Understanding the Left's stance toward Sharia Law

[dodger]

one law for all in our largely secular culture. Sharia? Laugh at the thought--primitive drivel. We rid ourselves 500yrs ago of religious courts-- corrupt and venal places they were too. http://www.secularconference.com/man...or-secularism/
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/20...alth-in-the-uk
http://www.secularconference.com/
http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/%E2%80%...onference.com/

[Counterculturalist]

Admittedly, I hadn't thought to look at the main page of investigativeproject.org. I did just now and it looks like another right-wing conspiracy site. A quick search on Google reveals that the site's owner, Steve Emerson, is just some dude who hates Muslims and has no expertise in the fields of terrorism, international relations, Islam, or anything else that would give him any credibility in the area.

And that video you linked is cute, but what does it have to do with anything? You're saying people here are indoctrinated by left-wing college professors? Yawn.

Get out of your Fox News bubble.

[RedMaterialist]

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?

Sure. In my view another worldwide economic crash, say, ten times worse than the Great Depression could happen. (Another crisis is due in 1-3 yrs.) It's impossible to "bail out" the banks and no one is able to access cash at their ATMs, their debit and credit cards don't work. Unemployment goes to 50%. People begin to get hungry. The .01% are still doing fine on their private islands.

People then start marching on their capitals and the military begins slaughtering them. Then a world wide revolution.

Can't happen? They said fascism couldn't happen in the US. Donald Trump just proved that theory wrong.

But that's just one way it could happen, by violent revolution. It could also happen as the capitalist rate of profit continues to shrink to 1 or 2%, to the "zero lower bound" as the economists like to say. At that point capitalism could simply collapse. Without the possibility of making a profit a capitalist cannot exist. Traditionally, the capitalist class has overcome this problem by simply destroying billions, trillions of dollars of value in commodities and means of production. This usually happens in World Wars.

If the capitalist class has any sense left it will give up peacefully, as Engels said somewhere.

[RedMaterialist]

Small but significant correction here -- 'intellectual equivalent' instead of 'psychological equivalent'.

(Psychological needs are more basic than intellectual / worldly ones.)

I used to think that, too. But now I think that religion has an actual, physiological effect on the brain, which is expressed psychologically. I remember when I was a kid and my parents would take me to church (Catholic.) I would come out of the church with this odd feeling of happiness and contentment. Years later I could get the same high from mj, although always tinged with paranoia. That's when I developed my personal theory of religion as a literal kind of opiate.

The opiate of the masses. I think it's more than just a metaphor. This is one reason religion is losing its grip on people. They just don't get the same opiate high anymore. Of course there are always the fanatics who get their fixes five, ten times a day.

[ckaihatsu]

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.

---

These are these injustices that I am talking about. The left say they believe in Equality, however when you look at what they seem to want to protect (via calling people racist or islamophobes when they speak out about it), its seems quite the opposite.

By the way that was the original intent of this question/topic. Why is it when you speak out about the discrimination (Sharia Law discriminates based on religion, gender and sexual preferences) that goes on in a Sharia legal system, you get Restricted on this forum?

This has nothing to do with hating Muslims as individuals, but hating the legal system they want us to live by.

---

[IS members] hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike."

---

one law for all in our largely secular culture. Sharia? Laugh at the thought--primitive drivel. We rid ourselves 500yrs ago of religious courts-- corrupt and venal places they were too.

This is really the *crux* of the matter, in my estimation -- the (anti-war) left is really showing a *blind spot* regarding what ISIS and Sharia law entails, if allowed to take root anywhere and everywhere. I think it's imperative at this point that we -- anyone -- emphasize the significance and priority of a *secular* civil society.

If a critique from the right, as from ZF, happens to be congruent with this analysis, so be it, but that's just incidental, as with any other accurate objective description of socio-political reality -- it doesn't imply any *ideological* overlap.

[ckaihatsu]

[P]eople then start marching on their capitals and the military begins slaughtering them. Then a world wide revolution.

On an *empirical* note, I'd have to say that if there were really *mass marches* on D.C., etc., the military would be brought to a standstill and would very likely wind up being 'converted' to the new populist, and possibly revolutionary, international political sentiment.

[Guardia Rossa]

On an *empirical* note, I'd have to say that if there were really *mass marches* on D.C., etc., the military would be brought to a standstill and would very likely wind up being 'converted' to the new populist, and possibly revolutionary, international political sentiment.

Are there any historical examples of this? I mean, even in Cuba the military didn't got 'converted' until it was either get 'converted' or die.

They did surrender at many confrontations but instincts are instincts.

[RedMaterialist]

By the way that was the original intent of this question/topic. Why is it when you speak out about the discrimination (Sharia Law discriminates based on religion, gender and sexual preferences) that goes on in a Sharia legal system, you get Restricted on this forum?

Would you copy and paste your actual post and the response which restricted you?

[RedMaterialist]

On an *empirical* note, I'd have to say that if there were really *mass marches* on D.C., etc., the military would be brought to a standstill and would very likely wind up being 'converted' to the new populist, and possibly revolutionary, international political sentiment.

MacArthur was brought in to destroy the Hoovervilles, the National Guard gunned down Kent State students, Nixon brought in the 82nd Airborne when he thought the 1971 protests were getting out of control.

However, the military now is more representative of society; minorities, gays, women, etc., so maybe they would be less willing to open fire on a "mass" march.

[ckaihatsu]

I used to think that, too. But now I think that religion has an actual, physiological effect on the brain, which is expressed psychologically. I remember when I was a kid and my parents would take me to church (Catholic.) I would come out of the church with this odd feeling of happiness and contentment. Years later I could get the same high from mj, although always tinged with paranoia. That's when I developed my personal theory of religion as a literal kind of opiate.

The opiate of the masses. I think it's more than just a metaphor. This is one reason religion is losing its grip on people. They just don't get the same opiate high anymore. Of course there are always the fanatics who get their fixes five, ten times a day.

Okay, no fundamental argument here -- I mean to say that religion tends to serve as a substitutionist *placeholder* for actual intellectual / worldly efforts, hence the 'psychological high' from the cult-like groupthink euphoria.

(If any arbitrary group of people can all reference a particular set of historical or fictitious *events*, then that common *narrative* serves as an entire *worldview*, or mass culture, for those people. Similarly consider any group of computer or comic-book geeks at a convention, etc.)


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

(I include the diagrams to say that it's easier to take refuge in 'cultural localism', rather than to make the effort to tackle the more-objective realities of the larger real world, with all of its comprehensiveness and messiness.)

[ckaihatsu]

MacArthur was brought in to destroy the Hoovervilles, the National Guard gunned down Kent State students, Nixon brought in the 82nd Airborne when he thought the 1971 protests were getting out of control.

Noted.

However, the military now is more representative of society; minorities, gays, women, etc., so maybe they would be less willing to open fire on a "mass" march.

I think the tipping point would depend on the *scale* and *organization* of the protests -- you indicated that such could be *international*, in your scenario.

[Counterculturalist]

This is really the *crux* of the matter, in my estimation -- the (anti-war) left is really showing a *blind spot* regarding what ISIS and Sharia law entails, if allowed to take root anywhere and everywhere. I think it's imperative at this point that we -- anyone -- emphasize the significance and priority of a *secular* civil society.

If a critique from the right, as from ZF, happens to be congruent with this analysis, so be it, but that's just incidental, as with any other accurate objective description of socio-political reality -- it doesn't imply any *ideological* overlap.

Does that much of the left really have a benign view of ISIS? I mean, I've seen it from some extremely fringe tankie/anti-imperialist types, but surely it's not particularly common. If it is, I unreservedly oppose any such analysis.

Often, however, criticism against those who oppose military intervention in the middle east is leveled - inaccurately, I think - on the grounds that this opposition has its roots in sympathy for ISIS, or any extreme Islamic movement. My own opposition (and I hope the "anti-war left" agrees with me here) to such intervention is that it kills civilians, and it further radicalizes Muslims. I think it's disingenuous to characterize those of us who take this view as either supporting ISIS or having a blind-spot about its evils.

Ultimately, I want religion to lose its stranglehold on the middle east. I want Muslims to rise up against the oppressive aspects of Islam, and ultimately for them to abandon Islam altogether. And I believe that they will. I don't believe that murdering innocent members of their community will hasten this uprising.

The problem with criticism of Islam from the right is that it invariably (and Ziggyfish has been doing this consistently) associates all Muslims with ISIS and Sharia Law. It calls for the removal of the civil rights of those deemed as "other" and has its roots in racism and xenophobia rather than in a desire for liberation (or even for a secular society), and if unopposed it could lead to genocide.

I think Rafiq is right to suggest that only a communist alternative can give Muslims the tools to fight against Islam. Joining up with neocons to support slaughter abroad and fascism at home won't help.

[ckaihatsu]

Does that much of the left really have a benign view of ISIS?

I'm not seeing any *hands-on* analysis, or take, of such -- where is the leftist *position* on ISIS and what to do about it -- ?

I mean, I've seen it from some extremely fringe tankie/anti-imperialist types, but surely it's not particularly common. If it is, I unreservedly oppose any such analysis.

Often, however, criticism against those who oppose military intervention in the middle east is leveled - inaccurately, I think - on the grounds that this opposition has its roots in sympathy for ISIS, or any extreme Islamic movement. My own opposition (and I hope the "anti-war left" agrees with me here) to such intervention is that it kills civilians, and it further radicalizes Muslims. I think it's disingenuous to characterize those of us who take this view as either supporting ISIS or having a blind-spot about its evils.

This is 'merely' anti-imperialist and is decidedly *defensive* regarding a position on ISIS itself.

Ultimately, I want religion to lose its stranglehold on the middle east. I want Muslims to rise up against the oppressive aspects of Islam, and ultimately for them to abandon Islam altogether. And I believe that they will. I don't believe that murdering innocent members of their community will hasten this uprising.

Yeah, of course -- this is all non-controversial, but it's still sidestepping Islamic fundamentalism (ISIS) itself.

The problem with criticism of Islam from the right is that it invariably (and Ziggyfish has been doing this consistently) associates all Muslims with ISIS and Sharia Law. It calls for the removal of the civil rights of those deemed as "other" and has its roots in racism and xenophobia rather than in a desire for liberation (or even for a secular society), and if unopposed it could lead to genocide.

I'll tend to agree that the right is basically 'Western Civilization' in its political orientation.

I think Rafiq is right to suggest that only a communist alternative can give Muslims the tools to fight against Islam.

No argument.

Joining up with neocons to support slaughter abroad and fascism at home won't help.

I don't see anyone suggesting this.

[Counterculturalist]

In light of the above response, I think we're more or less in agreement, except that I don't think opposition to Islam from the right has anything in common with (or any value to) left opposition to Islam. We should strive to avoid the cultural chauvinism and thoughtless stereotypes that characterize, say, Ziggyfish's opposition to Islam.

[ckaihatsu]

In light of the above response, I think we're more or less in agreement, except that I don't think opposition to Islam from the right has anything in common with (or any value to) left opposition to Islam. We should strive to avoid the cultural chauvinism and thoughtless stereotypes that characterize, say, Ziggyfish's opposition to Islam.

And your position on ISIS / the Islamic State -- ?

(It continues to grow and has already claimed part of Syria and Iraq.)

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, you know what it is -- ?

I'm going to take your resounding silence on the matter of ISIS -- along with the rest of the left -- as being indicative of a calculus that only goes by *body count*.

So, whatever U.S. imperialism racks up -- as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc. -- is placed next to what *ISIS* has racked up, and therefore Islamic fundamentalism is seen as new-kid-on-the-block and not even worthy of a comment compared to the *real* foe....

But, guess what -- you're not factoring in the overall paradigm of *civil society*, which brings us back to how *everyone* would be obligated to behave under an Islamic fundamentalist regime vs. that of a *secular* -- admittedly imperialist -- one.

So, to boil it down, you're only looking at *foreign policy* and not *domestic policy* -- where the Western paradigm wins-out by a *long shot*.

[Ricemilk]

Does that much of the left really have a benign view of ISIS?

Who, the communist militias who are probably shooting at them this very moment, or their massive numbers of international supporters? Either way, 'benign' would seem an odd word.

one law for all in our largely secular culture. Sharia? Laugh at the thought--primitive drivel. We rid ourselves 500yrs ago of religious courts-- corrupt and venal places they were too.

This is of course a complete fabrication; religious courts are free to operate in countries with nominal freedom of religion like the US, only with voluntary power. This is the status quo which people ranting against "sharia law" as a domestic political issue mean to overturn. It just isn't fashionable to admit they'd as happily do this to Jews, Catholics etc. as to Muslims; or perhaps it is hoped that laws intended to repress religious practice will only be enforced against Muslims if a racist enough discourse is maintained.

And your position on ISIS / the Islamic State -- ?

(It continues to grow and has already claimed part of Syria and Iraq.)

And your position on the Communist militias who shoot at them every day -- ?

(They're being bombed by Erdogan and his fervently pro-Daesh NATO cohorts.)

[Counterculturalist]

And your position on ISIS / the Islamic State -- ?

(It continues to grow and has already claimed part of Syria and Iraq.)

I don't think that Western military forces can beat ISIS or end fanatical Islamism in a broader sense. It is largely incumbent upon Muslims to do this. I do think that the Western left might play a role in this, although I freely admit that my thoughts here are not as fully developed as they should be. I think the left must present itself as an alternative to Islamism. Again, I think Rafiq's post is insightful in this regard: Muslims must recognize communism to be a way to end their oppression in a dignified manner that doesn't entail submission. In a sense, what the left ought to be doing is making its presence known and making itself available in areas where ISIS is in danger of gaining a foothold. Try to create a dialogue with the Islamic world in general, especially those who would be sympathetic to secularism. The handful of Muslims I am friendly with, for example, don't really care much about their religion and practice it mostly out of habit. I'm sure there are many others like them.

If all of this seems vague, it's because it's a difficult question, and I'm not one to pretend to have all the answers. I do think you made a good point in asserting that the left lacks a clear analysis of what to do with ISIS. Perhaps we should all be looking deeper into this question.

Out of curiosity, do you have a position or recommendation?

[Ricemilk]

I'm going to take your resounding silence on the matter of ISIS -- along with the rest of the left --

Now, beyond spouting cryptoracist propaganda on forums, where you call them by their preferred, aspirational name ISIS, what are you doing about Daesh?

[dodger]

http://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/law-soc...haria-guidance

Don't imagine this will be the last we hear on the subject of Sharia however a positive outcome a complete reversal of the Law Society's position .

T

he Law Society has withdrawn its guidance on inheritance under sharia law (see ‘Shariafication’ of British law attacked), after a widespread and fierce campaign called it a “gross dereliction of duty” and demanded its removal. The written “practice note” had advised that under sharia law illegitimate children, divorced spouses and non-muslims could not inherit, and that women were entitled to just half as much as men.

Among others, the Lawyers Secular Society and the National Secular Society had objected on the grounds that it encouraged discrimination and “legitimised sharia law” in Britain. They pointed out that this was religious, not legal, guidance, and therefore had no place in Law Society advice.

In an open letter published in September, campaigners pointed out that the guidance encouraged legal and state welfare services to accommodate “highly gender discriminatory religions laws that are being increasingly defined by religious fundamentalists in our society”.

The President of the Law Society has apologised for issuing the guidance.