Hating muslims [Archive]

Severian

27th March 2007, 01:58

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 26, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 26, 2007 06:36 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 12:18 am
I was not aware that muslims were a race.
They aren't. It's just that BCS is incredibly confused. [/b]
Wait, BCS is confused?

I'm sorry, no, it's all the people who keep using this specious "Muslims aren't a race" argument. Jews are not a race. Heck, Black people are not a race.

The only race is the human race. Race has no biological validity./b] Do you disagree?

Nevertheless, racism exists.

Groups of people are singled out for oppression, systematic discrimination, scapegoating, and prejudices that divide the working class.

[b]The basis on which they are singled out for oppression is arbitrary, though determined by historic factors. If people did not differ in skin color, or religion, or sex - eye color or left-handedness might become a lot more important.

So what are you people saying with this "Muslims are not a race" bullshit?

That we have no obligation to oppose discrimination on the basis of religion, to oppose all the pogroms, inquisitions, and sectarian violence directed against religious minorities from Ireland to Iraq....because those religious minorities "aren't races"?

That, for example, it's OK for Jew-haters to burn down synagogues....as long as they're motivated by hatred of the Jewish religion, not the Jewish ethnic or cultural group or the supposed Jewish race?

What an incredible piece of hair-splitting sophistry!

Racism may or may not be exactly the right word. But that's a minor quibble....which y'all are using to hide the fact that your anti-Muslim crap does in fact converge with the anti-Muslim campaigns of the National Front, British National Party, and similar groups. Who also, BTW, deny that they're racist....

bloody_capitalist_sham

27th March 2007, 02:04

RaptorJesus

I was not aware that muslims were a race.

Well, they are a race in so far as we can have a coherent understanding of the word.

since there is no genetic basis for race, it remains purely a social concept.

As such, it does encompass perceived ethnicity, or skin pigmentation, but they are not the exclusive features.

When you group people together based on some set characteristics it can be racism.

They aren't. It's just that BCS is incredibly confused.

They are. (in terms of being attack collectively anyway) Jazzrat's politics cannot accept Muslims being a race though, as then his ability to attack Muslim people would be diminished.

Oh wait, they aren't the same at all, because you are playing with the ethnic denotation of the word "Jew" whilst fully aware that "Muslim" is not an ethnicity and thus being incredibly dishonest in your wording.

Jazz, where do you get the scientific evidence for determining that being a Jew is an ethnicity?

Fawkes

27th March 2007, 02:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:03 pm
I am sorry to say, on revleft we have lots of racists.

However, these people cover their racism under the guise of being against a particular religion.

Nonsense!

Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"
You are misusing the term "Muslim". Muslim-bashing is not racist because, even according to society's definition of race, Muslims are not a race. Muslims are followers of Islam, Arabs are an ethnicity. When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.

bloody_capitalist_sham

27th March 2007, 02:22

You are misusing the term "Muslim". Muslim-bashing is not racist because, even according to society's definition of race, Muslims are not a race. Muslims are followers of Islam, Arabs are an ethnicity. When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.

Can you please tell us all what a race is then?

Fawkes

27th March 2007, 02:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:22 pm

You are misusing the term "Muslim". Muslim-bashing is not racist because, even according to society's definition of race, Muslims are not a race. Muslims are followers of Islam, Arabs are an ethnicity. When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.

Can you please tell us all what a race is then?
I said that according to society's definition of what race is, they are not one.

You --- for the most part --- said it yourself here:

since there is no genetic basis for race, it remains purely a social concept.

RNK

27th March 2007, 03:32

Well, clearly Jews that are not ethnically Jewish are not an ethnic group of their own. Use some common sense.

It's in response to you claiming there's an ethnicity called "Jew" but no ethnicity called "Muslim"...

There is no Jewish 'race', no more than there is a Muslim 'race' (atleast not anymore) or Christian 'race'. I'm merely pointing out that even when someone says "I hate jews", they are not being "racist" by the definition of "racism". They're being discriminatory and prejudicial. Ontop of that, there is a very specific group of people who are universally known for saying "I hate jews" -- Nazis. There's an unbreakable connection between "I hate jews" and Nazism. There does not (yet) exist a social "taboo" against saying "I hate Muslims". So does that mean that we should be allowed to say "I hate Jews"? Or that we shouldn't be allowed to say "I hate Muslims"?

Perhaps, for the sake of not stepping on anybody's toes, we should stop differentiating between different religions and simply say "I hate religion" or "I hate religious people". Or perhaps we can drop the word "hate" and use a more rational phrase, such as "I disagree with the concept and application of Islam".

Unfortunately, this is a political "game" we are playing. Simply because we know that some people's beliefs and opinions are illogical doesn't mean we have to be as blunt as humanly possible in confronting them. We can try to be more pleasant, simply for the sake of not forcing people into reactionary mindsets.

Or we can all fling around the word "hate" like there's no tomorrow and then beat each other senseless, and whoever's left standing, wins!

chimx

27th March 2007, 04:11

Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc., while obviously not the defining quality of an ethnicity, are culturally associated with ethnic groups. Anti-Islam malarky It is demeaning to the ethnic groups who adhere to these cultural values.

If you are anti-religion, why not just say that instead of saying you hate muslims? Why is it necessary to make religious distinctions in the first place if you are truly just an anti-theist?

bloody_capitalist_sham

27th March 2007, 04:21

Very well put there Chimx

Lenin II

27th March 2007, 05:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:03 am
I am sorry to say, on revleft we have lots of racists.

However, these people cover their racism under the guise of being against a particular religion.

Nonsense!

Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"
We have a lot of racists? Really? I didn't notice. Oh well, at least its not as much as say, STORMFRONT. I have not seen any sign of racism outside of one or two spammers and fascists that we have allowed to leak into our boards for our own amusment and debating pleasure. As for real revleft members who are racist? I don't see it.

And by the way, having animosity towards religion is NOT the same as hating someone for thier ethnicity. Just because you are Muslim does not mean you're an Arab, and despite what the extreme right might say, Jews are NOT a race.

Although even if hating a particular religion counts as racism then I can honestly say I amnot a racist, for I hate all religions equally.

Lenin II

27th March 2007, 05:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:15 am
Neo-Nazis hate Bush. But definately not for the same reasons we Leftists do.
Yeah, they hate him because he supports Israel and has a lenient immigration policy.

27th March 2007, 05:38

I don't understand why this kind of stuff is so hard for people to grasp.

First, race is a social construct. However, it is also a real thing. It has been materialized economically, legally, politically and culturally. There is no doubt that race is a real thing that profoundly affects the world that we live in.

Second, because race is a social construct it is defined by society. Black is a race because it is socially recognized as one, as is white. Jew is also considered a race, although jew is different than the other groups somewhat, as jew can refer to someone who believes in the religion of judaism or someone of "jewish ethnicity" or "jewish race".

What we are seeing today is the creation of an other in order to put a face on "America's enemy" in the War on Terror. This other is created by equating the word Muslim with Arab. By doing this, Muslim is becoming another word for arab, which is a race.

So yes, Muslim is becoming a race, and it is also a member of the religion of Islam. If you say "I hate Muslims" and are referring to the racial definition, then you're racist.

It's simple.

Jazzratt

27th March 2007, 12:44

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+March 27, 2007 01:04 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ March 27, 2007 01:04 am) RaptorJesus

I was not aware that muslims were a race.

Well, they are a race in so far as we can have a coherent understanding of the word. [/b]
No. They are a set of people with a similar set of memes, or at least one large guiding meme. Racialist theory does not define people along memetic grounds.

since there is no genetic basis for race, it remains purely a social concept. It's conceptualised along certain grounds, you can't suddenly make races up, as you are doing. It is based pretty much on skin pigmentation and facial structure.

As such, it does encompass perceived ethnicity, or skin pigmentation, but they are not the exclusive features. It does not, will not and cannot encompass shared memetics.

When you group people together based on some set characteristics it can be racism. That I, am afraid, is bullshit. We group people by their ideas all the time, allow me to illustrate:
We hate neoliberals. Holy shit! We just divided a group of people according to a single meme they all share! We must be fucking racist.

They aren't. It's just that BCS is incredibly confused.

They are. (in terms of being attack collectively anyway) Being attacked collectively does not make one a race. Just because homophobes lump gay people together and attack them collectivley does not make "gay" a race.
Jazzrat's politics cannot accept Muslims being a race though, Nor can his common sense.
as then his ability to attack Muslim people would be diminished. It really wouldn't though. nothing will diminish my ability to attack reactionaries no matter how much scorn is poured on me from "comrades" that take the SWP's Islamist line.

Oh wait, they aren't the same at all, because you are playing with the ethnic denotation of the word "Jew" whilst fully aware that "Muslim" is not an ethnicity and thus being incredibly dishonest in your wording.

Jazz, where do you get the scientific evidence for determining that being a Jew is an ethnicity? It's not a science and thus you cannot prove it scientifically. However the fact that one can be defined as being "ethnically/racially" Jewish whilst not being an adherent of Jewish dogma kind of shows that it is one. Currently the idea of "ethnically/racially" Muslim does not exist.

Originally posted by Zampanò@

So yes, Muslim is becoming a race, and it is also a member of the religion of Islam. If you say "I hate Muslims" and are referring to the racial definition, then you're racist. Ah so rather than being a simply if statement as BCS seems to be arguing:

If you say you hate Muslims then you are racist.

You have changed it to an if, and statement:

If you say you hate Muslims and you are referring to people that are "ethnic" Muslims then you are racist.

This is a lot more reasonable as it defends a group of people from unfair attack whilst leaving them open to be attacked for their ideas/memetics.

RNK
It's in response to you claiming there's an ethnicity called "Jew" but no ethnicity called "Muslim"...

There is no Jewish 'race', The Jewish race is socially recognised which is the only criterion that a social construct has to fulfil to be considered real, you berk.
no more than there is a Muslim 'race' (atleast not anymore) or Christian 'race'. I'm merely pointing out that even when someone says "I hate jews", they are not being "racist" by the definition of "racism". They're being discriminatory and prejudicial. Being "discriminatory" or "prejudicial" is not automatically bad.
Ontop of that, there is a very specific group of people who are universally known for saying "I hate jews" -- Nazis. I was wondering who would buckle first and start screaming NAZI. Frankly I thought you understood more in the difference between Nazi and Communist attacks on Judaism.
There's an unbreakable connection between "I hate jews" and Nazism. So we must now enshrine their illogical ideas and avoid pouring scorn on them? Fuck off. Hating Judaism does not make one a Nazi.
There does not (yet) exist a social "taboo" against saying "I hate Muslims". So does that mean that we should be allowed to say "I hate Jews"? Or that we shouldn't be allowed to say "I hate Muslims"? It means we should be able to and should say both.

Perhaps, for the sake of not stepping on anybody's toes, we should stop differentiating between different religions and simply say "I hate religion" or "I hate religious people". Which is what we say 98% of the time, but it's a ridiculous thing to say when one is attacking a specific religion.
Or perhaps we can drop the word "hate" and use a more rational phrase, such as "I disagree with the concept and application of Islam". No. I use the word "hate" for the sake of brevity, If you start forcing people into stupid, long winded, talking patterns for fear of causing offence to someone, somewhere then you've really missed the point of language.

Unfortunately, this is a political "game" we are playing. Is it, I could have sworn it was something we said in real life.
Simply because we know that some people's beliefs and opinions are illogical doesn't mean we have to be as blunt as humanly possible in confronting them. People with illogical beliefs are not swayed by logic.
We can try to be more pleasant, simply for the sake of not forcing people into reactionary mindsets. They already inhabit that mindset, we can either bombard them with logic until they give up, hating them for their stupidity all the while or we can leave them alone and pretend that their reactionary ideas don't exist for fear of being labelled "racist" by otherwise fairly intelligent leftists.

Or we can all fling around the word "hate" like there's no tomorrow and then beat each other senseless, and whoever's left standing, wins! Look, you are obviously one of those people that is loath to use the word "hate" lightly. I am not. When I say it, therefore, it has different connotations to when you say it.

BurnTheOliveTree

27th March 2007, 12:57

The problem is one of language.

If you say "I hate Muslims" then you encompass every single muslim in the world ever into your hatred. That's too big a generalisation to justify, and whilst not 'racist' it shows some social prejudice to say the least.

To say "I hate a particular muslim" for X reason is fine in principle. There's nothing wrong with hating somebody who is a muslim.

To say "I hate Islam" for X reason is again fine because you are attacking a specifically defined entity, of which you have prior knowledge.

It's when you express hatred to something you can't possibly have an accurate judgement on, such as all muslims, that a problem arises.

-Alex

Jazzratt

27th March 2007, 12:59

Originally posted by Severian+March 27, 2007 12:58 am--> (Severian @ March 27, 2007 12:58 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:36 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 12:18 am
I was not aware that muslims were a race.
They aren't. It's just that BCS is incredibly confused.
Wait, BCS is confused?

I'm sorry, no, it's all the people who keep using this specious "Muslims aren't a race" argument. Jews are not a race. Heck, Black people are not a race.

The only race is the human race. Race has no biological validity./b] Do you disagree?
Don't be a fucking idiot, of course we all recognise that race is a social fucking construct you frustrating little man, but it is constructed along certain well defined lines. Not every single identity group is a fucking race, as I have already illustrated.

Nevertheless, racism exists.
Yes. But hating a certain group of people with a shared idea is not bloody racism.

Groups of people are singled out for oppression, systematic discrimination, scapegoating, and prejudices that divide the working class.
Sometimes that group is a race sometimes it isn't, what the fuck is your point?

The basis on which they are singled out for oppression is arbitrary, though determined by historic factors. If people did not differ in skin color, or religion, or sex - eye color or left-handedness might become a lot more important.

So what are you people saying with this "Muslims are not a race" bullshit? Because women are not a race, left handed people are not a race, people with certain eye-colours are not a race, so why is it that the only group of people you identified in your list that can be counted as a race are those with a certain religion.

That we have no obligation to oppose discrimination on the basis of religion, to oppose all the pogroms, inquisitions, and sectarian violence directed against religious minorities from Ireland to Iraq....because those religious minorities "aren't races"? To call those who carry out the attacks "racist" is fucking silly.

That, for example, it's OK for Jew-haters to burn down synagogues....as long as they're motivated by hatred of the Jewish religion, not the Jewish ethnic or cultural group or the supposed Jewish race? Yes. Yes it is. We do not need synagogues and the people doing the attack have a decent reasoning behind them.

What an incredible piece of hair-splitting sophistry! Not really.

Racism may or may not be exactly the right word. But that's a minor quibble....which y'all are using to hide the fact that your anti-Muslim crap does in fact converge with the anti-Muslim campaigns of the National Front, British National Party, and similar groups. Who also, BTW, deny that they're racist.... Ah right so we're the same as the BNP and NF because we happen to be against things they're against :wacko: What a load of fallacious horseshit. I'm not trying to hide the fact because it is entirely irrelevant, it's silly to attempt to slander someone for being against the same thing as the BNP or NF. It only starts to matter if that person is actually racist or shares a common goal with the BNP or NF and as far as I'm aware no one here is advocating "Britain for the British" or any of that bollocks.

The fact is that religion is based on ideas which can change, one could simply abandon all their silly ideas of magical wizards in the sky if one so chose. One cannot change whatever it is about them that got them defined as a certain "race" without serious surgery.

Comrade J

27th March 2007, 14:08

Well sorry for interrupting the SWP gathering, but what the hell are you talking about? :huh:

The basic jist of the argument appears to be that anyone who claims to hate muslims is racist, because the term "muslim" is synonymous with the term "arab" according to you.
There's a certain irony in the fact that the ones accusing their fellow leftists of being "racist" actually associate "muslim" with a specific "race" or ethnicity, which is why they believe saying "I hate muslims" is racist.

However, those who hate muslims or believe "I hate muslims" is a non-racist statement can freely say so as we can in fact see past your pathetic association of muslims with a particular "race" or ethnicity, and dislike the beliefs of a muslim, regardless of anything else about them. Odd that you're taking the BNP position of 'muslims=arabs' - though this does explain why you can't see "I hate muslims" as anything other than racism.

Originally posted by Zampano
So yes, Muslim is becoming a race, and it is also a member of the religion of Islam. If you say "I hate Muslims" and are referring to the racial definition, then you're racist.
Exactly! Leftists here who say "I hate muslims" are not referring to any supposed racial definition that the rest of you believe in, but to anyone in the world who follows Islam, which is far from being racist, as it is not even acknowledging the existence of any "race".

Personally I wouldn't go as far as to say I hate all muslims as I know a few and they seem to be nice enough (two are white, one is black and the majority of them are asian - all are now their own unique "race"? :rolleyes: ) but whether or not you agree that hating all muslims is alright or not is besides the point, the fact is it is by no means racist, as it is simply disliking someone for their religious beliefs, regardless of any other characteristic they may have - something some people on here have difficulty grasping. Perhaps if you could get rid of your stereotyping of muslims as arabs (like the far-right do) then you'd finally see the point.

Okocim

27th March 2007, 15:16

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+March 27, 2007 01:03 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ March 27, 2007 01:03 am)I am sorry to say, on revleft we have lots of racists.

However, these people cover their racism under the guise of being against a particular religion.

Nonsense!

Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"[/b]

no, no it's not at all the same.

[email protected] 27, 2007 01:40 am
How are Jews any more an ethnic group than Muslims?

A child of a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of whether or not they believe in/follow Judaism. Halakha says that a Jew is always a Jew and cannot lose this status.

A muslim however can convert away from it.

By saying "I hate muslims" it implies, to me at least, that the person saying it hates only the religion. But saying "I hate Jews" implies that even non-religious Jews are being hated here, hence it's racist and not comparable to the "I hate muslims" statement.

(edit: put statue instead of status)

LuÃs Henrique

27th March 2007, 15:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 01:20 am
When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.
Do you really believe that?

I bet 99% of Muslism bashers can't even fathom the fact that there are blonde Muslisms. I bet when they say "Muslism", the image that comes to their sick little bigoted heads is that of tanned, bearded men in albornozes. Or tanned women in scarves. I bet 99.99% of Muslism bashers cannot understand that Iranian is an Indo-European language - or that Arab is not the language spoken in Turkey or Indonesia.

Anyone who "hates Muslisms" for some special reason that does not include Catholics or Calvinists or Judaism followers is hypocritical and bigoted. Or what is there so bad about Islam that does not apply to those other branches of Abrahamic superstition?

Luís Henrique

Comrade J

27th March 2007, 15:39

I bet 99% of Muslism bashers can't even fathom the fact that there are blonde Muslisms. I bet when they say "Muslism", the image that comes to their sick little bigoted heads is that of tanned, bearded men in albornozes. Or tanned women in scarves.

But that's exactly what we're getting at - we do see past the stereotype of a muslim as a tanned bearded man, which is why we understand it is perfectly acceptable for a leftist to say "I hate muslims" as they are fully aware that a muslim can be any member of society, and is not associated specifically with one ethnicity!

On the other hand, those accusing other leftists of racism clearly cannot see past this stereotype, which explains why they think "I hate muslims" is a racist statement, as in their weak minds, "muslim" automatically conjures images of an arab man, so they think that's what we mean. Like I said before, it's a greatly ironic that those holding this ridiculous stereotype are accusing others of being racist! :lol:

Anyone who "hates Muslisms" for some special reason that does not include Catholics or Calvinists or Judaism followers is hypocritical and bigoted. Or what is there so bad about Islam that does not apply to those other branches of Abrahamic superstition?
Well now you're assuming people who hate muslims reserve their hatred solely for Islam, which is bollocks. The only reason we are talking about hating muslims at the moment is because that is the topic of this thread. I think you'll find that anyone on here who claims to hate or dislike muslims will have the same attitude towards Christianity and Judaism.

LuÃs Henrique

27th March 2007, 15:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:16 pm
A child of a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of whether or not they believe in/follow Judaism. Halakha says that a Jew is always a Jew and cannot lose this status.

A muslim however can convert away from it.

By saying "I hate muslims" it implies, to me at least, that the person saying it hates only the religion. But saying "I hate Jews" implies that even non-religious Jews are being hated here, hence it's racist and not comparable to the "I hate muslims" statement.
So, Halachah is racist, is it not?

And because Judaism is a racist religion, we cannot oppose it, because we for some reason must adhere to their racist definition? While Islam can be opposed in and of itself, for the damning particularity that it does not define itself in racist terms?

****************

Also, I think some of us underestimate racialism (besides from confusing it with racism). Anti-semites do not hate Jews because they are Jews, but because they are, well, you know the stereotypes. When they meet an obviously Aryan Norseman that fits the "Jewish" stereotype, they don't think "hey, maybe I was wrong in stereotyping"; they think, "darnit, how did the Jews manage to corrupt people this far away?"

Luís Henrique

Okocim

27th March 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 27, 2007 03:44 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ March 27, 2007 03:44 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:16 pm
A child of a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of whether or not they believe in/follow Judaism. Halakha says that a Jew is always a Jew and cannot lose this status.

A muslim however can convert away from it.

By saying "I hate muslims" it implies, to me at least, that the person saying it hates only the religion. But saying "I hate Jews" implies that even non-religious Jews are being hated here, hence it's racist and not comparable to the "I hate muslims" statement.
So, Halachah is racist, is it not?

And because Judaism is a racist religion, we cannot oppose it, because we for some reason must adhere to their racist definition? While Islam can be opposed in and of itself, for the damning particularity that it does not define itself in racist terms?[/b]

no.

A person can convert to Judaism and will be seen in the exact same way as any person born a Jew. So you get black, white, Arab, etc Jews.

Luís [email protected] 27, 2007 03:44 pm
Also, I think some of us underestimate racialism (besides from confusing it with racism). Anti-semites do not hate Jews because they are Jews, but because they are, well, you know the stereotypes. When they meet an obviously Aryan Norseman that fits the "Jewish" stereotype, they don't think "hey, maybe I was wrong in stereotyping"; they think, "darnit, how did the Jews manage to corrupt people this far away?"

Luís Henrique

sorry, I don't quite follow.

There are many people who hate Jews simply because they're Jews, not because of fitting stereotypes or anything. Just because they're Jews.

Hit The North

27th March 2007, 16:59

Comrade J:

But that's exactly what we're getting at - we do see past the stereotype of a muslim as a tanned bearded man, which is why we understand it is perfectly acceptable for a leftist to say "I hate muslims" as they are fully aware that a muslim can be any member of society, and is not associated specifically with one ethnicity!

What definition of "perfectly acceptable" are you using here?

I think you'll find that anyone on here who claims to hate or dislike muslims will have the same attitude towards Christianity and Judaism.

To hate another human being simply because they practice a religion is a troubling attitude anyway and has nothing to do with a rational socialist, communist or anarchist position.

It would also require, for consistency sake, that you hate about 95% of the human population.

Which I think you'll find, in most cases, puts you on the wrong side of the barricades.

Comrade J

27th March 2007, 17:08

But that's exactly what we're getting at - we do see past the stereotype of a muslim as a tanned bearded man, which is why we understand it is perfectly acceptable for a leftist to say "I hate muslims" as they are fully aware that a muslim can be any member of society, and is not associated specifically with one ethnicity!

What definition of "perfectly acceptable" are you using here?

Perfectly acceptable in the sense that it is not at all racist, which is the point of this thread. I thought that was obvious.

I think you'll find that anyone on here who claims to hate or dislike muslims will have the same attitude towards Christianity and Judaism.

To hate another human being simply because they practice a religion is a troubling attitude anyway and has nothing to do with a rational socialist, communist or anarchist position.

It would also require, for consistency sake, that you hate about 95% of the human population.

Which I think you'll find, in most cases, puts you on the wrong side of the barricades.
Find me the bit where I personally claimed to hate all muslims? If you had bothered to read my other post then I wouldn't have to go through this again. Like I said before, whether or not you agree that hating all muslims is right or wrong, it is not because it is "racist" - which is what this thread is about.

Hiero

27th March 2007, 17:11

A person can convert to Judaism and will be seen in the exact same way as any person born a Jew.

Not always. There are Orthodox Jews who promote Jews as being a race as much as the Nazis do.

Just too note, some people don't know the difference between Muslims and Arabs. I heard some ask "what is the difference between a Muslim and a Arab".

which is why we understand it is perfectly acceptable for a leftist to say "I hate muslims" as they are fully aware that a muslim can be any member of society

Not it is not. Some people are born into Muslim families, they shouldn't face discrimination from leftists becuase of this. They recieve enough form white nationalist. We shouldn't even use the term hate, when did revolutionary politics be degraded to our feelings? We oppose Islam and all religions because they conflict with Communism. However religion is not the major conflict at this moment. And considering the majority of the worlds proleteriat live in material conditions where religion is the norm, we can't excactly say "well come back when you are atheists like us proper communists"

and is not associated specifically with one ethnicity!

Actually it is. Here is what I said in another thread.

A religion can be a main identifer of an ethnicity. In the wars of Yugoslavia Muslims were targeted as an ethnicity. In Yugoslavia if you say "I hate Muslims" you mean a specific ethnic group in Yugoslavia. In fact practicing of Islam had been surpressed and less common in the break out of war, yet these people were still considered Mulsim and were "cleansed" from non-Muslim populations.

In the Philipines, the Moro's are seperate ethnicity to the larger Christian ethnicity. There name comes from the Spanish term Moor, meaning Muslim inhabitants of Africa. They were singled out because of their religion, and during Spanish conquest were treated different to the non-Muslim population.

In Northern Ireland the prominant ethnicities are consider Catholic Irish and Protestant British. During the "Troubles" deaths are reported as Catholic or Protestant. Catholic, and Protestant communities were created. All of this disregard any commitment to religious practice.

Then look at Sudan, there is a Christain South and Muslim North. I could go on, but I think I have made the point.

When you say you hate Muslims, you say that you hate 1.4-1.6 billion people. That is based on religious and cultural identities, which are not going to change any times soon, that is racism and idealism.

Muslim World (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Muslim_World.png)

fashbash

27th March 2007, 17:14

Surely, surely if we leave the idea of social construction aside for a moment, it comes down to one thing- 'Race' does not exist!

A black man and a white man are the same race! A Jew and a Muslim are separated only by their beliefs! So everyone should stop pretending there are inherent biological differences between people of different skin colour because it's daft!

In the eighties in Britain, the head of the MET police publicly told the media that more black men die in custardy than white men because they have weaker necks. Racism is alive and well, and thrives on the readiness of people to believe in biological differences separating them from others.

Racism will remain until the concept of race itself dies out.

Hit The North

27th March 2007, 17:18

Comrade J:

Perfectly acceptable in the sense that it is not at all racist, which is the point of this thread. I thought that was obvious.

So if your hatred is not racist it's "perfectly acceptable"? So hating people because of their religious faith is perfectly acceptable?

Find me the bit where I personally claimed to hate all muslims?

Who said the comment was aimed specifically at you? Nevertheless your argument so far indicates that you see nothing wrong with hating all Muslims. In fact you seem to be arguing that it's "perfectly acceptable".

Okocim

27th March 2007, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:11 pm

A person can convert to Judaism and will be seen in the exact same way as any person born a Jew.

Not always. There are Orthodox Jews who promote Jews as being a race as much as the Nazis do.
in which case they're going against Jewish law which states you're not allowed to remind converts that they converted. They are seen as much as a Jew as anyone else who was born a Jew.

RevMARKSman

27th March 2007, 17:35

So if your hatred is not racist it's "perfectly acceptable"? So hating people because of their religious faith is perfectly acceptable?

Yup.

BAN :o

Who said the comment was aimed specifically at you? Nevertheless your argument so far indicates that you see nothing wrong with hating all Muslims. In fact you seem to be arguing that it's "perfectly acceptable".

He may or may not hate all muslims personally. He's just arguing that it's not racist.

Hit The North

27th March 2007, 17:40

He may or may not hate all muslims personally. He's just arguing that it's not racist.

More than that, he's arguing that it is therefore "perfectly acceptable".

Jazzratt

27th March 2007, 17:44

Too many people here have been hung up on the use of the word "hate". Most people who say they "hate" something do not mean they loathe it so entirely that it must die or be destroyed. If I say "I hate Muslims" I am not of the view that they should all be killed, firstly because it's not their being alive I am against it is their religion and secondly because it's really quite difficult to feel so strongly about a person who you do not know beforehand.

Hit The North

27th March 2007, 19:25

Too many people here have been hung up on the use of the word "hate".

Yeah, I hate it when that happens. :blink:

Fawkes

27th March 2007, 23:39

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 27, 2007 09:25 am--> (Luís Henrique @ March 27, 2007 09:25 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 01:20 am
When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.
Do you really believe that?

I bet 99% of Muslism bashers can't even fathom the fact that there are blonde Muslisms. I bet when they say "Muslism", the image that comes to their sick little bigoted heads is that of tanned, bearded men in albornozes. Or tanned women in scarves. I bet 99.99% of Muslism bashers cannot understand that Iranian is an Indo-European language - or that Arab is not the language spoken in Turkey or Indonesia. [/b]
Considering that we are talking about leftists on this board, not people in general, yes, I do believe that.

Anyone who "hates Muslisms" for some special reason that does not include Catholics or Calvinists or Judaism followers is hypocritical and bigoted. Or what is there so bad about Islam that does not apply to those other branches of Abrahamic superstition?
If I was to say that I hate capitalists, that would not mean that capitalists are the only people that I hate, would it?

black magick hustla

28th March 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 27, 2007 02:25 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ March 27, 2007 02:25 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 01:20 am
When people bash on Muslims, they are generally bashing on the religious followers of Islam, not the Arabic people as a whole.
Do you really believe that?

I bet 99% of Muslism bashers can't even fathom the fact that there are blonde Muslisms. I bet when they say "Muslism", the image that comes to their sick little bigoted heads is that of tanned, bearded men in albornozes. Or tanned women in scarves. I bet 99.99% of Muslism bashers cannot understand that Iranian is an Indo-European language - or that Arab is not the language spoken in Turkey or Indonesia.

Anyone who "hates Muslisms" for some special reason that does not include Catholics or Calvinists or Judaism followers is hypocritical and bigoted. Or what is there so bad about Islam that does not apply to those other branches of Abrahamic superstition?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Pluh-eeese

I come from muslim background--half my family is either berber or arab. I can tell you by first account that they are generally much more reactionary than their christian counterparts...much more sexist and "fundamentalist". I don't "hate" muslims, if that was the case, I would hate like half of the whole world, I hate islam itself, and I hate it more than christianity.

LuÃs Henrique

28th March 2007, 04:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:16 pm
Pluh-eeese

I come from muslim background--half my family is either berber or arab. I can tell you by first account that they are generally much more reactionary than their christian counterparts...much more sexist and "fundamentalist". I don't "hate" muslims, if that was the case, I would hate like half of the whole world, I hate islam itself, and I hate it more than christianity.
Yes, political conservatism is more common among Muslisms in Muslism countries, these days. However, this seems to be a rather superficial phenomenon, or not linked to religion anyway, because any reading of the history of Islam and Christianity would show that Islam has been considerably less reactionary than Christianism about 90% of the time.

Intellectual anti-Muslism bigots like to argue that Islam is the cause of Middle Eastern backwardness, or that Islam is incompatible with secularism. We have to dismistify those rightist arguments, not fall for them!

Luís Henrique

grove street

28th March 2007, 04:46

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+March 28, 2007 03:19 am--> (Luís Henrique @ March 28, 2007 03:19 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 11:16 pm
Pluh-eeese

I come from muslim background--half my family is either berber or arab. I can tell you by first account that they are generally much more reactionary than their christian counterparts...much more sexist and "fundamentalist". I don't "hate" muslims, if that was the case, I would hate like half of the whole world, I hate islam itself, and I hate it more than christianity.
Yes, political conservatism is more common among Muslisms in Muslism countries, these days. However, this seems to be a rather superficial phenomenon, or not linked to religion anyway, because any reading of the history of Islam and Christianity would show that Muslism has been considerably less reactionary than Christianism about 90% of the time.

Intellectual anti-Muslism bigots like to argue that Islam is the cause of Middle Easter backwardness, or that Islam is incompatible with secularism. We have to dismistify those rightist arguments, not fall for them!

Luís Henrique [/b]
Islam had a very different effect on society then Christianity. Islam transformed a bunch of tribal nomads, who were mostly illeterate and had hardly no civilization into rulers and conquers of vast amounts of land, where they built moseques, palaces, universities ect of archteictual mastership, made massive discoveries in science, astronomy, maths, medicine ect and for their time created very egaltarian socities where compared to Christian Europe and non Islamic Asia there was practise of religious tolerance, human rights and social welfare for the poor, disabled and orphoned children.

Christianity on the offer hand played a an important part in dragging Europe into the Dark Ages. One of the only places that wasn't effected by the Dark Ages in Europe was Islamic Spain, which was considred the jewel of medival Europe.

apathy maybe

28th March 2007, 13:44

Racism is about physical characteristics. So hating Muslims is not and cannot be racist. Hating Arabs, but couching it in terms of hating Muslims, that is racist, but only because the hate is directed at Arabs, rather then blond blue eyed Muslims.

So, hating all Muslims because you find Islam a distasteful religion (and knowing that not all Muslims are Arabs or non-white) is not racist. Though it is bigoted.

Vargha Poralli

28th March 2007, 18:08

Originally posted by apathy maybe+March 28, 2007 06:14 pm--> (apathy maybe @ March 28, 2007 06:14 pm) Racism is about physical characteristics. [/b]
It may be not in the 19th and begining of the 20th century but it is not narrowed to it now.

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 06:14 pm

So hating Muslims is not and cannot be racist.

Yes it is and Hiero have provided some points supporting this.

One example I can give apart from what Hiero have provided is the conflict in SriLanka. Both Sinhalese and Tamils have same physical characteristics and the Languages itself were of same family(Dravidan).But that did not stop Sinhalese capitalist to scapegoat Tamils and start up pogroms nor did it stop Tamils from responding to it with equal brutality. No solution is found till date.

The same thing happening in India. Take a look at anti-muslim pogroms in Gujrat in 2003-2004.Muslims here of same race speak same language but that did not stop sangh parivar reactionaries from butchering them.

Hating Arabs, but couching it in terms of hating Muslims, that is racist, but only because the hate is directed at Arabs, rather then blond blue eyed Muslims.

Well Islam is not the only religion for Arabs. There are Arab Christians too.So racism against Arabs cannot be covered with Hating Islam(religion)/Muslims(people who follow the religion Islam).

apathy [email protected] 28, 2007 06:14 pm

So, hating all Muslims because you find Islam a distasteful religion (and knowing that not all Muslims are Arabs or non-white) is not racist.Though it is bigoted.

Why you have to fear that religion so much. We hate what we fear. If you all belive in Christian right wing propaganda that Islam is a religion of barbarians and they will convert everybody when they have conqueror ed(which is never likely to happen except in the dreams of Christian fundamentalists,Sangh Parivar and Islamophobes in general) then I can point out to India which was ruled by Muslims rulers for about 6-7 centuries but Indian Muslim population is still a dead minority.

So it is more than bigotry.

And about this Burqua/Hijab thing not all Muslim men force their women to wear it. In India there is no law banning it/promoting it and some Muslim girls wear it and some don't . So don't put every Muslim man in to this misogynist thing. If you do it then you are just finding reasons to support your view point.

LuÃs Henrique

28th March 2007, 21:47

Then there is the fact that racism isn't necessarily about hate, it is about prejudice. Take the murder of Jean-Charles de Menezes by London Police. Does it have to do with racism, yes or not? Does it have to do with Islamophobia, yes or not? See how those two things are, in practice, intertwinned?

Luís Henrique

bloody_capitalist_sham

28th March 2007, 22:27

APATHY MAYBE

Racism is about physical characteristics. So hating Muslims is not and cannot be racist. Hating Arabs, but couching it in terms of hating Muslims, that is racist, but only because the hate is directed at Arabs, rather then blond blue eyed Muslims.

So, hating all Muslims because you find Islam a distasteful religion (and knowing that not all Muslims are Arabs or non-white) is not racist. Though it is bigoted.

uhh, im sorry but you are so wrong it just hurts really.

In Rwanda, there was an ethnic genocide where almost a million people were killed.

The Tutsi's and Hutu, killed each other in massive numbers based on what their IDENTITY CARD said.

This is because it was something explicitly invented by European imperialists in order to divide society and make it easier to rule.

So, people were, thinking Tutsi and Hutu were ethnically different, when of course they were not, and they did not have physical characteristics which differed.

What this shows is that Race is a more flexible concept that you have given it credit for, after all, German Jews would look no different from "aryan" Germans, so the jews needed to be mark so they could be identified.

If you didnt before, i would suggest you read Severians earlier post :)

EwokUtopia

29th March 2007, 00:26

Hating Muslims is very different than hating Islam, when people say they hate Muslims, it is a demeaning generalization of people who are judged by broad visions of the faith which they adhere to. I hate Christianity, but I do not hate Christians. I have many friends and family members who are christians, and being as this is a predominantly western forum, I am willing to bet so do you. So hating Christians is out of the question, but hating Muslims is easier for people to do, because Muslims in this sociey are an "other". Most westerners do not know or befriend Muslims, so it is easier to make these generalistic jumps of disliking the religion to hating all who adhere to it. That is why it is exremely discriminatory.

Racist is the wrong word, but too often we associate all forms of discrimination with racism, which is false and a generalization in and of itself. Hating Muslims is deffinately xenophobic and bears with it traces of nationalistic chauvanism. If you hate the religion (and there are many many forms of Islam, so hating the religion is also a generalization, I dont hate all Christianity, though I disagree with it all) thats one thing. But making the jump to hating a billion people is completely different. Just because its not racist per se does not make it any less bad. Who cares if its racist or not, it is still hateful discrimination based on orientalistic ideals! If you hate all Muslims, then you had better be consistant and hate anyone who practises any religion, and then youll find yourself hating most people in the world. So how about this, why not seperate your dislike for Islam with associations of its followers?

I have many Muslim friends, and they are not people who go around stoning adulterers (according to Islamic law, you can only punish an adulterer if you can provide 4 witnesses...good luck doing that) or forcing people to wear Hijab. The Muslim women I know who wear Hijab do so of their own accord, and they have every fucking right to do that.

People who hate people based on broad generalizations tend to be ignorant and frustrated, and the fact that they hate muslims, who are mostly immigrants to this society with their own cultural practises that differ from the "norms", is decidedly xenophobic.

Xenophobia is every bit as bad as outright racism, and its a fine line that divides the two.

Amusing Scrotum

29th March 2007, 06:59

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 08:47 pm
Then there is the fact that racism isn't necessarily about hate, it is about prejudice. Take the murder of Jean-Charles de Menezes by London Police. Does it have to do with racism, yes or not? Does it have to do with Islamophobia, yes or not? See how those two things are, in practice, intertwinned?

Luís Henrique

It's funny that you bring up that incident. Not because the event itself was funny, of course; but because of what it represents and how it impacts on this debate.

That is, the murder of Mr. de Menezes was, perhaps, the most high profile single example of racial profiling in Britain in my lifetime. The MET saw a dark fella', assumed he was an "Arab", leading to the assumption that he was also a Muslim, and then leading to the final conclusion that he was a suicide bomber.

A fine example of state intelligence in action. <_<

Needless to say, this incident reflected the inherent racism of the British state. But not its "Islamophobic" nature.

That's because, to put it briefly, racism is the attribution of negative attributes to a whole ethnic group. In this case, the MET was working on the principle that all Arabic looking people were suicide bombers.

"Islamophobia", by contrast, is a concept that both includes this and things like Polly Toynbee's comments on Islam. Comments which were scathing, yes; but not racist.

As for what this has to do with the original question, well that should be pretty obvious. That is, we should not confuse "Islamophobia" with racism -- substituting one for the other.

When people say they "hate" -- read: dislike, dissaprove of, etc. etc. -- this or that, we need to do more than just call names. For starters, we should look at the reasoning they provide to justify their "hatred".

The BNP "hates" Muslims because, in their view, their all "dirty Arabs". Who, no doubt, are to blame for the fact that the trains don't run on time. (Though, to be honest, I doubt there are that many Muslim train drivers.)

Other people, by contrast, will have different rationales for their "hatred".

But by just looking at the cover of the book, we're not really going to understand the contents. Yet, that's what the adherents to the "Islamophobia" concept want us to do.

They have their own reasons for doing this, of course. But this is not the time to go into them. The only thing left to say, is that Comrade J made a very valid point, one which I've made before.

That is, isn't it funny how those that claim any comments portraying Muslims or Islam in a negative light reflect anti-Arab racism, automatically equate Islam with Arabs.

Food for thought, in my opinion.

Edit: I'm in a bit of a rush, so my apologies if this post lacks the required level of coherence.

Hit The North

29th March 2007, 10:43

The BNP "hates" Muslims because, in their view, their all "dirty Arabs". Who, no doubt, are to blame for the fact that the trains don't run on time. (Though, to be honest, I doubt there are that many Muslim train drivers.)

Other people, by contrast, will have different rationales for their "hatred".

Thanks, Amusing Scrotum, for clearing that up. I can now tell my Muslim neighbour that she's hated by both the Right and the Left, but not to worry because the Left hate her for completely different reasons than those nasty fascists.

That should make her feel a whole lot better.

But by just looking at the cover of the book, we're not really going to understand the contents. Yet, that's what the adherents to the "Islamophobia" concept want us to do.

They have their own reasons for doing this, of course. But this is not the time to go into them.

That's a shame. I'm gagging to know what little conspiracy theory you've cooked up.

While we're waiting, comrades could avail themselves of a proper socialist analysis of Islamophobia HERE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4-bmSa6nBg&feature=PlayList&p=5BB5E5ECC759B707&index=5)

EwokUtopia

29th March 2007, 12:10

"Islam" and "Muslim" are two very different words, and the fact that people are wording it "I hate Muslims" is sad and pathetic, and doesnt belong anywhere near a leftist website.

Do you really hate Muslims because you hate all religion, or is it because you have some terrorist image stuck in your head? If you hated them because of religion, you would say "I hate Theists", but the fact that you single out Muslims is testament to the Orientalism that runs rampant on this forum.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, this forum is WAY too fucking western dominated! You will never get a leftist from the Arab world who says "I hate Muslims" even if they hate Islam. Hell, those leftists would probably yell the shit out of you, because your basically saying you hate most of their people.

This is probably for me the saddest, most disgusting aspect of this site, I am litterally churning my stomach that supposed leftists could say something as ignorant and xenophobic (we all saw the results from the 2006 survey) as I hate Muslims. You want to make broad statements against religion, why not say I hate Roman Catholics? At least they all belong to the same patriarchal organization! But you shouldnt do that either, unless you want to turn half of Latin America against you.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, I strongly recommend you dont attack it so blatantly, that is unless you want to find out what happens when you take away an addicts opium. You cant expect people to just abandon what they believe in overnight for the revolution or whatever, it will eventually happen, but it takes time. What we need is a 12 step program.

Don't Change Your Name

30th March 2007, 03:44

The point is not whether some "leftist" (or somebody) said "I hate muslims" or not, but whether saying such thing would make someone a "racist" or not. Since that's obviously not the case then most of those who are so "outraged" about the "racism" contained in that sentence are just making politically correct PR for anybody who might read this and happens to be a Muslim or an "Arab" just in case they might be offended by someone who might say or might have said that phrase.

This thread is worthless.

bloody_capitalist_sham

30th March 2007, 05:14

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 30, 2007 03:44 am
The point is not whether some "leftist" (or somebody) said "I hate muslims" or not, but whether saying such thing would make someone a "racist" or not. Since that's obviously not the case then most of those who are so "outraged" about the "racism" contained in that sentence are just making politically correct PR for anybody who might read this and happens to be a Muslim or an "Arab" just in case they might be offended by someone who might say or might have said that phrase.

This thread is worthless.
Great post there buddy, i can see you have given this topic lots of thought.

go troll another thread, and stay outta this one :D

tambourine_man

30th March 2007, 06:32

lol, what exactly are you going to accomplish, in terms of actual class struggle, by essentially telling a proletarian you hate him, hate everything he believes and has been taught to believe, but that he should join you and "join the war against capitalism!" ? other than, of course, showing that you are comfortable with your self-righteousness and total dissociation from the everyday social realities of alot of working class people.

islam in particular, in many places, may generally seem to be taken a lot more "seriously" than christianity is, at present, in the west. people are religious for material reasons. alot of it has to do with religion's significant role in ruling class ideology when capital and a more liberal bourgeoisie have not yet developed enough to rationalize the system based on more modern, secure, economically profitable pretenses. might it not be better to talk to fellow workers who may be religious in terms that are actually relevant to their daily lives, rather than saying "fuck off and die i hate you religious scum!" ?

Spirit of Spartacus

30th March 2007, 08:55

*sigh*

This has to be the third time we're discussing this topic.

My question remains...

Do you hate the religion of Islam or its adherents?

If you hate the religion itself, its perfectly OK.

If, however, you hate all Muslims, I find it an extremely weird position to take for a leftist.

Those leftists who "hate Muslims" claim that they "hate Christians" equally. So one wonders who exactly they stand for as revolutionary leftists. Atheistic alien workers from Mars, perhaps?

It's another example of intellectuals who are simply divorced from reality. Please get out of this petit-bourgeois nonsense and admit that its fucking stupid to "hate Muslims".

LuÃs Henrique

30th March 2007, 14:43

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 30, 2007 07:55 am
Those leftists who "hate Muslims" claim that they "hate Christians" equally. So one wonders who exactly they stand for as revolutionary leftists. Atheistic alien workers from Mars, perhaps?
Who cares about the working class? The issue is to be "more leftist" than everybody else.

Luís Henrique

Comrade J

30th March 2007, 15:38

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 30, 2007 07:55 am
*sigh*

This has to be the third time we're discussing this topic.

My question remains...

Do you hate the religion of Islam or its adherents?

If you hate the religion itself, its perfectly OK.

If, however, you hate all Muslims, I find it an extremely weird position to take for a leftist.

Those leftists who "hate Muslims" claim that they "hate Christians" equally. So one wonders who exactly they stand for as revolutionary leftists. Atheistic alien workers from Mars, perhaps?

It's another example of intellectuals who are simply divorced from reality. Please get out of this petit-bourgeois nonsense and admit that its fucking stupid to "hate Muslims".
Again, you're missing the whole point.

The discussion is on whether the statement is racist. Not whether it's an acceptable thing to say or not (for other, non-racist reasons).

Also, it's evident that people here all have different views on what it means to 'hate,' which I'm sure everyone is aware of...?
Furthermore, it's likely that religion will fade post-revolution when people are mostly content with their material conditions, so even if someone does dislike muslims, it doesn't reduce their commitment to a revolution at all.

:rolleyes:

EwokUtopia

30th March 2007, 22:47

You wont find many people on this site who claim to hate christians universally. That would mean they hate their grandmother, or some old friends of theirs, or whoever. Yet the people on this site who claim they hate Muslims likely do not go through this paradox, because their granny doesnt wear hijab. This is where we see that hatred of muslims on this site is decidedly xenophobic in nature.

It doesnt matter of its not racist per se, it is still bad. Racial discrimination, terrible as it is, has recieved an unfairly high status among discrimination. Homophobia is often compared to racism in order to illegitimize it. We need to stop looking at Racism as if its the most important form of discrimination, Xenophobia is close to racism, but it is a distinct form of hatred. This is the catagory that "hating muslims" falls under, and it is no better than racism.

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 17:07

If hating Muslims is not racist ( and it is) then how is hating Jews racist? ( that is too)

Ethiopian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel)

Spirit of Spartacus

31st March 2007, 17:26

Originally posted by Comrade J+March 30, 2007 02:38 pm--> (Comrade J @ March 30, 2007 02:38 pm)
Spirit of [email protected] 30, 2007 07:55 am
*sigh*

This has to be the third time we're discussing this topic.

My question remains...

Do you hate the religion of Islam or its adherents?

If you hate the religion itself, its perfectly OK.

If, however, you hate all Muslims, I find it an extremely weird position to take for a leftist.

Those leftists who "hate Muslims" claim that they "hate Christians" equally. So one wonders who exactly they stand for as revolutionary leftists. Atheistic alien workers from Mars, perhaps?

It's another example of intellectuals who are simply divorced from reality. Please get out of this petit-bourgeois nonsense and admit that its fucking stupid to "hate Muslims".
Again, you're missing the whole point.

The discussion is on whether the statement is racist. Not whether it's an acceptable thing to say or not (for other, non-racist reasons). [/b]
Racism is not the only type of irrational prejudice.

As Ewokutopia mentioned, xenophobia is something which no revolutionary leftist should approve of, and yet it is not exactly racism, is it?

In fact, I find it quite worrying that revolutionary leftists are unable to form an opinion independent of ruling-class imperialist propaganda. The fact that some comrades "hate Muslims" and try to justify it too is disturbing, because the question arises: Who do the comrades pretend to represent if they "hate" religious people?

Marx described religion as the sigh of the oppressed. Nowhere did any revolutionary leader prescribe hatred for the very people we are supposed to liberate.

It is intellectual snobbery, in fact petit-bourgeois class hatred directed at the working-class, to say that one "hates Muslims" simply because of the reactionary nature of their faith.

So, perhaps we can concede that hating Muslims is not racist. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable as an attitude for a revolutionary leftist. I'm sure you'd agree.

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 17:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:07 am
If hating Muslims is not racist ( and it is) then how is hating Jews racist? ( that is too)

Ethiopian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel)
Muslims are adherents to the religion of Islam, Jews are adherents to the religion of Judaism. Arab is the ethnic group most often associated with Islam because the majority of its followers are Arabic. If one hates Arabs, they are racist; if they hate Muslims, they are not. The word Jew has two meanings: followers of Judaism, and an ethnic group known as Jews. Hating all Jews (followers of Judaism) is not racist; hating all Jews (the ethnic group) is racist. The problem is that the term "Jew" has a double meaning, which is often confusing.

Comrade J

31st March 2007, 17:55

Originally posted by Fawkes+March 31, 2007 04:27 pm--> (Fawkes @ March 31, 2007 04:27 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 11:07 am
If hating Muslims is not racist ( and it is) then how is hating Jews racist? ( that is too)

Ethiopian Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel)
Muslims are adherents to the religion of Islam, Jews are adherents to the religion of Judaism. Arab is the ethnic group most often associated with Islam because the majority of its followers are Arabic. If one hates Arabs, they are racist; if they hate Muslims, they are not. The word Jew has two meanings: followers of Judaism, and an ethnic group known as Jews. Hating all Jews (followers of Judaism) is not racist; hating all Jews (the ethnic group) is racist. The problem is that the term "Jew" has a double meaning, which is often confusing. [/b]
Well said Fawkes, but I'm amazed this needed explaining to anyone above the age of 10.

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 18:00

Yah, an amazing post there Fawkes. Really very impressive.

And, Comrade J, im suprised, i thought you were an intellectual??

Because, Fawkes displays his ignorance with this line.
Arab is the ethnic group most often associated with Islam because the majority of its followers are Arabic.

Its not true. Most Muslims live in South east Asia.

Oh noes!!!!

Fawkes, while trying to defend a racist statement, made a racist assertion!!

And Comrade J just backed it up without even thinking.

really, you guys need to go back to kindergarten, as i think even 10 year olds would spot your errors!

:lol: hope the classes arnt too difficult for you

Comrade J

31st March 2007, 18:05

Ok, besides the point anyway. If most muslims live in South East Asia then replace "Arabic" with that ethnicity. It's a simple mistake, and does not change the point of Fawkes' post at all...

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 18:23

Its not true. Most Muslims live in South east Asia.
Alright, I stated something that I thought was a fact, I was wrong. How about instead of focusing solely on a mistake that I made, you actually address the point that I made? Also, you claim that I need to go back to Kindergarten as you misspell the word "it's".

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 18:35

I will respond.

you misspell the word "it's".

There are more grammatical errors than that, why don't you try and find them while i answer the post, im sure its ( ;) ) something you will be learning in class soon!!

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 18:39

Fawkes said

Muslims are adherents to the religion of Islam, Jews are adherents to the religion of Judaism. Arab is the ethnic group most often associated with Islam because the majority of its followers are Arabic. If one hates Arabs, they are racist; if they hate Muslims, they are not. The word Jew has two meanings: followers of Judaism, and an ethnic group known as Jews. Hating all Jews (followers of Judaism) is not racist; hating all Jews (the ethnic group) is racist. The problem is that the term "Jew" has a double meaning, which is often confusing.

and im am going to Quote Sev as a reply.

Wait, BCS is confused?

I'm sorry, no, it's all the people who keep using this specious "Muslims aren't a race" argument. Jews are not a race. Heck, Black people are not a race.

The only race is the human race. Race has no biological validity./b] Do you disagree?

Nevertheless, racism exists.

Groups of people are singled out for oppression, systematic discrimination, scapegoating, and prejudices that divide the working class.

[b]The basis on which they are singled out for oppression is arbitrary, though determined by historic factors. If people did not differ in skin color, or religion, or sex - eye color or left-handedness might become a lot more important.

So what are you people saying with this "Muslims are not a race" bullshit?

That we have no obligation to oppose discrimination on the basis of religion, to oppose all the pogroms, inquisitions, and sectarian violence directed against religious minorities from Ireland to Iraq....because those religious minorities "aren't races"?

That, for example, it's OK for Jew-haters to burn down synagogues....as long as they're motivated by hatred of the Jewish religion, not the Jewish ethnic or cultural group or the supposed Jewish race?

What an incredible piece of hair-splitting sophistry!

Racism may or may not be exactly the right word. But that's a minor quibble....which y'all are using to hide the fact that your anti-Muslim crap does in fact converge with the anti-Muslim campaigns of the National Front, British National Party, and similar groups. Who also, BTW, deny that they're racist....

I think Sev is better at grammar than I, so you probably dont need to check. :rolleyes:

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 18:59

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 19:05

Going by society's generally agreed upon definition of race --- which is physical characteristics --- Muslims are not a race. I never have denied that arbitrary discrimination against Muslims is bad and harmful to our cause, I have just tried to point out the fact that hating someone solely due to their religious beliefs is very different from hating someone due to their physical characteristics and that hating someone due to their religion --- as pointless and stupid as it may be --- is not racism.

I debunked this myth on page two after Apathy Maybe said what you did.

APATHY MAYBE

Racism is about physical characteristics. So hating Muslims is not and cannot be racist. Hating Arabs, but couching it in terms of hating Muslims, that is racist, but only because the hate is directed at Arabs, rather then blond blue eyed Muslims.

So, hating all Muslims because you find Islam a distasteful religion (and knowing that not all Muslims are Arabs or non-white) is not racist. Though it is bigoted.

uhh, im sorry but you are so wrong it just hurts really.

In Rwanda, there was an ethnic genocide where almost a million people were killed.

The Tutsi's and Hutu, killed each other in massive numbers based on what their IDENTITY CARD said.

This is because it was something explicitly invented by European imperialists in order to divide society and make it easier to rule.

So, people were, thinking Tutsi and Hutu were ethnically different, when of course they were not, and they did not have physical characteristics which differed.

What this shows is that Race is a more flexible concept that you have given it credit for, after all, German Jews would look no different from "aryan" Germans, so the jews needed to be mark so they could be identified.

If you didnt before, i would suggest you read Severians earlier post smile.gif

And, its historic fact Rwanda was ethnic Genocide. And there were no physical characteristics different from one another.

Vargha Poralli

31st March 2007, 19:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:29 pm
Going by society's generally agreed upon definition of race --- which is physical characteristics --- Muslims are not a race. I never have denied that arbitrary discrimination against Muslims is bad and harmful to our cause, I have just tried to point out the fact that hating someone solely due to their religious beliefs is very different from hating someone due to their physical characteristics and that hating someone due to their religion --- as pointless and stupid as it may be --- is not racism.
I can see wher you are coming from. but you are wrong for the reasons Hiero and I have cited here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&view=findpost&p=1292290304) and here. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&view=findpost&p=1292289792)

So if you think otherwise please respond to those posts.

edit: Same as BCS my response is also to apathy maybe. So nobody is reading what other's have posted well.

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 19:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:05 pm

Going by society's generally agreed upon definition of race --- which is physical characteristics --- Muslims are not a race. I never have denied that arbitrary discrimination against Muslims is bad and harmful to our cause, I have just tried to point out the fact that hating someone solely due to their religious beliefs is very different from hating someone due to their physical characteristics and that hating someone due to their religion --- as pointless and stupid as it may be --- is not racism.

I debunked this myth on page two after Apathy Maybe said what you did.

APATHY MAYBE

Racism is about physical characteristics. So hating Muslims is not and cannot be racist. Hating Arabs, but couching it in terms of hating Muslims, that is racist, but only because the hate is directed at Arabs, rather then blond blue eyed Muslims.

So, hating all Muslims because you find Islam a distasteful religion (and knowing that not all Muslims are Arabs or non-white) is not racist. Though it is bigoted.

uhh, im sorry but you are so wrong it just hurts really.

In Rwanda, there was an ethnic genocide where almost a million people were killed.

The Tutsi's and Hutu, killed each other in massive numbers based on what their IDENTITY CARD said.

This is because it was something explicitly invented by European imperialists in order to divide society and make it easier to rule.

So, people were, thinking Tutsi and Hutu were ethnically different, when of course they were not, and they did not have physical characteristics which differed.

What this shows is that Race is a more flexible concept that you have given it credit for, after all, German Jews would look no different from "aryan" Germans, so the jews needed to be mark so they could be identified.

If you didnt before, i would suggest you read Severians earlier post smile.gif

And, its historic fact Rwanda was ethnic Genocide. And there were no physical characteristics different from one another.
According to this (http://www.amazon.com/Left-Tell-Discovering-Rwandan-Holocaust/dp/1401908977/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5140106-3388141?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175365316&sr=8-1) book that I read about the Rwandan genocide, there are in fact physical differences between the Hutus and Tutsis.

I'm going to quote Jazzratt here:

[In regards to the ideas set forward by BCS in this thread]

[14:11] <Jazzratt> It goes Muslims = Group of people unified in some way = Race
[14:12] <Jazzratt> and everyone else has this wild idea that all bigotry = racism

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 19:37

Originally posted by g.ram+March 31, 2007 01:08 pm--> (g.ram @ March 31, 2007 01:08 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 11:29 pm
Going by society's generally agreed upon definition of race --- which is physical characteristics --- Muslims are not a race. I never have denied that arbitrary discrimination against Muslims is bad and harmful to our cause, I have just tried to point out the fact that hating someone solely due to their religious beliefs is very different from hating someone due to their physical characteristics and that hating someone due to their religion --- as pointless and stupid as it may be --- is not racism.
I can see wher you are coming from. but you are wrong for the reasons Hiero and I have cited here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&view=findpost&p=1292290304) and here. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&view=findpost&p=1292289792)

So if you think otherwise please respond to those posts.

edit: Same as BCS my response is also to apathy maybe. So nobody is reading what other's have posted well. [/b]
I don't disagree with many of the points set forward in either of those posts. Though this probably warrants a longer response, I think the quote from Jazzratt that I posted earlier will suffice.

[14:12] <Jazzratt> and everyone else has this wild idea that all bigotry = racism

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 19:38

According to this book that I read about the Rwandan genocide, there are in fact physical differences between the Hutus and Tutsis.

I'm going to quote Jazzratt here:

[In regards to the ideas set forward by BCS in this thread]
QUOTE
[14:11] <Jazzratt> It goes Muslims = Group of people unified in some way = Race
[14:12] <Jazzratt> and everyone else has this wild idea that all bigotry = racism

WOW :o

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

First, you say you read a book which is an account from a non academic source. More than that, its by a catholic. and has product reviews like

How could this happen? Where does such animosity come from? Why can't we just be like God, Who is the Source for all of us? But you will also feel something else most profoundly: You will feel hope, a hope that inch by inch, we as a people are moving toward a new alignment—that is, we're moving toward living God-realized lives. Illustrated

And then you acknowledge your position to be bigoted.

Bigoted position include:

* Adultism
* Archie Bunker
* Ageism
* Anti-Catholicism
* Anti-Protestantism
* Anti-Semitism
* Discrimination_against_atheists
* Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!
* Chauvinism
* Chronocentrism
* Classism
* Discrimination
* Fascism
* Feminazi
* Hate group
* Heterophobia
* Homophobia
* Islamaphobia
* Misandry
* Misogyny
* Narcissism
* Nazism
* Racism
* Religious persecution
* Religious intolerance
* Reverse Discrimination
* Sexism
* Transphobia
* White Supremacism
* Xenophobia

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 19:44

More than that, its by a catholic.
And you claim that I am bigoted.

How the hell am I anti-semitic, a fascist, a member of a hate group, an Islamophobe, a Nazi, a racist, a white supremacist, or a xenophobe?

I'll continue debating with g.ram and anyone else that wants to actually debate with me, but I'm not going to respond to you anymore if you continue to do nothing but flame me as being the aforementioned things.

Qwerty Dvorak

31st March 2007, 20:28

More than that, its by a catholic.
Hypocrisy alert

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 20:45

You can only say that if you have never been a hypocrite.

As im sure you have, it means totally nothing :P

I only said that because it is a direct influence on the "book" Fawkes referred too.

how about you think for a change huh?

Qwerty Dvorak

31st March 2007, 21:11

You can only say that if you have never been a hypocrite.

As im sure you have, it means totally nothing tongue.gif
How so?

I only said that because it is a direct influence on the "book" Fawkes referred too.
And how exactly do you know that the author's religion infringes directly on her capacity to for logical arguments and/or cite facts? You obviously haven't read it.

Incidentally, I read a book a while back called "World on Fire" by some Chinese author, can't remember her name, but that book also claimed that there exist physical differences between Hutus and Tutsis. Are you going to disregard this source because it was written by a Chinese person? Because that's almost identical to what you just did--if, as you claim, religious groupings can be considered a race.

Also, why did you use "s when referring to the book? Let me guess, Catholics don't write books, they write bibles is that it?

Moron.

apathy maybe

31st March 2007, 22:27

Regardless of what people may or may not think on the issue of Muslims being a "Race", saying so isn't bigoted. Actually hating all Muslims is bigoted, however.

Now, a question to all you people who think that Muslims are a "race", do you think the same thing about Christianity? The same logic surely applies.

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 23:00

Also, why did you use "s when referring to the book? Let me guess, Catholics don't write books, they write bibles is that it?

...er either your incredibly stupid or intentionally diverting the issue. I suspect a little of both.

Catholics obviously do write books. Writing it AS a catholic though, and that the book seems to have a "spiritual tangent" is Leading me to believe calling into question the books academic merit is entirely justified.

Plus, i know a few Catholics, and none of them have ever written a bible......what ever that means.

Are you going to disregard this source because it was written by a Chinese person? Because that's almost identical to what you just did--if, as you claim, religious groupings can be considered a race.

Erm, no im not going to disregard Chua, because it looks much more like a serious academic work, with good reviews. Reviews that do not have hocus pocus.

And how exactly do you know that the author's religion infringes directly on her capacity to for logical arguments and/or cite facts? You obviously haven't read it.

Well, its true i have not read it. merely reviews. And, reviews can give you a good idea of the nature of the book. The book might be fine to read, but its not an academic work gah..

Cheung Mo

1st April 2007, 02:24

I hate Islam, but no more or no less than I deplore other reactionary systems of beliefs and ethics. I don't hate Muslims either, but I would kill an Islamist if it would prevent a homosexual or a feminist from being hanged in Iran; Likewise, I would chastise a Hasidic Jew who insisted that only male employees within the political establishment serve; and I would have no objection to publicly embarrassing Christians who want science removed from education.

Hiero

1st April 2007, 12:20

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 01, 2007 08:27 am
Now, a question to all you people who think that Muslims are a "race", do you think the same thing about Christianity? The same logic surely applies.
No one here thinks that Muslims are a race. What we are doing is expanding the notion of racism. In the post WW2 world, religion has been mixed into ethnicity and "race". We have proven this with many expamples, from Yugalsavia to Sri Lanka. Even if this thead, Fawkes made the same racist error, claiming that most Muslims are Arabs. He attributed a religion to a specific "race" as the term is commonly known.

In the most recent imperialist adventures, the occupying of Arab countries in the war on terror, the white chauvinist mix hatred for religion with hatred of Arabs. They identify Muslims as Arabs, not as blonde eyed converts, who can be consider just that, a once Christain first, who convert to a Muslim latter.

Now the left (the really weak left) has been caught up in this chauvinism. Before we rarely cared about Muslims, religion was a thing to be defeated by the followers. It was the Russian, who were once Christians who removed the Orthodox Church form power in 1917. It was the Chinese lay people, who defeated the fuedalistc monasteries in 1949. Religion will be defeated by the religious when the material conditions change. Not by superior feeling leftist who want to declare their hatred for a group of people and express their fantasies of saving Muslim woman from their oppressive fathers.

Being anti-Muslim is being anti-materialist and anti-communist. It has become so bad that so called leftist would rather imperialist occupation of Muslims countries, to ease their liberal fears of Islamic statehood as opposed to liberal secularism, which they think the imperialist can provide.

Now to your question about Christanity and race. As stated, we do not believe in race. What we do know however is that the idea of race, and ethnicity is very poweful. Already people have attributed Christanity to race. Christanity is considered and portrayed as a European trait, at least by Europeans themsevles. Judeo-Christian societies, are European soceities (maybe South Africa can be considered a Judeo-Christian country in statehood and law)/ Look at the most far right white nationalist groups, religion and race/ethnicity are very closely connected. The KKK and other similar groups are very spiritual, connecting religion to their ideology, and using religion to justify white hegonomy.

We have also already given examples, such as the case of N.Ireland, where Catholic and Protestant can be considered ethnicities. In Sudan, there are Muslims Sudanese and Christain Sudanese.

I will rephrase your question "Can Christanity been attributed to certain races and ethnicties" Yes it can, just like Islam is attributed to certain races and ethnicities.

EwokUtopia

1st April 2007, 19:27

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 31, 2007 09:27 pm
Now, a question to all you people who think that Muslims are a "race", do you think the same thing about Christianity? The same logic surely applies.
No, because most of us live in the Christian dominated west. Muslims in this country are largely immigrants or decendants of immigrants. They are the "Other", and when people in this country see someone who is visibly middle eastern, they necessarily think "muslim", this is just a fact of xenophobic associations. When they think "muslim" they think "terrorist", so there you have it, there are many fuckass westerners who look at a brown person, associate them with radical islam, and therefore terrorism without even saying a word. This is prejudice. Whether it is racist or xenophobic is up to you to decide, frankly it doesnt matter to me because its shit anyway.

Perhaps if we were living in Muaritania, we might look at Europeans, think Christians, and therefore think evil colonial warlords, but we dont live in Muaritania, so that question is defunct to the majority of people on this forum.

The same logic applies, but it doesnt quite work out in reality.

More Fire for the People

1st April 2007, 19:35

I do not harbor any hate for Muslims — I abhor those who do hate Muslims. Those who 'hate' Muslims — and by hate I mean those that have an intimate passion against Muslims — do so for hegemonic reasons. Muslims are, for Muslim-haters, 'backwards', Muslims are 'dirty Arabs', or 'dumb Blacks'. They hate Muslims because they are a roadblock to the expansion of capital in Middle Eastern & African countries and source of cheap labor in Euro-America.

There is a difference in recognizing the contradictions with the Muslim faith — the contradictions between Red Islam & Black Islam, Arab & African Islam, Progressive & Fundamentalist Islam, etc. — and the simple, ideological hatred of Muslims. By recognizing these contradictions we communists can work togethor with progressive elements of the Muslim faith in order to strengthen the position of the international working class.

Don't Change Your Name

1st April 2007, 21:35

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+March 30, 2007 01:14 am--> (bloody_capitalist_sham @ March 30, 2007 01:14 am) Great post there buddy, i can see you have given this topic lots of thought.

go troll another thread, and stay outta this one :D [/b]
If my post isn't "great" it is because this topic is worthless and so is your lame opinion on this issue. You're wrong, get over it.

Originally posted by [email protected]
lol, what exactly are you going to accomplish, in terms of actual class struggle, by essentially telling a proletarian you hate him, hate everything he believes and has been taught to believe, but that he should join you and "join the war against capitalism!" ?

Are you stupid or what? Nobody is trying to impose "I hate muslims" as some kind of "Communist Commandment" or anything (if you have a "religious" approach to being a revolutionary it's your problem). We're not deciding "policies" here. This is a very smart attempt of making those who disagree with you look "evil" by accusing them of something they're not...

And by the way, not all muslims are "proletarian".

other than, of course, showing that you are comfortable with your self-righteousness and total dissociation from the everyday social realities of alot of working class people.

Of course, it's very likely than many aspects of Islam are extremely reactionary, and you seem to suggest we have to "accept" them in order to "appeal" to them. You'd make a nice politician.

Spirit of Spartacus
Those leftists who "hate Muslims" claim that they "hate Christians" equally. So one wonders who exactly they stand for as revolutionary leftists. Atheistic alien workers from Mars, perhaps?

Most people won't just claim they "hate Muslims" or "hate Christians" because they will eventually realize that only certain people who accept certain ideas this religions promote are to be "hated", while the others can as well become their friends as long as they try to avoid the topic (which is hard with the Kent Hovind fans of this world).

By the way, there are atheists in the working class, and the other classes include Christians and Muslims, and working class members can be atheists AND fight against capitalism because it's in their material self-interest, without necessarilly giving a fuck about which superstitions the rest of the working class falls for.

Also, if most of the working class was "racist", would you say we all have to tolerate "racists" just because it's what's "popular" amongst the working class heroes? If most of the working class couldn't afford eating meat, would eating meat be "wrong"? Or that if proletarian liked stupid TV shows that the bourgeois media airs to idiotize them, hating them for being stupid TV shows that idiotize them is "sinful"? And maybe if the proletariate in certain country is well known for believing that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Darwin was an evil liar (as well as his evil scientific cronies) then a communist defending evolutionary theory is an evilutionist infidel who betrayed the working class's ignorance and therefore doesn't represent them or shouldn't fight to replace an economic system that exploits them?

EwokUtopia

2nd April 2007, 05:46

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 01, 2007 08:35 pm
If my post isn't "great" it is because this topic is worthless and so is your lame opinion on this issue. You're wrong, get over it.

Love the absolutism...

Nobody is trying to impose "I hate muslims" as some kind of "Communist Commandment"

Yeah your right, besides, the neoconservatives already called that commandment anyway.

And by the way, not all muslims are "proletarian".

Clever person you are. Not all Proletarians are radical atheists like most people here, indeed that would make up the minority of proletarians. And yet, they arent for the most part bad people... could this possibly mean that simply calling a religious person a reactionary fuck off hand is possibly an immature and ignorant approach?

many aspects of Islam are extremely reactionary

Now your making the assumption that Islam is one unified, solidary, unchanging "thing" and that it is largely reactionary. Islam is a non-clergical religion, and clergy is one of the most highly reactionary aspects of religion. What this means is that interperetation of the religion is left to the adherants to do. Some adherants are reactionary conservative fucks, some of them are bullies as well, and this combined with lack of stability due to western imperialism leads to modern Islamic fundamentalism.

But somehow I dont think the best way to tackle this incredibly complex issue is to off bat hate muslims. Hell, that would fuel it.

you seem to suggest we have to "accept" them in order to "appeal" to them. You'd make a nice politician.

What aspects of Islam are you talking about? If it is voluntary aspects (It is against Islam, for instance, to force women into Hijab...that is their choice) then your god damned right I will accept them. If a woman chooses to wear a veil, that is her right and you have no business trying to deny her those liberties. If she is forced into the hijab, then we must bring an end to the coersion, but as I said, it is against Islam to force people into Hijab. Let the Muslims establish independant communes in a socialist world, where they can practise their ways, but let whoever doesnt accept Islam freely leave to non-Muslim communes. If we are to impliment socialism, this is the only way to do this, we can not erradicate Islam, and doing so would not be justified, because it would entail killing millions of people, and forcing millions more to abandon their beliefs.

That is authoritarian bullshit, and if that is your revolution, you can count me as a reactionary.

Religion will die a natural death with human progression. Attempting to kill it would only result in the suffering of many people. If it is the opiate of the masses, then dont fuck with it so blatantly, unless you think taking opium away from an addict is a happy-go-lucky ordeal.

Vargha Poralli

2nd April 2007, 09:53

If my post isn't "great" it is because this topic is worthless and so is your lame opinion on this issue. You're wrong, get over it.

Then no body has forced to post here. If this topic is worthless then go away don't troll.

And by the way, not all muslims are "proletarian".

By the same way not all atheists are proletarians. So you should add atheists to your hate-list.

Of course, it's very likely than many aspects of Islam are extremely reactionary, and you seem to suggest we have to "accept" them in order to "appeal" to them.

Yeah you are a Master in Quran and all Hadiths(mulitple they are and one is much differnt from other) isn't it. And nobody is saying that we have to accept the reactionay aspects of some Muslims. So you better shut up.

I need not address your the rest of your post as they are really stupid and doesn't worth refuting.

Sentinel

2nd April 2007, 11:51

It's not a very smart approach to take, saying that one 'hates muslims' -- they are the victims of a hoax to enslave them. But it's both perfectly logical and I'd say a damned prequisite for being a communist to hate Islam, fight it as an organised religion, as well as propagandise to liberate the minds of those subject to it's 'spell'.

Muslim workers need the solidarity and support, not the hate, of atheist communists in order to conquer the mind epidemic that limits their ability to control their lives in order to be capable of building a true communist society in the future. But the muslim clergy and the organised religion of Islam deserve our 'righteous wrath' as they'd propably put it. :D

And one thing is certain; we must never start apologising for oppression conducted in the name of religion in the name of 'defending culture', that kind of thing is nothing short of selling out as a communist. If pointing out the truth and fighting oppression gets us enemies and makes us unpopular in some circles, so be it.

Needless to say, what I've said applies for all religions and not only Islam. Secularisation and atheism are 'on the march' globally and will eventually conquer superstition. Who wants to then be remembered as one of those who apologised for that crap and compromised the values of equality? I wouldn't want to!

Our most important duty is to always tell the truth, and fight for the truth!

Hiero

2nd April 2007, 15:19

fight it as an organised religion, as well as propagandise to liberate the minds of those subject to it's 'spell'.

Is this necessary or possible at this time? I would say no. There are more important things to put our energy to. It is not possible or important to fight Islam at the momement.

In the first world countries "Muslims" are retreating backwards to Islam in face of persecution from Western chauvinism. Islam is a source of resistance to state persecution and white community chauvinism. It acts as symbol of unity for certain Arab, African and Asian communities. The attackss on Islam in the 1st world actually push people towards Islam as they are seen as a surrounded and ambushed group of people. There is no reason to believe that our materialist attacks on Islam will be liberating, in fact it will have similar affects.

In the case of the 3rd world, what is important now is imperialism. In this case Islam acts as a symbol of unity and an act of resistance to imperialism. Our effort should be towards raising mass demonstration for the withdrawal of imperialist forces in the 3rd world. Attacks on Islam in places like Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq looks very similar to imperialists attacks on these countries.

Islam will dissapear when the material conditions are ripe for it, and it will by the hands of Muslims.

However, don't attack me with claims of being a "Muslim apologist". We should not withdraw our materialist stance, we should not allow religious people to sit in high positions of Communist and other Marxists parties, in anti-war or anti-racism coalitions this shouldn't be a problem. We should always act as communists, that means being materialists and anti-theist. However going out and attacking Islam in todays world is anti-communist, anti-materialists and can only be unproductive and harmful.

Sentinel

2nd April 2007, 18:10

Hiero, I see your point of view and agree on many occasions. My own stance on this is as follows:

While I think that we at the moment shouldn't fight 'secular' muslim anti-imperialist organisations at all, but rather support them in many of their actions, I do remain convinced that we shouldn't align ourselves with clerical fascists such as the Iranian government and clergy, or support any organisations striving to establish a theocracy.

I would never do that, such a society is by many definitions much worse to live in than a secular capitalist one. But what I think we should do no matter whatever the circumstances so to speak, no matter who commits them, is to always explicitly and publicly protest any atrocity performed in the name of religion and do whatever lies in our power to hinder such from happening.

And I think we should propagandise against religion always.

Islam will dissapear when the material conditions are ripe for it, and it will by the hands of Muslims.

Sure, that is inevitable, but in order for the new conditions to appear there must be a revolution by a conscious working class. I'm utterly pessimistic about the chances of success for revolutions which are led by 'enlightened vanguards' while the proletariat remains superstitious. So I'd say a majority of the workers ought to be atheist in order to have a chance of creating a society where religion can fade away completely -- a communist society.

However, don't attack me with claims of being a "Muslim apologist". We should not withdraw our materialist stance, we should not allow religious people to sit in high positions of Communist and other Marxists parties, in anti-war or anti-racism coalitions this shouldn't be a problem. We should always act as communists, that means being materialists and anti-theist.

This quote makes me think we stand eye to eye on this more than it would sometimes seem (except that I don't put much hope on parties as I'm for syndicalist-federative workers organisation).

However going out and attacking Islam in todays world is anti-communist, anti-materialists and can only be unproductive and harmful.

Depends on the nature of those attacks if you ask me. Basically, I think we today should 'attack' the more 'secular' and non-dogmatic forms of Islam by criticism and islamofascism by condemnation.

EwokUtopia

2nd April 2007, 18:34

Islam isnt really even that organized of a religion. It has no central organization like most Christian sects do, and interperetation of the Koran is left to any Muslim to do, but what happens is you have Islamic Scholars who spend their lives reading the Koran (that could mess with your mind real bad, just imagine a communist scholar who has read the communist manifesto every day since they were 3...theyd be fucked up) and therefore act like they have authority over the religion. They dont shave because the Prophet had a beard, and they try to interperet this as saying all men had a beard, when it says nothing of the sort.

The most reactionary aspects of Islam are put in there by false interperetations.

Spike

22nd April 2007, 12:51

Of course it's racism. You would find that Islam is inseparable from Arabian culture. Anti-Islam in some contexts is also anti-proletarian and pro-imperialist. To be an anti-Muslim in Philippines, Thailand, or Lebanon is to be a fascist, chauvinist, bourgeois pig.

Black Dagger

22nd April 2007, 12:57

Originally posted by Spike+--> (Spike)Islam is inseparable from Arabian culture.[/b]

How so?

Arabian cultures predates Islam by centuries.

Not to mention the fact that Islam has now spread from the Arabian peninsula across the entire planet; its not an exclusively Arabic religio anymore and hasnt been for centuries.

Originally posted by [email protected]

Anti-Islam in some contexts is also anti-proletarian and pro-imperialist.

Which contexts are these?

Spike

To be an anti-Muslim in Philippines, Thailand, or Lebanon is to be a fascist, chauvinist, bourgeois pig.

By 'anti-muslim' to mean anti-Islam or anti-anyone who is muslim - those are two very different things.

Otherwise you're delcaring any lebanese/thai/etc. anti-theist a 'fascist pig', strange considering the links between anti-theism, atheism and the communist movement.

Spike

22nd April 2007, 13:23

Otherwise you're delcaring any lebanese/thai/etc. anti-theist a 'fascist pig'
No. My comments were directed towards such forces like Phalange and those regimes in Thailand and Philippines which persecute Muslims.

strange considering the links between anti-theism, atheism and the communist movement.
No communist is specifically anti-Islam.

its not an exclusively Arabic religio anymore and hasnt been for centuries.
Yet Islam spread largely due to Arabian expansion.

Black Dagger

22nd April 2007, 13:27

Originally posted by Spike
No communist is specifically anti-Islam.

Of course there are, there are plenty of communists on this board even who are anti-islam, as well as anti-christian etc. And its' hardly suprising on a board and in a movement which has its roots in materialism.

Spike

22nd April 2007, 13:31

Of course there are, there are plenty of communists on this board even who are anti-islam, as well as anti-christian etc
What I mean is that communists tend to be opposed to all religion rather than just a particular religious group.

Vargha Poralli

22nd April 2007, 13:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:53 pm

Otherwise you're delcaring any lebanese/thai/etc. anti-theist a 'fascist pig'
No. My comments were directed towards such forces like Phalange and those regimes in Thailand and Philippines which persecute Muslims.

strange considering the links between anti-theism, atheism and the communist movement.
No communist is specifically anti-Islam.

Of course there are, there are plenty of communists on this board even who are anti-islam, as well as anti-christian etc. It's hardly a rarity in a place and a movement which has its roots in materialism.

Anti-Islam is just a part of another religion called militant atheism which hates all religions equally.

Some anti Muslims of this boards hides their bigotry behind this religious atheism.

Anti-Islam in some contexts is also anti-proletarian and pro-imperialist.

But there are Muslims who are not proletarians and some muslims who are actually exploiting both Muslim and Non-Muslim proletarian.

Religion and Class are two different things. Better some "Communists" learn the difference between the two.

Black Dagger

22nd April 2007, 13:38

Originally posted by Spike
Yet Islam spread largely due to Arabian expansion.

Well into the areas dominated by the Arabs yeah - the various caliphates etc. but Islam was not spread into south Asia, the americas, or large parts of europe by Arabian swords.

But this is really beside the point, Islam and 'Arabian culture' are not inseperable, that denies the existance of pre-Islamic Arabic cultures and of course, the continued existant of non-Islamic cultures and cultural forms in the peninsula.

Orange Juche

26th April 2007, 01:25

I don't hate Muslims, I just hate Islam. Big difference.

the-red-under-the-bed

3rd May 2007, 15:56

i dont think hate of any kind if good.... to be honest.

Even Nazis, I dispse their ideas, im appauled by their actions, im frustrated by their logic but i do not hate them as a person. On the inside, they are just a lost little prolly thats full of hate themselves.

as che said:
The true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. - Ernesto "Che" Guevara

socialistsoldier51

23rd May 2007, 21:15

it makes me sad to see people discriminating against a religion or race. and when will ignorant americans get 9/11 was OUR fault. because of our intolerance of muslim religion, we built airbases on thier holy land, when they warned us not to. hate only breeds more hate

RevMARKSman

23rd May 2007, 21:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:15 pm
it makes me sad to see people discriminating against a religion or race. and when will ignorant americans get 9/11 was OUR fault. because of our intolerance of muslim religion, we built airbases on thier holy land, when they warned us not to. hate only breeds more hate
It was Osama bin Laden's great-great-great-grandfather's fault, because if he hadn't had a kid, Osama bin Laden would never have been born, and then none of this would have happened...! If we had only warned him...!

:rolleyes:

Fawkes

23rd May 2007, 21:36

Can we please not revive this thread?

Spike

23rd May 2007, 23:03

The only race is the human race.
False. The contemporary world population falls into three distinct, basic racial groups: the Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid races. The races are intraspecific, taxonomic categories in a state dynamic equilibrium: that is, although they vary in space and time in their interaction with the environment, they possess a certain genetically determined stability.

However, the unlimited possibilities of mixing among the races and the complete biological and sociocultural integrity of mixed groups provide powerful proof of the unity of man as a species and the groundless of racism. But that is not say that race does not exist. The data of anthropology and other sciences prove that all the races are descended from one species of fossil hominid

ComradeRed

23rd May 2007, 23:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:03 pm

The only race is the human race.
False. The contemporary world population falls into three distinct, basic racial groups: the Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid races.
Source?

Fawkes

23rd May 2007, 23:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:03 pm

The only race is the human race.
False. The contemporary world population falls into three distinct, basic racial groups: the Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid races. The races are intraspecific, taxonomic categories in a state dynamic equilibrium: that is, although they vary in space and time in their interaction with the environment, they possess a certain genetically determined stability.

However, the unlimited possibilities of mixing among the races and the complete biological and sociocultural integrity of mixed groups provide powerful proof of the unity of man as a species and the groundless of racism. But that is not say that race does not exist. The data of anthropology and other sciences prove that all the races are descended from one species of fossil hominid
All the scientific reports and experiments I have viewed have stated otherwise. Would you please---as ComradeRed asked---provide a source (preferably multiple ones) for your claims?

Spike

24th May 2007, 00:49

Coon, L.S., and E.E. Hunt. The Living Races of Man. New York. 1965
Schwidetzky, I. Die Neye Rassenkunde. Stuttgart, 1962
Zubov, A.A. Etnicheskaia odontologiia. Moscow, 1973
Alekssev, V.P. Geografiia chlovecheskikh ras. Moscow, 1974
Cheboksarov, N.N., and I.A. Cheboksarova. Narody, rasy, kul'tury. Moscow, 1971
Nestrukh, M.F. Chelovecheskie rasy. Moscow, 1965
Roginskii, I.A. and M.G Levin, Antropologiia. Moscow, 1963

Fodman

24th May 2007, 01:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:03 pm

The only race is the human race.
False. The contemporary world population falls into three distinct, basic racial groups: the Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid races.
yeh, but i'd always wondered where Middle Eastern people come into it?

ComradeRed

24th May 2007, 01:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:49 pm
Coon, L.S., and E.E. Hunt. The Living Races of Man. New York. 1965
Schwidetzky, I. Die Neye Rassenkunde. Stuttgart, 1962
Zubov, A.A. Etnicheskaia odontologiia. Moscow, 1973
Alekssev, V.P. Geografiia chlovecheskikh ras. Moscow, 1974
Cheboksarov, N.N., and I.A. Cheboksarova. Narody, rasy, kul'tury. Moscow, 1971
Nestrukh, M.F. Chelovecheskie rasy. Moscow, 1965
Roginskii, I.A. and M.G Levin, Antropologiia. Moscow, 1963
Good thing that you didn't cite any modern sources, you might have actually learned that the old "caucausoid-mongoloid-negroid" theory has long since been debunked.

All these papers were written over 30 years ago(!). A lot has changed since then.

A few papers for you to read:
Ian F. Haney Lopez, "The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice", 29 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1-62, 6-7, 11-17 (Winter, 1994).

Shomarka O.Y. Keita, 1993. "The Subspecies Concept in Zoology and Anthropology. A brief Historical Review and Test of a Classification Scheme," _Journal of Black Studies_, 23 (#3): 416 445.This is an Afrocentric journal edited by Molefi Asante. Keita is a distinguished physical anthropologist teaching at Howard University.

Joseph L. Graves, 1993. "Evolutionary Biology and Human Variation. biological Determinism and the Mythology of Race," Sage Race Relations Abstracts 18 (#3): 4-34. Graves is one of 4 African American molecular biologists and teaches at Arizona State University West.

Jonathan Marks, 1994. "Black, White, Other," Natural History December: 32-35. Marks is a physical anthropologist at Yale and this is a popular version of his recent book on the topic.

C. Loring Brace, 1995. "Region Does not Mean "Race"--Reality Versus Convention in Forensic Anthropology," Journal of Forensic Sciences 40 (#2): 29-33. Brace is one of the foremost physical anthropologists in the world and teaches at the University of Michigan. He and his students have a chapter in the Revisiting Black Athena book.

Frank b. Livingstone, 1964. "On the Nonexistence of Human Races," in A. Montague, ed., The Concept of Race Free Press, pp 46-60. Reprinted by the feminist post-modern philosopher Sandra Harding in The Racial Economy of Science Indiana Univ. Press 1993.

Jared Diamond, 1994. "Race Without Color" Discover November: 83 89.

socialistsoldier51

24th May 2007, 03:12

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+May 23, 2007 08:28 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ May 23, 2007 08:28 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 03:15 pm
it makes me sad to see people discriminating against a religion or race. and when will ignorant americans get 9/11 was OUR fault. because of our intolerance of muslim religion, we built airbases on thier holy land, when they warned us not to. hate only breeds more hate
It was Osama bin Laden's great-great-great-grandfather's fault, because if he hadn't had a kid, Osama bin Laden would never have been born, and then none of this would have happened...! If we had only warned him...!

:rolleyes: [/b]
lol

Spike

24th May 2007, 03:26

A lot has changed since then
In terms of what?

ComradeRed

24th May 2007, 04:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 06:26 pm

A lot has changed since then
In terms of what?
In terms of the validity of your antiquated theory.

apathy maybe

24th May 2007, 08:17

Spike, please don't be so fucking stupid. There is less genetic variation between a human and a chimpanzee then there is between two breeds of dogs (being sure to pick two that actually have this genetic variation), and you claim that that humans are comprised of three "races"?

OK, even if your claim was credible, (that there are three races, Negroid, Europeoid, and Mongoloid), where do Native Americans come into it (south and north), Mongoloid? Where do Australian Aboriginal people (and other peoples from Papua New Guinea) fit (no it isn't "Negroid"...)? Where do other Micronesian and Polynesian peoples come into it?

Spike

25th May 2007, 03:46

Spike, please don't be so fucking stupid.
I'm going by what I read in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia.

ComradeRed

25th May 2007, 04:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:46 pm

Spike, please don't be so fucking stupid.
I'm going by what I read in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia.
Thank goodness you've finally stopped thinking for yourself! :lol:

Seriously, the Soviet Encyclopedia is not the source of all truth and knowledge, don't treat it as such; it's an antiquated piece that should be treated as such.

But seriously, good job on your critical thinking skills. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist "I'm going by what I read in the Bible" Oh well, you couldn't possibly be wrong then! :lol: :lol: :lol:

union6

13th June 2007, 17:32

I hate the Muslim religion not the people as they have only been blinded into following it.

RedStarOverChina

13th June 2007, 17:41

I pretty much don't like anyone religious.

I absolutely [/b]resent[/b] the Chinese Buddhists, Christians and Falungong practioners...Am I racist against "my own race"???

Not if ask me. Hating religious Jew, religious Muslims and religious Chinese is not the same as hating them as "ethnicity groups".

Black Dagger

13th June 2007, 17:48

What's the utility of 'hating' someone simply because they have some kind of religious or spiritual belief?

RedStarOverChina

13th June 2007, 18:07

Because they are our enemies so long as they stay religious, of course.

Don't even bother denying that.

Black Dagger

13th June 2007, 18:08

So anyone who holds a religious or spiritual belief is your enemy?

RedStarOverChina

13th June 2007, 18:09

Not always on a personal level...But on a political level, yes, they are always reactionary.

aminkibata

15th June 2007, 06:52

i hate racist,seriously!!this is because many f those are sensitive in this topic.
can we just understanding each other.make it through a peaceful way in..

ComradeRed

15th June 2007, 07:00

When did "muslim" become a race? :huh:

LuÃs Henrique

15th June 2007, 13:20

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 24, 2007 07:17 am
There is less genetic variation between a human and a chimpanzee then there is between two breeds of dogs
As far as I know, chimpanzees have 48 chromossomes, while humans have 46. And I don't know how many chromossomes dogs have, but I am pretty sure that all breeds have exactly the same number (this being one of the reasons you can expect viable offspring of the crossing of any two of those breeds).

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th June 2007, 13:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:22 am
yeh, but i'd always wondered where Middle Eastern people come into it?
To the extent that the Negroid/Mongoloid/Caucasoid classification is to be used (and it is outdated), Middle Eastern people are caucasoid, just like Swedes.

Luís Henriqe

BobKKKindle$

15th June 2007, 14:05

Not always on a personal level...But on a political level, yes, they are always reactionary.

Because they are our enemies so long as they stay religious, of course

I agree with bleeding gums malatesta's position. Even if you find the religion itself reactionary - something that I am sure many Socialists would agree with - that is not a sufficient basis for hating muslims as a social and ethnic group.

Believing in a religion is, for many people, not a conscious decision, but instead something they do due to factors beyond their control and to which they cannot be held accountable, most notably the actions and teachings of their parents during childhood, and as such, 'hating' muslims or anyother religious group is profoundly illogical and unfair. This is something that Lefists often fail to recognize. Taking such a simplistic position is actually counter-productive if applied as praxis - it leads to the alientation of muslim communities.

Comrade J

15th June 2007, 15:22

Ah great, this thread is back <_<

Another re-run of people grouping all muslims into one ethnic group or "race", despite the fact that muslims exist all across the world, and then accuse other people of being racist! Fucking hypocrisy at it's best. :rolleyes:

Vargha Poralli

15th June 2007, 16:05

Originally posted by "Comrade J"
Another re-run of people grouping all muslims into one ethnic group or "race", despite the fact that muslims exist all across the world, and then accuse other people of being racist! Fucking hypocrisy at it's best.

The point is not grouping all muslims in to one ethnic group.

We are just expanding thenotion of racism. Which many people exhibit without knowing it.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 16:20

Comrades might like to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IZWkEsFCrQ...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IZWkEsFCrQ&mode=related&search=)

Connolly

15th June 2007, 16:50

Comrades might like to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IZWkEsFCrQ...related&search=

Fantastic video! Excellent. Thanks for posting :D

BobKKKindle$

15th June 2007, 17:01

Interesting video. I think Galloway's point about the position that many 'Liberals' take was somewhat valid and reminds me of a recent thread on Revleft in which the topic of multi-culturalism and the concept of a 'superior' culture was discussed - I would agree that no Socialist should try to impose a particular standard of behaviour and appearence on Muslim Women - many women choose to wear the Hijab and are not subject to coercion and assault if they don't.

I find it absurd that Socialists defend access to abortion, yet at the same time suggest women only wear the Hijab because they are forced to do so by the muslim community - both of these issues involve the ability of the individual to make their own choices without being subject to the views and decisions of others and we should maintain an ethically consistent position. Socialists who think that their knowledge and political consciousness gives them the ability to prescribe lifestyle choices are hypocritical.

Does anyone here oppose the 'right' to wear the Hijab or believe that the Hijab is reactionary?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 17:29

BK, I think one or two comrades respond to this emotionally rather than politically.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 19:54

Check this out too (John Rees):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6csSzzRpdI

There's a longer and better version of the Galloway speech here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB66wXe1xY...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB66wXe1xY&mode=related&search=)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB66wXe1xY...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnB66wXe1xY&mode=related&search=)

Jazzratt

15th June 2007, 21:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:05 pm
We are just expanding thenotion of racism. Which many people exhibit without knowing it.
Ah, so you're moving the goalposts in order to make more people seem racist.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 21:45

Jazz, the 'goal posts' have been moved by forces not of the left; we should not be joining in with this, adopting their ideology.

'Race' was invented quite recently (it is not a 'god-given' concept), for a specific purpose (of which I am sure you are aware), and is being re-invented and re-defined all the time (and not by us, once more) -- and (coincidentally!!) just in time for the latest round of imperial aggression.

Surely you have spotted the link here???

Is it just a 'coincidence' that anti-muslim fervour is being whipped up by the capitalist press when the US is trying to win control of the oil in the M East?

It helps (them), of course, if some of us join in!

Black Cross

15th June 2007, 22:18

Is it just a 'coincidence' that anti-muslim fervour is being whipped up by the capitalist press when the US is trying to win control of the oil in the M East?

Of course this is propaganda from our corrupt government, but it's not racism that they are creating. They just want people to discriminate against this certain religion. Either way, though, it furthers their cause, since either way it creates a hatred for muslims, and their religion.

Rosa, have you read the Koran? There are some very disturbing passages in it about killing all infidels and such. This is a religion based off of what you refer to as "racism" (this discrimination against another religion. That religion being christianity). So who's to say which side we should, or should not take? I'm not saying I would ever take america's side in this war, but the opposing view isn't with much more honor.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 22:27

MR:

Rosa, have you read the Koran? There are some very disturbing passages in it about killing all infidels and such. This is a religion based off of what you refer to as "racism" (this discrimination against another religion. That religion being christianity). So who's to say which side we should, or should not take? I'm not saying I would ever take america's side in this war, but the opposing view isn't with much more honor.

Some nasty stuff in the Bible too. And some very high-minded stuff ('Love your enemies', etc.). I am sure the same is the case with the Koran.

I would need to see which passages you are referring to, and in what context they appear.

Race is a recently invented term, but systematic discrimination in any form (whatever word you use for it) has to be resisted by the left -- or we play ino the hands of the ruling-class.

Jazzratt

15th June 2007, 22:33

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15, 2007 08:45 pm
Jazz, the 'goal posts' have been moved by forces not of the left; we should not be joining in with this, adopting their ideology.
Right.

'Race' was invented quite recently (it is not a 'god-given' concept),

Well, fairly recently yes.

and is being re-invented and re-defined all the time (and not by us, once more) -- and (coincidentally!!) just in time for the latest round of imperial aggression.

I don't think the imperialists have quite gone as far as to call muslims a race, they have implied (of course) that Islamic culture is inferior to Western culture and so on but they tend to keep their definitions of "race" to what people can see, it makes things a lot easier on them. It's much easier to whip someone up about "them dirty brown skinned a-rabs" or "tha pakis" than about "those people that could be asain, arabic or even european".

Is it just a 'coincidence' that anti-muslim fervour is being whipped up by the capitalist press when the US is trying to win control of the oil in the M East?

That's as may be but it doesn't make it racist which is what this debate is about.

It helps (them), of course, if some of us join in!

I think in this case it is best to be friend to neither side - the imperialistic west is clearly not our ally but I think we should definitely think before cuddling up with Islamists.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th June 2007, 22:44

Jazzy:

I don't think the imperialists have quite gone as far as to call muslims a race, they have implied (of course) that Islamic culture is inferior to Western culture and so on but they tend to keep their definitions of "race" to what people can see, it makes things a lot easier on them. It's much easier to whip someone up about "them dirty brown skinned a-rabs" or "tha pakis" than about "those people that could be asain, arabic or even european".

You are right, and can you see why??

It would alienate the soft/lefty liberals they rely on to sell their wars to the rest of us

That's as may be but it doesn't make it racist which is what this debate is about.

Well, if it walks like a duck, has a beak, quacks and floats on water....

So long as it splits the left, they win....

I think in this case it is best to be friend to neither side - the imperialistic west is clearly not our ally but I think we should definitely think before cuddling up with Islamists.

No one is suggesting 'cuddling' up to anyone, but you have to assess where the greatest danger is, and see the anti-muslim propaganda for what it is.

[For example, if my people, the Jews, had fought back against Hitler in say 1938/39, where would your support have lain?? Would you have banged in about 'Talmudists'???]

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th June 2007, 03:56

[For example, if my people, the Jews, had fought back against Hitler in say 1938/39, where would your support have lain?? Would you have banged in about 'Talmudists'???]

Are you in all seriousness implying that terrorist acts committed by Islamists (9/11, the London and Madrid bombings) are acts of self defense? If so, that is a monstrous proposition. The only acceptable actions are direct attacks on instruments of imperial aggression, like what goes on in Iraq constantly.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, excuses direct attacks on civilians.

BobKKKindle$

16th June 2007, 04:34

Are you in all seriousness implying that terrorist acts committed by Islamists (9/11, the London and Madrid bombings) are acts of self defense? If so, that is a monstrous proposition. The only acceptable actions are direct attacks on instruments of imperial aggression, like what goes on in Iraq constantly.

In a way, the governments of western countries are responsible for creating and encouraging the development of Islamic terrorism through their continued intervention in middle-eastern political events, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and support for corrupt political leaders such as Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The export of western cultural values with no regard for islamic morality - however repressive this may be - is an additional factor in creating anger and militancy. So yes, in a way they were acts of self-defence and I do sympathise with terrorists to an extent, because I can see why they have chosen to conduct terrorist attacks.

The civilians who were killed in the events that you note may not have have been responsible for their governments' actions, but it could be argued that attacking civilians is the only way in which these groups are able to express their political objectives. I would not make such a clear (moral) distinction between 'instruments of imperial aggression' and civilians - although this has been discussed at length in other threads, soliders are simply a sub-set of the proletariat as a whole, and although some may join the army with the explicit aim of furthering the country's imperialist ambitions, others may do so because no other form of viable employment is actually avaliable. That is a seperate debate however.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, excuses direct attacks on civilians.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the RAF.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th June 2007, 05:11

In a way, the governments of western countries are responsible for creating and encouraging the development of Islamic terrorism through their continued intervention in middle-eastern political events, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and support for corrupt political leaders such as Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The export of western cultural values with no regard for islamic morality - however repressive this may be - is an additional factor in creating anger and militancy. So yes, in a way they were acts of self-defence and I do sympathise with terrorists to an extent, because I can see why they have chosen to conduct terrorist attacks.

Targeting civilians in terrorist acts is never self-defense - all that such terrorism achieves is a frightened populace more willing to accept repressive legislation and more adventurous imperial moves. Direct attacks on government and military targets, which the Islamists are perfectly capable of (Pentagon, USS Cole(?).) are both more likely to achieve practical real-world results and less likely to turn the civilian populace against you.

The civilians who were killed in the events that you note may not have have been responsible for their governments' actions, but it could be argued that attacking civilians is the only way in which these groups are able to express their political objectives. I would not make such a clear (moral) distinction between 'instruments of imperial aggression' and civilians - although this has been discussed at length in other threads, soliders are simply a sub-set of the proletariat as a whole, and although some may join the army with the explicit aim of furthering the country's imperialist ambitions, others may do so because no other form of viable employment is actually avaliable. That is a seperate debate however.

Regardless of what individual reason soldiers may sign up to join the armed forces, they all swear the same oath that serves to further imperial interests by enforcing collective obedience on the armed forces.

A civilian is a completely different beast - they have no express loyalties to the state in which they reside. By striking out at civilians in terrorist attacks you are in effect saying "I don't care about your opinions or your life, I'm going to hurt and maim and kill you even if you don't like what your government is doing, because I'm too chicken-shit to attack those who are actually hurting me".

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the RAF.

I don't know enough about them to form an reasonable opinion.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2007, 07:48

Noxion:

Are you in all seriousness implying that terrorist acts committed by Islamists (9/11, the London and Madrid bombings) are acts of self defense? If so, that is a monstrous proposition. The only acceptable actions are direct attacks on instruments of imperial aggression, like what goes on in Iraq constantly.

Noxion, I would hope that you know me well enough by now to know that that is not what I was referring to.

I am surprised (and disappointed) that you drew that inference.

The US's own figures show that the vast majority of attacks in Iraq are aimed at the 'security forces', and it is these I was referring to.

Nothing excuses attacks on civilians.

So, my challenge to anyone who raises 'religious' issues in such circumstances is: would you have made these a condition for supporting/not supporting the fight of Jews (say in the Warsaw ghetto) against the Nazis??

Would any of you have banged on about 'Talmudists'??

bloody_capitalist_sham

16th June 2007, 11:10

If you call yourself a Marxist or a 'class war' anarchist and you defend workers except for Muslim workers then you are an opportunist. <_<

Vargha Poralli

16th June 2007, 11:42

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 16, 2007 01:48 am--> (Jazzratt @ June 16, 2007 01:48 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 03:05 pm
We are just expanding thenotion of racism. Which many people exhibit without knowing it.
Ah, so you're moving the goalposts in order to make more people seem racist.[/b]
No I am not doing it.

My point is Muslim Brotherhood,Al Quaeda and Taliban are not representatives of Muslims and their actions do not represent the Islam on the whole.

But many members here are ignorant of that which I understand because of the lack of information.

As portrayed by the western media Islam was not spread by the point of sword alone. A good example is the country where I live. It has been under the rule of Delhi Sultans,Mughals and Deccan sultanate for almost 6 centuries before the East India Company's rule but still the majority of the population are Hindus.

The problem of today's Islamic Fundamentalism is manifested in the Social and Economic circumstances Muslims live in not because of the religious faith they follow.

Many self proclaimed Communists do not understand this fact. Hence the existence of this thread.

luxemburg89

16th June 2007, 13:55

Are you in all seriousness implying that terrorist acts committed by Islamists (9/11, the London and Madrid bombings) are acts of self defense?

Well I think here we have to bring in the distinction between Islamists and Islamist extremists. Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence. These extremists are killing in the name of Islam but are very poor ambassadors for the whole of the religion. Equally there are some christians who extend the hand of friendship to Muslims but, especially from experience, they are in the minority. Just to be clear though, I am against religion in all forms, but the people themselves, well I get on with quite a few...I'd just get on with them even better if they weren't religious.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2007, 14:13

L89, most of us feel the same way, I suspect, but unless we find some way to work with those who have religious illusions (which must take in 80% of the planet), we can kiss socialism goodbye!

And then, once you agree that alineation (loss of power and control) underpins such beliefs, you can also see that when it has been won, a workers' state will induce the (voluntary) collapse of religion.

But even if it does not, we will get nowhere simply attacking ordinary religious believers, just because we allow our hatred of superstition and servility to dominate good sense.

luxemburg89

16th June 2007, 14:20

Rosa: Yeah you're right. As Bolshevik_Butcher was saying on Live chat last night a lot of the working-class are religious. I think, certainly having thought about this most of today, that is best to try and destroy religion in the working-class post-revolution than pre-revolution. For the obvious reasons that it might lead to alienation before they have completed their revolution.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2007, 14:36

It's certainly how Lenin saw things!

Black Dagger

16th June 2007, 14:51

Why is Lenin an authority on such matters?

Vargha Poralli

16th June 2007, 16:20

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+June 16, 2007 07:21 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ June 16, 2007 07:21 pm)Why is Lenin an authority on such matters?[/b]

Because of his correct position historically !

Lenin

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.[1]

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an “intellectual” question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various “Christians”. But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)

The party under leadership of Lenin was successful in leading a revolution of workers and peasants of different religions and nationalities.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th June 2007, 17:15

BGM:

Why is Lenin an authority on such matters?

Probably because he riles you anti-Leninists. :P

G-Ram, thanks for the quote; I was trying to find it myself!!

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th June 2007, 03:19

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)So, my challenge to anyone who raises 'religious' issues in such circumstances is: would you have made these a condition for supporting/not supporting the fight of Jews (say in the Warsaw ghetto) against the Nazis?? [/b]

Please show me evidence of concentration camps where Muslims are systematically murdered. :rolleyes: The situations are not even remotely comparable.

No more red herrings, please.

Originally posted by [email protected]
If you call yourself a Marxist or a 'class war' anarchist and you defend workers except for Muslim workers then you are an opportunist. <_<

I don't think anybody here is doing what you think - my personal objection is that Muslim workers shouldn't be elevated in any fashion above other workers, since radical Islamism is an ideology pushed by bourgeois Muslims and clerics. Even if it were a grassroots movement it would still be objectionable because it's goals include some thoroughly reactionary concepts like the enforcement of Sharia Law.

luxemburg89
Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

A cursory examination of the Koran will reveal that to be a lie.

4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.

It would seem that a true Muslim is just the sort who would be carrying out attacks on "infidels".

As for Islam's principal prophet himself, Mohamed, the less said the better. I hardly think a bloodthirsty paedophile is a good role model for anyone.

Rosa: Yeah you're right. As Bolshevik_Butcher was saying on Live chat last night a lot of the working-class are religious.

Most of the working class support a wide variety of other reactionary ideas. Doesn't make it right.

Why are you willing to shatter illusions regarding capitalism but not religion, considering religion originates from an earlier period and is therefore more reactionary than capitalism?

The party under leadership of Lenin was successful in leading a revolution of workers and peasants of different religions and nationalities.

And yet ultimately it succumbed to corruption, cronyism and leader-worship, among other things.

So much for Lenin's "revolution". History has totally discredited him.

Also, LOL @ quoting Lenin. It's remarkably similar to those Christians who think quoting passages from the Bible backs up their statements.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th June 2007, 06:26

Noxion:

Most of the working class support a wide variety of other reactionary ideas. Doesn't make it right.

No one has said it was "right", but you will not change workers by ramming your ideas down their throats. In fact, you will alienate them from anything else you have to say.

They have to change their own ideas, and they will do that through struggle, and as a result of a changed society (see below).

Comparing the incorrect beliefs they hold about capitalism is not valid; workers do not hold incorrect ideas about capitalism because those ideas are a source of consolation (which is why they look to religion as Marx said). Ending the need for consolation is the only thing that will end the need people have for religion.

Please show me evidence of concentration camps where Muslims are systematically murdered. The situations are not even remotely comparable

Why are you deliberately missing the point? Are you telling me you'd be Ok with the Nazis if they had not set up the camps?

Anyway, upwards of 650,000 dead Iraqis...is that not enough for you?

Would you prefer 3+ million dead, as in Vietnam?

In fact, would you have refused to support the Vietnamese in their fight back since many were Buddhists?

Or the fight in Central America against the US because many were Catholics?

You are allowing your emotional reaction to religion to determine your politics. It is stopping you from thinking clearly.

You seem to think that people are religious for rational reasons only, or because of mistaken thinking (which can thus be challenged on a rational basis).

They are not, and it cannot.

Unless we address the causes of religious belief (alienation, and loss of power, consolation, etc.), it will remain.

We all hate religion, and want to see the back of it.

Your way would see the back neither of capitalism nor of religion, since you would shut 80% of humanity off from your message -- they'd just not listen to you.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th June 2007, 06:44

NoXion

I don't think anybody here is doing what you think - my personal objection is that Muslim workers shouldn't be elevated in any fashion above other workers, since radical Islamism is an ideology pushed by bourgeois Muslims and clerics. Even if it were a grassroots movement it would still be objectionable because it's goals include some thoroughly reactionary concepts like the enforcement of Sharia Law.

Class overrides all other things. If Marxists are going to leave Muslim workers to themselves to fight against capitalism then, like any other workers without Marxist support (both ideological, tactical and physical) then they are vulnerable to capitalism.

Like, if you were to walk away from a picket line, because of a large or total Muslim presence then you are turning away from your class and aiding the capitalist class. Its as simple as that.

People who aren't opportunists will stay with them and defend their strike no matter what ideas they have that you don't like. The class struggle is not clear cut or in any sense an ordered or easy thing to take part in. So, please, don't elevate your illusionary and unimportant disputes above the class struggle.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th June 2007, 04:21

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Comparing the incorrect beliefs they hold about capitalism is not valid; workers do not hold incorrect ideas about capitalism because those ideas are a source of consolation (which is why they look to religion as Marx said). Ending the need for consolation is the only thing that will end the need people have for religion.[/b]

Quite apart from the fact that religion is not the only source of false consolation (election promises and the American Dream anyone?), I don't think it's right to console people by lying to them or allowing them to be lied to.

The "consolation" that people really need is the knowledge that they are not truly powerless if they band together in collective bargaining and direct action against the ruling class - the sort of thing that achieves results far more measurable than trying to appease some non-existent entity.

One of the best way to win over the religious is to point out the clergy's lies - point out the absurdities inherent within scripture - and to generally educate, educate, educate. If they are so fundamentalist as to not want to listen to an ounce of reason, then they are generally the sort we don't want as part of a revolutionary movement.

You are allowing your emotional reaction to religion to determine your politics. It is stopping you from thinking clearly.

Says the person throwing around numbers in an effort to prove that an illegal invasion and occupation is the same as a concentration camp. :rolleyes:

Just because I'm saying you can't compare the two doesn't make either of them right, as you seem to be insinuating. That sort of mud-flinging might stick in SWP meetings, but it won't work on me.

Your way would see the back neither of capitalism nor of religion, since you would shut 80% of humanity off from your message -- they'd just not listen to you.

I would take a graduated approach with regard to criticising religion - first start off with the worst excess of religious fundamentalism, then slowly move down the ladder nastiness until the point where most people think abandoning religion is a good idea.

You don't just dive headlong into such things. The reason I don't take the above approach on this forum is because I expect most people to be conscious about the true face of religion to some degree.

bloody_capitalist_sham
Class overrides all other things. If Marxists are going to leave Muslim workers to themselves to fight against capitalism then, like any other workers without Marxist support (both ideological, tactical and physical) then they are vulnerable to capitalism.

I don't think anything I've said suggests leaving Muslim workers to fend for themselves - just that they get no special consideration above other workers simply because of their religion.

Like, if you were to walk away from a picket line, because of a large or total Muslim presence then you are turning away from your class and aiding the capitalist class. Its as simple as that.

Fair enough. But nothing I said suggests the above course of action.

People who aren't opportunists will stay with them and defend their strike no matter what ideas they have that you don't like.

Isn't it more opportunistic to defend religious fundamentalist actions, or strikes motivated by such fundamentalism under the guise of class struggle? Does that sort of thing not, ultimately, water down class struggle to some degree?

The class struggle is not clear cut or in any sense an ordered or easy thing to take part in.

Of course it is. You just have to think, who ultimately benefits from a given action or strike? If the answer is anything but the working class in general, then you're at best wasting your time and at worst supporting your class enemies.

So, please, don't elevate your illusionary and unimportant disputes above the class struggle.

So please, take your arrogant, prolier-than-thou bullfuckery elsewhere.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th June 2007, 11:39

Noxion, get a grip man!!

Just who do you think you are arguing against with this sort of response:

Quite apart from the fact that religion is not the only source of false consolation (election promises and the American Dream anyone?), I don't think it's right to console people by lying to them or allowing them to be lied to.

No one has said it is right to lie to workers, so this reply of yours is beside the point.

And why do you think the things you mentioned (the 'American dream' etc) are all cloathed in religious terms?

This is not a moral isssue (I did say you were allowing emotive issues to cloud your vision; this just confirms it -- as does your resort to abusive language, mainly against BCS, but also against me).

The "consolation" that people really need is the knowledge that they are not truly powerless if they band together in collective bargaining and direct action against the ruling class - the sort of thing that achieves results far more measurable than trying to appease some non-existent entity.

One of the best way to win over the religious is to point out the clergy's lies - point out the absurdities inherent within scripture - and to generally educate, educate, educate. If they are so fundamentalist as to not want to listen to an ounce of reason, then they are generally the sort we don't want as part of a revolutionary movemet.

Formally correct, but irrelevant.

If religion arises out of material conditions (which it does), it can only be killed by altering them. Of course, if you reject Marx's analysis of religion, then the argument must move on to a different plane -- so do you??

If not, and if you think it can be fought at the level of ideas (which it seems you do!), you are an idealist and of no use to the movement.

Says the person throwing around numbers in an effort to prove that an illegal invasion and occupation is the same as a concentration camp.

Well, that would be a good point if I were using this emotively, but I wasn't; it was part of a reductio of your position (i.e., aimed at showing the inconsistencies in your argument) -- and you have signally failed to respond adequately to it.

Just because I'm saying you can't compare the two doesn't make either of them right, as you seem to be insinuating. That sort of mud-flinging might stick in SWP meetings, but it won't work on me.

This is uncalled for. You and I have gotten on well so far, I do hope this sort of below the belt stuff from you does not mean that this has to end!!

I would take a graduated approach with regard to criticising religion - first start off with the worst excess of religious fundamentalism, then slowly move down the ladder nastiness until the point where most people think abandoning religion is a good idea.

As I said, you think this is a battle of ideas -- you are an idealist.

Hiero

18th June 2007, 12:58

As I said, you think this is a battle of ideas -- you are an idealist.

That's excactly right. The anti-Islam crowd are similar to colonialist ideas. They want other people to change from wrong doctrine to right doctrine simply because it suits the left wing. While totally ignoring the material conditions that Islamic people live in or come from in the case of Muslims in the 1st world.

To think people will simply change ideas because you can tell them better is idealist.

Spirit of Spartacus

18th June 2007, 19:16

Well I think here we have to bring in the distinction between Islamists and Islamist extremists.

Definitely.

Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

Actually, no, that's a common mis-translation. "Islam" means "submission", and that is usually taken to mean "submission to the will of God".

These extremists are killing in the name of Islam but are very poor ambassadors for the whole of the religion.

Very true.

Equally there are some christians who extend the hand of friendship to Muslims but, especially from experience, they are in the minority. Just to be clear though, I am against religion in all forms, but the people themselves, well I get on with quite a few...I'd just get on with them even better if they weren't religious.

I think we shouldn't give religion any more importance than it deserves. I consider it strictly a personal matter, and I don't present materialist criticism of religion unless someone specifically starts a debate on religion.

Jazzratt

18th June 2007, 19:38

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 18, 2007 06:16 pm

Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

Actually, no, that's a common mis-translation. "Islam" means "submission", and that is usually taken to mean "submission to the will of God".
Fuck. And people still think we shouldn't oppose that shit? :unsure: and claim to be leftists? :wacko:

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th June 2007, 20:04

Jazzy:

And people still think we shouldn't oppose that shit?

No one has said it should not be challenged, but only an idiot would begin with such a challenge -- since all they'd encounter would be rejection.

We seek common ground, change society, and such mystics will abandon these superstitious ideas of themselves.

We are not idealists -- a change in material conditions must come first!

Vargha Poralli

18th June 2007, 20:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:49 am

The party under leadership of Lenin was successful in leading a revolution of workers and peasants of different religions and nationalities.

And yet ultimately it succumbed to corruption, cronyism and leader-worship, among other things.

Actually this may be taken as yet another key that differentiates Lenin from Stalin.

The problem of degeneration of Russian revolution was not because of Lenin.

So much for Lenin's "revolution". History has totally discredited him.

:rolleyes: Actually that was not "Lenin's Revolution". That was the revolution of Russian Workers and peasants.

And History has always discredited revolutions.

Also, LOL @ quoting Lenin. It's remarkably similar to those Christians who think quoting passages from the Bible backs up their statements.

And great LOL @ smearing Lenin without addressing to the points he raised.

Vargha Poralli

18th June 2007, 20:13

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 19, 2007 12:08 am--> (Jazzratt @ June 19, 2007 12:08 am)
Spirit of [email protected] 18, 2007 06:16 pm

Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

Actually, no, that's a common mis-translation. "Islam" means "submission", and that is usually taken to mean "submission to the will of God".
Fuck. And people still think we shouldn't oppose that shit? :unsure: and claim to be leftists? :wacko: [/b]
You can't sdestroy the religion by Political means. History had shown it in the form of Jacobins and Stalinist policies. We shall destroy it only by liberating religious people from the oppression they are suffering from.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th June 2007, 20:33

G-ram, is this an error??

And History has always discredited revolutions

:o :o :o :o

Vargha Poralli

18th June 2007, 20:43

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 01:03 am
G-ram, is this an error??

And History has always discredited revolutions

:o :o :o :o
Well I was referring to the interpretation of History by the bourgeoisie.

For example the thing most discredited by Historians about the French revolution was the Reign of Terror which was the part carried out by the petty bourgeoisie Jocobins with the support of Toilers.

Bourgeoisie historians always discredit Violence and Revolutions by the underclasses. And Russian Revolution was discredited as whole because of that reason.

luxemburg89

18th June 2007, 23:06

QUOTE
Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

Actually, no, that's a common mis-translation. "Islam" means "submission", and that is usually taken to mean "submission to the will of God".

Oh, well I'm an idiot then lol. Thanks for clearing that up. But that doesn't change my attitude - just makes me a little less ignorant :D

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th June 2007, 23:18

G-ram:

Well I was referring to the interpretation of History by the bourgeoisie.

I thought I must have misunderstood you!!! :)

LuÃs Henrique

19th June 2007, 05:35

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 10:39 am
As I said, you think this is a battle of ideas -- you are an idealist.
I would say even more, like Dupont/d: this kind of revealed, born-again atheism is a religious position. It is not a disbelief in God, but anger that God has betrayed His promises.

People should read Chesterton more.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

19th June 2007, 08:48

LH, you may be right, but we do not know what idiosyncracies of a person's life lead them to atheism.

One thing for sure, if we are materialists we certainly believe that ideas arise (in a complex fashion) from material circumstances, the most important of which are class division and lack of power.

Addressing that is the way to rid this planet of all forms of superstition and irrationality.

Spirit of Spartacus

19th June 2007, 09:46

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 18, 2007 06:38 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 18, 2007 06:38 pm)
Spirit of [email protected] 18, 2007 06:16 pm

Islam mean 'peace' or something similar and true muslims are against all forms of violence.

Actually, no, that's a common mis-translation. "Islam" means "submission", and that is usually taken to mean "submission to the will of God".
Fuck. And people still think we shouldn't oppose that shit? :unsure: and claim to be leftists? :wacko:

[/b]

From a materialist point of view, Islam would be un-scientific regardless of what it means.
If the word "Islam" meant "free love" and Christianity meant "booze", we as communists would find them no more acceptable than we do right now.

The problem is, when you say that you "oppose that shit", what do you mean by it?

Islam is an idea, and like any idea, it is produced, influenced and changed by the material conditions which gave rise to it in the first place.

As Rosa and g.ram explained, the way to liberate Muslims from Islam is not to antagonize them by attacking their beliefs directly, but by liberating them from the material and social conditions which give rise to their beliefs.

Try to put yourself in the position of a Muslim believer from a poverty-stricken slum in Bangladesh, Pakistan or any other Muslim country.

Imagine an educated guy coming to you, known as "Jazzrat" and describing himself as a "communist".

These terms mean nothing to you, the exploited Muslim worker. All your life, you've been brought up to believe that Allah (God) will reward you after you die for the oppression that you endure in this world.

Now, this guy Jazzrat tells you that your beliefs, which you were taught from an early age, are totally bullshit, and that you should rise and overthrow your exploiters and live happily ever after.

Trust me, your reaction as a Muslim worker or peasant will be hostile to Jazzrat, because he's telling you to abandon the only thing that gives you hope in your screwed-up life...i.e. your faith.

If Jazzratt the Communist really desires the liberation of the Muslim worker, he'd talk to him about organizing with fellow workers, resisting oppression from employers and the ruling regime, while keeping their religious faith as a purely personal affair.

When they've succeeded in overthrowing the exploiters and gaining some control over their life, they'll realize that the religious myths they were taught were false. They'll either abandon those myths, or retain them as a personal affair, and religion won't be a problem.

Morello

23rd June 2007, 17:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:03 am
Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"
To feel any distaste towards RADICAL muslims is understandable. They teach their children how to kill themselves in the name of their religion. They are taught as young ones to hate America and all non-Muslim "infidels." Saying " I hate Muslims" is a generalization, that does relate to " I hate Jews " because not all jews are greedy, or the reason for economic problems, or any other stupid-ass stereotype. But to avoid conflict, I wouldn't publically express any distaste for anyone, even Radical Muslims, though the death they have caused.

Vargha Poralli

23rd June 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by Mark Schellmann+June 23, 2007 10:04 pm--> (Mark Schellmann @ June 23, 2007 10:04 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 12:03 am
Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"
To feel any distaste towards RADICAL muslims is understandable. They teach their children how to kill themselves in the name of their religion. They are taught as young ones to hate America and all non-Muslim "infidels." Saying " I hate Muslims" is a generalization, that does relate to " I hate Jews " because not all jews are greedy, or the reason for economic problems, or any other stupid-ass stereotype. But to avoid conflict, I wouldn't publically express any distaste for anyone, even Radical Muslims, though the death they have caused. [/b]
I have met many Muslims and many of them are my friends and comrades.

To my knowledge none of them teach their children to kill themselves in the name of Allah or to hate America or all non-Muslim infidels( I am one).

See this ios what called stereotyping.

Islamic fundamentalism should be combated just like Christian Fundamentalism or Hindu Fanaticism etc. no one is denying that.

But to combat it effectively you have to work along with Muslims and Christians or Hindus. It is from the most downtrodden sections of the society the fundamentalists of all religions draw their support from.

Hating that particular sections would not help in fighting the Fundamentalism.

Morello

23rd June 2007, 18:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:59 pm
To my knowledge none of them teach their children to kill themselves in the name of Allah or to hate America or all non-Muslim infidels( I am one).

I have friends from all types of backgrounds, including Muslim and Jewish. A muslim friend of mine told me that he does NOT approve of the RADICAL ( that's the key word here ) muslim fundamentalist movement that made this War on Terror happen. I have watched several documentaries, and I have read several books. I have done research, and their methods of teaching children are to show them that the Americans are infidels and must be destroyed. I have seen CARTOONS of "Bugs Bunny" showing children how bad infidels are. The teachers that show these children the same message also state that it says in the Islamic Bible that one who dies in the name of Allah is granted passage to heaven and 72 healthy virgins. Perhaps the media is making Muslim Fundamentalist teachings sound much worse then they are, but from what I have seen, read, and researched, this is their methods. From my point of view, It is normal, especially after 9/11, to have any feeling of distaste towards what they are doing and teaching, but to say that you hate ALL Muslims is a disgusting generalization that I would compare to saying " I hate Jews " because the people that hate Jews hate them for stereotypes or a certain number of Jews that did something wrong. It is the same case with today's stereotypes of Muslims.

Rosa Lichtenstein

26th June 2007, 09:40

I wonder if you feel the same about the centuries of oppression, death and robbery the 'west' has visited upon muslims, along with the incessant racism displayed to those with darker skins in the muslim world? Is all that 'natural'? What about all the corrupt regimes the 'west' has installed and supported in the muslim world, which keep the population oppressed, cowed and poor, and which now drives them into the hands of their own extremists? Is it any wonder they do not hate the 'west' even more than they do? Or, that they do not attack 'us' even more?

'Christian' nations would not have shown such patience and long-suffering if the boot was on the other foot -- the rapidity with which the US/UK struck back is testimony to that alone. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

And, how are we to tell how objective your 'research' is; from what you have posted it looks highly anecdotal, unrepresentative, and selective.

Comrade Nadezhda

26th June 2007, 18:32

I don't hate any race, ethnic group, whatever. I don't like the bullshit people throw around about Muslims being a dangerous culture. I've met plenty of Muslims who are good people. It's the same as saying ALL jews are bad just because one you happened to meet was. It's discrimination.

Morello

30th June 2007, 02:24

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 26, 2007 05:32 pm
I don't hate any race, ethnic group, whatever. I don't like the bullshit people throw around about Muslims being a dangerous culture. I've met plenty of Muslims who are good people. It's the same as saying ALL jews are bad just because one you happened to meet was. It's discrimination.
That is exactly what I am implying. I am not saying that Muslims are dangerous. I, as I said, have many Muslim friends and they are genuinely good people. I am saying that Radical Islam is doing things that are completely understandable to feel distaste towards, but to avoid unnecassary conflict, those feelings should not be publically expressed. Everyone must think i'm speaking of the entire Islamic religion, but I'm not. I'm speaking of the Muslims out in the Middle East that believe Americans to be "evil" and Non-Muslims to be "infidels". I understand that may anger some people, but it should not be announced to avoid conflict. I am making no generalization and I am not Anti-Islamic.

RHIZOMES

20th July 2007, 11:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:19 am
A cursory examination of the Koran will reveal that to be a lie.

4:76 Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.

It would seem that a true Muslim is just the sort who would be carrying out attacks on "infidels".

As for Islam's principal prophet himself, Mohamed, the less said the better. I hardly think a bloodthirsty paedophile is a good role model for anyone.
very interesting topic. Most of my opinions have been stated already, however...

You have to take into context the time that quote was given in. The capitalist Quraysh Meccans who were oppressing the underclass through religion (Arab pagan religion) didn't like Muhammad's message that there should be a redistribution of wealth, so they were openly persecuting and murdering his followers. Most Islamic scholars (i.e. sane ones) agree that "minions of the devil" is specifically referring to the Meccans.

Devrim

20th July 2007, 13:17

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 08:40 am
I wonder if you feel the same about the centuries of oppression, death and robbery the 'west' has visited upon muslims, along with the incessant racism displayed to those with darker skins in the muslim world? Is all that 'natural'? What about all the corrupt regimes the 'west' has installed and supported in the muslim world, which keep the population oppressed, cowed and poor, and which now drives them into the hands of their own extremists? Is it any wonder they do not hate the 'west' even more than they do? Or, that they do not attack 'us' even more?

'Christian' nations would not have shown such patience and long-suffering if the boot was on the other foot -- the rapidity with which the US/UK struck back is testimony to that alone. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

This is not a class analysis in any way.
Devrim

Dr Mindbender

20th July 2007, 14:28

Originally posted by AndrewG+March 27, 2007 04:19 am--> (AndrewG @ March 27, 2007 04:19 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 12:15 am
Neo-Nazis hate Bush. But definately not for the same reasons we Leftists do.
Yeah, they hate him because he supports Israel and has a lenient immigration policy. [/b]

Excuse me? WTF? :blink:

rebel_lord

20th July 2007, 19:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:03 am
I am sorry to say, on revleft we have lots of racists.

However, these people cover their racism under the guise of being against a particular religion.

Nonsense!

Saying "I HATE MUSLIMS" is as racist as saying "I HATE JEWS"

Hi my friend, hating is caused by inferiority complex. People who hate others do it out of inferiority complex. I think we have to love right wingers too. Hating a white capitalist and wanting to kill him is hatred indeed. I hate oligarchic political systems not people. Right wingers are victims, not evil perse. There are a lot of bad, evil people in the left too trust me. It is safe to state that most leftists are evil too just like right wingers, there are very few leftists who are moralist, friendly, cooperative, loving, and mutualist. I am one of the good leftists, i am almost like Jesus Christ, or Che Guevara

By the way i wanted to move to iceland once, but i found out that Icelanders have a sort of chauvinist, fascist mentality

rebel_lord

Comrade J

20th July 2007, 20:59

Hi my friend, hating is caused by inferiority complex. People who hate others do it out of inferiority complex. I think we have to love right wingers too.
Don't be a twat, we don't love right-wingers when they'd happily have us shot, or worse.

Hating a white capitalist and wanting to kill him is hatred indeed.
Hating someone is hatred? What a startling fucking revelation.

I hate oligarchic political systems not people. Right wingers are victims, not evil perse.
:lol: Hahah, those poor persecuted right-wingers! All those capitalist CEO's sitting on their yachts cruising around the pacific whilst thousands of workers continue to earn them money by working every day for a pathetically small amount of money.

It is safe to state that most leftists are evil too just like right wingers
Bollocks.

I am one of the good leftists, i am almost like Jesus Christ, or Che Guevara
Hahaha! Jesus wasn't a leftist, he was a reactionary who refused to use his influence to overthrow the Roman occupiers. Well, that's if you believe the Bible, he probably never even existed. Anyway, Che Guevara hated and executed a lot of fascists, which apparently you're against. What should we do instead, hug them? :huh:

By the way i wanted to move to iceland once, but i found out that Icelanders have a sort of chauvinist, fascist mentality
You're saying all Icelanders have a 'chauvinist, fascist mentality'?! Do you even understand what fascism is?

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th July 2007, 20:59

devrimankara:

This is not a class analysis in any way.

I think differently.

But then again, I am a radical, and care not a fig about revising things if they are wrong or are too narrow.

In short, I am proud to be a Revisionist.

Marx was one once, you know -- so I am merely copying him.

It's called 'science' -- as opposed to dogma. :o

Devrim

20th July 2007, 22:00

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+July 20, 2007 07:59 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ July 20, 2007 07:59 pm)devrimankara:

This is not a class analysis in any way.

I think differently.

[/b]

Rosa Lichtenstein
I wonder if you feel the same about the centuries of oppression, death and robbery the 'west' has visited upon muslims, along with the incessant racism displayed to those with darker skins in the muslim world? Is all that 'natural'? What about all the corrupt regimes the 'west' has installed and supported in the muslim world, which keep the population oppressed, cowed and poor, and which now drives them into the hands of their own extremists? Is it any wonder they do not hate the 'west' even more than they do? Or, that they do not attack 'us' even more?

'Christian' nations would not have shown such patience and long-suffering if the boot was on the other foot -- the rapidity with which the US/UK struck back is testimony to that alone. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

Obviously you are right. Could you just explain to me though which of these nouns, or pronouns refers to the working class?

There is no class analysis at all here. It is just old fashioned 'third worldism'. It could come out of the mouth of any liberal, or social democrat.

Devrim

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th July 2007, 22:48

D:

Obviously you are right. Could you just explain to me though which of these nouns, or pronouns refers to the working class?

Well, since I am referring to centuries of oppression, spanning across at least two modes of production, then I'd be an idiot to refer to the proletariat only.

But, since workers in a wider sense (taking in those who did the work in previous modes of production and in the present emerging capitalist mode in muslim countires), you can take most of them to refer to this union of classes.

And I note the insincerity in this low grade sarcasm:

Obviously you are right

when it is quite clear from this:

There is no class analysis at all here

you meant the opposite.

But as for this:

It is just old fashioned 'third worldism'. It could come out of the mouth of any liberal, or social democrat.

Not so, since they would not be capable of explicating in the manner I have just done.

You can now get back to your ever-so correct world of dogma. You obviously feel quite safe there.

Devrim

20th July 2007, 23:11

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+July 20, 2007 09:48 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ July 20, 2007 09:48 pm) You can now get back to your ever-so correct world of dogma. You obviously feel quite safe there. [/b]
Well that is a bit of a bit of a stunning put-down.

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected]
And I note the insincerity in this low grade sarcasm:

Congratulations on noticing it.

Rosa Lichtenstein
Not so, since they would not be capable of explicating* in the manner I have just done.

Really, I have met quite articulate social democrats. I don't think that verbosity is a political difference anyway.

You talk about 'them' to refer to 'the muslim world', and us to refer to the 'christian nations/the West'. There was no class analysis at all, just some third worldist nonsense.

We will go back to our work in the Middle East trying to intervene in workers struggles. You are quite welcome to go back to social democratic, and third worldist ideas.

I don't want to comment on, wich of them is dogma.

Devrim

*I did have to look that word up though, well done.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th July 2007, 23:23

Dev:

Well that is a bit of a bit of a stunning put-down.

On the contrary, I thought it was a bit of a bit of a bit of one.

Congratulations on noticing it.

And well done, too, for thinking it up!

You might, however, need to rest now for a week.

Really, I have met quite articulate social democrats. I don't think that verbosity is a political difference anyway.

Nice to know the company you keep.

You talk about 'them' to refer to 'the muslim world', and us to refer to the 'christian nations/the West'. There was no class analysis at all, just some third worldist nonsense.

I suppose you think repetition makes something true.

In that case, I suggest you never pick an argument with a parrot.

Unless, of course. that is where you leant this trick...

We will go back to our work in the Middle East trying to intervene in workers struggles. You are quite welcome to go back to social democratic, and third worldist ideas.

But it is you who knocks around with these reformists.

I don't want to comment on, which of them is dogma.

Just lump the lot in; that'd be about right.

Leo

20th July 2007, 23:45

Lichtenstein;

In short, I am proud to be a Revisionist.

So I have noticed.

Marx was one once, you know -- so I am merely copying him.

You are actually copying Bernstein.

Well, since I am referring to centuries of oppression, spanning across at least two modes of production, then I'd be an idiot to refer to the proletariat only.

Yes, there is also the bourgeoisie which you are so fond of supporting.

And well done, too, for thinking it up!

You might, however, need to rest now for a week.

Ah, I see experience is talking here - not everyone is like you however.

Nice to know the company you keep.

Well, he is talking to the likes of you here after all.

But it is you who knocks around with these reformists.

Well, I do think it is pointless for Devrim to talk with the likes of you although reformist is really too much of a soft word to describe you or other social democrats and third worldists - anti-working class is a much better term.

Anyway, it is pointless to argue with you because you don't argue: you think you can"win" the debates in which you are not capable of defending your ideas by insulting the others.

Devrim

21st July 2007, 00:27

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
I wonder if you feel the same about the centuries of oppression, death and robbery the 'west' has visited upon muslims, along with the incessant racism displayed to those with darker skins in the muslim world? Is all that 'natural'? What about all the corrupt regimes the 'west' has installed and supported in the muslim world, which keep the population oppressed, cowed and poor, and which now drives them into the hands of their own extremists? Is it any wonder they do not hate the 'west' even more than they do? Or, that they do not attack 'us' even more?

'Christian' nations would not have shown such patience and long-suffering if the boot was on the other foot -- the rapidity with which the US/UK struck back is testimony to that alone. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

Please, explain where the class analysis, which is actually what the point is here.

Devrim

rebel_lord

21st July 2007, 00:54

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20, 2007 07:59 pm

Hi my friend, hating is caused by inferiority complex. People who hate others do it out of inferiority complex. I think we have to love right wingers too.
Don't be a twat, we don't love right-wingers when they'd happily have us shot, or worse.

Hating a white capitalist and wanting to kill him is hatred indeed.
Hating someone is hatred? What a startling fucking revelation.

I hate oligarchic political systems not people. Right wingers are victims, not evil perse.
:lol: Hahah, those poor persecuted right-wingers! All those capitalist CEO's sitting on their yachts cruising around the pacific whilst thousands of workers continue to earn them money by working every day for a pathetically small amount of money.

It is safe to state that most leftists are evil too just like right wingers
Bollocks.

I am one of the good leftists, i am almost like Jesus Christ, or Che Guevara
Hahaha! Jesus wasn't a leftist, he was a reactionary who refused to use his influence to overthrow the Roman occupiers. Well, that's if you believe the Bible, he probably never even existed. Anyway, Che Guevara hated and executed a lot of fascists, which apparently you're against. What should we do instead, hug them? :huh:

By the way i wanted to move to iceland once, but i found out that Icelanders have a sort of chauvinist, fascist mentality
You're saying all Icelanders have a 'chauvinist, fascist mentality'?! Do you even understand what fascism is?

Wow you are evil, you are a killer. May the Lord forgive u

rebel_lord

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st July 2007, 01:01

Dev:

Please, explain where the class analysis, which is actually what the point is here.

Done it.

All that socialisng with reformists is doing your attention span no good at all.

Tut, tut...

rebel_lord

21st July 2007, 01:03

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 10:23 pm
Dev:

Well that is a bit of a bit of a stunning put-down.

On the contrary, I thought it was a bit of a bit of a bit of one.

Congratulations on noticing it.

And well done, too, for thinking it up!

You might, however, need to rest now for a week.

Really, I have met quite articulate social democrats. I don't think that verbosity is a political difference anyway.

Nice to know the company you keep.

You talk about 'them' to refer to 'the muslim world', and us to refer to the 'christian nations/the West'. There was no class analysis at all, just some third worldist nonsense.

I suppose you think repetition makes something true.

In that case, I suggest you never pick an argument with a parrot.

Unless, of course. that is where you leant this trick...

We will go back to our work in the Middle East trying to intervene in workers struggles. You are quite welcome to go back to social democratic, and third worldist ideas.

But it is you who knocks around with these reformists.

I don't want to comment on, which of them is dogma.

Just lump the lot in; that'd be about right.

Rosa: I am a skeptic about everybody, there are a lot of evil people in the left too, not only in the right. I once joined a communist movement and there was a communist who wanted to kill me coz i posted an article from a capitalist site. I hate sectarian, egocentric, greedy, unfriendly, selfish leftists out there, they are real dumb. I listen to Alex Jones show all the time, and i really don't care what these people in this forum call me. They want to control others like Stalin, haha

They don't understand what socialism, what Marx, and what reality is all about, they like to live in the magic world of Harry Potter, like utopian anarchists and not in this earth.

They dont understand people, societies, and Marx, and Marx's goals, and how to change the world from capitalism to socialism. They wanna do it in a selfish, greedy, dogmatic, sectarian way, and that way they will NEVER succeed. They will die as romantic depressed people

rebel_lord

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st July 2007, 01:10

Ah, the sectarian flies gather apace, I see.

Leo:

So I have noticed.

And yet you prefer dogma -- unlike Marx.

You are actually copying Bernstein.

Why, did he copy Marx too?

Yes, there is also the bourgeoisie which you are so fond of supporting.

With a rope, like Lenin.

Ah, I see experience is talking here - not everyone is like you however.

No, you need two weeks.

Well, he is talking to the likes of you here after all.

Oops, and so are you, you naughty boy...

anti-working class is a much better term.

No, if you don't mind, I'd rather you not use one of your own titles for me.

Thanks anyway.

Anyway, it is pointless to argue with you because you don't argue: you think you can"win" the debates in which you are not capable of defending your ideas by insulting the others.

And yet you still try, and you still insult.

That makes you a rather dim abusive sectarian.

At least Dev shows some intelligence.

He at can talk to parrots, after all.

They are perhaps too advanced for you.

rebel_lord

21st July 2007, 01:15

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 12:10 am
Ah, the sectarian flies gather apace, I see.

Leo:

So I have noticed.

And yet you prefer dogma -- unlike Marx.

You are actually copying Bernstein.

Why, did he copy Marx too?

Yes, there is also the bourgeoisie which you are so fond of supporting.

With a rope, like Lenin.

Ah, I see experience is talking here - not everyone is like you however.

No, you need two weeks.

Well, he is talking to the likes of you here after all.

Oops, and so are you, you naughty boy...

anti-working class is a much better term.

No, if you don't mind, I'd rather you not use one of your own titles for me.

Thanks anyway.

Anyway, it is pointless to argue with you because you don't argue: you think you can"win" the debates in which you are not capable of defending your ideas by insulting the others.

And yet you still try, and you still insult.

That makes you a rather dim abusive sectarian.

At least Dev shows some intelligence.

He at can talk to parrots, after all.

They are perhaps too advanced for you.

hey Rosa: i have read Marx, Che, and other revolutionary's biography and they were full of love, solidarity, humanism almost like Jesus. And yet most sectarian leftists are the total opposite of the morality, humanism and love of Marx, Che. etc. in fact most sectarian-dogmatic-stalinist leftists are greedy, reactionary, dictatorial, corrupt, and unfriendly just like Bush and right wingers. It is hard to find a true socialist in this world :-)

rebel_lord

Entrails Konfetti

21st July 2007, 03:07

Yeah, Rosa that was un-called for, you should have honestly answered Devs questions, instead of attacking him.

Devrim

21st July 2007, 08:22

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+July 21, 2007 12:01 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ July 21, 2007 12:01 am)Dev:

Please, explain where the class analysis, which is actually what the point is here.

Done it.

All that socialisng with reformists is doing your attention span no good at all.

Tut, tut...[/b]
Is it this?:

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)I think differently.[/b]
,or this?:
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
Well, since I am referring to centuries of oppression, spanning across at least two modes of production, then I'd be an idiot to refer to the proletariat only.

But, since workers in a wider sense (taking in those who did the work in previous modes of production and in the present emerging capitalist mode in muslim countires), you can take most of them to refer to this union of classes.

I don't think that either of them can miraculously turn this pile of third worldist nonsense into class analysis:

Rosa [email protected]
I wonder if you feel the same about the centuries of oppression, death and robbery the 'west' has visited upon muslims, along with the incessant racism displayed to those with darker skins in the muslim world? Is all that 'natural'? What about all the corrupt regimes the 'west' has installed and supported in the muslim world, which keep the population oppressed, cowed and poor, and which now drives them into the hands of their own extremists? Is it any wonder they do not hate the 'west' even more than they do? Or, that they do not attack 'us' even more?

'Christian' nations would not have shown such patience and long-suffering if the boot was on the other foot -- the rapidity with which the US/UK struck back is testimony to that alone. Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

To me it doesn't talk about 'centuries of oppression', it talks about how people today feel about 'centuries of oppression'. I think that you don't talk about the proletariat only not because you don't want to.

Also the talk of 'the present emerging capitalist mode in muslim countires' seems a bizarre turn of phrase to me. Capital is not 'emergent' in these countries, but dominant.

You mange to use inverted commas when you talk about 'us'. You don't use them to talk about them. It is as if you are denying that there are class contradictions in the Middle East, and the class contradictions are where any communist analysis must start from. I think that this line makes it very clear:

Can you imagine how we'd feel if we'd experienced centuries of the same sort of oppression?

Obviously, nobody experiences centuries of oppresion as an individual, so what are you talking about here?

The argument would make sense if it were coming from a liberal, social democrat, or third worldist. It bears no signs of any sort of class analysis though.

Devrim

P.S. What are these references to:

Rosa Lichtenstein
All that socialisng with reformists is doing your attention span no good at all.

Tut, tut...

I have no idea what you are going on about, so I am sure that others don't.

If you can't manage to get a class analysis at least try to improve the quality of your insults.

Devrim

Leo

21st July 2007, 11:24

Wanted Man

21st July 2007, 12:35

This thread has had 10 pages full of people talking about how we should approach Islam and muslims in general. However, an issue that has barely been addressed is: how to approach Islam and muslims in the context of the populist right-wing witch-hunt against Islam in the western world?

Because that is what is going on. For years, such a witch hunt has been going on in the Netherlands, and likely also throughout the rest of Europe. Here, politicians like Geert Wilders are calling for a throwback to our "Judeo-Christian-Humanist culture", less immigration, more police in the street with permission to "use live ammunition on football rioters, squatters, anti-globalists, and other deplorable scum". As you can see, the agenda of politicians like Wilders does not limit itself to one issue. Wilders is not just a good citizen, full of secular common sense, a progressive who is honestly disturbed by the idea of women being oppressed by having to wear Islamic veils.

Still, some on the left do not realize this. Even here, we have seen a comrade supporting Wilders' plan to ban the burqa (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46127&view=findpost&p=1292018360). Yet another was supporting the spread of the xenophobic cartoons from Jyllands-Posten (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45815), the Danish equivalent of the Daily Mail, if not worse, with a similar agenda as Geert Wilders.

But none of that beats the disgusting sight of seeing comrades taking part in the witch hunt against Islam! (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58628) Some naive people may think that they are "playing their part" against "religious superstition and ignorance", but by doing something like this, they are, in fact, nothing but the left-wing "useful idiots" of the campaign of the reactionary right to divide the working class according to religious identity.

Actually, re-reading that thread, it seems that there is something worse: someone proposing (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58628&view=findpost&p=1292210687) that class should take a backseat, and that we should physically and psychologically attack all muslims, because "it is war" (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58628&view=findpost&p=1292211584) against them. Another xenophobic outburst (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58628&view=findpost&p=1292218593) from that thread.

Tommy-K

21st July 2007, 13:39

I hate Islam, not Muslims. Just the same way that I hate Christianity but nor Christians.

I think you'll find most people on here oppose Islam as an organisation, not Muslims as people.

Vargha Poralli

21st July 2007, 17:45

Originally posted by Tommy-K+July 21, 2007 06:09 pm--> (Tommy-K @ July 21, 2007 06:09 pm)I hate Islam, not Muslims. Just the same way that I hate Christianity but nor Christians.[/b]
A point already covered I think. post. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64661&view=findpost&p=1292291125)

Tommy-K

I think you'll find most people on here oppose Islam as an organisation, not Muslims as people.

That is not a good reason. The thread I think motivated BCS(?) to start this thread can be found here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64236). That thread starter had given two extremely pro imperialist "facts" about Islam many of which has been refuted there. To quote from that thread more

why cant one be left wing and dislike muslims? lol, you guys and I mean everyone I express my opinion on this subject to tell me I am right wing.

Meanwhile people shit on every other religion and they have "a right to their own opinion"

So I suppose it isnt me who is falling into any kind of propaganda brainwash, its you. lol.

I am left wing, I dislike muslims among many religions. I am not a paradox. It is not impossible for me to exist. There are many communist comrades I know who are against islam just because of the vary same reasons (statistics, the recent activness of many muslim-based hate crimes and terrorism). They are shoving their religion on the rest of the world and then claiming racism when you citisze them for doing so. Women have to be a cirtain way we have to worship their god and respect their culture, even when it is vastly interupting with moral and PEACE.

Fuck I am against all religion, but islam was a huge mistake to whoever was smoking up when they made it.

They need everyone to respect their religion.

They need everyone to never insult them.

They want non-muslims to help them get rid of the infidels.

Fuck that shit. I am sorry but I will always dislike islam. there are statistics and there are reports made why i dont. You guys can blindly follow it based on 3 peices of info you heard, but me, I went a bit further and I stated all my sources at least 4 or 5 times on this forum. Statistics, news, video and feed of the situation there and their attitude is absolutly disgusting.

They kill people who convert from islam.

They kill people who are not muslim and want to live their own way outside of islam (they are killing prostitutes and models in europe and the uk).

Everyone becareful not to hurt the muslims feelings... or they will blow you up in the name of their god and we wont be able to do a damn thing about it because of "Racism" charges.

I dont beleive in allah. I hate muslims. I am indeed left wing. BEING ANTI-MUSLIM AND LEFT WING IS NOT A PARADOX, IF YOU WERE TRULEY LEFT WING YOU WOULD BE AGAINST ALL FORM OF JUSTIFICATION FOR VIOLENCE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION, RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES AND RELIGION PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a good one comrades.

Take a good look at the extreme right wing vomit there. They want this they want that. who are those "they" ? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64236&view=findpost&p=1292285438). It is not certainly Islam it is certainly followers of Islam. Who the fuck do you claim to be emancipation of workers 90% of whom belive in certain faith or other ?

And no one answered my question Why do you all fear religion . We hate what we fear. Religion has certain amount of power and influence in the community because we cannot help alienation of people from themselves.

If you want to really destroy religion you have to destroy the condtions that gives the reason to gain power in the first place. The condition is the class society. Work to destroy it and leave Science and reason to deal with religion.

Make sure what you are fighting for not what you are fighting against and you will realise this anti-religious crusade will become very bottom priority for you.

Faux Real

21st July 2007, 20:31

Originally posted by b.ram
And no one answered my question Why do you all fear religion . We hate what we fear. Religion has certain amount of power and influence in the community because we cannot help alienation of people from themselves.

If you want to really destroy religion you have to destroy the condtions that gives the reason to gain power in the first place. The condition is the class society. Work to destroy it and leave Science and reason to deal with religion.

Make sure what you are fighting for not what you are fighting against and you will realise this anti-religious crusade will become very bottom priority for you.

I completely agree, 100% correct.

I do not mind what a person's religion or creed is, I will try to the best of my ability to become friendly and respect their views. The line is crossed whenever their beliefs would risk the safety of someone else, i.e extremism.

No, this does not mean that there are Islamic Fundamentalists/Extremists, but there are also movements of the like in Christianity(Evangelicals), Hebrew(Zionists), Catholicism(Vatican Dogma) and so on.

Personally, I think that anyone should be able to practice in the confines of their home or place of worship under socialism/communism/anarchy, after all not every comrade shares the same exact beliefs.

Hating religion is like hating someone of another ethnic background because of negative connotations certain stereotypes carry, enforced by the systems that be.

Hate the structures that allowed for the rise of religion, not the religion itself.

Leo

21st July 2007, 21:11

In the past, human thought was not developed enough to put forward scientific communism and the lower classes were able to express their communal desires within the framework of religion. However this obviously was not enough. Religion has always been a tool of the ruling classes and thus it showed influence of the ruling classes even when it allowed communal desires being expressed under it's name. Today, religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie, all religious movements are bourgeois movements by definition and none should be supported in any way at all. Religion is something we should discourage, it is an obstacle for class consciousness. A revolutionary can't be religious, religious people can't be allowed in communist organizations and so forth. Religion is something communist and revolutionaries completely oppose, religion should be discouraged under communism and so forth. This said, religion is something which has a place in the capitalist society, thus religion is a social phenomenon. Communist propaganda under capitalism should be completely honest about the way communists see religion however it is necessary to recognize that this propaganda will obviously not wipe out religion from the society. Revolutionaries can never be engaged in or can never support struggles that are religious however there are obviously lots of religious workers who can, will and should participate in class struggle and obviously this should be welcomed.

Entrails Konfetti

21st July 2007, 22:20

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 08:11 pm
In the past, human thought was not developed enough to put forward scientific communism and the lower classes were able to express their communal desires within the framework of religion. However this obviously was not enough. Religion has always been a tool of the ruling classes and thus it showed influence of the ruling classes even when it allowed communal desires being expressed under it's name. Today, religion is a tool of the bourgeoisie, all religious movements are bourgeois movements by definition and none should be supported in any way at all. Religion is something we should discourage, it is an obstacle for class consciousness. A revolutionary can't be religious, religious people can't be allowed in communist organizations and so forth. Religion is something communist and revolutionaries completely oppose, religion should be discouraged under communism and so forth. This said, religion is something which has a place in the capitalist society, thus religion is a social phenomenon. Communist propaganda under capitalism should be completely honest about the way communists see religion however it is necessary to recognize that this propaganda will obviously not wipe out religion from the society. Revolutionaries can never be engaged in or can never support struggles that are religious however there are obviously lots of religious workers who can, will and should participate in class struggle and obviously this should be welcomed.
I thought religion rose around the argicultural era, and not really neolithic era.
Because the purpose of the argicultural era was to create a surplus, and where the surplus was stored, a person had to keep track of it. The people in charge of the surplus developed myths, astronomy, and calandars. With this marked days for harvest, planting and other cerimonies. Also, these people in charge of the surplus had more time to think about social issues, and developed systems of morallity so as the citizens would hold together as a society. With these systems of morallity came laws; laws came the state. The grain house people became clergy.

However, theres also the factor that religion was developed so that the living could deal with losses of loved ones-- which, could indicate there was religion in the neolithic era. Though, theres the question if bands of hunter/ gatherers had even the time to meditate on death.

I don't understand how religion was used for people to express their communal desires, I thought it was more to do with remembering dates and societial cohesion.There were religions that were and are communal, for example the Gnostics, Shakers, and Amish. Jesus supposebly lived in a Commune, but I though tyhat was more to do with material development.

Leo

21st July 2007, 22:45

I thought religion rose around the argicultural era, and not really neolithic era.
Because the purpose of the argicultural era was to create a surplus, and where the surplus was stored, a person had to keep track of it. The people in charge of the surplus developed myths, astronomy, and calandars. With this marked days for harvest, planting and other cerimonies. Also, these people in charge of the surplus had more time to think about social issues, and developed systems of morallity so as the citizens would hold together as a society. With these systems of morallity came laws; laws came the state. The grain house people became clergy.

However, theres also the factor that religion was developed so that the living could deal with losses of loved ones-- which, could indicate there was religion in the neolithic era. Though, theres the question if bands of hunter/ gatherers had even the time to meditate on death.

I don't understand how religion was used for people to express their communal desires, I thought it was more to do with remembering dates and societial cohesion.There were religions that were and are communal, for example the Gnostics, Shakers, and Amish. Jesus supposebly lived in a Commune, but I though tyhat was more to do with material development.

Of course you are right, I wasn't talking about the origins of religion and what religion itself expressed - I think you misunderstood me. I was talking about what is commonly referred as "proto-socialist philosophies" from 500 onwards which were although ideologically within boundaries of religion, ended up being suppressed in the name of mainstream religion. For example Mazdak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdak), Bedreddin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedreddin), Winstanley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrard_Winstanley) and the Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Levellers) and so forth. To sum up, I was talking about how lower classes expressing discontent about the current situation and expressing communal desires did not manage to get out of the religious framework in the past.

Entrails Konfetti

22nd July 2007, 00:08

Do these Proto-Socialist Philsophies suggest anything? Why would the lower classes desire a communal lifestyle in the 500s?

In historical development religion has formed around the way society coressponded the the means of production. Constintine converted to Christianity to unify the empire, paganism with it's polytheism was an expression of the tribes that were emerging from hunting/gathering to agriculture, and this game them more time to think, and having many gods and godesses helped explain nature. So how do we know that in Communist society we aren't going to see religion change? For all we know the notion that Jesus was like a Communist (http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/1914/0300-debs-jesussupreme.pdf) might become popular. Afterall, some people are attracted to Communism because they believe it's moral and ethical.

Leo

22nd July 2007, 10:18

Do these Proto-Socialist Philsophies suggest anything? Why would the lower classes desire a communal lifestyle in the 500s?

Well they obviously didn't suggested any realistic solution but I would understand the lower classes desiring a different lifestyle; after all, they were quite miserable - they weren't able to change the society however I think we can say that they did express some of their desires.

In historical development religion has formed around the way society coressponded the the means of production. Constintine converted to Christianity to unify the empire, paganism with it's polytheism was an expression of the tribes that were emerging from hunting/gathering to agriculture, and this game them more time to think, and having many gods and godesses helped explain nature. So how do we know that in Communist society we aren't going to see religion change? For all we know the notion that Jesus was like a Communist might become popular. Afterall, some people are attracted to Communism because they believe it's moral and ethical.

Well, today religion is for the most part serving as an ideological tool of the bourgeoisie so when the bourgeoisie loses power, religion will lose it's main purpose in current times. I don't think there will be nostalgia about historical characters like Jesus or Mohammed or whoever in the society as this too has became a part of religion as a tool of the bourgeoisie also. Everything religion used to explain is now explained by technology. As for religious moral and ethical values, I don't think they will attract a considerable majority to religion; after all, every mainstream religion preaches submission to the rulers.

For all we know the notion that Jesus was like a Communist might become popular.

Oh dear, I hope such thing doesn't happen :o

Entrails Konfetti

23rd July 2007, 04:46

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 09:18 am
Well they obviously didn't suggested any realistic solution but I would understand the lower classes desiring a different lifestyle; after all, they were quite miserable - they weren't able to change the society however I think we can say that they did express some of their desires.
What I find interesting is that these religious movements throughout the ages put foward the idea for lower-classes to restructure society in the form of communes. Maybe we can conclude that this is the way that society could ellimate class-society. This is a movement that wasn't dreamed up under bourgeois society, but has been going on since the dawn of time. To me it's quite profound that this has always been known in all epochs.

so when the bourgeoisie loses power, religion will lose it's main purpose in current times.
The myth behind rulers will most likely disapear, but most people may still use religion to deal with death. For some, the idea that people live on through what they teach just isn't enough.

As for religious moral and ethical values, I don't think they will attract a considerable majority to religion; after all, every mainstream religion preaches submission to the rulers.

I don't know. Maybe religious institutions at first will teach that religious figures aren't really rulers but concerned entities, so as to keep the old society cohesive during upheaval, and these could carry on into the new society as something of Communistic nature, and later in the society be elabourated on to be more Communistic and disposed of their slavish principles.

Oh dear, I hope such thing doesn't happen :o

I know, it makes me cringe too. If such a thing were to happen, I really hope the religions teach to take responsibly and troubles into their own in hands instead of "having god deal with it for you", and that it's okay to fuck up.

RHIZOMES

24th July 2007, 10:22

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 09:18 am
As for religious moral and ethical values, I don't think they will attract a considerable majority to religion; after all, every mainstream religion preaches submission to the rulers.
Ever heard of Sufism? it was incredibly anti-authoritarian, a lot of them were executed by Muslim governments because they didn't like the anti-clergy/anti-mullahs/anti-religious authority other then God message they preached.

Devrim

24th July 2007, 10:47

Originally posted by mcteethinator+July 24, 2007 09:22 am--> (mcteethinator @ July 24, 2007 09:22 am)
Leo [email protected] 22, 2007 09:18 am
As for religious moral and ethical values, I don't think they will attract a considerable majority to religion; after all, every mainstream religion preaches submission to the rulers.
Ever heard of Sufism? it was incredibly anti-authoritarian, a lot of them were executed by Muslim governments because they didn't like the anti-clergy/anti-mullahs/anti-religious authority other then God message they preached. [/b]
Of course we have heard of sufism. They are hardly mainstream though. While they may have been interesting tendencies within sufism in the past, today Sufi orders such as the Naqshbandi are much more assosciated with the right.
As in Christianity there were movements based in communalism, which articulated themselves through religion in Islam.
There are two points though, first I would tend to look forthese movements within the extreme wings of Shiism much more than the Sufis, and second and more importantly the time for looking for communitarian movements within religiuos sects has long passed. Today all religion is reactionary.
Devrm