Islam and Leftism

[Red October]

are they compatable in any way?

[LSD]

No.

Muslims are very much compatible with leftism, as are members of any other religious / cultural tradition; but Islam itself, as a set of ideas and principles, is most definitely not.

Leftism is about moving society forward, by force if nescessary. Religion is about holding on to the past and having "faith" in the supernatural. The one is fundamentally opposed to the other.

That doesn't mean that many people who self-identify as Muslim or Islamic cannot be great assets to the leftist movement, it just means that those people won't really be adhering to Islamic ideas as they're objectively written.

There's a long tradition of putting politics ahead of scripture, however, across many religions; indeed "cherry picking" has become the favourite pasttime of the casual religious in the first world.

That's why even the most ardent European Christian isn't burning witches any more and why even Hassidic Jews don't stone homosexuals.

In the battle between religious "values" and the reality of social progress, progress always wins ...but it can be real slow about it. And religion sure as hell isn't going down without a fight.

So while some "religious" people may well be our allies, religion itself will always be our enemy. A soporific influence urging the masses to "accept" and "submit" and "render unto Caesar".

That doesn't mean that we should run around smashing Mosques and burning down Churches, it just means that we need to be conscious of the social role that religion plays in maintaining class society and perpetuating the oppression of the working class.

[Vargha Poralli]

That doesn't mean that we should run around smashing Mosques and burning down Churches, it just means that we need to be conscious of the social role that religion plays in maintaining class society and perpetuating the oppression of the working class.

Well said LSD. But in certain places(Like in Pakistan as mentioned by member Spirit of Spartacus) it is better for communists to use the religion to our need than to out right oppose/criticise it which has been proved counter-productive in History(Jacobins & Stalin).

[Forward Union]

No, absolutely not.

But Islam is more than 'not compatible', it is actually diametrically opposed to us, on almost every level.

Firstly, as God does not exist, Islam should be viewed as nothing more than a set of principals with political, economic, and social opinions that stand in complete opposition to those of our own. Take it's views on social organisation, with two women being equal to one man, homosexuals being considered "an abomination" or the belief that democracy is an unacceptable form of organising society, it's entirely bigoted and probably the most extreme opposite of what we fight for, placing them quite near to the fascism of past European states. Furthermore it uses an imaginary skywisard to justify it's reactionary positions, whereas communism is materialist, in justifying it's revolutionary ones

Secondly, Religion is a symptom of class society, and after the destruction of class society, religion should then, in theory wither away. Though it will perhaps need a bit of a push. Consequently, class struggle is a struggle against Islam (and all religion) we want to destroy irrationality and faith, whereas muslims (should) want to perpetuate it.

Thirdly, if they believe their good book, then they believe that we all came from two humans created by Allah, and reject the theory of evolution. This means they reject science, and scientific thought is a key part of communist theory.

I am of course talking about Islam, and Muslims that actually follow the scripture, not pseudo-muslims who are simply incapable of outgrowing childhood conventions.

I work with plenty of religious people on political terms, anarchists even, I have several religious friends. And I couldn't care less about theirs superstitious baggage, it's their problem. Unless of course they actually followed their religious laws properly.

So Im basically reinforcing what LSD has said, that Muslims, Christians, Jews or whatever, are not our enemy, but religion absolutely is.

[More Fire for the People]

Love Underground, your inability to understand the origin and development of colonial and anti-colonial consciousness is mind boggling. ‘Islam’ is not a rigid set of principles. That’s like saying there is a uniform interpretation of any ideology. Autonomists and Leninists read the same Capital and reach different conclusions. Scientists evaluate and re-evaluate the Origin of Species and develop different conclusions. Islam a la the Koran can be interpreted in several different ways (Hamad Dabashi pays close attention to this) — Red Shi’ism, Black Shi’ism, Sufism, etc.

In the course of anti-colonial development colonial subjects grow out of a deep pessimism of cultural conservatism into a new enlightened thought. Cultural conservatism is replaced with a new interpretation of the old. “Themes are completely altered; in fact, we find less and less of bitter, hopeless recrimination and less also of that violent, resounding, florid writing which on the whole serves to reassure the occupying power. The colonialists have in former times encouraged these modes of expression and made their existence possible. Stinging denunciations, the exposing of distressing conditions and passions which find their outlet in expression are in fact assimilated by the occupying power in a cathartic process. … The crystallisation of the national consciousness will both disrupt literary styles and themes, and also create a completely new public. While at the beginning the native intellectual used to produce his work to be read exclusively by the oppressor, whether with the intention of charming him or of denouncing him through ethnical or subjectivist means, now the native writer progressively takes on the habit of addressing his own people.”

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 27, 2007 05:25 pm
‘Islam’ is not a rigid set of principles.
Yes, it is. The Koran clearly places a set of objective (albeit contradictory) laws and principals on how we should live, and how society should be governed. As LSD said, people put social progression ahead of their religious values, and this means that most Muslims pick and choose which bits they find conviniet to follow and which bits they want to put down to the cultural context of 2nd century or whenever the Koran was written, and this leads to different traditions. In fact the two biggist branches of Islam, the Sunni and Shi'ite branches of Islam don't disagree over interpretation of the text, only over the 'caliphate of Abu Bakr' (some old king) and whether he had legitimate rule, or whether Muhamads family is the only religious authority.

The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran probably was corrupted by colonial powers to suit their needs to a large extent, but as religions role is to serve the class power structure anyway, it'd probably be better to say it was 'adapted' to suit the current rulers aims, whatever the context of the class structure, religion defends it.

Furthermore you havent adressed the fact that it is completely anti-scientific.

[More Fire for the People]

:rolleyes: Sorry Plato, I wasn't aware that documents were deprived of historical development. Ideas develop with the material development of the world. The ideas of Islam alter with each material development. Unless you are saying that ideas are superior to the physical world.

You're white chauvanism blinds your ability to comprehend anything other than European universalism, doesn't it? Perhaps you would feel more comfortable with Christopher Hitchens than with the oppressed of the world.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 27, 2007 05:56 pm
:rolleyes: Sorry Plato, I wasn't aware that documents were deprived of historical development.
They're not. But Religion will always defend class society, unless one of the historical developments is the abolition of such, in which case the predictable result would be the demise of the religion.


The ideas of Islam alter with each material development.

I didn't know the direct word of God was subject to material development.


You're white chauvanism blinds your ability to comprehend anything other than European universalism, doesn't it?

How is opposing Islam "white chauvinism" (firstly as the issue is not racial) The things I have said about Islam, I could (and have) readily said about almost every religion on the face of the earth, so an Atheist Chauvinist, perhaps. Actually, you are suggesting that Whites are the only people capable of rejecting Islamic bollocks, and adopting a scientific world-view?. Is Atheism, and materialism "white" ?

I mean really, I know several arabic people (ok only two, but know of others) who wholly agree with me, on the interpretation of Islam that I have put forward here, so my views clearly have nothing to do with my skin colour.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "Love Underground"+--> ("Love Underground")They're not. But Religion will always defend class society, unless one of the historical developments is the abolition of such, in which case the predictable result would be the demise of the religion.[/b]
Really now? I suppose for you Cornel West, Sultan Galiev, Ali Shariati, Malcolm X, Paolo Freire, etc. simply don’t exist? Or is the real problem that they don’t support your vision of classlessness. Religious progressives can obviously be revolutionaries — I highly doubt the workers in the Russian Revolution, German Revolution, etc. were all atheists. Religion will defend class society but it can also oppose class society. What religion giveth religion can taketh away. :lol:


Originally posted by "Love Underground"@
I didn't know the direct word of God was subject to material development.
Well, you see this old bloke 'God', he doesn't well exist. So his influence is only as developed as followers allow. And followers, you see, are subject to material develompent. By the way, if you don't believe the 'direct word of God' is subject to material development, how do you think the Protestant Reformation happened?


"Love Underground"
How is opposing Islam "white chauvinism" (firstly as the issue is not racial) The things I have said about Islam, I could (and have) readily said about almost every religion on the face of the earth, so an Atheist Chauvinist, perhaps. Actually, you are suggesting that Whites are the only people capable of rejecting Islamic bollocks, and adopting a scientific world-view?. Is Atheism, and materialism "white" ?
'White' chauvinism isn't really the word I should have used. I should have said 'colonialist' chauvinism. By opposing the development of anti-colonial consciousness, you oppose anti-colonialism. The viewpoint that oppressed peoples should ditch their native customs and beliefs for European ideology, rather than develop their own consciousness, is 'white' / European / colonialist chauvanism.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 27, 2007 06:18 pm
I highly doubt the workers in the Russian Revolution, German Revolution, etc. were all atheists. Religion will defend class society but it can also oppose class society. What religion giveth religion can taketh away. :lol:

This point was already adressed by LSD. Religious people are not our enemy, many are incredibly progressive, and even outright revolutionaries. Many anarchist thinkers were Jewish, and as I said in the other thread, the Liberation Theolgists have done a lot for the working class in Mexico.


So his influence is only as developed as followers allow. And followers, you see, are subject to material develompent. By the way, if you don't believe the 'direct word of God' is subject to material development, how do you think the Protestant Reformation happened?

Well, yes, but the entire point of the Koran (or any religious document), is to tell people how to live by an Aristotelian 'Universal prime mover'. Something that intrinsically represents good and moral virtue. If this "universal concept" is subject to material development, then it is clearly not what it claims to be and should be entirely rejected and replaced by rational thought.


By opposing the development of anti-colonial consciousness, you oppose anti-colonialism. The viewpoint that oppressed peoples should ditch their native customs and beliefs for European ideology

How patronising, and arrogant. Rationalism, Scientific Determinism, Materialism and Atheism are not "European" to suggest so could be considered racist, though I know full well you are not. Native people, wherever they are from, are just as capable of overcoming the superstitious poison that tends to infect those with lesser standards of education.

You're almost saying that non-europeans should be left to dabble in their 13 century superstitious shite, because Science and rational thinking are only for Europeans.

We should help everyone overcome superstition, and give everybody access to education and a scientific understanding of the world. But the only way to get rid of the symptom (religion) we must get rid of the illness (capitalism and the state)

[More Fire for the People]

Well, yes, but the entire point of the Koran (or any religious document), is to tell people how to live by an Aristotelian 'Universal prime mover'. Something that intrinsically represents good and moral virtue. If this "universal concept" is subject to material development, then it is clearly not what it claims to be and should be entirely rejected and replaced by rational thought.
Of course, but that's not going to happen in one big atheist hoorah. With the development of colonial liberation comes a certain time where a people through off the shackles of cultural conservatism and take up a new outlook. The Iranians threw away Black Shi'ism for Red Shi'ism before orthodox mullahs took power. Had this counter-revolution not occured, it is plausable that in the development of liberation people would have adopted a rational outlook on life because it is a part of liberation.


How patronising, and arrogant. Rationalism, Scientific Determinism, Materialism and Atheism are not "European" to suggest so could be considered racist, though I know full well you are not. Native people, wherever they are from, are just as capable of overcoming the superstitious poison that tends to infect those with lesser standards of education.
Really? So by reading Fanon, a West Indian, I have somehow reached racist conclusions? Or rather have I stated that consciousness develops? I'm stating that a people can reach a rational outlook through their own development. That a people can go through their own Enlightenment without fondling themselves to Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant.

[Knight of Cydonia]

For this i certainly agree with what LSD said (above) :rolleyes:
Because you know, there's some fanatic muslim and i mean they're very-very fanatic about their religion. and some of muslim people, especially in my hometown, are very fanatic. and because of communism gave us a freedom on religion, somehow those fanatic muslim think that communism are bad and need to be destroy.

but me, myself as a muslim are not very fanatic, instead i hate those fanatic muslim.but after reading some of the post here in this thread, i just don't like what LU said about this:


The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran
please, give some respect men&#33; <_<

[manic expression]

It&#39;s interesting that people would say that Islam is in conflict with leftism. It&#39;s not like the Koran defends the bourgeoisie or encourages continued exploitation of the working classes through the industrial and post-industrial eras.

As has been said before, Islam is pretty progressive on a few issues, and that should be recognized.

So, if Muslims can be both leftist and anti-leftist without contradiction (both these claims have been reasonably made on this thread), then is Islam itself truly a problem?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 27, 2007 06:48 pm
Of course, but that&#39;s not going to happen in one big atheist hoorah. With the development of colonial liberation comes a certain time where a people through off the shackles of cultural conservatism and take up a new outlook.

Potentially yes. I think the best way to &#39;destroy&#39; Religion is simply through education. By teaching Science from very early on, you give everybody the chance to weigh up reality with what religion says reality is. The problem of course, is that not everyone has decent standards of education, and the poorer the country, the weaker the education, the greater the belief in the supernatural. That said, even in the united states, Intelligent Design has crept into science books... :unsure:

If at all taught, Religion and religious views like creationism should be part of history, or Philosophy. But this would be pointless unless we destroy Capitalism, as religion acts as a form of escapism. And fighting Imperialism or Colonialism is part of that. So I can agree with you here, economic liberation is more important than being liberated from religion. Or perhaps it&#39;d be better to say that one leads to the other.


I&#39;m stating that a people can reach a rational outlook through their own development. That a people can go through their own Enlightenment without fondling themselves to Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant.

Of course they can, but why do we want to make people go over trodden ground? I mean, there are probably plenty of Atheists amongst the people of Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and other 3rd world/ oppressed nations. And the chances are they may well have already heard of many Atheist thinkers like Freud and Russell.

I mean, if it&#39;s already known, for example; what an atom is made of, then why must we leave certain people to find it out &#39;again&#39;? Why not just give everybody the access to that sort of knowledge?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 27, 2007 02:58 pm

The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran
please, give some respect men&#33; <_<
He gave it all the respect it deserves, and I fully agree with LU, and LSD.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 27, 2007 06:58 pm
For this i certainly agree with what LSD said (above) :rolleyes:
Because you know, there&#39;s some fanatic muslim and i mean they&#39;re very-very fanatic about their religion. and some of muslim people, especially in my hometown, are very fanatic. and because of communism gave us a freedom on religion, somehow those fanatic muslim think that communism are bad and need to be destroy.

but me, myself as a muslim are not very fanatic, instead i hate those fanatic muslim.but after reading some of the post here in this thread, i just don&#39;t like what LU said about this:


The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran
please, give some respect men&#33; <_<
Well said.

[RevMARKSman]

please, give some respect men&#33;

In the words of Guided by Voices: "someone tell me why..."


but me, myself as a muslim are not very fanatic, instead i hate those fanatic muslim.

So you do not consider the "god effect" in your decisions?

If so, you are a practical atheist. And a logical argument will be enough to convince you.

However, if you do consider "god" in your decisions, you accept the Quran, etc, but are NOT a fanatic...that means you are cherrypicking out of your faith. If you take the whole bundle, you do become a fanatic. That&#39;s because the scripture is extreme and fanatical.

[ichneumon]

The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran

in truth, all books are made of paper and all can be used as such. the koran, as a book, happens to be one of the most significant pieces of literature ever created by the human race. "significant" meaning "having an impact". this is not debateable. this quote is deliberately and specifically offensive.

just fyi, vegetarians and really healthy people don&#39;t need toliet paper. it&#39;s a luxury, a symptom of the decadence of the bourgeousie and their exploitative and ecologically destructive diet. consider rabbit vs cat feces. disgusting.

[Umoja]

Islam is inherently a dangerous religion, and it serves no useful purpose to any class struggle. By comparisson Christianity is a &#39;decent&#39; religion. Colonialism by damned, just because nowadays Muslims are imperialised, doesn&#39;t mean their consciousness has changed. The goal of Islam is still to spread to their faith by force by all means necessary.

Islam IS imperialism, just not the strongest at the moment.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:06 pm
Islam is inherently a dangerous religion, and it serves no useful purpose to any class struggle. By comparisson Christianity is a &#39;decent&#39; religion. Colonialism by damned, just because nowadays Muslims are imperialised, doesn&#39;t mean their consciousness has changed. The goal of Islam is still to spread to their faith by force by all means necessary.

Islam IS imperialism, just not the strongest at the moment.
It depends on the Muslim.

You&#39;re right, if you&#39;re talking about Muhammad of Gazni or Aurungzeb. However, not every Muslim is remotely this way, and that needs to be recognized.

I would submit that since it&#39;s not a question of religion, but a question of the practitioner, Islam itself is not inherently "dangerous", "forceful" or synonymous with "imperialism".

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by knight of [email protected] 27, 2007 06:58 pm

The budle of expensive toilet-paper they call the Koran
please, give some respect men&#33; <_<
Respect should not be automatic; it should be earned. If somebody really really dogmatically believes in the writings of Ayn Rand, that isn&#39;t going to keep me from calling the collected works of Ayn Rand a bundle of expensive toilet paper, because that&#39;s precisely what they are. Same goes for the Qur&#39;an. Books don&#39;t deserve to be respected just because lots of people believe in them. Books only deserve to be respected when their contents make enough sense to be worthy of respect.

And the Qur&#39;an is most definitely not worthy of my respect. As an anarchist, I cannot respect any book that demands unwavering obedience to and worship of a cosmic dictator, whether imaginary or not. Nor can I respect a book that considers homosexuals inferior (7:80-84), condones violence against women who refuse to be obedient to men (4:34), or claims to be written by an omnipotent being who thinks the human race started out with two spontaneously created individuals a few thousand years ago. Ethically and scientifically speaking, the Qur&#39;an is simply wrong on these things and many more, and does not deserve our respect.

Sure, you can point out good parts from the Qur&#39;an that promote ethical behavior or that are scientifically accurate, but the same could be said of any book. I&#39;m sure if you cherry-picked the works of Adolf Hitler or Ann Coulter well enough, you could find some decent quotes, but that doesn&#39;t mean their writings deserve our respect.

The Qur&#39;an (and thus Islam) is incompatible with anarchism and communism for two primary reasons: (1) it is opposed to the principle of scientific materialism that lies at the foundation of both theories, and (2) it demands we follow the rules of a non-democratically-elected leader of the universe instead of determining for ourselves the rules we want to live by. That isn&#39;t to say people who call themselves Muslims can&#39;t be valuable revolutionaries, just that they have to ignore a good deal of their religion to do so.

[Question everything]

Religion is open ended you can take what you like from it... often people try to see themselves when they seek God for all we know Muhammed was opposed to violence to women, and that part was added later, or even this man saw divine wisdom and add his touch to it... no matter how you look at it many modern muslims believe in Allah as we believe in God (by that I mean socially liberal christians in Toronto and the nearby area)... Christian believed word for word everything in the bible and they were as bad as muslims appear to be (thanks largely to the scare tactics of the corperate media) today... so I say this Islam must not be judged by looking only at fundamentalist wings just as christians must not be judged by looking at Bible bashers and other extremists...

[Eleutherios]

Well, almost all Muslims are "fundamentalists" in that they take the Qur&#39;an to be literal truth. That is one of the basic precepts of pretty much every major branch of the religion.

[Question everything]

not so long ago, all christians were fundamentalists by the same definition...

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:15 am
Well, almost all Muslims are "fundamentalists" in that they take the Qur&#39;an to be literal truth. That is one of the basic precepts of pretty much every major branch of the religion.
What about the Sufi?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 02, 2007 01:33 am
not so long ago, all christians were fundamentalists by the same definition...
Yes, it&#39;s true that Christians have tended to become more moderate over time, but Islam is a completely different religion in a completely different culture that will have a completely different history from other religions. And besides, it doesn&#39;t matter what we think future Muslims might maybe sometime believe; what&#39;s important is that right now Islam is a religion that consists almost entirely of people who believe that the Qur&#39;an is literal truth and that belief to the contrary is incompatible with Islam. This is something you simply can&#39;t ignore when you talk about the Muslim religion.

Just because there is a small minority of wishy-washy Muslims who ignore huge parts of the Qur&#39;an does not mean that we don&#39;t have to face the enormous hindrance to scientific and moral progress that the Islamic faith is causing our planet.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:39 pm
the koran, as a book, happens to be one of the most significant pieces of literature ever created by the human race. "significant" meaning "having an impact".
Granted, the Koran is an important historical document, as are Mien Kampf and the Turner Diaries. The point is that their intellectual worth, is lesser than the amazing patterns found on adrex toilet paper. :rolleyes:


it&#39;s a luxury, a symptom of the decadence of the bourgeousie and their exploitative and ecologically destructive diet.

Im sure It is, but unfortunatly, eating green, organic, health food, costs. Where I live, it is in itself a luxury. I cannot afford to eat properly, so don&#39;t ram ethical consumerism and vegetarianism down my throat.

[ichneumon]

Im sure It is, but unfortunatly, eating green, organic, health food, costs. Where I live, it is in itself a luxury. I cannot afford to eat properly, so don&#39;t ram ethical consumerism and vegetarianism down my throat.

1)that was a funny, i was being sarcastic

2)i eat oatmeal for breakfast and rice and beans for supper. hell, i used to buy it on food stamps. veggie is cheap