Log in

View Full Version : Anti-globalists reach out to Islamists



Spike
16th April 2007, 09:43
What is striking about this latest conference is the growing cooperation both within the Muslim world and between the anti-global left and Muslims. This should come as no surprise, considering the traditional focus of the left on defending victims of torture. Who are the biggest victims of torture in the world today? Of course, Muslims, primarily in Iraq and Palestine, but everywhere in the West, and just about in every country that is predominantly Muslim.

The left realises this and is finally overcoming its traditional resistance to the cultural conservatism of Islam, and likewise Muslims are reaching out to the left -- clear examples are Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood's (MB) prominent role in this conference and Lebanon, where Hizbullah was prominent at a similar anti-imperialism conference last November in Beirut. Organised by Al-Karama (Dignity), Al-Ishtirakyin Al-Sawryin (Socialist Revolutionary Party), Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) and Al-'Amal (Labour), and held at the Egyptian Press Syndicate, the conference attracted close to 600 participants and observers from around the world, including a delegation of 80 South Koreans and 20 Canadians.

But what can we make of the overwhelming prominence at the conference of the MB and their very professional brochures and CDs, well translated into English? One pamphlet quotes MB deputy Khairat El-Shater assuring the reader "No need to be afraid of us" and "We do not promote an anti- Western agenda". Certainly we can condemn the military tribunals where 40 prominent MB members are being tried under emergency laws, in violation of the constitution. Belal Diaa Farahat, a business student at the American University of Cairo told Al-Ahram Weekly how his father Diaaeddin Farahat, a prominent businessman, was arrested along with 39 others "merely because he was successful and a member of the MB." After three months in prison and acquittal in a civil court, these men were re-arrested and will face a military tribunal next week.

Ahmed Shawqi, a student activist at Al-Azhar, said that all the delegates at the conference were unanimous in condemning the tribunals. Delegates from London, Canada and Greece promised to demonstrate, and organise petitions to protest against the military tribunals and invite MB representatives on speaking tours in order to explain their position. Shawqi added, however, that an important aspect of the MB's platform is not to work against Egypt in its international relations. In a sense, the Brotherhood "stole the show" at the conference, with their very real oppression fitting the international delegates' human rights agenda. Coincidence or act of God?

The key forum at the conference: "bridge building between the left and Islam" focussed on re-evaluating the relations of the left and the Islamists, as well as on practical ways to increase cooperation.

Mohamed Ghozlan, an MB Al-Azhar student activist, described the underlying misunderstanding: "the left thought Islam was just an anachronism, while Muslims accused the left of trying to destroy their way of life. However, with both sides being repressed by dictatorship, we are able to cooperate now on the basis of human rights and the fight against the war in Iraq and globalisation. Such Latin American leaders as Hugo Chavez have accelerated the cooperation, reaching out to the Muslim resistance." He explained the greater repression of Muslim than leftists in Egypt to be due to the fact that "the government sees us as the greater threat to it."

In an interview with the Weekly, conference organiser Nada Kassass said, "the turning point in the relations of the left and Islamists was the Intifada in 2000, when the committee to support the Intifada brought (the two parties together). The wars in Iraq and Lebanon increased the collaboration, and the struggle around the 2006 elections in Egypt showed the success of this strategy, with six nationalists and 88 MB candidates elected. Earlier, when MB members were arrested, the left did little -- the government was able to use religion to keep the left afraid of the Islamists and the Islamists afraid of the 'godless' communists. Both sides were at fault here in Egypt. Ironically it was actually easier for Islamists to work with European leftists than Egyptians, but all that has changed. The bad blood between the MB and the left dates from the 1960s and is now being overcome." Kassass related how left, liberal and Muslim students at Cairo University, Al-Azhar and Ain Shams joined forces to scuttle student council elections which were rigged by the government earlier this year, though some were expelled, arrested and beaten. "People are joining together to defend their rights."

Kassass's evaluation of the situation in Egypt was echoed in the exchanges of Sadala Mazraani of the Lebanese Communist Party, and Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah. Mazraani admitted that during the civil war in Lebanon, Islamists and socialists were fighting each other, and argued that we should learn from the successes of the anti- fascist front of WWII, the nationalist revolution of the 1950s in Egypt and the non-aligned movement of the 1960s, when imperialism was on the defensive. He pointed out how Latin America is uniting with the Middle East against the common enemy, and said it was more a matter of coordinating movements that have recognised common goals. "The Lebanese Communist Party actively works with Hizbullah against the occupation and in elections, both trying to unite Lebanese society to fight Israel and Zionism."

Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah backed up Mazraani, though he complained that, "many socialists in Europe still refuse to work with us, calling us 'terrorist'". He admitted that Islamists are conservative and often don't want to work with the left, especially extremists like Al-Qaeda, which "will not work with anyone and will fail". Then there are the liberal Muslims who don't care about the war and occupation, lack a clear position on imperialism, and as a result, actually ally with it. "The differences of Hamas and Hizbullah with the left are minor -- family and social priorities -- and at the same time, the Islamic movement must apply democracy, which is really the same as shura. Democracy is a bridge to cross to a better world. We should avoid intolerance in governance, whether it's Islamic or not, and forcing religion upon people." He referred to Gramsci's argument about creating a common front at important historical junctures to induce historical change, after which the different groups can go their separate ways.What a lovely irony to have an Islamist quoting a Western communist theorist.

"By working with Islamic groups in an open way, the left can have a positive impact on Islamic movements, and vice versa."

The international left, as represented at the conference, emphasised practical ways to reach out to the broader Muslim community, as reflected in conference forums on such projects as twinning UK and Palestinian cities, countering the boycott of the Hamas government in Palestine with a boycott of Israel and Western firms that provide military equipment to Israel, countering Islamophobia -- in a word, citizens' diplomacy.

James Clark of the Canadian Peace Alliance described how the anti-war coalitions are now supportive of Muslims who find themselves targets of racial and religious profiling and no-fly lists, and that there is active work in the peace movement to counter Islamophobia, "which the governments use to fan the flames to generate support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are committed to defend all civil liberties. "On the wall of the prayer room at Ryerson University in Toronto, someone's spray painted 'Die Muslim'. The administration refused to condemn this as hate crime, so we organised a petition and a campaign to counter Islamophobia, and as a result, the head of the Islamic students' organisation was elected president of the students' council. So you can use such incidents to educate and mobilise people." Clark vowed that the Canadian peace movement, inspired by the Arab resistance in Lebanon and Iraq, would work with Muslims to defeat imperialism.

Johannes Anderson of Denmark criticised the Danish left for not standing behind Muslims during the cartoon controversy, allowing a weak prime minister to emerge unscathed. "I've changed through the past years and grown through criticism. We should not be afraid of it. We fight for democracy in the Middle East and Europe against neo- liberalism which is taking away our rights everywhere."

Wafaa El-Masri of Al-Karama Party saw a new Islamic message emerging at the conference -- shared principles to build society, emphasising our commonalty. "The Egyptian national movement works with the Islamists to fight the constitutional amendments, to end the Mubarak regime, to unite against the Iraq war, and to support Iran against the threat of US attack."

While the conference's criticism of the repression of the host government would hardly merit a comment if it were held in, say, Toronto or Moscow, the lack of fear by the MB and Egyptian opposition representatives was impressive -- they realise that at any moment they too could be arrested and possibly tortured, yet they did not fear speaking out. Belal Farahat's father, one of the 40 MB prisoners awaiting next week's military tribunal, had his assets seized and stores closed by the government, yet Belal continues to study at AUC: "The whole point of the Brotherhood is that we are one and must help each other."

In an interview with the Weekly, George Hajjar, a political philosophy professor at the Lebanese University and head of the National Rally in Support of the Resistance Option, though optimistic about the growing understanding between leftists and Islamists and supportive of the conference as a whole, criticised it for not having representatives from the Iraqi resistance, "because the resistance is primarily nationalist, and the MB and Shias in Iraq are members of the occupation government."
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/839/sc1.htm

Severian
16th April 2007, 11:50
Originally posted by Spike+April 16, 2007 02:43 am--> (Spike @ April 16, 2007 02:43 am) What is striking about this latest conference is the growing cooperation both within the Muslim world and between the anti-global left and Muslims. This should come as no surprise, considering the traditional focus of the left on defending victims of torture. Who are the biggest victims of torture in the world today? Of course, Muslims, primarily in Iraq and Palestine, but everywhere in the West, and just about in every country that is predominantly Muslim. [/b]
God, that's idiotic. Because you're against torturing someone, therefore you have to support them politically?


some Islamist
"The differences of Hamas and Hizbullah with the left are minor -- family and social priorities -

Bullshit.

Cooperation with Islamists for particular goals is sometimes permissible - fighting against Israeli occupation, or for more democratic rights and political space in Egypt.

But the first condition of this should be: not having or permitting the slightest illusion that the Islamists are deadly enemies.

Who knows what "the left" or "anti-globalization" means, but the difference between communists and Islamists is: what class do you represent?

The Islamists are a capitalist tendency, and they've carried out vicious repression against working people, from Afghanistan, to Iran, Sudan, you name it.

"Family and social priorities"? I guess that's one way of saying: are you for or against women's rights, and which social class do you represent? But it sure ain't "minor."

I suppose the Islamists are against "globalization" too - they're against a lot of the progressive developments of capitalism.

As always, the real question is: what are you for? The Islamists sure ain't for progress.....

Spirit of Spartacus
16th April 2007, 13:11
I agree with Severian.

Any united front with Islamists must be based on strictly tactical objectives.

To go too far with this "alliance" would be nothing short of opportunism.

Spike
16th April 2007, 22:29
The Islamists are a capitalist tendency
That is incorrect. With respect to Muslim society Islamists have been the representative of the proletariat whereas support for "communists" has been limited primarily among the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia. So-called "communists" in Iran and Sudan have utterly failed to stand in solidarity with their people beleagured by imperialist intrigues. The Iraqi "communists" are quislings collaborating with the illegitimate foreign occupation. Previously they treachorously supported Islamist Iran against socialist Iraq. Perhaps the only acceptable Communists in Muslim countries are found in Syria who stand in solidarity with other progressive forces against imperialism but at the same time offer constructive criticism on domestic economic policies.

Kwisatz Haderach
16th April 2007, 22:55
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Both imperialism and Islamism are our enemies; it just so happens that they are enemies to each other as well. Thus it may be useful to us to play off one against the other, but we must never entertain the illusion that either of them is our friend.

Enragé
16th April 2007, 23:01
With respect to Muslim society Islamists have been the representative of the proletariat

Not true.
Large parts of the support of radical islamists are the poor in general, true, but they represent a reactionary middle class, trying to harness the power of the proletariate for its own gains.
For example, look at Egypt. There have been many, many strikes as of late, general unrest etc
the Muslim Brotherhood however has very little to do with it, which makes sense because their backbone is the middle class.

Kwisatz Haderach
16th April 2007, 23:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Perhaps the only acceptable Communists in Muslim countries are found in Syria who stand in solidarity with other progressive forces against imperialism but at the same time offer constructive criticism on domestic economic policies.
Not all forces opposed to imperialism are progressive. Some of them - such as Islamism - are feudal and reactionary.

I honestly can't see a single thing that we communists might have in common with Islamists, except perhaps a common enemy. But, like I said, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Especially when the enemy of my enemy supports theocracy, rejects democracy and public ownership over the means of production and promotes the brutal subjugation of women.

Cheung Mo
16th April 2007, 23:06
"socialist Iraq"

Since when do communists gas people, blow people up, and torture people with weapons acquired from Washington, London, and Paris? Saddam Hussein was no socialist: He pissed off the wrong people higher up the echelons of the ruling class and they got rid of him for it before they could be implicated for assisting in his crimes.

Spike
16th April 2007, 23:21
Both imperialism and Islamism are our enemies
Nonsense. Communists for example support self-determination for the Moros oppressed by the chauvinist Filipino regime.

Saddam Hussein was no socialist
Untrue. Saddam Hussein's socialist party for example nationalized petroleum in the 1970s.

There have been many, many strikes as of late, general unrest etc the Muslim Brotherhood however has very little to do with it
Actually, according to the Egyptian regime the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible for the strikes.

Question everything
16th April 2007, 23:33
Untrue. Saddam Hussein's socialist party for example nationalized petroleum in the 1970s.

Hitler was a solialist too <_<

Kwisatz Haderach
17th April 2007, 00:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 12:21 am
Nonsense. Communists for example support self-determination for the Moros oppressed by the chauvinist Filipino regime.
What does that have to do with Islamism?


Untrue. Saddam Hussein&#39;s socialist party for example nationalized petroleum in the 1970s.
So all it takes to have socialism is to nationalize something? Cool. That means all of Europe is socialist. Oh, and Iran too, because they nationalized the oil industry. And all of the Middle East, for that matter, since all OPEC countries have nationalized petroleum in the 1970s. And India and China are also socialist. Hell, the entire world is socialist if your only criterion for socialism is "a government that nationalized something".

Spike
17th April 2007, 00:32
That means all of Europe is socialist.
Not even close. Workers do not own the means of production in Europe.

So all it takes to have socialism is to nationalize something?
Absurd. Petroleum is the backbone of the Iraqi economy. If not for petroleum Iraq would be as backward and underdeveloped as Yemen. The record shows that Iraq enacted substantive socialist economic policies in the 1970s including land reform, etc.

Die Neue Zeit
17th April 2007, 01:18
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 16, 2007 09:55 pm
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Both imperialism and Islamism are our enemies; it just so happens that they are enemies to each other as well. Thus it may be useful to us to play off one against the other, but we must never entertain the illusion that either of them is our friend.
Game, set, match: triple-threat match :D


Hell, the entire world is socialist if your only criterion for socialism is "a government that nationalized something"

Hell, the nationalization of the entire commanding heights isn&#39;t enough to constitute a proper transition to socialism, let alone constitute socialism itself. :lol:

metalero
17th April 2007, 02:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:32 pm

That means all of Europe is socialist.
Not even close. Workers do not own the means of production in Europe.

Did they own them in Iraq? Baathism, as well as Islamism, have never represented the interests of the working class in the middle east.

Spike
18th April 2007, 01:45
Did they own them in Iraq?
National resources and basic means of production are owned by the People. They are directly invested by the Central Authority in the Iraqi Republic, according to exigencies of the general planning of the national economy.
http://www.mallat.com/iraq%20const%201970.htm

Baathism, as well as Islamism, have never represented the interests of the working class in the middle east.
Misleading. Communism in the Middle East which has mostly drawn support from educated petit-bourgeois and intelligenti has not exactly been representative of the proletariat. The class that a party claims to represent is meaningless when in practice its support comes from the petit-bourgeois.

Die Neue Zeit
18th April 2007, 04:20
I sniff one of these two: an opportunist-for-the-sake-of-short-term-gain - or an FBI agent.

Enragé
18th April 2007, 17:25
National resources and basic means of production are owned by the People. They are directly invested by the Central Authority in the Iraqi Republic, according to exigencies of the general planning of the national economy

that means the state controls it, not the people, and that state is not even under the control of the people, let alone it being a ppeople&#39;s republic


Misleading. Communism in the Middle East which has mostly drawn support from educated petit-bourgeois and intelligenti has not exactly been representative of the proletariat. The class that a party claims to represent is meaningless when in practice its support comes from the petit-bourgeois.

i dont deny that most communists in the middle east are the intelligentsia, it makes sense actually. Im also not saying that the CP&#39;s in the middle east represent the proletariate, they do not, but the islamists dont do that either, they just ride on the wave of public discontent twisting it into islamism, and their actual backbone is the middle class (which can be seen for example in Egypt, where the proletariate strikes and the Muslim Brotherhood sits on its ass, since their class interest is that of the [petty] bourgeois)

RedKnight
18th April 2007, 20:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:29 pm

The Islamists are a capitalist tendency
That is incorrect. With respect to Muslim society Islamists have been the representative of the proletariat whereas support for "communists" has been limited primarily among the petit-bourgeois intelligentsia. So-called "communists" in Iran and Sudan have utterly failed to stand in solidarity with their people beleagured by imperialist intrigues. The Iraqi "communists" are quislings collaborating with the illegitimate foreign occupation. Previously they treachorously supported Islamist Iran against socialist Iraq. Perhaps the only acceptable Communists in Muslim countries are found in Syria who stand in solidarity with other progressive forces against imperialism but at the same time offer constructive criticism on domestic economic policies.
The Worker Communist Party of Iraq, as well as the Iraq Freedom Congress opposes both the occupation as well as the sectarian gangs.

Severian
21st April 2007, 07:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:29 pm

The Islamists are a capitalist tendency
That is incorrect. With respect to Muslim society Islamists have been the representative of the proletariat [/quote]
What bullshit. Is Osama bin Laden a proletarian?

I&#39;ve previously posted studies showing most al-Qaeda members are middle- or upper-class. And that Hezbollah&#39;s support is drawn more from the middle class than any other.

And of course even if some Islamist parties are supported by some workers - so is the U.S. Democratic Party. The question is, what class&#39; interests do they serve? Who leads and controls them?

I could go on but you&#39;re obviously either a complete idiot or a troll. Either way not worth arguing with.