The nice face of Islam

[Devrim]

Something I noticed today, and found an English translation of. This is the face of Islam that we are more used to seeing. It reminds me of a friend's son who was beaten up at university in Ankara last year for eating in the canteen.

Just so people remember these sort of things when they talk about Islam being progressive.


Turkey/Istanbul – Beyoğlu police attacks people not fasting on Ramadan.
25 September 2007 -

A new incident of torture and attack is recorded against the Beyoğlu police in Istanbul. Özkan Kuru, a university senior student was enjoying a beer in the most popular restaurant region at the heart of Istanbul, İstiklal street when he was suddenly surrounded by uniformed policemen. They threw his beer bottle on the ground and broke it, asking him why he was drinking in Ramadan. After throwing his food on the ground also, the police took his cigarette and extinguished it as well. Then they said, “Your hair style is not traditional Turkish, and how come you don’t know you can not drink in Ramadan?” Then they started beating the university student. When that wasn’t enough, they sprayed him with pepper spray.

After arresting and dragging him to the police car, Özkan Kuru was taken to a quiet place behind some stores. He recalls, “They beat me up there and stole the 150 Euros I had in my pocket. He said he did not think that people should be attacked because of how their hair looks or if they eat or drink anytime. Mr. Kuru has taken his case to the Human Rights Association and he has been treated for his injuries in the hands of the fundamentalist police.

Turkey claims to be a secular country yet many state authorities ignore the law and force their religious beliefs upon others.

Özkan Kuru is seeking justice and is demanding an investigation of the incident while pursuing his case also through the Human Rights Association.

Source: www.Atilim.org

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Devrim I'm sorry I have to say this but seriously; stop being an idiot.

The actions of a few Muslims are not representative of the whole religion.

If a few Left-Communists set off a car bomb, would it be fair of me to say you're responsible as well?

[Great Helmsman]

Yes, this is just regular police brutality, only in this case the perpetrators don't face the possibility of consequences and act with complete impunity.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 07:23 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 17, 2007 07:23 am) Devrim I'm sorry I have to say this but seriously; stop being an idiot.

The actions of a few Muslims are not representative of the whole religion.

[/b]
I am not at all claiming that these actions are representative of all Muslims. I am just saying that it is more of the face of Islam that we experience first hand.

We have consistently argued that there is a racist campaign in the west against people from Middle eastern, and South Asia backgrounds, and that this should be opposed.

However, some people on here seem to have gone further than just opposing this racist campaign to arguing that Islam is progressive in itself. It was something I noticed this morning, and I just thought I would put it up to remind people how progressive Islam actually is.


Originally posted by Electronic [email protected]
Yes, this is just regular police brutality, only in this case the perpetrators don't face the possibility of consequences and act with complete impunity.

These were cops. When it happened to my friend's son, it was other students.

Let's just remind ourselves of the tolerant Islam we all know, and love:


Wiki
The Bible publishing firm murders in Malatya took place on April 18, 2007 in Zirve Publishing House, Malatya,[1][2] Turkey. Three employees of the Bible publishing house were attacked, tortured and murdered by five Muslim assailants. Two of the victims, Necati Aydın, 36, and Uğur Yüksel, 32, were Turkish converts from Islam. The third man, Tilmann Geske, 45, was a German citizen. Necati Aydın was an actor who played the role of Jesus Christ in a theater production that TURK-7 network aired over the Easter holidays.[3][4]

"Aydın is survived by his wife, Şemse, and a son and daughter, both preschool age. Tilmann with his wife Susanne had two daughters [Michal (13), Miriam (8)] and a son [Lukas (11)]... Yüksel was engaged to be married within a few months".[3][5]

According to the human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC), the troubles began on Easter Sunday when the alleged killers, one of whom is the son of a mayor, attended a service led by Pastor Aydın. "After [Aydın] read a chapter from the Bible, the young men tied [Yüksel, Aydın, and Geske’s] hands and feet to chairs as they videoed their work on their cell phones." Afterwards they were heavily tortured.[6] Gökhan Talas, the chief witness and a Protestant, came with his wife to the office.[5] The door was locked from inside which was quite unusual. Suspecting that something had happened, he called Uğur Yüksel not knowing that he was inside tied to a chair.[5] Yüksel replied and said that they were in a hotel for a meeting. Talas heard someone crying in the background during his talk with Yüksel, and decided to call the police, who arrived soon thereafter. According to Talas, the attackers killed Yüksel and Aydın after the police arrived.[5]

Eleven suspects were apprehended after the attack.[7] The chief suspect, Emre Günaydın, was treated for serious wounds after he attempted to jump out of a window to escape police.[7] All of the alleged killers are between 19 and 20 years old.[8] One suspect confessed that "The leader of the group was Emre. It was he who devised the plan to kill them. We went to the publishing house together. When we entered the place, we tied them to their chairs and Emre slit their throats".[9] According to another suspect, the victims knew Günaydın, as he regularly visited the publishing house.[9] Another suspect added that they all knew each other.[9]

Protests had taken place at the firm after it was accused of "proselytizing" a Muslim nation, but it is not known if the murders are related to the protests.


Devrim

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While the pigs would have undoubtedly found another way of picking on this poor kid had this happened in a non-Muslim country, it does illustrate perfectly one of the many reasons religion is shit - it can be used as an excuse to get away with shitty behaviour.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 17, 2007 11:21 am--> (devrimankara @ October 17, 2007 11:21 am)
Led [email protected] 17, 2007 07:23 am
Devrim I'm sorry I have to say this but seriously; stop being an idiot.

The actions of a few Muslims are not representative of the whole religion.


I am not at all claiming that these actions are representative of all Muslims. I am just saying that it is more of the face of Islam that we experience first hand.

We have consistently argued that there is a racist campaign in the west against people from Middle eastern, and South Asia backgrounds, and that this should be opposed.

However, some people on here seem to have gone further than just opposing this racist campaign to arguing that Islam is progressive in itself. It was something I noticed this morning, and I just thought I would put it up to remind people how progressive Islam actually is. [/b]
Yes you are claiming that by saying that the problem is "Islam" instead of "extremist Muslims".

The vast majority of people who don't do that shit also refer to themselves as Muslims, if you hadn't noticed. When you write bullshit like "the nice face of Islam" or "let's just remind ourselves of the tolerant Islam we all know, and love" you are playing into the stereotype that all Muslims are like that.

I know you know this, so you can stop pretending that you're unaware of your actions.

You are doing this demonizing on purpose because you live in Turkey and the vast majority of people there are Muslims, and you as an Atheist feel opppppressed.

Let me tell you; it's a lot different here in nice Christian Western-Europe. Why is it that when people write shit about Muslims and Islam, I, a person who is an Atheist, am a victim of that? Because I look Middle-Eastern? Wow, how enlightened of our Christian Europeans!

If I wrote stuff like that seriously I would be no better than you. But I don't write that seriously, because I don't believe all Christians are like that, or all Europeans for that matter. No, I see the difference between people who are idiots and claim to be of a certain religion or are of a certain nation, and people who are not idiots and claim to be of a certain religion or are of a certain nation.

The vast majority of Muslims are not violent people who want to enforce their beliefs onto others. If they were, trust me, Western-Europe wouldn't be as peaceful as it is now. And that is something that flies right against your bullshit stereotype of all Muslims being responsible for the acts of a few.

In Iran some Muslims hang homosexuals, have killed thousands upon thousands of communists and also relatives of mine, but I don't hate Islam or all Muslims for that. No, I hate the ideology of the people who did that which has nothing to do at all with the religion that other Muslims claim to have. It has to do with their politics and class a lot more than it has with their religion.

When people attack Bush they mostly attack him for his politics, not for his religion, and when they do attack him for his religion it's because he's an extremist Christian, and they make sure not to stereotype that with other moderate Christians.

This reminds me of a good comrade called Golsorkhi. He was a communist but also a Muslim. When the Islamic Republic arrested him and put him on trial for that, they asked him: "Why are you a communist?" and he said: "Because I am a Muslim."

I suppose comrades like him who did a hell of a lot more work for the working-class movement than you will probably ever do in your life, are worth less than you because they were Muslim, right?

Well not to me and certainly not to the working-class of Iran.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 11:43 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 17, 2007 11:43 am) You are doing this demonizing on purpose because you live in Turkey and the vast majority of people there are Muslims, and you as an Atheist feel opppppressed.
[/b]
Personally, I don't feel 'opppppressed'. I know many women who do feel very scared of political Islam in this country, but I don't.

Please, give me one instance where I have demonised Muslims. Have I said that Islam is reactionary, yes, but I don't think that I have ever demonised 'Muslims'.


Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+--> (Led Zeppelin)The vast majority of Muslims are not violent people who want to enforce their beliefs onto others. If they were, trust me, Western-Europe wouldn't be as peaceful as it is now. And that is something that flies right against your bullshit stereotype of all Muslims being responsible for the acts of a few.[/b]

When have I stereotyped all Muslims like this? Please give examples.

It does need pointing out though that in this country, as well as other countries in the Middle East including Iran, when Islam expresses itself politically, it nearly always expresses itself on the right, and against the working class. In this country we remember rightists launching pogroms against religious minorities in the name of Islam.


Led [email protected]
In Iran some Muslims hang homosexuals, have killed thousands upon thousands of communists and also relatives of mine, but I don't hate Islam or all Muslims for that. No, I hate the ideology of the people who did that which has nothing to do at all with the religion that other Muslims claim to have. It has to do with their politics and class a lot more than it has with their religion.

You write like I do. The fact is that if I had this hatred for Muslims you seem to be claiming that I do, my life would be more than quite unpleasant. I don't think that you can separate the ideology of Islam from the politics of certain sectors of the bourgeoisie though. They are intertwined.


Led Zeppelin
This reminds me of a good comrade called Golsorkhi. He was a communist but also a Muslim. When the Islamic Republic arrested him and put him on trial for that, they asked him: "Why are you a communist?" and he said: "Because I am a Muslim."

I suppose comrades like him who did a hell of a lot more work for the working-class movement than you will probably ever do in your life, are worth less than you because they were Muslim, right?

Well not to me and certainly not to the working-class of Iran.

Firstly you have no idea what I have done in my twenty plus years as a communist militant, and you have certainly no idea what I will do in the future. This is just empty rhetoric.

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that I believe that workers who are Muslims can't fight for their class. I never suggested this. Today 25,680 Telekom workers are on strike in Turkey. I am sure that over 80% would consider themselves to be Muslims. It is not the point. They are struggling as workers.There will be times though when that religion comes into conflict with the class struggle, and workers will be forced to oppose it.

I don't consider that somebody is 'worth' less than me because they are a Muslim. I am a communist. I try not to put values on people. I do value my friends, and workmates though, and last year I took part in organising a strike at my work to defend a woman who was sacked for being the wrong 'ethnicity'. She happened to be quite Islamic. It certainly doesn't change my opinions of individuals 'worth'.

As for your anecdote, it is just that an anecdote. Over the years I have met, and worked alongside many Iranian comrades ranging from people in my workplace group when I worked as a postman in London, to the Iranian groups we are in contact with today. I have also been to Iran on more than one occasion. I have never met an Iranian comrade with a good word to say for Islam though.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Islam: The case when communists act as apologists for religion.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 17, 2007 12:39 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 17, 2007 12:39 pm) Personally, I don't feel 'opppppressed'. I know many women who do feel very scared of political Islam in this country, but I don't.

Please, give me one instance where I have demonised Muslims. Have I said that Islam is reactionary, yes, but I don't think that I have ever demonised 'Muslims'. [/b]
Of course women are afraid of political Islam, and so am I! And so should every sane person be.

However my point is that equating political Islam with Islam in general is inaccurate because....they're two different things. The vast majority of Muslims in the Netherlands vote in elections. They vote for the Labor or Socialist party most of them. They do not want a Political Islamic state obviously.

But the way you write sometimes makes it seem as though they do. When have you ever demonized Muslims? Well, in your original post you wrote: "This is the face of Islam that we are more used to seeing." Or when you wrote: "Let's just remind ourselves of the tolerant Islam we all know, and love."

You are here saying "Islam" as if "Islam" is responsible for that action. As if the religion inherently makes every follower of it responsible for that action.

This is obviously not the case and when you write such generalizations you are perpetuating that stereotype and are demonizing Muslims who do not condone such extremist acts.


When have I stereotyped all Muslims like this? Please give examples.

See above.

If you had written there "see the face of political Islam" or "see the face of extremist Islam" then yes, you would not be stereotyping Muslims as a whole. But you did not write that, did you? No, you wrote Islam, meaning the whole religion, meaning every follower of it.

And that is something that sends out the wrong message.


It does need pointing out though that in this country, as well as other countries in the Middle East including Iran, when Islam expresses itself politically, it nearly always expresses itself on the right, and against the working class. In this country we remember rightists launching pogroms against religious minorities in the name of Islam.

Political Islam is fucking bullshit and I shall be the first person to fight against it. Political Christianity, political Judaism etc. etc. are all dangerous to the working-class and must be opposed at all costs.

But that's not the point. When I say "political Islam is bullshit", I am attacking the followers of political Islam...I'm not attacking all Muslims, because certainly all Muslims do not believe in political Islam.

And if you had written your comments about political Islam or extremist Islam, you would've gotten cheers from me.


You write like I do. The fact is that if I had this hatred for Muslims you seem to be claiming that I do, my life would be more than quite unpleasant. I don't think that you can separate the ideology of Islam from the politics of certain sectors of the bourgeoisie though. They are intertwined.


Well see! This is exactly the kind of misunderstanding people get when you write such statemens as you did in your posts above. I thought you seriously hated Muslims because of what you wrote because I thought when you wrote that you meant all Muslims.

Now I know you didn't mean all Muslims, so please stop writing as if you do!


Firstly you have no idea what I have done in my twenty plus years as a communist militant, and you have certainly no idea what I will do in the future. This is just empty rhetoric.

Come on, let's not kid ourselves. Khosrow Golsorkhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_Golsorkhi) was one of the leaders of the Iranian communist movement. It is a historical fact that he did more than you have done for the communist movement, and I am willing to bet that it will stay so, but I could be wrong on that of course.

Anyway, that's another discussion and that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing towards a communist Muslim who was a great comrade and fought for communism like most self-proclaimed "communists" will probably never do.


Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that I believe that workers who are Muslims can't fight for their class. I never suggested this. Today 25,680 Telekom workers are on strike in Turkey. I am sure that over 80% would consider themselves to be Muslims. It is not the point. They are struggling as workers.There will be times though when that religion comes into conflict with the class struggle, and workers will be forced to oppose it.

I don't consider that somebody is 'worth' less than me because they are a Muslim. I am a communist. I try not to put values on people. I do value my friends, and workmates though, and last year I took part in organising a strike at my work to defend a woman who was sacked for being the wrong 'ethnicity'. She happened to be quite Islamic. It certainly doesn't change my opinions of individuals 'worth'.


Alright, well I know this now. But from how you worded your statements in your previous posts I got the idea that you hated all Muslims because you generalized your statements.


As for your anecdote, it is just that an anecdote. Over the years I have met, and worked alongside many Iranian comrades ranging from people in my workplace group when I worked as a postman in London, to the Iranian groups we are in contact with today. I have also been to Iran on more than one occasion. I have never met an Iranian comrade with a good word to say for Islam though.


I certainly have not a good word to say about Islam either! When I have Islamic friends/relatives/contacts around me I discuss with them about their religion. I ask them questions, I criticize their ideas, and they are all civil and thoughtful in response to me.

To me Islam, like every other religion, is nothing but a fairy tale, and I believe it must be, and will be, eventually wiped out by history.

I attack political Islam at all times. How is it possible for someone to say, in the 21st century, that "there are no homosexuals in Iran"? How is it possible in the 21st century for a government to hang teenagers for having a sexual preference? And the communists comrades! Don't let me get started on that. The Islamic Republic has been one of the most murderous and brutal regimes in the history of the Middle-East!

The tortures they do, the executions en masse of political dissidents, the unrelenting killing of anyone who is even suspected of being against them, it is disgusting and after the revolution, after the workers rise up against those clerics, they shall dig up a ditch and throw them in there for their crimes against humanity.

After the Iranian revolution some leaders of the Sjah's movement were hanged from trees by their guts, even that is not enough of a punishment for some of these people!

Attacking political and extremist Islam must be done at all times. But I ask of you to word your attacks against them, and not against the secular moderate Muslims who are our allies in this struggle.


Serpent
Islam: The case when communists act as apologists for religion.

Serpent, I know you are a smart guy, but when you make statements such as the above it really makes me doubt that.

I have never acted as an apologist for Islam, just as I haven't for any other religion.

[Leo]

Yes you are claiming that by saying that the problem is "Islam" instead of "extremist Muslims".

This distinction seems to me as nothing but a ridiculously liberal distinction between "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims". No, the problem is not "extremist Muslims": the problem is Islam, just like the problem is not "extremist Christians" but Christianity, the problem isn't religious fundamentalism, it's religion. The problem is not "extreme nationalists", it's nationalism. Religion under capitalism is necessarily a bourgeois ideology - the problem is that it is a bourgeois ideology and both "extremist" Islam and "moderate" Islam always necessarily serves the same class always: when they are sending people to suicide bombing, when they are beating others up because they are eating in a school cafeteria, when they are trying to mobilize the masses to get headscarf legal, when they are rounding up militant workers and killing them. There is a problem with both "extremist Muslims" and "moderate Muslims": it is that they follow Islam. So they themselves are not the problem, them following a bourgeois ideology is the problem (of course it is a problem if they are workers). The same thing applies for nationalist workers, liberal & social democratic workers, fascist workers and so forth. The problem is that they are following something that is against their class interests and we oppose Islam as we oppose every other religion and as we oppose every bourgeois ideology not because we are nice cartoon character-like people with big hearths full of love and joy but because they are against the interests of the working class.

[AGITprop]

fuck religion, its personal
the cops were assholes for enforcing their beliefs on a complete stranger in such a violent way, fuck them

fuck Christianity
fuck Islam
fuck Judaism
fuck Buddhism
fuck Hinduism
fuck Scientology
fuck Baha'i
fuck Kabbalah
fuck Raelians
fuck Jehovah's witnesses
fuck Jedis
fuck Trekkis
fuck Right-wingers
fuck Leftists

fuck everyones beliefs. they should be kept to themselves unless other people express the want to learn or share. Here on Revleft we are open to people discussing there beliefs and not insulting anyone because of them. Those cops were dirty bastards because they beat up that guy and they give Muslims a bad name.

SO FUCK THEM, they should have their scrotums sliced open and have salt poured inside then have them buried up to their heads and have tigers eat their faces.

[Sentinel]

Here on Revleft we are open to people discussing there beliefs and not insulting anyone because of them.

How about: open to discussing stuff and being honest in our replies, even if it's about something 'personal' such as beliefs? While there no doubt were other reasons behind this crime as well, we do have the right and really should discuss whether or not Islam was at least partly to blame. It's not a thought-crime to 'go there'; we are rational thinkers and well aware of what poison religion can be for a brain, not to mention a bunch of them together -- what misery and injustices it has caused so far in the history of mankind, and what it potentially still is capable of causing.

Religion definitely has a 'track record' which makes it clever to stay on your guard whenever it's involved anyhow, if just as the weekly fix idea in the head of someone, who happened to pass by within a kilometre. Keep your eyes on that crap! We are not bigoted, we're critical. Religious people -- all people besides fascists, for legal reasons -- are welcome here, as long as they don't mind people challenging their views. And if religion is such an important part of someones personal paradigm that they feel the urge to mention it, that'll pass as an invitation.

If we then criticise a religion or any other idea, and the person feels 'insulted', it's tough shit -- he came to a discussion board and exposed his views for discussion. The day we become afraid of, or too polite to, being critical, we may as well throw in the towel -- this discussion board will have no more progressive purpose. But that day won't come! ;)

[Devrim]

Leo expresses our position much better than I could have.

AS for this:


Come on, let's not kid ourselves. Khosrow Golsorkhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_Golsorkhi) was one of the leaders of the Iranian communist movement. It is a historical fact that he did more than you have done for the communist movement, and I am willing to bet that it will stay so, but I could be wrong on that of course.

Anyway, that's another discussion and that wasn't my point.

Of course I know who he is. He is like an Iranian Nazim Hikmet. What the Stalinists did for the working class is a different point as you say.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 17, 2007 05:24 pm

Yes you are claiming that by saying that the problem is "Islam" instead of "extremist Muslims".

This distinction seems to me as nothing but a ridiculously liberal distinction between "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims".
No, it's a common sense distinction between moderate secular Muslims and Muslims who strap a bomb on themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd because they believe that act will bring them Heaven and Eternal Life and other such idiocy.

The fact that you call this distinction liberal is ridiculous. Sure, I've heard liberals make this distinction as well, does that make it liberal? I've heard liberals supporting universal healthcare too, I guess that also makes it a bad idea, because...the liberals said it!

Come on, let's be serious here. Just because one group of people says something we agree with doesn't mean that it's a bad idea. I know you're smarter than this crap.

If you want to discuss the issue let's do so, but don't bring in these petty criticisms that aren't worth the internet page they're written on.


No, the problem is not "extremist Muslims": the problem is Islam, just like the problem is not "extremist Christians" but Christianity, the problem isn't religious fundamentalism, it's religion. The problem is not "extreme nationalists", it's nationalism.

You cannot equate nationalism with religion, and the fact that you did so merely proves your ignorance of religion to moderate secular people.

I already wrote above of comrades who were religious, and who fought for communism better than most communists do in their entire lifetime. If nationalism, a clearly anti-proletarian political stance, is the same as religion, it would mean that no religious person could be a communist while still believing in communist politics and fighting for the proletariat.

It means that the vast majority of workers who will inevitably rise up for socialism in the religious nations would not be able to do so because they are religious. After all, it is equal to nationalism, and no nationalist can support socialism/communism at the same time.

Do you see where your logic leads you? It isolates the religious workers, who in the vast majority of the world are a majority, and demonizes them while it is totally unnecessary to do so.

Wait....did I just say that it is unnecessary to single out religion (a bourgeois ideology!) and attack it? Yes I did! I suppose that makes me a liberal to you?

Well if that makes me a liberal, it also makes Engels a liberal (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch02.htm). In that letter Engels criticizes the Blanquists (ironically) for declaring religion prohibited. He says: "persecution is the best means of promoting undesirable convictions! This much is sure: the only service that can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and to outdo Bismarck’s Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion generally."

And that is exactly what must be fought against. I can quote Marx and Engels more on this issue but I'm not, since I am not a person who likes to "wave around the Holy Bible". The argument presented by Engels, not the fact that Engels presented it, is correct. And I do not believe you would disagree with that. It was as true as it was then as it is now.

Don't you think it is political suicide for any communist group in the Middle-East to declare Atheism "a compulsory article of faith"? Don't you think that this will only spread Islam more instead of helping it to die out?

Marxists are clear on this issue. Religion is the opium of the people, but to get rid of their illusionary happiness it is necessary to demand their real happiness.


Religion under capitalism is necessarily a bourgeois ideology - the problem is that it is a bourgeois ideology and both "extremist" Islam and "moderate" Islam always necessarily serves the same class always: when they are sending people to suicide bombing, when they are beating others up because they are eating in a school cafeteria, when they are trying to mobilize the masses to get headscarf legal, when they are rounding up militant workers and killing them.

Surely you mean that religion has always been a ruling-class ideology, not just under capitalism.

Anyway, of course I agree with you, and the issue has never been to recognize religion in general as something which aids the ruling class. There are however exceptions of religious comrades who fought the ruling class based on their ideas. Do not forget that also. This however does not exempt the majority role of religion, which is to fool the people and keep the ruling class in power.

But the majority of religious people aren't really extremists, are they? It is the clerics, their leaders, which are the extremists, is that not true?

Do you believe that the majority of people in Iran, if they were asked freely, would not choose to get rid of the compulsory head-scarf law? That they would not choose to stop killing teenagers for their sexual preference? In fact, I believe the vast majority of people in Iran are against the death penalty altogether! It is only the clerics, the extremists, that hold such reactionary views.

Why demonize all the Muslims of Iran, the seculars, the moderates, when it is their leaders who are the ones who should be demonized, not them?

I am speaking of Iran here specifically because I know most of it. I cannot speak for other religious countries but I imagine it is pretty much the same in most of them.

So please differentiate between who is: "beating others up because they are eating in a school cafeteria, when they are trying to mobilize the masses to get headscarf legal, when they are rounding up militant workers and killing them." and the ones who are horrified when they hear of such things but still call themselves Muslims.


There is a problem with both "extremist Muslims" and "moderate Muslims": it is that they follow Islam. So they themselves are not the problem, them following a bourgeois ideology is the problem (of course it is a problem if they are workers). The same thing applies for nationalist workers, liberal & social democratic workers, fascist workers and so forth. The problem is that they are following something that is against their class interests and we oppose Islam as we oppose every other religion and as we oppose every bourgeois ideology not because we are nice cartoon character-like people with big hearths full of love and joy but because they are against the interests of the working class.

You cannot compare religion to nationalism, fascism, reformism etc.

As I have said above, this is simply inaccurate. I mean come on, you know just as well as I do that if there will be a revolution in countries such as Turkey, Iran etc. the majority of the workers will still self-identify as Muslims. That would not prevent them from supporting actions in their class interest though, things that fascism, reformism etc. do cause.

Has there ever been a revolution in which the majority of the working-class was not religious? The Russian revolution was surely the best example of such a thing. The vast majority of the Russian working-class and poor peasantry were religious, backward etc. and yet no serious person would claim that they did not act in their class interests!

Why would a illusionary Guy in the sky prevent a worker from realizing that taking over that factory is in his best interest?

Millions of workers have proven that it does not prevent them from realizing this, so why are you saying this? Are you saying those workers didn't exist? Are you saying they were just idiots? Seriously, I do not understand why you would equate religious workers with nationalist, fascist, reformist etc. workers when they are obviously not the same. I said it before and I shall say it again; the former can still work for their class interests while the latter obviously cannot because their view is a political one.

I am sorry but I am with these guys on the issue of religion:

"Engels blamed the Blanquists for being unable to understand that only the class struggle of the working masses could, by comprehensively drawing the widest strata of the proletariat into conscious and revolutionary social practice, really free the oppressed masses from the yoke of religion, whereas to proclaim that war on religion was a political task of the workers’ party was just anarchistic phrase-mongering."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



I am not at all claiming that these actions are representative of all Muslims. I am just saying that it is more of the face of Islam that we experience first hand.

We will need something a little more scientific that your subjective impression to believe this latest piece of muslim-baiting.

The BNP would love you...

[Leo]

No, it's a common sense distinction between moderate secular Muslims and Muslims who strap a bomb on themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd because they believe that act will bring them Heaven and Eternal Life and other such idiocy.

Of course there is a difference in what they are doing, but there isn't a difference in the belief, in other words the belief can be pulled to the most extreme and such extreme is in religion, in all religions. There is no "moderate" Islam, there is no "moderate" religion. Iran is now considered a "extreme Muslim" country, where Malaysia is considered a "moderate Muslim" country. Both are countries ruled by the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie in both those countries use Islam as their main ideological base. Malaysia is portrayed as better, as more respecting of "individual freedom" and so forth... but still, the police spies on people undercover trying to make sure they are fasting. Again, this distinction you are making between "good Islam" and "bad Islam" leads to a distinction between "good bourgeois ideology" and "bad bourgeois ideology". This is not only a liberal way of seeing the issue (as by definition it considers a variant of a bourgeois ideology to be positive or progressive) but it is unmaterialistic. Islam, like every other religion and like every other bourgeois ideology, can and will be pulled to the extreme if the ruling class desires it. Bin Ladin was a "good Muslim" before the attack on the towers, he had aided and had been aided by the "forces of freedom" and his involvement in "bad Islam" was unknown to the public. You can't take religion independent from capitalism as under capitalism, religion itself expresses the influence of the bourgeois ideology in the working class and if the ruling class wants it, it will pull the most "moderate", "positive", "nice" and "good" religious fellas to the most brutal extreme.


You cannot equate nationalism with religion

They are both bourgeois ideologies under capitalism.


If nationalism, a clearly anti-proletarian political stance, is the same as religion

Of course they are not the exact same thing. They are both clearly anti-proletarian stances, that is the similarity.


If nationalism, a clearly anti-proletarian political stance, is the same as religion, it would mean that no religious person could be a communist while still believing in communist politics and fighting for the proletariat.

Yeah, that's exactly what it means.


It means that the vast majority of workers who will inevitably rise up for socialism in the religious nations would not be able to do so because they are religious. After all, it is equal to nationalism, and no nationalist can support socialism/communism at the same time.

What a weird idea. Do you think socialism will happen when the workers of the world suddenly decide it's a good idea and then... suddenly vote for it or something?

Socialism is born out of class struggle. Class struggle is where bourgeois ideology will begin to be destroyed - this includes religion too - but it won't be destroyed immediately. What we want is workers to understand that they have to unite for the struggle for their independent class interests. What does this mean? Workers from all different sectors, workers from different industries, workers from different unions and non-unionized workers, workers from different religious backgrounds, different nations, different regions, different ideologies coming together. Obviously within the majority of those workers, the influence of bourgeois ideology will still exist: but they will still be struggling from their class interests despite the influence of bourgeois ideology within them and this is why all bourgeois ideologies will start to be broken in class struggle, in the picket line.


Do you see where your logic leads you? It isolates the religious workers, who in the vast majority of the world are a majority, and demonizes them while it is totally unnecessary to do so.

Straw man. What you say is not different from saying that opposing nationalism will isolate all the nationalist workers and demonize them. We are not demonizing the workers, we are condemning the bourgeois ideologies as there are against the interests of the working class.


In that letter Engels criticizes the Blanquists (ironically) for declaring religion prohibited.

Within the organization of the communist minority, within the revolutionary party or fraction, of course religion should be prohibited. Within the working class of course it should not be prohibited. Another straw man argument.


The argument presented by Engels, not the fact that Engels presented it, is correct. And I do not believe you would disagree with that.

Of course I don't. As I said, I don't call for banning religion, I call for exposing religion, and all the other bourgeois ideologies, for what they are: an expression of bourgeois influence within the proletariat, ideologies that are against the interests of the working class.


Don't you think it is political suicide for any communist group in the Middle-East to declare Atheism "a compulsory article of faith"?

For a communist group not only in the middle east but also in the rest of the world, as I said, it is completely necessary to declare Atheism necessary. Especially in the middle east, by not doing so, you alienate the part of the working class which is the most class conscious. Heck, even the British SWP admits that they are alienating the more class conscious workers from the Middle East and Southern Asia by their attitude towards Islam in Britain!

And of course your logic leads to saying not accepting Christians to a communist group in the South in US would be political suicide as well.


Surely you mean that religion has always been a ruling-class ideology, not just under capitalism.


Yes, of course. But it has, obviously, became a bourgeois ideology with capitalism.


But the majority of religious people aren't really extremists, are they? It is the clerics, their leaders, which are the extremists, is that not true?

Of course, but that is because of the way Islam is presented, not because there is a socially conscious choice to pick a version of bourgeois ideology.


Do you believe that the majority of people in Iran, if they were asked freely, would not choose to get rid of the compulsory head-scarf law? That they would not choose to stop killing teenagers for their sexual preference? In fact, I believe the vast majority of people in Iran are against the death penalty altogether! It is only the clerics, the extremists, that hold such reactionary views.

Yes, it is the ruling class, and of course the working class does notice, even feel, that it is violently against their interests. But then there is the strength of the bourgeoisie, the strength of bourgeois ideology and the fact that those questions aren't asked freely. We are talking about a capitalist regime, a capitalist world. This goes to a deeper question about the strength of the bourgeoisie world wide and the strength of bourgeois ideology in general.


Why demonize all the Muslims of Iran, the seculars, the moderates, when it is their leaders who are the ones who should be demonized, not them?

Again we don't demonize workers believing in Islam, we attack the ruling class, we expose the ruling class ideology.

I'll get back to your points later on today, I gotta go out now - in fact I'm late.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i'm agree with Led Zeppelin's first opinion in this thread,Devrim..not all Islam are like those cops who beating up that university student.those cops were just an asshole who give a bad name in Islam.so, are you gonna judge the whole islam are the same kind ass those motherfucking Turkish cops?

well, what about...for example,do you agree when someone judge the whole communist when one of our commie comrades making the same mistake as those cops?do you agree with that?

i'm not talking for the sake of islam, even here in Indonesia, the country with the most muslim people in South East Asia, there are some asshole like those cops who beats the university student, but they're not that radical..i meant beating someone for frinking in ramadan...that was the most stupid things i ever heard. i've been drinking ('til drunk!) in ramadan oftenly, but no muslim beat me.

Devrim, those cops were just an asshole!

[Leo]

So please differentiate between who is: "beating others up because they are eating in a school cafeteria, when they are trying to mobilize the masses to get headscarf legal, when they are rounding up militant workers and killing them." and the ones who are horrified when they hear of such things but still call themselves Muslims.

The difference is exactly the reaction you are talking about, and the influence of the specific bourgeois ideology we are talking about. The similarity is, although influential to a different extent, it is the same bourgeois ideology of which we are talking about the influence of.


You cannot compare religion to nationalism, fascism, reformism etc.

Of course I can in that they are all bourgeois ideologies.


As I have said above, this is simply inaccurate. I mean come on, you know just as well as I do that if there will be a revolution in countries such as Turkey, Iran etc. the majority of the workers will still self-identify as Muslims. That would not prevent them from supporting actions in their class interest though

Of course, exactly - but when they are supporting actions in their class interests, the influence of bourgeois ideology will begin to brake.


things that fascism, reformism etc. do cause.

And just as they can do it, so can religion. But what really destroys the strength of fascism, reformism etc. is exactly the same thing what destroys the strength of religion: class struggle.


Has there ever been a revolution in which the majority of the working-class was not religious?

Has there ever been a revolution in which the majority of the working class were communists?

Similarly, there were many during the Paris Commune who were nationalistic and still participating in the revolution. There is a strike of telecommunication workers going on here at the moment, and they are waving big Turkish flags at their demonstrations (mostly because of the fascist trade union leadership): this doesn't prevent them from striking, nor does it prevent them even from sabotaging communication lines, both acts directly against national interests of the bourgeoisie.

In the revolution we call for all workers to stand together. When we are going to go on strike we ask all workers to join, this include religious workers, nationalist workers, social democratic workers, liberal workers, Stalinist workers and even fascist workers because we are for the best interests of our class.

However a communist organization has to be narrow, it is an organization which operates within the class of only communists, and it's militants need to defend the proletariat political ideology only to be the most clear and advanced section of the proletariat. This we left communists have learned from the Bolsheviks and all the "Leninists" have not.


I said it before and I shall say it again; the former can still work for their class interests while the latter obviously cannot because their view is a political one.

So is religion, even if kept to the individual himself / herself. It is, as I said before, and expression of the strength of bourgeois ideology on the proletariat.

[Luís Henrique]

As you may notice, devrim gave an example about the murder of some Bible-thumpers by fanatical Muslisms.

There is a part of me that wants to yell, "Good riddance!"

But difference is a value in itself. While Islam and Christianity are both despicable ideologies - a society in which different fooleries compete among each other is better than a society in which a particular brand of foolery has a monopoly.

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

People who live in predominantly Christian countries and only fight again the Muslism brand of foolery are bigots, not activists of irreligion. Conversely, progressive people who live in predominantly Muslism countries should be expected to oppose Islam more than they oppose Christianity.

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

Not totally unrelated to the former point. "Christian" nations have passed through a complex process in the last two or three centuries, a process than can be called, concisely, "secularisation". A seventeenth century Christian who were magically brought to our times would not recognise modern "Christian nations" as Christian at all. His/her reaction would be to understand that atheism/heresy/satanism/whatever had triumphed over the Christian faith.

This process of secularisation was an essential part of the transition of feudal Europe into capitalist Europe; a secular State is a cornerstone of bourgeois domination. But as European/North America capitalism turned into imperialism and started revolutionising the other countries from outside, they realised that maintaining a pre-capitalist elite in the now-called Third World would be to their advantage. In some nations, such pre-capitalis elite also meant a non-secular elite as well. As such, secular Europe and North America are clearly accomplicits of Third World religious fanatism.

We should remember that both when we boast about our supposed enlightment (as if we don't drive cars fueled by fundamentalist Islamic oil) and when we are tempted, as good liberal boys and girls, to just simply put a sign of equal between Western "Christianism" and Middle Eastern Islamism. They may be the same, in abstract; in practice, "Christianism" has long been tamed by secular westerners, atheists, deists and agnostics alike. Islam has never been defeated in the same way, and part of the responsibility for that belongs to the Western secular-"Christian" bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 18, 2007 09:52 am
Of course there is a difference in what they are doing, but there isn't a difference in the belief, in other words the belief can be pulled to the most extreme and such extreme is in religion, in all religions. There is no "moderate" Islam, there is no "moderate" religion. Iran is now considered a "extreme Muslim" country, where Malaysia is considered a "moderate Muslim" country. Both are countries ruled by the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeoisie in both those countries use Islam as their main ideological base. Malaysia is portrayed as better, as more respecting of "individual freedom" and so forth... but still, the police spies on people undercover trying to make sure they are fasting. Again, this distinction you are making between "good Islam" and "bad Islam" leads to a distinction between "good bourgeois ideology" and "bad bourgeois ideology". This is not only a liberal way of seeing the issue (as by definition it considers a variant of a bourgeois ideology to be positive or progressive) but it is unmaterialistic. Islam, like every other religion and like every other bourgeois ideology, can and will be pulled to the extreme if the ruling class desires it. Bin Ladin was a "good Muslim" before the attack on the towers, he had aided and had been aided by the "forces of freedom" and his involvement in "bad Islam" was unknown to the public. You can't take religion independent from capitalism as under capitalism, religion itself expresses the influence of the bourgeois ideology in the working class and if the ruling class wants it, it will pull the most "moderate", "positive", "nice" and "good" religious fellas to the most brutal extreme.
I have to disagree with this simply because I'm not a dogmatic Marxist but an existentialist Marxist.

I have to disagree with you on "every bourgeoisie idea is equally bad", because the real world disproves this on a daily basis. It is not the idea or religion that is necessarily bad; it is what people make of that idea that makes it bad.

Religion exists as a set of ideas written hundreds of years ago. Why is it that one person uses that to justify fighting against poverty, fighting for social justice, fighting for communism, while another uses it to fight for exploitation, murder, terrorism etc.?

If what you say is true ("There is no "moderate" Islam, there is no "moderate" religion."), then all religious people should take their religion to mean the same thing, and there would be no such thing as a progressive Christian or a progressive Muslim.

Now this is an anti-Marxist view, because it means that when a certain group of religious people fight for their class-interests (you know, class, that thing which is most important in how people form their ideas of the world?), and they justify this using religious rhetoric, they are in effect being reactionary because they are using a bourgeois ideology...

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. And I am not saying this as a "bad example" either. It has happened in the real world. The early trade-unionist movement of the Western nations were usually lead by religious people who wanted to do good.

Of course this is a small minority, but still, if it is possible it means that your thesis is wrong, since it presupposes that religion can have no progressive role at all, and on no occasion.


They are both bourgeois ideologies under capitalism.

Yes but not all bourgeois ideologies are the same. The fact that you believe they are means that you are a dogmatic Marxist unable to see the distinctions between them.

Religion and nationalism have two different roles for the bourgeoisie. Nationalism is to fool workers into believing that they need to have borders and need to stand by their "own people" and that they are "superior". Religion is to tell the poor and dispossessed: "do not worry, you shall be rewarded for your misery in this world in the next."

And even in those categories they are vastly different! Religion has a set of core values to it that are even antithetical to capitalism, and this is why even communists can justify their views with their religion.

You cannot just take all of religion and take it as one thing, because religious people don't do that themselves.

So the difference is that one can be religious while still being an internationalist and still fighting for their class interests. History has proven this. A lot of communist comrades from Iran were also Islamic and yet they were the finest comrades you'd have ever seen.

However one cannot be a nationalist and still claim to be communist. I know a lot of people do, but objectively they do not fight for their class interests, they fight against it (see Stalinism).


Of course, exactly - but when they are supporting actions in their class interests, the influence of bourgeois ideology will begin to brake.

Yes this is true, but to them it does not begin to break. To them the very reason they are fighting for socialism is because of their religion. The only difference is that other religious values are brought for in such revolutionary times.

While before the values of "do not steal!", "wait until you're dead then you will go to heaven!", now the values of "help the poor!" will come to the fore.

Every revolution from the French to the Russian has proven this.

Of course after this the materialist comrades will say to them: "comrades, you did this all yourself, you did not need a God to do this, as you yourselves have that position in society now." And then they will start to think for themselves and then religion will begin to break down.

As Marx said: to get rid of the illusionary happiness of the people we must demand their real happiness.


And just as they can do it, so can religion. But what really destroys the strength of fascism, reformism etc. is exactly the same thing what destroys the strength of religion: class struggle.

There is a difference and I am really surprised that you can't see this.

There are and have been religious communists that fought for their class interests.

There are not and have never been fascist, nationalist etc. communists fighting for their class interests.

This really goes deeper too. You just said above that it is true that in a revolutionary situation in nations such as Iran the majority of workers will self-identify as Muslims. Don't you see the difference here? They cannot be fascists or nationalists because if they are there wouldn't be a revolution in the first place, but they can be religious and revolutionary!


Has there ever been a revolution in which the majority of the working class were communists?


No, and you just proved my point!

People don't have to read Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. to be revolutionary or to understand what is in their best class-interests; they know this by their very existence as a distinct social class.

And this is why people don't have to be ideologically "pure" to act in their class interests. They just have to realize what their class-interests are, and they can do this while still being religious because first: history has proven this, and second: religion does not necessarily have political consequences in the view of the people as nationalism and fascism have, also something which history proves (the existence of religious communists).

I'm going to ignore your jibe at Leninism and move on to the other points.


So is religion, even if kept to the individual himself / herself. It is, as I said before, and expression of the strength of bourgeois ideology on the proletariat.

I just disproved this above.

If you would have looked at history more closely yourself you would have come to the same conclusion.


What a weird idea. Do you think socialism will happen when the workers of the world suddenly decide it's a good idea and then... suddenly vote for it or something?


No of course not, I was just using a hypthetical situation, and you know I was so please stop trying to change the subject to something irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Within the organization of the communist minority, within the revolutionary party or fraction, of course religion should be prohibited. Within the working class of course it should not be prohibited. Another straw man argument.


So you believe that no person can be a committed communist while also being religious at the same time?

If this is what you believe then this just proves that left-communists are nothing but sectarians useless to the working-class movement. A lot of religious comrades in Iran have done infinitely more for the working-class movement than you or your comrades will ever even hope to do, so the fact that you believe they weren't "real communists" merely proves how distorted your view is on working-class activity.

I can assure you that workers know the difference between the two. One is a person trying to be ideologically pure and trying to tell them what to believe; the other is comrades trying to engage them in class-struggle. Fellow workers who wrote, organized, taught and engaged their fellow workers to fight for their class-interests without claiming to have the moral high-ground to them.

Those comrades are remembered by the Iranian working-class and the working-class movement of the world. Who knows you? Who will remember you? I can guarantee that with the stance you have today in a nation such as Turkey; no one will.

Anyway, have fun in keeping your little sect ideologically pure and full of "proletarian ideas".

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 18, 2007 05:31 pm
As you may notice, devrim gave an example about the murder of some Bible-thumpers by fanatical Muslisms.

There is a part of me that wants to yell, "Good riddance!"

But difference is a value in itself. While Islam and Christianity are both despicable ideologies - a society in which different fooleries compete among each other is better than a society in which a particular brand of foolery has a monopoly.

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

People who live in predominantly Christian countries and only fight again the Muslism brand of foolery are bigots, not activists of irreligion. Conversely, progressive people who live in predominantly Muslism countries should be expected to oppose Islam more than they oppose Christianity.

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

Not totally unrelated to the former point. "Christian" nations have passed through a complex process in the last two or three centuries, a process than can be called, concisely, "secularisation". A seventeenth century Christian who were magically brought to our times would not recognise modern "Christian nations" as Christian at all. His/her reaction would be to understand that atheism/heresy/satanism/whatever had triumphed over the Christian faith.

This process of secularisation was an essential part of the transition of feudal Europe into capitalist Europe; a secular State is a cornerstone of bourgeois domination. But as European/North America capitalism turned into imperialism and started revolutionising the other countries from outside, they realised that maintaining a pre-capitalist elite in the now-called Third World would be to their advantage. In some nations, such pre-capitalis elite also meant a non-secular elite as well. As such, secular Europe and North America are clearly accomplicits of Third World religious fanatism.

We should remember that both when we boast about our supposed enlightment (as if we don't drive cars fueled by fundamentalist Islamic oil) and when we are tempted, as good liberal boys and girls, to just simply put a sign of equal between Western "Christianism" and Middle Eastern Islamism. They may be the same, in abstract; in practice, "Christianism" has long been tamed by secular westerners, atheists, deists and agnostics alike. Islam has never been defeated in the same way, and part of the responsibility for that belongs to the Western secular-"Christian" bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique
...And this is the materialist view on the matter.

Now that is a Marxist.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 19, 2007 07:54 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 19, 2007 07:54 am)
Luís [email protected] 18, 2007 05:31 pm
As you may notice, devrim gave an example about the murder of some Bible-thumpers by fanatical Muslisms.

There is a part of me that wants to yell, "Good riddance!"

But difference is a value in itself. While Islam and Christianity are both despicable ideologies - a society in which different fooleries compete among each other is better than a society in which a particular brand of foolery has a monopoly.

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

People who live in predominantly Christian countries and only fight again the Muslism brand of foolery are bigots, not activists of irreligion. Conversely, progressive people who live in predominantly Muslism countries should be expected to oppose Islam more than they oppose Christianity.

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

Not totally unrelated to the former point. "Christian" nations have passed through a complex process in the last two or three centuries, a process than can be called, concisely, "secularisation". A seventeenth century Christian who were magically brought to our times would not recognise modern "Christian nations" as Christian at all. His/her reaction would be to understand that atheism/heresy/satanism/whatever had triumphed over the Christian faith.

This process of secularisation was an essential part of the transition of feudal Europe into capitalist Europe; a secular State is a cornerstone of bourgeois domination. But as European/North America capitalism turned into imperialism and started revolutionising the other countries from outside, they realised that maintaining a pre-capitalist elite in the now-called Third World would be to their advantage. In some nations, such pre-capitalis elite also meant a non-secular elite as well. As such, secular Europe and North America are clearly accomplicits of Third World religious fanatism.

We should remember that both when we boast about our supposed enlightment (as if we don't drive cars fueled by fundamentalist Islamic oil) and when we are tempted, as good liberal boys and girls, to just simply put a sign of equal between Western "Christianism" and Middle Eastern Islamism. They may be the same, in abstract; in practice, "Christianism" has long been tamed by secular westerners, atheists, deists and agnostics alike. Islam has never been defeated in the same way, and part of the responsibility for that belongs to the Western secular-"Christian" bourgeoisie.

Luís Henrique
...And this is the materialist view on the matter.

Now that is a Marxist. [/b]
My emphasis

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 19, 2007 07:53 am
If this is what you believe then this just proves that left-communists are nothing but sectarians useless to the working-class movement. A lot of religious comrades in Iran have done infinitely more for the working-class movement than you or your comrades will ever even hope to do, so the fact that you believe they weren't "real communists" merely proves how distorted your view is on working-class activity.

Those comrades are remembered by the Iranian working-class and the working-class movement of the world. Who knows you? Who will remember you? I can guarantee that with the stance you have today in a nation such as Turkey; no one will.

Anyway, have fun in keeping your little sect ideologically pure and full of "proletarian ideas".
There are a lot of comments in this post that need commenting on from the relationships between the communist minorities, and the rest of the class to the very idea of class consciousness itself, to LZ's idealisation of Iranian Stalinists as doing so much for the working class movement.

The one that I would like to comment on briefly though before I go to work is if our ideas are so irrelevant, why do the Trotskyists on here need to keep screaming it so loudly. If our ideas were so out of touch with want militant workers are thinking, one would think that they wouldn't need to rant on about how we are 'ideologically pure little sects' quite so loudly.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:17 am
to LZ's idealisation of Iranian Stalinists as doing so much for the working class movement.
This isn't just about Golsorkhi. He was just one person. I am talking of the thousands of communists who were members of parties such as Fedaian and other such organizations who weren't Stalinists, and still gave their lives for the cause.

It's nice how you can try to degrade such a great comrade though by dismissing him as a "Stalinist". Isn't it ironic that a Trotskyist who is supposed to be the most sectarian according to you still considers him a great comrade, while a left-communist simply dismisses him?

Now we know who the real sectarians are.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 19, 2007 09:22 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 19, 2007 09:22 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:17 am
to LZ's idealisation of Iranian Stalinists as doing so much for the working class movement.
This isn't just about Golsorkhi. He was just one person. I am talking of the thousands of communists who were members of parties such as Fedaian and other such organizations who weren't Stalinists, and still gave their lives for the cause.
[/b]
What on Earth are you talking about here? The Fadaeyeh came from Stalinism originally, went through Maoism, and ended up opposing both in some sort of bizarre national socialism. While not disputing the commitment, the bravery, or even the subjective commitment to socialism of the militants of these sorts of parties, we would be dishonest if we failed to point out their intrinsically anti-working class nature of these sort of organisations.


It's nice how you can try to degrade such a great comrade though by dismissing him as a "Stalinist".

Was he, or was he not a "Stalinist"? Whatever our personal attachment to these people (my grandfather was a Stalinist), or however beautiful their artistic work (unfortunately I don't read Farsi, so I unable to read Golsorkhi, but Hikmet's work is beautiful), it is important not to forget that these people were actually on the side of the counter revolution.


Isn't it ironic that a Trotskyist who is supposed to be the most sectarian according to you still considers him a great comrade, while a left-communist simply dismisses him?

Now we know who the real sectarians are.

Where did we call you sectarians? What is that comment referring to?

We say that there are certain forces that call themselves socialist, which are objectively anti-working class organisations.

We say that organisations that support different factions in capitalist wars are objectively anti-working class.

If that makes us what you call 'sectarian' so be it.

Devrim

[Enragé]

err that is sectarian, how are trotskyists anti-working class?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by NKOS+October 19, 2007 12:21 pm--> (NKOS @ October 19, 2007 12:21 pm) err that is sectarian, how are trotskyists anti-working class? [/b]
I didn't mention the Trotskyists. You did.

Presumably you think then that they fit into one of these two categories:


Devrim
We say that there are certain forces that call themselves socialist, which are objectively anti-working class organisations.

We say that organisations that support different factions in capitalist wars are objectively anti-working class.

Devrim

[ReD_ReBeL]

Its funny..the double standards of this board, 1 minute the majority is mocking christianity and taking the piss out of christian symbols like 'jesus' , but the minute someone bad mouths something related to islam the majority here go PC crazy.
Islam isn't a race, no matter what you say.
There are black , white, arab, asian etc Muslims.

[spartan]

ReD_ReBeL:
Its funny..the double standards of this board, 1 minute the majority is mocking christianity and taking the piss out of christian symbols like 'jesus' , but the minute someone bad mouths something related to islam the majority here go PC crazy.
Islam isn't a race, no matter what you say.
There are black , white, arab, asian etc Muslims.
I was thinking exactly the same thing!

All Religions, no matter how progressive some may seem (Or purposely appear), should be attacked by the left at every available opportunity.

Religions are used to prop up the ruling class and try and stop any anti hierarchal revolutionary sentiment among the lower classes via their teaching of non violence.

Politicians rule us and Religions fool us.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 19, 2007 12:54 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 19, 2007 12:54 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:21 pm
err that is sectarian, how are trotskyists anti-working class?
I didn't mention the Trotskyists. You did.

Presumably you think then that they fit into one of these two categories:


Devrim
We say that there are certain forces that call themselves socialist, which are objectively anti-working class organisations.

We say that organisations that support different factions in capitalist wars are objectively anti-working class.

Devrim [/b]
well the reason i thought you meant them is because the dutch/belgian chapter of your org considers trotskyists to be on the left side of capital, at least that's what I recall from seeing there site some time ago.

they even have a brochure "Trotskyism against the working class"

The biggest problem i have with that org is that they focus almost exclusively on *****ing at other groups in the most vehemently sectarian way.

[More Fire for the People]

When talking about Islam it is unfair to group prophetic Muslims with Imperial & Black [death-culture] Muslims.

[Leo]

well the reason i thought you meant them is because the dutch/belgian chapter of your org considers trotskyists to be on the left side of capital, at least that's what I recall from seeing there site some time ago.

they even have a brochure "Trotskyism against the working class"

The biggest problem i have with that org is that they focus almost exclusively on *****ing at other groups in the most vehemently sectarian way.

I don't think you understand what "sectarian" means. Sectarian does not refer to being critical or being against other tendencies. Everyone on RevLeft is, for example, against the Republican Party US politically - does that make everyone sectarian?

Being sectarian is refusing to discuss. I think that because it supports different factions in capitalist wars, Trotskyism is anti-working class. This doesn't mean that I don't discuss with them. This doesn't mean that I don't behave politely towards them. This doesn't mean that if I have Trotskyist co-workers, I won't ask them to join the strike. But not being sectarian doesn't mean keeping your politics to yourself either - if you think that Trotskyism is anti-working class, it's your duty to say so.

Ah, and we're not in the ICC...yet.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 17, 2007 02:23 am
Devrim I'm sorry I have to say this but seriously; stop being an idiot.

The actions of a few Muslims are not representative of the whole religion.

If a few Left-Communists set off a car bomb, would it be fair of me to say you're responsible as well?
I don't think that this represents he view of all muslims, but it definitely represents a majority, or at least a distinct minority.

In almost all majority Muslim nations there are efforts like this everyday. This religion has a big fundamentalism problem, even Christians don't have as big a problem. We have a creeping anti-secularism in America as well, but it is not at the stage it's in in Turkey.

This also reminds me of the way American cops used to behave 20-30 years ago, and today in southern towns: If someone was in a park or on their porch and drinking a beer on Sunday the cops would beat them up, for violating the so-called 'blue law' of not selling, buying or consuming alchohol on Sunday. I don't see the difference between the two.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:04 pm
well the reason i thought you meant them is because the dutch/belgian chapter of your org considers trotskyists to be on the left side of capital, at least that's what I recall from seeing there site some time ago.

Yes, we do think that the Trotskyists are anti-working class. My point was I hadn't said it there. As Leo, says it isn't our organisation just one that we are close to.


The biggest problem i have with that org is that they focus almost exclusively on *****ing at other groups in the most vehemently sectarian way.

I don't read Dutch so I can't real comment on the details oftheir activity. There are times when it is necessary to condemn the anti-working class activities of these sort of groups though.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 21, 2007 04:56 pm
I don't think that this represents he view of all muslims, but it definitely represents a majority, or at least a distinct minority.


Actually, I didn't talk about Muslims at all.


In almost all majority Muslim nations there are efforts like this everyday. This religion has a big fundamentalism problem, even Christians don't have as big a problem. We have a creeping anti-secularism in America as well, but it is not at the stage it's in in Turkey.

This is debatable, especially in America.

Devrim

[Anti-Zionist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:23 am
Something I noticed today, and found an English translation of. This is the face of Islam that we are more used to seeing. It reminds me of a friend's son who was beaten up at university in Ankara last year for eating in the canteen.

Just so people remember these sort of things when they talk about Islam being progressive.


Turkey/Istanbul – Beyoğlu police attacks people not fasting on Ramadan.
25 September 2007 -

A new incident of torture and attack is recorded against the Beyoğlu police in Istanbul. Özkan Kuru, a university senior student was enjoying a beer in the most popular restaurant region at the heart of Istanbul, İstiklal street when he was suddenly surrounded by uniformed policemen. They threw his beer bottle on the ground and broke it, asking him why he was drinking in Ramadan. After throwing his food on the ground also, the police took his cigarette and extinguished it as well. Then they said, “Your hair style is not traditional Turkish, and how come you don’t know you can not drink in Ramadan?” Then they started beating the university student. When that wasn’t enough, they sprayed him with pepper spray.

After arresting and dragging him to the police car, Özkan Kuru was taken to a quiet place behind some stores. He recalls, “They beat me up there and stole the 150 Euros I had in my pocket. He said he did not think that people should be attacked because of how their hair looks or if they eat or drink anytime. Mr. Kuru has taken his case to the Human Rights Association and he has been treated for his injuries in the hands of the fundamentalist police.

Turkey claims to be a secular country yet many state authorities ignore the law and force their religious beliefs upon others.

Özkan Kuru is seeking justice and is demanding an investigation of the incident while pursuing his case also through the Human Rights Association.

Source: www.Atilim.org

Devrim
You're a moron. Where does the text say that Islam told them to do this? Islam teaches muslims not to force religion onto others, so this is against Islamic teachings. How about an ANTIFA member stabs an old woman and then we blame every leftist.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 21, 2007 06:34 pm
You're a moron. Where does the text say that Islam told them to do this? Islam teaches muslims not to force religion onto others, so this is against Islamic teachings. How about an ANTIFA member stabs an old woman and then we blame every leftist.
Islam says many contradictory things, and would not be difficult to find a opposite quotation to match yours.

This is Islam as we experience it. Every bit as real as Islamicists going round celebrating their first election victory by beating up 'indecently dressed' women, murders of members of religious minorities, and pogroms.

As for where the text says that Islam told them to do this, should we presume their is another non-religious reason for them attacking somebody for drinking in Ramadam.

Maybe they were merely concerned about his health.

Devrim

[Anti-Zionist]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 21, 2007 06:55 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 21, 2007 06:55 pm)
Anti-[email protected] 21, 2007 06:34 pm
You're a moron. Where does the text say that Islam told them to do this? Islam teaches muslims not to force religion onto others, so this is against Islamic teachings. How about an ANTIFA member stabs an old woman and then we blame every leftist.
Islam says many contradictory things, and would not be difficult to find a opposite quotation to match yours.

This is Islam as we experience it. Every bit as real as Islamicists going round celebrating their first election victory by beating up 'indecently dressed' women, murders of members of religious minorities, and pogroms.

As for where the text says that Islam told them to do this, should we presume their is another non-religious reason for them attacking somebody for drinking in Ramadam.

Maybe they were merely concerned about his health.

Devrim [/b]
Find me a Quran or Hadith quote that says: ''attack those who drink in Ramadan''.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Anti-Zionist+October 21, 2007 07:02 pm--> (Anti-Zionist @ October 21, 2007 07:02 pm) Find me a Quran or Hadith quote that says: ''attack those who drink in Ramadan''. [/b]
Your reference was to:

Originally posted by Koran+--> (Koran)There is no compulsion in religion[/b]

I would say that these contradict it:


Originally posted by Koran
Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.


[email protected]
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the religion will all be for Allah Alone


Koran
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture , until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Devrim

[Anti-Zionist]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 21, 2007 07:16 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 21, 2007 07:16 pm)
Originally posted by Anti-Zionist+October 21, 2007 07:02 pm--> (Anti-Zionist @ October 21, 2007 07:02 pm) Find me a Quran or Hadith quote that says: ''attack those who drink in Ramadan''. [/b]
Your reference was to:

Originally posted by Koran
There is no compulsion in religion

I would say that these contradict it:


Originally posted by Koran
Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.


[email protected]
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and the religion will all be for Allah Alone


Koran
Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture , until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Devrim [/b]
1. We are not looking for contradictions.
2. Those quotes don't say anything about ramadan. Fitnah is about pre-material intimacy and it says ''when the sacred months have passed''.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 21, 2007 07:39 pm
1. We are not looking for contradictions.

What I said when you made your post was that there were things that contradicted the reference you made. I have.


2. Those quotes don't say anything about ramadan. Fitnah is about pre-material intimacy and it says ''when the sacred months have passed''.

What on Earth are you talking about? Fitnah means disbelief.

Devrim

[black magick hustla]

I frankly have backed off a bit from my anti-islam seeing that I am working with many muslims right now.

Still, it is rather sad when some people think that "Islam is a peaceful religion" and bend their beliefs just to appeal everyone. We should keep in mind that muhammad was a commander--he wasn't just some hippie.

At the same time the 20th century is filled with Christian horrors, like the Lords Resistance Army, Spanish falangists, the fascist Ustase and the KKK.

The problem is not Islam or Christianity--it is religion.

[Luís Henrique]

A religion is not defined by the text of its sacred books (which are likely to be self-contradictory anyway), but by the social practice of its members. So whether the Quran tells that people should attack those who drink during Hamandan or not, it's immaterial: some members of Islam do exactly that. And I doubt this has nothing to do with speeches given by Islamic clerics.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

You're a moron. Where does the text say that Islam told them to do this? Islam teaches muslims not to force religion onto others, so this is against Islamic teachings.


Fitnah is about pre-material intimacy

:lol: I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 09:23 pm

You're a moron. Where does the text say that Islam told them to do this? Islam teaches muslims not to force religion onto others, so this is against Islamic teachings.


Fitnah is about pre-material intimacy

:lol: I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.
You're right there, and I bet they're the same ones who lecture against the Christian fundie moral bullshit in the States.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 09:23 pm
I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.
What about this guy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buTlBLGdUfo)

I'm not sure if you can understand Farsi, but he is talking there at his trial, after which he was executed. He speaks of Marxism and Islam bringing him to Socialism. He speaks of how the Imams words had similar tones to that of the goals of communism (against poverty).

Of course I know that this doesn't mean it's objectively true, but still, if it can lead some people to supporting communism, it's not inherently reactionary, now is it?

By the way, I (and many other Iranians) consider Golsorkhi to be a hero to the cause of working-class liberation. You can slander him all you want, but that won't change the fact that he did more for working-class liberation as an individual than your little sect will ever achieve as a whole. :)

[Enragé]

islamic liberation theology ^^

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:30 pm
islamic liberation theology ^^
If such thing exists, I have never been introduced to it.

Evidently, personal roads to the left can include misinterpreted right wing readings; but this is different from a real tendency in the real world.

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 24, 2007 04:07 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 24, 2007 04:07 pm)
Leo [email protected] 21, 2007 09:23 pm
I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.
What about this guy? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buTlBLGdUfo)

I'm not sure if you can understand Farsi, but he is talking there at his trial, after which he was executed. He speaks of Marxism and Islam bringing him to Socialism. He speaks of how the Imams words had similar tones to that of the goals of communism (against poverty).

Of course I know that this doesn't mean it's objectively true, but still, if it can lead some people to supporting communism, it's not inherently reactionary, now is it?

By the way, I (and many other Iranians) consider Golsorkhi to be a hero to the cause of working-class liberation. You can slander him all you want, but that won't change the fact that he did more for working-class liberation as an individual than your little sect will ever achieve as a whole. :) [/b]
No, I don't speak Farsi. Actually I am trying to learn, but find it difficult. I speak English, Arabic, Turkish, and a minority language.

But back to the point that Leo made:


I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.

Where do you live?
How old are you?

Yes, a kid if not originally from the west one, then who has very little, but probably no experience of living in the Middle East.

I think that was Leo's point.

Also, you can go on about your Stalinists all you like. The only thing that confuses us is whether it is their anti-working class Stalinism, or their anti-working class nationalism that appeals to you.

Devrim

[MarxSchmarx]

if it can lead some people to supporting communism, it's not inherently reactionary, now is it?

One needs to do a cost-benefit analysis. Does it lead more people to communism than it leads to reactionary practice?

The same can be said of Christianity or most religions. Some people embrace their leftist messages, but many, many others adopt zealous ideologies.


The problem is not Islam or Christianity--it is religion.

It is actually not about religion as such, but about how religion is abused.

Unfortunately so much of religion is about social control. Religious people who stand up for what their creed is about should be commended. But too often the powers that be find religion a ready tool to exploit people. Islam is no exception.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 24, 2007 10:04 pm--> (devrimankara @ October 24, 2007 10:04 pm) But back to the point that Leo made: [/b]
He didn't make that point about me, he was responding to someone else.


Also, you can go on about your Stalinists all you like. The only thing that confuses us is whether it is their anti-working class Stalinism, or their anti-working class nationalism that appeals to you.

Haha, it's funny how you still believe in those delusions. You say you have been to Iran and have met Iranian comrades often, did you ever bother asking them about the history of the movement in Iran? You'll be surprised to find how many "Stalinists" actually started the communist movement there and were people who were perhaps "Stalinist" in name but certainly not in practice.

Anyway, there is no evidence of Golsorkhi being a Stalinist in name either, so you can stop that slander unless you can prove it.


MarxSchmarx
One needs to do a cost-benefit analysis. Does it lead more people to communism than it leads to reactionary practice?


Of course, but you're wrong on the "reactionary practice" part. The majority of religious people remain moderate, and don't move to either extreme.

The point is though that religion is, in the end, a philosophical evil that can only be done away with when society answers the questions which give rise to the need of those questions.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 25, 2007 08:36 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 25, 2007 08:36 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 10:04 pm
But back to the point that Leo made:
He didn't make that point about me, he was responding to someone else.
[/b]
It applies though.


Anyway, there is no evidence of Golsorkhi being a Stalinist in name either, so you can stop that slander unless you can prove it.

OK, if he wasn't a Stalinist explain to us what his politics were.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 25, 2007 11:18 am--> (devrimankara @ October 25, 2007 11:18 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 25, 2007 08:36 am

[email protected] 24, 2007 10:04 pm
But back to the point that Leo made:
He didn't make that point about me, he was responding to someone else.

It applies though. [/b]
No it doesn't. It applies as much to me as it does to you. I've been to both Turkey and Iran, and trust me, they're not the same at all.

So don't pretend that you know a lot about the "middle-east" just because you live in Turkey. The middle-east cannot be generalized into one nation, and especially not Turkey.


OK, if he wasn't a Stalinist explain to us what his politics were.

You're the one who brought up the fact that he was a Stalinist in the first place. I guess you just pulled that out of your ass and had no source for it?

Thought so.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 25, 2007 02:02 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 25, 2007 02:02 pm)
OK, if he wasn't a Stalinist explain to us what his politics were.

You're the one who brought up the fact that he was a Stalinist in the first place. I guess you just pulled that out of your ass and had no source for it?

Thought so. [/b]
He was a Tudeh supporter. I am not sure if he was a member, but that makes him a Stalinist.


Led Zeppelin
No it doesn't. It applies as much to me as it does to you. I've been to both Turkey and Iran, and trust me, they're not the same at all.

I never said they were the same. I said that Leo's statement applied to you too.


I just love it when kids from the West who think Islam is "cool" lecture militant communists living in the middle east about it.

You do live in the west, and I would presume you are under thirty. I think that 'kid from the west' is quite appropriate. I don't see how kid applies to me either.


So don't pretend that you know a lot about the "middle-east" just because you live in Turkey. The middle-east cannot be generalized into one nation, and especially not Turkey.
Not that it is relevant at all, but I have lived in other countries in the region too.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:14 pm
He was a Tudeh supporter. I am not sure if he was a member, but that makes him a Stalinist.
Yes, because if you support a party you have to support their theory down to the last point. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm a reformist social-democrat then since I'm in the Socialist Party here.

You're clutching at straws. Lay down the shovel and stop digging.


I said that Leo's statement applied to you too.

So you said they were the same, because Leo's statement implied that because he lives in Turkey he's somehow more knowledgeable about Islam because he's in the Middle-East.


I think that 'kid from the west' is quite appropriate.

The kid part wasn't relevant. The part where he said that he finds it ironic that a person from the west knows more about Islam than he because he lives in the middle-east is what I was hinting at.

And that point was disproven by the video I posted about a person who...also lived in the Middle-East. Then you came in and posted some crap totally irrelevant to my point...something you seem to do quite often.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 25, 2007 02:42 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 25, 2007 02:42 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 02:14 pm
He was a Tudeh supporter. I am not sure if he was a member, but that makes him a Stalinist.
Yes, because if you support a party you have to support their theory down to the last point. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm a reformist social-democrat then since I'm in the Socialist Party here.

You're clutching at straws. Lay down the shovel and stop digging.

[/b]
I would say anti-working class social democrat. At least you nearly got something right here.

Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

And you're an anti-working class ultra-leftist.

Woohoo, how fun, let's play some more. :rolleyes:

Grow up.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by devrimankara+October 17, 2007 11:21 am--> (devrimankara @ October 17, 2007 11:21 am)
Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 17, 2007 07:23 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 17, 2007 07:23 am) Devrim I'm sorry I have to say this but seriously; stop being an idiot.

The actions of a few Muslims are not representative of the whole religion.

[/b]
I am not at all claiming that these actions are representative of all Muslims.

We have consistently argued that there is a racist campaign in the west against people from Middle eastern, and South Asia backgrounds, and that this should be opposed.

However, some people on here seem to have gone further than just opposing this racist campaign to arguing that Islam is progressive in itself. It was something I noticed this morning, and I just thought I would put it up to remind people how progressive Islam actually is.


Electronic [email protected]
Yes, this is just regular police brutality, only in this case the perpetrators don't face the possibility of consequences and act with complete impunity.

These were cops. When it happened to my friend's son, it was other students.

Let's just remind ourselves of the tolerant Islam we all know, and love:


Wiki
The Bible publishing firm murders in Malatya took place on April 18, 2007 in Zirve Publishing House, Malatya,[1][2] Turkey. Three employees of the Bible publishing house were attacked, tortured and murdered by five Muslim assailants. Two of the victims, Necati Aydın, 36, and Uğur Yüksel, 32, were Turkish converts from Islam. The third man, Tilmann Geske, 45, was a German citizen. Necati Aydın was an actor who played the role of Jesus Christ in a theater production that TURK-7 network aired over the Easter holidays.[3][4]

"Aydın is survived by his wife, Şemse, and a son and daughter, both preschool age. Tilmann with his wife Susanne had two daughters [Michal (13), Miriam (8)] and a son [Lukas (11)]... Yüksel was engaged to be married within a few months".[3][5]

According to the human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC), the troubles began on Easter Sunday when the alleged killers, one of whom is the son of a mayor, attended a service led by Pastor Aydın. "After [Aydın] read a chapter from the Bible, the young men tied [Yüksel, Aydın, and Geske’s] hands and feet to chairs as they videoed their work on their cell phones." Afterwards they were heavily tortured.[6] Gökhan Talas, the chief witness and a Protestant, came with his wife to the office.[5] The door was locked from inside which was quite unusual. Suspecting that something had happened, he called Uğur Yüksel not knowing that he was inside tied to a chair.[5] Yüksel replied and said that they were in a hotel for a meeting. Talas heard someone crying in the background during his talk with Yüksel, and decided to call the police, who arrived soon thereafter. According to Talas, the attackers killed Yüksel and Aydın after the police arrived.[5]

Eleven suspects were apprehended after the attack.[7] The chief suspect, Emre Günaydın, was treated for serious wounds after he attempted to jump out of a window to escape police.[7] All of the alleged killers are between 19 and 20 years old.[8] One suspect confessed that "The leader of the group was Emre. It was he who devised the plan to kill them. We went to the publishing house together. When we entered the place, we tied them to their chairs and Emre slit their throats".[9] According to another suspect, the victims knew Günaydın, as he regularly visited the publishing house.[9] Another suspect added that they all knew each other.[9]

Protests had taken place at the firm after it was accused of "proselytizing" a Muslim nation, but it is not known if the murders are related to the protests.


Devrim [/b]
. "I am just saying that it is more of the face of Islam that we experience first hand"

Who is we?

Dont confuse police brutality with Islam.

The bourgeoisie uses Christianity here as a means of taking advantage of the people,
and in the middle east the government uses Islam to do the same thing.
But the difference is there is no excuse in the Quran that justifies anyone hitting a person who didnt do anything to them, and you cant force a person to be muslim or do things a certain way... thats police brutality. Not Islam. Nice try asshole.

But confusing police brutality with Islam ....you must think the people here are fucking stupid?!

And Islam is progressive. There is nothing in the Quran that says the proliteriat should tolerate opression from the upperclass, or that anyone should tolerate being opressed by anyone else. Communism and Islam are not exclusive and most muslims in the world have economically left wing Ideas. But if you want to spend your time putting up walls go ahead. The party will just pay me double for talking real shit cause the issue is class contiousness. Unfortunately the working class still doesnt know its magnificence.

Islam tells us that we were not made to live subjugated by other people.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Raisa+November 15, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Raisa @ November 15, 2007 06:36 pm) And Islam is progressive. [/b]
I don't know much about the Quran, or theory in it, but as it is practiced, Islam is not progressive. How can a religion be progressive?


Originally posted by [email protected]
Communism and Islam are not exclusive and most muslims in the world have economically left wing Ideas.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."-Karl Marx

Any true Communist or Socialist state would have to ban religion, including Islam as it preaches the servitude to a deity.


Raisa
Islam tells us that we were not made to live subjugated by other people.
Just a deity. (Allah)

[spartan]

Any true Communist or Socialist state would have to ban religion, including Islam as it preaches the servitude to a deity.
I dont think we will have to ban it as such.

We will probably just get rid of oppressive religious hierarchies and church bodies and perhaps religious places of worship and of course not allow them to preach their vileness to people etc (thus making religion a truely private matter).

After that religion will pretty much just wither away as religious people will realise that it is unneeded and indeed quite oppressive to them and how they live their lives.

The only "religion" we need is Anarchism, Communism and Socialism etc :cool:

[Comrade Rage]

I lean closer to banning religion across the board, as Albania did in 1967. If such a ban turns out to be problematic as it did in the USSR, I think your idea would be smart. That's what the USSR did in 1936--make it a completely private affair.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 15, 2007 11:59 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 15, 2007 11:59 pm)
Originally posted by Raisa+November 15, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Raisa @ November 15, 2007 06:36 pm) And Islam is progressive. [/b]
I don't know much about the Quran, or theory in it, but as it is practiced, Islam is not progressive. How can a religion be progressive?


[email protected]
Communism and Islam are not exclusive and most muslims in the world have economically left wing Ideas.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."-Karl Marx

Any true Communist or Socialist state would have to ban religion, including Islam as it preaches the servitude to a deity.

[/b]

Raisa
Islam tells us that we were not made to live subjugated by other people.
Just a deity. (Allah)"

Allah revealed his self to us the way he did because they way our minds are set up in a class subjugated society.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, but Islam is not a religion. Islam means peace and submission, if we are submitting to the natural way of life that was prescribed to the human being when we ere made we have peace. And in submitting to that, we obviously can not submit to many things that are our ways of life now.
Eight hour work days, materialistic enslavement, standards for the opposite sex created by someone elses class view point and on and on.
We press nature and submit to everything else, and there is no peace.




You dont have to quote marx to me, Ive read his book.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Raisa+November 15, 2007 07:43 pm--> (Raisa @ November 15, 2007 07:43 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 15, 2007 11:59 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 15, 2007 11:59 pm)
Originally posted by Raisa+November 15, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Raisa @ November 15, 2007 06:36 pm) And Islam is progressive. [/b]
I don't know much about the Quran, or theory in it, but as it is practiced, Islam is not progressive. How can a religion be progressive?


Raisa
Communism and Islam are not exclusive and most muslims in the world have economically left wing Ideas.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."-Karl Marx

Any true Communist or Socialist state would have to ban religion, including Islam as it preaches the servitude to a deity.

[/b]

[email protected]
Islam tells us that we were not made to live subjugated by other people.
Just a deity. (Allah)"

Allah revealed his self to us the way he did because they way our minds are set up in a class subjugated society.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, but Islam is not a religion. Islam means peace and submission, if we are submitting to the natural way of life that was prescribed to the human being when we ere made we have peace. And in submitting to that, we obviously can not submit to many things that are our ways of life now.
Eight hour work days, materialistic enslavement, standards for the opposite sex created by someone elses class view point and on and on.
We press nature and submit to everything else, and there is no peace. [/b]
Is there a place I could read a little more about Islam and find out about it? Maybe get a Quran? This sounds interesting, but I can't really give an intelligent comment about it until I've learned more about Islam itself.


Raisa
You dont have to quote marx to me, Ive read his book.
Sorry if I came off as assholic. :blush:

[counterblast]

"Religion is the opiate of the masses."-Karl Marx

Any true Communist or Socialist state would have to ban religion, including Islam as it preaches the servitude to a deity.

And yet you quote Marx as often as Mamoud Shahroudi quotes Allah!

Can we ever really liberate "the masses", so long as we naively idolize the writings of any single philosopher? When does religion become political ideology? And more importantly, when does political ideology become religion?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:22 am
Turkey/Istanbul – Beyoğlu police attacks people not fasting on Ramadan.

This has what to do with Islam?

This seems more about police brutality than anything.

[Marion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:42 am
Islam is not a religion.
So what (if anything) makes Christianity, Hinduism etc a religion but Islam not?


Islam means peace and submission, if we are submitting to the natural way of life that was prescribed to the human being when we ere made we have peace.
Out of interest do you think this differs from a materialist view of human development? Or are they compatible?