Understanding the Left's stance toward Sharia Law

I just want to understand why the left are not outraged about the discrimination that occurs under Sharia Law. If you were to find a system that was the opposite to what communists are striving for, it would resemble Sharia Law.

So my question why is it when you speak out about the discrimination (Sharia Law discriminates based on religion, gender and sexual preferences) that go in of the Sharia legal system, you get Restricted on this forum?

You got restricted for xenophobic comments about refugees, if memory serves, not for criticizing Sharia Law.

If not supporting Sharia Law were a restrictable offense, this forum's entire membership would be restricted.

Nice try, though.

I mentioned that I was islamophobic, which I was referring to the Sharia Law part of Islam. Which to me is not xenophobic, its standing up for people who get discriminated against under Sharia Law.

I am islamophobic, because Sharia Law discriminates against so many people and believes in things that are so far outside of communism, socialism and the lefts view of the world. In fact the idea of free-market economics, and merchant capitalism became active during the Islamic Golden Age. The issue is that not many people actually know what Islam and Sharia Law actually is.

So that is what I don't understand, why restrict people who are fighting to defend this revolution?

F.y.i., I will note that the anti-war left right now is pretending either that ISIS doesn't exist, or that it's benign. Go figure.

you should be more worried about the people near you and im guessing with a name like ziggyfish you just come off as another right wing conservative fantasizing about a race war or pleading for the genocide of all muslims

are you a muslim or living in a predominantly muslim country? because based on this thread i wouldn't be surprised if you were from the middle of corn country and have never met a muslim in your life

http://www.revleft.com/vb/amidst-ref...107/index.html

I would like you to explain why you think christianity is a better religion then islam

From what I understand -- we do find it outrageous and oppose it. I may have missed a memo, though.

Why, it probably depends on the context. There's nothing remotely controversial about saying Sharia Law is bad. You might run into trouble, though, if you make xenophobic arguments against accepting muslim immigrants and refugees on the rather shaky assumption that every muslim wants to introduce Saudi Arabia's legal system to Europe or the US, or if you make excuses for imperialist bloodbaths because "Sharia law".

I live in a suburb of Sydney Australia where its no longer safe to walk down the street. I get abused because I am a non-Muslim (I get called a Kafur). I have seen things I don't really want to see again. I have met heaps of Muslims, and a lot of them are peaceful people. However 95% of the Nazi's were peaceful people.

A few years ago, I was like a lot of people. I didn't know a lot about Islam and I really didn't want to know. However after hearing what happened at the Lint Cafe in Sydney, I was curious about what in Islam makes people do that sort of stuff. So I started to do some research, I read the Koran, the Hadiths and was shocked to at what I saw.

As I said quite a lot of times before, Christianity is no better than that of Islam. However Islam can't be compared to Christianity, if you want I can explain why this is so.

I have nothing against Muslim immigration and I don't really care whether they worship Alah or Christ or whoever they want to worship. What I am concerned about is when these people want to force their religion onto others.

Your correct, not every muslim wants to introduce Sharia Law into Australia, however those who do are getting away with it. Just take a look at France, their are places in Paris, non-Muslims can't go. In fact the government of France advises where the no-go zones are in Paris.

The other point I would like to make is Sharia Law isn't a Saudi Arabia legal system, its the implementation of Islam. I can explain more indepth if you like.

That's some pretty faulty logic. The Muslims are getting away with pushing Sharia Law in Australia! Need evidence? Look what they're doing in France!

You do realize that France and Australia aren't the same place right?

You'd be more on the mark if you were worried about, for example, radical French Catholics, as opposed to people who make up a poor minority of the European population.

No, this simply isn't true. Every single country seems to have its own "no-go zone" myth and in every single case, it's nonsense. And with France, what you're probably talking about are the designated "sensitive urban zones" (I don't remember the french term, acronym ZUS). These aren't "no-go zones" -- these are poor, at-risk neighborhoods that don't even necessarily have large muslim populations.

As for your claim that Sharia law is practiced in some of these areas -- I'd love to see a source. Because, as a matter of fact, I know of many places where Sharia Law is used in arbitration. However, these are always in civil cases, between two individuals who agree to proceed according to Sharia Law. In the United States, they allow the same sort of autonomy for civil cases in Jewish enclaves as well. Do I think it's silly? Sure, but I don't have that much reverence for the secular courts either, for that matter. At the end of the day, however, this xenophobic "creeping sharia" paranoia is completely unfounded.

No, I'm aware of what it is -- a legal framework derived from Islam. It's also a system that varies widely from one country to another, with some muslim-majority nations using Sharia only for personal affairs, and others (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran) which use it as the basis for all law.

Of course there's also the minor detail that there are plenty of Muslim or Muslim-majority countries which do not use Sharia law at all.

You mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adavMcwoc68

By the way, I don't know if OP is on holiday, but his IP address is situated about 733km removed from Sydney.

I'd like to see evidence of any area in the west where non-Muslims are forced to abide by Sharia Law.

And yes, Islam goes against everything communism stands for. So does Christianity. There are places in the US where well-connected, powerful politicians are doing everything in their power to make US law reflect Christianity, and in some cases succeeding.

If we were anywhere near Sharia Law, I'd be up in arms too, but as it stands, Christian theocracy is a bigger threat.

And take it from someone who has read both the Koran and the Bible - they are both filled with horrifically vile and incredibly inspiring content. Neither are benign, and both could inspire terrorism. But every Muslim I have ever known - including some who dislike the west - has been nothing but disgusted and saddened by terrorism. Your stereotypes don't reflect reality.

As communists, we should be trying to change the material conditions that lead to people adopting religious fundamentalism. Then we can try to change their ideas.

Some ostensible "socialists" do support Islamic fundamentalism (remember "only religious in form", "comrades"?). Socialists, however, do not. We denounce all forms of Islamism, including the Khomeiniist butchers popular on the tailist "left". But don't kid yourself. You weren't restricted for opposing "Sharia law". You were restricted for opposing immigration.

like this post if you think OP is a racist prick.

And to add to this topic, socialism is clearly opposed to sharia law, as well as all other laws that see themselves as 'naturally' arising from a god or deity. We are for socialist democracy; by, of, and for the working class. Or Jeremy Corbyn.

Ok, I think I get it now.

The reason why Socialists or Communist are not actively against Sharia is because of its not seen as a threat yet.

I would send you to a few articles and videos, however the forum software doesn't allow me to give you some links. PM me if you really want to know the evidence I have to prove my claim.

I can't post any links, however if you would like to know the evidence I have, please send me a private message.

Is this Taqiya or are they really disgusted and saddened by terrorism. Considering that there was only 30 people who marched against the Sydney Seige, and 50 who marged against the Paris attacks, does this sound like "most" Muslims are "saddened". Remember to call yourself a Muslim, you must submit yourself to Alah, and consider the Quran to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad

ISIS is doing the same. They are changing the material conditions that lead people to adopting religious fundamentalism. Think about it.

I'm talking about people I know personally, including some that I consider friends. I'll be sure to let them know that some guy on the internet thinks they're lying to me.

And I've never marched against mass shootings committed by white atheists, despite being a white atheist myself. By your logic, that means I condone what that asshat did in Oregon.

Anyway, the conversation about Islam always goes like this:

Reactionary: Ban Islam! All Muslims are terrorists.
Liberal: Well, no... They don't all think like that. Islam is a religion of peace.
Reactionary: Have you read the Koran? It's evil!
Liberal: Yeah, but most Muslims only like the good parts.
Reactionary: Well I have this poll that says 25% of Muslims want to kill everybody!
Liberal: Oh yeah? Well MY poll says only 3% do!
etc....

The Marxist approach is to shift the conversation away from beliefs and towards concrete, lived experiences. Religion is the "opium of the masses" - it's needed most by people in the most pain. People who are forced to live in desperate conditions and miserable poverty. Work on improving these conditions and then fundamentalism loses its appeal. Branding people as subhuman because of their beliefs is ass-backwards and idealistic.

Next time you ask them, notice their facial expressions. You would be surprised. Ask them if they have read the Quran, they may not even know what their religion means or entails. For example most Christians haven't read the Bible.
I see this changing of material conditions seems to be working, er not as you expected..

First of all, I don't go around asking people to condemn things they had nothing to do with. My point in bringing up the Oregon shooter was that if somebody demanded to know why I didn't publicly condemn his actions, seeing as how I'm an atheist and all, I'd probably tell that person to go fuck themselves.

I honestly don't know what this even means.

Normally go goes like this.

Reactionary: I am afraid for my children and I see what's going overseas. Why are all terrorists Islamic.
Liberal: Because Islam teaches hate against non believers.
Reactionary: So what do we do?
Liberal: Well the biggest problem is not enough people know about what islam stands for, so lets join together and prevent islam from taking hold in our community.
Reactionary: Where do I join?
....

Correct, and I agree we need to shift the conversation away from beliefs and toward concrete experiences. However we can not ignore the Islamic ideology, as they don't play by the same rules as other secular governments.

My claim is that Islamic ideology would be easier to combat if most of its adherents weren't living under the boot of global capitalism and imperialism. The only way to end capitalism is through socialist revolution. Religion becomes largely irrelevant when people's life here on earth has meaning. Let's try to make that happen, instead of attacking people and provoking an endless cycle of terrorism and retaliation.

I don't know how many Muslims got out to the streets to protest the attacks or show support to the people of Paris, but you can check the news and see images of people in Iran, Egypt, Palestine and even in Beirut that suffered a terrorist attack just the night before the Paris attacks. - did you go out in support to the people of Beirut? - showing support to the people of Paris.
I won't be posting pictures, but you can easily check it out.

And even the Saudi to clerics condemn the Paris attack, this coming from a country that adheres to Sharia law:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...is-attack.html

Leaders of many countries with Muslim majority condemned the attacks, I even recall Hassan Nassrallah of Hizbullah condemning it. It can't all be "Tiqya".

More pertinently, the masses of Muslims would not be attracted to Islamism if there was an actual Left there for them to give them something as an alternative.

Muslims are not passive animals, as we all understand. It is patronizing to assume that Islamism is solely the product of western manipulations, and colonialism or whatever - and why do I say this? Not to elevate sacred "agency", but to remind everyone that inside Muslim communities, whether in the west or in the Near east, there are real antagonisms.

That is to say, in Muslim communities they have their own problems whose logical conclusion, should they be elevated to the greatest heights, would lead them to atheism and Communism - fully within the framework of their own national-cultural sphere as its highest expression. There is a social antagonsim in Muslim countries. There is a strive toward modernity in Muslim communities. Arabs, or South Asians, for example, who fight for women's rights and who fight against honor killings do not need to play power games with Europeans, i.e. about "sacrificing" their own ways for European culture to do this: These are problems that are sufficiently their problems. What I have noticed, and what I have the highest admiration for, is what seems to be a slowly (very slowly) growing community of atheists and skeptics (influenced by Marxism!) in some North African countries, who are articulating their national problems on their own terms, i.e. they are not simply "Muslims running away from their culture" or whatever.

I cannot emphasize the fact enough: THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "Muslim culture" outside of more backward, rural areas. The Muslim identity, in the west, is ABSOLUTELY not "isolated" from western culture, it fully respects and acknowledges western culture, in fact, the "Muslim identity"'s existence is completely contingent upon its relationship to the wider western culture. Muslims are not outside the cultural or social sphere of the West, in other words, they should be held to our standards in the same way any reactionary section of a working population is - there can be no room for compromising as far as "cultural" considerations go. Westerners simply do not understand what is so miserable about the Muslim identity: Muslims already implicitly feel like western culture is superior, they envy it, and every affront against Islam, or Mohommad, they feel is an expression of FURTHER humiliation and domination by the "culture" they feel they have no place in being a part of. People need to understand this: Islamists already implicitly have an inferiority complex, they don't need to be "taught" our ways - it is more striking to think about a simple fact: What if Islamic fundamentalism actually constitutes a part of "our ways" itself?

This is what is so vile about Islamism - it is so alien in that Muslims are still a part of the history of the world and the modern epoch. Muslims in other words, articulate themselves as they perceive westerners to articulate them, they see themselves insofar as they see themselves having a place in the 'cultural' totality of western society. So Muslims are NOT some "other" who must learn western ways. Think about a caste system wherein a slave knows what he is, and understands his relationship to the other castes: This is how the Muslim identity works, it's not that these people stubbornly refuse to change their ways, but that the hypocrisy of liberal "universal human rights" does not work on them, it does not elevate them to the level where they can be fully equal participants of modern bourgeois civic society.

How to solve the problem? We must be brief, but the following must be investigated by Leftists (I here will not mention the class struggle and the necessity of incorporating Muslim workers, because this is a basic axiom and a given for us radicals):

1. The question of sexuality must be stressed: from Feminism to gay liberation, these are very sensitive matters for Muslim communities but they must be disseminated in such a way that takes into consideration the sexual relations that pervade in Muslim communities/societies (not to degrade them, but to understand the starting point). There can be no "Well, Muslim culture articulates sexual exploitation, etc. differently, i.e. people see the veil as a kind of dignity" or whatever - this is pure bullshit, the veil is just as disgustingly reactionary as you think it is. We should particularly make use of "corrupting" the Muslim youths, whose frustration absolutely derives from their inability to partake in 'western culture'. Muslim youths listen to the same music as us, watch the same movies, probably engage in the same leisure, but out of western racism are deprived of being a part of modern society (which they also self-perpetuate, but they recognize the 'implicit' racism of the society).

2. Muslims must be fully held to so-called "western standards". How to go about this, of course, requires very careful consideration, but this must be a given for us: In holding Muslims to western standards, we accentuate the class division between the Muslims who have nothing to lose, and the parasitic Muslim petty bourgeoisie and reactionary intelligentsia.

Now many of you are pessimists, and I dismiss your cheap pessimism. I have no doubt whatsoever that the masses of marginalized Muslims are ready to abandon their superstitions and fight for Communism, if we do not fuck it up. The point is simple: Islamism gives them dignity in the face of - yes - the chauvinism implicit in the innocent patronizing smile of well-to-do liberals. Abandoning their reactionary views, for them, means submitting to what is perceived to be relationships of domination. Only through a ruthless universalism, only through ruthlessness and mercilessness towards Islamism, FULLY understanding these masses of people as real political subjects and not passive animals, can the European and Muslim working classes join together, in other words - only through the class war and only through showing the Muslims that we are ready to fight amongst ourselves, as westerners, as much as we expect them to fight amongst themselves, as Muslims, will the reactionary petite bourgeois and irredeemable bloodsucking elements of the Muslim masses be weeded out and crushed. Only Communism can still allow Muslims to appreciate the contributions and special contributions of their previous national spirits to the riches of mankind in particular, to the special place it has had in world history in general.

But nevermind this. Solving what more and more appears to be a "Muslim question" is contingent upon solving the question of politics in general: Why should we expect to win over the masses of Muslims when we can't even win over any sections of the working class in general? Winning the European working class, is contingent upon winning the Asian, African and Arab working classes in Europe - it is a question of adequately solving the question of nationality here. In the United States, we face a similar dilemma with the black peoples. Solving these problems would be the greatest stepping stone in re-invigorating Communist politics in societies torn by "culture wars".

It makes perfect sense, thanks for clearing it up for me.

I know both sides of the spectrum, how the socialist and the right wing perceive the world. I've read Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto. I also have been a member of a conservative political party to understand the idea of conservative politics.

The stance in the conservative world is to allow people to have their say, and let the individuals sort out the issue. Their ideology is not to force people to get along and not attack each other, but to encourage people to talk about their differences and hopefully come to a compromise where they both live together happily. If that doesn't work, then one party leaves while the other lives happily ever after. This way you treat people as individuals and everyone one is happy with the result. Also the community grows as a whole.

However I was interested in getting the Socialists and Communist thoughts on the issue. These people seem to think the problem isn't Islam, but all religion and because Communists think by ignoring the current world, you can change the world to the way you want it. By removing religion from the debate, people will argue on concrete issues rather than on what their religious beliefs are. This means that people argue over something that can be proven, and thus their will always someone who is right and someone who is wrong. The people who are wrong will admit they are wrong, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Nicely put.

Well no, rather than seeing all religion as the problem, we see all religion as a symptom of class society, oppression, social antagonisms. A symptom that creates problems of its own, to be sure, but still a symptom.

If I ever get un-restricted, I would love to ask about how the classless society that communists and Socialists actually works. I mean it sounds good in principal, however everywhere I look, it doesn't seem possible, due to human nature and our animal instinct. Even the most communist governments (take North Korea, or China for example), still have a hierarchy, where every person isn't equal (in terms of money) or has equal influence in social change. A currency still exists in these countries and there is still a upper, middle and lower class in these countries. On top of that, Xi Jinping has more say in social change than say your every day china man/women, which means there is still a hierarchy.

Even if you were to create a money less society. You would still have people who are more powerful than others simply because some people have better social and communication skills (and can influence more people) then others, you only have to look into autism spectrum to see my point, which I am BTW (I wanted add to the discussion on the topic "Questions for Autistic people"). While others are better at innovation. I myself see money as a symptom of human nature and human instinct rather than a problem of society.

But that's a debate for another day.

Feel free to PM them to me/post the broken links (sans "." usually works) in the thread.

You want to know why Hillary Clinton is not outraged that women cannot get an abortion under Sharia law? She also does not get outraged over the fact that poor women in the US cannot get abortions. She gets mildly upset about it. Now, if they made it illegal for wealthy, white women to board an airplane with the intent of flying to San Francisco to get an abortion then she would get outraged. With her it's a class thing.

It would also resemble Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Satanism. But that's not the point. People need religion as a drug to numb themselves to the reality of life under slavery/feudalism/capitalism. That's what Marx meant when he said that religion is an opiate of the masses. It is the psychological equivalent of being addicted to heroin.

This has nothing to do with socialism, whatsoever. We don't "ignore the current world". On the contrary, we analyse it, and note that, if you try to explain it idealistically, by talking about what people profess to believe, it doesn't make sense. Why would Sufis and saint-worshippers work together with Daesh or al-Qaeda? Because the driving force behind these is not religion, religion is an ideological garb that the reactionary impulses that animate these groups take. For Daesh, the main point is Sunni Arab sectarianism.

And we don't expect our opponents to "admit they're wrong" (what?), our perspective is for a workers' revolution to smash the bourgeois state apparatus and take over power from the bourgeoisie.

Sharia Law kicks ass.

That's what you want to hear right? Silly assumptions.

Your ignoring the fact that people do not act purely on logic and reason. There are other factors that people base their actions on such as emotion, personal achievement and compassionate grounds. Its been studied that people will do something, then make up a story later to justify their actions (do some research into NLP for evidence). Religion just gives people the ability to justify why they did what they did. However most importantly religion also give people a moral foundation to base their actions on and without religion people wouldn't have any morals or beliefs (this has been studied in the field of Artificial Intelligence).

Definition from wikipedia:
"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

All ideologies including but not limited Marxism, Communism, Capitalism and Conservatism fall under this definition of religion. In a communist country everyone has to have the belief that everyone else will play the same or equal role in the community as they do. The same goes for Capitalism, Conservatism and Marxism.

Having said all that, I do believe that there is place for the Marxist view of the world, however at this present time, I don't see how we are going to get their. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

But here is the question I simply have no answer to, and would like one if you know. Why would someone who has spent the entire life obtaining the power they have, just give it away? They will always justify to themselves one way or another.

i have never heard of the slur "kafur" before, ive heard of kaffir commonly used in souith africa against black people, but it seems you just looked up an insult on the internet that nobody uses anymore that muslims once used against non muslims.

95% of nazis were peaceful?????????? do you realize how much ignorant peice of shit you are for saying that?

thats fucking obvious as hell

so your a racist white supremacist christian who "read" selected parts of the quran? im guessing on some neo nazi hate website right"?

I believe you have alot of information stored on your computer, on why "Christianity is better than Islam" because your nothing more than a common religious fundamentalist, enjoy praying for your pretend apocalyse fuckwad

Will send you some links on Monday. I assume you would prefer government owned websites or government own media articles?

Thanks

Brendan

The term your refering to is:

By the 15th century, the word Kaffir was used by Muslims in Africa to refer to the non-Muslim African natives. Many of those kufari were enslaved and sold by their Muslims captors to European and Asian merchants, mainly from Portugal, who by that time had established trading outposts along the coast of West Africa. These European traders adopted that Arabic word and its derivatives.

The one I am refering to is:

"Kafir (Arabic: كافر‎ kāfir; plural كفّار kuffār; feminine كافرة kāfirah) is an Arabic term (from the root K-F-R "to cover") used in an Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel". It is used as a derogatory term.[1][2][3] The term [4] alludes to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God and the religious truth revealed through the mission of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, and thus demonstrates ingratitude towards God;[5] denies, refuses to accept the dominion and authority of God;[6] or otherwise does not heed the beliefs and prescriptions held by the religion of Islam. Unbelief is called kufr. Kafir is sometimes used interchangeably with mushrik (مشرك, those who commit polytheism), another type of religious wrongdoer mentioned frequently in the Quran and Islamic works"

Most Nazi's had no idea what was going on, and just wanted to get on with their lives.

I have read both the Arabic and English versions of the Quran. I have also read Hadiths as well.

As I have said quite a few times, Christianity is no better than Islam.

When comparing the injustices committed under Islamist governments versus liberal democratic governments, there is no controversy that the injustices under Islamism outdo most ruling ideologies. With this in mind, if I were to create a thread talking about the atrocities committed by ISIS or extreme bullshit laws under Erdogan, then I would be preaching to the choir. What has been a huge topic of debate is whether certain groups that oppose ISIS and Al Nusra such as the YPG or Bashar al Assad deserve solidarity which I find more worthwhile than this circle jerk which is frankly used more as a silencing tactic or distraction technique when social issues are brought up in discussions.

I don't agree at all with the poster you are arguing with and think he's more than probably an Islamophobe, but as someone from a Catholic background who lives in the Middle East, I can confirm that kāfir is still an insult which is used today, and I've been called it myself on occasion.

Devrim

This assertion is supporting something that's only *historical* at best -- sure, humanity may have a *history* of god-worship, but that doesn't mean that such is the sum total of what makes up 'civil society', which is what you're asserting.

Also, I don't know why you decided to use 'AI' as a buzzword here, but you should probably elaborate, or at least provide some references on that one.



No, politics is *not* religion, because all matters of politics have to do with realities of *political economy*, which does not depend on what people may or may not happen to believe.



No, because an individual may happen to be born and *grow up* under any given kind of political economy, and they do not have to *believe* in it in order to live -- and even live well -- within it, whatever kind it may happen to be.



You may want to begin by putting *your own* cards on the table here, and describe what you think is wrong about the way the world works, and what could be better with it.



Well, the whole point of revolution is to *relieve* those who currently have power in this elitist system that we live under. The personal opinions of those who hold power, about their own power-wielding, are simply not relevant to those who want to do away with 'power' altogether.