Levels of Islamophobia in Britain

[YKTMX]

Sickening new poll showing the true levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe and America. Worryingly for British socialists (apart from those who engage in it themselves) is the higher than average level of bigotry against Islam amongst Brits.

The whole poll is here (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=801).


Some 38% of Brits say that the presence of Muslims in their country is a "threat". This is compared with only a fifth French people.


In a particularly worrying finding almost half of Brits (unbelievably) think that Muslims have "too much" political power. The parallels here with fascist narratives about covert "Jewish" cabals influencing political opinion are obvious.

Commentary on the poll here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2172881,00.html) by Seamus Milne in the Grauniad.

Hopefully this will go some way to persuading some skeptical comrades of the existence and the danger of this phenomenon.

Though, I suspect, some are not persuadable.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Though, I suspect, some are not persuadable.

Of course some are not persuadable.

They find it easy to mask their anti-Muslim bigotry behind a superficial hatred for the oppressive nature of religion.

As for the general phenomenon of Islamophobia in Britain, it is a natural consequence of the imperialist offensive against Third-world people (many of whom happen to be Muslims).

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 21, 2007 03:49 pm

Though, I suspect, some are not persuadable.

Of course some are not persuadable.

They find it easy to mask their anti-Muslim bigotry behind a superficial hatred for the oppressive nature of religion.

As for the general phenomenon of Islamophobia in Britain, it is a natural consequence of the imperialist offensive against Third-world people (many of whom happen to be Muslims).
This is true and it's sad that so many on the "left" are not cognizant of their role in "softening up" public opinion in the "war on terror".

[Forward Union]

Some 38% of Brits say that the presence of Muslims in their country is a "threat". This is compared with only a fifth French people.

I think they can threat to me and my class' ability to self-organise, if they are proper muslims. I also think Islam is a threat to scientific advancement. Creationism is fastest growing in the muslim community. So it depends on what that 38% of people actually feel is being thretaned.


In a particularly worrying finding almost half of Brits (unbelievably) think that Muslims have "too much" political power

Well that's obviously bullshit. But I can see where the misconception comes from. Muslims existing in England, the numbers they do, is a direct result of capitalism (and as we all know, capitalists have a lot of political power), as is the radicalisation of certain elements of Islam. I think that the anger directed against muslims is simply a misplaced frustraition rusulting from capitalism.

[spartan]

You know those polls are only the opinions of a few thousand people (At most) not a whole fucking country! Stop trying to infect people with your pro Religious propaganda shit!

[YKTMX]

I think they can threat to me and my class' ability to self-organise

I don't think "they" can. I think most Muslims are working class anti-imperialists and more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class.


I also think Islam is a threat to scientific advancement.

This a cheap stereotype.


So it depends on what that 38% of people actually feel is being thretaned.

White Christian "Culture" presumably.


I think that the anger directed against muslims is simply a misplaced frustraition rusulting from capitalism.

Is what passes for analysis amongst the anarchists nowadays?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:26 pm
You know those polls are only the opinions of a few thousand people (At most) not a whole fucking country! Stop trying to infect people with your pro Religious propaganda shit!
Of course it is. That is how opinion polls are conducted.

Stop trying to derail my thread with your painful ignorance.

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:17 pm
Sickening new poll showing the true levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe and America. Worryingly for British socialists (apart from those who engage in it themselves) is the higher than average level of bigotry against Islam amongst Brits.

The whole poll is here (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=801).


Some 38% of Brits say that the presence of Muslims in their country is a "threat". This is compared with only a fifth French people.


In a particularly worrying finding almost half of Brits (unbelievably) think that Muslims have "too much" political power. The parallels here with fascist narratives about covert "Jewish" cabals influencing political opinion are obvious.

Commentary on the poll here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2172881,00.html) by Seamus Milne in the Grauniad.

Hopefully this will go some way to persuading some skeptical comrades of the existence and the danger of this phenomenon.

Though, I suspect, some are not persuadable.
Is that surprising that it's higher in Britain than in America? More muslims immigrate to Britain than to America for obvious geographical reasons. Also Britain suffered a train bombing and several other foiled plots perpetrated by muslims in Britain. Of course these bombings don't even come close to evening the score for imperialism but there are reasons behind the fear no matter how absurd they are.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:33 pm
I don't think "they" can. I think most Muslims are working class anti-imperialists and more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class.

What about the materialist, secularist, Ultra-democratic part? It's not entirely in line with "behead those who insult islam"


White Christian "Culture" presumably.

Not sure about that, 44% of Great Britain is atheist (although that statistic includes agnostics). But let's not assume. Could you perhaps find out? If you can't, the statistic is pretty much wortheless when trying to formulate an analysis isn't it? Still, that doesnt seem to stop you. Better stick to paper-selling

:rolleyes:

[YKTMX]

Is that surprising that it's higher in Britain than in America?

It is and it isn't. It's surprising because America is the center of the Empire that is trying to demonize Muslims and Islam. However, it's explainable in terms of the "democratic" nature of American ideology and the fact that Americans, on the whole, don't like to admit to prejudice in public.


Also Britain suffered a train bombing and several other foiled plots perpetrated by muslims in Britain.

This is probably one factor. But I don't the effect of either the crypto-fascist tabloid press or the "enlightenment-mongers" like Hitchens and Nick Cohen should be underplayed.

Ironically, perhaps, bigotry towards Islam is much more acceptable on the British left than it is on the American left. I fear the ghost of the British Empire haunts us still.

[YKTMX]

What about the materialist, secularist, Ultra-democratic part? It's not entirely in line with "behead those who insult islam"

I don't know, depends who's doing the insulting.



Could you perhaps find out? If you can't, the statistic is pretty much wortheless when trying to formulate an analysis isn't it?

No, I'm happy with that assumption, after all, you just displayed exactly the same attitude in your first reply, saying that Islam is a threat to our "science". If you know anything at all about the history of science, you'd know that scientific advance and Islam were perfectly compatible. Alas, you know fuck all about anything.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 21, 2007 05:22 pm
Well that's obviously bullshit. But I can see where the misconception comes from. Muslims existing in England, the numbers they do, is a direct result of capitalism (and as we all know, capitalists have a lot of political power), as is the radicalisation of certain elements of Islam. I think that the anger directed against muslims is simply a misplaced frustraition rusulting from capitalism.
You've got to be kidding me. Maybe you can also explain why the BNP is an understandable reaction to the savages of capitalism, rather than exactly what it appears to be: racist and fascist scum.


You know those polls are only the opinions of a few thousand people (At most) not a whole fucking country! Stop trying to infect people with your pro Religious propaganda shit!
Shut up, this has nothing to do with promoting religion, but the omnipresent white nationalist thought that runs through much of modern Britain.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:44 pm
I don't know, depends who's doing the insulting.


Oh. You don't know. Well, my assumption would be that materialism and secularism are rather insulting concepts to those who ardently believe their religion should enforce the death penalty for blasphemy. But then, I have liberally no time for "cultural relativity" their opinions do not have worth in of themselves, they are talking Shi'ite.


No, I'm happy with that assumption

Im not going to continue debating you're ideologically driven speculations. They're factually meaningless.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 21, 2007 05:46 pm
The BNP is an understandable reaction to the savages of capitalism

The BNP was formed by well off ex-cambridge students and capitalists, so it couldn't have been a reaction to capitalism. I would however say that the BNPs boom in membership is an "understandable reaction to the savages of capitalism"

A majority of the BNPs voters and even, membership, are working class men and women, fucked over again and again by capitalism. Unfortunately they have been hoodwinked by bullshit propaganda, which points the finger at other elements of the working class.

That just shows a failure on our part to explain the issues properly. Though we should cut ourselves some slack, the odds are not in our favour.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 21, 2007 05:49 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 21, 2007 05:49 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 05:44 pm
I don't know, depends who's doing the insulting.


Oh. You don't know. Well, my assumption would be that materialism and secularism are rather insulting concepts to those who ardently believe their religion should enforce the death penalty for blasphemy. But then, I have liberally no time for "cultural relativity" their opinions do not have worth in of themselves, they are talking Shi'ite.
[/b]
Oh I see we're now equating the whole Muslim community to the most extreme forms of political Islam. Maybe you would be more at home on say, FreeRepublic, because I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between what you wrote and the kind of fantasies neo-conservatives believe in.

That was really classy using the name of a branch of Islam as a parting joke. Real highbrow humour. :rolleyes:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Electronic [email protected] 21, 2007 06:03 pm
Oh I see we're now equating the whole Muslim community to the most extreme forms of political Islam. Maybe you would be more at home on say, FreeRepublic, because I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference between what you wrote and the kind of fantasies neo-conservatives believe in.

When I said "to those who ardently believe their religion should enforce the death penalty for blasphemy" I meant exclusively to those people. And not to all muslims. But the Muslim community is a lot more religious than the christian one. Although that is dramatically changing with the influx of the Catholic polish.

[YKTMX]

But the Muslim community is a lot more religious than the christian one.

Another racist assumption.

Presumably if one is considered part of the "Christian community" then one is by definition "religious".

What is your proof for the bizarre claim that Islamic "religious" people are more "religious" than Christian "religious" people?

What Urban means by "religious" is different to him. So, Muslims, with their beards, skull caps, loose fitting clothes, hijabs, strange customs, brown skin, conservative social beliefs are more different to him than white, Western Christians.

What we're really discussing is Urban's inability to deal with "otherness", not Islam.



Get many brown faces at your anarchist meetings do you, comrade?

[Intifada]

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[YKTMX]

Incredible the mistakes we're more than happy to repeat, isn't it Intifada?

First they came for the Muslims
But I did not speak out
Because I was holding a meeting on the merits of secularism.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm

But the Muslim community is a lot more religious than the christian one.

Another racist assumption.

Presumably if one is considered part of the "Christian community" then one is by definition "religious".

What is your proof for the bizarre claim that Islamic "religious" people are more "religious" than Christian "religious" people?

What Urban means by "religious" is different to him. So, Muslims, with their beards, skull caps, loose fitting clothes, hijabs, strange customs, brown skin, conservative social beliefs are more different to him than white, Western Christians.

What we're really discussing is Urban's inability to deal with "otherness", not Islam.



Get many brown faces at your anarchist meetings do you, comrade?
It depends how you define 'Muslim community'. If you define it as a religious community, it is a ludicrous statement. I would say racist though, but then a don't run around calling people racists like it is going out of fashion.

If you define it as people from a Muslim background, as you often tend to, I think it is undeniably true.

Devrim

[YKTMX]

If you define it as people from a Muslim background, as you often tend to

Do I?

One example will suffice, comrade.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:17 pm
Incredible the mistakes we're more than happy to repeat, isn't it Intifada?

First they came for the Muslims
But I did not speak out
Because I was holding a meeting on the merits of secularism.
Indeed.

If you swapped "Islamophobia" with "Anti-Semitism" there would be an uproar (and rightly so), but when it involves Muslims it is somehow acceptable because they are seen as a threat to us all.

It is sad that some on the Left are falling for this right-wing xenophobia.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:12 pm
Presumably if one is considered part of the "Christian community" then one is by definition "religious".

That would be a shallow analysis. On the census I am a catholic, but I wouldn't call myself religious (beign an atheist and all). I know numerous Christians don't go to church, openly admit most of the bible is absurd (and that evolution is fact) etc. I wouldn't call these people particularly religious.


What is your proof for the bizarre claim that Islamic "religious" people are more "religious" than Christian "religious" people?

There were numerous statistics presented following a national survey done by, I think it was the BBC, which showed far more religious zeal in the muslim communities than the rest of the British demographic (but again, this was before the polish influx) It was on tv, so I have no idea where these statistics are online, but i'll have a dig about. One I have already mentioned, the vast sucesses of creationism in the muslim communities.


What Urban means by "religious" is different to him. So, Muslims, with their beards, skull caps, loose fitting clothes, hijabs, strange customs, brown skin, conservative social beliefs are more different to him than white, Western Christians.

I have considered whether or not that is the root of my objection to Islam, some sort of underlying racism I hadn't identified. But in honesty I, when I think about it I am equally concerned about the "White" Polish catholic centres that are sprining up, perhaps more so than the Mosques. I will still work with both polish and middle eastern migrant workers. Just not those with religious agendas.


What we're really discussing is Urban's inability to deal with "otherness", not Islam.

Are we? I mean, I like middle eastern food, music, the artwork is ok, and I get on well with several middle eastern people. I have no objection to middle eastern culture, or people. i have an objection to Islam - a clearly defined set of principals and beliefs.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:25 pm

If you define it as people from a Muslim background, as you often tend to

Do I?

One example will suffice, comrade.
I may look later. We will start with this though:


I think most Muslims are working class anti-imperialists and more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class.

Let's just get this straight then. Are you defining a religious community as 'more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class'?

Devrim

[capstop]

Be under no illusion, the economic crisis is forcing the fascist war drive of all ruling groups and the self appointed opportunist ‘left’ guardians of political correctness have been marching in step chanting their own condemnation about “reactionary anti-imperialism” exposing Muslim workers to the more overt racism.

It’s isn’t surprising, the left wing of capitalism will ultimately always defend capitalism while ‘militantly’ criticising it only. All who join in with this ‘condemnation culture’ will have blood on their hands.

The refusal to engage Muslim students, workers and their organisations with revolutionary Marxist understanding to combat fascist imperialism is a clear sign that the lefts are retreating into their natural counter-revolutionary role.

[bolshevik butcher]

This is a worrying, if not unsurprising find. Urbin Spirit, I highly doubt Britain is as class conscious, even in a warped way as for a remotely significant amount of people to have replied citing your reasoning. I am confident that all who have commented in this thread undersatnd the nature of oragnised religon and the role it plays in society, however we must also stand against racism. That doesn't mean accepting the prejudices common to muslims however, and it also doesn't mean that we should view the "muslim community" as one homogeneous bloc. The muslim community is part of class society like all others, so contains people from all classes. We must as socialists appeal to working class muslims as workers like any others, not as muslims, while standing against racism.

I think it's also fair to say that while facing a high level of social dsicrimination in Birtain, eastern european immigrants are also hugely exploited economically and shunned socially, so I wouldn't say muslims are the only group facing a huge amount of racism in Britain today.

[YKTMX]

Are you defining a religious community as 'more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class'?

Absolutely. I wouldn't be the first to point out the egalitarian, democratic nature of much Islamic theology -it's non-hierarchical nature, the election of Imams, it's racially mixed nature.

More importantly, in Britain, people from an Islamic background e.g Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more likely to be poor, more likely to be unemployed, more likely be victims of racism, more likely to be in poor health and poor housing than ANY other section of the working class. And let me point out, this is not just about skin color because Hindus and Sikhs are doing much better "Islamic" communities.

Not only this, they are the victims of a racist witch-hunt that BLAMES them for all these things - for their failure to "integrate", their failure to accept "Western values".

And, to top it all off, there is more hostility towards these people than to any other section of society from the rest of British society.

And the response of some on the left to this crisis?

Joining in.


Literally disgraceful.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Right on the money there YKTMX!

I suspect one or two here would have had a go at Thomas Munster too. :lol:

[spartan]

I agree we should engage with Religious people to try and win them over to the left and to abandon their repressive cloud man in the sky but we should not be defending Religion from attacks (Nor should we help in the attacks either we should just be neutral in that conflict). The fact is i wont be sad (And neither should any of you) when that most oppressive of human forces in history namely Religion is dead and buried for good. Some of the defenders of Religion here are so stupid defending an institution that not only being the most oppressive force the world has ever known has also openly attacked our beliefs and continues to do so today and would happily stab us in the back when the chance arose if we ever had an alliance of sorts with them.
FREE YOURSELF FROM THE OPPRESSION OF RELIGION AND CAPITALISM WHICH RELIGION BACKS UP!
That is the message we should be shouting at these Muslims.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 12:24 pm
I agree we should...FREE YOURSELF FROM THE OPPRESSION OF RELIGION AND CAPITALISM WHICH RELIGION BACKS UP!
That is the message we should be shouting at these Muslims.
Richard Dawkins tried that, and failed. (Possibly reinforcing religious people's beliefs)

You're not going to make them abandon religion, rather a post-capitalist society will have the material conditions for the need of religion to fade.

Haven't we gone through this already...

Also, I can't recall any religion thats holy texts encourage capitalism. :lol:

[spartan]

rev0lt:
Haven't we gone through this already...
Exactly but certain people on here still want to defend Religion from "Attack" :lol: If this was any other time in history a true leftist would have joined in on the fun of destroying the most oppressive reactionary force in human history which continually attacks our left wing beliefs.

Also, I can't recall any religion thats holy texts encourage capitalism.
It's text's dont have to but the majority of the Religious leaders do. The fact is most Religions teach non violence and meakness. The way i see it they are brainwashing the Proletariat to be non violent so they dont stand up against oppression, the boss or for what they believe in therefore they are preventing a revolution (Which will only come about violently unless of course you are a stupid hippie who believes love will conquer all :lol: ).

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by spartan+September 21, 2007 12:59 pm--> (spartan @ September 21, 2007 12:59 pm)rev0lt:
Haven't we gone through this already...
Exactly but certain people on here want to defend Religion from "Attack" :lol: If this was any other time in history a true leftist would have joined in on the fun of destroying the most oppressive reactionary force in human history which continually attacks our left wing beliefs.[/b]
Wrong assumption.

I have no problem with 'attacking' it, nor criticizing. The problem comes in when you want to 're-educate' the public by force.

That did not work in any of the 20th centuries' so-called socialist states so why would it work now?

They will abandon it when they're allowed the conditions.


It's text's dont have to but the majority of the Religious leaders do. The fact is most Religions teach non violence and meakness. The way i see it they are brainwashing the Proletariat to be non violent so they dont stand up against oppression, the boss or for what they believe in therefore they are preventing a revolution.
There's a difference from religion and institutionalized religion, which I am strongly opposed to, unlike the everyday common practitioner.


Which will only come about violently unless of course you are a stupid hippie who believes love will conquer all

Che
At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love.

[spartan]

All right then how about destroying their institutions and not their beliefs as their beliefs will probably die off when they have no churches etc anyway after the revolution has inaugurated our new society.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan, history has shown that that never works.

It creates martyrs, thus feeding this hydra.

It also drives those dependent on it into the hands of the most reactionary elements in the religious hierarchy, who will then use the fear of attack, and any actual attack, as a means of consolidating their control. This has happened so many times in the past, it is by now a cliche.

You would thus be playing into their hands.

Now, if religion worked only as a medium of control, there might be something in what you say.

But, it doesn't; it also works as a source of consolation for the woes class society heaps on the oppressed.

So, while class society exists, this opiate will find ready and willing users.

As with any druggie: unless the causes of dependency are addressed, and removed, the addiction will continue.

[samsonite]

more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class.


If you knew anything at all about the history of Islam, you'd know that all of the great innovations of the Caliphate period (such as the check - where one could write on a piece of paper that money was available on demand, as long as the bearer had a signature) were due to a very proto-capitalistic period of experimentation within the Caliphate that made conducting business easier.

In other words: the Caliphate was totally pro-capitalistic, pro-entrepreneur system of economic globalization, the very same kind of globalization that Islamists hate today.


the election of Imams

err...I think you mean the Caliphate, which isn't elected by the people but by (the shura) a small group of tribal leaders and occasionally doctors of Islamic law.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:05 pm
All right then how about destroying their institutions and not their beliefs as their beliefs will probably die off when they have no churches etc anyway after the revolution has inaugurated our new society.
What the hell is wrong with you?

Destroying their institutions and oppressing their religion will just make them look like the oppressed victims. That will just result in their beliefs gaining support, not dying out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Samsonite:


If you knew anything at all about the history of Islam, you'd know that all of the great innovations of the Caliphate period (such as the check - where one could write on a piece of paper that money was available on demand, as long as the bearer had a signature) were due to a very proto-capitalistic period of experimentation within the Caliphate that made conducting business easier.

Yes, that was hundreds of years ago; what has that got to do with Islam's more progressive features today?

Or do you imagine things are set in stone?

Check this out:

http://www.marxists.de/religion/harman/index.htm

[black magick hustla]

Muslims are generally more zelous than Christians, and this is coming from someone with a muslim background.

I think this has to do more with the present epoch than anything else though. My father grew in the young, independent algeria, and his generation wasn't very religious. The new generation, though, like most of my cousins, are unbelievably overzealous.

There is nothing anti-hierarchical about Islam as it is practiced now. There is nothing remotely progressive about it. Only pathetic, ideologically bankrupt leftists would claim something like that. My female cousins get bullied into wearing scarves, and my male cousins think Algeria is no place for christians.

It is no coincidence why some of the communists here with muslim background are some of the harshest critics of islam here.

Of course I don't hate muslims, that is fucking stupid. But the Islamic leadership is diametrically opposite to liberation, and I am not going to bend my beliefs to align myself with them.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 09:31 pm
what has that got to do with Islam's more progressive features today?

Islam has no progressive features today. The SWP has gone from arguing that there is racism against people from Muslim backgrounds to arguing that Islam itself is progressive. It is absurd.

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 07:09 pm
Right on the money there YKTMX!

I suspect one or two here would have had a go at Thomas Munster too. :lol:
Had a go? certainly! Dissmissed enirely? of course not. But I don't claim to do the same with individual muslims either. Look at my signature, "a declaration from the poor, opressed people of England" was a document produced by the Diggers. A christian Anarchist movement, lead by the Christan, Gerrard Winstanley, an individual who provides me with much inspiration.

I am at work so forgive the shortness of this post. What I will say quickly is that, it seems that you (the Islamist left) often confuse the arguments of the far left and far right, and seem not to notice the fundemental difference between them. This strawman, that YKTMX has built almost entirely on his own, that our position is equatable to the racist bigotry, is not only farsical, but hinders constructive debate. So I intend to fully clarify my position on the matter, and then compare it to the far-rights position.

But I have to clock off and get home first! give me 30!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 pm
Absolutely. I wouldn't be the first to point out the egalitarian, democratic nature of much Islamic theology -it's non-hierarchical nature, the election of Imams, it's racially mixed nature.
Well, we all make mistakes.


More importantly, in Britain, people from an Islamic background e.g Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more likely to be poor, more likely to be unemployed, more likely be victims of racism, more likely to be in poor health and poor housing than ANY other section of the working class.

Right. And we must act in solidarity with these sections of the working class, and indeed help them to fight this economic inequality because many of them are not aware even of the legal rights they are entitled to. I think radical trade unionism is probably the best option for these groups, talking from experience. We are organising a Polish cultural night at a local pub/venue, in order to get them information on workplace rights, and even get them into the appropriate unions, preferably the IWW. (it is going to be an IWW event)

I'm not a syndicalist but radical unionism can be very useful for the working immigrant population, particularly those who are illegal.


And let me point out, this is not just about skin color because Hindus and Sikhs are doing much better "Islamic" communities.

You can push muslim culture on me, but not American!. Colour has a u in it!

And this, I believe is the root of much of our dispute. The use of the word "Islamophobia" is, as you have just admitted, inancurate. The fundamental issue isn't really "islam" it's race. But certain sections of the right wing and the media, use Islam as an excuse for what could be described as a "racist agenda"

I accept this. But my objection is not to supporting Muslim workers (whom I hope to see self-organise), but to supporting Islamic bodies such as the Muslim council of Britain, or Hezbollocks, who are often lead by Middle class or bourgeoisie religious crusaders, who act against the interests of the muslim working class.


Not only this, they are the victims of a racist witch-hunt that BLAMES them for all these things - for their failure to "integrate", their failure to accept "Western values".

Which western values though (genuine question)? If opposing arranged marriage and execution for not being of a certain religion are "western values" then they fucking should face shit of not accepting them. As should anyone.

[YKTMX]

Well, we all make mistakes.


I notice you didn't actually dispute any of that, typically going for the snide remark instead.


And we must act in solidarity with these sections of the working class, and indeed help them to fight this economic inequality because many of them are not aware even of the legal rights they are entitled to.

Eh? Go further on this. What "rights" are these people not aware of?


I'm not a syndicalist but radical unionism can be very useful for the working immigrant population, particularly those who are illegal.


What the hell are you on about? Most people from "Islamic" backgrounds are not immigrants. Most are descended from people who've been here since the 50's and 60's. It's extremely illuminating that you are confusing the issue of racism against British citizens and the exploitation of legal migrant workers.

The two issues are quite different.


The use of the word "Islamophobia" is, as you have just admitted, inancurate. The fundamental issue isn't really "islam" it's race.

Sorry, you completely missed the point I was making, though I don't know why. I was pointing that even between people who share the same "race" (i.e people from the sub-continent) there is inequality. And that people from "Islamic" backgrounds do worse, on average, than people from Hindu or Afro-Carribean backgrounds.

So, as I said originally and you completely missed, the issue of religion is very, very important.


but to supporting Islamic bodies such as the Muslim council of Britain, or Hezbollocks, who are often lead by Middle class or bourgeoisie religious crusaders, who act against the interests of the muslim working class.


Who's ever said they support the Muslim Council of Britain? If you knew anything about British politics, you'd know that the MCB is a moderate, Labour friendly group who's General Secretary has been awarded a knighthood. I'd never "support" this body or any like it.

I did and do, however, support the right of the Lebanese masses to defend themselves from Israeli aggression. You obviously did not and do not and that is something we'll agree to differ on.


If opposing arranged marriage and execution for not being of a certain religion are "western values" then they fucking should face shit of not accepting them. As should anyone.

Actually, arranged marriage is much more of a cultural than a religious issue. Execution for apostasy is a backward practice, but not many people think there are any serious moves for it to be introduced in Britain.

Well, maybe if you read the Daily Mail or, judging by his tone, one of the comrade's anarchist newsletters.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dev:


Islam has no progressive features today. The SWP has gone from arguing that there is racism against people from Muslim backgrounds to arguing that Islam itself is progressive. It is absurd.

And our thanks go to the supreme pontiff, who, speaking ex Cathedra here, has settled this entire topic in his usual magisterial and dogmatic manner.

Now, can you pontifiacte US Imperialism into oblivion for us, your holiness?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Urban:


What I will say quickly is that, it seems that you (the Islamist left) often confuse the arguments of the far left and far right, and seem not to notice the fundemental difference between them. This strawman, that YKTMX has built almost entirely on his own, that our position is equatable to the racist bigotry, is not only farsical, but hinders constructive debate. So I intend to fully clarify my position on the matter, and then compare it to the far-rights position.

No, what I see here is an excellent comrade who says one thing out of one side of his mouth, and then the opposite out of the other.

The far right just say the one thing.

[Goatse]

There's a difference between religious discrimination and a phobia of religion in general. Islamophobia just amounts to sectarianism. Discrimination against someone for believing in a different fairytale, a belief which they have been brought up to believe and have had drummed into them from their birth is no better than racism.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think university islamophobia is largely a result of the neo con hegemony within well to do white middle class students, and the ugly baby of the BNP, BNP youth.

Shouldnt this thread be moved to discrimination?

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:52 pm

Are you defining a religious community as 'more open to radical anti-capitalist politics that any other section of the class'?

Absolutely. I wouldn't be the first to point out the egalitarian, democratic nature of much Islamic theology -it's non-hierarchical nature, the election of Imams, it's racially mixed nature.

More importantly, in Britain, people from an Islamic background e.g Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more likely to be poor, more likely to be unemployed, more likely be victims of racism, more likely to be in poor health and poor housing than ANY other section of the working class. And let me point out, this is not just about skin color because Hindus and Sikhs are doing much better "Islamic" communities.

Not only this, they are the victims of a racist witch-hunt that BLAMES them for all these things - for their failure to "integrate", their failure to accept "Western values".

And, to top it all off, there is more hostility towards these people than to any other section of society from the rest of British society.

And the response of some on the left to this crisis?

Joining in.


Literally disgraceful.
Hmm, your post is interesting, so I'll respond.
You should first research the amount of slaves traded by muslims and the amount of racism in Saudi-Arabia. Then you would know that islam, like any other religion, is not more peaceful than any other.
Actually I'm surprised that communists would defend religion, to me that is disgraceful.
Religion is the opium of the people, we should strive to get rid of it.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 05:14 pm
Dev:


Islam has no progressive features today. The SWP has gone from arguing that there is racism against people from Muslim backgrounds to arguing that Islam itself is progressive. It is absurd.

And our thanks go to the supreme pontiff, who, speaking ex Cathedra here, has settled this entire topic in his usual magisterial and dogmatic manner.

Now, can you pontifiacte US Imperialism into oblivion for us, your holiness?
Snide remarks are a poor substitute for political argument.

Devrim

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 21, 2007 07:08 pm
When I said "to those who ardently believe their religion should enforce the death penalty for blasphemy" I meant exclusively to those people. And not to all muslims. But the Muslim community is a lot more religious than the christian one. Although that is dramatically changing with the influx of the Catholic polish.
So I expect you'll be lining up to attack the Polish community next, then?

Are there any other immigrant groups you want scapegoat while we're on the subject?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I find myself in agreement with most of YKMTX's points.

At one place, however, I beg to differ.

The comrade says:


Absolutely. I wouldn't be the first to point out the egalitarian, democratic
nature of much Islamic theology

While I completely agree with the need to defend Muslims from the fascist-imperialist propaganda machine of the British establishment, I think there is no reason for us on the Left to unnecessarily glorify Islam itself.

Islam has egalitarian tendencies, but then again, it has some glaring inequalities too. Women, for instance, are considered almost-but-not-quite-equal to men in the Quran.
Also, Islam allows slavery (while severely limiting the abuse of slaves).


-it's non-hierarchical nature, the election of Imams,

Imams are not elected in any way that you or I could describe as "democratic". True, the local community does have a say in who becomes their imam, but its not like they have a vote by secret ballot. :P


it's racially mixed nature.

Hmm yes. Islam does indeed take a strong anti-racist line.


More importantly, in Britain, people from an Islamic background e.g Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are more likely to be poor, more likely to be unemployed, more likely be victims of racism, more likely to be in poor health and poor housing than ANY other section of the working class. And let me point out, this is not just about skin color because Hindus and Sikhs are doing much better "Islamic" communities.

Here I agree completely.


Not only this, they are the victims of a racist witch-hunt that BLAMES them for all these things - for their failure to "integrate", their failure to accept "Western values".


Correct, in my opinion.


And, to top it all off, there is more hostility towards these people than to any other section of society from the rest of British society.

And the response of some on the left to this crisis?

Joining in.


Literally disgraceful.

Comrade William Everard does indeed represent that unfortunate tendency on the Left.

If we are to become a politically-relevant force, a stance such as his will not be very helpful.

[YKTMX]

Islam has egalitarian tendencies, but then again, it has some glaring inequalities too. Women, for instance, are considered almost-but-not-quite-equal to men in the Quran.
Also, Islam allows slavery (while severely limiting the abuse of slaves).

Yes, I wouldn't want to overstate it either, which is why I said the "democratic, egalitarian" nature of " much Islamic theology. This doesn't mean it's "all" or even a majority of Islamic theology that could be described as such. Quite obviously, there is a deeply reactionary element in Islamic thought, just as there is is any broad based intellectual "current".

As for the slavery comment, I'd disregard it. Firstly, there is, as always, a problem of the translation of "slavery" into English. Quite frequently when this word appears in pre-history it means something different to how we'd understand it in a modern context. Secondly, recognition of the right to keep "slaves" can also be found in the Christian and Jewish holy texts, so Islam is hardly "exceptional" in this case.


True, the local community does have a say in who becomes their imam, but its not like they have a vote by secret ballot.

True, but when compared to 20 unelected Cardinals sitting in a room "appointing" the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Islamic practice seems almost Athenian in its democratic content.


If we are to become a politically-relevant force, a stance such as his will not be very helpful.

Yes, I think you're right in that it's both morally corrupting and politically self-defeating.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@September 21, 2007 05:35 pm
Britain suffered a train bombing and several other foiled plots perpetrated by muslims in Britain.
So did the Spanish, and far more people died in the Madrid attack. I think the real reason for higher islamophobia is that the british right are far more organised and consolidated than us. The british left is full of bickering and sectarianism.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 22, 2007 01:13 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 22, 2007 01:13 pm)
Jesus Christ!@September 21, 2007 05:35 pm
Britain suffered a train bombing and several other foiled plots perpetrated by muslims in Britain.
So did the Spanish, and far more people died in the Madrid attack. I think the real reason for higher islamophobia is that the british right are far more organised and consolidated than us. The british left is full of bickering and sectarianism. [/b]
What, more than the Spanish or French left?

Indeed, if it's possible, the French left is even worse on these issues than the British left, and levels of Islamophobia in France arestill comparatively lower. As you'll know, most of the French left implicity or explicitly supported that disgusting racist campaign to ban the wearing of Hijabs by young Moslem women in their public schools.

As for British fascism, whatever you think about it, it's not about to get a quarter of the national vote in the way Le Pen did.

I think the high degree of popular Islamophobia is down to 4 things:

1) The rabid anti-immigrant, proto-fascist nature of our popular press
2) The degree to which the notion of the British nation is wrapped with ideas of racial or moral superiority
3) The completely supine nature of the liberal and elements of the far left in the face of the "war on terror" discourse (this is not the same in most European states)
4) The failure to properly "intergrate" old immigrant populations into the polity

Now, some or elements of all these things are present in most places that were "surveyed", but I think they exist to create a "perfect storm" in Britain.

[Cult of Reason]

disgusting racist campaign to ban the wearing of Hijabs by young Moslem women in their public schools.

Muslims are not a race. :rolleyes:

All we need now is widespread Christianophobia as well and we will be all set. :)

[Andy Bowden]

Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Even if they werent a race, would this change the nature of the campaign - one rooted in bigotry - if not "racism"?

[spartan]

Something tells me that if the Religion being attacked in question here was Christianity none of the Religious defenders here on revleft would give a shit!

So why do you lot always defend Islam?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:11 pm
Something tells me that if the Religion being attacked in question here was Christianity none of the Religious defenders here on revleft would give a shit!

So why do you lot always defend Islam?
Spartan, Christians in the UK are not at risk of becoming a discriminated against as a minority. But yeah, I would care just as if Christians or Jews or any other religion (atheists) were to be persecuted in any country (yes spartan, that includes Islamic-majority countries!).

"You lot" translates to about a dozen of us regulars on revleft, and it's not "always".

I can't speak for the others but I defend Muslims because they are the targets of propaganda and *racist campaigns at least here in the US (very much like indigenous immigrants) and have had a constant negative portrayal of them in this country's popular culture and media for quite some time, even pre-911.

* I agree with this quote below from AB.

Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Even if they werent a race, would this change the nature of the campaign - one rooted in bigotry - if not "racism"?

[spartan]

Spartan, Christians in the UK are not at risk of becoming a discriminated against as a minority. But yeah, I would care just as if Christians or Jews or any other religion (atheists) were to be persecuted in any country (yes spartan, that includes Islamic-majority countries!).

"You lot" translates to about a dozen of us regulars on revleft, and it's not "always".

I can't speak for the others but I defend Muslims because they are the targets of propaganda and *racist campaigns at least here in the US (very much like indigenous immigrants) and have had a constant negative portrayal of them in this country's popular culture and media for quite some time, even pre-911.
That is fair enough.

I think i understand your position on these matters now.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 23, 2007 12:11 am
Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Even if they werent a race, would this change the nature of the campaign - one rooted in bigotry - if not "racism"?
I would say that 'race' is a social construct built around physical differences between various human groups. Religion, and any other belief or thought system, therefore, does not apply in the slightest. You might as well say 'Communists' are a race., and can you deny that there is a certain amount of 'bigotry' towards them?

Perhaps you are looking for Arabophobia (or whatever the correct expression is)?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Perhaps you are looking for Arabophobia (or whatever the correct expression is)?

Nope. Pakistani and Turkish women sometimes wear the hijab too (especially the former).

Pakistanis and Turks are not Arabs. Yet they are targetted as much as Arab women by the right-wing in the Western world.

[Hit The North]

Edited out superfluous comments.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 23, 2007 01:40 am

Perhaps you are looking for Arabophobia (or whatever the correct expression is)?

Nope. Pakistani and Turkish women sometimes wear the hijab too (especially the former).

Pakistanis and Turks are not Arabs. Yet they are targetted as much as Arab women by the right-wing in the Western world.
As are Sikhs and members of the Bahai faith. I think it's a safe assumption most of the Right is quick to judge whenever said person doesn't have a cross and Bible on their person -- even if they happen to be Christian.

Discrimination needs to be defeated on every front, starting here where some at RevLeft treat the religious as inferior theorists. <_<

[Cult of Reason]

starting here where some at RevLeft treat the religious as inferior theorists.

You are suggesting the contrary? :rolleyes: That judgement, that they are inferior theorists, is based not only on anecdotal evidence but also on the conclusion that good, materialist theory, and especially Communist theory, is obviously best done by those that have a firm grounding in reality, i.e. a generally materialist, rather than idealist, world-view. The religious do not, and cannot as long as they remain so, have a materialist world-view; therefore any &#39;theory&#39; they come up with is more likely than others&#39; to be suspect.

In short, they are treated as inferior theorists because they likely ARE.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

@ Marmot


Muslims are generally more zelous than Christians, and this is coming from someone with a muslim background.

I completely disagree with this baseless generalization, having lived among Muslims as well as people of other faiths (in Europe, for instance).

And I come from a Muslim background too.


I think this has to do more with the present epoch than anything else though. My father grew in the young, independent algeria, and his generation wasn&#39;t very religious. The new generation, though, like most of my cousins, are unbelievably overzealous.


My observations in Pakistan are different.


There is nothing anti-hierarchical about Islam as it is practiced now. There is nothing remotely progressive about it. Only pathetic, ideologically bankrupt leftists would claim something like that.

Relax, and take it easy on the sweeping statements.


My female cousins get bullied into wearing scarves, and my male cousins think Algeria is no place for christians.


...and therefore you can generalize about 1.1 billion people all over the world?


It is no coincidence why some of the communists here with muslim background are some of the harshest critics of islam here.

I am a communist of Muslim background, and I&#39;m a critic of Islamic religious teachings (because I&#39;m a materialist).

But I&#39;m happy to consider myself a part of the Muslim world, and don&#39;t see any need to generalize unnecessarily about the zealotry or otherwise of the Muslim people.


Of course I don&#39;t hate muslims, that is fucking stupid. But the Islamic leadership is diametrically opposite to liberation, and I am not going to bend my beliefs to align myself with them.

Depending on the material circumstances in which those religious leaders are placed, most are just reactionary scum, but some are progressive forces too.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:58 am

starting here where some at RevLeft treat the religious as inferior theorists.

You are suggesting the contrary? :rolleyes: That judgement, that they are inferior theorists, is based not only on anecdotal evidence but also on the conclusion that good, materialist theory, and especially Communist theory, is obviously best done by those that have a firm grounding in reality, i.e. a generally materialist, rather than idealist, world-view. The religious do not, and cannot as long as they remain so, have a materialist world-view; therefore any &#39;theory&#39; they come up with is more likely than others&#39; to be suspect.

In short, they are treated as inferior theorists because they likely ARE.
Here I&#39;d have to agree.

A materialist analysis is invariably superior to a non-materialist, mystic analysis.

But trust me, religious working-class revolutionaries can be far more effective than materialist communists who misunderstand a situation.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

As are Sikhs and members of the Bahai faith. I think it&#39;s a safe assumption most of the Right is quick to judge whenever said person doesn&#39;t have a cross and Bible on their person -- even if they happen to be Christian.


Yes.

Interestingly enough, Sikhs have been attacked by the right-wing in both the US and the UK, under the mistaken impression that they are Muslims.

It&#39;s because they grow beards and wear turbans...which places them very close to the stereotypical image of an "Islamic fundamentalist".

If this bigotry weren&#39;t so tragic, I might actually have laughed at this, though.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:52 pm

disgusting racist campaign to ban the wearing of Hijabs by young Moslem women in their public schools.

Muslims are not a race. :rolleyes:

All we need now is widespread Christianophobia as well and we will be all set. :)
"Race" does not exist and so "Muslims" are as much a race as "Blacks".

I merely use racism as it defines a set of values, beliefs and practices, namely that of discrimination or persecution of a group outside the "mainstream".

Anyone who thinks that what constitutes a "race" is merely skin colour is just a fascist who hasn&#39;t realised it yet.

[citizen_snips]

To be honest I think that in the "real world" (as opposed to just amongst the left) what is called Islamophobia is basically just racism. Anyone with dark skin is at risk, particularly Asians, (whether they&#39;re Muslim or not) - does your average skinhead idiot bother to check? Do they care, or do they just want to lash out at people who are different?

On the left, people are generally anti-racist. A lot of us are also anti-religious, including myself. There are good reasons for this. I wouldn&#39;t hate anyone on the grounds of their religion or the religion of their parents, but I hate the growth of religion in my community and in wider society, especially when it infiltrates government or other institutions. The main villain here is still the Christian religion, but I&#39;m not in any hurry to back the Muslim religion against it.

[Cult of Reason]

Originally posted by YKTMX+October 23, 2007 05:15 pm--> (YKTMX @ October 23, 2007 05:15 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 08:52 pm

disgusting racist campaign to ban the wearing of Hijabs by young Moslem women in their public schools.

Muslims are not a race. :rolleyes:

All we need now is widespread Christianophobia as well and we will be all set. :)
"Race" does not exist and so "Muslims" are as much a race as "Blacks".

I merely use racism as it defines a set of values, beliefs and practices, namely that of discrimination or persecution of a group outside the "mainstream".

Anyone who thinks that what constitutes a "race" is merely skin colour is just a fascist who hasn&#39;t realised it yet. [/b]
So, Christianophobia is racism? People who hate Communists are Racists? Don&#39;t be ridiculous.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:10 pm
So, Christianophobia is racism? People who hate Communists are Racists? Don&#39;t be ridiculous.
No, because nowhere in the world are either Christians or communists seen as a specific stereotypical ethnic group, unlike Muslims in the west, who are either seen as radical Malcom X blacks or Arabs. Stop trying to deny that.

[Cult of Reason]

Then that is Arabophobia and hatred of radical black people, and likely black people in general. Whether or not the Fash label them as Muslims or not is immaterial.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:37 pm
Then that is Arabophobia and hatred of radical black people, and likely black people in general. Whether or not the Fash label them as Muslims or not is immaterial.
You&#39;ve simply failed to assimilate any of the information here haven&#39;t you? Did you even look at the original post?

The people the British "people" hate are not "Arabs" or "Blacks" but Muslims. This is because they are the victims of a sustained, ideological and racist assault by the reactionary media taking their lead from an increasingly belligerent political class. This political class seeks to use Islamophobia as a means of justifying the "war on terror" and their assault on civil liberties at home.

This has nothing to do with "atheism" any more than Nazi attacks on "strange Jewish rituals" did. This is about persecution, demonization and marginalization in the pursuit of authoritarian and imperialist political ends.

Your opinions on the defintion of "racism" are even more bizarre. First of all, there is NO country in the world where "Communists" are a recognizable and oppressed minority. Moreover, "Communist", being as it is a political and class category rather than a cultural one, are extremely unlikely to ever face "racism". It would be difficult to imagine, for instance, a "Communist" only drinking fountain or space on the bus.

The reason the current prevailing attitude to Muslims can be described as "racism" is this:

1) Race is a social and historical construct, it has no basis in biology. Therefore, the term "race" merely refers to a collection of people with similar and identifiable cultural, religious, linguistical and geographical/national characteristics. The attempt has been made, since the inception of capitalism, to include "skin colour" amongst those features that have importance in the creation of group identities. I think, as socialists and reasonable people, we reject this category for the nonsense it is.

The "Islamic" population of Britain, actually extremely diverse in culture and tradition themselves (think, for instance, of the difference between Bangladeshi Muslims and people from North Africa), are the victims of a witch-hunt at the moment in which their "identifiable cultural, religious, linguistical and geographical/national characteristics" are under assault from the ruling class (almost wholly White, Christian and male).

Now, given that "Islam" is just as much a "race" as "black" people or people with ginger hair (in the biological sense, not in the social and historical sense, of course), then we&#39;d need to say EITHER

a) there is no such thing as race, and therefore no such thing as racism and therefore no such thing as anti-racism. That is, David Duke isn&#39;t a racist

OR

b) racism refers to the systematic oppression and discrimination of a particular group on the basis of easily indentifiable signifiers (skin colour, facial hair, loose fitting white robes, Burkhas etc) by a dominant group that is also easily identifiable. For me, therefore, in both the cases of African-American oppression in the U.S and the persection of Islamic people in Britain, racism, thus defined, is a useful term we should utilize in our analysis.

The point being, either you think that what&#39;s happening to Muslims in this country right now is racism, or you don&#39;t think that racism exists.

Pick one.