Islamophobia

Well, I do agree that there's nothing wrong with having prejudices against or fearing an irrational, regressive and hateful set of beliefs. It's definitely in the interests of the working class to regard Islam, as well as all other religions, with utter suspicion and distaste -- and the left should always actively promote a scientific mindset amongst the proletariat. It's wrong to call those sentiments a phobia, though -- as they aren't irrational, but rather well founded.

And yes, apologism for Islam and other superstitions should be vehemently fought within the left.

Yes, the fears are well-founded. One interesting question though is how to react in relation to issues like the Muhammed-caricatures. Will it strengthen the extreme right if we defend the right to publish these caricatures, or will it weaken it's monopoly on anti-islamism?

As long as we're allowed to caricature Jeeeezuz as well, then I don't see it as strengthening the extreme right.

Also, why is this in the HPG forum? It seems like quite a generic political discussion so surely it belongs in the main politics board.

I think it's appropriate for the HPG because we're all supposed to be opposed to organised religion, and inclined to promote atheism and scientific thought amongst the workers. This is the only forum where a discussion amongst people with this conviction can discuss combating religion undisturbed.

Here we can reach a deep level of discussion, but was this to be moved into Religion or some other forum, it'd quickly degenerate into a discussion on whether or not religion is to be opposed -- or atheism promoted -- at all. This is no doubt why Serpent started the discussion here, and I think it was a good idea.

I myself would actively discourage religious faith however I will not be hateful or offensive towards a muslim or a christian. I will argue that the organised religious system should be fought against along with the hateful elements of faith. But in the end who are we to decide what the people should think?

But in the end who are we to decide what the people should think?

We are the ones that are right.

There is an objective reality, and we recognise this and nothing else as truth. Then there are the fairytales the religious believe in. Sometimes things really are black and white: they are simply wrong and we are right. A scientific mindset simply is superior to a religious one.

This being said, of course we can't decide what people are to think -- we can't just get into people's heads and re-program them like computers.. But there is a lot we can do, to further the decline of superstition and to sooner bring forth it's eventual elimination as an accepted influence in society.

Right now we must focus on empowering and radicalising the proletariat in order to make the revolution happen. This should include atheist propaganda amongst the workers, the attempt to wake up as many as possible from the religious matrixes, and to get them to realise that only with a scientific mindset can they take part in the administration of a revolution and the future society on truly equal terms.

When the revolution comes, we can do much more.. We can for instance, as a collective and popular measure by the revolutionary working class, refuse to accept that children are refused a secular education. Likewise, we can make sure that the society doesn't sanction, support or favor religion in any way.

In the future, as our plans proceed and the majority of the ruling proletariat behind our ideas grows, we may go even further and officially class religions as contagious mental illnesses whose passing to children at home is to be prevented by intervention, and whose patients are in need of medical and/or psychiatric counceling.

Perhaps the military shouldn't lay seige to mosques, and the state shouldn't ban Islam, but the people should be armed with knowledge, and eventually all organized religion, but especially hateful religion like Islam and Christianity, will die down. I do think that there should be active propaganda against Islam, but also against Christianity, and every form of racism/xenophobia.

The problem with islam is that it is quite popular amongst certain elements of the left, because the USA and the other imperialist states of the west are waging wars in some moslem countries.

Yes and no. There's a lot "Islam preaches peace and love and blah blah blah" to be sure, but that's mostly among liberal reformist types.

Among serious leftists, I see Islam's "popularity" having much more to do with a defense of Muslims against racism and xenophobia rather than Islam per se. Almost all leftists see Saudi Arabia for the prison that it is. Basically all regard Islam's theology as nonsense.

Right now, there is probably more racism against virtually all Muslim peoples than any other group. Because Islam is so deeply intertwined with many of these people's very existence, the lines between religion and culture become very blurry. I think we should be very wary of calls to

win working class support

. Right now, working class disdain for Islam has more to do with xenophobia and racism than rational contempt for the ridiculousness of Islam's beliefs.

Because Islam is so deeply intertwined with many of these people's very existence, the lines between religion and culture become very blurry.

Cultures can contain very reactionary traditions within them, though. That something belongs to a culture does not mean, that it's 'above all criticism' somehow. We should seek to preserve progressive features and fight regressive ones within every culture.

We should seek to preserve progressive features and fight regressive ones within every culture.

Well it gets tricky, doesn't it, because Islam also represents progressive values in these cultures, such as charity.

Indeed, cultural traditions are only regressive insofar as they oppress people. We need to fight regressive elements of culture because they are oppressive. It is not clear to me why we should advocate destroying non-oppressive practices and values of a culture.

However, we need to fight religion because it is irrational. The link between "irrationality" and "oppression" is far from obvious, especially when that very irrationality provides some relief from oppression (e.g., charity). There is therefore a need to distinguish between criticism of a regressive element of a culture and criticism of religious nonsense.

When religion is intertwined with a culture, simply considering a practice or value as something that needs to be attacked and destroyed, just because it originated in religious practice, is reckless.

In many respects, blanket denunciation of everything Islam would lead to insensitive calls to, for example, denounce teaching people to experience the pain of hunger. Many bigots and xenophobes dislike ramadan as much, if not more, than a belief in what Gabriel said or did in a cave in the desert.

For Westerners, a concrete example would be Christmas. Hyper-consumerism aside, celebrating Christmas is a fairly benign cultural practice. Now should we ban and denounce Christmas, because it is intertwined with religion? Sure this happened in the Soviet bloc.

But there is something to be said for preserving Christmas and ramadan and whatever, like there is for preserving endangered artifacts. Are they linked to irrationality and superstition? Sure. Should we advocate their destruction? I say no.

Islamophobia is a buzzword created to say anyone who criticizes Islam has somehow got an irrational fear of Islam and is a right-wing bigot, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Also, note the wording. It isn't Muslimophobia, it's Islamophobia.

I think leftists need to discern more between the fine line between fighting discrimination against Muslims & Middle-Easterners and actively encouraging Islamic reaction.

Islam is something to be opposed in the same way that Christianity and Judaism is to be opposed, as organised religion, not just as 'Islam'. I don't think these things should be opposed in a specific way, which is what to me the term "Islamophobia" implies, and I agree with Sentinel in that it may not be a suitable word.
With "Muslimphobia", to use The Red Ghost's wording, being actively promoted at the moment, using the religion specific "Islamophobia" could end up being counter productive, and could possibly end up supporting, or seeming to support this promotion, and/or like what MarxShmarx said the further cultural alienation of Muslim people.
However...

I can see how it would be a good idea in reaction to, as somebody else mentioned, Islam apologetics amongst the left,
But generally, opposition to Islam as an organised religion I am for, but opposition to Islam, in the form of specific "Islamophobia" I'm not sure is such a good idea.

Sentinel was quite right that its absurb for self proclaimed Communist to desperately search the yellowing pages of ancient Muslim text for anything that can remotely be construde as "progressive".

Superstition is always reactionary!

The people of Sweden would likely be very understanding about taking action against superstition -- were the grounds for, the reasons behind -- such action explained to them properly. This is a perfectly secularised country. A few exceptions aside, the only people who give a shit about religion around here are 1) pensioners, retired old folks, 2) some immigrants.

Even together, they constitute a minority, and should -- provided they believe in democracy -- not complain when in the future a majority of people votes to dismantle organised religion in Sweden, or goes even further to deny it publicity/legitimacy, to protect the children from it, etc. People's individual beliefs should be free, but society has no obligation to shelter superstition or grant any delusions privileges.

People in a secularised enough country will understand this as basics.

And yet, we have orthodox Marxists who claim that religion will not go away as a powerful force in society, or can not be successfully combated, before a socialist revolution. They concern Marxism 'scripture', and are unable to take any social progress since the 19th century into account, when interpreting it.

Marx could not properly foresee the extention and nature of modern welfare state capitalism, this would have been impossible for any mortal man. Thus he believed that the level of influence of religion upon the people was mainly based on class relations, while it in fact depends on the level of secularism and welfare, as well as accessibility of information in society -- regardless of class relations.

I would claim that genuine islamophobia - not associated with the people of the middle east or any form of racism and xenophobia - is something which should be progressively supported to help free the people of the islamic world from reactionary and fascist social movements which are festering on it and depriving it of any chances of successful social development.

I think that the apologism of islam within the European revolutionary left today is a terrible abomination which is doing the peoples of those regions a terrible disservice.

What do you think?

If by islamphobia you mean scientific thinking, anti-sexism and anti-racism. Then yes I agree.

If you mean burning mosques, hate and chauvanism, then no.

But I know which you mean comrade

the phobia part means irrational fear so islamophobia is not a good thing.
especially because it easily leads to violence like we have seen after the assasination on theo van Gogh in the netherlands.

as much as i like to attack religion at every opportunity the constant attacks on islam might provoke undesirable results.

I agree that the word "islamophobia" is not being used correctly in this setting.

In the case of Islam and most reactionary bullshit, it doesn't really matter if attacking it could seem, immediately, as "not a good idea"... If everyone thought like that we wouldn't of come far, would we..?

true but in the netherlands it seems that the attacks on islam are pushing the muslims away from the other proles and they become so defensive that rationality is thrown out the window.

we should be careful not to jump on the anti-islam bandwagon the politicians are creating for their own political gain.

i am concerned because the bourgeois are going out of their way to attack islam and it would be incredibly careless to join them in their attacks without fully understanding what exactly is going on.

While there is nothing wrong with despising and combatting reactionary ideologies, I agree that care has to be taken not to appear to be siding with right-wing racists who claim to criticise Islam, usually while clinging to their own hateful superstitions.

While there is nothing wrong with despising and combatting reactionary ideologies, I agree that care has to be taken not to appear to be siding with right-wing racists who claim to criticise Islam, usually while clinging to their own hateful superstitions.

This is a problem. But we do know that the bad guys also hating Islam, won't magically turn it into something that has to be defended. And all intelligent people also do know, that any associations of humanist, communist criticism of Islam with racism are unfounded.

But naturally the apologists will make themselves guilty of Godwins law, and any other fallacies they need to use, in their defense of such a lost cause when it comes to social politics as Islam is.