oso Rojo]

Neither are Communist parties, they're Stalinist, but I get your point. The DFLP, by the way, was founded and is still lead by a Christian.


Why is that a factor?

[Prinskaj]

Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.
As a secular Muslim your comment disgusts me quite a bit..
First of all, your statement seems to suggest that all muslims believe the same exact things, this is completely false, look at all the interpretations of any religion and you will see that everything is a matter of interpretation. Some christian do not believe in an all-powerful deity, some jews do not keep the sabbath as holy as the Tanakh prescribes. A religion is only what the individual makes of it.

[El Oso Rojo]

As a secular Muslim your comment disgusts me quite a bit..
First of all, your statement seems to suggest that all muslims believe the same exact things, this is completely false, look at all the interpretations of any religion and you will see that everything is a matter of interpretation. Some christian do not believe in an all-powerful deity, some jews do not keep the sabbath as holy as the Tanakh prescribes. A religion is only what the individual makes of it.


I read somewhere Islamphobia is on the rise on the left.

[Nox]

I was going to lecture Elysian about being a troll, but you are the bigger problem. I don't know if you realize this, but an Islamophobic remark using leftist vocabulary is still an Islamophobic remark.

So pointing out that Islamic beliefs are reactionary is Islamophobic?

I don't see how what I said is any different to saying supporters of Capitalism are reactionary. If you support a reactionary ideology, you are a reactionary.

[Georwell]

In all humans are comrades, but some cling dogmatically to religion. I personally don't believe that religion itself is the problem, but the institutions that hold sway over others and over what religion preaches is the problem.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why I Am Not Afraid of Islam

http://humaniterations.net/2012/01/27/i-am-not-afraid-of-islam/


Make no bones about it: Faith is evil. Faith is the absence of vigilance and ethics necessitates vigilance. And so faith, in any form, is flagrantly unethical, immoral, evil… whatever terminology you prefer. But it’s an evil in the same sense as zombies. More bumbling than diabolical. And the fact of the matter is almost everyone these days has a little bit of the zombie juice inside of them.

In 2001 the technoprogressive and cyberlibertarian dreams of the 90s were largely on ice. The hacker community moribund. Everywhere the future seemed in retreat. For two years popular culture had dwelled on the turn of the millenium and the uncontroversial conclusion was nothing had lived up to snuff. To those who had been actively struggling in broad spheres the postponement of such predictions and dreams hardly needed explanation; hands-on engagement brings with it an appreciation of the complexity to culture and society in all its many fractal arenas. But to a certain class of people, junior technocrats mostly, who had grown up taking comfort growing up from prophesies of an assured gleaming rationalist future, this was an ecclesiastical betrayal that required a simple answer. And then the towers came down.

The core of the internet has always been atheist and so to was the fledgling bloggosphere in 2001. The difference was mostly one of age and cynical elitism. It takes a while to develop a finer appreciation of the underlying mechanisms of our society, there’s simply too much going on. “Why” can be a steep learning curve; explorations don’t deliver any framing narratives quickly. So much easier to stay at the surface with “People are stupid.” In this way, in that way. Slowly collect and label little discrete failings apparent in others, each one with attendant narrative implications. As parts of the picture fill in so to does a reflexive defense of certain institutions and assumptions.

9/11 was a pivotal paradigm-shift for a host of reasons from bewildered suburban housewives with existential vertigo to jetsetting corporate executives shocked that old fashioned things like national governments hadn’t been sufficiently sidelined. But the technocratic hordes reading instapundit, poised on the foundations of our embryonic information society, ended up playing no small part. Finally the world could be epic again. A clash of civilizations! Their conservatism was fancy devices and Janes and Stratfor, white, male and upper-middle-class, or at least aspirationally inclined to those things; they had little to fear from the conservatism of George W Bush, then merely an ineffective moderate. America was a bastion of secularism and gleaming champion of initiative, as atheists they convinced themselves it was the only tool worth a damn. And Islam was the devil. The heart of everything holding us back from an Asimovian paradise.

It’s so sad that one of the most potent cultural impetuses to the last decade of imperialism could be so blatantly fucking ridiculous.
Islam is a joke. (Christianity is a joke too.)

There are many forms of faith possible in life; religions only happen at the point when metaphorical flesh is dripping off a fractured logical skeleton and the insides have already rotted away.

Anyone and everyone capable of seizing any sort of power must at least retain enough brains to machievelli. It’s impossible to keep enough of a dynamic mind to look out for threats and manage the social complexities that interface with a religion without taking a step back from that religion and grounding yourself in less bulky faiths and more explicit selfishness. Our leaders from Ahmadinejad to Pope Sidious are atheists at core, always have been. Doesn’t make them any less evil, obviously, but it does assure a certain level of rational self-interest. bin Laden was an incredible dumbass, and he was contextually fenced in terms of social capital and desire, but he wasn’t such a dumbass as to actually be religious in his heart of hearts. He wasn’t going to start an apocalypse.

Further, at the end of the day Al Queda was stuck working through religion. Hezbolla, The Islamic Brotherhood, etc. No matter how much some of them may want to eat all our brains they’re an innately hobbled force. They have the mass sometimes, they just don’t have the speed or dexterity.

I am not afraid of Islam for a lot of reasons. But ultimately I am not scared of Islam because unlike those privileged and content enough to sit back and wait to be ushered in to some gleaming new world those of us actually struggling to build the future have a better appreciation of the landscape and dynamic obstacles at play. You can’t judge progress by comparison to shiny pamphlets as if the future was a condo going up (Next Fall!). In the trenches, in the nitty-gritty, you can see progress happening still small, sometimes just grinding industriously away at the rocks in our path, but accelerating with exponential growth nonetheless. We are changing the conditions of the battlefield faster than they can shamble. So no, you entitled bourgeois assholes who’ve never fought a fascist in your life or done any struggle besides petulant bloviating in the defacto service of totalitarianism, I’m aint scared of no holy ghost. Nor its followers.

And, if the last decade wasn’t mounds and mounds of proof that you shouldn’t think of the religious as anything other than a mindless natural disaster that it’s relatively easy to skirt, I’d like to tell you of a gal I saw once.

Minneapolis has a large Somali immigrant community, burqas and hijab are a common sight on the bus, with hot-pink phones flashing under the sleeves. One afternoon in the month leading up to the RNC while I was taking the 14 through South Minneapolis to meet up with someone at a FNB, one of these teenage Somali gals got on the bus in full black burqa. Except that covering the back of it were punk patches. From Antischism to Bad Religion. I don’t know if she was trying to balance Islam with anarcho-punk or if she was maintaining the burqa as an atheist punk in some personal fuck you to cultural prejudice and patriarchal sexualization, the way her sharp eyes burned I suspected the later. Either way, and I don’t mean to say this with any colonial associations: Free thought can consume anything. We got nothing to fear.

Or at least my team doesn’t. To hell with yours.S'about right.

[roy]

Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.

you may as well replace "muslims" with "workers" (which is what most muslims are). of course us self-proclaimed leftists are held to a higher standard than most in terms of not having reactionary views, precisely because we proclaim ourselves as leftists which implicitly means, "i'm not reactionary". even so, we are fettered with reactionary views (e.g. "muslims are a problem"). undoubtedly, we should counter these views, but if you demonise all those who hold them in a society that reinforces them day-by-day, you're gonna find yourself absent workers for a movement.

[l'Enfermé]

Why is that a factor?
What do you mean? Exoprism, in reply to OP's assertion that Muslims are anti-Communist, said that the 2nd and 3rd biggest PLO parties are Muslims and yet Marxist-Lenist also. I said that's not exactly true, because the DPLF is not Muslim, it's mostly a Christian organization, supported by Palestinian/Jordanian Arab Christians and secularized Muslims that don't give a shit about Islam one way or the other.

[hatzel]

I read somewhere Islamphobia is on the rise on the left.

The broad Left is actually full of proud bellends, yeah. It's not by any means just Islamophobia, though of course the fact that the prevailing racism in wider society at the moment is that of Islamophobia, it's no surprise that it's also one of the more common bigotries amongst those who like to imagine themselves as shining beacons of light dragging society towards a better tomorrow. 'Better' for them seemingly synonymous with 'less Muslim-y or whatever,' or how else could the struggle against Muslims as supposedly inherent reactionaries (lulzer) be a contingent and necessary part of this process?

[pluckedflowers]

wait revelfters still care about new atheism?

Yes, some of us do indeed care about a shitty, anti-materialist pop ideology fronted by a coalition of liberals and outright reactionairies.

[Brosip Tito]

So pointing out that Islamic beliefs are reactionary is Islamophobic?

I don't see how what I said is any different to saying supporters of Capitalism are reactionary. If you support a reactionary ideology, you are a reactionary.
The sad thing is, that you didn't say Islamic beliefs. You said "Muslims are a problem".

Muslims =/= Islam.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

OK kids, calm down.

[The Machine]

basically because it's dumb shit that leads folks to saying stuff like 'yup the war on terror is okay because fundamentalism"

Well first of all New Atheism isn't really a thing. It's basically a term constructed to lump together the most prominent critics of religion. Guys like Sam Harris don't have a whole lot in common with Dawkins. But even the most reactionary elements of atheism is only as bad as the most reactionary stuff on here, in my mind supporting the war on terror is about as bad as being an "anti-imperialist" and supporting the taliban or whatever national liberation murder gang. National politics have nothing to do with class politics and is rooting for the imperialist underdog is just as bad as rooting for the US.
The fact is though I have yet to see a radical leftist actually support the war on terror because of anti-theism, and its a hell of a stretch to say that anti-theism leads to supporting the war on terror if you know anything about the situation in the middle east (the US isn't exactly propping up the most secular governments).


that's because 1) there was a revolution and 2) the church took a side, tho.

So what nowadays the church is pro-revolution or even ambivalent about it? Even the Liberation Theology movement got two thumbs down from the Vatican, and political religion almost anywhere is reactionary. A couple moonbat churches and unitarians against the war dont change the fact that it's religious groups on the front lines against abortion and gay rights.


i dont see anyone doing any apologism for any religious group today either. just sayin that people's assessment of religion is p. shitty in general!

The PSL and other CPs have worked with the NOI multiple times and even in this thread you've got people saying "Oh well the Quaran isn't so bad because..." Fuck that. It's not communist's job to defend centuries old religious texts. Fighting racism against Arab immigrants? Sure. But the only use we should have for a Bible, a Quaran or a Torah is to use that extra thin paper to roll our doobies with.

[The Machine]

Yes, some of us do indeed care about a shitty, anti-materialist pop ideology fronted by a coalition of liberals and outright reactionairies.

another post whining about materialism and liberals? how about you sit a few plays out there champ.

if new atheism actually existed outside of wikipedia, which it doesn't, it would have about as much political influence as muslim immigrants do. the main arguments of dawkins against religion is that the quality of people's lives would improve if they didn't buy into superstition, religion, and quackery. honestly thats pretty hard to argue against. as for his dawkin's politics, he's center left or a soc-dem I believe, but his arguments against religion are more based on science and reason than politics. he's really not a political ideologue though, which might be a hard thing for a lot of you fuckers to wrap your mind around.

[Tim Finnegan]

as for his dawkin's politics, he's center left or a soc-dem I believe...
Yeah, no (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/05/new-college-dawkins-grayling-ferguson).


...but his arguments against religion are more based on science and reason than politics.
"Science" and "religion" are political categories.

[The Machine]

Yeah, no (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/05/new-college-dawkins-grayling-ferguson).

Doesn't say anything about his politics.


"Science" and "religion" are political categories.

"Social science" and marxism arent real sciences, and it's not really a political category if it's something that should be abolished. I don't see anyone calling capitalism or racism a political category.

[hatzel]

I don't see anyone calling capitalism or racism a political category.

...what? What do you think these things are, then?

[The Machine]

oppressive systems?

[pluckedflowers]

if new atheism actually existed outside of wikipedia, which it doesn't, it would have about as much political influence as muslim immigrants do.

What the hell is your point? I'm not organizing rallies against Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. I'm pointing out that they're full of shit in a forum that features people like you who don't seem to have figured that out yet.


he's really not a political ideologue though, which might be a hard thing for a lot of you fuckers to wrap your mind around

Apparently no harder than it is for you to wrap your mind around the fact that you don't have to be a political ideologue to push a political ideology.

Nope, no ideology here (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but), folks. Just science and reason.

Edit: By the way, can we drop the act about Dawkins somehow being in a class of his own (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/four_horsemen.jpg)?

[The Machine]

What the hell is your point? I'm not organizing rallies against Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. I'm pointing out that they're full of shit in a forum that features people like you who don't seem to have figured that out yet.

I dont think theyre all that popular here tbh.


Apparently no harder than it is for you to wrap your mind around the fact that you don't have to be a political ideologue to push a political ideology.

Nope, no ideology here (http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but), folks. Just science and reason.


one dumb questionable blog post by an 80 year old man doesnt mean shit. Marx said a lot of questionable shit about Jews and supported the Mexican American war, Engels was a racist, and yet you still call yourself a Marxist. I'm not a Dawkinist, I don't agree with everything he says, I just like his arguments against religion. His atheism isn't a political ideology, his ideology p. much amounts to the ad they put on that bus that caused so much controversy: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[The Machine]

Edit: By the way, can we drop the act about Dawkins somehow being in a class of his own (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/four_horsemen.jpg)?

Oh you mean he had a roundtable discussion with other prominent atheists? Boy he must agree with everything they say. I actually heard he's converting to whatever dumb Buddhist religion sam harris is as well.

[Deicide]

How is science, e.g. Geology, a political category :confused:

[Tim Finnegan]

Not "science, e.g. geology", but "science, i.e. not religion". It's an ideological construction that emerged in the Enlightenment as part of a certain kind of bourgeois liberalism. Dawkins, as a militant proponent of this capital-S Science against capital-R Religion, is engaged in an overtly political discourse; the fact that he would deny this is simply an illustration of the tendency of ideology to naturalise itself, much as a proponent of bourgeois economics or ethics would argue that they are not engaged in a political discourse, but the simple expounding of pre-political Facts.

[The Machine]

what are you one of the guys who thinks that anything that doesnt advance communism is reactionary or whatever? fuck that

sounds like your just calling shit you think is scary bourgeois liberalism and inventing a historical construct because you dont have a real argument. what are the actual political implications of dawkin's work?

[The Machine]

and if "capital S" Science is the product of enlightenment then "capital R" Religion is the product of feudalism and slave society so you're still wrong.

[Barra]

Muslims,Christians,Hindus etc,etc are reactionary and are a problem.

[Tim Finnegan]

what are you one of the guys who thinks that anything that doesnt advance communism is reactionary or whatever? fuck that

sounds like your just calling shit you think is scary bourgeois liberalism and inventing a historical construct because you dont have a real argument.
Whatever floats yer boat.


what are the actual political implications of dawkin's work?In themselves limited, because neoliberalism is (was?) more than capable of accommodating religious conservatism, and if anything his militant Science-ism just makes things more difficult. However, he contributes to a particular discourse of civilisational struggle which feeds the "post-fascist" movements of Western Europe, such as the BNP and PVV, and that is not without its concerns.


and if "capital S" Science is the product of enlightenment then "capital R" Religion is the product of feudalism and slave society so you're still wrong.
The categorical distinction between "religion" and "not religion" was pretty unique to the Christian world, actually, excluding non-Christian feudal societies (e.g. pagan England) and including non-feudal Christian societies (e.g. Byzantium), and in any case only emerged as something directly juxtaposed to Science in the Enlightenment, having previously seen as complementary. It didn't derive mechanically from the mode of production, as you seem to be implying.

[Crux]

Okay, here's a radical thought for you: religion is not reactionary. reactionary beliefs have fuck all to do with the teachings of the bible, the quaran, the torah, what have you. Does that mean the previously mentioned texts are progressive? No, not that either. Do they show signs of having been written very very long ago, not to mention being rewritten to fit the rulers of the day? Yes, of course. Because they are. But religious beliefe exists completely independent of religious texts. Religious belief rather is dictated by the balance of power and the society they exist in. To take one very practical example, while the bible is full of reactionary thing's, it says next to nothing about two of present day right-wing christians favorite subjects, that is homosexuality and abortion. So instead of going "oh those people are reactionary because they are christian/muslims/whatever" attack the reactionary ideas themselfes. Unless you do belive these beliefs are controlled to divine intervention this should not be a complicated idea to wrap your head around.

[Nox]

The sad thing is, that you didn't say Islamic beliefs. You said "Muslims are a problem".

Muslims =/= Islam.

Sorry, I was wrong, I was under the impression that muslims generally follow the teachings of the Quran. :rolleyes:

[Krano]

Sorry, I was wrong, I was under the impression that muslims generally follow the teachings of the Quran. :rolleyes:
Still if you came here and said Jews are a problem instead of Zionism is a problem you probably would have been banned already.

[Tim Finnegan]

Sorry, I was wrong, I was under the impression that muslims generally follow the teachings of the Quran. :rolleyes:
The Qur'an includes a prohibition on living in houses of more than one storey. You figure it out.

[l'Enfermé]

Still if you came here and said Jews are a problem instead of Zionism is a problem you probably would have been banned already.
The difference is that Jews are much more secular, and besides that, Jewishness isn't only a religious identification, but also a cultural and ethnic one. Zionism isn't a religion either, it's a form of European settler-colonialism.


Okay, here's a radical thought for you: religion is not reactionary. reactionary beliefs have fuck all to do with the teachings of the bible, the quaran, the torah, what have you. Does that mean the previously mentioned texts are progressive? No, not that either. Do they show signs of having been written very very long ago, not to mention being rewritten to fit the rulers of the day? Yes, of course. Because they are. But religious beliefe exists completely independent of religious texts. Religious belief rather is dictated by the balance of power and the society they exist in. To take one very practical example, while the bible is full of reactionary thing's, it says next to nothing about two of present day right-wing christians favorite subjects, that is homosexuality and abortion. So instead of going "oh those people are reactionary because they are christian/muslims/whatever" attack the reactionary ideas themselfes. Unless you do belive these beliefs are controlled to divine intervention this should not be a complicated idea to wrap your head around.
The Bible quite openly says, in the Book of Leviticus, that male homosexuality is an "abomination" and must be punished with death. Another biblical name for homosexuals, besides "sodomites", is "dog". The list goes on.

Regarding abortion, the Bible is so full of infanticide that to say the Christian God condemns abortion is ridiculous, in fact, I think the Bible even says that an infant isn't considered a person until a month after it's birth.

Inb4 "the Old Testament is mostly disregarded by Christians"

[The Machine]

Whatever floats yer boat.

lol so whats proletarian science then like three trots making a pamphlet about dialectics?


In themselves limited, because neoliberalism is (was?) more than capable of accommodating religious conservatism, and if anything his militant Science-ism just makes things more difficult. However, he contributes to a particular discourse of civilisational struggle which feeds the "post-fascist" movements of Western Europe, such as the BNP and PVV, and that is not without its concerns.


You're reaching and you know it. Trying to associate Dawkins with the BNP and far right is pretty ridiculous, and he doesn't really white knight western civilization to the extent that even a lot of left leaning academics do. But that's some really serious accusations your leveling, care to actually show any evidence that Dawkin's ideas feed the neo-fascist movement or are you just gonna keep talking out your ass?


The categorical distinction between "religion" and "not religion" was pretty unique to the Christian world, actually, excluding non-Christian feudal societies (e.g. pagan England) and including non-feudal Christian societies (e.g. Byzantium), and in any case only emerged as something directly juxtaposed to Science in the Enlightenment, having previously seen as complementary. It didn't derive mechanically from the mode of production, as you seem to be implying.

First of all this is a really shitty analysis. Science didn't become juxtaposed with religion due to the ideology of the Enlightenment, but because scientific discovery progressed to the point where it was beginning to become separate from superstition and religion. The idea of separation of church and state was an Enlightenment ideal (and imo a good one), but the seperation of religion, superstition and science was an ongoing process throughout even the 19th century and didn't have a whole lot to do with ideals.
Secondly the clergy and political leadership of the church are essentially leftovers from feudalism so especially during the enlightenment the conflict between the church and the secularists was just an extension of the conflict between the nobility and the bourgeois.

[Crux]

Sorry, I was wrong, I was under the impression that muslims generally follow the teachings of the Quran. :rolleyes:
Yes, yes you were.

[Azraella]

The Bible quite openly says, in the Book of Leviticus, that male homosexuality is an "abomination" and must be punished with death. Another biblical name for homosexuals, besides "sodomites", is "dog". The list goes on.


Which is debated on quite often. Some think it's a reference to pederasty rather than homosexual sex.

[Deicide]

I think the OP is a pretty big problem..

[Krano]

I think the OP is a pretty big problem..
Not anymore, his banned.

[NGNM85]

Which is debated on quite often. Some think it's a reference to pederasty rather than homosexual sex.

It's very unlikely that the authors were not referring to homosexuality, as we understand it, today. However; given the deeply pathological attitude towards sexuality suffused throughout this ponderous tome, one would expect the almighty probably would not approve. Regardless, the version that children are reading, today, in Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, etc., specifically says; 'homosexuality', with entirely predictable social consequences.

[NGNM85]

Also people who treat religion like a set of ideas instead of a complicated social phenomenon (see: dipshit anti-theists, "New Atheists") are mind numbingly fuckin dumb

EDIT: I'm talking to you, Borz, Nox, Must - Crush - Capitalism, NGNM85 etc. etc. etc.

Like Revolution Starts With U said; qualify your remarks, or keep them to yourself.


Put most simply, folks who cry forever about "oh man the bible/qu'ran/whatever is sooooo reactionaryyyyyy it promotes bigotry and war and violence and sexism oh noooo"

They absolutely are, and they absolutely do. I can dig up the quotes, if you’d like. It’s a matter of empirical fact.


do this while completely ignoring the fact that there are plenty of adherents to these religions who, uh, don't hold bigoted or 'reactionary' beliefs.

There are some.


Religion isn't a set of ideas and frankly you have to be sorta divorced from reality to not see how people cherrypick and 'interpret' these texts. For example, in the US's southern states, preachers would quote the bible to extoll the virtue and rightness of slavery, while at the very same time, the african slaves would read from the very same book and find comfort in it.

Nobody said religion exists in a vacuum. In fact; I specifically stated otherwise, several times. You want to make this a debate between your rigid economic determinism, your own dogma, and an equally extreme 'theological determinism.' That might be easier, but it has no relationship to the truth. Both ideas are misguided in their own way. As I’ve said before; it isn’t even really possible to live entirely in accordance with this dubious document, not in the least because it is replete with contradictions, it’s incredibly long, and society no longer tolerates many of the proscribed behaviors, to name a few. That said; the assertion that the institution of Christianity has no relationship to the scripture, whatsoever, and that people’s most deeply cherished beliefs have absolutely no impact, whatsoever on their actions, is totally asinine.

[PhoenixAsh]

Muslims,Christians,Hindus etc,etc are reactionary and are a problem.


I am assuming that you are arguing that religion is reactionary? Since there are quite a few revolutionaries who believe in God(s)

[Crux]

Which is debated on quite often. Some think it's a reference to pederasty rather than homosexual sex.
the references to not eating shrimp and not having tattoes are pretty unambigous though. When I was a snotty teenager I thought these were great arguments against christianity. The point is though, they're not. Very few people sit down and read the bible from start to finish and then go "all this seems correct to me, I shall now become a christian". First of all most people are born into their faith and even among people who convert I doubt that is how it usually goes. Religion is not a distilled version of scripture, and unless you are in a very small and probably new sect neither is the opposite true. We are introduced to religion by people, institutions and generally the world around us. Many people simply conforms into religion because it seems like common sense . Perhaps they like the people who introduced them to it. Perhaps they think what those people do and say make sense. Of course there is the rarer but existing alternative of having a religious experience but this too does not happen in isolation, even though it might happen in solitary confinement.
The two related points I am trying to make is this religion is mostly unrelated to scripture because, and here is my second point, religion is defined by society. So therefore saying "religion is reactionary" isn't a very useful statement. Saying "muslims are reactionary" is even worse, because it is simply false. Unless you are talking about a very marginal religious sect it is simply absurd, probably even reactionary, to make such a statement about any religion and it's followers.

[Sir Comradical]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism. In India, commies support Muslims, yet Muslims regularly attack commies. In Germany, antifa defends Muslims, yet Muslims attack antifa with no gratitude.

So my friend believes that Muslims consider nonmuslims, even Muslim-friendly nonmuslims, as the enemy. In Iran, they wiped out commies, and in other places too.

In India at least that's because both sides are shameless opportunists whose fleeting alliances have more to do with establishing electoral power bases than establishing some kind of solidarity amongst oppressed minorities.

[seventeethdecember2016]

My friend believes that Muslims are basically religous ppl and will never support communism.
We actually have quite a few people of Muslim origin on this forum.

I agree with you in many respects, but you should change your title, as you're indicating people rather than the ideology.
I'm sure many people on this forum will agree with "Islam is a Problem."

You could also say, "Christianity is a Problem" or "Judaism is a Problem."

[Tim Finnegan]

lol so whats proletarian science then like three trots making a pamphlet about dialectics?
Pardon me?


You're reaching and you know it. Trying to associate Dawkins with the BNP and far right is pretty ridiculous, and he doesn't really white knight western civilization to the extent that even a lot of left leaning academics do. But that's some really serious accusations your leveling, care to actually show any evidence that Dawkin's ideas feed the neo-fascist movement or are you just gonna keep talking out your ass?I don't really think you understood what I said, and, honestly, I can't really be bothered trying to make you.


First of all this is a really shitty analysis. Science didn't become juxtaposed with religion due to the ideology of the Enlightenment, but because scientific discovery progressed to the point where it was beginning to become separate from superstition and religion. The idea of separation of church and state was an Enlightenment ideal (and imo a good one), but the seperation of religion, superstition and science was an ongoing process throughout even the 19th century and didn't have a whole lot to do with ideals.Do you know anything about Medieval and Renaissance science, or philosophy of science? Long story short, characterising Christianity c.1750 as nothing but a den of superstition is just shitty history.


Secondly the clergy and political leadership of the church are essentially leftovers from feudalism so especially during the enlightenment the conflict between the church and the secularists was just an extension of the conflict between the nobility and the bourgeois.Well that's cripplingly reductionist.

[Rafiq]

That's reductionist.

What's wrong with that?

[Rafiq]

Here is the question: Those who said Muslims are indeed a problem, what do they intend to do to them?

Also, there exists no such thing as "Muslims". That's right. To label them as a homogeneous group whose interests overlap class interest is Idealist. There does exist this false consciousnesses, this Muslim solidarity with each other, regardless of class. But since it is a false consciousness against the Proletariat, why recognize it?

Among Muslims, a great many are Proletarians. The problem is what? What problem? On a whole scale ,the problem is indeed inherent in Capitalism's contradictions.

[#FF0000]

So what nowadays the church is pro-revolution or even ambivalent about it?

Ambivalent considering it's not even a thing to have an opinion on these days.


The PSL and other CPs have worked with the NOI multiple times and even in this thread you've got people saying "Oh well the Quaran isn't so bad because..." Fuck that. It's not communist's job to defend centuries old religious texts. Fighting racism against Arab immigrants? Sure. But the only use we should have for a Bible, a Quaran or a Torah is to use that extra thin paper to roll our doobies with.

yea i think i agree w/ you more than i disagree w/ you so

[#FF0000]

Like Revolution Starts With U said; qualify your remarks, or keep them to yourself.

i did tho


They absolutely are, and they absolutely do. I can dig up the quotes, if you’d like. It’s a matter of empirical fact.

yeah but that's p. irrelevant since people just throw out the shit that doesn't appeal to them anyway


There are some.

there are lots.


That said; the assertion that the institution of Christianity has no relationship to the scripture, whatsoever, and that people’s most deeply cherished beliefs have absolutely no impact, whatsoever on their actions, is totally asinine.

I didn't say that, tho.

[The Machine]

Pardon me?

"I'm not even gonna bother trying to explain to you what I mean."

nah I'm not that much of a douche. basically if the science that Dawkins bases his criticism of religion on is bourgeois, or if the distinction between science and religion is bourgeois, what's the prole answer here.


I don't really think you understood what I said, and, honestly, I can't really be bothered trying to make you.

you said the discourse Dawkins participates in feeds the neo-fascist movement. how?


Do you know anything about Medieval and Renaissance science, or philosophy of science? Long story short, characterising Christianity c.1750 as nothing but a den of superstition is just shitty history.

I don't know a whole lot, and there was certainly progress made during the middle ages but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the progress made during the enlightenment


Well that's cripplingly reductionist.

Look at the French Revolution and tell me I'm wrong. Certain Protestant sects represented the more conservative bourgeois, but both the Catholic Church and Church of England by and large represented the interests of the nobility.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Why did the OP get banned?

[The Machine]

thats how they take care of problems here

[Rafiq]

Finally.

[#FF0000]

yeah normally i h8 banning folks but the dude was sort of a troll

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

yeah normally i h8 banning folks but the dude was sort of a troll

Sort of?

[Invader Zim]

Islam is a problem. So yes, muslims are a problem, virtually all of them are very reactionary.

An irony given that this kind of stereotyping of those strange people you don't like is highly reactionary.

[fabian]

If hate speech and call to violence laws are to exist, Quran (along with the Bible) should be treated according to those.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Since there are many sects of Islam. There are Liberal and Progressive Muslims there are also Gay/Homosexual Muslims. There are Muslims who have no problem with Interfaith Marriages. I know that Muslim Women are told in their Religion to only marry Muslim Men but I have met and know there are Muslim Women who are married to or dating Non Muslim Men not all Muslim Women cover their whole body in public. My point is that Moderate Muslims do exist. Judaism says Jews can only marry Jews yet many Jews do marry Gentiles or Non Jews and Christianity says Christians can only marry Christians yet many Christians marry Non Christians. I just think there are Fundamentalists in all these Religions and Moderates in all of them. I just don't buy into the Right Wing Propaganda that says that all Muslims want Sharia Law in he West and believe in Stoning for Adultery and or getting rid of Secularism and or Separation of Religion and State.



Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) is an inclusive community rooted in the traditional Qur’anic ideals of human dignity and social justice. We welcome all who are interested in discussing, promoting and working for the implementation of progressive values — human rights, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state — as well as inclusive and tolerant understandings of Islam.

http://www.mpvusa.org/

Queer Jihad strongly condemns all forms of terrorism,
including prejudice and discrimination.

http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/

Liberal movements within Islam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressive (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Progressivism) Muslims (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Muslims) have produced a considerable body of liberal thought (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Liberalism) within Islam (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Islam)[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Liberal_Muslim_Conference-0)[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Essays_by_Muslims-1) or "progressive Islam" (Arabic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Arabic_language): الإسلام التقدمي‎); but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-differences_prog_liberal-2)). The methodology of reform can be classified into two groups, one depending on re-interpreting the traditional texts which constitutes Islamic law (ijtihad (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ijtihad));[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-ijtihad-3) this varies widely from little deviation from the traditional interpretation, to the more liberal which considers only the meaning of Qur'an as a divine inspiration, while the wording is believed to be from the prophet Muhammad intended by him to suit his time and situation, therefore interpreting the problematic verses in modern times allegorically or even not considering them. The second is questioning the authentic status applied to texts by the Traditional Islamic Scholars, resulting in the most liberal case as of the Qur'an Alone (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Qur%27an_Alone) Muslims in rejecting the Islamic narratives of the sayings and practises of Prophet Muhammad (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Prophet_Muhammad), namely the Hadith (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Hadith) completely.
The most liberal Muslim intellectuals who focused on religious reform include Sayyid al-Qimni (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Sayyid_al-Qimni), Nasr Abu Zayd (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Nasr_Abu_Zayd), Abdolkarim Soroush (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Abdolkarim_Soroush), Mohammed Arkoun (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mohammed_Arkoun), Mohammed Shahrour (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mohammed_Shahrour), Ahmed Subhy Mansour (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ahmed_Subhy_Mansour), Edip Yuksel (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Edip_Yuksel), Gamal al-Banna (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Gamal_al-Banna), Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Abdullahi_Ahmed_An-Na%27im), Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ahmed_Al-Gubbanchi), Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mahmoud_Mohammed_Taha), and Faraj Foda (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Faraj_Foda), the last two were killed after apostasy claims (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) which most of them have been accused of by traditional Islamic scholars.
Some liberal Muslims claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Ummah) and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture, the Qur'an (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Qur%27an).[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-Imam_speech_against_extremism-4) They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law, as they consider these to be culturally based and without universal applicability. The reform movement uses monotheism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Monotheism) (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-5)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam)

[Rafiq]

Never support Communism? Do you realize that the PFLP, a Communist party, is the second largest faction in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the first being Fatah? And that the third largest faction is the DFLP, also a Communist party? Yeah, they have a reactionary religion and many muslims are reactionary but guess what, so are many non-muslims and it's not a good reason to make a sweeping generalization and make good Comrades, who actually are muslim, look bad


Not to disregard your point, but this is a horrible example. Why is it assumed all Middle Easterners are Muslim? Most of the Arabic Communists I know, the ones straight off the boat, are atheists..

[Crux]

"Queer Jihad"? <3

[Zealot]

Not to disregard your point, but this is a horrible example. Why is it assumed all Middle Easterners are Muslim? Most of the Arabic Communists I know, the ones straight off the boat, are atheists..

I'm not assuming all Middle Easterners are Muslim. Where did I say that? However, I don't think it's such a big leap to say that most members of the Communist parties in Palestine are Muslim. But it's not like there's any statistics floating around about it either.

[Communismoe]

"Queer Jihad"? <3
two of the worst

[stern l.]

People often compares muslims to jews in 20's germany.
Such a strange comparison when muslims have countries of origin, control 90% of the world's oil, control of 1/5 of world landmass and are the world most growing religion.

I often hear stories of muslims who intentionally immigrate to countries like Sweden or Finland only because of easy and free welfare, etc...

[Rafiq]

People often compares muslims to jews in 20's germany.
Such a strange comparison when muslims have countries of origin, control 90% of the world's oil, control of 1/5 of world landmass and are the world most growing religion.

I often hear stories of muslims who intentionally immigrate to countries like Sweden or Finland only because of easy and free welfare, etc...

Or, because that 90% of oil control belong to the Muslim Bourgeoisie, while Workers in those countries live in horrid and atrocious living conditions. But go ahead and sprew antiimmagrant sediment talking out of your ass.

They aren't comparable to Jewish people in 1930's but they certainly aren't world elites like Caucasian old males wealthy are. Maybe you should have a look at your statistics, of who owns the 1/5th land mass, of who owns the oil. Is it all of the "muslims" in joint ownership or something?

And to add, half are women, whom very oppressed.

They go to Europe to escape the hell holes Imperialism created, not because they're "lazy" or whatever Nationalist fucks like to say.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Crux]

People often compares muslims to jews in 20's germany.
Such a strange comparison when muslims have countries of origin, control 90% of the world's oil, control of 1/5 of world landmass and are the world most growing religion.

I often hear stories of muslims who intentionally immigrate to countries like Sweden or Finland only because of easy and free welfare, etc...
That's interesting because, while there is a growing racism in Finland, they take in very few immigrants, muslim or otherwise. Now I know you're banned and all but people ought to stop and think when they hear such "stories". As for the free and easy wellfare...I wish.

[Krano]

That's interesting because, while there is a growing racism in Finland, they take in very few immigrants, muslim or otherwise. Now I know you're banned and all but people ought to stop and think when they hear such "stories". As for the free and easy wellfare...I wish.
90% of Finland is ethnic Finns, only fascist parties like the True Finns claim that we have immigration problems.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

As for the free and easy wellfare...I wish.

Nothing like when it doesn't even cover enough to pay for electricity and food bills.

Great generous welfare, indeed. :rolleyes:

[Comrade1988]

all religious people are the problem

[pluckedflowers]

all religious people are the problem

Yeah, Marx really had no idea what he was talking about with that whole "historical materialism" thing.

[znk666]

Religion of any kind is the problem here,not the people themselves.

[Cheung Mo]

Not to disregard your point, but this is a horrible example. Why is it assumed all Middle Easterners are Muslim? Most of the Arabic Communists I know, the ones straight off the boat, are atheists..

A lot of countries with a strong Muslim majority present data that misreport the religious affiliation of their citizens. Tunisia is official 98% Muslim, and yet many popular estimates say that about 40% of the population is irreligious.

In Quebec, many irreligious Francophones self-identify as Roman Catholics, creating a situation in which Quebec has the lowest proportion of self-identified non-religious people in Canada, but also the lowest religious service attendance. Likewise, lots of Americans say they're Jews but don't believe in Yhwh anymore than they do in Zeus.

[Imposter Marxist]

muslims always seem to set up state-capitalism ( Iraq, Egypt, Syria, libya, etc.)

[Movimento Sem Terra]

Only Fundamentalist are a real problem because other muslims are good .

[#FF0000]

unlike other people right

what the fuck kind of thing is that to say

[Rafiq]

muslims always seem to set up state-capitalism ( Iraq, Egypt, Syria, libya, etc.)

This is ludicrous. Firstly, those countries can't be categorized as "state capitalist", they were just capitalist with social democratic tendencies, and secondly, this has fuck all to do with the religious nature of those nations populace. After all, excluding Libya, all of those states were fully secular.

[Drosophila]

This is ludicrous. Firstly, those countries can't be categorized as "state capitalist", they were just capitalist with social democratic tendencies, and secondly, this has fuck all to do with the religious nature of those nations populace. After all, excluding Libya, all of those states were fully secular.

Missed the obvious joke?

[LeftAbove]

The only Muslims that I'm against are those that infringe the right of others, especially the right of women.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm a muslim, enough said.

And, I am fine with homosexuality, pro-gender equality, tolerant of other religions (have more atheist friends then muslim friends.), and pretty much despise fundamentalists, of any religion, that engage in bigotry.


I second this.

In fact the poor treatment of women, homosexuals, non-muslims, etc. by my fellow muslims actually disgusts me. I plan on some day travelling to other countries to help people. As a reformist muslim I also plan to work with others towards islamic reform.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does anyone else here have a problem with judging whole groups of people rather than actions and consequences as "a problem"? It feels like a mass-murderer has defecated into my brain-pan.

[pastradamus]

I cant really say anything in response to the OP or other opinions in this thread because otherwise id be repeating some stuff already said.

But I must say some of the comments i've read here have appaled me.

[pastradamus]

Thread closed. No point keeping the useless crap in this going on.