Muslim immigration

[adenoid hynkel]

How should the Left react to Muslim immigration?
The Left has traditionally been friendly to immigrants from all around the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.
On the other side a vast immigration of muslims in western secular countries would put in serious danger the effort of the Left to impose her values on society( secularism, women's rights, free speech, sexual liberation etc). I am not trying to say that all the people who come from Islamic countries are religious fundamentalists; neither I am trying to say that there are no religious fundamentalists in the West. But I think that the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim countries is surely bigger than the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the West. Therefore, a numerous immigration of people from muslim countries would lead to the increase of the percentage of religious fundmentalists and the reduction of the percentage of leftists in our society;the final result would obviously be MORE DIFFICULTIES IN OUR WAY TO CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Are you in fond of muslim immigration? Or against it? Personally I have not decided yet whether I should be in fond of it or against it, and so I would like to listen to your opinions..

[violencia.Proletariat]

I don't think this will be a large issue once Western countries had communist revolutions. Why would a reactionary muslim/christian/whatever want to move to a place where their backwards social standards are not tolerated? They wouldn't be able to build mosques, so I think that would really effect their choice of destinations in the first place.

[Phalanx]

I'll use France as an example:

As you may know, there are about 8 million Muslims living in France currently, many descended from immigrants coming from Algeria or former French colonies in sub-Saharan Africa. But what exactly is the reason they haven't been secularized by the (overall) non-religious French society?

The answer lays firmly in France's policy toward accepting immigrants. Many move to France in hopes of a better life, but instead they're shunned from French society and because of adverse economic conditions, they're forced to live in slums surrounding the city of Paris. Poverty turns many of these emigres to religion, and they feel alienated from both French and their native cultures. Sort of 'stuck in the middle'. Therefore, when they feel that they can't assimilate, it becomes almost impossible for the immigrants to intigrate into French society. France doesn't accept them, and they wouldn't go back to their grandfather's country of birth.

And to sum it up:
Capitalism creates hardship for many immigrants in France, and these hardships to tend to drive people to religion.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:08 PM
I don't think this will be a large issue once Western countries had communist revolutions. Why would a reactionary muslim/christian/whatever want to move to a place where their backwards social standards are not tolerated? They wouldn't be able to build mosques, so I think that would really effect their choice of destinations in the first place.


You state that after a communist revolution, the fact that the reactionary muslims would not be able to build mosques would effect their choice of destination.You cannot say this for sure; offcourse the fact that they would not be able to build mosques would be a reason for them not to come. On the other side the fact that there are better financial conditions in the West would be a reason for them to come. After all, I guess that the reactionary muslim who come to live in Europe nowadays, prefer the lifestyle of Middle East than the lifestyle of Europe. Why do they come to Europe then? Because they need MONEY.

But anyway... the point is not whether we should be for or against muslim immigration after a communist revolution. The point is whether we should be for or against muslim immigration RIGHT NOW........And whether muslim immigration makes your wish to have a communist revolution easier to come true or more difficult to come true...

[emma_goldman]

Well, we're not fighting for a just society just in the West but for all, are we not? If we are working to change the fundamentalism of one society why not work to change the fundamentalism of all societies? And of all people. It may be more tasking overall but I think ultimately we are in the majority. ;)

[ummProfessional]

i think it's simple with muslim immigrants or buddhists or any for that matter..i think you have to be strict about it no matter who your going to piss off, don't give a shit the law is the law, and if mulim immigrants try to impose their religious doctrines we are not going to allow it in secular countries...like Australia did, if you don't like it, if you are going to go by the "KORAN LAWS" than go back to your country because HERE! it's secular and if your an immigrant and want to live here you have to accept it, just like if a foreign woman goes to Saudi Arabia she is forced to wear a veil, we should be strong against their religious doctrines trying to be imposed on us...

[Raisa]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 14 2006, 10:33 PM
How should the Left react to Muslim immigration?
The Left has traditionally been friendly to immigrants from all around the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.
On the other side a vast immigration of muslims in western secular countries would put in serious danger the effort of the Left to impose her values on society( secularism, women's rights, free speech, sexual liberation etc). I am not trying to say that all the people who come from Islamic countries are religious fundamentalists; neither I am trying to say that there are no religious fundamentalists in the West. But I think that the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim countries is surely bigger than the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the West. Therefore, a numerous immigration of people from muslim countries would lead to the increase of the percentage of religious fundmentalists and the reduction of the percentage of leftists in our society;the final result would obviously be MORE DIFFICULTIES IN OUR WAY TO CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Are you in fond of muslim immigration? Or against it? Personally I have not decided yet whether I should be in fond of it or against it, and so I would like to listen to your opinions..
Damn. COld blooded shit.

First off, the difference between muslims and christians is muslims dont prothesitize or be missionaries. They keep it to their self. THey encourage women to be looked at for their minds and not as sexual physical objects and they dont bother anyone. It doesnt stop women from having any rights. Every society uses its religion to stop women from being equal cuase we live in a mans world.
Wearing hijab is a choice. God doesnt say " wear loose clothes or youre goign to hell,"
he ADVISES women to wear lose clothes so they can be seen as women and not as things like the wrest of the animals walking around. And you will never stop muslims from being muslim.
Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

There are alot more strong muslims then strong christians. I dont know why , but Id like to see you try to go have an arguement with a muslim about their faith. First of all they most likely wont have the arguement, because most people that are muslims feel like they dont got nothing to prove to anyone but god. It is not an aggrandizing religion. It means peace, (through) submission to the most high.

Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel+Jun 14 2006, 11:30 PM--> (adenoid hynkel @ Jun 14 2006, 11:30 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 11:08 PM
I don't think this will be a large issue once Western countries had communist revolutions. Why would a reactionary muslim/christian/whatever want to move to a place where their backwards social standards are not tolerated? They wouldn't be able to build mosques, so I think that would really effect their choice of destinations in the first place.


You state that after a communist revolution, the fact that the reactionary muslims would not be able to build mosques would effect their choice of destination.You cannot say this for sure; offcourse the fact that they would not be able to build mosques would be a reason for them not to comeAfter all, I guess that the reactionary muslim who come to live in Europe nowadays, prefer the lifestyle of Middle East than the lifestyle of Europe. Why do they come to Europe then? Because they need MONEY.

But anyway... the point is not whether we should be for or against muslim immigration after a communist revolution. The point is whether we should be for or against muslim immigration RIGHT NOW........And whether muslim immigration makes your wish to have a communist revolution easier to come true or more difficult to come true... [/b]
. "On the other side the fact that there are better financial conditions in the West would be a reason for them to come. "

When islamic people live outside the islamic world alot fo times traditions are altered for survival.

Like ramadan, the fast that happens in november. You dont eat from sun up to sun down, but in the west we got to work. Life isnt built around ramadan or islam in the western christian world, so some people dont eat from 7 in the moringing to 7 at night, or 8 to 8 or etcetera.
And there are muslims who go t the mosque but there is alot who dont go. SO if the money is in america or europe and you need money, and theres no mosque, islamic faith is serious shit. No ones faith si going anywhere just cause there is no mosque.

But it says in the Quaran not to allow people to disrupt your faith.
Youre not supposed to run out and ..cough cough...fly planes into buildings of innocent people..but you dont let someome tell you " you cant be muslim" If worse comes to worse, that shit isnt happening.
People got to laern about religions before they trivialize that religions obiliteration.

[Mariam]

They keep it to their self.

That's right. Even if muslims live in the west "the secular west" where there's no mosques, they know they can pray back where they live.
Most muslims that live in the west are believed to be secular in order to survive.


Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

It was thought that Islam is against communism for the lasts abolishment of religion, but true Islam not todays islam was supposed to suppory the idea of the abolishment of classes and would agree with the idea that says the every one should have the same as every one else no more no less.
But whats happening today in the islamic world or among muslims could be explaind as Ibn Khaldon explained it as they have reached the the old age of state where the start to think about money, slaves, sex, and other stuff that will lead to the collapse of the state.


Like ramadan, the fast that happens in november. You dont eat from sun up to sun down, but in the west we got to work. Life isnt built around ramadan or islam in the western christian world, so some people dont eat from 7 in the moringing to 7 at night, or 8 to 8 or etcetera.

So you had the impression that muslims don't work during ramadan??
They do work even if they were fasting.


Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right?

And thats why the hell they leave thier contries in the first place..to WORK!

[Free Left]

One of the reasons Islam isn't in decay like Christianity is because in Islamic countries a strict social order forces people to conform to Islam.
But my guess is that once the Muslims emigrate to Western societies, the second generation of Muslim Immigrants will not feel the pressure to become the God-fearing and worshiping Muslims that they would have in the Islamic nations.
I could be completely wrong as well though.

[Connolly]

It must be remembered that Muslims coming into the country are not extremists. What religion they are dosnt make them anymore extreme than potential Christian or Jewish extremists.

I know loads of Muslims who have immigrated and who were born here - they are all normal guys.

My faimily are in Libya - they are all normal.

Most Muslims are not that strict about their religious beliefs (I was born out of wedlock :o ) contrary to popular belief. (They are only human afterall)

The whole issue of Muslim extremism has been blown out of proportion. Have you ever been to a Muslim country? I can tell you that they are pretty much the same as western countries, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Tunisia etc. Of course, you will find some faimilies with elements of religious nuts - but thats everywhere.

Some countries are less liberal than others - Saudia Arabia for example. But again, from speaking to Saudis, they dont like such oppression of woman in their country. Keep in mind that western media and other liberal media have been bombarding these countries for decades via satellite. Saudi Arabia is slowly reforming to the peoples demands.

The only difference is the purpose oppression that these immigrants face when in a non-Muslim country which drives them to alienation and extremism. If the middle-east were Christian instead, and Europe were Muslim - it wouldnt be Muslim extremists blowing themselves up, but Christians.

What communists should fight for is the ending of imperialism which destroys these countries, with the by product of immigration.

Communists should never fight against immigration, immigrants being members of the proletariat.

We should also fight against the opression of various minority groups in society.

My main point is that the existance of religious beliefs are based on the eonomic state of a country and the mode of production. Atheism is the fastest growing belief in western europe because of the lack of necessity to believe in anything. Immigrants coming into the country are also affected by these material circumstances, not to mention the second generation immigrants who tend to take it even further, breaking away from their parents traditions.

We should attack religion at any possible chance as it opposes our movement. But when a religious group is under intense pressure as it is, such as Muslims, we should stay neutral, directing our attacks at other religions such as Christianity.

Immigrants do not oppose or stunt any of these "CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY", the mode of production is the problem.

[Comrade-Z]

First off, the difference between muslims and christians is muslims dont prothesitize or be missionaries.Instead, muslims spread their word by the sword. Quite an effective technique back in the 8th century AD, from what I hear.

I find it difficult to believe that a religion exists that doesn't prothsletize.


THey encourage women to be looked at for their minds and not as sexual physical objectsAnd of course this is impossible without having women wear hijabs. :angry:

And what's wrong with recognizing women's sexual aspects? Sex is a part of life (and a damn fine one at that).


and they dont bother anyone.So I guess an openly atheist guy like me would have no problems chatting with women in a café in Basra, eh?


Every society uses its religion to stop women from being equal cuase we live in a mans world.And you think this is acceptable?


Wearing hijab is a choice.Give me a break. Male muslims certainly don't think it's a choice. :angry:


And you will never stop muslims from being muslim.Oh yes we will.


Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.Hahahaha. I don't even know how to begin dealing with such rubbish.

What kind of "communism" might muslims find acceptable? One where homosexuality is okay? One where there is no compulsory schooling? One where there are free community places where teens can go and have a nice, comfortable, private environment for having sex? One where women have just as much say in things as men? One where consumption of alcohol is free and plentiful? One with a tolerance of risqué, sexual music?

The kind of communism that you are thinking of is that of an 11th century monastery.

No thanks! :angry:


It means peace, (through) submission to the most high.Sounds just wonderful. :angry:

Allah, the king of S&M. :lol:

This reminds me of the lyrics to Rammstein's "Bestrafe Mich"

Punish me
punish me
straw becomes gold
and gold becomes stone
your size makes me small
you may be my punisher

The Lord God takes
the Lord God gives

Punish me
punish me
you say yes
and I think no
include me in your prayer
before the wind blows even colder

Your size makes me small
you may be my punisher
you may be my punisher

Your size makes me small
you may be my punisher
your size makes him small
you will be my punishment
The Lord God takes
the Lord God gives
but he only give to those
who he loves
punish me


Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming.No, it will seem entirely logical. Who wants to invite self-evident counter-revolutionaries to our wonderful communist society?


Their WORKERS too.There were workers in the Nazi Party too. Should we have "tolerated" their reactionary views?


You do see them as people, right?Horribly misguided, profoundly irrational, potentially dangerous people, yes.


No ones faith si going anywhere just cause there is no mosque.Capitalism and its hedonism, sexual music, materialism, etc. will start corroding their religious faith soon enough. If not with the parents, then with their kids at least.


People got to laern about religions before they trivialize that religions obiliteration.I know that it has no basis in rationality and has mostly had a barbaric past, exceeded only by Christianity. That's enough for me to know to decide that this religion needs to be obliterated from public life, in some way or another.

[Body Count]

Its already been said where these Muslims are coming from.....BINGO, FORMER FRENCH COLONIES!

:lol:

They can FLOOD these fucking countries for all I care.

[jaycee]

i find it odd that people here would rather support the government and ruling class in general than muslim immigrants, most of whom will be poor workers. This comes from peoples view of religion on this site as being THE enemy.

Also when you say that religion will be eroded by capitalism, what we see in a lot of western countries is children whos parents are often not particulaly religious are more and more turning to increasingly rigid forms of islam. This is precisely because they see the alternative as the empty, decadent western society which they feel alienated from for many reasons. Such as feeling alienated from society, poverty etc.

Capitalism no longer erodes religion anyway, religion is in fact spreading on a massive scale. In the Middle East most political movements were 'secular' and pretended to be 'socialist', in Amrica the fundamentalist christian right is growing all the time, all ovr the world religion, particulaly its fundamentalist forms are on the rise. This is because capitalism has lead the world into unprecedented chaos and destruction and its culture more and more shows itself to be empty and soulless. As Marx said 'religion is the soul of soulless conditions', the more these soulless conditions increase the more religion will increase.

[Comrade-Z]

This comes from peoples view of religion on this site as being THE enemy.

I think religion is the number one impediment to proletarians in the advanced capitalist countries developing materialist communist consciousness.

I think people who still believe in religion are still holding on to a feudal (or even slave society) mindset and need to progress at least to a modern capitalist mindset before there is any hope of them embracing materialist communist revolution.

I would wager that most people become atheist before they become communist. That's how it worked with me. Marx was likewise. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I'm just pointing out examples.


Also when you say that religion will be eroded by capitalism, what we see in a lot of western countries is children whos parents are often not particulaly religious are more and more turning to increasingly rigid forms of islam.

Ummm...no, actually, I don't see that. What I see are a few religious kids who, because of parental and social pressure, are becoming really hardcore Christian fascist, some who are staying the same, and most others who are rapidly becoming apathetic to religion (as well as "politics," "elections," and the preachings of the ruling class).

After all, who wants to sit in church and listen to a boring sermon when you could be out with your girlfriend having sex? For one thing, hedonistic capitalism is just a whole lot more fun than feudalism.

I fail to see these large numbers of muslim converts you speak of.


This is precisely because they see the alternative as the empty, decadent western society which they feel alienated from for many reasons.

You think sexual liberation, hedonism, and materialism are "empty" and "decadent"? They strike me as profoundly enjoyable, useful, and fun.

Let's see: achieving the highest net happiness vs. living up to some fictitious moral code....which one do I want?


In the Middle East most political movements were 'secular' and pretended to be 'socialist'

Imperialism has clearly been a regressive influence in the Middle East. :(


in Amrica the fundamentalist christian right is growing all the time

We seem to be living in a period of reaction.

But let me ask you this: is Christian Fascism really growing in numbers? Are large numbers of people converting from secularism and religious apathy to fundamentalism?

Or are hillbillies in the Bible Belt just recently being jolted into contact with modernity--and reacting against that? Before they had their kids safely indoctrinated. Now this hedonism is seeping in through their TV sets and even computers, and their kids are slipping away....

Time to get defensive, before they lose it all! At least that's what they are thinking.

From what I hear, until the last decade or so the state of Montana hadn't had much of a controversy over abortion. That's because the population was overwhelmingly decided against it. There was only one Planned Parenthood clinic in the entire state! But now some of the younger generation are looking to get abortions and break out of the mold of religious tradition, and the parents are freaking out, feeling that their "family values" and religion are "under assault."

Didn't we just have some ultra-conservative whine about how "religious is being persecuted"?

The rise of religious fundamentalism is a last-ditch effort of desperation to save religion, just as the rise of fascism is a desperate last-ditch effort to save capitalism.

But as we've learned from fascism, religious fundamentalism--and religion itself--still need to be defeated.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Raisa+Jun 15 2006, 05:50 AM--> (Raisa @ Jun 15 2006, 05:50 AM)
adenoid [email protected] 14 2006, 10:33 PM
How should the Left react to Muslim immigration?
The Left has traditionally been friendly to immigrants from all around the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.
On the other side a vast immigration of muslims in western secular countries would put in serious danger the effort of the Left to impose her values on society( secularism, women's rights, free speech, sexual liberation etc). I am not trying to say that all the people who come from Islamic countries are religious fundamentalists; neither I am trying to say that there are no religious fundamentalists in the West. But I think that the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim countries is surely bigger than the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the West. Therefore, a numerous immigration of people from muslim countries would lead to the increase of the percentage of religious fundmentalists and the reduction of the percentage of leftists in our society;the final result would obviously be MORE DIFFICULTIES IN OUR WAY TO CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Are you in fond of muslim immigration? Or against it? Personally I have not decided yet whether I should be in fond of it or against it, and so I would like to listen to your opinions..
Damn. COld blooded shit.

First off, the difference between muslims and christians is muslims dont prothesitize or be missionaries. They keep it to their self. THey encourage women to be looked at for their minds and not as sexual physical objects and they dont bother anyone. It doesnt stop women from having any rights. Every society uses its religion to stop women from being equal cuase we live in a mans world.
Wearing hijab is a choice. God doesnt say " wear loose clothes or youre goign to hell,"
he ADVISES women to wear lose clothes so they can be seen as women and not as things like the wrest of the animals walking around. And you will never stop muslims from being muslim.
Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

There are alot more strong muslims then strong christians. I dont know why , but Id like to see you try to go have an arguement with a muslim about their faith. First of all they most likely wont have the arguement, because most people that are muslims feel like they dont got nothing to prove to anyone but god. It is not an aggrandizing religion. It means peace, (through) submission to the most high.

Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right? [/b]
1) what are you talking about? muslims don't prostelyize? are you kidding? how do they get converts?

2) yes they encourageh women to be looked at for thier minds whcih si why they are so into womens educaion

3) really the hijabs a choice? try that in ksa

4)

[Raisa]

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 16 2006, 12:54 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 16 2006, 12:54 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 AM

adenoid [email protected] 14 2006, 10:33 PM
How should the Left react to Muslim immigration?
The Left has traditionally been friendly to immigrants from all around the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.
On the other side a vast immigration of muslims in western secular countries would put in serious danger the effort of the Left to impose her values on society( secularism, women's rights, free speech, sexual liberation etc). I am not trying to say that all the people who come from Islamic countries are religious fundamentalists; neither I am trying to say that there are no religious fundamentalists in the West. But I think that the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim countries is surely bigger than the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the West. Therefore, a numerous immigration of people from muslim countries would lead to the increase of the percentage of religious fundmentalists and the reduction of the percentage of leftists in our society;the final result would obviously be MORE DIFFICULTIES IN OUR WAY TO CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Are you in fond of muslim immigration? Or against it? Personally I have not decided yet whether I should be in fond of it or against it, and so I would like to listen to your opinions..
Damn. COld blooded shit.

First off, the difference between muslims and christians is muslims dont prothesitize or be missionaries. They keep it to their self. THey encourage women to be looked at for their minds and not as sexual physical objects and they dont bother anyone. It doesnt stop women from having any rights. Every society uses its religion to stop women from being equal cuase we live in a mans world.
Wearing hijab is a choice. God doesnt say " wear loose clothes or youre goign to hell,"
he ADVISES women to wear lose clothes so they can be seen as women and not as things like the wrest of the animals walking around. And you will never stop muslims from being muslim.
Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

There are alot more strong muslims then strong christians. I dont know why , but Id like to see you try to go have an arguement with a muslim about their faith. First of all they most likely wont have the arguement, because most people that are muslims feel like they dont got nothing to prove to anyone but god. It is not an aggrandizing religion. It means peace, (through) submission to the most high.

Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right?


2) yes they encourageh women to be looked at for thier minds whcih si why they are so into womens educaion



4) [/b]
3) really the hijabs a choice? try that in ksa"

Listen, cuz. I dont know what KSA is, but in the Quaran , Allah does not tell people "women have to wear hijabs". Instead he advises you to cover yourself and bring focus to your mind. There are alot of muslim women who dont wear hijabs over their head. They never walk around half naked like prized animals, but there are alot of muslim women who dress pretty much in regular western attire these days if they want. It is a choice. Allah wants people who make choices to follow his reccomendations, not blind mice.

ALot of muslim people really are into womens education. Many muslim women have very professional jobs. ITs a stupid generalization to go near, that muslim people are against womens education because of islam. Most of the world is against womens education.

"1) what are you talking about? muslims don't prostelyize? are you kidding? how do they get converts?"

You just tried to argue my point with FOUR QUESTIONS. What the FUCK?
NO. Muslims do not prosteletize. They are open to people who are interested in studying Islam or becoming muslims, but most muslims can be assed with going into the non muslim population as if it was a school fund raiser and saying "wanna be a muslim"

Being a muslim you got to reject alot of shit our current society offers us and tells us to call good. You dont just be a muslim. It is a life that you will live always conscious of your faith. Islam isnt such a simple religion you just go around getting converts. But if you are interested in islam, I highly doubt any one will turn you away.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Raisa+Jun 16 2006, 02:01 AM--> (Raisa @ Jun 16 2006, 02:01 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:50 AM

adenoid [email protected] 14 2006, 10:33 PM
How should the Left react to Muslim immigration?
The Left has traditionally been friendly to immigrants from all around the world, regardless of their ethnicity and race.
On the other side a vast immigration of muslims in western secular countries would put in serious danger the effort of the Left to impose her values on society( secularism, women's rights, free speech, sexual liberation etc). I am not trying to say that all the people who come from Islamic countries are religious fundamentalists; neither I am trying to say that there are no religious fundamentalists in the West. But I think that the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim countries is surely bigger than the percentage of religious fundamentalists in the West. Therefore, a numerous immigration of people from muslim countries would lead to the increase of the percentage of religious fundmentalists and the reduction of the percentage of leftists in our society;the final result would obviously be MORE DIFFICULTIES IN OUR WAY TO CREATE A SECULAR, CLASSLESS, NON-SEXIST, FREE SOCIETY.

So what is your opinion on this matter? Are you in fond of muslim immigration? Or against it? Personally I have not decided yet whether I should be in fond of it or against it, and so I would like to listen to your opinions..
Damn. COld blooded shit.

First off, the difference between muslims and christians is muslims dont prothesitize or be missionaries. They keep it to their self. THey encourage women to be looked at for their minds and not as sexual physical objects and they dont bother anyone. It doesnt stop women from having any rights. Every society uses its religion to stop women from being equal cuase we live in a mans world.
Wearing hijab is a choice. God doesnt say " wear loose clothes or youre goign to hell,"
he ADVISES women to wear lose clothes so they can be seen as women and not as things like the wrest of the animals walking around. And you will never stop muslims from being muslim.
Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

There are alot more strong muslims then strong christians. I dont know why , but Id like to see you try to go have an arguement with a muslim about their faith. First of all they most likely wont have the arguement, because most people that are muslims feel like they dont got nothing to prove to anyone but god. It is not an aggrandizing religion. It means peace, (through) submission to the most high.

Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right?


2) yes they encourageh women to be looked at for thier minds whcih si why they are so into womens educaion



4)
3) really the hijabs a choice? try that in ksa"

Listen, cuz. I dont know what KSA is, but in the Quaran , Allah does not tell people "women have to wear hijabs". Instead he advises you to cover yourself and bring focus to your mind. There are alot of muslim women who dont wear hijabs over their head. They never walk around half naked like prized animals, but there are alot of muslim women who dress pretty much in regular western attire these days if they want. It is a choice. Allah wants people who make choices to follow his reccomendations, not blind mice.

ALot of muslim people really are into womens education. Many muslim women have very professional jobs. ITs a stupid generalization to go near, that muslim people are against womens education because of islam. Most of the world is against womens education.

"1) what are you talking about? muslims don't prostelyize? are you kidding? how do they get converts?"

You just tried to argue my point with FOUR QUESTIONS. What the FUCK?
NO. Muslims do not prosteletize. They are open to people who are interested in studying Islam or becoming muslims, but most muslims can be assed with going into the non muslim population as if it was a school fund raiser and saying "wanna be a muslim"

Being a muslim you got to reject alot of shit our current society offers us and tells us to call good. You dont just be a muslim. It is a life that you will live always conscious of your faith. Islam isnt such a simple religion you just go around getting converts. But if you are interested in islam, I highly doubt any one will turn you away. [/b]

Listen, cuz. I dont know what KSA is, but in the Quaran , Allah does not tell people "women have to wear hijabs". Instead he advises you to cover yourself and bring focus to your mind. There are alot of muslim women who dont wear hijabs over their head. They never walk around half naked like prized animals, but there are alot of muslim women who dress pretty much in regular western attire these days if they want. It is a choice. Allah wants people who make choices to follow his reccomendations, not blind mice.


really, the god of a religion that means "submission to god" wants people to make choices?

and yes less observatn muslijm women do dress more westernized...however that is among the less observant. generally the stricter you get the less westernized and educated..i wonder why...


ALot of muslim people really are into womens education. Many muslim women have very professional jobs. ITs a stupid generalization to go near, that muslim people are against womens education because of islam. Most of the world is against womens education.

which is why womens litteacy is so much lower then mens in most mulism countirse...



You just tried to argue my point with FOUR QUESTIONS. What the FUCK?
NO. Muslims do not prosteletize. They are open to people who are interested in studying Islam or becoming muslims, but most muslims can be assed with going into the non muslim population as if it was a school fund raiser and saying "wanna be a muslim"


which expalisn all those muslism who try to convert people lol


Being a muslim you got to reject alot of shit our current society offers us and tells us to call good. You dont just be a muslim. It is a life that you will live always conscious of your faith. Islam isnt such a simple religion you just go around getting converts. But if you are interested in islam, I highly doubt any one will turn you away.

ya but try converitng out of islam...

[jaycee]

firstly, i didn't mean that sexual liberation and hedonism are in themselves decadent or necessarily a problem. But the whole of capitalist culture is empty and decadent, in many peoples views (especially young muslims) this becomes inseperable. The sexual freedom which is many ways a sign of the more developed nature of the west (even tho we are still miles behind primitive communist societies) is seen as the same as the general emptyness and decadent capitalist culture.

However i would argue that much of the empty hedonism under capitalism doesn't make people happy at all and is to a large extent a product of capitalist society, i.e the fact that people are bored, over-worked and given no time to themselves during the week, that during the weekend they feel the need to simply get as 'fucked' as possible.

If religion is the number one barrier then whats the point in class struggle, this seems a very idealist view to me. The idea that revolution comes when everyone 'converts' to marxism is rediculous. It is material reality which leads people to fight for there class interests, not atheism. For example Italy is one of the most religious countries in the western world, it also has one of the most militant and consciouss working classes. During the Russian revolution most people still had religious beliefs. Look at latin America now, one of the hot-beds for class struggle and at the same time very religious (don't think that i'm supporting religion here tho, i'm just showing that class struggle can develope while people are still under its influence). Also if your gonna wait untill everyone is not religious before you expect a revolution, your gonna be waiting tooooooo long, how long do you think we've got before capitalism destroys EVERYTHING.

Religion will wither away after the revolution , it won't dissapear as long as class society exists.

[Comrade-Z]

However i would argue that much of the empty hedonism under capitalism doesn't make people happy at all and is to a large extent a product of capitalist society, i.e the fact that people are bored, over-worked and given no time to themselves during the week, that during the weekend they feel the need to simply get as 'fucked' as possible.

I would tend to agree with this. Much of the "happiness" that capitalism seems to offer is illusory. For instance, a lot of consumption is centered around building up one's image so that one can be socially accepted and respected. There's a basic insecurity here for people in a capitalist system--you are valued by what you own.

And a lot of times people don't have the means to take part in the hedonism that capitalism seems to offer. Same thing with the illusory "freedom" that it seems to offer. Both are dependent on one's finances.

However, what capitalism does offer is the illusion of freedom and the illusion of hedonism. I think this is valuable because once you have these illusions, you begin to value these things. Then, when you realize that the capitalist system doesn't grant you either of these things, you get angry, overthrow the system, and establish stateless communism in an attempt to attain real freedom and hedonism.

The problem with feudalism and its corresponding religious mindset is that it offers no illusion of freedom or hedonism. Religious people really don't value freedom or earthly pleasure as their number one priorities. Instead, they value obedience to authority. How are they going to act as a class for themselves if they are still trapped in that mindset?


The idea that revolution comes when everyone 'converts' to marxism is rediculous.

Well, I find the notion that non-marxist proletarians could make a marxist revolution ridiculous. I would say marxism is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for revolution.


It is material reality which leads people to fight for there class interests, not atheism.

Correct, but atheism will serve as an indicator that people are adopting a materialist worldview, becoming more adept at recognizing their true class interests, and becoming class conscious.


For example Italy is one of the most religious countries in the western world, it also has one of the most militant and consciouss working classes.

I worry about Italy for this reason, in fact.


During the Russian revolution most people still had religious beliefs.

And see what kinds of leader-worship and deference to authority that revolution became infected with?


Look at latin America now, one of the hot-beds for class struggle and at the same time very religious

I'm not holding my breath for a communist revolution there anytime soon.


Also if your gonna wait untill everyone is not religious before you expect a revolution, your gonna be waiting tooooooo long, how long do you think we've got before capitalism destroys EVERYTHING.

Yeah, it's gonna be a while. Maybe 2050 before France has a revolution.

And I doubt capitalism is going to destroy everything. It's not in the ruling class's interest to allow that to happen either.


Religion will wither away after the revolution , it won't dissapear as long as class society exists.

No, I take the opposite view that religion must wither away before revolution can become possible.

[Noah]

They wouldn't be able to build mosques, so I think that would really effect their choice of destinations in the first place.

The Church / or the Muslims (or any organised religion for that matter) will just go underground, what will you do then begin slaughtering them?

If it is true that people will 'lose interest in religion' (as claimed is currently happening by some comrades) then instead of banning them the people themselves will just deem the place of worship irrelevant to them because they've lost interest.

[Comrade-Z]

The Church / or the Muslims (or any organised religion for that matter) will just go underground

Doesn't bother me, just as long as they don't drag their kids underground as well.


If it is true that people will 'lose interest in religion' (as claimed is currently happening by some comrades) then instead of banning them the people themselves will just deem the place of worship irrelevant to them because they've lost interest.

What we are mainly talking about here are people who use religion for counter-revolutionary purposes. This includes indoctrinating their children with religion, using religion as a rallying point for reactionary paradigms, and using religion for violent counter-revolution.

In other words, if priests are indoctrinating children and supplying fascist partisans with guns, shooting the priests will be the common sense thing to do.

[theraven]

Doesn't bother me, just as long as they don't drag their kids underground as well.

what are you goign to do if a parent wants to teach their kid religoin? kil the parens and put the kid in a state run school? i thougth in communism there is no state



What we are mainly talking about here are people who use religion for counter-revolutionary purposes. This includes indoctrinating their children with religion, using religion as a rallying point for reactionary paradigms, and using religion for violent counter-revolution.

In other words, if priests are indoctrinating children and supplying fascist partisans with guns, shooting the priests will be the common sense thing to do.

i thought you commies thought that religoin would just shrival up and go away, why would you need to kill priests?

PS do you really think that would be an effective way to influence people?

[Comrade-Z]

what are you goign to do if a parent wants to teach their kid religoin?

By "teach," I'm guessing you mean "indoctrinate." Teaching kids about religion would go something like this:

"Most people in the old class society used to believe in something called "religion." They based their beliefs off of pieces of writings that people had written down thousands of years earlier. Because there was no physical or independent varification of the validity of these writings, people had to accept these writings on a basis called "faith." To date, no evidence has been produced to indicate any authenticity in these writings."

Whereas indoctrination would be something like this:

"Jesus was the son of God. He rose from the dead. So says the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, so it is correct. Yes, I know there is no independent evidence for this. You just have to accept this on faith. Or else you will live a life of miserable immorality and burn in hell for all of eternity!"

But back to your original question: depending on the severity of the child abuse of these godsuckers and their counter-revolutionary activities, they will either have their children set free and given choices of living with other neighborhood communes, or the parents could be given a short-term probation, or they could be exiled, or they could be killed. (Long-term incarcerations look unlikely, as prison abolition looks to be one of the first actions that a revolution will take).


i thought you commies thought that religoin would just shrival up and go away, why would you need to kill priests?

I would say the vast majority of the proletariat would have to be secular/atheist/materialist before revolution would be a possibility. But it's possible that some 5% of the population or so will still be hardcore religious. No doubt, they will make clear their violent opposition to the new order during the revolution itself by actually taking up arms with other counter-revolutionaries against the revolutionary proletariat. So, for the vast majority of the remaining religious people, their deaths will be the result of self-defense on our part.


PS do you really think that would be an effective way to influence people?

Dead priests do not spread religion, homophobia, patriarchy, and bullets among the revolutionary proletariat.

And 95% of the population--the revolutionary portion of the proletariat--will be influenced in a positive way by these killings and militant opposition. They will overwhelmingly approve. It will, above all, give confidence to the individuals working towards the new society--an assurance that "we mean business" and that we won't "go easy on the scorpions and let them slip back in through the back door."

[theraven]

y "teach," I'm guessing you mean "indoctrinate." Teaching kids about religion would go something like this:

"Most people in the old class society used to believe in something called "religion." They based their beliefs off of pieces of writings that people had written down thousands of years earlier. Because there was no physical or independent varification of the validity of these writings, people had to accept these writings on a basis called "faith." To date, no evidence has been produced to indicate any authenticity in these writings."

Whereas indoctrination would be something like this:

"Jesus was the son of God. He rose from the dead. So says the Bible, and the Bible is God's word, so it is correct. Yes, I know there is no independent evidence for this. You just have to accept this on faith. Or else you will live a life of miserable immorality and burn in hell for all of eternity!"

But back to your original question: depending on the severity of the child abuse of these godsuckers and their counter-revolutionary activities, they will either have their children set free and given choices of living with other neighborhood communes, or the parents could be given a short-term probation, or they could be exiled, or they could be killed. (Long-term incarcerations look unlikely, as prison abolition looks to be one of the first actions that a revolution will take).


both of those things would be indoctornation. one is pro religoin the other is against, but both are indoctornation. also who would do thes things? i thougth the revolution abolisehd all government...



I would say the vast majority of the proletariat would have to be secular/atheist/materialist before revolution would be a possibility. But it's possible that some 5% of the population or so will still be hardcore religious. No doubt, they will make clear their violent opposition to the new order during the revolution itself by actually taking up arms with other counter-revolutionaries against the revolutionary proletariat. So, for the vast majority of the remaining religious people, their deaths will be the result of self-defense on our part.


what if they were like the amish? very religous but non vioelnt as long as you did nothing to them?



Dead priests do not spread religion, homophobia, patriarchy, and bullets among the revolutionary proletariat.

And 95% of the population--the revolutionary portion of the proletariat--will be influenced in a positive way by these killings and militant opposition. They will overwhelmingly approve. It will, above all, give confidence to the individuals working towards the new society--an assurance that "we mean business" and that we won't "go easy on the scorpions and let them slip back in through the back door."

no the successors to the dead priests spread religoin. and they have marytrs to prove it.

[Comrade-Z]

i thougth in communism there is no state

Correct. Stateless communism emerges after all of the old ruling class and its lackeys (such as godsuckers) have been exiled, killed, or otherwise politically suppressed. From the time of the outbreak of revolution, this should take no more than several months or so.

After that time, neighborhoods may constitute temporary democratic judicial and enforcement bodies (such as democratic workers' militias, workers' councils, etc.) on an as-needed basis, such as if more problems with godsucker terrorism crop up.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 16 2006, 07:28 PM

i thougth in communism there is no state

Correct. Stateless communism emerges after all of the old ruling class and its lackeys (such as godsuckers) have been exiled, killed, or otherwise politically suppressed. From the time of the outbreak of revolution, this should take no more than several months or so.

After that time, neighborhoods may constitute temporary democratic judicial and enforcement bodies (such as democratic workers' militias, workers' councils, etc.) on an as-needed basis, such as if more problems with godsucker terrorism crop up.
again what if they are not "godsucker terrorists" what if a bunch fo families simply live togethe, farm, and whorship god and don't harm anyone?

[Comrade-Z]

both of those things would be indoctornation. one is pro religoin the other is against, but both are indoctornation.

No, one of them is factual, and the other is not.

I guess teaching kids that 2 + 2 = 4 is just indoctrination, eh? We should offer viewpoints that say, "2 + 2 could be equal to 5, even though we haven't found that to be the case one single time through the last 400 years of experimentation."

And notice that the above paragraph wasn't even really teaching atheism. It was saying, "There is no evidence or rational basis for believing in religion." This is, at best, a kind of "strong agnosticism." Some people would probably be more blunt and say "Religions are phoney bullshit. God does not exist."


what if they were like the amish? very religous but non vioelnt as long as you did nothing to them?

But they wouldn't be non-violent or just "keep to themselves." With an atheist, communist, hedonistic society all around them, seeping into their communities through outside contact with the rest of society, their children will start to "drift away..." from godsucking. These "amish-like" godsuckers will perceive themselves as being "persecuted" and their religion and "family values" as being "under attack"--and they will react to all of this in violent ways, if they deem it necessary.

Edit:


again what if they are not "godsucker terrorists" what if a bunch fo families simply live togethe, farm, and whorship god and don't harm anyone?

But remember, we will not allow indoctrination of children in our society. We will perceive it as child abuse, and we will send it democratic workers' militias to deal with the problem, if necessary.

[theraven]

No, one of them is factual, and the other is not.

I guess teaching kids that 2 + 2 = 4 is just indoctrination, eh? We should offer viewpoints that say, "2 + 2 could be equal to 5, even though we haven't found that to be the case one single time through the last 400 years of experimentation."

And notice that the above paragraph wasn't even really teaching atheism. It was saying, "There is no evidence or rational basis for believing in religion." This is, at best, a kind of "strong agnosticism." Some people would probably be more blunt and say "Religions are phoney bullshit. God does not exist."


Both is teaching a set of beliefs



But they wouldn't be non-violent or just "keep to themselves." With an atheist, communist, hedonistic society all around them, seeping into their communities through outside contact with the rest of society, their children will start to "drift away..." from godsucking. These "amish-like" godsuckers will perceive themselves as being "persecuted" and their religion and "family values" as being "under attack"--and they will react to all of this in violent ways, if they deem it necessary.

hm perhaps, or perhaps those communist would see their kids seeping into the religous peoples society-who remean peaceful- how would you commies react then?



But remember, we will not allow indoctrination of children in our society. We will perceive it as child abuse, and we will send it democratic workers' militias to deal with the problem, if necessary.

what if the people see nothing wrong with it?

[Comrade-Z]

hm perhaps, or perhaps those communist would see their kids seeping into the religous peoples society-who remean peaceful- how would you commies react then?

I don't see how that could possibly be the case. It would be the equivalent of people in the U.S. (a rather aggressive and violent advanced capitalist country, whether you measure it in terms of domestic deaths by firearms, military deaths, deaths inflicted on foreign countries, % of population incarcerated, etc.) choosing to emigrate en masse to Saudi Arabia (a rather "peaceful" but comparatively backward advanced feudal society). I don't see that happening.

And, for 95% of the population, communist revolution and communist society will be peaceful, libertarian, and democratic. Just the old ruling class and its lackeys will find the going rough.


what if the people see nothing wrong with it?

Then clearly we are not talking about a communist revolution. Bourgeois revolutions are likely to take this course of action, sure, although even some of those bourgeois revolutions (France's 1789, Russia's 1917, Spain's 1936, Mexico's 1911, for example) were extremely violent against the entire religious paradigm.

I don't see this being likely for communist revolutions. It would be like the allies triumphing against the Nazi regime in Germany, but still deciding to allow remnants of the old order to persist, including Nazi war criminals, their monuments, their flags, their military forces and all.

[theraven]

I don't see how that could possibly be the case. It would be the equivalent of people in the U.S. (a rather aggressive and violent advanced capitalist country, whether you measure it in terms of domestic deaths by firearms, military deaths, deaths inflicted on foreign countries, % of population incarcerated, etc.) choosing to emigrate en masse to Saudi Arabia (a rather "peaceful" but comparatively backward advanced feudal society). I don't see that happening.

And, for 95% of the population, communist revolution and communist society will be peaceful, libertarian, and democratic. Just the old ruling class and its lackeys will find the going rough.


except your compariosn suck, we are not talking about large numbers of people moving from an advencaed cutlure to abckwards one, but from roughly similiar style communites, but with the main difference being one is inhabtied by chritsians.



Then clearly we are not talking about a communist revolution. Bourgeois revolutions are likely to take this course of action, sure, although even some of those bourgeois revolutions (France's 1789, Russia's 1917, Spain's 1936, Mexico's 1911, for example) were extremely violent against the entire religious paradigm.

I don't see this being likely for communist revolutions. It would be like the allies triumphing against the Nazi regime in Germany, but still deciding to allow remnants of the old order to persist, including Nazi war criminals, their monuments, their flags, their military forces and all.

your assuming everyone would have the anti-religosu zeal you possess. what if 20 years, 50 years, hell a 100 years down the road some religous sect emerges long after all temporray worker goverments were disbanded (yeai know that never happens but i am suspend reality here)a religous sect emerges. it is benign teaching to love thy neighbor and all that. the people adhere to the economic rules of communism but simply add to the structurea belif in god and follow said rules. i highly doubt its neighbors would freak out, espeicalya s they posses no religoin of their own.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:32 AM

They keep it to their self.

That's right. Even if muslims live in the west "the secular west" where there's no mosques, they know they can pray back where they live.
Most muslims that live in the west are believed to be secular in order to survive.


Because the difference between islam and other religions, is that it doesnt oppose a communist society first of all, or revolution, and most muslims are not burdened by their faith at all.

It was thought that Islam is against communism for the lasts abolishment of religion, but true Islam not todays islam was supposed to suppory the idea of the abolishment of classes and would agree with the idea that says the every one should have the same as every one else no more no less.
But whats happening today in the islamic world or among muslims could be explaind as Ibn Khaldon explained it as they have reached the the old age of state where the start to think about money, slaves, sex, and other stuff that will lead to the collapse of the state.


Like ramadan, the fast that happens in november. You dont eat from sun up to sun down, but in the west we got to work. Life isnt built around ramadan or islam in the western christian world, so some people dont eat from 7 in the moringing to 7 at night, or 8 to 8 or etcetera.


Besides its gonna look real funny when COMMUNISTS protest muslim immigrants from coming. Their WORKERS too. If its a workers world how are you going to be against the moving of people?

You do see them as people, right?


"And thats why the hell they leave thier contries in the first place..to WORK!"

?? usually they worked where their from too. maybe they just want more for their work.


"So you had the impression that muslims don't work during ramadan??
They do work even if they were fasting."

Of course I knew that. <_< But you can still recognize ramadan in those countries easyer because work is based around ramadan, mostly everyones a muslim so there isnt this situation where youre forced to adjust your schedual and have some fuck ass ramadan at the wrong time.