Islamic liberation theology? [Archive]

Remus Bleys

9th November 2013, 01:35

The PDPA's Parcham faction in Afghanistan tried to reconcile socialism and islam.

Then there was Gadaffi who tried to too with his brand of Arab socialism.
liberation theology is the notion that holy scripture of various religions (originally and mainly catholicism) coupled with an unbiased analysis of society calls one to follow the principles of marx in a revolutionary overthrow of the existing society, implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, move on to socialism etc; as well as feminism, queer liberation, ethnic liberation, anti-nationalism, and all that.
You can argue if such a thing is good or not. Personally, I think it is funny to see it mainly be Parliamentarians that object to liberation theology, on grounds of it being anti-marxist.

However, neither Gadaffi nor the PDPA is remotely close to that.

Red_Banner

9th November 2013, 01:36

Meh.

Remus Bleys

9th November 2013, 01:56

Meh.
That analysis.
With replies like this, it makes it ever more obvious that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You uncritically support every nationalist dictator that uses sociailst rhetoric.
Like you're criticism of hoxha being "he is alright, but he didn't support syndicalism."
Tell me, what theory have you read?

Also, to keep this relevant so no one can say i am derailing the chat, http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Liberation-Theology-Resisting-Empire/dp/0415771552. I haven't read it, but this seems to confirm to the OP that yes, islamic liberation theology is a thing. I haven't read the book, but I probably will sometime in the future (and post on if it is any good or not).

Red_Banner

9th November 2013, 01:59

That analysis.
With replies like this, it makes it ever more obvious that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You uncritically support every nationalist dictator that uses sociailst rhetoric.
Like you're criticism of hoxha being "he is alright, but he didn't support syndicalism."
Tell me, what theory have you read?

Also, to keep this relevant so no one can say i am derailing the chat, http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Liberation-Theology-Resisting-Empire/dp/0415771552. I haven't read it, but this seems to confirm to the OP that yes, islamic liberation theology is a thing. I haven't read the book, but I probably will sometime in the future.

I never liked Hoxha.

It is obvious you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Remus Bleys

9th November 2013, 02:01

I never liked Hoxha.

It is obvious you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
times like this i wish i copied the revleft chat history.

Red_Banner

9th November 2013, 02:05

times like this i wish i copied the revleft chat history.

Yeah well if you did, it would show that you are a liar.

Ismail

9th November 2013, 07:39

A number of Soviet-backed regimes adhered to some form of "Islamic socialism," notably Ben Bella's Algeria (which also had the participation of Trots within it) and Siad Barre's Somalia. The PDPA also utilized "Islamic socialism," as Red Banner noted, as did Gaddafi.

Writing on Ben Bella, Hoxha noted that, "Ben Bella is a typical present-day adventurer. He is a dubious character, a petty-bourgeois careerist and megalomaniac, ready to adopt any colour, a person who regards himself as 'a great man of history', with not only Algerian, not only African, but world 'perspectives'... Openly and secretly Ben Bella retained, developed and went on developing his connections with the French capitalists; he posed as a Khrushchevite and succeeded in getting from the Soviet revisionists the decoration 'Hero of the Soviet Union', the Lenin Peace Prize and the Order of Lenin... [he declared] that he was 'building socialism', a kind of socialism about which the French revisionist communists, such as Garaudy and others, began to concoct theories, describing it as a new form of 'Islamic socialism'.

Ben Bella became a close friend of Tito's and adopted the capitalist form of self-administration which, in the eyes of the revisionists, strengthened Ben Bella's 'socialism'... Castro considered Ben Bella his revolutionary double, and through him sought to penetrate into Africa, allegedly in order to activize 'the struggle of the African peoples' for 'socialism', as in Cuba." (Reflections on the Middle East, pp. 27-28.)

Hoxha's view of Gaddafi was similarly penetrating.

It is worth noting that the Garaudy mentioned in the text became a partisan of Eurocommunism, then later converted to Islam and became a Holocaust denier.

Devrim

9th November 2013, 07:52

Sufism is pretty cool, I'm down for that.

What's cool about Sufism? It is generally a pretty reactionary right-wing movement.

Devrim

RedMoslem

9th November 2013, 08:31

What's cool about Sufism? It is generally a pretty reactionary right-wing movement.

Devrim
Sufism isn't a really a movement or a political ideology so it's not right-wing.
It's basically a sect within Islam which emphasizes complete love and trust of God.Also by the cool part,they do dress in white cloth and put on nice hats and do swirling dances :D

Devrim

9th November 2013, 09:08

Sufism isn't a really a movement or a political ideology so it's not right-wing.
It's basically a sect within Islam which emphasizes complete love and trust of God.Also by the cool part,they do dress in white cloth and put on nice hats and do swirling dances :D

I am completely aware of what Sufism is. It certainly isn't a sect within Islam. It is a term, which covers quite a wide range of different 'brotherhoods'.

If we look at contemporary Sufism, it is quite often associated with the right. For example Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, is a member of a Sufi brotherhood.

I think for some historic reasons it tends to be looked on as something quite exotic in the west. The reality of modern day Sufism is much more mundane and reactionary.

Devrim

RedMoslem

9th November 2013, 09:40

I apologize if my reply was rude in any way.
Yeah,Sufism is usually looked as on as the ideal dervish mentality of being voluntarily poor.
Sunnis and Shiites describe Sufism as a sect,but there are as you said "brotherhoods".
I have been unaware of Tayyip Erdoğan being a Sufi,thanks for the information.
Though, Erdoğan has been describes as a Islamist by some of his opposition,I thought Sufis were more interested in loving Allah rather than politics.

Sasha

9th November 2013, 11:38

Can sufi brotherhoods be both sunni and Shia? I thought turkish alawis also had their roots in sufism?
Though progressive as a community and an interesting alternative to point to if islamophobes label all Muslims as reactionary note that Turkish alawism is more akin to reform Judaism and Christian reformist movements like uniteral universialism and not akin to liberation theology.
If only for the fact that most Alawi don't accept converts which was ofcourse one of the foundations of liberation theology, social liberation through accepting christ.

Devrim

10th November 2013, 11:43

I apologize if my reply was rude in any way.

Yeah,Sufism is usually looked as on as the ideal dervish mentality of being voluntarily poor.

I don't think this is true about modern day Sufism. It is not some backward middle ages thing. Modern Sufism is in politics and big business.

Sunnis and Shiites describe Sufism as a sect,but there are as you said "brotherhoods".

Maybe 'brotherhood' isn't the best translation. The word I would use in Turkish is Tarikat. I believe this is the same word as is used in Arabic.

I have been unaware of Tayyip Erdoğan being a Sufi,thanks for the information.

Many Turkish politicians have been, including perhaps most famously Turgut Özal, who could be considered Turkey's equivalent of Reagan or Thatcher.

Though, Erdoğan has been describes as a Islamist by some of his opposition,I thought Sufis were more interested in loving Allah rather than politics.

Erdoğan is certainly an Islamicist. It is not just the idea of some of the opposition. I think that the image of Sufism in the West bears no resemblance to the present reality. While for some it is about loving God for others it is an important part of the political machine.

Devrim

Devrim

10th November 2013, 11:56

Can sufi brotherhoods be both sunni and Shia?

No, on the whole they can't.

I thought turkish alawis also had their roots in sufism?

No, this is not actually true. Alavilik has its roots in pre-Islamic folk religion. However, they share a reverence for Hacı Bektaş Veli (an 11th century Muslim saint) with the Bektaşi Tarikatı (a Sufi brotherhood). Both of them have influenced the other over the years with the Bektaşi ending up as a strange mix of all sort of things Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Ghulat sects and Sufism.

Though progressive as a community and an interesting alternative to point to if islamophobes label all Muslims as reactionary note that Turkish alawism is more akin to reform Judaism and Christian reformist movements like uniteral universialism and not akin to liberation theology.

I am not really sure what 'progressive as a community' means.

Whether Alavilik is a part of Islam is a point of debate. Many Muslims, and indeed many Alevis would place it outside of Islam.

I'd say it is certainly nothing like a reform movement in any way.

Devrim

Trap Queen Voxxy

11th November 2013, 00:20

I am completely aware of what Sufism is. It certainly isn't a sect within Islam. It is a term, which covers quite a wide range of different 'brotherhoods'.

Exactly, which makes your blanket condemnation weird. Furthermore, in most conversations, Shi'ism wouldn't be considered Islam either. I also don't think I need to point out that such rejections are silly. What the modern lay Muslim/person typically assumes is true about Shi'ism or Sufism, just simply isn't true. Sufi teachings aren't really the same or different from Sunni or "proper Islam." It's a change of perspectives.

Leo

14th November 2013, 12:35

To go back to the original question, I would say that there is something of a "liberation theology" for Islam, though I think it is much weaker than Christian liberation theology because Islam is, in the end, a merchant's religion.

I don't think people like Ben Bella or Qaddafi or other similar statesmen would qualify here either, for instance as examples of an Islamic liberation theology. These people were for the most part secular politicians who pragmatically added some Islamic rhetoric to their politics. Nor would Hezbollah or anything like that would count since it is rather a plain and simple Islamist organization who the Western leftists paint in red because they're anti-Israel.

The People's Mujahedin of Iran would count as an example of Islamic liberation theology, but only in its early years. Later on they've become a rather secular, social democratic groupling.

The most prominent and famous figure of what can be called Islamic liberation theology is Ali Shariati. Historically the figure he draws most upon is Abu Dhar al Ghifari, one of the first converts to Islam. There are two Sunni liberation theologist groups in Turkey today, for example, the Revolutionary Muslims and the Anti-Capitalist Muslims who are inspired by Ali Shariati and Abu Dhar.

Maybe 'brotherhood' isn't the best translation. The word I would use in Turkish is Tarikat. Cult is probably the best word for it.

Can sufi brotherhoods be both sunni and Shia? Obviously not at the same time but yes, there are some Shia cults which consider themselves Sufi, the most notable being the Alevi Bektasi as Devrim mentions. This being said, it is mostly a Sunni thing.

Furthermore, in most conversations, Shi'ism wouldn't be considered Islam either. Depends on who you're talking to but there certainly aren't that many Sunni scholars who wouldn't consider the Iranian Shiites or the Lebanese Hezbollah as Muslims, for instance.

Many would, however consider the Turkish Alevi sect and the Syrian Alawite sect to be outside Islam.

Rafiq

15th November 2013, 03:33

Islam as a religion arose as a means of unifying Arabia's many clans and merchants in order to create adequate space for trade. Unlike Christianity, Islam did not give to the world a new revolutionary form of logic, Islam is more war like and dogmatic in nature, it draws a great deal of influence from religions of the orient including Buddhism. There is little room for interpretation in Islam. As such, until the end of the cold war Islam had no place in modern politics, it represented a rather static, monk-esque way of life. Muslims were stereotypically seen as submissive and passive by westerners. Conveniently for the ruling classes and feudal aristocrats in the Muslim world, Islam has gained political significance as an effective ruling class ideology in maintaining modern capitalist social relations, the level of class collaboration brought about from Islam is unseen in Christianity. However like Fascists, modern islamists stole from communists what was inherent and true only to our movement, namely, the universal, transnational and relentless strive for world domination.

But in short, there is no place for Islam in socialism. Or any other religion for that matter.

Devrim

18th November 2013, 10:38

I am completely aware of what Sufism is. It certainly isn't a sect within Islam. It is a term, which covers quite a wide range of different 'brotherhoods'. Exactly, which makes your blanket condemnation weird. Furthermore, in most conversations, Shi'ism wouldn't be considered Islam either. I also don't think I need to point out that such rejections are silly. What the modern lay Muslim/person typically assumes is true about Shi'ism or Sufism, just simply isn't true. Sufi teachings aren't really the same or different from Sunni or "proper Islam." It's a change of perspectives.

I think you have misunderstood me. I can understand that the sentence isn't clear. Try reading it again with the emphasis on the words in bold, and it probably makes more sense.

Devrim

Soul Speech

26th November 2013, 21:19

Is there any muslim groups or thinkers that theorize or practice something similar to catholic liberation theology or is still Hezbollah the most progressive islamic gruop?

I wonder who told you or on what are you basing that Hezbollah is considered to be the "most" progressive Islamic group?

Hezbollah is an Iranian funded proxy in Lebanon who follow the ideology of Khomeini which is not considered to be a progressive Islamic ideology at all unless you ask a fan of Hezbollah, in that case I'm sure they would speak about Hezbollah in a highly and positive way.

What's cool about Sufism? It is generally a pretty reactionary right-wing movement.

Devrim

Sufism is much broader than categorizing it under a single group and calling it a right-wing movement shows that you don't know anything about Sufism!

I am completely aware of what Sufism is. It certainly isn't a sect within Islam. It is a term, which covers quite a wide range of different 'brotherhoods'.

If we look at contemporary Sufism, it is quite often associated with the right. For example Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, is a member of a Sufi brotherhood.

I think for some historic reasons it tends to be looked on as something quite exotic in the west. The reality of modern day Sufism is much more mundane and reactionary.

Devrim

Whether Tayyip Erdogan is a Sufi or not I have no idea, actually many call him a Wahhabi but anyway you have to understand that sufism is much more broader than being associated with a specific group or being labeled under right-wing unless you can base it more than Erdogan being a Sufi.

When you say "often associated with right-wing" I guess you are basing it more on personal view and not on facts.

And there are good reasons why many people in the west and even in the east becomes interested in sufism, one reason is because it have many different approaches of reaching the truth/god unlike mainstream religions who lost all senses in reaching it and view god in a more dogmatic way.
Secondly many figures such as Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Attar and many other sufis can not just be ignored.

I believe there is a beauty in Sufism which makes Islam religion of peace and tolerance unlike the mainstream Islam.

DDR

26th November 2013, 22:59

I wonder who told you or on what are you basing that Hezbollah is considered to be the "most" progressive Islamic group?

Hezbollah is an Iranian funded proxy in Lebanon who follow the ideology of Khomeini which is not considered to be a progressive Islamic ideology at all unless you ask a fan of Hezbollah, in that case I'm sure they would speak about Hezbollah in a highly and positive way.

Just to clarify, I said the most progresive because it's the only islamist armed group that, as far as I know, does things like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services

Sea

26th November 2013, 23:14

liberation theology is the notion that holy scripture of various religions (originally and mainly catholicism) coupled with an unbiased analysis of society calls one to follow the principles of marx in a revolutionary overthrow of the existing society, implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, move on to socialism etc; as well as feminism, queer liberation, ethnic liberation, anti-nationalism, and all that.
You can argue if such a thing is good or not. Personally, I think it is funny to see it mainly be Parliamentarians that object to liberation theology, on grounds of it being anti-marxist.

However, neither Gadaffi nor the PDPA is remotely close to that.The holy scriptures, Catholic or Islamic or otherwise, are demonstrably full of shit, and often contradict the Marxist positions on things such as feminism and queer liberation.

How do you reconcile this? Surely you must abandon materialism in order to do so!

Art Vandelay

26th November 2013, 23:53

The holy scriptures, Catholic or Islamic or otherwise, are demonstrably full of shit, and often contradict the Marxist positions on things such as feminism and queer liberation.

How do you reconcile this? Surely you must abandon materialism in order to do so!

Marxism and religion are entirely incompatible. The only way one can believe otherwise would be through an act of cognitive dissonance or a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. One can be reilious and be a socialist sure, but not a Marxist.

Sea

27th November 2013, 00:56

Marxism and religion are entirely incompatible. The only way one can believe otherwise would be through an act of cognitive dissonance or a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. One can be reilious and be a socialist sure, but not a Marxist.Well duh, but at least I was being modest about it.

Well, Marxism IS entirely compatible with Subgenius...

edit: okay, re-reading my post, maybe I wasn't very modest. I like to think I'm modest though

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 01:03

Well duh, but at least I was being modest about it.

Well, Marxism IS entirely compatible with Subgenius...

edit: okay, re-reading my post, maybe I wasn't very modest. I like to think I'm modest though

Im not sure where the hostility or insult is coming from, but all I was doing was agreeing with you, while expanding on your point by adding that if someone finds a belief in a diety/religion helpful for personal reasons then whatever, but they should drop the pretense of being a Marxist.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 01:13

Sea

27th November 2013, 01:25

I dunno. How do you reconcile that with stalinism?That analysis.
With replies like this, it makes it ever more obvious that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Don't change the subject. That doesn't even address what I said. I'm not even a Stalinist, whatever that means anyway. You can't back out of this one Remus.

Im not sure where the hostility or insult is coming from, but all I was doing was agreeing with you, while expanding on your point by adding that if someone finds a belief in a diety/religion helpful for personal reasons then whatever, but they should drop the pretense of being a Marxist.sorry hun, wasn't trying to be hostile

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 01:28

You are in the group "marxism-leninism" and have argued for marxist-leninist positions in the threads you have posted in that i have encountered.

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 01:30

I feel that the DWS is an anti-marxist position.

Good for you, this is relevant how? Is this a thread about the theory of dws, no. Its about liberation theology. This is nothing other than an attempt to derail discussion/distract attention away from the valid criticism being made, ie: that marxism and religion are incompatible. Now if you would like to refute that claim, since you seem to disagree with it, you're more than welcome to, but don't try to evade criticism by making sectarian pot shots. To be honest, I'd probably respond to whatever argument you could make in the same flippant manner you conduct yourself in and suggest picking up some Marx, he had quite alot to say about the phenomenon of religion.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 01:42

Good for you, this is relevant how? Is this a thread about the theory of dws, no. ...This is nothing other than an attempt to derail discussion/distract attention away from the valid criticism being made, ie: that marxism and religion are incompatible.
Nah I was just pointing out how I thought it was funny that we have people with anti-marxist positions going on about how something is anti-marxist, as if we must defend the whole of marxism because its an invariant doctrine!

Its about liberation theology.
Right, and no where did anyone make the claim that liberation theology was marxists.

Now if you would like to refute that claim, since you seem to disagree with it, you're more than welcome to,
Where did I imply that liberation theology and marxism were compatible?

suggest picking up some Marx, he had quite alot to say about the phenomenon of religion.
Im actually mostly in agreement with marx on religion.

Ismail

27th November 2013, 02:56

Nah I was just pointing out how I thought it was funny that we have people with anti-marxist positions going on about how something is anti-marxist, as if we must defend the whole of marxism because its an invariant doctrine!Saying that X is unqualified to distinguish between Marxist and non-Marxist positions because they hold supposedly anti-Marxist positions themselves is both illogical and evading the argument. Avowed anti-communists will tell you that Marxism is fundamentally atheistic, and they wouldn't be wrong. Lenin wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm) that, "Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule." Pretty much every self-described communist, whether Marx or Engels, Stalin or Trotsky, Luxemburg or Bordiga, Brezhnev or Tito, etc. were atheists.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 03:04

Saying that X is unqualified to distinguish between Marxist and non-Marxist positions because they hold supposedly anti-Marxist positions themselves is both illogical and evading the argument. Avowed anti-communists will tell you that Marxism is fundamentally atheistic, and they wouldn't be wrong. Lenin wrote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm) that, "Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule." Pretty much every self-described communist, whether Marx or Engels, Stalin or Trotsky, Luxemburg or Bordiga, Brezhnev or Tito, etc. were atheists.
I was unaware that the viewing of the mode of production was less important to marxism than the view of religion.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Ismail

27th November 2013, 03:07

I was unaware that the viewing of the mode of production was less important to marxism than the view of religion.
Thanks for clearing that up.Another evasion of the issue. What about the philosophical aspect of Marxism? What about its scientific content? How do you reconcile the materialist conception of history and the world with the metaphysical belief in a deity?

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 03:14

Another evasion of the issue. What about the philosophical aspect of Marxism? What about its scientific content? How do you reconcile the materialist conception of history and the world with the metaphysical belief in a deity?
I dont know and I don't care.
Im much more interested in someone who wants to abolish capitalism than if they believe in Zeus or follow the line of Buddha.

This is an evasation of the issue - are you seriously suggesting one's view on religion is more important than one's view on what is capitalism is more important in regards to marxism?

And again, where did anyone say anything about liberation theology being marxist? That is evading from the thread, because everyone was already under the assumption that it wasn't, OP was just interested.

Sea

27th November 2013, 08:16

You are in the group "marxism-leninism" and have argued for marxist-leninist positions in the threads you have posted in that i have encountered.But that's not even what this thread is about. Quit evading the question. How do you reconcile religion and Marxism?

Dagoth Ur

27th November 2013, 10:08

My version of Islam is necessarily materialistic. Checkmate antitheists.

Oh and the reason that most historic communists were atheists was because the church of their day was an active agent of state reaction. In the modern age this is still true (hence the continuation of this trend) but any Marxist who thinks we can leave religion to its own devices is shortsighted beyond reason. There can be no space that we do not occupy, there can be no lens but ours, there cannot be anything else or else our failure to create true cultural hegemony will taint all our projects. It is truly odd how idealistic most Marxists are when it comes to religion.

hatzel

27th November 2013, 11:30

How do you reconcile religion and Marxism?

Saying 'that's not even what this thread is about' and accusing people of 'evading the question,' then asking how to reconcile religion and Marxism when it's been stated several times in this thread already that nobody has any interest in doing that, that liberation theology/-ies don't need to be reconciled with Marxism (unless they want to call themselves 'Marxists,' rather than 'liberation theologians' or 'Muslim socialists' or 'religious people influenced by aspects of the Marxian political program' or whatever else), making the question itself totally irrelevant, evasive, out of place in this thread which has nothing to do with reconciling religion and Marxism etc.

Coolio...

Art Vandelay

27th November 2013, 17:16

Nah I was just pointing out how I thought it was funny that we have people with anti-marxist positions going on about how something is anti-marxist, as if we must defend the whole of marxism because its an invariant doctrine!

Marxism is not a doctrine or ideology, but a method, which yes must be upheld and defended.

Where did I imply that liberation theology and marxism were compatible?

I believe you used to have 'liberation theology' set as your tendency, so I was under the assumption that perhaps you found it and Marxism (which you claim to uphold) as compatible in some way.

I was unaware that the viewing of the mode of production was less important to marxism than the view of religion.

It needs to be approached dialectically. It would appear that your analysis takes for granted a duality between the mode of production and phenomenon within the social superstructure, which doesn't exist.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 20:06

tthis is a thread on islamic liberation theology... so I am unsure why I am being asked these questions.
I mean who even said anything about fucking marxism?

Sea

27th November 2013, 20:28

tthis is a thread on islamic liberation theology... so I am unsure why I am being asked these questions.
I mean who even said anything about fucking marxism?you did
liberation theology is the notion that holy scripture of various religions (originally and mainly catholicism) coupled with an unbiased analysis of society calls one to follow the principles of marx in a revolutionary overthrow of the existing society, implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, move on to socialism etc; as well as feminism, queer liberation, ethnic liberation, anti-nationalism, and all that.
You can argue if such a thing is good or not. Personally, I think it is funny to see it mainly be Parliamentarians that object to liberation theology, on grounds of it being anti-marxist.

However, neither Gadaffi nor the PDPA is remotely close to that.

Remus Bleys

27th November 2013, 20:45

See hatzels point about marxia influencedpeople.
The anti marxist line was an observation of everyone on the internet moaning and groaning about hyow it isn't marxist enoug, because I guess the point of communism is not to abolish capitalism and create a staeless classless society, but to make everyone marxist.

Sea

28th November 2013, 01:43

Alright, I'll see Hatzel's point:

Saying 'that's not even what this thread is about' and accusing people of 'evading the question,' then asking how to reconcile religion and Marxism when it's been stated several times in this thread already that nobody has any interest in doing that, that liberation theology/-ies don't need to be reconciled with Marxism (unless they want to call themselves 'Marxists,' rather than 'liberation theologians' or 'Muslim socialists' or 'religious people influenced by aspects of the Marxian political program' or whatever else), making the question itself totally irrelevant, evasive, out of place in this thread which has nothing to do with reconciling religion and Marxism etc.

Coolio...

Right. So if someone claims to be a liberation theologist but not a Marxist, there is no need to reconcile the two. Fair enough. But you, Remus, claim to simultaneously be:

1) A Marxist
2) A liberation theologist

And therefore you do not enjoy that exemption. When asked how you can claim to be both at once, you evade the question, stating that you "dont know and I don't care" about the philosophical and scientific aspects of Marxism. As if this anti-intellectual rubbish were not enough, you state:

The anti marxist line was an observation of everyone on the internet moaning and groaning about hyow it isn't marxist enoug, because I guess the point of communism is not to abolish capitalism and create a staeless classless society, but to make everyone marxist.And with that, you throw the need for Marxist class-consciousnesses out the window as soon as it butts up against your silly mystical beliefs!

edit: Since this is a bit off-toppic at this point, would you defend yourself in a separate thread if I started one, perhaps in OI religion? I am genuinely interested in how you justify combining the two.

Soul Speech

28th November 2013, 16:55

Just to clarify, I said the most progresive because it's the only islamist armed group that, as far as I know, does things like these:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_social_services

Actually they are not the only ones who do this.
The Muslim Brotherhood does the same and this is how they buy their support like in Egypt for example the MB offered many social services in the poor areas!
They take advantage of the poor so they can buy their support to use them in election time.

HA in Lebanon with the yearly or monthly funds from Iran operate under many banners but the day these fundings stops expect them to fade away slowly.

Also the opposite side of HA in Lebanon which is the Future Movement for example are funded by the Saudis and offer almost the same services to its base.

Without these funds coming to the base these people would lose a lot on the ground.. this is how many "Lebanese parties" operates and buy people.

Soul Speech

28th November 2013, 17:10

Al-Nahda or the Renaissance play an important role in the changes that occurred in the Arabic and Islamic world as well

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nahda

Devrim

9th December 2013, 22:50

Sufism is much broader than categorizing it under a single group and calling it a right-wing movement shows that you don't know anything about Sufism!

As I said before, it is diverse. It is often associated with the right though. These things are contradictory.

Whether Tayyip Erdogan is a Sufi or not I have no idea, actually many call him a Wahhabi but anyway you have to understand that sufism is much more broader than being associated with a specific group or being labeled under right-wing unless you can base it more than Erdogan being a Sufi.

When you say "often associated with right-wing" I guess you are basing it more on personal view and not on facts.

No, I am basing it on facts. Tayyip Erdoğan is a member of a Sufi Tarakat. That is a fact. The Turkish government (a right-wing government) contains different Sufi tarakats (which sometimes compete with one another. That is also a fact.

I have never heard anybody refer to him as a Wahhabi. It suggest you have very little understanding of the subject.

And there are good reasons why many people in the west and even in the east becomes interested in sufism, one reason is because it have many different approaches of reaching the truth/god unlike mainstream religions who lost all senses in reaching it and view god in a more dogmatic way.
Secondly many figures such as Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Attar and many other sufis can not just be ignored.

Yes, but these are historical figures from a period when religion played a very different role to the one that it does today.

I believe there is a beauty in Sufism which makes Islam religion of peace and tolerance unlike the mainstream Islam.

Contrary to Western popular belief not all Muslims are bloodthirsty maniacs. Also though, as you have pointed out Sufisim is a wide and divergent movement, and not all of them are/were peaceful. The Bektaşi, for instance, at one point in its history, was effectively a military order.

Devrim

Dagoth Ur

10th December 2013, 09:06

Too many westerners Orientalize Islam and hold up vaguely understood jargon to try to piece together whatever point they're trying to make. It's something I've become intimately aware of.

Also Sufism, Shia, Sunni, and basically all fiqh systems are just regional (or clan based) groupings with no basis in the Quran (especially most versions of fiqh as they completely ignore the value of modern consensus). Going Sola Scriptura isn't really an option either though as the world, and your own customs, conform Islam into its real material form. The idealistic approach to religion is to use it to explain material, the materialist approach to religion is to explain it through material.

This of course changes what parts of scripture are important, and what can be ignored. This is the ever-changing and immortal value of the Quran.