Is Pat Condell a racist?

[Dimentio]

Is it per definition racist to criticise the advance of islamisation (i.e sharia courts expanding their influence, special treatment of muslims, respect to muslim clerics in dealing with muslim minorities)? Or is it progressive to fight against these currents as they are a threat to one part of the working class?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox2-Wun2dIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc

Not that I claim that the struggle against sharia law in Britain is the most important question in the world, but I think it is foolish to refer to Pat Condell as a racist, even though racists as in the BNP may feel enstrengthened by his vlog.

I rather think that it is a left-wing problem that we are too sensitive to islam. To be against islamism is not to be anti-anti-imperialist, but to be on the side of the muslim working class, both in Europe and America, and in the islamic world.

[Yehuda Stern]

Is it per definition racist to criticise the advance of islamisation (i.e sharia courts expanding their influence, special treatment of muslims, respect to muslim clerics in dealing with muslim minorities)?

First of all, your question already contains two pretty racist sounding phrases - the "advance of islam," which seems to justify to point of view of the racists who claim that Muslims are "taking over Europe"; two, that Muslims get "special treatment," when in fact they are persecuted and discriminated against.

Revolutionaries should, of course, oppose religion. They should also, however, be sensitive to the religious sentiments of the minorities, and certainly not adopt the arguments and rhetoric of the right wing.

[ernie]

Going by those two videos and by I read in Wikipedia, I'd say he's not a racist. I mean, the guy has videos attacking Christianity, Judaism and Scientology just as viciously.


I rather think that it is a left-wing problem that we are too sensitive to islam.
I think some so-called leftists are careful not to insult Muslims. In general, though, I think radical leftists see religion as something that must be done away with.


To be against islamism is not to be anti-anti-imperialist, but to be on the side of the muslim working class, both in Europe and America, and in the islamic world.
I totally agree. No religion deserves our respect. The sooner the Muslim working class gets rid of religion -- and it could be a while -- the better. Being "sensitive" to Islam just slows that process down.


They should also, however, be sensitive to the religious sentiments of the minorities, and certainly not adopt the arguments and rhetoric of the right wing.
No. Revolutionaries should tell the truth. The truth is that religion is reactionary, and the fact that some working class minorities are religious doesn't change that. We should confront them about it, without fear of "hurting their feelings".

And the fact that the American right wing is anti-Islam right now has nothing to do with it.

[Dimentio]

First of all, your question already contains two pretty racist sounding phrases - the "advance of islam," which seems to justify to point of view of the racists who claim that Muslims are "taking over Europe"; two, that Muslims get "special treatment," when in fact they are persecuted and discriminated against.

Revolutionaries should, of course, oppose religion. They should also, however, be sensitive to the religious sentiments of the minorities, and certainly not adopt the arguments and rhetoric of the right wing.

Undoubtly, Saudi Arabia is trying to increase its control over the muslim working class in parts of Europe, radicalising them and moving them towards Wah'habi faith. It is not a conspiracy theory to state that.

Is it acceptable to have Shar'ia laws expanding their influence or not?

As for discrimination, that varies between European countries. In France for example, I could agree that there is a partial discrimination of muslims. In Britain and Sweden on the contrary, I do not think that muslims are so much discriminated by state authorities, except in cases where muslim leaders want them to be discriminated, as in institution of muslims leaders as "mediators", allowance for muslim females to skip gymnastics, and of course, shar'iah laws.

I think you should apology since I did not speak against the "advance of islam" but the "advance of islamisation", which is a totally different thing.

Moreover, islam is not an ethnic group. So I do not understand why it should be seen as racist.

[Wanted Man]

Is it acceptable to have Shar'ia laws expanding their influence or not?
Sharia laws aren't "expanding their influence" in Britain, that's bullshit. What's actually happening in Britain is that muslims are using the Arbitration Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1) of 1996, which allows arbitration by clerics. It's for muslims (or Christians, atheists or Jedi Knights if you will) to arbitrate their disputes, it's not a threat to anyone. In criminal cases, the British penal code still applies. There are no "sharia courts" enforcing sharia on Britain, and nobody is going to have their hands cut off or whatever ignorant racist stereotype the "anti-islamists" of RevLeft can think of.

The Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same law. Serpent, if I criticised the "advancing Judaification" on RevLeft because of this, I would rightly be banned for anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Yet apparently, the other way around is fine: "the muslims are taking over Europe!" Look at this article, even the Torygraph is honest about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/2957692/What-can-sharia-courts-do-in-Britain.html

I don't know if Pat Condell is racist, but he is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive if he repeats the lie about "sharia law enforced in Britain". Serpent, do some research before regurgitating racist myths.

[Wanted Man]

I think some so-called leftists are careful not to insult Muslims. In general, though, I think radical leftists see religion as something that must be done away with.


I totally agree. No religion deserves our respect. The sooner the Muslim working class gets rid of religion -- and it could be a while -- the better. Being "sensitive" to Islam just slows that process down.


No. Revolutionaries should tell the truth. The truth is that religion is reactionary, and the fact that some working class minorities are religious doesn't change that. We should confront them about it, without fear of "hurting their feelings".

And the fact that the American right wing is anti-Islam right now has nothing to do with it.
That sounds good. Don't be afraid to insult them, tell them the truth. When muslims protest against the discrimination they face daily, don't declare solidarity, but go picket against them: "Hey, you ignorant towelheads. Your culture is backwards and your beliefs are reactionary. Now abandon your beliefs and join us, you stupid camel-jockeys."

[Catbus]

"Hey, you ignorant towelheads. Your culture is backwards and your beliefs are reactionary. Now abandon your beliefs and join us, you stupid camel-jockeys."


I think that might be a little bit much. I'd just be afraid that if they (and by they I mean any religious person) get insulted by the left then they might not ever give it a chance. I'd be more for just telling them they're beliefs are reactionary, homophobic, and anti-womans rights, but in a not harsh way.

[Wanted Man]

I know, I was being sarcastic. I think it's weird when people say that "we should not avoid insulting muslims", as if that somehow leads to the "liberation" of "the muslim working class" (separate from the "white working class", apparently, and then people say they aren't racist...).

Of course the left should avoid insulting its target audience, i.e. the working class. That doesn't mean that Islam should not be criticised, but it's also a matter of priorities. One would have to be blind to not recognise the campaign against "islamisation" coming from the far right. What "white workers" have in common with "muslim workers" is their class, and so they should not be separated along ethnic or religious lines, or even be seen as direct opposites of each other.

Communists call for solidarity and internationalism, not for the discrimination of parts of the working class out of right-wing prejudices and the misguided belief that one particular religion is uniquely reactionary, and its followers among the working class should be discriminated against.

[ernie]

That sounds good. Don't be afraid to insult them, tell them the truth. When muslims protest against the discrimination they face daily, don't declare solidarity, but go picket against them: "Hey, you ignorant towelheads. Your culture is backwards and your beliefs are reactionary. Now abandon your beliefs and join us, you stupid camel-jockeys."
LOL, nice strawman.

I personally don't give a rat's ass what they wear on their head. However, some of their particular beliefs -- specifically the ones relating to Islam -- are reactionary and backwards.

For instance, some (most?) Muslim men force their wives to wear a cloth over their head (and sometimes face). If I understand you correctly, you think that we shouldn't make a big fuss about this because it might "divide" the working class.

I say fuck that. If it divides then it divides. At this point in history, it's not our job to unite the working class, simply because they don't want to be united. It is, however, one of our jobs to fight against all the pre-capitalist superstitions still present in the working class. Religion is the biggest one.

[Catbus]

I figured you were being sarcastic, just wanted to be sure :)

[Wanted Man]

LOL, nice strawman.

I personally don't give a rat's ass what they wear on their head. However, some of their particular beliefs -- specifically the ones relating to Islam -- are reactionary and backwards.

For instance, some (most?) Muslim men force their wives to wear a cloth over their head (and sometimes face).
What about women who want to wear them for themselves? Do they need to be rescued by Christian men in business suits who want to ban them from wearing it in public? Awesome, let's liberate the "poor, oppressed muslim women" by preventing them from going to college, get a job as a teacher or a nurse, because they're violating the dress code.


If I understand you correctly, you think that we shouldn't make a big fuss about this because it might "divide" the working class.

I say fuck that. If it divides then it divides. At this point in history, it's not our job to unite the working class, simply because they don't want to be united. It is, however, one of our jobs to fight against all the pre-capitalist superstitions still present in the working class. Religion is the biggest one.Awesome. I'm sure the bosses will love the idea of pitting sections of the working class against each other along socially constructed lines. Then maybe they will also vote in some far-right party with the promise that they're going to keep the scary backwards towelheads out. And, in the process, they'll also institute a hardcore neo-liberal economic program, so that the "white worker" really has something to be happy about: "Sure, my wage is lower and I'm not allowed to unionise anymore, but at least they kicked the Ay-rabs out."

And the left is supposed to line up behind the right in enabling that? You are one nasty piece of work, ernie. Are you sure you're at the right forum? Stormfront is around the corner.

[Catbus]

At this point in history, it's not our job to unite the working class, simply because they don't want to be united.

It's always our job to attempt to unite the working class. Plus, it's a great leap to say that the working class as a whole doesn't want to be united, but when most of them aren't totally class conscientious we should take it upon ourselves to bring them to lucidity.

[ernie]

I know, I was being sarcastic. I think it's weird when people say that "we should not avoid insulting muslims", as if that somehow leads to the "liberation" of "the muslim working class" (separate from the "white working class", apparently, and then people say they aren't racist...).
Another pair of straw man arguments...you're good at that :D.

Nobody said that it "leads to the liberation anybody". But being nice to religion doesn't lead to liberation either. I just happen to think that condemning religion and confronting the religious does more to help our cause than "being sensitive to their beliefs".


Of course the left should avoid insulting its target audience, i.e. the working class. That doesn't mean that Islam should not be criticised, but it's also a matter of priorities.
We shouldn't insult on purpose; and perhaps we should choose our words carefully. But the fact remains that criticizing religion, no matter how politely, will insult and piss off some workers. What do you do about that?


One would have to be blind to not recognise the campaign against "islamisation" coming from the far right. What "white workers" have in common with "muslim workers" is their class, and so they should not be separated along ethnic or religious lines, or even be seen as direct opposites of each other.
The campaign against "islamisation" in the bourgeois media has a racist character. It's really a campaign against "arab-ization". What does that have to do with this?

And at this point, yes, the workers should be aware of their religious differences. I, for one, wouldn't trust a religious person in a revolutionary movement. On any given day, they might choose to support their church rather than our movement.


Communists call for solidarity and internationalism, not for the discrimination of parts of the working class out of right-wing prejudices and the misguided belief that one particular religion is uniquely reactionary, and its followers among the working class should be discriminated against.
We should discriminate workers based on a leftist prejudice: religion is our enemy; if not fought, it will come back and bite us in the ass. What the hell is right-wing about that? And who said anything about Islam being "uniquely reactionary"?

You want to show solidarity to somebody who forces their wife to wear a fucking cloth over their head all day. Why? Anybody who does that is not our proletarian brother. Sorry.

[ernie]

It's always our job to attempt to unite the working class. Plus, it's a great leap to say that the working class as a whole doesn't want to be united, but when most of them aren't totally class conscientious we should take it upon ourselves to bring them to lucidity.
Well, I don't think we can "unite" the working class, per se. But even if we could, the class consciousness has to be there, as you pointed out; right now it isn't (and that's what I meant by "doesn't want to be united"). IMO, confronting religion is a good way to help accelerate history in a revolutionary direction :).

[Catbus]

Well, I don't think we can "unite" the working class, per se. But even if we could, the class consciousness has to be there, as you pointed out; right now it isn't (and that's what I meant by "doesn't want to be united"). IMO, confronting religion is a good way to help accelerate history in a revolutionary direction :).


Gotchya :)

[ernie]

What about women who want to wear them for themselves?
Right. Women love to feel as inferiors, as well as be as covered as possible on a hut summer day. Please...


Do they need to be rescued by Christian men in business suits who want to ban them from wearing it in public? Awesome, let's liberate the "poor, oppressed muslim women" by preventing them from going to college, get a job as a teacher or a nurse, because they're violating the dress code.
I have no idea what you're rambling about here. I don't recall saying any of this, nor does it logically follow from any of my posts.


Awesome. I'm sure the bosses will love the idea of pitting sections of the working class against each other along socially constructed lines.
The ruling class hates it when we attack religion. It's one of their most powerful weapons. So, no, I don't think they'll be giving us much love.


Then maybe they will also vote in some far-right party with the promise that they're going to keep the scary backwards towelheads out.And, in the process, they'll also institute a hardcore neo-liberal economic program, so that the "white worker" really has something to be happy about: "Sure, my wage is lower and I'm not allowed to unionise anymore, but at least they kicked the Ay-rabs out."
You totally misunderstand how the capitalists function. The second our voices start being heard, they'll come to the rescue of religion, defending it from the evil commies. Yes, even Islam.


And the left is supposed to line up behind the right in enabling that? You are one nasty piece of work, ernie. Are you sure you're at the right forum? Stormfront is around the corner.
Haha, you're funny. You haven't responded to any of my points, and instead are responding to ones I never made. And then you call me a fascist based on those imaginary posts. Let me know when you're interested in arguing honestly.

[Wanted Man]

Another pair of straw man arguments...you're good at that :D.

Nobody said that it "leads to the liberation anybody". But being nice to religion doesn't lead to liberation either. I just happen to think that condemning religion and confronting the religious does more to help our cause than "being sensitive to their beliefs".
It's not a strawman, it's getting to the root of things, although "liberation" was an exaggeration. But still, you do evidently think that insulting (well, apparently not anymore, we'll get to that) and attacking muslims (thereby aiding the bourgeoisie's aims in dividing them from the rest of the working class along religious lines) "does more to help our cause". How so? What's helpful about further alienating billions of people?



We shouldn't insult on purpose; and perhaps we should choose our words carefully. But the fact remains that criticizing religion, no matter how politely, will insult and piss off some workers. What do you do about that?
Sure, some people will stick to these beliefs more fanatically. At least I'm glad that you don't suggest that we should insult them on purpose. Anyway, I think the problem with strongly attacking religious people's beliefs is that it's unlikely to win them over. How would you do that? Communism is not some kind of pie-in-the-sky dream: "Give up all your current backwards beliefs, join us and your interests will be looked out for. Otherwise, you are below our standards."

On the contrary, I think the way to deal with this is to point out that they have the same class interests as workers who are Christian, atheist, etc. By rationally showing them that they have "a world to win". That kind of empowerment works much better than prioritising their religious beliefs, and using them as an excuse to deepen religious and ethnic tensions.



The campaign against "islamisation" in the bourgeois media has a racist character. It's really a campaign against "arab-ization". What does that have to do with this?
Everything, at least where I'm from. The far right uses "islamisation" as a stick to beat all immigrants from islamic countries. They allege that Moroccan kids commit a lot of street crime because "Islam is a backwards culture", rather than the fact that they are ghettoised. Think what would happen if some racist leader in the USA said that latinos commit a lot of street crime because of their "backwards Catholic culture", instead of it being a matter of class.

They call Islam a "backwards culture" by wanting to make clear that it is not just any other religion, but that it is uniquely reactionary belief that threatens "our" supposedly more pure "Judeo/Christian/Humanist values". They call for the Koran to be banned because it is a "fascist book".

So yes, religious tensions, the "culture war"/"clash of civilisations" and anti-immigration are very much interconnected. You can add imperialism, too: "Support our troops, they are fighting backwards Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan."


And at this point, yes, the workers should be aware of their religious differences. I, for one, wouldn't trust a religious person in a revolutionary movement.
Really? And does this go for all religions, or must Islam be singled out yet again? Are you in a left-wing organisation yourself, and if so, does it bar all religious people from being members? If so, I would say, good luck with that! Religion is thankfully on the decline, but 78.4% of adult Americans are still Christians. How would they be dealt with? Should the left be some sort of exclusive club for atheists?

We can even up the ante here: are you a worker yourself? If so, do you have any religious co-workers, or maybe even a lot of them? How do you regard them, then?


On any given day, they might choose to support their church rather than our movement.
You say below that we should discriminate people based on prejudice. Well, your own words are proof that we should not act on our own ignorance. What you say here is a bad misunderstanding. As if every worker who happens to believe in a religion is under the direct command of his church. This is just as ignorant as the suggestion that Catholics in the USA are all doing the bidding of the Pope. Or the Dutch far-right who oppose having a Moroccan mayor of a city, because he is supposedly a "traitor" doing the bidding of the King of Morocco. Pure ignorance.



We should discriminate workers based on a leftist prejudice: religion is our enemy; if not fought, it will come back and bite us in the ass. What the hell is right-wing about that? And who said anything about Islam being "uniquely reactionary"?
Yes, what the hell is right-wing about prejudice, discrimination and bigotry? :rolleyes:


You want to show solidarity to somebody who forces their wife to wear a fucking cloth over their head all day. Why? Anybody who does that is not our proletarian brother. Sorry.
Who's torching strawmen now? I already told you that it's perfectly possible for a woman to choose it for herself. And you're singling out Islam again.

All that aside, you're still wrong. A proletarian doesn't stop being a proletarian because he abuses his wife. But that's a piss poor argument against working class unity. Unless you want to make the suggestion that all religious men abuse their wives, but I wouldn't want to touch that one with a ten foot pole.

In summary, what you're saying is basically the result of a kind of anarchism that does not recognise class struggle as a cardinal issue. You're happily willing to put issues like religion (which should, of course, be criticised) above class, as if religious workers are greater enemies than the bourgeoisie itself. Which is a bit ridiculous.

[Vendetta]

Pardon my ignorance, but who's Pat Condell?

[Wanted Man]

Right. Women love to feel as inferiors, as well as be as covered as possible on a hut summer day. Please...
Look, if you have ignorant and bigoted views about some people, that's your problem. But don't presume that you are better informed of what women think than the women themselves. If you can conclusively show that most women who wear the headscarf are oppressed, then we can talk. But until then, it's just a bigoted assumption, based on your own prejudices.



I have no idea what you're rambling about here. I don't recall saying any of this, nor does it logically follow from any of my posts.
Well, the idea that women who wear veils are 'oppressed' is often used by those who want to ban the veils in public altogether. The problem with this is that it prevents women from getting certain jobs, or studying at a university. I think that's more oppressive than a woman voluntarily choosing to wear a veil. I know you didn't propose such a ban, but in that case, maybe it's not as oppressive as you think.



The ruling class hates it when we attack religion. It's one of their most powerful weapons. So, no, I don't think they'll be giving us much love.
Right. A docile working class divided along religious lines, not pursuing its class interest at all, encouraged by both the left and the right wings of politics. They must hate it. :rolleyes:

Of course, religion itself also helps a great deal in this, by promising a pie-in-the-sky dream after death. But like I said, it can't be solved by excluding 80% of the country with crass and bigoted crap. When left-wingers say: "You may all be working at the same job, but you do not have the same interests. 70% of you are Christians, 20% muslims and 10% atheists. Therefore, you are enemies of each other", capitalism certainly doesn't get weaker.

Religion is a great weapon of capitalism, sure. But only when they use it to create divisions, to pit workers against each other. Religious and ethnic chauvinism, divisions amongst the working class, bigotry, etc. These are the things that we should fight against, not encourage.



You totally misunderstand how the capitalists function. The second our voices start being heard, they'll come to the rescue of religion, defending it from the evil commies. Yes, even Islam.
Absolutely, there will eventually be a time when the clergy becomes the enemy directly (it is already an enemy, of course). But again, their function will be to divide: "Don't work together with the infidels, you know what they're like". So really, this fact makes your calls for more division, more prejudice and more discrimination look even more misguided.



Haha, you're funny. You haven't responded to any of my points, and instead are responding to ones I never made. And then you call me a fascist based on those imaginary posts. Let me know when you're interested in arguing honestly.
I don't think you're a fascist, you're just seriously misguided. But the suggestion that the left actually needs to encourage bigotry certainly wouldn't look bad on SF. It is a few steps away from arguing for "solidarism", the fascist concept that the workers and the bosses have the same interests because of their national status. Now, I know you're not an ignorant fascist, and that this idea would horrify you, and that you think religion can be seen as separate from these considerations. But anyone on the "left" who wants to encourage discrimination is walking a tightrope, because the practical consequence of this is the undermining of working class solidarity, something which real fascists will happily pounce on.

[Dimentio]

I do not think that religious laws should be instituted even as arbitration. Given that, I think that even if that's the case, I would prefer to not introduce Shar'ia since it holds the position that women and men are inequal.

As for Saudi influence. It is indeed a threat against the muslim working class that Saudi Arabia builds mosques and finances clerics who are dividing the muslim working class from the other parts of the working class.

[Wanted Man]

I do not think that religious laws should be instituted even as arbitration. Given that, I think that even if that's the case, I would prefer to not introduce Shar'ia since it holds the position that women and men are inequal.
What exists in Britain is not a "religious law". Rather, there is the Arbitration Act, which states that people can seek someone to arbitrate disputes (as opposed to legal matters). Some people want to do this with an Islamic cleric, others may want to have their disputes arbitrated by a Jedi Master.

So no, I don't see a problem with it. I do think it's problematic to operate under the assumption that women and men are inequal, of course such a position should never be the norm. Anyway, the main problem that some people on the right have with this arrangement is that it prevents "assimilation" of muslims, as they, apparently, should be forced to take on the norms of the rest of Britain. But of course, leftists don't support forced assimilation.

In any case, we should make sure to get our facts straight. We wouldn't want to find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of repeating the right-wing lies about "Sharia law enforced in Britain".


As for Saudi influence. It is indeed a threat against the muslim working class that Saudi Arabia builds mosques and finances clerics who are dividing the muslim working class from the other parts of the working class.
Absolutely, the Saudi ruling class is a terrible thing, and it's even worse that it continues to exert its influence on muslims abroad. But that is not a problem of Islam or "islamisation", it's a problem of the imperialist nations and the Saudi ruling class, who form a puppet state of imperialism. There should be some kind of alternative to this. It would be best if the state didn't spend community money on this at all, but then it must be consistent, and must also stop funding churches.

[ernie]

It's not a strawman, it's getting to the root of things, although "liberation" was an exaggeration. But still, you do evidently think that insulting (well, apparently not anymore, we'll get to that) and attacking muslims (thereby aiding the bourgeoisie's aims in dividing them from the rest of the working class along religious lines) "does more to help our cause". How so? What's helpful about further alienating billions of people?
I don't want to attack them, but their religion. That is, confronting them about it. Asking them why they are religious, and being open about or hostility to religion. We should do all this even if it alienates some of them. I am convinced that a religious working class cannot mount a successful revolutionary resistance to capitalism.

I don't think the bourgeoisie wants to divide the working class by religion. They want the working class to be religious, even if that means the are "united" under that religion. Why? Because they know that uniting under a religion doesn't threaten them in the least.

In other words, openly attacking all religion does not help the ruling class in any way. If it did, then they would do it themselves, and they don't. They divide by ethnicity all the time. Never by religion.


Sure, some people will stick to these beliefs more fanatically.
Ah, so you do draw the line somewhere! Bigot!!! Fascist!!!

Seriously, though, I just draw that line in a different place. It's a tactical issue, and bigotry and fascism has absolutely nothing to do with this.


Anyway, I think the problem with strongly attacking religious people's beliefs is that it's unlikely to win them over. How would you do that?
I disagree. I think rationally attacking their religious beliefs is a good way to win over those that are ready to be rational. The others might be alienated for now. They'll come around, though. Humans are, for the most part, rational beings.


Communism is not some kind of pie-in-the-sky dream: "Give up all your current backwards beliefs, join us and your interests will be looked out for. Otherwise, you are below our standards."
Yes, they are below our standards! We want a society of rational individuals; nothing less will do. Religion is fundamentally incompatible with such a vision. Let's be honest about this with the working class, even if it makes us unpopular. When the material conditions are there, such a message will be very popular.


On the contrary, I think the way to deal with this is to point out that they have the same class interests as workers who are Christian, atheist, etc. By rationally showing them that they have "a world to win". That kind of empowerment works much better than prioritising their religious beliefs, and using them as an excuse to deepen religious and ethnic tensions.
Why can't we do both? We can point out that they have more in common with the rest of the working class than the bourgeoisie, and that all this religious bullshit is just distracting them from that reality. That is, being religious goes against their class interests.


Everything, at least where I'm from. The far right uses "islamisation" as a stick to beat all immigrants from islamic countries. They allege that Moroccan kids commit a lot of street crime because "Islam is a backwards culture", rather than the fact that they are ghettoised.
I have clearly stated that every religion is reactionary and the enemy of the working class. (I was focusing on Islam because that's what was mentioned.) Is this the same message as "Moroccan kids commit a lot of street crime because Islam is a backwards culture"? I fail to see how. Please enlighten me.

And just because Arabs get demonized in the media, does that mean that they are more progressive (or more reactionary, for that matter)? Absolutely not!


Think what would happen if some racist leader in the USA said that latinos commit a lot of street crime because of their "backwards Catholic culture", instead of it being a matter of class.
They do say this, except that they don't blame it on Catholicism. They blame it on ethnicity and race. Racists are usually religious people, so they tend not to insult religion.


They call Islam a "backwards culture" by wanting to make clear that it is not just any other religion, but that it is uniquely reactionary belief that threatens "our" supposedly more pure "Judeo/Christian/Humanist values". They call for the Koran to be banned because it is a "fascist book".
This is totally different from what I am saying. All religions are reactionary! All holy books should be banned. They are full of sexism, racism and homophobia. Burn them all! :D


So yes, religious tensions, the "culture war"/"clash of civilisations" and anti-immigration are very much interconnected. You can add imperialism, too: "Support our troops, they are fighting backwards Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan."
Again, this doesn't follow from my argument. As a leftist, I am staunchly opposed to imperialism in all of its forms. Always! No exceptions.


Really? And does this go for all religions, or must Islam be singled out yet again?
Of course it goes for all religions. I haven't singled out Islam as particularly bad in any of my posts. That's the religion that we happened to be talking about when you joined the thread. A mere coincidence.


Are you in a left-wing organisation yourself, and if so, does it bar all religious people from being members? If so, I would say, good luck with that! Religion is thankfully on the decline, but 78.4% of adult Americans are still Christians. How would they be dealt with? Should the left be some sort of exclusive club for atheists?
We can deal with that by attacking religion. That's what I've been saying. This doesn't mean that we should stop struggling together with the rest of the working class, as long as they are struggling for something progressive. If 70% of the working class goes out and protests the lack of churches in urban neighborhoods, you won't see me out there. It's a reactionary struggle.

By the way, who knows what percentage of the working class is religious. And how religious. "78.4% of adult Americans" doesn't say much, even if it were true.


We can even up the ante here: are you a worker yourself? If so, do you have any religious co-workers, or maybe even a lot of them? How do you regard them, then?
Yes, I am a worker, although one of more privileged ones, in that my job is not too difficult or demeaning. And yes, some of my co-workers are religious, and of several religions. Of those, some are mildly religious and hold a lot of (what I consider to be) progressive stances on issues; others are strongly religious and are usually reactionary in other aspects as well.

The strongly religious I just don't talk to. They are sexist and homophobic. What would I say to them? I have tried to talk to the others about atheism and other leftist topics (usually anti-imperialism). It's not easy, though; one has to choose the moments carefully.


You say below that we should discriminate people based on prejudice. Well, your own words are proof that we should not act on our own ignorance. What you say here is a bad misunderstanding. As if every worker who happens to believe in a religion is under the direct command of his church. This is just as ignorant as the suggestion that Catholics in the USA are all doing the bidding of the Pope. Or the Dutch far-right who oppose having a Moroccan mayor of a city, because he is supposedly a "traitor" doing the bidding of the King of Morocco. Pure ignorance.
Well, perhaps I should have said what I meant by "discriminate". I don't mean we should kill them or even ostracize them. Just not let them in our leftist organizations. They wouldn't like the stuff we talk about anyway.

It is also helpful to say what we mean by "religious". If someone wants to believe in "god", that's fine with me. Let them in, as long as "god" doesn't come up when discussing radical politics. Who knows, they might even abandon their belief if he hangs out with us enough.

If someone belongs to a religious organization, then I don't see how we could let them in a leftist organization.


Yes, what the hell is right-wing about prejudice, discrimination and bigotry? :rolleyes:
There is nothing right-wing or left-wing about any concept in the abstract. They only gain any useful meaning when applied to real-life situations.



Who's torching strawmen now? I already told you that it's perfectly possible for a woman to choose it for herself. And you're singling out Islam again.
And I already told you that it's not likely. Why would a woman choose to do something that tags her as inferior? Plus, it must be uncomfortable as hell.

I already explained why Islam is the superstition we are talking about.


All that aside, you're still wrong. A proletarian doesn't stop being a proletarian because he abuses his wife. But that's a piss poor argument against working class unity. Unless you want to make the suggestion that all religious men abuse their wives, but I wouldn't want to touch that one with a ten foot pole.
No, he doesn't stop being a proletarian; just one that I want to get mixed up with. Wife-beaters don't deserve our solidarity. And no, most working-class men do not abuse their wives, and that is why I am not using this (or anything else) as an argument against class unity.


In summary, what you're saying is basically the result of a kind of anarchism that does not recognise class struggle as a cardinal issue. You're happily willing to put issues like religion (which should, of course, be criticised) above class, as if religious workers are greater enemies than the bourgeoisie itself. Which is a bit ridiculous.
No, it is not that kind of anarchism at all. Class is the most important thing we have in common, and our class interests is what will make anarcho-communism possible. Does this mean that we should stop attacking other forms of superstition? Should we not "divide" the working class because of racism? Homophobia? I mean, the working class must be united, right?

[ernie]

Look, if you have ignorant and bigoted views about some people, that's your problem. But don't presume that you are better informed of what women think than the women themselves. If you can conclusively show that most women who wear the headscarf are oppressed, then we can talk. But until then, it's just a bigoted assumption, based on your own prejudices.
I also don't have "conclusive" evidence showing that women don't like to be beat by their husbands. I think it's common sense that people do not like to feel inferior to others.


Well, the idea that women who wear veils are 'oppressed' is often used by those who want to ban the veils in public altogether. The problem with this is that it prevents women from getting certain jobs, or studying at a university. I think that's more oppressive than a woman voluntarily choosing to wear a veil. I know you didn't propose such a ban, but in that case, maybe it's not as oppressive as you think.
I didn't propose that ban, but I wholeheartedly endorse it. If those women want to get those jobs or study at those universities, than take the fucking thing off! Confront your reactionary husband.


Religion is a great weapon of capitalism, sure. But only when they use it to create divisions, to pit workers against each other.
I disagree here. The capitalist ruling class doesn't usually use religion in this way. It uses racism in this way.


Absolutely, there will eventually be a time when the clergy becomes the enemy directly (it is already an enemy, of course). But again, their function will be to divide: "Don't work together with the infidels, you know what they're like".
And the infidels will be us, the atheists, not the other religions. In revolutionary times, all the religious leaders will hold hands and kiss and hug in order to prevent a revolution.


It is a few steps away from arguing for "solidarism", the fascist concept that the workers and the bosses have the same interests because of their national status.
Absolutely not. Nationalism is just as bad a superstition as religion.


...because the practical consequence of this is the undermining of working class solidarity, something which real fascists will happily pounce on.
Not if we are clear about our intention of destroying the ruling class.

I'm not saying that religious members of the working class are our enemies (although some are); just that we should attack their religion. We should also attack all other superstitions, including nationalism. I don't think fascists will like this very much.

[Wanted Man]

I don't want to attack them, but their religion. That is, confronting them about it. Asking them why they are religious, and being open about or hostility to religion. We should do all this even if it alienates some of them. I am convinced that a religious working class cannot mount a successful revolutionary resistance to capitalism.
The working class is revolutionary because it is the working class. Not because an X amount of workers believe in Y or Z. Class conscious means that they are aware of this fact, and of the need for a "successful revolutionary resistance to capitalism". Religion is a barrier to class consciousness, and so it should be opposed eventually. But you say yourself that it's a matter of tactics later on. And no, excluding a large group of people because of their misguided beliefs is not very tactical.

Religious people should be turned against their clergy, against the village priest who always eats well, or the cleric who preaches hate. Not against their fellow workers who happen to believe in something different. We oppose religion not out of some moral concern, but to destroy the religious hierarchy that helps sustain capitalism. Without that aspect, and with the growth of class consciousness and the living idea that we can make our lives better by ourselves, rather than trusting in a power from above, we can make religion "wither away", so to speak. But again, that's very different from simply imposing blanket discrimination against the religious people in general.


I don't think the bourgeoisie wants to divide the working class by religion. They want the working class to be religious, even if that means the are "united" under that religion. Why? Because they know that uniting under a religion doesn't threaten them in the least.
When I speak of a united working class, I mean one that is class conscious and single-mindedly fighting the class struggle, throwing differences such as religion aside. It's impossible for the entire class to be "united" under one religion, obviously, because there are multiple religions, there is atheism, etc., that often preach hate against each other.

And that's where the division comes into the picture, when we're more concerned about fighting the unbelievers than fighting our bosses. Our job is to oppose that, and to spread the idea that they have their class in common firstly and foremostly, rather than whatever religion they were born into.


In other words, openly attacking all religion does not help the ruling class in any way. If it did, then they would do it themselves, and they don't. They divide by ethnicity all the time. Never by religion.
Unfortunately, all the divisive social constructs that exist in our system (religion, culture, race, etc.) are tied together. Religious struggle becomes culture war, culture war becomes ethnic struggle, etc. Indeed, the ruling class does not attack all religion, it picks and chooses as it goes along. But division is the goal in the end, and the left should oppose, not support it.



Ah, so you do draw the line somewhere! Bigot!!! Fascist!!!

Seriously, though, I just draw that line in a different place. It's a tactical issue, and bigotry and fascism has absolutely nothing to do with this.
It's not just a line in the sand. Of course, not every worker is going to be class conscious. While we live under capitalism, bourgeois ideology (incl. bigotry) will affect all of us in a way, and after the revolution, the dispossessed will continue to try and spread it. Even when there is only reformism going on, this happens, just look at the separatist rebellions in Bolivia (not directly related to religion, but still relevant).

The role of the left in this, of course, is to oppose these things, to argue for a united working class to fight these things. Not the other way around. I think it's more than just a tactical issue, it's an issue of the relationship between the classes and the ideologies. Do we spread proletarian ideology, or do we play the game according to the rules of the bosses, the upper clergy (to get back to religion), etc. by contributing to division?



I disagree. I think rationally attacking their religious beliefs is a good way to win over those that are ready to be rational. The others might be alienated for now. They'll come around, though. Humans are, for the most part, rational beings.
That's a good way to put it. Unfortunately, capitalism is not a rational system, and so irrational beliefs like religion thrive under capitalism. "A heart in a heartless world" and "opium of the people", as Marx put it. To expand on the opium, when you want to help addicts, you don't just say "Drugs are bad, mmkay?" and treat them like crap. You empower them, and give them a world where they don't need that shit, by fighting for a world in which all the horrors of capitalism that create junkes in the first place are gone.



Yes, they are below our standards! We want a society of rational individuals; nothing less will do. Religion is fundamentally incompatible with such a vision. Let's be honest about this with the working class, even if it makes us unpopular. When the material conditions are there, such a message will be very popular.
Remarkably "vanguardist" for an anarchist. But the job of the vanguard is not to be an enlightened section imposing its values on the rest, and disregard all those who are not conscious yet. It's to listen to the masses, but not simply tailing the reactionary views that live amongst them either (homophobia and sexism should be criticised, whatever a religious fundamentalist may think of it), and spreading the consciousness and lead them in waging that class struggle. Show, don't tell. People become rational when they realise their potential, and the complete impotence of their gods and masters when they are no longer obeyed.

I do agree that opposition to religion will grow along with the revolutionary movement. Eventually, the upper clergy will likely preach against social change. And that's just about the right time for their former followers to kill those motherfuckers. But until then, it's pointless to just call people reactionaries and below our standards because they do not yet recognise that the things we say are of great importance to them.



Why can't we do both? We can point out that they have more in common with the rest of the working class than the bourgeoisie, and that all this religious bullshit is just distracting them from that reality. That is, being religious goes against their class interests.[/quote[
Okay, that's agreeable enough.


[quote]I have clearly stated that every religion is reactionary and the enemy of the working class. (I was focusing on Islam because that's what was mentioned.) Is this the same message as "Moroccan kids commit a lot of street crime because Islam is a backwards culture"? I fail to see how. Please enlighten me.
Yeah, I do think it's more clear now. The original tone of this thread was basically "the left is being too soft on Islam", and I responded within that spirit. So it got off on a bad foot, but thankfully we can dig into things a bit more now. And I'm glad that at least nobody is so ignorant to parrot the "clash of civilizations" kind of arguments.


And just because Arabs get demonized in the media, does that mean that they are more progressive (or more reactionary, for that matter)? Absolutely not!
Not particularly. But the people who face the excesses of capitalism daily and most directly will certainly be more opposed to it. In their rejection, they may turn to socialism, but religious fundamentalists and fascists are also there to pounce on it and mislead them. The job of socialists in this is to use this experience to our advantage, not to scoff at them until they see religious fundamentalism as the only alternative between a ruthless capitalism and a snobby, elitist "socialism".



They do say this, except that they don't blame it on Catholicism. They blame it on ethnicity and race. Racists are usually religious people, so they tend not to insult religion.
It's a bit different here, in this much more secular country, where the nationalist politicians very often come from a liberal background. They cynically use gay rights, women's rights and hardcore support for Israel as a stick against muslims. My point about the Catholicism was a "what if", applying our situation to an existing tension in the USA.



This is totally different from what I am saying. All religions are reactionary! All holy books should be banned. They are full of sexism, racism and homophobia. Burn them all! :D
I'm afraid I must disagree here. Book burning and banning has been done too often, and by the wrong people entirely, I couldn't think of any situation where it's justified. It's also outdated. Any kid can read Mein Kampf on the internet nowadays. It's not pleasant, but it's a fact. Enough people have already been killed by those who burn books already.

I've got to go for dinner now, I'll get to the remainder of your post later.

[Led Zeppelin]

Pardon my ignorance, but who's Pat Condell?

Some douche with a webcam and a youtube account.

[Catbus]

I'm still failing to see how since he's very critical of religion that makes him a racist... He's never made a video claiming that all arabs are evil. He hasn't even said that all Muslims are evil, just that those in power in the Muslim church are evil. Even though that is harsh, but still, how is he a racist? I could see religiously bigoted, but not racist.

[Melbourne Lefty]

Just quick



I think some so-called leftists are careful not to insult Muslims. In general, though, I think radical leftists see religion as something that must be done away with.


Is the reason for being more sensitive to Islam over other groups in the west because they are an oppressed group?

[ernie]

Just quick



Is the reason for being more sensitive to Islam over other groups in the west because they are an oppressed group?
Probably. I don't think this justifies it, though. We should tell people up-front that their religion is bullshit. That they are too good for that crap. That it teaches obedience to authority and other reactionary messages that go against their class interest. And that their lives improve if they choose to leave it behind.

[RHIZOMES]

I agree with Yehuda Stern here. The term "special treatment" especially got alarm bells ringing in my head, as anyone who has met a racist before will know how often they use that term to justify their racist views.

Fuck Sharia though.

[Fiskpure]

There are some people speculating that by 2050, the number of people who belong to the Islam religion in Russia will exceed 50% of the country's population!

We shouldn't forget either that the hierarchy in the Islam religion has much more loyalty then the workers in Europe who haven't yet developed class consciousness. A very good example of this is Iran; according to their own statements and reports by the U.S intelligence the Iranian revolutionary militia can call in 10-12 million soldiers in 48 hours. When it comes to the case of developing class consciousness among muslim workers we should be extremely delicate.

[Revy]

Muslims are not the enemy. There is not any "Shari'a law" in Britain. That is much ado about nothing since those courts cannot contradict British law. If the court was to condemn a woman to death for adultery, it would not be possible, and if the court tried it, the court would be taken to court for murder.

Socialism cannot be separated from feminism and gay liberation, so religious fundamentalists of any kind that are reactionary on those issues cannot be our ally. But socialists should defend and speak up for Muslims and against Islamophobia. It is a mistake to believe that advocating for secularism without exceptions equals some kind of detriment to the Muslim community.

There is an entire swath of the white Christian working class in the USA that holds racist, homophobic, patriarchal, and xenophobic views. These people could potentially be swayed to socialism, but their views on all those issues will have to change.

[Fiskpure]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that the muslims are the enemy, I'm quite sure no one treats them anymore special then the rest of the working class. However, the undeniable difference in the working class in muslim countries is pretty obvious, they've been brought after strict muslim teachings. Hence why we should approach this subject firm and confident.

[Revy]

Probably. I don't think this justifies it, though. We should tell people up-front that their religion is bullshit. That they are too good for that crap. That it teaches obedience to authority and other reactionary messages that go against their class interest. And that their lives improve if they choose to leave it behind.

Socialists should not concern ourselves with telling people off about their religion. There is no contradiction between faith and socialism. There is an extremism among atheists that is just as dumb as religious extremism. There is a group here in the US called the Rational Response Squad. I was familiar with them before they become famous. Anyway, their leader is Brian Sapient. He posted on MySpace that he would if given the chance send his mother to a mental hospital for being a theist.

Lives do not improve if someone leaves behind religion. An atheist capitalist system is still an atheist capitalist system. People are not more attuned to socialism if they become an atheist. And I see no shortage of "obedience to authority" in authoritarian "socialist" sects like US parties like the SWP and SEP.

[Revy]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that the muslims are the enemy, I'm quite sure no one treats them anymore special then the rest of the working class. However, the undeniable difference in the working class in muslim countries is pretty obvious, they've been brought after strict muslim teachings. Hence why we should approach this subject firm and confident.
From my understanding, the socialist movement in Muslim countries is very secularist. The late Mansoor Hekmat was a leading figure with international appeal.

[ernie]

Socialists should not concern ourselves with telling people off about their religion. There is no contradiction between faith and socialism.
Maybe not between faith and socialism, but definitely between faith and Marxism and materialism. I don't want to "lead" the workers to socialism, I want them to lead themselves into communism/anarchism. For that, it is my opinion that they have to be, at the very least, non-religious.


An atheist capitalist system is still an atheist capitalist system.
An atheist capitalist system? You mean a secular capitalist system? Capitalist is a secular system. Capital doesn't give a damn what religion or race you are. Money is the only "god" in capitalism.


People are not more attuned to socialism if they become an atheist.
They will be more open to Marxist and materialist ideas if they are atheist. Don't you think that a working class who understands and accepts materialist theory is more capable of revolting and creating a classless society than one who is worried about gods?


And I see no shortage of "obedience to authority" in authoritarian "socialist" sects like US parties like the SWP and SEP.
I absolutely agree. Socialism is a form of class society (albeit a superior one than capitalism in many respects) and socialist parties -- especially those seeking election -- do not talk about disobedience and rebellion. I don't belong to any of these parties (in fact, anything with the name "party" in it is unappealing to me) so there is no inconsistency with what I am saying.

[wasteman]

Yes he is a racist of the upmost kind

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes he is a racist of the upmost kind

Really? What has he said that is racist?

[spartan]

Really? What has he said that is racist?

Haven't you heard?

Criticising religion now makes you a racist in the eyes of the so-called anti-religious, trendy lefties.

I have watched Condell's videos and I can't see racism from them.

What I can see is anti-religion and if it's the fact that he attacks Islam specifically in some of his videos that makes you (not you personally NoXion) think him a racist then you are wrong! He attacks Christianity with just as much fervour and his main bone of contention seems to be religions (all religions) desire for more and more influence in a secular world (which naturally entails a desire from the religious to reverse some of our most fundamental values such as a woman's right to choose, birth control/contraception, etc).

Of course I am sure someone here has already wrongly construed Condell's anti-religion as Islamophobia and a desire on Condell's part to rid Europe of muslims, whilst simultaneously supporting America's oil crusade in the middle east, even though he has never even given his opinion on such matters.:rolleyes:

[skki]

The BNP have been featuring Condell's videos for months, he hasn't complained, or even mentioned it. He accepted hundreds of friend requests from youtubers who had BNP somewhere in their username, then hid his friend list when people started noticing. And he over-exaggerates the non-existent threat of Islam in Europe in order to attack multi-culturalism, and decries "leftists" (us) who work for a multi-cultural society. There is no doubt in my mind as to his political affiliation.

I'm actually starting to think that the BNP may have employed him.

[Wanted Man]

Condell's defence of the Dutch far right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE

Typical neo-con babble, on the same line as the European far-right politicians themselves. What do his fans on RevLeft think of this?

[PRC-UTE]

Undoubtly, Saudi Arabia is trying to increase its control over the muslim working class in parts of Europe, radicalising them and moving them towards Wah'habi faith. It is not a conspiracy theory to state that.

Is it acceptable to have Shar'ia laws expanding their influence or not?

As for discrimination, that varies between European countries. In France for example, I could agree that there is a partial discrimination of muslims. In Britain and Sweden on the contrary, I do not think that muslims are so much discriminated by state authorities, except in cases where muslim leaders want them to be discriminated, as in institution of muslims leaders as "mediators", allowance for muslim females to skip gymnastics, and of course, shar'iah laws.

I think you should apology since I did not speak against the "advance of islam" but the "advance of islamisation", which is a totally different thing.

Moreover, islam is not an ethnic group. So I do not understand why it should be seen as racist.

arguments like these would seem less chauvinist if those spreading them were as at least concerned about home grown religious fundamentalists, like the Orange Order. they're still quite large, violent and have more support from the ruling class than Muslims.

[Black Sheep]

He is not a racist,he just gives a religion's and its followers' the respect they deserve

[GX.]

What do they deserve, to be bombarded with bigoted, hysterical nonsense?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do they deserve, to be bombarded with bigoted, hysterical nonsense?

SUCH AS?

I believe this is the second time I have asked for a quote to back up the melodramatic and histrionic accusations levelled at Pat Condell.

Since nobody so far has been forthcoming, I'm lead to believe that what's actually going on is that Mr Condell doesn't give a shit about the sacred cows that are worshipped by certain sections of the Left, and that those thus slighted are simply throwing out bullshit hyperbole, in a manner reminiscent of an infant having a temper tantrum.

[Wanted Man]

So there is nothing wrong with his defence of the far right here? Seriously, watch the video I linked to at the end of the second page. It's basically the same old conspiracy theory of Islam trying to destroy western civilisation, and that we are "appeasing Islam" because of "Dhimmitude" (another popular fascist buzzword, coined by a Maronite leader and popularised by a zionist hack).

[GX.]

SUCH AS? The video in question, you fruitcake. The hysteria over "sharia courts" has popped up several times, and has been rebutted.


I believe this is the second time I have asked for a quote to back up the melodramatic and histrionic accusations levelled at Pat Condell. You must have to ask for quotes in the first place because you are oblivious to bigoted tropes, since his videos are riddled with them (there was one particularly vile one, called "the trouble with islam" or something. I don't remember). That, or you agree with them. Perhaps it's both. In any case, shame on you.


Since nobody so far has been forthcoming, I'm lead to believe that what's actually going on is that Mr Condell doesn't give a shit about the sacred cows that are worshipped by certain sections of the Left, and that those thus slighted are simply throwing out bullshit hyperbole, in a manner reminiscent of an infant having a temper tantrum.
Yes, sacred cows like being against prejudice and discrimination. Socialists should argue against religion. That doesn't mean we should stand behind the islamophobic garbage spewed by this weirdo "comedian" and the rest of the daily mail crowd. Now please fuck off.

[PRC-UTE]

SUCH AS?

I believe this is the second time I have asked for a quote to back up the melodramatic and histrionic accusations levelled at Pat Condell.

Since nobody so far has been forthcoming, I'm lead to believe that what's actually going on is that Mr Condell doesn't give a shit about the sacred cows that are worshipped by certain sections of the Left, and that those thus slighted are simply throwing out bullshit hyperbole, in a manner reminiscent of an infant having a temper tantrum.

He says in one video that Britain didn't have an issue with religion until the Muslims came along. So in other words, he ignores all religious fundamentalists in Britain that aren't brown skinned and/or immigrants.

The fuckin wankbag never heard of the Orange Order?

[spartan]

He says in one video that Britain didn't have an issue with religion until the Muslims came along. So in other words, he ignores all religious fundamentalists in Britain that aren't brown skinned and/or immigrants.

The fuckin wankbag never heard of the Orange Order?

Yeah because there are no white muslims in Britain and muslims are an ethnicity as opposed to followers of a religion.:rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

Yeah because there are no white muslims in Britain and muslims are an ethnicity as opposed to followers of a religion.:rolleyes:
That's obvious. But if you'd watch the video (here it is again, for the lazy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE), you can see that it's not just a matter of criticising Islam.

Rather, it's the same old ploy of all the European fascists as of late: to caricature muslims as a fifth column, who want to "take over the world" and destroy our great western civilisation (:rolleyes:) and bring us all back to the 7th century. They are "getting away with it", because our governments are weak, leftist "Dhimmis" who are trying to "appease Islam", which is impossible, because "equating Islam with violence is like equating Disney with Mickey Mouse". And of course "muslims enjoy" seeing the "abject Dhimmitude of the Dutch government" because "muslim violence" made this "appeasement" possible in the first place. After all, Islam gets "special treatment" from these "Dhimmis"...

But Pat has the solution: hopefully, muslims will reincarnate as female homosexual Jews, so that they will experience themselves having to deal with "primitive dickheads like you" (muslims). Pat does have the decency to concede that there are some good muslims too. But what is the meaning of this? It's like the fascist leaders who also claim that they don't hate all muslims, just as long as they tear out 90% of the Quran. After all, Islam is still nothing more than a "desert dogma" (spread by "towelheads" and "sand niggers", no doubt...).

But yeah, Pat's just an anti-theist all-around good guy. :rolleyes:

[skki]

"Multi-Culturalism has failed" - Pat Condell
Oh god what's that political party that keeps saying stuff like that? Isn't it that one that has a bunch of Pat Condell videos on their website?

[Wanted Man]

Condell now officially calls for support and defence of a Dutch fascist leader: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU

"The Dhimmi judges of Amsterdam"? What an idiot.

So where are his fans on RevLeft now?

[PRC-UTE]

Yeah because there are no white muslims in Britain and muslims are an ethnicity as opposed to followers of a religion.:rolleyes:

again, Pat Condell doesn't take on the religious fundamentalists native to Britain, a group who have some support among the ruling class and the military. he only rants about "foreign" ones.

[spartan]

Condell now officially calls for support and defence of a Dutch fascist leader: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU

"The Dhimmi judges of Amsterdam"? What an idiot.

So where are his fans on RevLeft now?

He is defending his right to freedom of speech.

Why should people, regardless of their politics, be put on trial for criticisng Islam and offending muslims?

If this sort of stuff carries on then we will be on a slippery slope where anyone who takes offence to anything, no matter how trivial, can now take you to court.

[Wanted Man]

Bullshit. He's supporting the man's reactionary statements and consistently spreads conspiracy theories about Islamic colonisation, encouraged by spineless or complicit "left-wing" "dhimmis" in government.

Wilders didn't just "offend muslims". He said that muslim participation in society is impossible until they distance themselves from the Koran. He also stated that there is a connection between Islam and crime, regarding criminal Moroccan immigrant youth: "Their behaviour is the consequence of their religion and culture." "All the evil that the sons of Allah commit against us and themselves, comes from that book" (the Koran). "The core of the problem is fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as stated in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran.""Everyone will adapt to our dominant culture. Those who don't, will no longer be here in twenty years. They will be expelled from the country." "Those Moroccan boys are truly violent. They beat people up because of their sexual preference. I've never used violence."

Obviously, I don't think it's progressive if the bourgeois state prosecutes people. But it's not surprising either. The above statements that he will be prosecuted for are clearly hate speech, because they generalise a group of people and deny them their rights and citizenship unless they drop their identity. So we should fight fascism and racism on a class basis. Not support the court's decision, but also not hypocritically march alongside the fascists in defence of their "free speech".

Condell defends all this, and he's using the exact same rhetoric as the fascist Wilders himself. Somehow, I don't feel very inclined to give either of them the benefit of doubt and pretend that they are just your regular critics of religion. If it walks like a duck...

[Dimentio]

Pat Condell has furiously attacked the catholic church and the protestant churches in several videos. He has also denounced fascists and referred to them as "creep" who he don't want anything to do with. His main problem though, is that he is looking from a British horizon, and probably don't know anything about Geert Wilders.

As for Saudi Arabia's intentions with the mosques, I don't really think it is wise to crave into the prejudices of a small segment of the working class just because the fascists are salivating.

[Das war einmal]

Condell now officially calls for support and defence of a Dutch fascist leader: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU

"The Dhimmi judges of Amsterdam"? What an idiot.

So where are his fans on RevLeft now?

Yeah that line in particular is very naive. The Dutch judges just follow the law, its not some political decision. People tend to forget that we have a trias politica in The Netherlands. Besides that, Wilders can be prosecuted it does not automatically mean he's really guilty or something. What bothers me more is the fact that the Dutch Socialist Party is feeling obliged to defend Wilders (the Dutch fascist leader), taking part in the populist game.

Now for the question of this thread: Technically you couldnt really say he's a 'racist', as the islam, is not really a race, but a religion. He's preaching intolerance and exaggerating the 'danger of islam'. Maybe you could state that he is more dangerous than racists, because racists these days are not that popular and can be easily exposed as naive and stupid. However, calling this dude a racist, he will react by saying he was right, that leftist will call anyone who doesnt agree with them a racist. He is, amongst many others, a person that functions like a racist: he's blaiming modern day problems to a group which have nothing to do with the majority of the social-economic problems; however as the Islam is a religion which indeed is being abused by Arabian dictators and next to that, has followers who condemn many things we leftist stand for, its harder for us to reveal the true purpose.

[Das war einmal]

We should be very aware of the feelings that are thriving (atleast in the Netherlands) right now. We have an economical crisis on our hands, which makes a lot of people nervous and worried about their financial situation. The muslim culture, which has certain points which contradict to western ethics, is a perfect scapegoat for the ruling class.

Now I'm having moral difficulties with defending the Islam. Its followers killed many comrades in the middle-east, including in Afghanistan and Iran. They were used as a tool for imperialism at the Cold War but now they also serve as a tool but the other way around. Lots of Arabian dictators do support the western and Israelian cause however and also use the Islam to shackle their workers. We buy their oil in exchange and pay for their palaces and other luxuries. Luckily I see more muslims questioning their arab dictators today, asking themselves why they wont help the Pakistani (at the times of the earthquakes, when Cuba, an atheist socialist country, was nearly the only one sending aid) or the palestinians.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Multi-Culturalism has failed" - Pat Condell
Oh god what's that political party that keeps saying stuff like that? Isn't it that one that has a bunch of Pat Condell videos on their website?
If he's referring to liberal multi-culturalism, I have no issue with that statement.

[Das war einmal]

If he's referring to liberal multi-culturalism, I have no issue with that statement.

Thats a valid point, if you would have true 'multi-culturalism' you would have to accept certain aspects which dont coincide with your own culture and that does not really work too well.

[Wanted Man]

Pat Condell has furiously attacked the catholic church and the protestant churches in several videos. He has also denounced fascists and referred to them as "creep" who he don't want anything to do with. His main problem though, is that he is looking from a British horizon, and probably don't know anything about Geert Wilders.

As for Saudi Arabia's intentions with the mosques, I don't really think it is wise to crave into the prejudices of a small segment of the working class just because the fascists are salivating.
I agree. I think he should be more careful with his subject matter and language, to say the least. It's tempting to just line up behind the usual "libertarian free speech advocates". But their political representatives always happen to be fascists who have repeatedly stated their intention to silence opposition once they get into power. For example, Wilders, who called for shooting in the legs of Moroccan troublemakers, squatters and football hooligans.

It is currently in their interests to put on a libertarian, atheist (despite Wilders claiming a non-existent Dutch "Judeo-Christian tradition") and enlightened mask. Because bourgeois liberalism and individualism is at its strongest and needs to be defended from the attacks that it will come under with this crisis.

As for Saudi involvement in mosques, I agree that this is dangerous and reactionary. But it has nothing to do with "Islamisation" or "Islamic colonisation". Maybe less reactionary ideology would spread from Saudi Arabia once our imperialist bourgeoisie no longer props up the Saudis.


Now I'm having moral difficulties with defending the Islam. Its followers killed many comrades in the middle-east, including in Afghanistan and Iran. They were used as a tool for imperialism at the Cold War but now they also serve as a tool but the other way around. Lots of Arabian dictators do support the western and Israelian cause however and also use the Islam to shackle their workers. We buy their oil in exchange and pay for their palaces and other luxuries. Luckily I see more muslims questioning their arab dictators today, asking themselves why they wont help the Pakistani (at the times of the earthquakes, when Cuba, an atheist socialist country, was nearly the only one sending aid) or the palestinians.
Absolutely agreed. But of course, some Riffian immigrant kid has nothing to do with these dictatorships. So it's disingenuous for Wilders and his supporters to claim that this kid is part of an Islamic-leftist conspiracy to colonise the Netherlands. Or to suggest that if this kid commits crimes, it's not because of material circumstances, but because he comes from a "backwards culture" or his parents have a "fascist religion" or whatever.

[DancingLarry]

The complete quote from Marx was, "Religion is the opiate of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed, the heart in a heartless world."

The revolutionary's job is to take that complete understanding, and offer in turn a world that is not heartless, , to offer pie on this earth, not in the sky, and let working people wean themselves away from their own opiate. You cannot force an addict to quit by threats and denunciations, only by giving them hope of something better to live, not die, for.

[Akim]

No hes not racist. Islam is racist against women, jews , homosexuals , atheists, christians,hindus u name it.
Atleast someone has the balls to critisize this nazi ideology. Go Pat!

[ashaman1324]

personally, i think certain posters sound extremely hippocritical.
you say you want to end the oppression of the working class?
some of the working class wants to have a religion, isnt it oppressive to "do away with religion", when a majority of the world identifies as religious?
religion will eventually run its course, but until then we have absolutely no business persecuting the religious.
being critical of religion, however, is different.
the shar'ia courts in britain as far as im aware is only an option in some cases, murder, rape, and most other felonies if i remember correctly are only tried in criminal court.

[Reuben]

It is all very well - and very easy - to say that religion is reractionary and we must take the side of the working class. However at some point our political activity - as communists - must touch the earth. The point is that people who are oppressed and disenfranchised, do not always define their oppression in the way we want them to. In asserting their rights, people do not always buy into the kinds of social identity which we would ideally like them to. The answer however, is not to ignore such potentially progressive elements until they have the correct ideas and are willing to define themselves as members of the workng class.

[S.O.I]

yes he is very a racist basterd... fuck him

[Dimentio]

It is all very well - and very easy - to say that religion is reractionary and we must take the side of the working class. However at some point our political activity - as communists - must touch the earth. The point is that people who are oppressed and disenfranchised, do not always define their oppression in the way we want them to. In asserting their rights, people do not always buy into the kinds of social identity which we would ideally like them to. The answer however, is not to ignore such potentially progressive elements until they have the correct ideas and are willing to define themselves as members of the workng class.

So if I draw a caricature of the Prophet, I should have no right to expect protection against extremist groups which want me killed?

[Wanted Man]

What does that have to do with Reuben's post? He said:


It is all very well - and very easy - to say that religion is reractionary and we must take the side of the working class. However at some point our political activity - as communists - must touch the earth. The point is that people who are oppressed and disenfranchised, do not always define their oppression in the way we want them to. In asserting their rights, people do not always buy into the kinds of social identity which we would ideally like them to. The answer however, is not to ignore such potentially progressive elements until they have the correct ideas and are willing to define themselves as members of the workng class.

Not:


If you insult the Prophet, you should not be protected against extremist groups who want you killed.

[ibn Bruce]

Wrote a whole bunch of replies, but then realised that Charming has answered most of them. Will come on later and do it again :D

[Reuben]

What does that have to do with Reuben's post? He said:



Not:
quite.

[Nakidana]

So if I draw a caricature of the Prophet, I should have no right to expect protection against extremist groups which want me killed?

Why would you want to insult an already beleaguered minority to begin with? (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/denm-f10.shtml)

[Dean]

So if I draw a caricature of the Prophet, I should have no right to expect protection against extremist groups which want me killed?

Why don't you start going around RevLeft talking about how "Jewish law" is problematic and how their influence should be stripped from society. See how far you get.

Serpent, you seem to forget that when you are talking against "Islam" you are in fact talking against individuals. If you spoke of the ideas that might be one thing, but you explicitly talk about "them." You are totally xenophobic, and this xenophobia has been expressed consistently and clearly in your sweeping opposition to people and groups who are "savage" in this or that way. Really the most insidious form of Western chauvinism I can think of.

[ibn Bruce]

Islam is not a single giant, monolithic entity. To represent it as such is entirely ignorant and misleading. To say so is to represent 'the left' as being purely 'left labor' or alternatively purely insurrectionist anarchism. There are bigoted Muslims, no doubt, there are racists and homophobes and misogynists, but frankly, in my time amongst activists, there are just as many amongst the left.

The mere fact that people on this forum seem happy to parrot the same bigoted, ignorant generalisations about 'Islam' seems to point to just as much.

Do I care if you draw an offensive picture of the Messenger of God (sws)? Not overly, as a Muslim, I would be poor indeed if I thought it would not be something that you were held accountable. As far as crimes goes, in the eyes of a Muslim, being a man worshipper is far worst than assaulting a man who's status in the eyes of God is inviolable..

However, the Prophet Mohammed (sws) as the highest person in our world view, beloved to all of us, not only represents an individual, but the basis for our existance as Muslims. To say that he is a terrorist, is to call us all terrorists, to say that he is a misogynist, is to call us all misogynists. It is not about slandering the Rasul'Allah sws, it is about slandering ALL Muslims, who in Europe are an oppressed minority.

I honestly am baffled to find people defending blanket attacks upon Muslims, when they so echo the colonialist, orientalist rhetoric of old. We must not forget that European civilisation grew under the shadow of the Islamic world, and its cultural bias reflects that. These same characterisations, of Muslim womyn as powerless and oppressed, of Muslim men as barbaric uncivilised brutes, are the same repeated throughout Western history, and for all that are completely ignorant.

Wahhabism is not mainstream Islam, the Wahhabist/Salafist movements are in their entirety a REJECTION of mainstream Islam, yet they are characterised by most as definitive of Islamic practice. Such groups would not even exist were Saudi Arabia not backed by US arms, and they would have no fodder for their hate speech were not secular dictatorships routinely supported by the US against their own people.

On the whole, Muslims wish to be governed according to their own systems, to them, socialism and many such ideologies represent just another form of Western intellectual imperialism. Those people who claim to speak for the people, yet do not take this into account, are no better than those intellectual elites that push their value systems upon the masses.

Further more, those who mindlessly regurgitate such hate speech against Muslims, occuring as it does in a context where Muslims are both an ethnic and religious minority, are no more than hate mongers themselves.

We must remember that any revolution must by nature be critical of the systems that are in place, such revolutions must not end at the borders of our mind, we must look internally to see how such things exist within ourselves, and how often we replicate the very systems we seek to tear down. Do not think any of us are above racism, xenophobia or ignorance, because such arrogance comes before the fall.

[Nakidana]

Please see this if its not racist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhN6CG1zCRc). Muslims came to UK and created havoc.:cursing:

The epitome of Islamophobia.

How the hell can people vote no after watching this? WTF is the left coming to? :confused:

[Dimentio]

Why don't you start going around RevLeft talking about how "Jewish law" is problematic and how their influence should be stripped from society. See how far you get.

Serpent, you seem to forget that when you are talking against "Islam" you are in fact talking against individuals. If you spoke of the ideas that might be one thing, but you explicitly talk about "them." You are totally xenophobic, and this xenophobia has been expressed consistently and clearly in your sweeping opposition to people and groups who are "savage" in this or that way. Really the most insidious form of Western chauvinism I can think of.

I am talking against individuals who are trying to force themselves upon society as spokespersons for social groups. I am not talking about islam or about moslems, but about a group or set of groups of moslem scholars and advocates which are using anti-discrimination agencies to paint islam as a "race" and thus tries to shut down criticism aimed at certain reactionary tenets of their religion.

Especially in the UK, this becomes rather "forced", since the moslems are not exclusively working class there. There are moslem petite bourgeoisie in the UK as well as moslem capitalists.

If it is xenophobic I am very repulsed by this cheap attempt by a minority of religious bigots to hijack a diverse community with diversified class interests and paint them as a homgenous community of moslems, then very well - call me xenophobic.

[Akim]

The epitome of Islamophobia.

WTF is the left coming to? :confused:

yeah I was wondering just the same when I read about leftist protesting with Hamas supporters and other religious wackos against Israel.
Should Israelis just stand with hands on their pocket while Hamas is shooting missiles on them. I dont support Israels war actions , but neither do I support Hamas and other Islamofacists!
Peace the fuck out!

[Sean]

The epitome of Islamophobia.

How the hell can people vote no after watching this? WTF is the left coming to? :confused:
By actually watching the rest of his videos to get context instead of jumping up at a soundbite and screaming witch. If you had bothered your arse and checked out his other videos, you'll find that he attacks christians, jews and scientologists as well so there was no singling out of one particular faith. Hes a dick about religion, but his dickery is consistent.

The west paint the east with a broad cultural brush so its not really surprising to see this, but it seems like I'm going to have to explain it: Muslim is not a fucking genetic trait it is a belief system, sometimes moderate, some times fucking retarded or evil, just like all religions. Now, while middle eastern culture and societies are heavily immersed in islam, that doesnt mean that attacking, say the practice of cutting off someones hand is racist. I'm afraid a lot of the yes voters have employed the same logic as his unwelcome BNP fans to which he responds:

To any white supremecist morons out there who think they can latch onto this video the way they have attempted to with some of my previous videos: Go and take a piss on a live electric rail. I am not your friend. I am your enemy, and I am proud to be your enemy just as I am proud to be the enemy of every creepy Islamofascist on this planet, because you people are two sides of the same coin, and it's an evil, worthless poisonous currency

[ibn Bruce]

I am talking against individuals who are trying to force themselves upon society as spokespersons for social groups. I am not talking about islam or about moslems, but about a group or set of groups of moslem scholars and advocates which are using anti-discrimination agencies to paint islam as a "race" and thus tries to shut down criticism aimed at certain reactionary tenets of their religion.Its Muslim, not 'Moslem', Moslem is a turkish word for oppressor. It is pronounced 'Muss(like in Puss-y-cat)-lim'. Islam is not a race, it is a grouping of various belief systems amongst people who often come from those groups who are non-white in Britain. There is no 'one Islam' and has not been since the Prophet sws died. Pat Condell however makes no distinction, thus he is attacking Muslims as a whole, not individual Salafist groups, because he does not distinguish.


If it is xenophobic I am very repulsed by this cheap attempt by a minority of religious bigots to hijack a diverse community with diversified class interests and paint them as a homgenous community of moslems, then very well - call me xenophobic.So is Pat Condell really doing Dawah? He is actually spreading knowledge about the diversity in the Muslim community, rather than generalising and inspiring ignorant fear? He has a strange way of doing it indeed!


If he was specific in his critiques, I would not care. I have a problem with the Wahhabist/Salafist movement as it is more Anti-Other-Muslims as it has ever been Anti-West. However he does not. He uses words like 'Islamo-fascists' which are repeated here, as though Islamic thought and fascism were somehow compatible continuations of one another.

His broad fear mongering is highly reminiscent of characterisations of Jewish lobby groups as 'pushing Jewish morals on the gentile populace', except they have even less basis. If you seriously think that Britain or anywhere else for that matter is somehow influenced or swayed overly by any lobby groups, do as I do and actuall LIVE as a Muslim for a day. See how much you feel like you are 'taking over' then.

I know 4 sisters in Islam who have been spat upon, a brother who's house was burnt down after 9/11 (which our local media failed to even cover), I am forced out of jobs for my choice of head wear, discriminated against even within the left who are so ready to steal the oppression of Muslims overseas and use it as a poster opportunity in their own campaigns.

And then amongst all that, I have to be painted with the same brush as those in my own community who act against me and the majority of Muslims? I mean come on!

So yes, it is xenophobic and ignorant to believe such bigoted right wing BS. You defined it as a Muslim issue, not a Salafist/Wahhabist one, and your inability to separate shows just how little your response that 'he is not against Muslims' holds up.


I rather think that it is a left-wing problem that we are too sensitive to islam. To be against islamism is not to be anti-anti-imperialist, but to be on the side of the muslim working class, both in Europe and America, and in the Islamic world.I rather think there is a problem in anyone who things that 'Islamism' is occurring in Europe. I rather think that there is a problem with anyone who thinks there is one 'Islam' to be 'sensitive' to. I rather think that there is a problem with a separation between 'Islam' as a broad concept and the Muslim working class as a grouping of various groups. If anything, if one wants to be on the 'side' of the Muslim working class, they should be campaigning for the removal of US support for the Saudis, the Jordanian Monarchy, the Egyptian 'president' and the leader of Uzbekistan! Rather than creating false fear of a fifth column of Islamic insurgency within Europe. Remove the justification and support of such groups (coming as it does from Saudi) and then the mainstream, traditionalist Muslims will have no more problems with the Wahhabist/Salafist minority.

Before such broad generalisations are made, look into the history and diversity in the Islamic community, if you still have people to critique, go ahead, but make your critiques within the context of the left, not blindly cut/pasting from a right wing fear monger.


yeah I was wondering just the same when I read about leftist protesting with Hamas supporters and other religious wackos against Israel.
Should Israelis just stand with hands on their pocket while Hamas is shooting missiles on them. I dont support Israels war actions , but neither do I support Hamas and other Islamofacists!
Peace the fuck out! Gonna hope that you are joking.

[Dimentio]

Wahhabism and Salafi are muslim currents. Thus, they are a problem for the muslim community/muslim communities in the same way that Opus Dei and SSPX are problems for the catholic community.

Condell usually distinguishes between the moderates and the islamists.

Also, I am not a native English speaker, and I doubt even most English speakers known about those linguistical definitions.

[ibn Bruce]

Wahhabism and Salafi are muslim currents. Thus, they are a problem for the muslim community/muslim communities in the same way that Opus Dei and SSPX are problems for the catholic community.They are currents from outside, a reformist movement that acts AGAINST mainstream Islam. Thus describing them as 'Muslim' rather than by their actual term is nothing more than generalisation.


Condell usually distinguishes between the moderates and the islamists. 'Islamist' is not a word to use, these are the important things! There is no such thing as an 'Islamist' all Muslims are politically Islamic, it is the STYLE of political Muslims that is the problem! We are NOT moderates, such a word implies that there is somehow something extreme in Islam that, unless taken in 'moderation' goes a bit crazy. We are the mainstream, not the moderates. Wahhabists make up 2% of the Ummah, we are 90% and we are those who matter. The more emphasis the West gives to these people, the more power they gain.


Also, I am not a native English speaker, and I doubt even most English speakers known about those linguistical definitions. These are not 'linguistical' definitions, they are representative of entire groups within the Muslim community.

The Salafist/Wahhabists declare a thing called 'Takfir' which declares individuals 'apostates' even if they are practicing Muslims. They do this in order to attack anyone that does not agree with their enterpretation fo the Sha'riah. They are the new Kharijites, extremists who wish to wage their own personal Crusade amongst the Ummah to turn everyone to THEIR version of Islam. But their version of Islam is ignorant, anthropomorphic and without base in Islamic history. They do not represent us. Yet you and others paint them as though they were the definitive Muslims, rather than a mad group that would have no power were the United States not to give them the money to fill our Mosques with filth.


Basically, to say that the difference between Wahhabists and traditionalists is to say that Anarchism and Stalinism are the same thing and the difference is merely linquistic.

[Janine Melnitz]

If you had bothered your arse and checked out his other videos, you'll find that he attacks christians, jews and scientologists as well so there was no singling out of one particular faith.
Presumptuous little twit. If you had watched the video in question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhN6CG1zCRc) you'd've noticed that at the end he offers a patronizing explanation of why Islam is inferior to other faiths, and is in fact "not a religion at all, but an illness".

I'm amazed that so many are seriously taking the "It's not racist cos Islam ain't a race" line. Are Jews "a race"? Was the holocaust racist? How many people in this thread, in fact, believe that "races" have objective existence? Racism has nothing to do with the nature of its target; it's a form of attack.

In that video's first eleven seconds, he makes it quite plain that his target is not theology, nor clerics or particular institutions but "muslims" as a social group. His claim that they have nothing to complain about, that they are not persecuted or disenfranchised, is absurd, and objectively aids that persecution. That is racist.

[al8]

Pat Condell unfortunately has no understanding of the class warfare being waged by the Anglo-American elite against the Islamic countries with the active cooperation of those countries' elite. Thus when the poor people from these countries follow the British back to the UK, this blowhard apparently dislikes it.

He should start criticizing the Bourgeois gov'ts who make conditions so miserable for the working classes, instead of criticizing these working class Muslims who are victims of a worldwide campaign of hatred against them.

He is critisizing people as followers of islam, NOT as working class people from another geographical location. I ADD; not all working class people emigrating from countires where islam followers are in the majority are islam followers.
SO, that implies the following; He is not 'attacking' people as working class people, he is critisizing people for being stupid, regardless of class.

Further more your obvious acceptance and encouragement of reactionary tendencies among imigrant working class people is FUCKING STUPID and VERY tiring! What next will you advocate and defend? Nationalism of the oppressed? Fascism of the oppressed? MaCarthism of the oppressed and downtrodden? That is your line!

[Sean]

Presumptuous little twit. If you had watched the video in question (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhN6CG1zCRc) you'd've noticed that at the end he offers a patronizing explanation of why Islam is inferior to other faiths, and is in fact "not a religion at all, but an illness".
Yes, I've watched this guy a lot, in fact I've seen all of his videos. I find him totally unfunny, but I still watch him.

I'm amazed that so many are seriously taking the "It's not racist cos Islam ain't a race" line. Are Jews "a race"? Was the holocaust racist? How many people in this thread, in fact, believe that "races" have objective existence? Racism has nothing to do with the nature of its target; it's a form of attack.
Please watch all his videos. Islam AINT a race, in this context.

In that video's first eleven seconds, he makes it quite plain that his target is not theology, nor clerics or particular institutions but "muslims" as a social group. His claim that they have nothing to complain about, that they are not persecuted or disenfranchised, is absurd, and objectively aids that persecution. That is racist.
Check the rest of his videos out. I gave you a fucking quote on the man, unless you think his long term strategy is to pretend not to be racist, then one day turn around and say lol, j/k i am

I'm not giving you a muslim faith = racial group until you can at least pretend to have watched him slate every other fucker that belongs to that abrahamic triad.

[al8]

My problem with Condell is that he is criticizing the symptom (reactionary fascism) instead of the conditions that cause them. The US/UK etc imperialist governments have nearly totally destroyed secular ideologies among the Muslim people. That is the reason we are seeing such reactionary behavior from those countries.

You don't argue with conditions, well do you. You argue with people. Conditions have already forced people to a damage, so it just has do be dealt with from there on. Religion is a self-reinforcing dynamic and needs to be to be tackled from all angles possible. And for that comes the arsenal of non-religious advocacy as well as the importance of destroying the social acceptability of religion. We are not yet as fortuned to have built a social system inherently non-inducive to religion. At the stage when that is reached we won't need arguments or political pressure for something that won't arise to be an issue.

However, in the meantime, Pendell is peddling all if not most of the valid non-religious arguments against religion, through a new and popular medium with great outreach. Effectively doing our footwork for us.

He cannot really be faulted if he leaves out, or does not emphasize the general material basis and the role of macro-historical processes in shaping religion and its spread, even if that is something we would find interesting and important theoretically. At least not faulted to the extent of labeling him a racist, which is awfully counter-productive.

Furthermore, I am not sure that such an exposition as you specifically decribe would necessarily be effective in turning a believer.
Say if you point out to a convinced believer that conditions lead him to have his faith (which he consideres true), what better are you in convincing him that his faith is untrue? He will most likely think; "Good, Allah the merciful guided events so that infidel scum fought amongst themselves so that I could have my faith triumph" or something along those lines.

Yet though, I do not dissagree with your approach in general; tying the material basis of the religion to its specifics can be very informative and revealing. F.ex. understanding the economic basis for the clergy, the clergies consiquent history, practise, muddled ideology, social functions and their relation to power of the ruling classes can really, and I mean really, bring home the absolute fakeness of religion and all its fancies.

[Janine Melnitz]

Please watch all his videos. Islam AINT a race, in this context.
If his other videos contradict the racism I pointed to above, they're contradicting the video itself, not my interpretation of it. I'll take your word for it that they do (rather than watch another second of the insufferable fuck) but all that would mean is that he made a bunch of videos that aren't racist and one that objectively is.

I gave you a fucking quote on the man, unless you think his long term strategy is to pretend not to be racist, then one day turn around and say lol, j/k i am
Do you honestly believe most racists are fans of the BNP or Stormfront? Christ.

[More Fire for the People]

'Muslim' is quickly becoming a term like 'Jew'. But it also has historical origins. Arabs and Berbers were originally called Mohammadeans by the West and the word was quickly followed with racist trite. Now today progressives and conscious folks realize the distinction between Muslim and Arab but I'm not quite sure society does.

[Nakidana]

By actually watching the rest of his videos to get context instead of jumping up at a soundbite and screaming witch. If you had bothered your arse and checked out his other videos, you'll find that he attacks christians, jews and scientologists as well so there was no singling out of one particular faith. Hes a dick about religion, but his dickery is consistent.

I did watch some of his other drivel and the fact that he bashes other religions doesn't excuse his nutcase Islamophobic views. In the video "Stop sharia law in Britain" his nutcase theories are clearly stated:

"a vote for Labour is a vote for Islam" (What was Blair thinking when he joined the Catholic Church?)

"because you know that all your friends are as sick as you are at having Islam rammed down your throat" (Because we all know the Muslim barbarians are taking over Britain)

In the video "The trouble with Islam" he states:

"here in the UK religion was pretty dormant until Muslims came along and started burning books and passing death sentences and generally demanding special treatment for no good reason"

I know where I've heard this drivel before, and it wasn't on the left side of the political spectrum.

Pat Condell denies that Muslims are persecuted in the West, and in fact turns the situation upside down claiming that the Muslim minority (With financial support from Saudi Arabia, lol :laugh:) are taking over Britain in an attempt to relegate it to the past.

How much more Islamophobic can you get? The only achievement of these videos will be confirming racists in their prejudices against the immigrant population in Britain. Condell's videos are not, as al8 states, "effectively doing the footwork for us", he's just pissing Muslims off.

Muslims will not become atheists when they watch the videos, they'll just see them as yet another attack on them as a social group. In fact the focus on Islam is just making Muslims even more conscious of their religion and the practice of it.

Now you might find his drivel interesting to watch, but personally I'd prefer to watch as little of that shit as possible, and I sure as hell will not watch all of his videos.


Should Israelis just stand with hands on their pocket while Hamas is shooting missiles on them. I dont support Israels war actions , but neither do I support Hamas and other Islamofacists! Peace the fuck out!

Maybe Israel should stop occupying Palestinian land, stop assassinating Palestinians, stop bombing Palestinians, release Palestinian prisoners and open the borders as a start?

And maybe you should read about why Hamas fired rockets in the first place instead of listening to Zionist propaganda?

[Dimentio]

Yes, they are 2%. But they control the vast oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. The last ten to twenty years, Saudi Arabia has financed mosques and madrasas in non-muslim countries and sent their own imams and teachers to teach lost kids a lot of wahhabism.

[Nakidana]

The last ten to twenty years, Saudi Arabia has financed mosques and madrasas in non-muslim countries and sent their own imams and teachers to teach lost kids a lot of wahhabism.

And you consider this a threat to the current system in the UK?

[al8]

The issue of funding is essential, it is the real manifestiation of the marriage of clergy scum to the ruling class. Religion devides the working class and makes workers associate with their parasites rather than fellow workers.

I don't know what reason is on top for the Saudi Arabian to religionize immigrant workers in britain and elsewhere. There could be several reasons, for one they might just want to drive a 'healthy' wedge between immigrant and domestic workers to avert cass-solidarity. Activity in one religious sect then creates a run away effect, the others become envious and want as much publicity, to be as much feared, respected and visible. It's really quite sickening. And this has already happened in Britain. Sikhs have already been galvanized to deathreaten and protest a women playrighter, cristians done the same to the Jerry Spring Opera.

[Wanted Man]

Wahhabism and Salafi are muslim currents. Thus, they are a problem for the muslim community/muslim communities in the same way that Opus Dei and SSPX are problems for the catholic community.
A problem for them, or a problem of them?

[Sean]

If his other videos contradict the racism I pointed to above, they're contradicting the video itself, not my interpretation of it. I'll take your word for it that they do (rather than watch another second of the insufferable fuck) but all that would mean is that he made a bunch of videos that aren't racist and one that objectively is.

Now you might find his drivel interesting to watch, but personally I'd prefer to watch as little of that shit as possible, and I sure as hell will not watch all of his videos.Sorry, but thats completely invalid. I would look at evidence but dont want to, but I'll accept what you said and continue to make my claims on the same basis as I originally had. You're not calling me a racist, you're calling another man a racist, don't take my word for anything, look at him and decide or stop screaming witch. You can't make a judgement while refusing to look at the evidence to the contrary. If nothing else, then skim through the titles of his videos here (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=patcondell&view=videos). Lots of anti muslim, and anti christian.

Do you honestly believe most racists are fans of the BNP or Stormfront? Christ.By that logic I consider everything you have said in this thread as cleverly masked racism. You're fooling noone with your crocodile tears, pretending to be offended. I will only listen to selected things you have said, refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary and deem any public statements refuting it as blatant lies.



I did watch some of his other drivel and the fact that he bashes other religions doesn't excuse his nutcase Islamophobic views. In the video "Stop sharia law in Britain" his nutcase theories are clearly stated:

"a vote for Labour is a vote for Islam" (What was Blair thinking when he joined the Catholic Church?)

"because you know that all your friends are as sick as you are at having Islam rammed down your throat" (Because we all know the Muslim barbarians are taking over Britain)

In the video "The trouble with Islam" he states:

"here in the UK religion was pretty dormant until Muslims came along and started burning books and passing death sentences and generally demanding special treatment for no good reason"

I know where I've heard this drivel before, and it wasn't on the left side of the political spectrum.

Pat Condell denies that Muslims are persecuted in the West, and in fact turns the situation upside down claiming that the Muslim minority (With financial support from Saudi Arabia, lol :laugh:) are taking over Britain in an attempt to relegate it to the past.

How much more Islamophobic can you get? The only achievement of these videos will be confirming racists in their prejudices against the immigrant population in Britain. Condell's videos are not, as al8 states, "effectively doing the footwork for us", he's just pissing Muslims off.

Muslims will not become atheists when they watch the videos, they'll just see them as yet another attack on them as a social group. In fact the focus on Islam is just making Muslims even more conscious of their religion and the practice of it.
The question was, is Pat Condell racist. No he is not. He thinks that the muslim religion is full of shit and he doesn't want it getting a legal foothold in what is essentially a secular country. I know that sounds like nationalism, but why would you allow capitalism to flourish in a cuba simply because it had a lot of American immigrants? Are capitalists racist against Chinese? No. Am I racist against the Jewish by opposing the state of Israels stance on Palestine? No.
Am I an intolerant asshole with prejudices against people simply because of their blind adherance to religious beliefs and what I consider primitive customs? In all honesty, yes. But I'm trying really hard to work on it. It's difficult to seperate the homophobic fire and brimestone aspect of a christian from the person themselves, and given that the tenets that I oppose are rules set in stone, yet I know that some people of that religion do not follow them and apply common sense and modern morality. I can however seperate the colour of your skin from your religious affiliation, funnily enough.

I'd like a thread split to expand on the line between religion, race and cultural discrimination because its an interesting topic I've looked into a lot (well, I just read whatever Edward Said wrote and paraphrase it! :P ) but I've never felt has been fully addressed. I think that this point needs to be clarified before we can all come back and deem him racist for blatantly hating religious extremism. And he DOES. I'm not questioning that point.

[Janine Melnitz]

Do you honestly believe most racists are fans of the BNP or Stormfront? Christ.
By that logic I consider everything you have said in this thread as cleverly masked racism. You're fooling noone with your crocodile tears, pretending to be offended. I will only listen to selected things you have said, refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary and deem any public statements refuting it as blatant lies.
I'll take that as a yes. :rolleyes: I bet when people say "I'm not a racist, but..." you believe them every time.

I'm not surprised that this needs explaining to an anarchist: racism is a system. It's not what skinheads do on the weekend. It's not a collection of eeeeevil individuals with hearts two sizes too small. It's a social phenomenon that an individual can either contribute to or struggle against, and the character of these actions has nothing at all to do with the intent behind them. For having watched all of Condell's videos, you don't "know" him any better than I do; neither of us can say how he really truly feels, deep down in his soul. Which is fine, because that's totally irrelevant; it's only a religious mindset, ironically, that could give two sloppy fucks about the state of Condell's soul. When I said the video was objectively racist, I wasn't giving an e-psychologist's diagnosis of the man, I was looking at what he said and what it meant in the current social context -- not what he meant for it to mean.

Since so many people here are apparently sensitive to the moral-theological implications of calling someone out on the basis of their actions, maybe it should be changed from "Is Pat Condell a racist" to "Are Pat Condell's videos racist". Then we could all confidently vote "Yes (at least one of them is)".

[Nakidana]

Sorry, but thats completely invalid. I would look at evidence but dont want to, but I'll accept what you said and continue to make my claims on the same basis as I originally had. You're not calling me a racist, you're calling another man a racist, don't take my word for anything, look at him and decide or stop screaming witch. You can't make a judgement while refusing to look at the evidence to the contrary. If nothing else, then skim through the titles of his videos here (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=patcondell&view=videos). Lots of anti muslim, and anti christian.

Come on, don't accuse me of "avoiding evidence". He just pisses me off. I don't need to actually *watch* all his videos to understand the point you're making.


The question was, is Pat Condell racist. No he is not. He thinks that the muslim religion is full of shit and he doesn't want it getting a legal foothold in what is essentially a secular country. I know that sounds like nationalism, but why would you allow capitalism to flourish in a cuba simply because it had a lot of American immigrants? Are capitalists racist against Chinese? No. Am I racist against the Jewish by opposing the state of Israels stance on Palestine? No.
Am I an intolerant asshole with prejudices against people simply because of their blind adherance to religious beliefs and what I consider primitive customs? In all honesty, yes. But I'm trying really hard to work on it. It's difficult to seperate the homophobic fire and brimestone aspect of a christian from the person themselves, and given that the tenets that I oppose are rules set in stone, yet I know that some people of that religion do not follow them and apply common sense and modern morality. I can however seperate the colour of your skin from your religious affiliation, funnily enough.

Will you at least concede that's he's an Islamophobe? As The Charming Man pointed out on the first page of this thread, Islam is not getting a foothold in the UK. Still, Condell uses the myth in order to justify his hatred and fear of Islam.

[al8]

I guess you mean Condell.

Yes :blushing: I accidentally seem to have fused Pat Condell into Pandell.


Yeah. I wouldn't call him a BNP-type racist, but there are lots of forms of racism, including conservative-type racism, which seems to be accepted in the "mainstream" in the UK and the US.

I'd like you expand on that. There seem to be a lot of looseness, generally, as to how a racist is defined regarding the critisizing of Islam. I know in my home country the christian clergy very excited by this trend of being able to label their atheist critics as racists, immitating the immams. Their attempts have not worked. But I find it worrying that atheist lefists are with loose terms aiding in obtructing atheist adcocacy, by creating and atmosphere conductive to the branding of legitimate atheists as racists.



As far as I am concerned, I don't think any fanatic can be convinced of the wrongs of his beliefs. If he thinks that he can convince the fanatic segment of the Islamic community, Pat Condell is totally deluded. Instead, the better approach would be to talk to the moderate elements of the Islamic working classes about the class warfare they are being subjected to.

Yes, it's true, devout believers will not likely be convinced by anything. That still leaves ridicule, satire and confrontation aimed to decreesing their social acceptability and standing as devout idiots.


On the whole, I guess there needs to be solidarity with the Muslim working classes, the majority of whom are not obscurantist or fanatics. This can be achieved by understanding their culture and where they are coming from, as well as the reasons for their present condition.

Agreed. Cultural muslims especially, moderate muslims secondarily.

[Hiero]

I have just started reading German Ideology by Marx. In the forward or introduction whatever he called it, he deals with the this very problem. Pat Condell and his defenders in this forum, like alot of other chauvinists believe that by challenging ideology it will lead to changing ideology and therefore will change the material conditions which these "muslims" live in. They idea they will no longer live in a poor oppressed society if they just drop their worship of Allah.

In fact Marxist on the other hand don't touch ideology as such but rather focus on material conditions that create ideology. In the past some people on this forum have defended such people as the cartoonist who created purposefully derogative cartoons to stir up Muslims (fanatical and moderate) to create the response to justify their racist politics. Some people defended this on the notion that came to rise in the early bourgeiosie revolution known as freedom of speech, others defended it on an even more stupid idea of "challenging ideas to change ideas". Infact this later defense plays to stagnate bourgeosie society and stall proleteriat revolution, as it gives justification to the material conditions and focuses on the world of ideas.

Whether these ideas about religion are reactionary or not, they are not something that can fought in the realm of ideas and be replaced by some form of "logic, "common" sense", "atheistic" morals etc. And by promoting this believe that we are doing good to the progressive movement and harm to the reactionaries by allowing such filth to be published we promote and idealist conception of the world.

Instead we should take the road Marx and Engels took and start attacking these people as the idealist they are, and how they interact Islam in a conflict that only strengthens both sides as they attempt to defend themsevles.

[al8]

I have just started reading German Ideology by Marx. In the forward or introduction whatever he called it, he deals with the this very problem. Pat Condell and his defenders in this forum, like alot of other chauvinists believe that by challenging ideology it will lead to changing ideology and therefore will change the material conditions which these "muslims" live in. They idea they will no longer live in a poor oppressed society if they just drop their worship of Allah.

This is a straw man of our possition. And as well, you bring forth a false dichotomy. Condititons as well as agency are important, you cannot separate something that is an inherntly an interconnected dynamic. That is, say that ideas are nothing and conditions are everything, or that ideas are everything and conditions are nothing. And neither can you emphesize one over the other divorced from concrete examples.

Now Hiero, think about this; Why did Marx and Engels propogate a communist ideology and critisize opposing ideologies, if ideas do not matter?

[Janine Melnitz]

Now Hiero, think about this; Why did Marx and Engels propogate a communist ideology and critisize opposing ideologies, if ideas do not matter?
The attitude of the General Council in regard to the “Religious Idea” is clearly shown by the following incident: — One of the Swiss branches of the Alliance, founded by Michael Bakunin, and calling itself Section des athées Socialistes, requested its admission to the International from the General Council, but got the reply: “Already in the case of the Young Men’s Christian Association the Council has declared that it recognizes no theological sections." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1878/08/04.htm)

Also, yeah, every time you people get all Dick Dawkins about religion I have to stop myself from posting huge tracts of The German Ideology

Fucking Young Hegelian internet superheroes

[al8]

I have read The German Ideology, so that won't be nescissary. And please, say what you have to say without quoting passages from Marx with unclear relevance to the decussion at hand. What on earth would some organisational formalites of the International Working-Men’s Association have to do with the descussion?

And by the way; I am not a Hegelian of any sort. And neither is Serpent.

[ibn Bruce]

Yes, they are 2%. But they control the vast oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. The last ten to twenty years, Saudi Arabia has financed mosques and madrasas in non-muslim countries and sent their own imams and teachers to teach lost kids a lot of wahhabism.
This does not make them worthy of being generalized as exemplary of all Muslims. Wahhabism is a recent reformist movement within mainstream Islamic thought, and is rejected by the 98% of Muslims that are not followers of their BS. To say that all Muslims are Wahhabist, and to oppose Muslims on the basis of Wahhabist thought is stunningly ignorant.

The vast majority of Muslims are not white. This biased, ignorant, discrimination against 'Islam' is merely a veneered over form of racism.

None of Pat Condell's critiques are accurate against 'Muslims' as a whole, they encourage descrimination upon Muslims in general, because his critiques fail to distinguish between 'problematic' groups within the Ummah, and those who represent the majority.

The Wahhabist movement is insha'Allah (God willing) on its last legs. As US and British suppot for them eases, so the majority of Muslims will take back control from the vicious elites they represent. This in Saudi will most probably come in the form of an uprising of those Bengali and Pakistani workers exploited by the Saudis in absolute contradiction to Islamic law but justified by their pocket Sheikhs.

I am totally with any criticism of the Wahhabist movement, but when this extends across all Muslims, ignorant of difference, making them a 'race', it is unforgivable. Anyone who supports such ignorance should seriously ask themselves how they can justify it. I would have thought that the so called 'left' would be suspicious of blanket attacks on immigrant groups, I guess I underestimate many of you.

Finally, anyone who bases their islamaphobic opinions on uninformed rants on youtube needs to READ. Read about the history of the Wahhabist movement, read about how much it is a rejection of traditionalist Islam. Read how in part it is a creation of not only Western support but also Western Colonialism. Then go ahead and ask yourself if 'Islam' is the problem, or maybe that it is the colonial legacy, on one hand supporting extremists groups, and on the other hand through oppression justifying their actions.

[Janine Melnitz]

I have read The German Ideology, so that won't be nescissary. And please, say what you have to say without quoting passages from Marx with unclear relevance to the decussion at hand. What on earth would some organisational formalites of the International Working-Men’s Association have to do with the descussion?

And by the way; I am not a Hegelian of any sort. And neither is Serpent.
I don't believe you're actually stupid enough not to see the relevance, so I won't go into it.

I almost believe you're dumb enough that you can't understand "Young Hegelian" as anything but perfectly literal, but I'm a little incredulous.

Anyway my point is holy crap the YMCA tried to join the First International!

[al8]

It does not suprise me. The rot tries to spread everywhere.

[Janine Melnitz]

It does not suprise me. The rot tries to spread everywhere.
Man I don't like Bakunin either but that's pretty harsh

[al8]

Man I don't like Bakunin either but that's pretty harsh

I give recognition to your attemt at humor. But for the record I was refering to the Young Men’s Christian Association and religion in general.

[Wanted Man]

New defenders of Condell have come out to play. I wonder what they think of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxbYBIlT6VE In defence of the European far-right, and the film "Fitna". In the video, Condell says that muslims want to take over the world and want to bring us back to the 7th century. They are "getting away with it" because of "Dhimmis" in government who want to "appease Islam". The muslims "enjoy" this "special treatment" that they are getting, because they earned it by threats of "muslim violence" in the first place. Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

This one's good too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU&feature=channel_page According to Pat, there is an ongoing "Islamisation process". The "Dhimmi judges of Amsterdam" are part of this appeasement politics, obviously. "Opening the floodgates to Islam." And just to make sure we get the message, Pat links to some more far-right (http://www.cicentre.com/articles/gw_america_last_man_standing.html) articles (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CCD1E0FA-235B-4CB1-A4D9-D4611738D01B) from his own videos. And he says that we should support Geert Wilders, the nationalist MP who wants to stop all immigration, ban the Koran, silence the trade unions and allow the police to use live ammo against Moroccan youths, squatters, hooligans, "and other scum".

Are you people blind? Hey, maybe I could make a career among British anarchists by making videos of my own. I'll name the first one "Islam's threat to Britain" and go on about how the British Dhimmis have opened the floodgates to Islam, and that the muslims want to bring Britain back to the stone age. Then my second video will be "Support Nick Griffin". After all, Griffin has been prosecuted for saying the damn truth that Islam is a "wicked and vicious faith". Clearly, an act of a Dhimmi government, bending its knees towards Mecca at the threat of muslims, because equating muslims with violence is like equating Disney with Mickey Mouse.

[ibn Bruce]

I am also confused as to the exact problem that people have with the rejection of some Muslims of liberal democratic systems, moving to create their own autonomous communities within the nation state. I mean these people are a minority indeed, but isn't that what many of the revolutionary left do/seek to do as well? I mean if there is a threat to 'Britain' (which I don't believe) it is to 'liberal-democratic' Britain before anything.

[Hiero]

I have read The German Ideology, so that won't be nescissary. And please, say what you have to say without quoting passages from Marx with unclear relevance to the decussion at hand. What on earth would some organisational formalites of the International Working-Men’s Association have to do with the descussion?

And by the way; I am not a Hegelian of any sort. And neither is Serpent.
Well then you will know that you can not change ideology amongst the masses by simply offering new ideology.

And surely in this era it is quite obvious the last people who are going to change the ideologies that are predominant in the post-colonial 3rd world is from their old colonial masters.

I am pretty sure old white men aren't going to change the minds of anyone by simply saying "your stupid, now think like us". Whether they are right wing racists or "communists".

[al8]

Well then you will know that you can not change ideology amongst the masses by simply offering new ideology.

I dissagree, we have propaganda work, and that isn't idealist. Even Marx engaged in it. Was Marx idealist for trying to propagate his views?

Atheism, freethought, humanism etc. whatever the labels are first of all not that new ideologies. And second, post-colonial countries are influanced and often stay connected to the former colonial masters. F.ex english is widely used in India. And many leaders and intelectuals of communist and anti-imperialist movements recieve their education in the former colonial masters country or from educators/tutors from that country. So, being post-colonial doesn't sever all connections.


And surely in this era it is quite obvious the last people who are going to change the ideologies that are predominant in the post-colonial 3rd world is from their old colonial masters.

Maybe so, but yet they can still play a part and contributing role. F.ex there have even been campain contributions from atheist orgs in the 1.world to atheist orgs in the post-colonial 3. Helping start publications, educational programs ect. One may never now what seeds will grow from what one sows.



I am pretty sure old white men aren't going to change the minds of anyone by simply saying "your stupid, now think like us". Whether they are right wing racists or "communists".

He is alot more eloquent than that in his abuse, and thats whats fun about him. I think it has it's place, the message should reach out from divers corners by all veriety of methods and styles. Creating a buzz, reaching people we otherwise wouldn't.

[al8]

This very "looseness" is being exploited to the hilt by atheist liberals like Condell. I don't think even Dawkins, who is supposed to be a kind of the King of atheist liberals, goes as far as him in demeaning a minority community.

Atheist have no qualms haranguing members of a minority community, we critisize cults all the time (obv.ex. scientology). These authors are no Bakunins or Sinclairs. They are very mild and timid, and pretty unquestioning sometimes of the secular superstitons of capitalist society. But what they do is, they rais the profile of irreligious critisism, and nudge people in a more progressive direction. And that is valuable.

Even if they have variedly nonesense politics, most of them are still useful. Gert Wildert maybe an exeption though, he is an overall shit. His fitna was a terrible disjoint jumble, a pretty poor critique of Islam. Every atheist I know agrees. The reason some atheist speak for him and his right to utter his sub-standard critisism, is not because they necessecarily agree with is politics, it is because they fear the bad precedent it gives; that it would lead to the general criminalization of irreligious critisism.


Anyhow, you seem to have a very definite meaning of racism in mind when you say that. Please let me know what that is.

I am asking you. You like to equate, as far as I can tell, religious destictions as part of a racial destiction, possibly by reference to institutional racism. I think that is way to loose and unbeneficial to the atheist front. It leads to crude anti-atheism and sucking up to religion. I've seen it happen and it's a terrible sight. The progressive struggles of anti-racism and anti-religion should not have to restrict each other. As a communist I see them both as valid and important fronts that should work in harmony.



There is no "holy purpose" or anything of that sort to atheism other than emancipating the working class from the chains of the capitalist system. Pat Condell and other professional atheists are hardly doing that. Instead they are attacking the whole Muslim population for the beliefs of a reactionary few.

There is strong purpose even though it is not holy, halfy or whatever, for atheism (in its wider sense) to combat nonsense ideologies that create and maintain nonsense rifts between people. Those rifts are actively promoted by the ruling class of all countries because those rifts are so opertune and easy to exploit. Atheism disarms that weapon from the ruling classes and is therefore a weapon for us communists in the class struggle. It is the CleanX™ of religious class rifts.



Also sometimes I wonder if the "professional atheists" like Condell, Dawkins, Hitchens and others are just into atheism for the sake of fame and money, just like the religious leaders. ;) This perhaps can be a discussion for a separate thread.

It would be an interesting and valid thread subject (for another thread).

[Sean]

According to Pat, there is an ongoing "Islamisation process". The "Dhimmi judges of Amsterdam" are part of this appeasement politics, obviously. "Opening the floodgates to Islam." And just to make sure we get the message, Pat links to some more far-right (http://www.cicentre.com/articles/gw_america_last_man_standing.html) articles (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CCD1E0FA-235B-4CB1-A4D9-D4611738D01B) from his own videos.
If you're going to use tenious links such as the type of websites he links to to prove his right wing nature, from his site (http://www.patcondell.net/page2/page10/page10.html), he suggests that he is or was friends with the comedian/activist Mark Thomas. I've emailed Mark to see if I can get any more information. Then again if he replies saying "yes we were mates in the early 90s and of course he isn't racist you pillock" that, along with Pat Condells own statement will mean nothing except that he is really really good at hiding it.

[ibn Bruce]

I would think that criticizing the social conditions caused by the obscurantist class relations of these old religions like Islam is even more important than criticizing some bull-sh*t written in the Kuran, about non-believers etc. IMHO, these ancient laws don't apply anymore or apply only partially and in today's world, the Islamic community is more shaped by the social conditions in dictatorships (supported by none other than the US and NATO etc) they live in.

The Sha'riah has not, and does not enshrine class division. If religion forms the foundation of a moral code, then how can a moral code be entirely situational, changing with scientific progress? If anything, the main thing moving against dictatorships back by the US are Islamic movements of one type or another. Islam has long been feared in the West as the religion that will 'unite the brown peoples of the world to throw off the fetters of colonialism'. It was the enemy before the 1917 revolution, and it has returned, as it is inherently anti-Capitalist, anti-Racist and to some degree anarchist.

[ibn Bruce]

Where did you get that quote from?
It is from a writer in the fifties who was talking about the 'communist threat' as being a short lived. He predicted that Stalin's Russia would eventually fall from within, and Islam would return to its place as the enemy of the Capitalist Liberal Democracies. I would get you the details but I am not at home, i'A I will post the full quote when I get back to Sydney (in a few days).


How come? Isn't Islamic society essentially controlled and all its laws legislated by the Mullah-class? I think religion, government and capitalists are the three main sources of oppression in our present world.
No, where would you get that idea. I am speaking about Traditionalist Sunnis here, but there is no such thing as a 'Mullah' class.


Which isn't a particularly heart-warming thing for secular progressives to see.
Well then those secular progressives shouldn't have allowed Secularism and 'Progress' to define the dictatorships that such movements are fighting against.


Could you substantiate these statements with some proof?

Well in regards to it being 'the enemy' at least in the West, I think it is widely accepted that European soceity grew up oppositional at least in rhetoric to the 'Muslim threat'. Even the attacks on the 'New World' were justified via prospective converts to Christianity to fight against Islam.


All religions can claim these same things for all we know.

Both the Qu'ran and the Sunnah specifically speak against the accumulation of wealth for its own purpose. There are strict regulations upon interest, exploitative contracts and other such capitalist endeavours. The Prophet Mohammed sws in his final Khutbah (sermon) famously said
'Verily in the sight
of Allah, the most honoured amongst you is the one who is most
righteous in action. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab and for a
non-Arab over an Arab, nor for the white over the black nor for the black
over the white except in piety and good deeds.'
Finally, in terms of anarchism, no earthly authority is given to anyone save the Khalifs (who no longer exist). All other constructed authority is given only through merit and ijma (consensus) and is not binding. We are legally seen as being given our own individual 'khalifa', inviolable personal agency. Thus there is no 'church' in Islam, no regulated religious hierarchy or clergy. Mosques are owned by the people, as are many other things held in 'waqf' (public ownership). I wrote a bit about it in the 'communism and religion' thread.

[Wanted Man]

Even if they have variedly nonesense politics, most of them are still useful. Gert Wildert maybe an exeption though, he is an overall shit. His fitna was a terrible disjoint jumble, a pretty poor critique of Islam. Every atheist I know agrees. The reason some atheist speak for him and his right to utter his sub-standard critisism, is not because they necessecarily agree with is politics, it is because they fear the bad precedent it gives; that it would lead to the general criminalization of irreligious critisism.If Condell's position was just a matter of "defending free speech", then that would still make him no better than any other liberal critic of religion. I.e. not particularly useful to socialists, except as an interesting showcase of how liberals view religion and freedom of speech. For us, the whole point should not be that religion is an individual problem that can be cured by individually dealing with people, like "insulting muslims" or whatever ignorance. Rather, religion's whole reason to exist should be dealt with.

Anyway, as Condell's videos show, he really goes above and beyond the call of duty. It's the good old conspiracy theory that muslims are "taking over", aided and abetted by European governments who are intimidated by "muslim violence", are "Dhimmis", etc. Why do you keep ignoring that? Condell may have expressed disgust with racist assholes, but he uses the exact same arguments, and he also defends actual racists like Wilders. Maybe he is just too fucking ignorant to realise what he's doing. Which makes him only a little more admirable than if he is deliberately doing it. But still pretty useless to communists.


There is strong purpose even though it is not holy, halfy or whatever, for atheism (in its wider sense) to combat nonsense ideologies that create and maintain nonsense rifts between people. Those rifts are actively promoted by the ruling class of all countries because those rifts are so opertune and easy to exploit. Atheism disarms that weapon from the ruling classes and is therefore a weapon for us communists in the class struggle. It is the CleanX™ of religious class rifts.
What? Earlier in the post, you expressed support for "haranguing minorities". Now that's a good example of maintaining rifts between people. You continue to defend a guy who accuses one particular minority of conspiring to take over Europe, aided by European governments. Atheism is just there, it's not necessarily progressive or reactionary. And your brand of militant atheism is most certainly reactionary, because it "maintains nonsense rifts between people" just as well as militant religion.


If you're going to use tenious links such as the type of websites he links to to prove his right wing nature, from his site (http://www.patcondell.net/page2/page10/page10.html), he suggests that he is or was friends with the comedian/activist Mark Thomas. I've emailed Mark to see if I can get any more information. Then again if he replies saying "yes we were mates in the early 90s and of course he isn't racist you pillock" that, along with Pat Condells own statement will mean nothing except that he is really really good at hiding it.
I don't get it, what's the point of linking to that page? Condell was a comedian, and apparently a pretty unfunny one (just like his videos today are unfunny, except for militant atheists with a stick up their ass who agree that muslim fundies should be reincarnated as bisexual Jews...).

He links to the wiki page of this Thomas guy, just in case someone doesn't know who that is, and it's in the context of his comedic biography. On the other hand, in his videos on Islam and Geert Wilders, he links to a speech by Geert Wilders, an article from a neocon website on Wilders, a petition in defence of Wilders, etc. Obviously a different context, because he's doing political advocacy for the man. Maybe I should put "Defend Nick Griffin" and "Support Le Pen's Free Speech" in my sig. No big deal folks, just defendin' Europe and free speech against Islam.

[al8]

If Condell's position was just a matter of "defending free speech", then that would still make him no better than any other liberal critic of religion. I.e. not particularly useful to socialists, except as an interesting showcase of how liberals view religion and freedom of speech. For us, the whole point should not be that religion is an individual problem that can be cured by individually dealing with people, like "insulting muslims" or whatever ignorance. Rather, religion's whole reason to exist should be dealt with.

All means should be on the table, soft as well as hard, polite as well as rude. And this isn't simply just a matter of "insulting muslim" but is part of a larger onslought to delegitimaze religious beahvior.
And robust advocasy against relgion is the pre-requsite that goes hand in hand in fighting against conditions conductive to the rise of relgion and it's spread.


Anyway, as Condell's videos show, he really goes above and beyond the call of duty. It's the good old conspiracy theory that muslims are "taking over", aided and abetted by European governments who are intimidated by "muslim violence", are "Dhimmis", etc. Why do you keep ignoring that? Condell may have expressed disgust with racist assholes, but he uses the exact same arguments, and he also defends actual racists like Wilders. Maybe he is just too fucking ignorant to realise what he's doing. Which makes him only a little more admirable than if he is deliberately doing it. But still pretty useless to communists.

Of muslims 'taking over' is bit of an overstatement yes. Perticularly as to where I live. More accurate is to say that they are increasing their influance and setting more radical standards for other envious religions. That is a worrying devolopment. Reviving blaphemy laws is very inopertune for us, they have been used to harrass, procecute and jail communist editors in the past where I live.

I do not agree with Pat Condell on everything, but I give him critical support. He does more good then harm. When communist aren't at the forfront of the anti-religious struggle it is inevitable that someone less suitable, by our standards, fills the void. I don't think we can complain, but rather take it as encouragement do it better where Pat Condell lacks.


What? Earlier in the post, you expressed support for "haranguing minorities". Now that's a good example of maintaining rifts between people. You continue to defend a guy who accuses one particular minority of conspiring to take over Europe, aided by European governments. Atheism is just there, it's not necessarily progressive or reactionary. And your brand of militant atheism is most certainly reactionary, because it "maintains nonsense rifts between people" just as well as militant religion.

Except struggling against nonsense rifts necessarily creates rifts between people, but in a necssesary and constructive manner. It's just something that has to be done. And is not in the same league as relgious rift, because it is a rift to end all rifts in that department. A final solution in the good sense of the word, if you will.

[Wanted Man]

All means should be on the table, soft as well as hard, polite as well as rude. And this isn't simply just a matter of "insulting muslim" but is part of a larger onslought to delegitimaze religious beahvior.
And robust advocasy against relgion is the pre-requsite that goes hand in hand in fighting against conditions conductive to the rise of relgion and it's spread.
All well and good, but that still conveniently ignores any concrete way of dealing with the system that gives rise to religion in the first place. If you want to fight religion, deal with the hierarchy that sits on top of it, instead of spreading delusions that you can "turn" invididual believers by discriminating against them. Pretending that there is some sort of "dual" approach seems delusional to me. How would that work in practice? See a muslim on the street, say: "You're a dangerous desert fanatic who is conspiring to take over the world and bring us back to the 7th century. Now join us and overthrow your masters so that you don't need to follow your weird desert dogma anymore?"

Heavily simplified, of course. But the important thing is this: no liberation can ever be achieved by supporting social discrimination. We're not liberals, because we recognise that religion is not just something that a (reactionary) individual chooses to believe and can be enlightened from. So instead, to fight it, it's important to attack the religious hierarchy, point out that the clergy always eats, and promote materialism. Not trying to isolate and humiliate already oppressed minorities. I thought this should be obvious. Class struggle can entail class hatred, but not religious hate; leave that to the fundies.

You've got an interesting citation from Marx, which is better than most people, who just think that "Religion is the opium of the people" = "Religion is bad". Reread it and try to understand.


Of muslims 'taking over' is bit of an overstatement yes. Perticularly as to where I live. More accurate is to say that they are increasing their influance and setting more radical standards for other envious religions. That is a worrying devolopment. Reviving blaphemy laws is very inopertune for us, they have been used to harrass, procecute and jail communist editors in the past where I live.
Umm, no, it's not just a bit of an overstatement, or an honest mistake. It's pig-ignorant populism at best, or hate speech at worst. "The muslims" or "Islam" are not doing anything wrong. Let's be honest here. If Condell said: "Capitalism is heavily influenced by Jewish bankers", you wouldn't say: "That's a bit of an overstatement, but Judaism's influence is worrying, and Condell deserves critical support."


I do not agree with Pat Condell on everything, but I give him critical support. He does more good then harm. When communist aren't at the forfront of the anti-religious struggle it is inevitable that someone less suitable, by our standards, fills the void. I don't think we can complain, but rather take it as encouragement do it better where Pat Condell lacks.

Communists have always fought religious reaction. Times change, but giving any justification for old liberal or new far-right arguments on religion is never appropriate.


Except struggling against nonsense rifts necessarily creates rifts between people, but in a necssesary and constructive manner. It's just something that has to be done. And is not in the same league as relgious rift, because it is a rift to end all rifts in that department. A final solution in the good sense of the word, if you will.
What kind of solution are we talking about here? This reminds me of some person I was arguing with earlier, who suggested that the working class needs to be divided, because only atheists meet our standards for revolution. Of course, if you work towards doing so, your "final solution" (go wash your mouth) would be one where people are distrustful of each other because of their religious background, forget all about class struggle, and eagerly support the wars in the Middle East in order to civilise those sand people.

Honestly, when it comes to Condell, I think you're basically applying wishful thinking, the hope that maybe it's not so bad after all. If you don't mind me asking: where do you come from? In any case, you should go to continental Europe and look into its politics. Quasi-fascists are gaining mass support by whipping up latent tensions (which stem from the systematic ghettoisation of immigrants, not their tainted Arab blood or their "desert dogma" or whatever).

They use the exact same arguments as Condell, and spread the exact same prejudices (as opposed to honest criticism of religion). So it's no wonder that they have chosen to affiliate themselves with each other in defence of the liberal value of free speech that they hypocritically support (after all, even quasi-fascists with a libertarian mask, like Wilders, openly intend to suppress all sorts of freedoms). The hatred for the muslim religion (as if it is uniquely reactionary among the religions) easily blends with racial hatred.

[ibn Bruce]

But the point here is that establishing a nationalist or Islamist based bloc for the "brown people" is just going to create another possibly imperialist power bloc in parallel to the West. As in most such systems, a few elites will be pocketing all the wealth while the workers will have no say in the political system, let alone them controlling the means of production.

I was not aware that I was advocating any such 'imperialist power block'. Besides, to assume that any Islamic movement will end in such a system against its very beliefs is a similar critique that can be made of ANY political system, including a socialist one. The Messenger of God sws at his death, despite being the 'leader' of the entirety of the Arabian penninsula, died with no possessions. The viceroy sent to manage Persia by Umar (ra) refused to live in the palace, instead choosing to sleep under palm trees in the streets, rejecting the power and materialism that came with such a position.

Islamic history is a conflict between the egalitarian beliefs of the Qu'ran and the Sunnah with the neccesities of a productive society. From the death of the last Khalifat Rashidun ra onwards we can see a cycle in the Islamic world: dictator rises over the Muslims. Muslims rise against him, leader rises amongst the rebellion, rebellion succeeds, leader becomes a dictator and the cycle begins again. One cannot remove beliefs from their historical context, after all the reason the CCCP collapsed was the massive pressure from outside more than any inherent problem in the belief systems of those revolutionaries in 1917.


In all these Sunni societies, a definite class of clerics (they are called Mullahs in South Asia) legislate morality for the entire population and generally promote the backwardness of women, infidels etc.

That contradicts everything I know of the Sheikhs of the past (though not neccesarily of the present). A Sheikh in Al Andalus was sitting by the roadside, advising people from the village on various disputes. An Emir (Prince) rode past on his horse, dismounting and approaching him. The Emir greeted him with Salaam, asking to seek his council, he asked the Sheikh 'can I pray in these clothes', pointing to the rich garments he wore. The Sheikh looked around him at the villagers who wore proud but frugal clothes and replied to the Emir: 'You are as a Dog who wallows in filth yet lifts its leg lest it urinate on itself!'. In reply the Emir gave up his station and joined the villagers in the field, never again to take up office above his brothers and sisters.

Sheikhs (teachers), or collectively 'ulema' represent the educated but devout Muslims. They are not rulers, nor do they have a station above their Brothers and Sisters. They are aids in enterpreting the law, guides in this realm of deception and often also scholars of science and the like. They have no more authority in this world than the respect that their knowledge gives them. This does not make them a class above anybody, and they most frequently abandon the wealth of this world altogether. The traditions of the scholars is often in conflict with those temporal authorities that arise amongst Muslim society. There are of course those 'pocket ulema' that serve the dicators, the Wahhabist Mufti of Saudi Arabia being one good example, however this goes against the traditions of Islam, not with it.


Actually the US backed dictatorships have neither secularism or progress to show. They are just compradors who act as agents to enable the looting of the country by the imperialist countries.

Of course they are, secularism is used in the same way Christianity was used against the Jews and Muslims in Al Andalus, as a justifier to oppression and exploitation. Similarly the rhetoric of progress manifests itself in the same way, 'progressive reform' instead being a justifier to the institution of policies that attack the position of people whom are seen as 'backward'. Of course people subject to such attacks are going to resent secularism when it is the club that bashes them. Similarly why would a people who don't believe in 'progress' in the first place embrace an ideal whoes only manifestation has been further oppression.


But does building up a new imperialist power be it based on Islam, Maoism or capitalism to act as a new threat to the Western bourgeoisie make any sense for a socialist? The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

I have at no point advocated such an imperialist power, though I do strongly believe that the spread of Islam does pose a threat the Western bourgeoisie. Muslim countries ARE the working classes, the mass of them, Muslim countries are poor, oppressed and ruled by leaders who have sold out to foreign ideologies, be they the Baathist/Nationalist ideologies of Saddam and Nasser, the Wahhabist Monarchies of Saudi and Jordan or the 'secular democracies' of Indonesia and Bangladesh. If I advocate anything at all it would be a popular revolution based on the laws and faith of Traditionalist Islam. It would be without an overarching leadership structure as none has the authority to lead without Khalifa. However I am unconvinced that any such thing could occur in the current world situation. Allahu Alim (God knows and I know not).


Sounds good. Maybe some parts of the Islamic religion can be used to justify anarchism or socialism. But it also can be used to justify just about anything else. One can probably find quotes to justify capitalism and imperialism as well.

I do not know of any Islamic movement that justifies Capitalism, Islamic thought is such an anathema to it that even the crazies cant manage that. Similarly one can advocate Imperialism using 'Spot Runs' but that does not mean that such a justification is true to the nature of the book. However I do not believe Islam needs to be used to 'justify' Anarchism or Socialism. Islamic thought pre-dates both and, while having facets of both is neither. It is its own ideology and does not need validation by any external ideology.


I can see why some Marxist-Leninists like the models used by the Islamic movements in the Muslim countries looking to overthrow the US-backed dictatorships. These Islamic movements too use a small party of professional revolutionaries to overthrow the bourgeois governments and establish a new class of rulers. In short, the working class has no say in these "revolutions" and eventually they suffer in the name of religion or bureaucracy.

The reasons Marxist/Leninists like them is because such things were stolen from Marxist Leninist ideology. Just as suicide bombing was cut pasted from the Hindu Tamil Tigers, so many of the revolutionary actions of 'vanguard' ideologies were imitated by the Salafists. Indeed many of the popular revolutions have been hijacked by them (see Algeria) using such tactics. I do not believe in revolutions dictated by a small group. It is either the entire Ummah (community) or none at all.

[rioters bloc]

Is Pat Condell a racist?

No duh.

[ibn Bruce]

Imperialism presupposes state capitalism or market capitalism.I thought it was about Empire? More importantly the issue I raised was that a belief system cannot be rejected on the fact that it has failed because people do not adhere to it. Were such a criticism legitimate, then the CCCP could be held up as a failure and we could tell all the Marxists to stfu or gtfo.


But we see that ulemas do exist today that are an organ of the ruling class. Since Islam accords respect to them because of their position, it follows that no working class Muslim who is not part of the ruling class can question their judgements. This is a theocracy and there can be no democracy in such a system. IMO it does not matter if there is a Khalifa or not. The ulema can take the line of the ruling class or become the ruling class themselves.
Respect is given to a Sheikh because of knowledge and merit. If a Sheikh is obviously in the hands of an oppressive regime, making dictates which go against the laws and spirit of Islam, any Muslim can readily say 'Allah loves not the Oppressor' and ignore any ruling he or she makes. Any Muslim can become a Sheikh, it requires no finances or any societal position. Historically, as I have said, the Ulema have often been the most active in fighting against oppressive regimes, simply because some of them sold out does not mean that Islam or its law are any less legitimate or worthy of adherence. If, for a belief system to have legitimacy, all of its followers had to follow it to the letter, never choosing themselves first, then no system would be legitimate. I could point to the Khmer Rouge as a 'Socialist' regime and laugh at you. Pointing out the oppression perpetrated by Muslims against the law of Islam likewise shows nothing.


From what I have seen, some Islamic movements have been explicitly in favor of setting up a Khilafat. For example, see this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement).Of course they have, though the movement you linked to was for the restoration of the Khalifa, not the setting up of a new one. At the moment there is no Khalifa to restore, nor any clear way to set one up. While movements like Hizb-ut-Tahrir try to do so, they have neither a Khalif, nor consensus behind them.


Though it may be an old site, check this out (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.islamicinstitute.org/index.htm) and this paper (http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59-1_Islam+FreeMarket.pdf).I am aware of such institutions, they do not (in my knowledge) have any but Western educated scholars behind them. Without a Sheikh with ijaza to teach fiqh, they cannot declare anything, nor do they at all represent anything but a minute part of the community (probably with funding from dubious sources). Allahu Alim.


As I said, Islam does not consitute socialism. It allows for personal ownership but regulated trade. It places limits on the types of transactions possible, but it also limits the impact of the 'state' in many ways. Islam is a political system that stands on its own. Socialism and Anarchism may have some similarities they can draw with it, but it is not either.


Not necessarily so IMO. Such an elitist attitude can also be seen in bourgeois apologists.So they stole it from them? :S


Which begs the question: since you are advocating some kind of theocracy, what relation does your ideology have with socialism? The institution of 'Waqf', or public endowments, is an example of public ownership of the means of production. There are many parts of the Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world used in this way. Much of East Jerusalem still exists as waqf land, after Saleh'Uddin gave it in waqf after the recapture of Jerusalem from the crusaders. Similarly large swathes of southern Iraq is in Waqf, and has been since the early 700s (ce).

Also 'Zakat' exists not as tithes for a central church, but as the 'alms levy', a compulsory form of social welfare, which redistributes wealth according to how much is owned over time. This is one of the pillars of Islam and compulsory on every Muslim who is eligable.

So that is the relation Islam has with Socialism in that such things are imitated by Socialist systems (compulsorary redistribution of wealth/public ownership of means of production). However as I said, I am not a socialist, and I do not wish to convert you to anything.


In an aside, having been misrepresented throughout the past 100 years, placed as public enemy number one by Liberal Democracies. Now that attention has past and focus has begun on the 'Muslim Threat', it seems odd that the Revolutionary Left is so ready to forget such misrepresentation and in turn swallows the same bs when it is done to others. You used to be where we are now, don't forget that.