Muslim 'Fundamentalists'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This article is very useful for countering the idea that all muslim 'fundamentalists' are the same:

http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/metcalf.htm

[RNK]

Sadly, I can already tell that a lot of the bigots on here aren't going to give a damn about the differences between "fundamentalists".

[capstop]

This article is very useful for countering the idea that all muslim 'fundamentalists' are the same:
Great, thanks for posting that. It’s a very well written and useful background reference.

I have not read all the articles yet, but what is not dealt with from what I've read, are the class divisions and antagonisms that exist among these various movements. These class divisions are not necessarily understood well yet, especially by the working class and rural poor Muslims, but they are understood well by the young middle class Muslims in Europe, the US and Canada.

This section has its own economic, social and ‘political’ (often with the small ‘p’) aspirations which have to be balanced with what they perceive as the general interests of the Muslim Diaspora or ‘Umma’ as it’s known.

The ‘bright young things’ in the western and eastern universities, (especially the young women) are not going to be socialising with or marrying into working class, if they can help it, but at the same time they recognise the working class Muslims as their political constituency.

All this can be genuinely challenging for individuals when conflicting aspects of Islam (e.g. social justice v individual entitlement to bounties)

At the base of such contradictions is the universal religious support of wage labour exploitation.

The problem for communism is its own checked history in relation to these matters and as already identified in this thread, the ignorant sectarianism of many self appointed ‘left’ zealots who would actually be very much more at home among some of the more sectarian Islamic groups. It’s a class thing!

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:45 am

This article is very useful for countering the idea that all muslim 'fundamentalists' are the same:
Great, thanks for posting that. It’s a very well written and useful background reference.

I have not read all the articles yet, but what is not dealt with from what I've read, are the class divisions and antagonisms that exist among these various movements. These class divisions are not necessarily understood well yet, especially by the working class and rural poor Muslims, but they are understood well by the young middle class Muslims in Europe, the US and Canada.

This section has its own economic, social and ‘political’ (often with the small ‘p’) aspirations which have to be balanced with what they perceive as the general interests of the Muslim Diaspora or ‘Umma’ as it’s known.

The ‘bright young things’ in the western and eastern universities, (especially the young women) are not going to be socialising with or marrying into working class, if they can help it, but at the same time they recognise the working class Muslims as their political constituency.

All this can be genuinely challenging for individuals when conflicting aspects of Islam (e.g. social justice v individual entitlement to bounties)

At the base of such contradictions is the universal religious support of wage labour exploitation.

The problem for communism is its own checked history in relation to these matters and as already identified in this thread, the ignorant sectarianism of many self appointed ‘left’ zealots who would actually be very much more at home among some of the more sectarian Islamic groups. It’s a class thing!
yup

[capstop]

The Koran

The Light
[24.32] And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.

Without giving offence to the modern 'workers' (by hand or brain) many of whom rely on religious direction for their spiritual, social and political development, comrades could easily and patiently learn about the religious influences in the context of the modern economic landscape.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mkultra]

all religion is brain rot--its better to just be spiritual

[capstop]

all religion is brain rot--its better to just be spiritual

Ok, ‘religion’ or ‘religions’ are brain rot you say, but thousands of millions of people, most of them poor workers and peasants, have no other way of dealing with the complexities of life.
Basic literacy and numeracy is still not universal under capitalist, colonialist or neo-liberal war mongering imperialism.

Religion is in truth exactly what Marx said it was:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. So not simply “brain rot” but the result of material conditions. And that is what communists have the privileged of working with - real, actual, concrete, material conditions. Which includes historical, social, and religious understanding - that is also a material condition of a special kind.

We have to, and do work well at being spiritual.

[spartan]

religions keep the working man and woman down by having them compromise and being non violent towards "natural superiors". there was a great picture one of the members on this forum has on their profile of a pyramid of all the hierarchies with kings and politicians on top of the pyramid saying "we rule you" the church and all religions are under neath them saying "we fool you" while the military are under them then the bourgeoisie and then finally the workers holding up all of them but i cant remember what they all said (but it all rhymes to great effect). anyway like that pyramid i believe that religions are only here to fool the proletariat and that defenders of religion perhaps without themselves knowing it are reactionaries for proping up another hierarchal system which has oppressed more than it has helped. where there is authority there is no freedom and religion is another form of authority to its believers which can not be allowed to survive into our society once the revolution is over and we have succeeded. because eventually we will come into conflict over something and then the world will be split and our revolution could fail! oh and instead of people believing in religion in these poor countries why dont we give them a believe in anarchism and communism? because that will be of more use to them than non existent angels and fairies :lol:and i dont think people should be both religious and a leftist revolutionary because eventually there own religious beliefs will clash with our beliefs and then they will have to make a decsion of which side they will take. and i dont want the prospect of a stab in the back from a bunch of looney religious "revolutionaries"! well anyway i awit the comments from the pro religious extremist lot saying how wrong i am and that they are "anti imperialist" (even though these "anti imperialists" are themselves imperialists! yes religious imperialists!)

[capstop]

religions keep the working man and woman down by having them compromise and being non violent towards "natural superiors".

When did that ever work? It never did except in the minds of egotist farts.


there was a great picture one of the members on this forum has on their profile of a pyramid of all the hierarchies with kings and politicians on top of the pyramid saying "we rule you" the church and all religions are under neath them saying "we fool you" while the military are under them then the bourgeoisie and then finally the workers holding up all of them but i cant remember what they all said.

Oh, right.
.

(but it all rhymes to great effect).

Ye ok,


anyway like that pyramid i believe that religions are only here to fool the proletariat and that defenders of religion perhaps without themselves knowing it are reactionaries for proping up another hierarchal system which has oppressed more than it has helped.

Interesting


where there is authority there is no freedom and religion is another form of authority to its believers which can not be allowed to survive into our society once the revolution is over and we have succeeded.

Fascinating


because eventually we will come into conflict over something and then the world will be split and our revolution could fail!

Ye, I think i know what you mean mate.

Can I suggest that you take your program to the nearest factory, hospital, school, or office block etc, and report back on the response you get. This would be of enormous value to the movement.

[RNK]

Wow...

Anyway, nobody's saying there won't be an eventual, unavoidable conflict with fundmantalism, or even religion -- however, it is my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that national liberation movements are worth supporting, even if they are not under the direct conditions of proletarian revolution; that, just as communists must ally with the bourgeoisie during the destruction of fuedalism, so must communists ally with religion, atleast in the case of Palestine and Lebanon (where these religions are ultimately more benign and secular than, say, Al Qaida), in order to destroy imperialism, which is the greater enemy. Yes, replacing an "imperialist" oppressor with an "islamic" oppressor may not seem like much of a difference to the uninformed; but Hamas does not have F-16 fighter jets, Merkava tanks, AH-1 attack helicopters and one of the most well-trained, well-equiped and most experienced armed forces in history helping it force its oppression.

Once imperialism is destroyed, naturally, we must turn on fundamentalism the very next day. Also, there are cases where it simply isn't acceptable to form any aliance against imperialism, for instance, with Al Qaida or the Taliban. They are not merely "fundamentalists". They are jihadists and imperialists themselves and we can not take the risk of strengthening them even slightly to weaken American imperialism.