Muslims do it too!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Courtesy of RichardDawkins.net (http://richarddawkins.net/article,597,Warning-Graphic-Childrens-foreheads-slashed-in-Muslim-saints-name,CNNcom)

This is highly disturbing. Can any SWP members defend this? I personally think this is indefensible.

[Okocim]

I find how the SWP try to defend these things hilarious. :P

[RNK]

Religion is completely retarded. No offense to retared people.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:33 am
Courtesy of RichardDawkins.net (http://richarddawkins.net/article,597,Warning-Graphic-Childrens-foreheads-slashed-in-Muslim-saints-name,CNNcom)

This is highly disturbing. Can any SWP members defend this? I personally think this is indefensible.
Why do you expect members of the SWP to defend it? Are you some kind of sectarian shit-stirrer or something?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why do you expect members of the SWP to defend it?

Because they are well-known for jumping whenever rich Muslims say so?


Are you some kind of sectarian shit-stirrer or something?

It was an off-the-cuff remark, but aside from that I wished to remind everyone that Judaeo-Christian faiths do not have a monopoly on the ritual mutilation of the defenceless.

[Eleutherios]

Fucking fanatical faith-followers...it never ceases to amaze me what crazy things these mind viruses (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html) can make infected brains do.

[Demogorgon]

I have never seen the SWP defend anything like this

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:27 pm
I have never seen the SWP defend anything like this

That's because it's indefensible. But they do seem to think that Muslims can do no wrong, which is partly another reason I decided to bring it up.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 03, 2007 05:34 pm--> (NoXion @ May 03, 2007 05:34 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 05:27 pm
I have never seen the SWP defend anything like this

That's because it's indefensible. But they do seem to think that Muslims can do no wrong, which is partly another reason I decided to bring it up. [/b]
There is a difference between defending Muslims from attacks motivated by imperialist propoganda as the SWP do and what people here seem to accuse them of.

I'm not a huge fan of the SWP myself and have always refused to join, but some of the stuff they get accused of is pretty unreasonable.

[Faceless]

Just something to throw into the mix:
at the last Marxism event in London, the SWP gave a platform to a muslim lawyer who portrayed Khomeini as representing a "reformist" wing in Islam. Nuts.

[Hit The North]

NoXion

I'm sure you characterising any socialists who attempt to engage with the UK Muslim community as this:


But they do seem to think that Muslims can do no wrong,

says more about your ultra-left sectarianism than it does about the SWP. It also heaps more ridicule on your head than on those you attempt to slander.



It was an off-the-cuff remark, but aside from that I wished to remind everyone that Judaeo-Christian faiths do not have a monopoly on the ritual mutilation of the defenceless.

Wow. Thank you for your insight.

But really this entire thread is just a flame - admit it.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+May 03, 2007 11:14 pm--> (Demogorgon @ May 03, 2007 11:14 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:34 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 05:27 pm
I have never seen the SWP defend anything like this

That's because it's indefensible. But they do seem to think that Muslims can do no wrong, which is partly another reason I decided to bring it up.
There is a difference between defending Muslims from attacks motivated by imperialist propoganda as the SWP do and what people here seem to accuse them of.

I'm not a huge fan of the SWP myself and have always refused to join, but some of the stuff they get accused of is pretty unreasonable.[/b]

Well I agree with this arguments.This is the problem with religious atheism.Putting religion before everything and forgetting for what/for whom we are basing our struggle.

Some "Communists" really don't know how differentiate bigotry against religious group and actions of religious fanatics.

Sometimes I really get confused whether I have stumbled in to Sangh Parivar discussion forum.It is here i have read these types of fallacious arguments.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:04 pm
Just something to throw into the mix:
at the last Marxism event in London, the SWP gave a platform to a muslim lawyer who portrayed Khomeini as representing a "reformist" wing in Islam. Nuts.
didn't they defend faith schools too? :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 03, 2007 06:05 pm
says more about your ultra-left sectarianism than it does about the SWP. It also heaps more ridicule on your head than on those you attempt to slander.
Actually I'm fairly sure that most of the ridicule, far from landing on NoXion's head lands firmly on the heads of the Socialist Islamist Party and all the Trotskyite windowlickers that leap to their defence. Also the fact that you can use "ultra-left" as a political pejorative whilst maintaining either a straight face or, as is more likely, a cretinous shit-eating grin shows that it is perhaps you that is worthy of bombastic lampooning.




It was an off-the-cuff remark, but aside from that I wished to remind everyone that Judaeo-Christian faiths do not have a monopoly on the ritual mutilation of the defenceless.

Wow. Thank you for your insight.

But really this entire thread is just a flame - admit it.
I'm fairly sure a flame looks like my above rant or possibly like this: you gobshite.

[LSD]

I'm fairly certain that there isn't a single thing, positive or negative, which Christians do that Muslims are incapable of -- aside from worshiping Jesus of course.


There is a difference between defending Muslims from attacks motivated by imperialist propoganda as the SWP do and what people here seem to accuse them of.

Yes, there is, but I suspect that even you know that the SWP (not to pick on them specifically, but they seem to be the subject at hand) does more than the former. not unless accusing everyone under the sun of "Islamaphobia" qualifies as "defending" working-class Moslems.

The reality of course, is that racist attacks against Muslims do happen. And if Islamist apologists restricted themselves to opposing those cases, there wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately, there is an emerging tendency in the left to view any attack on Islam -- that's the religion not the people -- as undesirable, whereas of course in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

One sees this for instance, in the reticence of some leftists to recognize the burqa at an implicitly oppressive instrument. Indeed, some so-called leftists have even bought into Islamist propaganda to the degree that they propose that the burqa can be a symbol of female empowerment, if you can imagine such a ridiculous thing!

Nobody, not a single member of this board, believes that attacking Muslims or alienating Muslims is good tactics or good leftism. And aside from one individual poster, who doesn't even post here anymore, I don't think you can find a single example of anyone outside of OI advocating that we do anything but work with our Muslim comrades.

And yet I can't count the number of times in I've seen the epithet "Islamophobe" hurled around here.

You want to fight racism? Great. But you're not accomplishing anything by blurring the issue and missing the point.

[Demogorgon]

I don't deny that some leftists (including perhaps some members of the SWP) have perhaps gone a little too far in defending Muslims and slipped into defending the religion itself.

That being said, most of these defences are not being targeted at fellow leftists, but at genuine racists. We both know that scum like the BNP have managed to pool a couple of brain cells between the lot of them and have learned not to talk directly about race but refer to Islam. But we all know it isn't about Islam, it is about Muslims. And more than that when they are talking about Muslims they ain't meaning Cat Stevens. The subject of Islam is heavily interwined with the subject of race and that is why many are jumpy when the criticisms fly.

Personally I am of course against all religion, and indeed I have stopped particularly targetting Christianity because the others are just as bad, and iinstead will direct my criticism at all religion, but let's not single out Islam. I do not believe for one second that there is an ounce of racism in comrades here he who criticise Islam, however in these rather troubled times it is best not to use any language that plays into racist hands.

[Publius]

Just something to throw into the mix:
at the last Marxism event in London, the SWP gave a platform to a muslim lawyer who portrayed Khomeini as representing a "reformist" wing in Islam. Nuts.[

Yeah, try telling that to Salman Rushdie.

[yns_mr]

this story is a superstition. There is no such thing in the teaching of Islam...

[BobKKKindle$]

This thread is obviously just an excuse to try and insult the SWP - members have assumed with no justification that the SWP supports this barbaric practise simply because the SWP has links with and supports certain Islamic groups, even though the article itself does not mention the SWP.

That the SWP fights for and recieves votes from muslims does not mean they are an 'ethnic' party. Muslims, in additon to other cultural and ethnic minorities form the most oppressed section of the working class. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up the bulk of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims face dramatic levels of unemployment, as much as three times higher than their white counterparts and in the current geo-political environment muslims are increasingly subject to attacks with racial motivation. Support from such communities is something that any organisation of the left should be proud of - and we are proud.

In no way has the SWP been oppurtunistic - we have in the past been accussed of diminshing the importance of the LGBT struggle and other areas of activism due to pressure from Muslim communities, but this is simply not true. LGBT is a frequent topic of discussion at Marxism not just in the conext of the UK but also in the middle east. (http://www.marxismfestival.org.uk/courses/lgbt.html)



Just something to throw into the mix:
at the last Marxism event in London, the SWP gave a platform to a muslim lawyer who portrayed Khomeini as representing a "reformist" wing in Islam. Nuts.

You are sectarian as well. Marxism is not simply a political seminar or an oppurtunity to promote the views of the SWP - it is an event where different sections of the left and other organisations and groups can meet and exchange their views on important issues. That the SWP gave a 'platform' to this speaker does not imply they support all or even part of his views. The SWP always ensures that people who are not members of the party are given the oppurtunity to make their viewspoints clear, including trade union members, foreign political activists, and even music artists .

[RedStarOverChina]

NoXion, what's your DP all about?

Are you turning Daoist? :blink:

[luxemburg89]

Yeah, try telling that to Salman Rushdie.


That really isn't a good first name is it lol.

All this stuff about defending Muslims. Are we then to defend other religions with equal vigour? I'd rather all religions fucked right off, but unfortunately the world doesn't ever work the way I want it to - I mean Pompey are in the premiership and we're in the fucking Championship - anyway, back on topic. Lenin suggested that Muslims are far more deeply attached to their faith than other religions (they also promoted Bolshevism is far eastern and Asian Russia but that's not important right this second). As a result it would be foolish to fight both christianity and Islam at the same time, he suggested (and also seeing as they did good work for the party it would be somewhat unfair). While the Bolsheviks were not in total power - or rather in total control at the time - it was probably better to fight the ideologically weaker of the two first. What do comrades make of Lenin's views and actions here?

(That was, of course, but a brief summary of what Lenin's views were regarding Islam, and may not be exactly word for word what he though but it was the general gist of it).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+June 02, 2007 05:26 pm--> (RedStarOverChina @ June 02, 2007 05:26 pm)NoXion, what's your DP all about?

Are you turning Daoist? :blink:[/b]
I'm not sure what you mean by DP.

What on earth makes you think I'm Daoist? I regard all religions with equal contempt. I have an especial contempt for eastern mysticist religions that lay claim to ultimate truths but in fact are merely extended methods of either obfuscation or stating the bleeding obvious.


Originally posted by bobkindles+--> (bobkindles) This thread is obviously just an excuse to try and insult the SWP[/b]

The SWP deserves a lot of insults, among them "reactionary reformist hacks".


[email protected]
That the SWP fights for and recieves votes from muslims does not mean they are an 'ethnic' party. Muslims, in additon to other cultural and ethnic minorities form the most oppressed section of the working class. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up the bulk of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims face dramatic levels of unemployment, as much as three times higher than their white counterparts and in the current geo-political environment muslims are increasingly subject to attacks with racial motivation. Support from such communities is something that any organisation of the left should be proud of - and we are proud.

Snore! The fact that Muslims happen to form the current scapegoat that was previously filled by "commies" is not an excuse to abandon Marxist class analysis in favour of chasing the Muslim vote in a reformist roundabout. Not to mention the obvious danger of courting support from influential Muslims, who are usually rich fundamentalists. I cannot countenance such behaviour.


luxemburg89
That was, of course, but a brief summary of what Lenin's views were regarding Islam, and may not be exactly word for word what he though but it was the general gist of it

Lenin is irrelevant.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:51 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by DP.

What on earth makes you think I'm Daoist? I regard all religions with equal contempt. I have an especial contempt for eastern mysticist religions that lay claim to ultimate truths but in fact are merely extended methods of either obfuscation or stating the bleeding obvious.

Eh, just wondering cuz I thought your display picture/avatar is sort of a Daoist symbol.

What is it, anyway?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by RedStarOverChina+June 04, 2007 03:28 am--> (RedStarOverChina @ June 04, 2007 03:28 am)
[email protected] 03, 2007 08:51 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by DP.

What on earth makes you think I'm Daoist? I regard all religions with equal contempt. I have an especial contempt for eastern mysticist religions that lay claim to ultimate truths but in fact are merely extended methods of either obfuscation or stating the bleeding obvious.

Eh, just wondering cuz I thought your display picture/avatar is sort of a Daoist symbol.

What is it, anyway? [/b]
It is a monad, incorporating representations of my socio-political opinions.