Why much apology for Islam in the Left?

[durhamleft]

I agree Muslims get a bit of a shit deal in the West - and there is a lot of hatred towards them which is misplaced.

However, I've noticed a few posters trying to suggest that any argument that practices in Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq etc are barbaric and disgraceful in how they treat minorities, is akin to islamophobia.

So my question is, how some leftists square this circle of on the one hand being incredibly pro-LGBT rights, pro-womens rights, anti-religion etc but at the same time rushing to defend Islam.

Eg. This post accused of 'Islamophobia'


I haven't even seen the movie. But I just have to say. This is just one more reason why religion should be abolished.

I doubt 99% of the people angry about it even watched it. They probably just took the word of someone that said it was anti-islamic and went with it and spread it around like that.


Also, heard cases of the SWP happily holding meetings in Mosques where women were forced to sit in a segregated area to men :rolleyes:

Or them sharing platforms at UAF demos et all with some incredibly homophobic Muslim preachers.

Get a grip.

* Should read "so much". It's 4:30 am here, I'm tired.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I actually had the same thought a few days ago. Being an anti-theist, I oppose Islam as much I do Christianity or any other religion.

Islamic fundamentalism is, globally speaking, more of a problem than Christian fundamentalism - this would be difficult to deny. However, we have to look at where it's rooted from, and if we do, we find that Islamic fundamentalism was greatly bolstered by Western imperialism in the Middle East. Turkey is a more developed Islamic country economically, and as such, it's undergone some degree of secularization as the West has, and this will inevitably come to the rest of the Islamic world at some point.

On a related note, though it certainly won't make me very popular around here - I'm a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, and he writes a great deal about religious harm in God Is Not Great, which was definitely one of my favorite reads.

[SonofRage]

I don't get it either. I still generally agree with this analysis:

Three-Cornered Fight (http://bringtheruckus.org/?q=node/21)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Islamic fundamentalism is, globally speaking, more of a problem than Christian fundamentalism - this would be difficult to deny.
Um... considering how Christian fundementalism has spurred Western militarism and intervention throughout the world I'm not entirely convinced this is technically true. Both Tony Blair and George Bush have confessed to being inspired by god to go through with their invasion of Iraq, after all. It seems to me that Christian fundementalism is more of a 'problem' in that it has a far more powerful military industrial complex to direct around the world.


On a related note, though it certainly won't make me very popular around here - I'm a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, and he writes a great deal about religious harm in God Is Not Great, which was definitely one of my favorite reads.
Hitchens was a charismatic figure of the atheist 'movement' but has no real marxist grounding in his critique.


I agree with you that Islamic fundementalism should be countered at every turn but a lot of struggle against it has been accompanied by racism. So when leftists defend against the obvious racism they find themselves attached to the Islamic fundementalism. It's like defending Chavez in response to American neoimperialism but inevitably finding yourself associated with... Chavez.

[roy]

if anyone was defending discrimination against women, lgtb rights etc. they'd be restricted or banned. we condemn discrimination against all oppressed groups. it's not like muslims are some monolithic hate group so there's really no dichotomy here.

[Ocean Seal]

Pretty sure few people here are apologists for Islam. I personally just don't like the stupid criticisms that westerners have of most Islamic people. A large number of westerners believe that every Muslim they encounter is a fundamentalist, a large number of westerners see the orient as uncivilized and backwards exclusively because of religion. A large number of westerners think that Islam is the reason that there is so much chaos in the middle east and it would all be better if the area were Christian (includes weirdoes like Dawkins). They also happen to think that, that makes anti-imperialist proposals against war/sanctions/condescending attitudes ridiculous because the middle east will always be "as it is". And by as it is the westerner means "attacking us". So that's why the left is a bit tip-toey when it comes to Islam.

I personally extend it to Christianity as well being that I really hate the middle class secuarlists who complain that rednecks are ruining them because they only vote on religious grounds. And that everyone but their little book club members are idiots. I just really dislike how anti-theism is used as a mask for classism and imperialist support.

[durhamleft]

Pretty sure few people here are apologists for Islam. I personally just don't like the stupid criticisms that westerners have of most Islamic people. A large number of westerners believe that every Muslim they encounter is a fundamentalist, a large number of westerners see the orient as uncivilized and backwards exclusively because of religion. A large number of westerners think that Islam is the reason that there is so much chaos in the middle east and it would all be better if the area were Christian (includes weirdoes like Dawkins). They also happen to think that, that makes anti-imperialist proposals against war/sanctions/condescending attitudes ridiculous because the middle east will always be "as it is". And by as it is the westerner means "attacking us". So that's why the left is a bit tip-toey when it comes to Islam.

I personally extend it to Christianity as well being that I really hate the middle class secuarlists who complain that rednecks are ruining them because they only vote on religious grounds. And that everyone but their little book club members are idiots. I just really dislike how anti-theism is used as a mask for classism and imperialist support.


A common point raised on here is the reason for fundamentalist Islam is imperialism. As a staunch critic of Iraq and Afghanistan, I always agreed with the view they would alienate locals and push them towards extremism.

However, as my friend who is a lecturer on Islamic countries and is obsessive about studying them, there is more to it than that. Extremist Islam developed prior to recent anti-Western hostility, in fact even at a time when many Westerners looked fondly on the region, such as during the Afghan USSR war. And prior to that.

So the 'we bomb there houses what do you expect' retort doesn't fully tackle why this has has become such a problem. Which I don't think you've alluded to, but certainly some posters in the politics thread on that pretty explicitly said that.

I kind of do see the Middle East as backwards to be honest - I very much struggle to grasp the argument 'every nation develops in it's own way, with it's own practices'. I would never use this to try and tar every Muslim with the same brush, in the sense I would never suggest all Muslims in Pakistan, or Iran, etc. are backwards. But I do think as a state they are.

And certainly I think large, sweeping sections of their society are pretty screwed up. I think it's absolutely shocking many of the practices which take place, and their level of support.

I also think though there is a similar case in many Western countries. The level of support for racist policies in the US, or for there to be no public heath provision I find equally as shocking in many ways. Within my own country, the UK, I find the increasing level of support for cutting benefits for the poorest also pretty nauseating.

However, at least the left is able to tackle head on the problems within Western society. People are have no hesitation of being incredibly critical of Christianity, and let's not forget there were many in the left who attended Anti-catholic marches when the Pope visited London, including some from the SWP I know of, though I do not know what the parties official line on it was.

In conclusion of what was a pretty disjoined post, I've been up all night, I guess I think the left has some pretty bad double standards around it. I think when talking about a reactionary force like the US army taking on an even reactionary force in the Taliban it is foolish for the left to 'take sides'. The war should be condemned, as it will not actually help in the long run, and there will be many innocents lives lost, but that does not equal supporting the Taliban. They are just as bad, if not worse than the US, and if they ever had the power of the US what they would do would be even worse.

This last 24 hours is the first time I've been on in about half a year, and I just want to add now that I hope everyone is doing well and is taking care. I notice an old friend of mine is now one of the big mods on here- well done him- but everyone else I've spoke to in the past as well, I hope you're all ok too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The idea that Islam presents some kind of global threat to the world is a whole bunch of bullshit nonsense leftover from the phoney "War on Terror", a partly cynical, partly hysterical reaction by the US government to a terrorist attack which killed fewer people than have been killed in accidents on American roads ever since.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the activists of political Islam have done more to hurt fellow Muslims than they have to hurt Westerners - I hear a lot more about suicide bombs and attacks in majority Muslim countries, than I do about attacks by Islamists in the "West".

I'm more concerned about fundie Christians getting their bloody hands on the levers of power in a country which spends more than any other on their military-industrial complex.


A large number of westerners think that Islam is the reason that there is so much chaos in the middle east and it would all be better if the area were Christian (includes weirdoes like Dawkins).

What's you source for Dawkins saying this? Because I'm astonished at the willingness of certain types of leftist to twist his words or impute a meaning to them which requires a quite frankly bizarre interpretation.

[Rafiq]

check my thread out

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[James Connolly]

check my thread out

It would be helpful if you gave us a link.

[Igor]

i seriously think one factor is the fact that people are living in countries where the ruling regime is kinda riding on islamophobia. leftists at least in the West often have the knee-jerk reaction where their capitalists are the worst but elsewhere they're not as bad and should be kinda sympathized with against their local capitalists. but this is really hella absurd imo and really a problem with "anti-imperialism", because they have wildely different standard to organizations in the west and in the developing world overall. People on the left are occasionally sympathetic to pretty outright social democracy in the developing world, which they would never do in their home countries.

So yeah in the other words, leftists can be eurocentrist as fuck and can't grasp issues not acute in their region.

[Dean]

A common point raised on here is the reason for fundamentalist Islam is imperialism. As a staunch critic of Iraq and Afghanistan, I always agreed with the view they would alienate locals and push them towards extremism.

However, as my friend who is a lecturer on Islamic countries and is obsessive about studying them, there is more to it than that. Extremist Islam developed prior to recent anti-Western hostility, in fact even at a time when many Westerners looked fondly on the region, such as during the Afghan USSR war. And prior to that.

So the 'we bomb there houses what do you expect' retort doesn't fully tackle why this has has become such a problem. Which I don't think you've alluded to, but certainly some posters in the politics thread on that pretty explicitly said that.

You're a fool. The Middle East has had its civil-social institutions repeatedly crushed since long before the war on Afghanistan. Do you know anything at all about Mossadegh's fall in Iran or the Egyptian/Pakistani/Saudi militaries and how they came to power? Rejection of the West is common in the region, and Mosques are largely the only places where free speech exists in a reliable, broad-reaching format. Add to that the moralist character of religion and the fact that Islam/Infidelity appear to be common denominators in the East/West respectively, it isn't hard to see why religion is frequently the common cause.

Of course, this couldn't even be admitted on NPR - even while they claim that anti-Japanese riots in China are in fact riots against the government (of course, riots in China do occur, but they aren't reported in the US because they are often a consequence of shit environmental and working conditions, which are embarrassing to US corporations that take advantage of them).

It's this bizarre kind of mentality that thinks that Westerners "looking fondly" on Muslim countries is a meaningful characterization of geopolitical relations. The fact that you typed that out without being too embarrassed to submit it should cause you to seriously reconsider everything you think about the Middle East.

[Ocean Seal]

I'm more concerned about fundie Christians getting their bloody hands on the levers of power in a country which spends more than any other on their military-industrial complex.

I don't think that religious fundamentalist influence in the government would change an already extremely agressive foreign policy.



What's you source for Dawkins saying this? Because I'm astonished at the willingness of certain types of leftist to twist his words or impute a meaning to them which requires a quite frankly bizarre interpretation.
If I recall he said something about combating Islam in Africa and how a potential tactic would be supporting Christian missionaries as it would lead to a safer result. Not too distant from what I suggested he said.

[#FF0000]

I think the only "apologism" comes from people who are really inarticulate or have views that aren't especially nuanced on the Middle East.

I just think it's important to realize that the Middle East is the way it is now mostly because of western intervention in the first place. People point to the awful things that happen in these countries and say "SEE LOOK AT THE SAVAGES WE MUST CIVILIZE GET THE ARMY LETS GO" completely ignoring the fact that "Radical Islam" as it exists today is a monster the United States and England created.

[#FF0000]

Also people who try and talk about the "RAGE OF MUSLIMS" or "THE MUSLIM WORLD" are, yeah, racist dopes who are trying to pin the actions of a handful of people to a cool billion.

This recent "Innocence of Muslims" thing is a perfect example of it. The fact of the matter is hardly anyone even gives a shit and it is a microscopic minority of the "Muslim World" that is out there protesting it. And even fewer are resorting to or calling for violence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think that religious fundamentalist influence in the government would change an already extremely agressive foreign policy.

With funding like that, as well as a naked contempt for the standard bourgeois conventions of US governance, I imagine a much higher upper limit to their potential aggressiveness.


If I recall he said something about combating Islam in Africa and how a potential tactic would be supporting Christian missionaries as it would lead to a safer result. Not too distant from what I suggested he said.

I remember that. I also recall Dawkins rejecting the idea. It certainly wouldn't fly in an atheist movement that likes to perceive itself as progressive with regards to LGBT issues, especially when there is definitely an awareness of the shit that Christian missionaries get up to in places like Uganda. Has he spoken of it since?

[rti]

There is no such thing as islamophobia. All the criticism is warranted in fact, western world handles it to kindly.

Read the Quran first, take a voice later.
It is a book full of hate ( so is Bible btw )

[rti]

Also people who try and talk about the "RAGE OF MUSLIMS" or "THE MUSLIM WORLD" are, yeah, racist dopes who are trying to pin the actions of a handful of people to a cool billion.

This recent "Innocence of Muslims" thing is a perfect example of it. The fact of the matter is hardly anyone even gives a shit and it is a microscopic minority of the "Muslim World" that is out there protesting it. And even fewer are resorting to or calling for violence.

I call this BS.

Protests around the wolrd across many countries is hardly microscopic minority.

If you made that movie in Saudi Arabia or so you would be beheaded no doubt about it.
In fact why dont you go to some Muslim country and start criticizing their religion there, you would know"minority" is actually majority. Until you do that you are just spewing random words around with no clue.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no such thing as islamophobia. All the criticism is warranted in fact, western world handles it to kindly.

All of it? Including the thinly-disguised racism?


Read the Quran first, take a voice later.
It is a book full of hate ( so is Bible btw )

So that means it's OK to be racist towards Christians as well?

[#FF0000]

I call this BS.

Oh well shoot I guess you'd know better than people on the ground, huh?


Protests around the wolrd across many countries is hardly microscopic minority.You know that protests happening in a country =/= everyone in the country is at the protesting, right? And you realize that people protesting doesn't mean violent protests, right?

In fact in Benghazi, there were sizeable protests condemning the violence and the 'insult to islam'.


In fact why dont you go to some Muslim country and start criticizing their religion there, you would know"minority" is actually majority.Hey, I'm not saying people wouldn't be pissed if I started making fun of their religion. What I am saying is that these protests aren't flaming balls of rage like a lot of lazy western news stations and media personalities are portraying it. There are plenty of peaceful protests. And, like I said, most people aren't even protesting at all. The number I'm actually seeing (though I can't find a source other than REUTERS, cited in a report written by an American for Al-Jazeera, says that less than 0.001% of the "muslim world" are protesting. That seems like it might be accurate, considering there are a billion muslims).


Until you do that you are just spewing random words around with no clue.heal thyself, dummy

[#FF0000]

There is no such thing as islamophobia.

Sure is. Bigotry against muslims. Islamophobia.


Read the Quran first, take a voice later.

I have. Especially the blood 'n guts parts. Holy books are great for that. Pulp novels and religious texts all day every day.


It is a book full of hate ( so is Bible btw )

I say this every time someone comes through with this dumb view devoid of any nuance but the thing about religious texts is that they are entirely subject to interpretation. To it's credit, while some Christians have been saying "yeah the bible is literally true", Islam's got a long-ass history of scholars looking over the thing and saying "yeah this shit is hella outdated, and context sensitive. You don't need to kill infidels/do this/do that."

So yeah, if the Quran and Islam (or any religion) is so innately violent and "evil" then you have to explain why there are so many good people who subscribe to it. Especially with Islam, where some 60% or so in the United States say that violence is literally never justified.

[Regicollis]

Muslims have become convenient scapegoats for western governments. Racism against Muslims (or really: anybody from Islamic-sounding places and/or brown people in general) is a way of diverting working class anger into something harmless to the elites. When people feel insecure and scared because of the capitalist system they are presented with an easy enemy in the form of Islam.

Islam is a convenient enemy for Western elites since Muslims are present in the west and look different. And also - let's not forget - because some very vocal Muslims believe in some really vile and stupid things.

Personally I don't respect Islam. I think it is a stupid belief system - even for a religion. There are real and urgent issues with for instance sexism and homophobia among Muslims. Islam has also been a convenient tool to maintain oppressive societies in the Middle East.

As socialists we should be able to see the difference between Islam as a belief system and Muslims as the adherents of said belief system. While the defence of the former is of no interest to socialists protecting Muslims against racism is an integral part of socialism just as the fight against any other kind of racism.

[#FF0000]

I gotta say as tolerant of religion as I am or seem, it is really hard to not be like "dude come on you can't really believe that" when around my christian and muslim friends.

[rti]

All of it? Including the thinly-disguised racism?


Well since people following the book that says they can kill you and take your women slave just because you are not believer, yeah "racism" is just self-defence mechanism.





So that means it's OK to be racist towards Christians as well?

Christians nor Muslims are not a race ma, so racism is overstretching of definition
And yeah many, many people died at the hand of catholic church before religion got finally reformed.

You see tolerance is a both way street
I have the same advice as for the other Rev-Left member go to Muslim country and start criticizing their religion.

[#FF0000]

Well since people following the book that says they can kill you and take your women slave just because you are not believer, yeah racism is just self-defence mechanism.

Does every muslim believe this, now? Do you think every muslim dude you meet thinks it's okay to kill you and take slaves?


Christians nor Muslims are not a race man.Nah, but the anti-muslim thing basically means anti-brown. Which is why it pisses me off so much, having a lot of fellow workers of south asian descent who catch a lot of shit for 'looking muslim'.

And of course, one can be bigoted against people for their dumb religious beliefs.


And yeah many, many people died at the hand of catholic church before religion us got finally reformed.lol he doesn't know about the christians in africa


You see tolerance is a both way street
I have the same advice as for the other Rev-Left member go to Muslim country and start criticizing their religion.No one is saying that they won't get mad about that though hahah.

And besides, which one? There's a lot of different 'muslim countries' wherein you'd get different reactions, my dude.

[Comrade #138672]

Many people who oppose the Islam do not seem to have the same problem with Christianity or other religions. In fact, a lot of them even say that there's nothing wrong with Christianity. Even when you discuss these things in depth with them, they will always focus on the differences. To me this is Islamophobia. I'm defending Muslims against this kind of discrimination.

I'm OK with people being consistent in their criticism of religion.

[#FF0000]

can't wait for the racist dummy to be banned btw.

"racism is a defense mechanism" - every idiot in history lol

[rti]

You know that protests happening in a country =/= everyone in the country is at the protesting, right? And you realize that people protesting doesn't mean violent protests, right?


I guess storming embassies are not violent , fighting police etc.



In fact in Benghazi, there were sizeable protests condemning the violence and the 'insult to islam'.

So how is this a prove of anything ? You can prove anything by giving en example.

Beside those are not true muslims as you could get from Quran.
Read the damn book first, speak later.




Hey, I'm not saying people wouldn't be pissed if I started making fun of their religion. What I am saying is that these protests aren't flaming balls of rage like a lot of lazy western news stations and media personalities are portraying it. There are plenty of peaceful protests. And, like I said, most people aren't even protesting at all. The number I'm actually seeing (though I can't find a source other than REUTERS, cited in a report written by an American for Al-Jazeera, says that less than 0.001% of the "muslim world" are protesting. That seems like it might be accurate, considering there are a billion muslims).

Even so that is about 30 000 people, about shitty quality movie.

So i guess you dont dare go to Muslim countries and criticize their religion there even in scholar-polite way ?

Until you do , you are just a hypocrite.

[rti]

Many people who oppose the Islam do not seem to have the same problem with Christianity or other religions. In fact, a lot of them even say that there's nothing wrong with Christianity. Even when you discuss these things in depth with them, they will always focus on the differences. To me this is Islamophobia. I'm defending Muslims against this kind of discrimination.

I'm OK with people being consistent in their criticism of religion.

Of course criticism of muslims based on argument - my religion is better is very primitive and i could agree with that.

But that is not the case of most poeple.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I guess storming embassies are not violent , fighting police etc.

For what it's worth, the largest protest against the film so far (in Beirut, 100,000+ people) was peaceful and non-violent.

[#FF0000]

I guess storming embassies are not violent , fighting police etc.

Hey stupid let me repeat myself again.

Not every protest is violent. Not every protester is violent. There is no reason to believe that this is the case.


So how is this a prove of anything ? You can prove anything by giving en example.


It is one of many.


Beside those are not true muslims as you could get from Quran.


Clue train, last stop you: "Revisionism" isn't new is Islam. It's been going on for centuries. Scholars reading the qu'ran and interpreting it and reinterpreting it has been a thing for centuries. Fudamentalism that says that "eschew the scholars and just follow the quran as-is" is a modern development. Yet somehow, they are the "true muslims".

I think it's also funny that you think the only "true" muslims are the ones that fit your stereotype. What about the millions of non-violent and peaceful muslims who oppose violence and fundamentalism? Are they just not true muslims, or are they lying, do you think?


Read the damn book first, speak later.


I did, stupid.


So i guess you dont dare go to Muslim countries and criticize their religion there even in scholar-polite way ?

Until you do , you are just a hypocrite.


Yeah what I'm saying, dogg, is that the ultra-conservative fundamentalists don't represent all muslims. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but then again, things must be easy when the world is black and white, huh?

[rti]

For what it's worth, the largest protest against the film so far (in Beirut, 100,000+ people) was peaceful and non-violent.

Well good for them.

But the criticism of muslims are not only about protests.

Its about how they behave in western countries, women rights etc.

[rti]

Hey stupid let me repeat myself again.

Not every protest is violent. Not every protester is violent. There is no reason to believe that this is the case.

Never said they all are.
Doesn't change anything though.

If i saw one violent protests of Christians i would condemn it too , there is absolutely no reason to make special apologies for Muslims




Clue train, last stop you: "Revisionism" isn't new is Islam. It's been going on for centuries. Scholars reading the qu'ran and interpreting it and reinterpreting it has been a thing for centuries. Fudamentalism that says that "eschew the scholars and just follow the quran as-is" is a modern development. Yet somehow, they are the "true muslims".

I think it's also funny that you think the only "true" muslims are the ones that fit your stereotype. What about the millions of non-violent and peaceful muslims who oppose violence and fundamentalism? Are they just not true muslims, or are they lying, do you think?

They are not following the Quran then example:

Quran (2:216) (http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Muhhamad trying to motivate people to attack caravans


I did, stupid.
No you obviously did not.

And calling me stupid wont make you smarter.




Yeah what I'm saying, dogg, is that the ultra-conservative fundamentalists don't represent all muslims. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but then again, things must be easy when the world is black and white, huh?
You still dont dare.

You are still a hypocrite.

You are accusing others of being ismalophobic while you are afraid your-self

[#FF0000]

Never said they all are.
Doesn't change anything though.

If i saw one violent protests of Christians i would condemn it too , there is absolutely no reason to make special apologies for Muslims

No one is though, stupid. The closest thing to that is people pointing out the irony that it was the islamists in Libya killed the US diplomat that was directly working with them. Blowback came early this time around.




They are not following the Quran then example:

Quran (2:216) (http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php#002.216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Muhhamad trying to motivate people to attack caravans



Again, the Quran is not the only religious text in Islam. What the Quran says is not the end-all be-all.


No you obviously did not.


Okay.

I did tho.


And calling me stupid wont make you smarter.


#FF0000 super genius pleased 2 meet u


You still dont dare.

You are still a hypocrite.

You are accusing others of being ismalophobic while you are afraid your-self

But I'm not afraid of Muslims. I'd be hella wary of ultra-conservative and traditonalist theocratic governments, sure, but not every Muslim I meet is a fanatic.

I dunno why you can't seem to grasp what's being said here.

[#FF0000]

Its about how they behave in western countries, women rights etc.

How do "they" behave? Do all of them behave that way? Most of them? A significant minority, even?

[leftistman]

Perhaps because so many Islamic countries and Islamic organizations hold anti-America and anti-Israel political ideals. That's the only reason I can conceive of. I have honestly wondered the same thing myself.

[#FF0000]

Perhaps because so many Islamic countries and Islamic organizations hold anti-America and anti-Israel political ideals. That's the only reason I can conceive of. I have honestly wondered the same thing myself.

You should take a look into the post-world war 2 history of the region. A lot of these theocratic regimes were directly or indirectly supported, installed, and propped up by the United States and England.

Afghanistan is a classic example of this. If you were to look at a picture of the place in the 60s, you'd never know it was Afghanistan.

EDIT: Oh, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. You were talking about the perceived apologism for Islam(-ism)?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well since people following the book that says they can kill you and take your women slave just because you are not believer, yeah "racism" is just self-defence mechanism.

If by "self-defence mechanism" you mean "knee-jerk reaction", perhaps. The thing about knee-jerk reactions is that they lead to people being hoofed in the nuts for no good reason.


Christians nor Muslims are not a race ma, so racism is overstretching of definition

It is, however, entirely possible to frame religious criticism in a manner that puts ethnic identity to the fore, or some "clash of civilisations" nonsense that is based on so much overbroad generalisations and malicious misconceptions that it might as well be racism.


And yeah many, many people died at the hand of catholic church before religion got finally reformed.

That does not mean that each and every Catholic was a torturer or a murderer, even at the height of the Church's power.


You see tolerance is a both way street
I have the same advice as for the other Rev-Left member go to Muslim country and start criticizing their religion.

If Islam is such a threat, why do I have to go all the way to a majority Muslim country in order to receive retribution for criticising Islam? Logic isn't your strong point is it?

[NGNM85]

To the extent this phenomenon exists, and it certainly does, although I have no idea how pervasive it is, it is a reflexive (and irrational) overreaction by Radicals to the resurgent bigotry against Muslims that has flourished in the West, in the wake of Sept. 11th. It's very similar to a phenomenon l'enferme described some time ago, that a number of folks here aren't actually anti-mperialists, but, rather; 'vulgar anti-Americanists.'

[RedAtheist]

I personally extend it to Christianity as well being that I really hate the middle class secuarlists who complain that rednecks are ruining them because they only vote on religious grounds. And that everyone but their little book club members are idiots.

That's not hypocritical at all. *sarcasm* First off, not every opponent of religion is 'middle class' (whatever that even means, since I don't think owning a small business makes you more likely to be anti-religion.) More importantly, why is it okay to 'hate' people who advocate that laws should not be passed on the basis of religion (and are therefore in favour of gay marriage, abortion rights and proper sex education), but wrong to criticise those who push reactionary social policies for religious reasons?

[Crux]

Well good for them.

But the criticism of muslims are not only about protests.

Its about how they behave in western countries, women rights etc.
Do go on...

[MustCrushCapitalism]

There's a lot in this thread that needs to be addressed. Anti-Arabism often does disguise itself as criticism of Islam, but this is thinly veiled and separable from genuine criticism of Islam. A great amount of people in the Arab world protesting probably realize this and only find themselves in a bloc with fundamentalists because of the blatant anti-Arabism of certain reactionary groups in the west.

Anyway though, one thing I think needs to be mentioned - neither Christianity nor Islam constitute races. They constitute beliefs, eg, one of any culture can proclaim "I do believe that the bible/qu'ran is the literal word of god". A lot of self-declared Christians and Muslims fall short of doing this, or simply haven't read their respective holy books, and I'd actually guess that this is a large majority of religious people.

What I find is that religious moderation tends to be a result of ignorance of what your holy book actually says - this is why we find Christians that don't believe rape victims should be forced to marry rapists, that homosexuals should be put to death, or that never shave and have ZZ Top beards as a result. I've read large excerpts of the qu'ran and it's certainly up there with its Judeo-Christian counterparts in terms of silly laws and whatnot. Anyhow, what I'm trying to get at is that most self-proclaimed religious people in modern times would probably be considered heretics by their own religion.

If Christians fundamentally must believe, according to their holy book, that shaving is evil, homosexuals should be put to death, and rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, it'd be silly to conclude that all self-declared Christians are extreme reactionaries, but rather than most self-declared Christians don't actually follow their religion as their holy book says they must. The same thing applies to self-declared Muslims - the vast majority are obviously not reactionaries, and from this we can only conclude that they do not fully follow the qu'ran. These kinds of things, in both religions, would be considered sinful, and we can only conclude from this that they are either are miseducated on the topic, or, the most likely possibility - they just don't really care. Can't blame anyone for that.

So why are so many self-declared Muslims who are not fundamentalists angry about this whole thing? Many have an emotional attachment to Islam, of course, and they aren't seeing this as some sort of elaborate criticism of Islam, they're seeing it as what it is - anti-Arabism in disguise, not a true criticism of Islam, I'm sure most, if personally exposed to something criticizing Islam and theism in general, would seriously consider it and not react like this. But that isn't what they're seeing it as. They're seeing it as simple hatred directed towards the Arab people, which is, in this case at least, what was intended in the first place. Were an actual criticism of Islam presented to the majority of them in the same way as this, it's very possible it'd get a similar reaction, but this would not be the fault of self-declared Muslims, it'd be the fault of the media for misrepresenting it.

At the same time, there are, of course, among the protestors, a vocal minority which are truly batshit fucking insane, reactionary, far-right scum who hold up signs that say "behead all those who insult the prophet". At times, things like that can just be an angry reaction to the anti-Arabism of the West - which bolsters this kind of thing, a lot, but then there are others who do not fall into the category of regular self-declared Muslims. These are comparable to the Christians who believe that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists, obviously a minority, but still a problem, and at that, a problem which would not be nearly as much of one were it not for the rampant anti-Arabism in the world right now.

So that's basically my thoughts on the phenomenon of anti-Arabism, Islamic fundamentalism, and the whole crisis right now in general.

[#FF0000]

More importantly, why is it okay to 'hate' people who advocate that laws should not be passed on the basis of religion (and are therefore in favour of gay marriage, abortion rights and proper sex education), but wrong to criticise those who push reactionary social policies for religious reasons?

Those two things are the same, though.

[Manic Impressive]

I agree Muslims get a bit of a shit deal in the West - and there is a lot of hatred towards them which is misplaced.

However, I've noticed a few posters trying to suggest that any argument that practices in Islamic countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq etc are barbaric and disgraceful in how they treat minorities, is akin to islamophobia.

So my question is, how some leftists square this circle of on the one hand being incredibly pro-LGBT rights, pro-womens rights, anti-religion etc but at the same time rushing to defend Islam.

Eg. This post accused of 'Islamophobia'



Also, heard cases of the SWP happily holding meetings in Mosques where women were forced to sit in a segregated area to men :rolleyes:

Or them sharing platforms at UAF demos et all with some incredibly homophobic Muslim preachers.

Get a grip.

The answer is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism

[Rafiq]

Islam apologia itself, is indeed extremely dangerous, intellectually, and socially, for several different reasons. Leftists all to often cross the line between anti racist action and pro religious sloganeering. Islam has become something of a problem, ideologically, for racists in Europe, because the recognition of "Islamic civilization" is such a widespread phenomena to begin with. And this means? Arabs, Persians, and the peoples of Southwest Asia, are denied an actual according identity, and are instead bunched up into the mythical land that is the "Islamic world". By pressuposing, and recognizing the existence of "the Muslim world" (something which was never done before the Iranian counterrevolution), you do nothing but ideologically strengthen the initial pressupposions of Islamic fundamentalists. The "Muslim people" do not exist. Just as, in the same way, the "Christian people" do not. You see Christian fundamentalists talk of how "Christians" are being persecuted, but there is a reason as to why no one takes them seriously beyond the fact that we live in a secular society. No one takes it seriously because no on recognizes the existence of a "christian people" which can be persecuted. Why must Islam be an exception? These "Muslim defense" organizations, headed by Muslim spiritual leaders, should be marked by the Left as political enemies, uniting the "Muslim" proletariat with it's class enemy, in order to for fill the interests of what? Of the "Muslim" petite bourgeoisie? If the Muslim religious establishment demands religious freedom in the west, and the "fruits" of Western liberalism, they must also recognize that, this also means that they must simply deal with anti-Muslim cartoons, which, for the most part, are sparked and electrified from talk of banning them (remember "draw mohammad day"?) they must also receive the same cultural ridicule, as the Christian church does. Take for example, social conceptions of religious leaders. We make fun of pastors, religious kids, and "cool kid" priests for what they are, because they represent a backwardness which was previously surpassed. However, this concept of "tolerance" makes an exception out of the Muslim religious establishment because "They're brown people who don't know any better". As if Muslims are animals. Muslim kids must receive the same social pressure to keep their religion to themselves, or to, not care about it in the same way white children in the western world are. How are we, as Communists, supposed to accomplish anything, if we initially took for granted, the existence of Liberalist-secularism, and now, fight against it? This is reactionary. In schools, religion is not "hip", it is not "tolerated", and Islam shouldn't be an exception. Anti-Muslim sediment itself is something else entirely, it is purely a response which resulted from the degeneration of the capitalist mode of production. What we then, need is an organized Left, which can combat the many faces of false consciousness. However, this doesn't amount to "tolerating" the "Muslim community", it amounts to not uniting religious groups or ethnic groups, but of members of the proletarian class, regardless of their religious (which was not even something which was recognized before the 1990's) background. In other words, we should not recognize the existence of a "Muslim" community. There is a new and dangerous phenomena regarding "tolerance", which in itself is a way of alienating proletarians of different ethnicity (specifically, Arab or Southwest Asian, etc.), as mindless animals who are inherently religious, in the same way a dog is inherently devoid of a form of consciousness that rivals human consciousness. In this way, there is nothing more racist, more chauvinist, than adhering to this "tolerance", the same tolerance which gives the Muslim bourgeoisie what they want: Recognition of the "umma", as in, "well, those western dogs are our enemies, but at least they know what we are". As Communists, we only recognize one struggle: The proletarian struggle, our struggle, to crush our enemies. This is not, by the way, "those Muslims do/say/are X", this is (My post), : "Muslims" do not exist as a homogeneous group, and if they do now, the fault lies with the same Western Liberals, in their incompetence with combating nationalist sentiment by "tolerating" the "Muslim community". And what of "pro Muslim" anti "racism"? Huh? What then? The "Christians, Muslims and Jews(of course, as in the Jewish religious establishment, not the people as an ethnic group) all hold hands and sing songs about how great our religion and faith is, and that, we're all the same anyway"? Is this what you want? A complete liquidation of our struggle? What happens after we start accepting in-your-face religious rhetoric from the Muslim petite bourgeoisie? Do we then start to accept the same from... The church? The same entity we lost many comrades fighting against, the entity which, was previously a weapon of the Feudal ruling classes, which later became an instrument of the Bourgeoisie? We shouldn't "defend" the Koran and talk about how "Islam is a religion of peace", because it isn't, it's a disgusting, vile religion (compared to our Communist ideological framework) which isn't unique in regards, it is stupid and inconsistent, like any other religion. The point is not to say "Hey, those are just extremists, going against their own faith". We should recognize that they are, indeed, "obeying" their faith's commandments. What is wrong with that? Christian fundamentalists who obeyed their faith are monsters, in the same way! The point is not to go back to pre-Liberalism, the point of the Bourgeois struggle against Feudal-religion was to denounce whole-hearted religion, that is, religion accepted to the fullest. The problem is not "Muslims obeying or going against their religion", the problem is: "Why has religion even become a political force in the Middle east?".. The answer is quite simple: Imperialism. We all know the story.

We do not alienate the religious holdings of members of the proletarian class. We merely attempt to suppress "religious unity". As Lenin said, religion must be a private matter. The phenomena that is religious apologia on behalf of the Left is not a "sinister conspiracy", rather, it is confusion, resulting from our defeat in the 1990's. And to all who think I might be talking out of my ass. I probably have more experience with dealing and understanding the "Muslim community" than any of you, and I wouldn't be saying the things I am if I wasn't certain. The Muslim religious establishment, even the supposed "moderate" establishment int he west is among the most reactionary of ideological currents, possessing degenerative qualities like AntiSemitism, endorsement of conspiracy theories, Sexism, Homophobia, reactionary conservativism, moralism, etc. All of the fucking things we fought against, like, a hundred years ago.

And to the SWP whom have held meetings in mosques or campaigned side by side with Islamists: Fuck you, spineless cowards. These are class traitors, and must be denounced by anyone who proclaims himself a Communist.

[Hit The North]

And to the SWP whom have held meetings in mosques or campaigned side by side with Islamists: Fuck you, spineless cowards. These are class traitors, and must be denounced by anyone who proclaims himself a Communist.

But, of course, this has never happened. The SWP do not hold meetings in mosques and I doubt there is a mosque in Britain that would allow them to even if they wanted. Neither does the SWP make apologies for Islamism, never mind join forces with it. And, finally, unlike Rafiq, who loves to denounce others from a position of ignorance and hearsay, the SWP does not mistake all Muslims for Islamists.

So fuck you, mealy-mouthed gossipers, and get your facts straight.

[Rafiq]

well the last part(i highlighted) in bold is a sweeping statement being an ex muslim as u claim,youd know that.

i partially agree with what you said on swp and other left liberals.although you made a distinction between islamists and not muslims.
leftwing 'islamists apolgists' ala respect etc are as bad as so called leftists with reactionary racist or antimuslim motives rifak

The "Muslim Estabilishment" is Islamist. Otherwise I would have just said "Muslim" which would have been, of course, anticommunist (as many proletarians are Muslims).

[Rafiq]

But, of course, this has never happened. The SWP do not hold meetings in mosques and I doubt there is a mosque in Britain that would allow them to even if they wanted. Neither does the SWP make apologies for Islamism, never mind join forces with it. And, finally, unlike Rafiq, who loves to denounce others from a position of ignorance and hearsay, the SWP does not mistake all Muslims for Islamists.



Why then, do they openly collaborate with Islamists under the guise of "combatting anti muslim racism"?

[rayznack]

I haven't even seen the movie. But I just have to say. This is just one more reason why religion should be abolished.

I doubt 99% of the people angry about it even watched it. They probably just took the word of someone that said it was anti-islamic and went with it and spread it around like that.Beside the religion should be abolished comment, I have no clue why someone would claim the post is "Islamophobic".

Unfortunately, people are hypersensitive to opposing viewpoints, eh?


So the 'we bomb there houses what do you expect' retort doesn't fully tackle why this has has become such a problem. Which I don't think you've alluded to, but certainly some posters in the politics thread on that pretty explicitly said that. Sam Harris seemed to make this point in a debate before and I've never seen a refutation to what he said:


The first sign of a religious cause comes from what the terrorists say of themselves: al Qaeda and its sympathizers have not been shy about discussing their motives in public. The second indication is what they say when they think no one is listening. As you know, we now have a trove of private communications among jihadists. The fine points of theology are never far from their thoughts and regularly constrain their actions. The 19 hijackers were under surveillance by German police for months before September 11, 2001 (read Perfect Soldiers). Islam was all that these men appeared to care about.

And we should recall how other people behave when subjected to military occupation or political abuse. Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? They have the suicide part down, because they are now practicing a campaign of self-immolation—which, being the incendiary equivalent of a hunger strike, is about as far from suicide bombing as can be conceived. And where is that long list of Palestinian Christian suicide bombers you've been keeping in your desk? Now would be a good time to produce it. As you know, Palestinian Christians suffer the same Israeli occupation. How many have blown themselves up on a bus in Tel Aviv? One? Two? Where, for that matter, are the Pakistani, Iraqi, or Egyptian suicide bombers killing for the glory of Christ? These Christian communities are regularly attacked by suicidal jihadists—why don't they respond with the same sort of violence? This is practically a science experiment: We've got the same people, speaking the same language, living in the same places, eating the same food—and one group forms a death cult of aspiring martyrs and the other does not.



Not only do Christians experience the same "social upheavals" 'caused by the West' as their Muslim neighbors, but face additional persecution for being minorities in a region that has long discriminated them. So, if terrorism is caused by oppression, then where are those Christian martyrdom bombers in the name of Christ? Why isn't the Middle East churning out Bahai's who are victimized by both colonialism and the regional governments?


Logically, Christians, Bahais and Jews should be *more* likely to become suicide terrorists than Muslims in the region.


Lastly, extremism is not localized to any particular region in the Muslim world. There are extremists, including converts, in Britain who've gone to Kashmir or waged Jihad in Syria and bombed London; Sweden saw its first suicide bombing in its nations history two years ago when a man attempted to blow up Christmas shoppers; and protesters in France have called for the killing of Jews.


So, no, it's not about Western colonialism. As if al-Qaeda formed in response to American and British actions in Shi'ite Iran. One has to wonder, where's the global Buddhist version of al-Qaeda?

[l'Enfermé]

But, of course, this has never happened. The SWP do not hold meetings in mosques and I doubt there is a mosque in Britain that would allow them to even if they wanted. Neither does the SWP make apologies for Islamism, never mind join forces with it. And, finally, unlike Rafiq, who loves to denounce others from a position of ignorance and hearsay, the SWP does not mistake all Muslims for Islamists.

So fuck you, mealy-mouthed gossipers, and get your facts straight.
I'm sorry but what you westerners call "Islamists" are in reality the only real Muslims, the ones that actually follow the Islamic creed. What you call "moderate Muslims" are basically apostates, simple monotheists with a hardon for Mohammed. Reproducing this lie that a Muslim community, the Muslim "Ummah", exists, is reactionary and counter-productive. Moreover, it's a racist position also, the Quran says that the Muslim Nation/Ummah is the "best" in existence, and the only one capable of distinguishing wrong from right. It's almost as racist as all that Chosen People shit the Jews got going on, or the Aryan-ism of the Nazis.

[rayznack]

I haven't even seen the movie. But I just have to say. This is just one more reason why religion should be abolished.

I doubt 99% of the people angry about it even watched it. They probably just took the word of someone that said it was anti-islamic and went with it and spread it around like that.

Beside the religion should be abolished comment, I have no clue why someone would claim the post is "Islamophobic".

Unfortunately, people are hypersensitive to opposing viewpoints, eh?


So the 'we bomb there houses what do you expect' retort doesn't fully tackle why this has has become such a problem. Which I don't think you've alluded to, but certainly some posters in the politics thread on that pretty explicitly said that.

Sam Harris seemed to make this point in a debate before and I've never seen a refutation to what he said:


The first sign of a religious cause comes from what the terrorists say of themselves: al Qaeda and its sympathizers have not been shy about discussing their motives in public. The second indication is what they say when they think no one is listening. As you know, we now have a trove of private communications among jihadists. The fine points of theology are never far from their thoughts and regularly constrain their actions. The 19 hijackers were under surveillance by German police for months before September 11, 2001 (read Perfect Soldiers). Islam was all that these men appeared to care about.

And we should recall how other people behave when subjected to military occupation or political abuse. Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? They have the suicide part down, because they are now practicing a campaign of self-immolation—which, being the incendiary equivalent of a hunger strike, is about as far from suicide bombing as can be conceived. And where is that long list of Palestinian Christian suicide bombers you've been keeping in your desk? Now would be a good time to produce it. As you know, Palestinian Christians suffer the same Israeli occupation. How many have blown themselves up on a bus in Tel Aviv? One? Two? Where, for that matter, are the Pakistani, Iraqi, or Egyptian suicide bombers killing for the glory of Christ? These Christian communities are regularly attacked by suicidal jihadists—why don't they respond with the same sort of violence? This is practically a science experiment: We've got the same people, speaking the same language, living in the same places, eating the same food—and one group forms a death cult of aspiring martyrs and the other does not.






Not only do Christians experience the same "social upheavals" 'caused by the West' as their Muslim neighbors, but face additional persecution for being minorities in a region that has long discriminated them. So, if terrorism is caused by oppression, then where are those Christian martyrdom bombers in the name of Christ? Why isn't the Middle East churning out Bahai's who are victimized by both colonialism and the regional governments?


Logically, Christians, Bahais and Jews should be *more* likely to become suicide terrorists than Muslims in the region.


Lastly, extremism is not localized to any particular region in the Muslim world. There are extremists, including converts, in Britain who've gone to Kashmir or waged Jihad in Syria and bombed London; Sweden saw its first suicide bombing in its nations history two years ago when a man attempted to blow up Christmas shoppers; and protesters in France have called for the killing of Jews.






So, extremism is not rooted in colonialism. As if al-Qaeda formed in response to American and British actions in Shi'ite Iran. One has to wonder, where's the global Buddhist version of al-Qaeda?

[Hit The North]

Why then, do they openly collaborate with Islamists under the guise of "combatting anti muslim racism"?

They don't. They work with some Muslim organisations, when possible, to combat the EDL and other manifestations of racism. Why are you objecting to "combating anti muslim racism"?

[Hit The North]

I'm sorry but what you westerners call "Islamists" are in reality the only real Muslims, the ones that actually follow the Islamic creed.

Actually what "we Westerners" call Islamists are basically Jihadists.


What you call "moderate Muslims" are basically apostates, simple monotheists with a hardon for Mohammed. Lol, yes they call themselves Muslim. It's like saying that Christians are not really Christians but "simple monotheists with a hardon for Jesus."


Reproducing this lie that a Muslim community, the Muslim "Ummah", exists, is reactionary and counter-productive. Moreover, it's a racist position also, the Quran says that the Muslim Nation/Ummah is the "best" in existence, and the only one capable of distinguishing wrong from right. It's almost as racist as all that Chosen People shit the Jews got going on, or the Aryan-ism of the Nazis.

I don't see what any of this has to do with my post above. But the truth is that there are communities that coalesce around the Mosque and around a shared identity as Muslims, so we can speak of a Muslim community without having to concede to the claims of the religious bigots.

[l'Enfermé]

Actually what "we Westerners" call Islamists are basically Jihadists.

Lol, yes they call themselves Muslim. It's like saying that Christians are not really Christians but "simple monotheists with a hardon for Jesus."



I don't see what any of this has to do with my post above. But the truth is that there are communities that coalesce around the Mosque and around a shared identity as Muslims, so we can speak of a Muslim community without having to concede to the claims of the religious bigots.
Jihadists are devout Muslims that merely imitate the example of Mohamed and his early successors. Mohammed wasn't a meek and peaceful figure like Jesus, he was a conqueror who lead his forces in battle, put his vanquished enemies that refused to convert to the sword, sold their women and children into slavery, and took the women of freshly-defeated foes for himself.

[campesino]

this is my assumption. as to why people apologize islam

muslims=islamist
poor people=religious people
islam is not a choice(being muslim is like being colored you have no choice in it.)
the idea that reactionaries cannot hate their fellow reactionaries.

i think the roots of the first 2, is the perception of middle-easterners created by the media, and orientalism.

imo, the purpose of the left is not to hate on islam, but i certainly won't stop anyone from doing so.

if anybody wants to offend religions, i encourage it.

i find it cowardly for the left to run from its materialist irreligious views.

[Hit The North]

Jihadists are devout Muslims that merely imitate the example of Mohamed and his early successors. Mohammed wasn't a meek and peaceful figure like Jesus, he was a conqueror who lead his forces in battle, put his vanquished enemies that refused to convert to the sword, sold their women and children into slavery, and took the women of freshly-defeated foes for himself.

Whether they are devout or not, they are not the only interpretation of Islam available and if you think the entire religion can be reduced to Mohammed's military exploits you are as ignorant as the assholes who made the Innocents of Islam movie. In the same way, the history of Christianity cannot be reduced to the behaviour of a mythical Jesus. I guess you've heard of the Crusades? In the same way, you are probably aware that early Islamic society was the heir to the knowledge, arts and science of the ancient world; that it helped shape a society of religious toleration whilst Christian Europe was leading pogroms against Jews, Holy Wars against Islam and persecuting, torturing and burning fellow Christians.

When you argue that the Islamists are the only correct interpretation of Muslim identity and belief, you are not only playing into the hands of our enemies (both the Islamists, the racist right and our imperialist masters) but you are also contributing to the demonisation of a whole community of people who are, also, in their majority, working class people.

[MarxSchmarx]

iOne of the OP's premise that hasn't been debunked is this right-wing notion that the left somehow "apologizes" for Islam.

This is a silly idea. maybe I dont get out enough, but no leftist I have ever met has seriously "apologized for Islam" as such; nor do I think any remotely sane leftist anyone else here has met done so. Even the groups I consider to be tin-foil hat leftists don't do this. I mean there are a few sects here and there with dodgy politics over the Iranian ruling class, or who have warped reasons for supporting Kosovo nationalism, and in some countries you might find a handful of people whose Islamic faith inspires their socialism. But you'd be hard pressed to find a regime anywhere in the world that hasn't had some inconsequential leftist group somewhere voicing their "critical support". And sure, many leftists fight the racism directed against Muslims more than they fight against racism directed at say Taoists. But no leftist seriously thinks the theocrats gaining power anywhere is a good thing, or that the oppressive facets of Islam should be applied. I like to think I've met hundreds of all sorts of leftists, but I've never met a leftist that remotely thinks otherwise.

[MarxSchmarx]

you met any reallife leftists who are 'islamophobic??

I think most of us have, although they tend to be more on the social-democratic end of the spectrum. Things like supporting bans on veils, repeating right-wing talking points about the treatment of women, enslaving the infidels, seeing Islam as somehow uniquely backward, etc... It's not very thoughtful Islamophobia, but then again, I haven't found it hard to find people who are pretty lefty who have a general dislike of Islam that they don't really have towards other religions.

[Dunk]

I think religions are flexible enough to support any political position. I think that Islamophobes reveal themselves in their attempts to link some especially violent or essential noxious quality to Islam without paying any attention to things like politics, class, and conditions

Any person or group which fetishizes relations in such a way that they replace class with religious group/race/ethnicity is an adversary.

[Rafiq]

I think religions are flexible enough to support any political position. I think that Islamophobes reveal themselves in their attempts to link some especially violent or essential noxious quality to Islam without paying any attention to things like politics, class, and conditions

Any person or group which fetishizes relations in such a way that they replace class with religious group/race/ethnicity is an adversary.

Again, it's not about the ability for religion to sustain a political position, the point is for religion to be pushed aside in the way for a "political position", i.e. for religion to be a personal matter. If a group of people have to substantiate a religion in such a manner in their political positions beyond, you know, "Our faith preaches justice, etc. etc" instead of "Here in this verse it sais" or "This cleric said in this text", then they are miles away from any sort of real class consciousness.

[Rafiq]

They don't. They work with some Muslim organisations, when possible, to combat the EDL and other manifestations of racism. Why are you objecting to "combating anti muslim racism"?

Want to name these Muslim organisations? What is a "muslim organisation" if not an Islamist one? A religious group with supposed political interests is in itself reactionary.

[Hit The North]

Want to name these Muslim organisations? What is a "muslim organisation" if not an Islamist one?

As I've already argued, there is a difference between Islamists (that is, radical Jihadists) and Islam (the religion), and Islamic (of Islam) and Muslims (the followers of that religion). A muslim organisation could conceivably be a civic organisation, acting as a pressure group for the Muslim community.

As far as the SWP is concerned, the organisations it had dealings with were the Muslim Association of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Association_of_Britain) and the Muslim Council of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Britain).

This contact arose first through the organisation of the mass protests against the invasion of Iraq and the STtWC. In my view, this is where it should have stopped. But the SWP then participated in the creation of RESPECT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_Party) which also included these groups, a number of grass-roots activists from the Muslim community and a coterie of left-wing intellectuals and celebrities. Now my objection to this party has nothing to do with the input of Islamic organisations as I'm not willing to dismiss thousands of people who manage to find a way of accommodating their religious belief with a socialist consciousness. Also it is worth noting that the acronym of RESPECT stood for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Environmentalism. There is no concession to any goals that could be attributed to Islamism.

You can read the sorry story that was the SWP's involvement in RESPECT, as it is well documented. But you cannot say it was an attempt to cosy up to Islamism. Also, the forces that undermined it did not involve any aspect of Islam that may have been or not been at work in RESPECT, it was the good old fashioned curse of political incompetence, mixed with a cocktail of ego and hubris.


A religious group with supposed political interests is in itself reactionary.It depends on the politics. If the political agenda is progressive then the organisation finds itself in a contradictory position if we deem the religious element to be reactionary.

Rafiq, you need to understand that people are capable of holding two ideas at once in their heads, even when those ideas might clash at certain points. Once you've realised this, you can apply more subtlety to your thinking.

[The Douche]

Want to name these Muslim organisations? What is a "muslim organisation" if not an Islamist one? A religious group with supposed political interests is in itself reactionary.

I think you might be getting a little carried away there. What about groups like Catholic Worker, are they reactionary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement)

[Manic Impressive]

I think you might be getting a little carried away there. What about groups like Catholic Worker, are they reactionary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement)
Charity isn't inherently reactionary but it also isn't progressive let alone revolutionary.

[Hit The North]

Charity isn't inherently reactionary but it also isn't progressive let alone revolutionary.

No, it's a humanitarian response to misery. A sticking plaster for gushing wounds. A safety valve for guilt-ridden bourgeois and moralists.

[The Douche]

Charity isn't inherently reactionary but it also isn't progressive let alone revolutionary.

First of all, Catholic Worker is not just a charity organization, they have a political analysis informed by an "anarchist" reading of the christian religion. And I'm not putting them out there as revolutionary, just saying that organizations which are both political and religious are not inherently reactionary.

I think all religion is problematic, and that any attempt to synthesize religion and radically egalitarian politics will lead to some inconsistencies, but I don't necessarily see reaction.

[Manic Impressive]

Well I don't know too much about Catholic Worker but from a two minute look on Wikipedia it shows a petit bourgeois influenced ideology of private ownership operating under a capitalist mode of production. I don't really see how they are anarchists, unless you're talking about market anarchism or at very best a form of mutualism.

[The Douche]

Well I don't know too much about Catholic Worker but from a two minute look on Wikipedia it shows a petit bourgeois influenced ideology of private ownership operating under a capitalist mode of production. I don't really see how they are anarchists, unless you're talking about market anarchism or at very best a form of mutualism.

Lots of radical groups own property and operate collective businesses under capital. (see, IWW and collectively owned bookshops/coffee shops/community spaces in virtually every major city in the US)

I don't think its much of a revolutionary strategy, but yeah. You should probably not see the ownership of property (which in the case of CW is generally just personal property, i.e. houses) as being integral to their politics, so much as it is integral to their praxis, and that praxis of course is effected by the condition of the world currently (so, capital). If they want to provide space for the poor to eat and sleep, and they also combine this with a critique of capital, then they're about as "bourgeois" as food not bombs or bikeshares or whatever.

I'm not saying its the revolution, or even something I consider worth my time, but bourgeois is not the right word for it.

Catholic Worker houses are not the same thing as Christian homeless shelters or whatever.

[Manic Impressive]

Oh no I'm not saying because they own property, no that would be silly. I'm saying because its quite clear that they advocate private ownership of property their views being based on Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism). I'm not saying the individuals themselves are petty bourgeois but rather the class character of their ideology is.

Although I'd rather see Dorothy Day get a sainthood that Stalin.

[The Douche]

Oh no I'm not saying because they own property, no that would be silly. I'm saying because it quite clear that they advocate private ownership of property their views being based on Distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism).

Although I'd rather see Dorothy Day get a sainthood that Stalin.

I don't doubt that distributism has at some point contributed to their ideas, but I don't think that they are "distributist". I would put them pretty firmly in the camp of so-called "Christian Anarchism". (and while I dispute that such an idea can be coherent, it is, for better or worse, an idea with adherents)

I mean, distributism is a dead idea, Catholic Worker is probably its only legacy, but in my limited exposure to them, I could not differentiate their ideas from the sort espoused by many people who I would usually call "anarcho-liberals". The same type who do things like community gardens, food not bombs, and other such projects. I think they're on the right side of the barricades, but their ideas won't be leading to the erection of said barricades.

[Rafiq]

I think you might be getting a little carried away there. What about groups like Catholic Worker, are they reactionary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Worker_Movement)

Let me rephrase myself. A religious organization with the intention of solely for filling "religious ends" is in itself reactionary. Liberation theology is something else entirely, since, it is merely a social organization with religious rhetoric to substantiate Leftist rhetoric. Though, I wouldn't call the Catholic Worker Movement revolutionary.

[Rafiq]

As far as the SWP is concerned, the organisations it had dealings with were the Muslim Association of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Association_of_Britain) and the Muslim Council of Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Britain).


Rafiq, you need to understand that people are capable of holding two ideas at once in their heads, even when those ideas might clash at certain points. Once you've realised this, you can apply more subtlety to your thinking.

Indeed, that is true, and liberation theology in Latinamerica is a good example.


Do you think that this group may be reactionary?



dedicated to serving society through promoting Christianity in its spiritual teachings, ideological and civilising concepts, and moral and human values—all placed in the service of humanity



Actually, that's the supposed focus of the Muslim Association of Britain, I merely replaced the word "Islam" with Christianity.


As for the Muslim Council of Britian, well, that's just fucking pathetic.

First of all, the purpose and aim of this group is to place uneducated Muslim workers in a state of everlasting false conciousness. You can read up on them here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Council_of_Britain


On 3 January 2006, Iqbal Sacranie told BBC Radio 4's PM programme he believes homosexuality is "not acceptable" and denounced same-sex civil partnerships as "harmful". He was criticised for this stance by gay rights campaigners, such as Peter Tatchell, who called for a "dialogue" between the MCB and gay organisations.[29][30] In April 2007, the MCB formally declared its support for the Equality Act, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It was commended for this move by some, for example Brian Whitaker, who said: "the Muslim Council of Britain has begun to move towards accepting homosexuality".[31]


Only afterwards did the organisation revert it's views on the matter, when the realized that we aren't living in the British 1930's.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Liberation theology" strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

If it's "liberating" then it can't be theology since that subject forms part of the defence mechanisms of ruling class hegemony.

If it's "theology" then it can't be liberating because nobody is freed by falsehoods.

Is there anything of substance to it, beyond leftist interpretations of Jesus quotes and a misapprehension of the communalist arrangement depicted in Acts?

[Hit The North]

"Liberation theology" strikes me as a contradiction in terms.


Not quite a contradiction in terms. A materialist or an atheist theology would be a contradiction in terms.


If it's "liberating" then it can't be theology since that subject forms part of the defence mechanisms of ruling class hegemony.


Ruling class hegemony in modern capitalist society does not depend on theology, unless we're stretching the term so we can talk about a 'theology of free markets', or a 'theology of individualism', or a 'theology of instrumental rationality'. But I prefer the term 'ideology'.


If it's "theology" then it can't be liberating because nobody is freed by falsehoods.

Evidently those who profess liberation theology do not consider their theology as anything except demonstrably true.


Is there anything of substance to it, beyond leftist interpretations of Jesus quotes and a misapprehension of the communalist arrangement depicted in Acts?

Not much, no.

[Hit The North]

As for the Muslim Council of Britian, well, that's just fucking pathetic.



Lol, you're so angry :lol:

But there's still time for you to show comradely etiquette and apologise for accusing the SWP of holding meetings in mosques.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not quite a contradiction in terms. A materialist or an atheist theology would be a contradiction in terms.

Ruling class hegemony in modern capitalist society does not depend on theology, unless we're stretching the term so we can talk about a 'theology of free markets', or a 'theology of individualism', or a 'theology of instrumental rationality'. But I prefer the term 'ideology'.

Theology is supported by elements of the ruling class. Since there is no such thing as experimental confirmation of theology (indeed theologians reject empiricism if they know what's good for them), then there is no material constraint on theology confirming the prejudices of those holding the purse strings.

Granted, the function of theology in asserting and propagating ruling class ideology has been superseded to varying degrees, but that does not mean that function is completely obviated.


Evidently those who profess liberation theology do not consider their theology as anything except demonstrably true.

That doesn't necessarily make it so though, does it? Unless you take refuge in a form of solipsism.

[#FF0000]

So, extremism is not rooted in colonialism. As if al-Qaeda formed in response to American and British actions in Shi'ite Iran.

I think you misunderstand what people mean when they say "Radical/political islam exists because of colonialism". It didn't spring up as a reaction to colonialism. It came about because these groups that had been pushing a relatively new and unpopular strain of fundamentalist Islam were funded and organized with assistance (direct and indirect) from the United States and other Western forces. Al-Qaeda didn't form in response to American or British anything. It formed because America gave them the funding and training.


One has to wonder, where's the global Buddhist version of al-Qaeda?

America didn't fund it yet.

Oh, wait you must mean Aum Shinrikyo, maybe. I could also point out a hell of a lot of violence on the part of buddhists against people of other religions, e.g. the Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka and Thailand as examples.

[Rafiq]

Lol, you're so angry :lol:

But there's still time for you to show comradely etiquette and apologise for accusing the SWP of holding meetings in mosques.

Okay, I apologize. That doesn't mean I don't regard them as class traitors and cowards.

[Rafiq]

Rayznack, what of the Buddhist nazi sympathizers?

[Hit The North]

Theology is supported by elements of the ruling class.

You mean like the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who's social values are to the left of New Labour? But, regardless, theology is also supported by elements of the working class.


Since there is no such thing as experimental confirmation of theology (indeed theologians reject empiricism if they know what's good for them), then there is no material constraint on theology confirming the prejudices of those holding the purse strings.

How about this:

Since there is no such thing as experimental confirmation of communism (indeed communists reject empiricism if they know what's good for them), then there is no material constraint on communism confirming the prejudices of those holding the purse strings.


Granted, the function of theology in asserting and propagating ruling class ideology has been superseded to varying degrees, but that does not mean that function is completely obviated.


It is obsolete as an apologia for, or a rationale of, capitalism.


That doesn't necessarily make it so though, does it? Unless you take refuge in a form of solipsism. It does to the adherents of such things. They don't need solipsism, they have faith.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You mean like the Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who's social values are to the left of New Labour?

The man (it's always a man, isn't it?) wants to put a human face on capitalism rather than abolish it.


But, regardless, theology is also supported by elements of the working class.

Not in any materially significant way. How many theology departments at universities have been instituted by the working class? What proportion of seminaries have been established by the working class?


How about this:

Since there is no such thing as experimental confirmation of communism (indeed communists reject empiricism if they know what's good for them),

No they don't. Not unless they're shit communists.


then there is no material constraint on communism confirming the prejudices of those holding the purse strings.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. There are no "purse strings" for either communism as an ideology or as a socioeconomic system.


It is obsolete as an apologia for, or a rationale of, capitalism.

Only because there are now "better" ones that do not rely on one being Christian or whatever. That doesn't serve to "reform" theology in any meaningful way (which would amount to the effective abolition of the discipline).


It does to the adherents of such things. They don't need solipsism, they have faith.

Reality isn't decided by whether one chooses to believe in it or not. As for faith, what good is it to attempt to build a new kind of society on the basis of beliefs held without evidence?

[Hit The North]

The man (it's always a man, isn't it?) wants to put a human face on capitalism rather than abolish it.


I fail to see how that is reactionary. Compared to the Tories who are happy to see capitalism stamp on a human face, it is quite progressive.


Not in any materially significant way. How many theology departments at universities have been instituted by the working class? What proportion of seminaries have been established by the working class?
How many science departments or department of any kind at universities have been instituted by the working class? I'm not really getting your argument here.


No they don't. Not unless they're shit communists.
Marxists, at least, while not dismissing and, in fact, utilising empirical evidence are nonetheless opposed to empiricism as a school of scientific method and explanation.


That doesn't even begin to make sense. There are no "purse strings" for either communism as an ideology or as a socioeconomic system.
Well the point you made was that somehow the lack of experimental evidence for theology made it amenable to being bought off by the bourgeoisie. Communism also does not have experimental evidence, so does this open it up to similar effect? Anyway, haven't you heard of Moscow gold?


Only because there are now "better" ones that do not rely on one being Christian or whatever. That doesn't serve to "reform" theology in any meaningful way (which would amount to the effective abolition of the discipline).
It strikes me that you are talking about theology as an academic discipline, whereas I was labouring under the misapprehension that we were talking about religious belief in its wider context. Anyhow, who mentioned reforming theology?


Reality isn't decided by whether one chooses to believe in it or not. As for faith, what good is it to attempt to build a new kind of society on the basis of beliefs held without evidence?What's our evidence for a future society based on freedom, equality and the end of human alienation?

[#FF0000]

The man (it's always a man, isn't it?) wants to put a human face on capitalism rather than abolish it.

Yo that doesn't change the fact that there are certainly people who are unapologetically communist and who are also religious.

For what it's worth, people who are especially progressive tend to be skeptical of "the church" as an establishment, you know.

So we can certainly be against Institutional religion without necessarily alienating people who are religious for whatever reason.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I fail to see how that is reactionary. Compared to the Tories who are happy to see capitalism stamp on a human face, it is quite progressive.

He's protecting his own rather cushy job. A truly egalitarian church would have no use for all the gaudy frippery and insincere humility that necessarily constitutes the sort of Church hierarchy that he forms part of.


How many science departments or department of any kind at universities have been instituted by the working class? I'm not really getting your argument here.

Science runs into trouble if it isn't checked against reality by the means of experiment and observation, which serve to constrain the construction of models to those approximating what is going on materially.

By way of example, say if one were to design an aircraft, but in doing so ignore the principles of aerodynamics that science has discovered are behind fixed-wing flight, in favour of a theory (constructed with no empirical input) involving the principles of invisible angels lofting objects. I don't think a plane with a design primarily based on angelology (http://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels) is going to fly.

Now can you imagine the problems one might encounter in reorganising society along ostensibly egalitarian lines, but while taking into consideration such non-evidential eventualities as souls (immortal or otherwise), sin, "natural law", and all the rest?


Marxists, at least, while not dismissing and, in fact, utilising empirical evidence are nonetheless opposed to empiricism as a school of scientific method and explanation.

I suppose it's possible to have what Marxists could call a "fetish" of empiricism, rejecting any and all model construction as baseless speculation to the point of it being an ideology, Empiricism (note capitalisation). Otherwise why would Marxists be opposed to this Empiricism?


Well the point you made was that somehow the lack of experimental evidence for theology made it amenable to being bought off by the bourgeoisie. Communism also does not have experimental evidence, so does this open it up to similar effect?

The point is that when a new laboratory is endowed by some ruling class muckety-muck, the results it gives are going to be checked by those with an interest in finding fault with it, because it means prestige for them to show up some shiny new lab by revealing their latest work to be nonsense.

But a theology department? They don't do experiments and observations of deities contradict each other let alone anything else.

Of course, one could construct one's own theology in opposition to the arse-licking paeans to authority dribbling out the mouth of cosseted theologians, but without some kind of objective test it's all down to interpretation and spin.


Anyway, haven't you heard of Moscow gold?

Wasn't that the Soviets nicking gold from Madrid?


It strikes me that you are talking about theology as an academic discipline, whereas I was labouring under the misapprehension that we were talking about religious belief in its wider context. Anyhow, who mentioned reforming theology?

The theology of the average religious believer (as opposed to clergy or academic), may be of a different quality, but it's still there.

My point was that while theology is no longer a primary tool of ruling class hegemony, it still is one to an extent, since the theologians that get widespread coverage are solidly behind the current socioeconomic status quo, at least if they want to keep their jobs.


What's our evidence for a future society based on freedom, equality and the end of human alienation?

We have the industrial and agricultural capacity, I'm quite (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068) sure of that. Human nature if it even exists is fairly malleable, and my understanding (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/1846140935) is that it is actually improving.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think it's a complicated issue (somewhat) on the Left in general because there is a lot of unfair misinformation and general ignorance of Islam and there is a lot of things Islam has become the scapegoat for. With this being said, there is numerous legitimate and fair criticism of Islam as well. I don't think any real Leftist worth their salt would beg to differ or would defend Islam where it need not be defended. Personally, I think the majority of Islam and Islamic teaching is incredibly reactionary though their are bits and pieces I like, I suppose, mainly Sufi and Shia stuff, Rumi and all that.

[rayznack]

Al-Qaeda didn't form in response to American or British anything. It formed because America gave them the funding and training.

That's one belief; the other is that America and Britain didn't give al-Qaeda anything and that the United States supported what would become the Northern Alliance.

Facts, schmachts.


Oh, wait you must mean Aum Shinrikyo, maybe. I could also point out a hell of a lot of violence on the part of buddhists against people of other religions, e.g. the Christians and Muslims in Sri Lanka and Thailand as examples.

And, to be fair, Buddhists doing 'bad' things in various locales, completely disconnected from one another, ideologically or directly, is exactly why al-Qaeda is qualitatively different from what you've mentioned.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yo that doesn't change the fact that there are certainly people who are unapologetically communist and who are also religious.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Christian god exists, then he is a tyrant to be opposed and destroyed, not worshipped. All canonical depictions of Jehovah show him to be a shithead of Biblical (hah!) proportions. His son was better in some ways I guess, but we killed him and when he comes back bad shit is going to happen.

Satan would be the first anarchist, I guess! :lol: I always kinda liked that guy.


For what it's worth, people who are especially progressive tend to be skeptical of "the church" as an establishment, you know.

Makes me wonder why more of them don't form their own churches. I assume liberation theologists are still Catholics, right?


So we can certainly be against Institutional religion without necessarily alienating people who are religious for whatever reason.

Religious people are usually kind and generous, like the rest of humanity. It's the other crap I dislike.

[#FF0000]

That's one belief; the other is that America and Britain didn't give al-Qaeda anything and that the United States supported what would become the Northern Alliance.

Facts, schmachts.

Mmmmm nah not exactly sorry. The mujahideen was a hodge-podge of organizations and factions and some of which did end up making up the Northern Alliance. Then the others became the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

We also kind of did the exact same thing in Libya. And now in Syria. It is uncanny how similar these mistakes seem.


And, to be fair, Buddhists doing 'bad' things in various locales, completely disconnected from one another, ideologically or directly, is exactly why al-Qaeda is qualitatively different from what you've mentioned.Haha, well to say 'bad' in quotation marks is kind of funny because we're talking about some pretty horrific stuff, but I get you. I'd also point out, though, that the "internationalization" of Islamic terrorism is an extremely recent thing that's only been a thing since the 90's or so. Hell, Islamic terrorism as we know it today has only been a thing since like, what, the 80's (unless you want to be hella anal about it and talk about the Hashashins or Barbary Pirates)? The religious bent wasn't nearly as common in middle-eastern terrorism before then.

[khad]

That's one belief; the other is that America and Britain didn't give al-Qaeda anything and that the United States supported what would become the Northern Alliance.

Facts, schmachts.
And you think Gulbuddin Hekmatyar wasn't an Islamic extremist? That he wasn't trying to create Jihad in Afghanistan since the times of Daoud?

He also didn't totally join Al-Qaeda either. :rolleyes:

[rayznack]

And you think Gulbuddin Hekmatyar wasn't an Islamic extremist? That he wasn't trying to create Jihad in Afghanistan since the times of Daoud?

He also didn't totally join Al-Qaeda either. :rolleyes:

You're right, he didn't join al Qaeda.

[Mao_O]

Quick reply: I am sure it's been mentioned in the thread already but leftists aren't defending islam, the religion. They are defending muslims, for how they are treated and portrayed by our govts, our media, our society. I have seen the trailer for that movie and I gotta say, it looks like it came from the mind of an ignorant american teenager, taking the mic in his own vision, drawing examples from his own life experience of being a pervert and an aggressor. Of course the director isn't some little teenage ignoramus but he expects his audience to be, at least mentally.

The OP is suggesting that we are not defending the minorities such as homosexuals in Iran, Saudi Arabia and the like which isn't the case here. Anyway when we are against certain laws and rulings of a particular country, shouldn't we find better ways to show our disapproval than make fun of the muslims living next door by violating the image of their prophet and making fun of their scriptures? In essence you are doing nothing to help minorities in those countries, in fact, you are potentially making their situation worse by being such instigators of violence.

[MaximMK]

I as an atheist oppose the christians as much as the muslims. But lets be realistic the muslims are more dangerous they are living the christian middle ages now by death penalties for expressing other religion on workplaces etc. Thats some wicked shit. There are dangerous fanatics on both sides but in the islamic countries religion and state are not separated.

[hatzel]

lets be realistic

You know judging by the rest of your post you really need to start taking your own advice...


they are living the christian middle agesWhere did 'they' get the time machine?


death penalties for expressing other religion on workplaces etc.I assume all non-Muslims in 'Islamic countries' are either unemployed or dead, then?


in the islamic countries religion and state are not separated.http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A5289/528907/300_528907.jpg

[cynicles]

I as an atheist oppose the christians as much as the muslims. But lets be realistic the muslims are more dangerous they are living the christian middle ages now by death penalties for expressing other religion on workplaces etc. Thats some wicked shit. There are dangerous fanatics on both sides but in the islamic countries religion and state are not separated.
Good thing they aren't living in 1930-40's Europe, atleast they've avoided that level of barbarity.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Good thing they aren't living in 1930-40's Europe, atleast they've avoided that level of barbarity.No just Iraq got to experience the Bliz and Vichy France for now.

[cynicles]

No just Iraq got to experience the Bliz and Vichy France for now.
And one day Iran shall get to experience it's own Spanish civil war! Or is Iran some other european country in this analogy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All I can figure is some feel an obligation to try and be overly "politically correct" in comparison with the hate freaks on the right.Political correctness is useless, but it does have something to do with the rhetoric of the right-wing. In the US, essentially the idea that Arab Muslims are fanatical, irrational, primitive, and savage is the fall-back rational for the "war on terror" and supporting repressive regimes in the region including Israel and meddling behind the scenes in the uprisings in North Africa. "They're not ready for Democracy and self-rule" is basically the reason for a lot of this.

Also in the US but moreso in Europe it is the bigotry helping prop-up attempts to justify the marginalization of migrant groups. "They don't understand 'our values'". etc. If they said it was because of race, then the bigotry would be too overt and visible and repulse a lot more people. A religion that most in Western Europe and in the US know little about other than Hollywood's representations? Well that's a lot more easy to demonize.

Does Pam Geller organize protests to prevent a community center built by Muslims because she is secular? Do politicians pass laws to guarantee that Muslim laws are put into practice in the US because they want the separation of church and state or do they want to make it seem like Muslims are incompatible with "our ways"? Religion is not the reason for the anti-Islam rehtoric and propaganda that are now common: it is the "clash of civilizations" myth that our rulers want to promote.

Beyond being just an atheist, what good would it do the western non-Arab non-Muslim left to criticize a religion that has little impact on our organizing and has no social power in the countries we live in? What we think means little - what Leftists in Egypt do, what movements in Egypt will do are really the only thing that can challenge bigoted or right-wing ideas there.

George Bush and pro-war Liberals can complain about women's rights in various places all they want, but it's a smokescreen for supporting invasion: "these people shouldn't be allowed to rule themselves because of their backwards ideas". A month of revolts in Egypt, on the other hand actually helped some women bring attention to harassment on the street and win solidarity and support from other women as well as men. The uprising helped unite some Egyptian Muslims and Copts, not criticism from anti-religious types - especially not ones in far off countries.

It's possible to not support something while also supporting the reasons and actions of other people who don't support something. Some US Neo-Nazis are against the Iraq war and they are anti-Israel - we don't support them or give them one millimeter of credibility on these issues because they are supporting this position for reasons and an agenda totally opposed to our own and Palestinians and people in the Anti-War movement.

[MaximMK]

I really hate people defending Muslims because their countries are under attack n stuff. Islam is a bad thing as any other religion.

[Igor]

I really hate people defending Muslims because their countries are under attack n stuff. Islam is a bad thing as any other religion.

hoooo boy holocaust was about religious persecution leftists shouldn't give a fuck, right? do you people go absolutely blind to ethnic violence and imperialist conflict in the developing world as soon as the world 'religion' is uttered when you just go in your smug atheist mode where you block everything out because "all religion is bad"? yeah. you do

literally nobody is thinking here that we should be hurraying for islamic institutions or whatever but thinking we shouldn't care about constant and growing hostility towards muslims in the west is honestly appalling and disgusting

[campesino]

hoooo boy holocaust was about religious persecution leftists shouldn't give a fuck, right? do you people go absolutely blind to ethnic violence and imperialist conflict in the developing world as soon as the world 'religion' is uttered when you just go in your smug atheist mode where you block everything out because "all religion is bad"? yeah. you do

literally nobody is thinking here that we should be hurraying for islamic institutions or whatever but thinking we shouldn't care about constant and growing hostility towards muslims in the west is honestly appalling and disgusting

way to put the poster out of context.

the poster was referring to defending their abhorrent beliefs and actions, not about defending innocent civilians.

[Igor]

way to put the poster out of context.

the poster was referring to defending their abhorrent beliefs and actions, not about defending innocent civilians.

oh please do tell me more about the abhorrent beliefs and actions of "the muslims"

[campesino]

oh please do tell me more about the abhorrent beliefs and actions of "the muslims"
poor choice of words there, i should have said islamist, many muslims are cool people

being against pre-marital sex
female submission
jihad
wanting to restore the caliphate
sharia law
being tools of the gulf royals
wanting to genocide: Alawite, Druze, Shia, Jews, Atheist

i know that you might be thinking i'm in the same crowd as michelle bachman and other reactionaries, in thinking the list i have made is a threat in the western world.

But i know islamist aren't a real threat in the west, but they are a threat in the middle east, and to leftist in the middle east.

[MaximMK]

I assume all non-Muslims in 'Islamic countries' are either unemployed or dead, then? Maybe not all but those that state their views publicly Yes!

http://srilankamirror.com/news/217-lankan-facing-death-for-worshipping-buddha-statue

You mention Britain for not separating religion from state but tell me is it the same to be an atheist in UK and in Saudi Arabia etc. Richard Dawkins a British atheist is quite active and open about his views and even tho there are certain individuals that threaten him i don't see him imprisoned for not being Christian while there are cases when people are imprisoned just for that in the middle east. Should i mention this too?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190935/Downs-syndrome-girl-11-faces-death-penalty-desecrating-Koran-Pakistan.html

This shit is not happening in states with christian majority.

Im not saying Christianity is better there are idiots there too maybe worse. But the situation is not the same regarding the state.

Regarding the followers there are people from both sides ready to kill you only for burning a book.

Plus them being anti-gay, female submission supporters, having strict conservative rules about lifestyle ( Christians and Muslims ). I understand their pain in all the wars and stuff but man they do really bad shit too with their dangerous beliefs.

[brigadista]

some orientalism on display in this thread

[MaximMK]

Im not saying they shouldn't be aided if in trouble it doesn't matter if they are muslim or w/e but dont grow a soft spot for all of em because some of them are in trouble. Islam like a religion is bad and people shouldn't be defended because they are muslim but because they are people. Plus most of them consider the islam to be the only true religion and want it to influence the state so ...

[l'Enfermé]

double post sorry

[l'Enfermé]

hoooo boy holocaust was about religious persecution leftists shouldn't give a fuck, right? do you people go absolutely blind to ethnic violence and imperialist conflict in the developing world as soon as the world 'religion' is uttered when you just go in your smug atheist mode where you block everything out because "all religion is bad"? yeah. you do

literally nobody is thinking here that we should be hurraying for islamic institutions or whatever but thinking we shouldn't care about constant and growing hostility towards muslims in the west is honestly appalling and disgusting
The Holocaust, a small part of a much larger genocide, wasn't an example of religious persecution. It's an example of racial persecution. Antisemitism manifests as racial persecution under capitalism, though it was a form of religious persecution during feudal times.

[Igor]

The Holocaust, a small part of a much larger genocide, wasn't an example of religious persecution. It's an example of racial persecution. Antisemitism manifests as racial persecution under capitalism, though it was a form of religious persecution during feudal times.

and that was my point exactly. persecution of muslims, too, is largely ethnic, and the poster I was quoting was brushing it off as religious persecution. and that's why i made the comparison to holocaust because it'd be ridiculous in the first place to claim holocaust was religious persecution

hope that clears it up a bit

[MaximMK]

muslims are followers of a religion not an ethnic group.

[roy]

^but persecution of muslims can extend to anyone who looks like they might be from the middle east, etc

anyway, why do a lot of people not get that no one is defending some stuff written in the koran or whatever? this is not about that

[Igor]

muslims are followers of a religion not an ethnic group.

...yes but it's still pretty much any immigrant from middle east who's going to suffer from this shit, even if they weren't muslims. religious reasons have always been used to attack entire ethnic populations, like anti-latin and anti-irish racism have always been kind of riding with anti-catholic rhetorics.

and even if it was only religious people, it's a problem, because it'd still be a case of the ruling class scapegoating a religious minority, and seriously leftists who don't give a fuck about religious freedom and religious persecution are shit leftists. i know you're very enthusiastic about your whole atheism thing and all but religion is still something that matters to a lot of working class people and individual religious belief isn't really something that could be considered particularly reactionary, and it's just bullshit to brush those people off with "gfggbjhur but they believe in a god they're not worthy of my superior atheist self"

[MaximMK]

I believe in religious freedom and i think anyone should believe in what he wants. But if we want to build a stateless society those beliefs must remain inside the individual. I don't like the muslims because they impose their beliefs on others just as the christians do. I was pointing out that the states there are doing it too more than chrisian states. I understand that it is not right to restrict their religious freedom but i find it kinda hard to support em cause they want to restrict others too by forcing their religion.

[Igor]

I believe in religious freedom and i think anyone should believe in what he wants. But if we want to build a stateless society those beliefs must remain inside the individual. I don't like the muslims because they impose their beliefs on others just as the christians do. I was pointing out that the states there are doing it too more than chrisian states. I understand that it is not right to restrict their religious freedom but i find it kinda hard to support em cause they want to restrict others too by forcing their religion.

I like how you know all the muslims. I wish I knew one billion people.

Though, serious question, how many muslims do you personally know? Are they constantly telling you what an infidel you are and quoting the Qur'an? Because no, I'm yet to actually meet a Muslim like that. Individual Muslims hardly force their religion upon anyone but you're basing your opinion of Muslim populace on what you think of the Muslim ruling class in countries with majority Muslim population. What Muslim states do tells you nothing about the actual, individual people, it should be kinda obvious to commies to not to equal the ruling class or certain extremist groups with the general population.

[MaximMK]

Its just they are quick to do riots and stuff even for the smallest insult like that movie. That movie sucks its bad and i never even heard of it until they started protesting and stuff. Im not saying they are all like that my grandfather is muslim. Those people should be defended if they are in trouble but their religion should not be. Religion does bad stuff it provokes good people to do bad stuff like those riots and stuff for nothing but a bad movie.

[rayznack]

The Holocaust, a small part of a much larger genocide, wasn't an example of religious persecution. It's an example of racial persecution. Antisemitism manifests as racial persecution under capitalism, though it was a form of religious persecution during feudal times.

Wouldn't killing Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious belief system regarding pacifism be an example of religious persecution?

What would you call persecuting a religious group for following their religious beliefs other than religious persecution?

[l'Enfermé]

Wouldn't killing Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious belief system regarding pacifism be an example of religious persecution?

What would you call persecuting a religious group for following their religious beliefs other than religious persecution?
What's religion got to do with the Holocaust? The NSDAP's problem with the Jews was racial, not religious. Jewishness isn't only a matter of whether or not you go to a synagogue.

[Lowtech]

If one wishes to hate a group based on ethnicity, there is no need to hide one's racism with falsifying the religion of such people, a similiar question would be 'why much apology for Christianity?'

[Robocommie]

These threads always have a nice way of sorting out the jackasses from the leftists who I really truly respect.

[Crimson Commissar]

I think a lot of the issue is that people get too caught up in defending people from racial and religious discrimination that they then think they should start personally supporting the religion in question as well. I'm not fond of organized Islam at all really, for multiple reasons, but the important thing is not allowing religion to enter into the realm of racial issues. Because, quite frankly, I've heard far too many people dismiss a criticism of Islam; Hinduism; or any number of other eastern religions as being somehow inherently "racist", despite the fact that there is simply no link between someone's race and someone's religion.

Some Leftists do take this to ridiculous lengths however though. It's not just once that I've heard the argument that Communists should support Islamist movements because they "share a common disagreement with western imperialism". I'll step up to defend the Middle-Eastern and Asian people from US/NATO influence any day, but if you think that means I need to start declaring "solidarity with Iran" or "solidarity with the Muslim Brotherhood" then you can quite honestly go fuck yourself.

[Sea]

Where the hell is this liberal "right to believe" crap coming from? I hate to sound like Joey S but no, you don't have the "right" to deviate from scientific fact.

That said when Islam is used as a cover-up for racism against Arabs, as it commonly is, there is a genuine concern to be dealt with.

[cynicles]

I realised recently that Islamist(political Islamic movements and followers) are effectively doing the same thing Zionists do and attempting intentional conflation to garner sympathy. When I was watching Arab leftists take down Islamists by calling them out for their reactionary shit the reply from the Islamists was that their objections we're rooted in the Islamophobia of the west. Of course the discrimination against Muslims is real, but then I realised it was basically the same defense zionists use when they conflate Zionsim and judaism to dodge dealing with the content of the argument. I don't think any sane leftist, key word being sane, is going to confuse the religious group from the political group and seriously starting backing the reactionary political groups. Most of these protests are always apart of something some Islamist group has organized, and since the media didn't see fit to give any air time to the rest of the protests going on, the strikes and growing labour movement, I do think it should be our jobs to point out and draw that distinction between what muslims and regular people are doing and what 'islamists' are doing.