Death Sentence for Reading about Feminism..

[Forward Union]

An afghan man read a book that claimed womens rights did not contradict Islam, and that people who used the Koran to justify sexism had misunderstood it...

...and now he's on death row.

Here is the full news story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html

Short of any working class action to save this guy, there's a petition to the UK foreign office to pressure for his release. Not sure if I wills ign it yet though. Main purpose is to start a discussion around this.

www.independent.co.uk/petition (http://www.independent.co.uk/petition)

[jake williams]

Wow, Afghanistan sucks. What the fuck? It just doesn't seem like things are this bad anywhere else, I mean, that it's so difficult to get anything accomplished for the people at all.

[TC]

What are you talking about CDL, real leftists supported the Soviet Army intervention on behalf of the social democratic secular government of Afghanistan against the imperialist/saudi mujahdeen.

[Luís Henrique]

Wow, Afghanistan sucks. What the fuck? It just doesn't seem like things are this bad anywhere else, I mean, that it's so difficult to get anything accomplished for the people at all.

Afghanistan sucks... and the wonderful, secular, progressist "West", which imposed such state of things upon Afghanistan, does what?

Luís Henrique

[Wanted Man]

The journalists' union is petitioning, and that's about it. Funny, they get a lot more uppity when Chinese or Cuban "dissident" journalists get arrested.

Also, let's bet on how long until spartan gets in here to tell us that the "liberal values" of the occupation are better than what the Taliban envision.

[jake williams]

Afghanistan sucks... and the wonderful, secular, progressist "West", which imposed such state of things upon Afghanistan, does what?

Luís Henrique
It's colonialist and brutal. But there's hope. There is hope because there is openness to ideas and relative freedom of expression. There is a potential that people will adjust to the world intellectually and do not hold absolutist, violent beliefs. I cannot say the same of the Taleban, and further it appears that the Taleban, an enemy not of the "West" but of sense, and debate, and of course women, I fear it's an enemy that can't be defeated spare, you know, genocide, which I should state I do think is unacceptable. But I genuinely don't know what to do.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Wow. This is disgusting.

But at least... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/lifeline-for-pervez-afghan-senate-withdraws-demand-for-death-sentence-777188.html

[Raúl Duke]

It's colonialist and brutal. But there's hope. There is hope because there is openness to ideas and relative freedom of expression. There is a potential that people will adjust to the world intellectually and do not hold absolutist, violent beliefs. I cannot say the same of the Taleban, and further it appears that the Taleban, an enemy not of the "West" but of sense, and debate, and of course women, I fear it's an enemy that can't be defeated spare, you know, genocide, which I should state I do think is unacceptable. But I genuinely don't know what to do.

There was more hope with the Pro-Soviet state before the taliban than either one of the new incarnations.

It just goes to show that all that rhetoric is just crap: imperialism is just as reactionary since the ruling class does not care about rights/etc (neither here too; if things get too heated they'll surely clamp down on those rights at whim. SO it's just window-dressing) but instead of profit motives such as privatizing the oil, etc and "who's in control".

That doesn't mean I'm going to fall head-over-heels for any anti-imperialist group but that I oppose, and I think all leftists should too, all imperialism period.

[Coggeh]

What are you talking about CDL, real leftists supported the Soviet Army intervention on behalf of the social democratic secular government of Afghanistan against the imperialist/saudi mujahdeen.
When you put it like that ...I guess we did lol , social democratic though ? secular? theirs a difference between removing the relationship of church and state and banning religion all together .

[Philosophical Materialist]

Afghanistan sucks... and the wonderful, secular, progressist "West", which imposed such state of things upon Afghanistan, does what?

Luís Henrique

I remember when there was a propaganda blitz in the US media to get liberal support for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001-2002 telling how brutal things were for women's and gay rights under the Taliban.

It just goes to show that even promises of social libertarianism were bullshit. The theocratic reactionary state was replaced by a US-client religious reactionary state.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:


This is the result of the U.S./Chinese/Saudi/Pakistani-backed counterrevolution in Afghanistan that so many "leftists" were happy to support.


Yes, we should all have supported Russian imperialism, and turned a blind eye to the tens of thousands the 'Red' army killed.

How stupid of us...

[TC]

CDL:



Yes, we should all have supported Russian imperialism, and turned a blind eye to the tens of thousands the 'Red' army killed.

How stupid of us...


I realize that you're not a Leninist and you're using the term "imperialism" in the casual non-Marxist sense (clearly the Soviet Union never engaged in the economic practices that charaterize imperialism in Lenin's theory), but really Rosa, suggesting that theres some kindof moral equivolence here is ridiculous.

The difference between living under the Soviet backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and living under the American backed Taliban was the difference between being able to appear in public without a burka and male relative, being able to hold a job or attend school and possessing some semblance of human dignity on the one hand and being kept like an animal on the other.

Cliffite anti-communism is so severe that it's willing to align with the most barbaric (screw cultural relativism) and reactionary movements, either explicitly or implicitly, with utter disregard for the material conditions of the people who have to live with them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TCP:



I realize that you're not a Leninist


Drunk again, I see. And a Pabloite drunk, too!



and you're using the term "imperialism" in the casual non-Marxist sense


I wasn't.

You seem to think Marxism is a set of eternal truths that does not evolve with the course of history --, and you are supposed to be the 'dialectician' here!


The difference between living under the Soviet backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and living under the American backed Taliban was the difference between being able to appear in public without a burka and male relative, being able to hold a job or attend school and possessing some semblance of human dignity on the one hand and being kept like an animal on the other.


That justifies the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians, does it?

And, blowing people up is, of course, not nearly as bad as making them wear certain sorts of clothing, is it?


Cliffite anti-communism is so severe that it's willing to align with the most barbaric (screw cultural relativism) and reactionary movements, either explicitly or implicitly, with utter disregard for the material conditions of the people who have to live with them.

Well, you are good at name-calling, but that's about all.

And, the Chechens did really well under Stalin, didn't they?

[Zurdito]

When you put it like that ...I guess we did lol
:confused:it's funny?

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes, we should all have supported Russian imperialism, and turned a blind eye to the tens of thousands the 'Red' army killed.

The Red Army committed terrible atrocities - and yet Socialists should still have supported the Soviets in their struggle against the Islamists. It is not, as some socialists have argued, appropriate to present the Mujahideen as a group fighting against imperialism, as, for the duration of the conflict, they received support from the United States, in the form of advanced weaponry and communications equipment, as the United States aimed to undermine the Soviet Union's international image and to encourage internal dissent. Thus, the Soviet-Afghan war was an inter-imperialist conflict - by proxy.

In addition, it should be noted that the main feminist organization in Afghanistan, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) supported and in several cases fought alongside the Red Army. This is not surprising, when one considers the crimes of the Mujahideen - they threw acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the Hijab and also shot schoolteachers who tried to help women to read and write. How can we support a group guilty of such crimes?

EDIT: RAWA's website has actually picked up on this issue:

http://www.rawa.org/events/parwiz_e.htm


The criminals who are in power in Afghanistan have imprisoned Parwiz Kambakhsh, a young journalist, since October 2007 in Balkh province - Northern Afghanistan. He is threatened to be hanged by the dark-minded and ignorant judges in the medieval courts of Afghanistan. The accusations are so ridiculous and injudicious that they make any freedom-loving person want to stand and say enough is enough. Mr. Kambakhsh is accused of printing/distributing an article from the Internet, which points out controversial verses of the Quran regarding women’s rights. The book “Religion in the History of Civilization” (by Will Durant) taken from his living room has been kept as an evidence against him in the court!

In a country where for the last six years there are many claims regarding “democracy”, “human rights”, and “freedom of press”, the religious fascists have their grip on justice and try every possible way to mute anyone who criticizes or comments about the Northern Alliance criminals.

[Pawn Power]

reading about feminisim?

what about just sitting in a coffee shop?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



Okay, so lets go by your liberal perspective in judging of what is 'better.' Were more people "blown up" in revolutionary Afghanistan or under the Taliban? You get two guesses.



1) What 'liberal perspectives'? I could call you names too.

2) Yes, we get neocons justifying the invasion of Iraq on this basis too.


Not nearly as good as you are at dodging actual points and filling threads with off-topic spam.


I do it about as much as anyone else.



The Cliffites supported counterrevolution wherever it reared its head.



The anti-communism of the Cliffites is laid bare every time one of you scoundrels opens your mouths (or in this case lifts your fingers to type) about anything having to do with revolutionary states. Because even if your bogus theory that the USSR was imperialist were true, what reason would that give you to support the U.S. over it?


And this is not off-topic?

I could say this of you:



You commies supported the suppression of workers wherever it reared its head.


But, I am far too polite.

[Dr Mindbender]

...remind me never to go to afghanistan.

[Hit The North]

Arguing that there was some 'Cliffite' (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be) policy of supporting counter-revolution is sectarian gibberish and based on a total mis-identification of what the USSR represented (a workers state, a progressive force, my arse!), as if all challenges to it were the same and in themselves anti-socialist. It's also based on a distortion of the SWP's position on the specific conflict in Afghanistan where we in no way supported the Islamic puppets of US imperialism. As I recall, our position was much closer to bobkindles considered intervention in this thread, and not the silly TC-baiting response of Rosa Lichtenstein.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, BK said this:



and yet Socialists should still have supported the Soviets in their struggle against the Islamists.


Do you want to endorse that?

[Hit The North]

Of course. Are you suggesting that workers anywhere, let alone in Afghanistan, would have more to gain from supporting the US funded and CIA trained Islamists?

[BobKKKindle$]

CZ, unfortunately the IST did support the Islamists, which I think was a mistake, given how the Mujahideen treated women during the conflict (and when they had taken control of Adghanistan and eliminated progressive opposition) and the broader geopolitical consequences of the Soviet defeat (the growth of international terrorism, acceleration of the Soviet Union's collapse, etc) The IST position - of principled support for what the leadership perceived as an anti-imperialist struggle - was derived from a failure to recognize the conflict as an inter-imperial war.

As for the RAWA, I had previously thought (on the basis of an article in a Spartacist League publication) that this organization (or at least sections thereof) supported the Soviets - evidently this is not correct. However, from a feminist perspective, it was still necessary to support the Soviets, as Afghan women had been able top secure important advances in their legal and socio-economic status under the previous left-nationalist regime, which were subsequently lost when the Mujahideen gained political power.

I see no problem with disagreeing with the leadership on this point - I still agree with the SWP's politics in general.


Do you want to endorse that?

How can you justify supporting the Mujahideen? In an earlier post you mentioned that, although women were forced to wear the Hijab (you neglected to mention the other, more serious crimes of the Islamist forces, with regard to the treatment of Afghan women) this was a lesser crime than the abuses of the Soviet forces. Although I do not deny that the Red Army did, in several cases, harm Afghan citizens with no clear military justification, it should be understood that these abuses arose because the Red Army was engaged in an asymmetrical conflict against a guerrilla force - whereas the crimes of the Islamists were derived from their ideology, and served as an indication of how they would treat women once they had political power. This is a crucial distinction.


Cliff's orgins as a political leader lie in his break from the 4th International over his refusal to oppose the imperialist invasion of the Korean peninsula.

What Imperialist invasion? Do you have historical evidence showing that the conflict was initiated by South Korea?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Of course. Are you suggesting that workers anywhere, let alone in Afghanistan, would have more to gain from supporting the US funded and CIA trained Islamists?


Look, Z, I agree with you, but the specific phrase you should be worried about is this (highligted so you won't miss it a third time):


and yet Socialists should still have supported the Soviets in their struggle against the Islamists.

And the situation in Afghanistan was far more complex than the simplistic Islamists-bad/ everyone else-bad, too, motif you seem to have internalised:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj93/neale.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj93/neale.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BK:



How can you justify supporting the Mujahideen?


Look, BK, it is important to read what comrades say to you (and as I pointed out to you in a PM you do not seem to have read); I was not objecting to your opposition to the Islamists but to your assertion that socialist would line up behing the Russian imperialists.



and yet Socialists should still have supported the Soviets in their struggle against the Islamists.

Now, you are quite at liberty to believe what you like, but not to pretend that this is a view endorsed by the IST or the UK SWP.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



Judging things by 'how many people were blown up' instead of by examing class forces is a liberal perspective.

Not so; even Marx lamented the death of human beings, as did Engels. Or are you suggesting the 'Red' army used weapons that only killed 'bourgeois'/'rectionary' civilians?



No, actually it's not. The original topic was the reactionary conditions in Afghanistan. I pointed to the things that brought these conditions into existence, and the "leftists" who supported them. You took offense, as you are one of those "leftists," and tried in an off handed way to defend yourself. I responded to that defense.



Yes, well you are remarkably forgiving, and surprisingly accommodating when it comes to your own transgressions in this area, but the exact opposite when judging me.


At any rate, you've managed to make another post that fails to address even a single point you're supposedly responding to. Congrats.

Not so; we all know you have selective blindness when it comes to ideas you disagree with, or the views of comrades that 'fall short' of your religious devotion to 'orthodoxy'.


Communists prefer a socialist Afghanistan born out of bloody civil war to a 'peaceful' capitalist Afghanistan. It's a question of class.


Too bad the 'Red' army could only bring oppression and State Capitalist domination, then, isn't it?

[RNK]

Democratic measures? Like a coup d'etat launched by an elitist group of priviledged generals and politicians who slapped upon themselves an empty label and a cry for help to Moscow? The Saur Revolution was hardly a "revolution", by any Trotskyist stretch of the word, and the Soviet Union's support of it was obviously nothing more than the same old game of monopoly with the United States. The PDPA was little more than an oppurtunist gang of priviledged politicians who spent more time trying to kill each other (and avoid being killed by the KGB) to attain power than initiating progressive measures in Afghani society. Funny you're so supportive of the "invitation" of the Soviet Army when in reality their first act was to overthrow the government and kill the President.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



I used to think you just ignored people's points and came up with strawman arguments as some form of 'debate' that you used to make yourself look good. Now, I'm starting to wonder if you don't just have a comprehension problem.



No, I understood you perfectly well, but I note your incapacity to respond.


'Lamenting the death of human beings' is one thing. Choosing which side in a conflict (if any) should be supported by guessing which killed more people is a liberal approach.

That was not your original point. Nor was it mine.

The fact that the soviet imperialist invasion killed perhaps half a million (and maybe as much as two million) says it all.


Well, I've been called many things in my day, from ultra-leftist to authoritarian to Castroist to Stalinist to Trotskyist, but I can honestly say no one has ever accused me of 'orthodoxy.' Another 'badge of honor' I suppose.

More like badge of shame...


It would be too bad if that's what happened. In reality it brought breathing room for democratic measures to be carried out, and for the continuing opening of room in the political and educational spheres for women.

Yes, the US imperialists say they want to do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan -- I suppose you'll be supporting them on the same basis then?



Of course, it wouldn't have had to be there in the first place if it weren't for the U.S./Saudi/Iran/Pakistan/Chinese backed reactionaries who were waging war against any and all forces of progress

You missed out a significant name here (I am sure by mistake); so here is your restored/improved post:


Of course, it wouldn't have had to be there in the first place if it weren't for the U.S./Saudi/Iran/Pakistan/Chinese backed reactionaries, and the 'Red' army, who were waging war against any and all forces of progress

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



Of course it was. You condemned revolutionary Afghanistan on the basis of 'how many people were blown up' in that original post. It's there for anyone to look back upon.



And you say my comprehension is poor! :lol:

My original point was that Russian imperialists were just as happy to kill innocent civilans as the US imperialists are.

This was not offered as a reason to judge them as imperialists, only to show that they were no different from other imperialists.


The U.S. imperialists say they want to do the same thing, revolutionary Afghanistan actually did, and that's not refuted by anyone with even a basic grip on the situation. In revolutionary Afghanistan women had access to education and jobs, after the counterrevolution they were forced to put the head-to-toe burqua on, and were prohibited from working or going to school.

Yes, and you have swallowed the propaganda put out by the Russian imperialsts -- US spin doctors say the same sorts of things.

Now, you can use as much bold type as you like, but that will not change propaganda into fact.

It amazes me that you will see through such stuff in a second if it is produced by the Bush administration, say, but then become gullible in the extreme when the Russians churn the same sort of stuff out.


Communists look at class forces. If imperialist Germany invaded a socialist Croatia killing only 1,000 people in the process, and then the workers of Croatia regrouped and defeated the German imperialist army by killing 60,000 German soldiers, we would still support Croatia. It's a question of class, in the main.

And that is why socialists opposed the 'Red' army invasion of Afghanistan -- it was aimed at securing the state capitalist domination by the ruling class in the USSR -- just as they opposed US intervention there too (in the past, and more recently).

It's a question of consistent class politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am not surprised at this mudslinging back and forth between "cargo-cult" adherents of two or more revisionist trends.


(clearly the Soviet Union never engaged in the economic practices that characterize imperialism in Lenin's theory)

Obviously you've never heard of the Aswan Dam before (export of capital). :glare:


The difference between living under the Soviet backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and living under the American backed Taliban was the difference between being able to appear in public without a burka and male relative, being able to hold a job or attend school and possessing some semblance of human dignity on the one hand and being kept like an animal on the other.

On the other hand, you are quite correct here. The neo-Menshevik "national-democratic" project, no matter how flawed it was from the outset, was far superior to the absolute crap of the religious primitivists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



This is nothing more than a bunch of side stepping and squirming.


I suggest you stop doing it then.



If you don't have a liberal perspective (and judge things on 'how many people were killed'), but instead judge things on class, you'd have no need to bring up the so-called 'mass murder of civilians'. If you were refusing to support the USSR solely on the fact that it was imperialist, that's all you would have had to say.



I did judge things on the basis of class -- both sets of imperialists are equally happy to kill civilians.

On the other hand, you are happy to defend one set of mass murderers --, and then just moan when your hypocrisy is exposed.


Anyway, your trend tacitly supported U.S. imperialism by calling for victory to the mujahedin, as they were a force fighting on behalf of U.S. imperialism. It is no different than calling for a victory to the contras in Nicaragua

Where did I call for a victory for the mujahedin?

And your support for the 'Red' army is no different from support for the US invasion of Vietnam.


I've seen people try to distort reality to fit their narrow world view before, but you are truly delusional.

Yes, this is just what supporters of US aggression say when I criticise their support of mass murder in Iraq/Afghanistan -- nice to know you are no different.


As I said before, no one with even a basic grip of the situation argues that living conditions (not in the least for women) were greatly superior either before or after the revolutionary government.

These are documented facts we're talking about here.


Even if you were right, how does that affect the class nature of the 'Red' invasion?

And US sources claim the same result for its invasion of Afghanistan.

One set of 'facts' you would be right to dispute --, even while you naively swallow the propaganda the Russian ruling class churned out.


"...a female Afghan doctor recalled in the Observer in 2001, “Life was good ... Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go wherever we wanted and wear what we liked.”" Hardly 'Russian propaganda' of course, as the USSR fell long before 2001 and the Observer is a bourgeois newspaper.


Quite apart from the anecdotal nature of this 'fact', the Observer regularly reports on the 'improvements' the US miltary have introduced (in Iraq and Afghanistan).

I merely question both sets of 'facts'; you swallow what you would like to believe.


I already linked to stuff from all sorts of different people who attest to the fact that conditions improved. Schools were opened up and women were finally allowed into them. Women took up all sorts of jobs for the first time, including in the medical profession and government. Women didn't have to wear a head-to-toe burqa. It's actually pretty insane for anyone to deny any of this.


So do neocons when I debate with them.


But whatever helps you sleep at night..

I read propaganda posts like yours, and fall asleep in the middle of first sentence...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL:



Did the reds kill anyone in the Civil War in Russia?



Were they invading another country?


Still have those comprehension problems I see. I said your tendency did, and I already sourced that earlier in the thread.

You failed to quote an SWP source, and the one you did quote was merely indirect, and manifestly incorrect.

You have yet to find a single direct quote from an SWP source, or from me -- but still you tell fibs.


The U.S. was asked to come to Viet Nam by a popular revolutionary government - that had thrown out an imperialist-backed dictator, opened up schools and universities to women and gave them equal rights for the first time leading to a lifting of the veil requirments and bringing hundreds of thousands of women into the workforce - to defend against mullahs and theocrats backed by and foreign imperialists?

The US was asked to come to Vietnam! Are you mad?


Do imperialist states send troops to defend a popular revolutionary government that has transformed society to the benefit of workers and women generally without expecting or taking a single thing for themselves?


You sound deeply confused -- or you are an idealist who imagines that imperialists do things out of the goodness of their hearts.



Of course your approach is backwards.. We don't find out the class nature of the USSR by examining its actions in Afghanistan, we examine the class nature of the USSR first to understand its actions in Afghanistan.


No, the class nature of the USSR determined the role it played in Afghanistan: imperialist aggression, over the bodies of hundreds of thousands (the US being equally to blame).


They do? Where do they claim that they broke up landed estates, eliminated veil requirements, established free universal education for women, launched broad literacy programs, and brought hundreds of thousands of women into the work force? Even if they did, would there be any evidence that doesn't come from the U.S. which backs this up?


The problem is you believe all this guff; I disbeleive anything from a pro-imperialist source (whether US or 'Soviet'). You swallow it all naively.

[And I am not attacking the indigenous revolution you keep referring to; merely the Soviet agression.]


Friends and enemies of the USSR admit that conditions were better in revolutionary Afghanistan than before or after its existence.


More anecdotal 'evidence'.

We can find 'friends and enemies' who say the same things about Iraq.

One you believe, the other you'd question.

I, on the other hand, am a consistent anti-imperialist --, unlike you, who picks and chooses as it suits your agenda.


You're basically arguing that objective facts don't exist, or at least, can't be understood by us. Gee, where have I heard that kind of thing before? It's only made worse by the fact that you're only making that kind of argument to justify your absolutely unjustifiable position.


And you are basically saying that propaganda is fact. I, in contrast, disbelieve propaganda.


Anyway, you defeat your own argument by admitting that the Observer is a bourgeois paper that serves the interests of the imperialists. Why would a bourgeois paper publish propaganda from the USSR - which the imperialists the paper represents fiercy opposed - ten years after its destruction??


Not so, as a liberal paper it often tries to give a 'balanced' view -- mostly in favour of the western imperialsts, but not always.

But, let's see how consistent you are; the next time the Observer says something nice about the US imperialists, let's see if you believe that.

On the other hand, the next time they are critical of US imperialsim, which they very occasionaly are (especially in its sister paper the Guardian), let's see if you reject that.


Now I remember why I usually ignore your posts.


Please return to that blessed state of ignorance.


Debating with you is basically the equivalent of arguing with a 6 year old over whether or not someone has cooties.

You being the five year old, I take it.



If you ever make a post that contains something other than ad homs and off topic spam maybe I'll reply.


You are the one who began the personal attacks, and now you can't stand my robust response. And you are the one who posted lies about me and the SWP.

You are like so many other wimps and dissemblers here...

[careyprice31]

An afghan man read a book that claimed womens rights did not contradict Islam, and that people who used the Koran to justify sexism had misunderstood it...

...and now he's on death row.

Here is the full news story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html

Short of any working class action to save this guy, there's a petition to the UK foreign office to pressure for his release. Not sure if I wills ign it yet though. Main purpose is to start a discussion around this.

www.independent.co.uk/petition (http://www.independent.co.uk/petition)

Those religious extremists......

The second poster I think summed it up quite nicely. "What the fuck?"

I have so many reasons to dislike religion if I were to list them I would have a book at least a foot thick.

And for those of you who supported the 1979 invasion, Brezhnev lied to the Red Army and told them that they were going there to fight Americans. But when they got there, they found no Americans there.

[Raisa]

"nloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed."


So this is what their gonna kill this man over?
The truth?
Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) was against the opression of women. His first wife was a rich buisness woman, he was an illiterate man in the desert that was poor, and had no wish to gain money like a fool untill he gained knowlege of self. But people will always take advantage of the fact that the proliteriat is vastly illeterate and needs the members of the ruling class to interpret things for them. The people who perpetuate the lie that Islam intends on the opression and abuse of women know what they are doing...they know that if men didnt have wives cleaning their homes spotless and waiting on their every need that they would realize they too have nothing to lose but their chains..... so they encourage men to opress their wives. Everything in every society relys on the subjugation and opression of women. Making women have nothing better to do but see you smile and give you a fake sense of importance when you are really just a peice of a machine untill you get out and do what needs to really be done and uprise. Would a crack dealer sell crack to his own people if he didnt think hed have access to the best pussy in town that because of economic subjugation is just waiting for him....
As long as women can be objects......its all good right? Take the women out of slavery and youll see how many motherfuckers run to the front lines of the struggle realizing what they realy are in this world.
Thats why their killing this man....it has nothing to do with Islam or Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) or any thing that any capitalist fuck says its about for the sensationalism....Islam is not about allowing yourself to be economically subjugated to anyone else as a man. To be anyones subservient but only to Allah is wrong and beneath human beings, people are supposed to work together, no one is supposed to be hungry if someone is eating and no one should be given less favorable living conditions then anyone else.

Its easy to see American tanks coming or Isreali tanks coming and go " their trying to make us their slaves!" ....but the hard part is seeing through the manipulation of your "own people"....your own bourgeoisie.
Its all about the fact that the book he decided to discuss threatened the fabric of the class system. thats why they want to kill him.