An Analysis of Islam from a Modern, Leftist Perspective

[Holden Caulfield]

In general, modern-day Stalinists and other inauthentic leftists have been all but silent on the danger which Islam poses. While it is right and proper for us to stand with the Iraqi people against American imperialism, we have to take a completely different angle on the cultural and social front. The silence from some on the left is rather sad, considering the historic links between Nazism and Islam in the past, some of which continue into the present day.

In my travels, I often encounter Muslim reactionaries engaging in riotous behavior in the streets of New York, Los Angeles, or many other countries. In England, I saw Islamists flying the Hezbollah flag and Nazi flag side by side, goose-stepping to the chants of "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar". In New York, which has the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel, Islamists marched in paramilitary uniforms shouting "Kill the Jews! Kill the Liberals! Kill the Socialists!" In Vancouver, I saw people holding up signs saying "Palestine belongs to Muslims!" while shouting "Skud Israel, Gas Tel Aviv". I have heard reports that in Los Angeles, an angry Muslim mob torched a synagogue on Yom Kippur.

Some religionists and their allies have said, "The real Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding." Again, however wrong America's invasion of Iraq may be, there is no need to defend the Islamic religion itself.

Bakunin said, "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." Writing of the Christian churches in Europe, he said "In talking to us of God they propose, they desire, to elevate us, emancipate us, ennoble us, and, on the contrary, they crush and degrade us. With the name of God they imagine that they can establish fraternity among men, and, on the contrary, they create pride, contempt; they sow discord, hatred, war; they establish slavery." These words today are applicable to Islam.

In Sharia, or "Islamic Law," there is no division between matters social, political and religious should exist. This is inimical to the very idea of separating church and state. The integration of church and state is thus a part of the Islamic creed. Under Shari'a (Islamic) law the penalty for Apostasy (Muslims who reject Islam, for instance they "might state that the universe has always existed from eternity"), is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. In this alone, Islam has proven itself to be a throwback to the primitive days of the Church under Galileo.

Islam insists that the Quran is almost entirely a document dictated by God to Muhammad. Like most 'holy books' it is full of absurdities and cruelties which are well documented on the web by Muslim apostates. For instance, it says about Jews in 2:191 "Kill them where you find them," and in 5:33 against anyone who is not Muslim, "they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, [and then] be expelled out of the land." God also dictates that women are second class citizens, in Quran 4:34 he dictates "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion andmonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Of course anyone who is familiar with the Christianity will know that Christianity is no so much better. Authentic socialists should pay no more favors to Christianity tha to Islam. The Christian New Testament denigrates Jews in the worst anti-semitic propaganda which dominated the middle ages up until the time of Hitler. The Christian New Testament contains justifications for slavery e.g. Matthew, 24:46 "Blessed is that slave whom the master finds at work when he comes...But if that evil slave...begins to...eat and drink...[excessively]...then the master...will cut him in two." The difference is that the attempt to impose a Christian state has been defeated almost everywhere. The fundamentalist movements that seek to promote the idea may be influential (as shown by their attacks in the US on the teaching of evolution) but in general do not attempt to impose their complete religious program.

With Islam however we see the continued existence of religious states in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We also see a growing movement that seeks to create new Islamic states, even in multi-faith countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Israel/Palestine and which actively seeks to impose Islamic law on Muslim communities everywhere. In Northern Nigeria this has resulted in high profile cases where Islamic courts have sentenced women to death by stoning for 'adultery'. About 1 in 5 of the world's population is Muslim.

The general label applied to this movement is Islamic fundamentalism. It's not a great label for a wide range of reasons, not least because it lumps together some very different trends and ignores the fact that many of the most objectionable elements are part of mainstream Islam. That said I'm going to use it anyway because there are no better alternatives that people will readily understand.

The rise of fundamentalism in the modern period owes much to the struggle against colonialism and the failure of the Arab nationalist projects to deliver a better life for the working class, including the peasantry of the region. Frequently it is based on a revolt against colonial control on the one hand and the westernisation of the country on the other. The failure of successful national liberation struggles to relieve the desperate poverty of the masses on the one hand and the obvious growing enrichment of the westernised elites on the other leads easily to the idea that the answer lies in a return to 'traditional values'.

The first of these movements to be successful was Wahhabism which brought Ibn Saud to power in what was to become Saudi Arabia. In this case, as with the early spread of Islam across North Africa, Wahhabism was to provide essential glue to hold together a society created by conquest in a manner similar to nationalism. Wahhabism was imposed by force with massacres on the taking of Mecca and widespread destruction of religious sites that were considered un-Islamic. Religious police raided homes, beating those they suspected of smoking tobacco. Wahhabism was also pretty much the only genuine 'primitivist' version of Islam as it was anti-industrial. When they rose against Ibn Saud in 1927 one reason for their revolt was Saud's allowing of telephones into the country! Modern fundamentalists may talk of a return to traditional values but the societies they seek to create include aspects of advanced modern technology, in particular if it is of military use!

Saudi came to play a similar role in relation to the export of fundamentalism that the USSR played in the spread of Leninism. Particularly with the growth of the oil industry in Saudi large sums of money were provided to finance the infrastructure of fundamentalist groups in other countries and a huge network of religious schools in Saudi itself. Saudi, like Moscow, became the place of training, support and refuge for fundamentalist activists. And funds could be exported which provided schools, meeting places and even religious based welfare systems to the increasingly desperate working class of the cities and countryside in the Arab world. In the conditions of desperate poverty that exist this cre - ates the infrastructure that fundamentalism grows out of.

One Lebanese Marxist, writing of this and the failure of the somewhat more secular Arab nationalism of Nassar, described the situation. "Then came the October war [against Israel] with its parade of intense Islamic propaganda, and the oil boom which enabled Libya and especially Saudi Arabia to distribute their petrodollars to the integralist (fundamentalist) groups everywhere in order to undermine left-wing extremists, or pro-Soviet groups as in Syria. Even at the time when the modernist statist bourgeois faction was still credible, Saudi Arabia was used as the prototype by repressed or persecuted Islamic archaism; and its emergence following the October war on the ruins of Nassar's Egypt as the leader of the Arab world gave the Brotherhoods of Sunni Islam not only more subsidies, but the model of an Islam true to itself. The propaganda pounded out by western media - depicting Saudi Arabia as the new giant with the power of life and death over western civilisation - stimulated, in old and young alike, the nostalgic old desire for the return of Islam to its former strength."[3]

The role of the west in relation to fundamentalism has been quite complex. Up to the Iranian revolution in 1979 it was simple, promoting fundamentalism was seen as a way of advancing the western agenda by undermining Soviet influence and the various nationalist leaders of the region who wanted to re-direct some of the wealth towards development. "M. Copland, the former chief of the CIA in the Middle East, revealed in his book The Game of Nations that from the 1950s the CIA began to encourage the Muslim Brotherhood to counteract the communist influence in Egypt." Even after the Iranian revolution, "French president Giscard d'Estaing, confided to members of his cabinet before taking the plane for the Gulf in March 1980: "To combat Communism we have to oppose it with another ideology. In the West, we have nothing. This is why we must support Islam."[4]

The facts of western support for the Afghan mujheedeen and the more limited support for the Taliban that followed have been so well documented since S11 that I don't intend to repeat them here. But it is important to realise that this does not mean that the fundamentalists are simply a creation of the west that has gotten out of control. They have their own dynamic and their own wealthy backers in Saudi Arabia. Lack of western support would have hurt their war against the Soviet occupation but the war would still have gone on.

Fundamentalism remains a mass movement. In almost all of North Africa and the Middle East it is the only mass movement that threatens the stability of the regimes there in any way. It is nakedly hostile to the left in all its forms, Hezbollah for instance has carried out attacks on even the tame Lebanese Communist Party, bombing its offices. The Iranian revolution in 1979 saw a movement of workers councils (Shora) emerge that sought to take over the management of production. "The regime introduced a law aimed at undermining worker self-management by banning shora involvement in management affairs - while at the same time trying to force class collaboration by insisting that management must be allowed to participate in the shoras." [5] Since then, according to the Iranian Revolutionary Socialists' League, the "following groups have all been attacked throughout the reign of the mullahs:

* workers, trade unionists, left-wing and socialist activists
* women and women's/feminist groups
* national and religious minorities
* political oppositionists, including various monarchist, Islamic and liberal groups
* writers, journalists, artists, intellectuals and students;
* peasants and tribal groups;
* homosexuals and others who follow an 'un-Islamic' life-style." 6

For opportunistic reasons sections of the western left are happy to build alliances with Islamic fundamentalist groups that are not only essentially uncritical but that discourage others from raising criticisms. This is sometimes defended by the straightforward observance that such groups oppose 'western imperialism' and in countries with large Muslim populations sometimes succeed in attracting the masses to their organisations.

The problem with this position is that it fails to recognise the hostility of such groups to the left - a hostility that includes physical attacks and murder- in the countries where they are strong. This is not terribly different from the situation with fascist groups in the west. Of course for the western left with no basis in immigrant Muslim communities this is easy to ignore - they are not the targets of such activities themselves.

Leftists and Marxists have a long and proud tradition of fighting the power of organised religion, including in countries like Spain fighting fascist gangs formed on a religious basis. While we recognise the freedom of people to hold a religion we also recognise that there has to be a freedom from religion - an idea that runs against the basis of Islam. Anarchists in the Middle East and beyond will need to determine for themselves the most effective ways of counteracting the influence of the fundamentalists there. In the west we can at least make sure their attempts to impose themselves on the immigrant communities are opposed.

[Magavariko]

Leftists and Marxists have a long and proud tradition of fighting the power of organised religion, including in countries like Spain fighting fascist gangs formed on a religious basis. While we recognise the freedom of people to hold a religion we also recognise that there has to be a freedom from religion - an idea that runs against the basis of Islam. Anarchists in the Middle East and beyond will need to determine for themselves the most effective ways of counteracting the influence of the fundamentalists there. In the west we can at least make sure their attempts to impose themselves on the immigrant communities are opposed.

You don't know anything about the genesis and development of the spanish civil war. And you don't realize that marxism is just another organized religion wich has tried everywhere it's been "performanced" to eliminate other religions. You are also fundamentalist, but in the western world nobody want to know anything about you.

[Holden Caulfield]

You don't know anything about the genesis and development of the spanish civil war. And you don't realize that marxism is just another organized religion wich has tried everywhere it's been "performanced" to eliminate other religions. You are also fundamentalist, but in the western world nobody want to know anything about you.

I know that the Catholics of Spain, supported by the Italian Fascists (clerical fascist Catholic extremists) Nazis of Germany (also Catholic by the way!) tried to restore the reactionary monarchy and create a right-wing government. The heroic anti-fascists and socialists fought against these brutal thugs.

I am against fundamentalism which is why I see Islam as being a grave threat to the secular, liberal societies that the West has built up over the last 50-100 years. The West did not build what we have today upon the Bible, but rather we had to compromise on many issues and in some ways throw out Christianity.

Religion in any sense is the opiate of the people, but Islam is particularly dangerous because it is especially militant and reactionary.

[umit]

but Islam is particularly dangerous because it is especially militant and reactionary.

What is dangerous,İslam or İslamic fundamentalism?İf you go on to use the words like this all the Muslims will be dangerous for you.
We've been ruling by an İslamic Party for years and they are more successfull than most of the secular parties.They have two eyes,one nose,a lot of women parlaments and they don't stone women.Please don't generalise like this.

[Holden Caulfield]

What is dangerous,İslam or İslamic fundamentalism?İf you go on to use the words like this all the Muslims will be dangerous for you.
We've been ruling by an İslamic Party for years and they are more successfull than most of the secular parties.They have two eyes,one nose,a lot of women parlaments and they don't stone women.Please don't generalise like this.

There may be moderate Muslims out there. Turkey is by far the most moderate Islamic nation (and though they are as religious as the Christians in the US) they have been doing fairly well.

However, a textual analysis of Islam under scrutiny reveals that it is the theoretical basis of Islam which is problematic. If we really are able to apply literary theory and deconstruct the Quran in the same way that Derrida deconstructed other texts, we find something that is not only full of bigotry but full of errors. If the textual sublimation holds, we have to choose between the fundamentalism of the Quran and the dialectic paradigm of its context.

With that being said, there is maybe hope for Islam (for now) in the reformers such as Irshad Manji. Ultimately, though I would hope that the "opiate of the masses" would become a thing of the past. Religion has done more to divide people and has fueled class warfare for centuries.

[Excel]

There may be moderate Muslims out there.
There's no such thing as a moderate muslim, between i have no idea what that means :lol:

[Anodyne]

I know that the Catholics of Spain, supported by the Italian Fascists (clerical fascist Catholic extremists) Nazis of Germany (also Catholic by the way!)..

The Nazis weren't defenders of the Catholic faith. Catholics were looked down upon by the Nazi elite. The Catholic church was seen as a competitor for minds.


...tried to restore the reactionary monarchy and create a right-wing government.

Monarchists and Carlists were just a group among other groups fighting under Franco. Not everyone fighting for Franco was a Fascist, as is defined. Franco wasn't even a Fascist. He curbed the power of the Falange because he saw it as a threat. He can be seen as a reactionary; that's about it.



The heroic anti-fascists and socialists fought against these brutal thugs.

Oh, and Spanish Communists under Stalin's sway weren't thugs? Executing people suspected of being Troskyites and attacking Anarchists in Barcelona. Then there are the poor souls who were murdered at the start of the war for no reason other than that they were middle class. Professors were also murdered. People like Ortega y Gasset had to flee for their lives unless they were willing to risk their lives being tried in a kangaroo court.

Heh, this is way off topic.

[Holden Caulfield]

The Nazis weren't defenders of the Catholic faith. Catholics were looked down upon by the Nazi elite. The Catholic church was seen as a competitor for minds.

I'll address this in another thread.

---------- Post added 2010-01-22 at 16:32 ----------


Oh, and Spanish Communists under Stalin's sway weren't thugs? Executing people suspected of being Troskyites and attacking Anarchists in Barcelona. Then there are the poor souls who were murdered at the start of the war for no reason other than that they were middle class. Professors were also murdered. People like Ortega y Gasset had to flee for their lives unless they were willing to risk their lives being tried in a kangaroo court.

Heh, this is way off topic.

Well, I myself lean towards Trotsky as I believe that Stalin wasn't a true socialist. The issue though was that the reactionaries were trying to undermine universal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of association, Separation of Church and State and a right to divorce as well as extending universal suffrage to women through violent means.

In its place there was a Fascist State where all opponents were either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and including violent police repression. It's true that some of the communists might have been violent, but they at least had the correct thoughts and intentions.

[Anodyne]

I'll address this in another thread.

That's fine.


Well, I myself lean towards Trotsky as I believe that Stalin wasn't a true socialist. The issue though was that the reactionaries were trying to undermine universal values such as freedom of speech and freedom of association, Separation of Church and State and a right to divorce as well as extending universal suffrage to women through violent means.



In its place there was a Fascist State where all opponents were either suppressed or tightly controlled by all means, up to and including violent police repression.

I'm not interested in a speech. I presented you with facts. Spanish Communists brutalized people, including fellow communists . The only reason why the civilian death toll was higher among Franco's side than that of the "Republicans" was because Franco won. If the war had shifted in favor of the other side, the civilian death toll would have been higher among people who supported Franco and we could include Anarchists, liberals, and Toskyites.


It's true that some of the communists might have been violent, but they at least had the correct thoughts and intentions.

Anyone can say they have good intentions. We have peopel who preach freedom of speech, democracy, etc. all day long. What matters are actions. Not what you say but what you do. Both sides of this conflict were led by bastards.

[ChechenRebelZ]

With that being said, there is maybe hope for Islam (for now) in the reformers such as Irshad Manji. Ultimately, though I would hope that the "opiate of the masses" would become a thing of the past. Religion has done more to divide people and has fueled class warfare for centuries.Irshad Manji is one of those "$cholar$ for dollar$". Why is it that the so-called fundamentalists distribute their literature for free whereas ms Manji (who is a Lesbian btw) is more interested in writing books to gain profit and appearing on American talkshows than spreading her so-called "message". I can't believe I brought her book 'the trouble with Islam today' years ago, which reads like it was written for an American non Muslim audience. She failed to convince me of anything apart from the fact that she has absolutely no knowledge of Islam. Anyway she is trying to make Muslims deviate from the path. But Allah warns us against people like her and people like you Holden in the Quran, "Never will the Jews and Christians be happy with you until you follow their ways (leave Islam)". Should I fork out my own money to hear more of Irshads "ideas" or should I just listen to the so-called Salafis and extremists on the internet for free. I find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlIzCun2hNg) inspirational not her work.

[DrDawud]

Irshad Manji is one of those "$cholar$ for dollar$". Why is it that the so-called fundamentalists distribute their literature for free whereas ms Manji (who is a Lesbian btw) is more interested in writing books to gain profit and appearing on American talkshows than spreading her so-called "message". I can't believe I brought her book 'the trouble with Islam today' years ago, which reads like it was written for an American non Muslim audience. She failed to convince me of anything apart from the fact that she has absolutely no knowledge of Islam. Anyway she is trying to make Muslims deviate from the path. But Allah warns us against people like her and people like you Holden in the Quran, "Never will the Jews and Christians be happy with you until you follow their ways (leave Islam)". Should I fork out my own money to hear more of Irshads "ideas" or should I just listen to the so-called Salafis and extremists on the internet for free. I find this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlIzCun2hNg) inspirational not her work.

Manji is also a cultural Marxist, and one who tows the party line of the Canadian government at that. It's no surprise that this Caulfield character, also being some sort of Marxist would praise Manji as well.

She is essentially Soviet Canuckistan's ambassador to its Muslim Community; a person who seeks to corrupt Islam from within and force them to join into the soulless "multicultural" society of Canadian materialist secularism.

[Holden Caulfield]

...whereas ms Manji (who is a Lesbian btw)
It's Dr. Manji (yes, she actually has a doctorate).

And what's wrong with being a lesbian?


trying to make Muslims deviate from the path
What path is that? Blowing up busses in Israel? Stoning women? Suppressing the common worker? If she's telling people to stop doing those things, then it's a good thing.


the soulless "multicultural" society of Canadian materialist secularism...
Wow. That really shows whose side you're on. We Westerners welcome you into our nations and all we ask in return is that you become a part of our societies, to assimilate and incorporate yourselves into the great melting pot that's America (or in this case Canada)...and you refuse. You guys don't want multiculturalism, you want monoculturalism with the only culture being based on some fairy tales that some drugged up alcoholic child molester hallucinated 1400 years ago. :whoco:

[ChechenRebelZ]

It's Dr. Manji (yes, she actually has a doctorate).Yeah I heard she got an honorary doctorate from some university. Shame other people get their doctorates only after spending $10,000s and studying in a university for many years.

And what's wrong with being a lesbian?I'm sure you are probably aware by now that the Monotheistic Abrahamic religions look down on homosexuality. Just remember if every human was homosexual today the human 'race' would die out in a generation.

Even in the west, if we take the UK as an example - we can see that the equality that they call for can't even be achieved in their own backyards. They promote so-called equality and what not but the government is biting its tongue at the moment because the house of Lords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords) has decided to side with the church in banning to employment of homosexuals and so-called "transsexuals" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479761.stm).

What path is that?The path of Tawheed, the path of worshipping none but Allah, the path of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, the path of following the five pillars of Islam, the path of being charitable, the path of being God fearing.

Blowing up busses in Israel? Stoning women? Suppressing the common worker?I dislike these kind of statements. How about the densely populated Palestinian residential areas that Israelis have bombed and destroyed. Do you have any idea about how many Palestinians villages and towns where destroyed in 1948? How many people were made homeless and stateless? Does the sanctity of Palestine life and property have less importance than some Israeli bus. Why do you say stoning women? The verdict on the adulterer (which isn't actually mentioned in the Quran) suggests that the adulterer either male OR FEMALE is to be stoned to death. This is only after certain stringent requirements are followed. Its not like they only stone women, yet we hear this charge all the time, this is just one of the many misconceptions of Islam (but I can't help you if you choose to go go the likes of Robert Spencer to "learn" about Islam). How does Islam or Muslims oppress against the common worker? I think you'd find Muslims are very often the common worker that you speak about.

If she's telling people to stop doing those things, then it's a good thing.Not if it goes against scripture and long established tradition.

Wow. That really shows whose side you're on. We Westerners welcome you into our nations and all we ask in return is that you become a part of our societies, to assimilate and incorporate yourselves into the great melting pot that's America (or in this case Canada)...and you refuse. You guys don't want multiculturalism, you want monoculturalismI thought multiculturalism meant that you were accepting of other cultures. Assimilation is calling for monoculturalism. The west needs to decide what its calling for? Is it calling for multiculturalism or assimilation? Or is multiculturalism a means to an end, that in the long run will hopefully lead to assimilation. Don't forget you 'westerners' stole the USA and Canada off its native inhabitants to establish a land based on the ideologies of the founding fathers. Who knows maybe others will come in the future and take that land off you and found a new state based on a different ideology.

_________________________________

Now I feel that I should challenge your original post in this thread.

Did you just plagiarise this from here (http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/islam.html). Shouldn't you be acknowledging your sources, or at least you could post those numbered references.

1) Peter Manson, weekly worker 433, May 2002.
2) Salman, ISF journal, November 2001, http://www.isf.org.uk (http://www.isf.org.uk/)
3) Latif Lakhdar, Khamsin: Journal of Revolutionary Socialists of the Middle East. (1981)
4) ibid
5) Michael Schmidt, Religous fundamentalist regimes: a lesson from the Iranian revolution 1978-1979. Zabalaza Journal, South Africa, Number 2, March 2002
6) http://www.kargar.org/english.htm
In general, modern-day Stalinists and other inauthentic leftists have been all but silent on the danger which Islam poses.Would Barack Obama be a Stalinist under your definition of Stalinism? How about "New Labour" over in the UK? Who even said Stalin was an inauthentic leftist?

While it is right and proper for us to stand with the Iraqi people against American imperialism, we have to take a completely different angle on the cultural and social front.How about standing with the Afghani people? Or the Pakistani people? And we continuously hear about the posibility of new fronts being opened (aggressive western rhetoric against poor Muslims) in Iran, in Yemen and even in Somalia, in what George Bush called a "crusade" and he said "either your with us or your with the "terrorists""and you label Islam a threat?

The silence from some on the left is rather sad, considering the historic links between Nazism and Islam in the past, some of which continue into the present day.Oh please! What historic links, some obscure "mufti" from Jerusalem and a division of Muslim volunteers in the Waffen SS? The words 'Christian' and 'Lord' (where Hitler refers to a lord and also says he is doing the Lords bidding) are mentioned many times in Mein Kampf does this mean Christianity has historic links (it does but Islams so-called links pale in comparision) with Nazism?

In my travels, I often encounter Muslim reactionaries engaging in riotous behavior in the streets of New York, Los Angeles, or many other countries. In England, I saw Islamists flying the Hezbollah flag and Nazi flag side by side, goose-stepping to the chants of "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar". In New York, which has the world's largest Jewish population outside of Israel, Islamists marched in paramilitary uniforms shouting "Kill the Jews! Kill the Liberals! Kill the Socialists!" In Vancouver, I saw people holding up signs saying "Palestine belongs to Muslims!" while shouting "Skud Israel, Gas Tel Aviv". I have heard reports that in Los Angeles, an angry Muslim mob torched a synagogue on Yom Kippur.What you went to these places or heard about these protests on television and on youtube? One day I just woke up and do you want to know what I saw? I saw neo Nazis among the protesters protesting against so-called 'Islamic extremists' in towns across England. I saw a politician in Holland who wants to ban the Quran, he wants to ban the Hijab and Niqab, he wants to close down all the Mosques and Madressas. I saw our religious teachers, spiritual councellors/advisors and imams sent to prisons, detained without charge and deported. I saw a Hungarian Jew wanting to ban the Niqab in France. I've heard about our Mosques being targeted in arson attacks, vandalised, pigs heads left in or around the Mosque, most notably but not limited to; the UK, France, Germany, the USA and Canada. I heard an American conservative say that "we should invade their countries and convert them to Christianity" (Ann Coulter). I saw random people with no Islamic education becoming 'Islamic terrorism' experts overnight. I saw a multifocal attack against Islam and the Muslims being waged in all sections of the media, by all the western governments. I saw the Muslims being pushed into a corner.

Some religionists and their allies have said, "The real Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding." Again, however wrong America's invasion of Iraq may be, there is no need to defend the Islamic religion itself.Well people in power and even journalists have a responsibility to not aid in sowing the seeds of discord amongst communities. This is what happens when people say irresponsible things. People should watch what they say because others may view their remarks as a provocation or even an outright declaration of war. This sort of thing will just alienate Muslims and you need to take into consideration that there are significant Muslim communities already living in the west. They are a youthful and growing population within the west and you need to realise that this kind of thing will just lead the Muslims down the road of becoming radicalised and joining groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda. While there is no need to defend Islam there is a need to not attack it, which will just play into the extremist and fundamentalist hands.

Bakunin said, "If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." Writing of the Christian churches in Europe, he said "In talking to us of God they propose, they desire, to elevate us, emancipate us, ennoble us, and, on the contrary, they crush and degrade us. With the name of God they imagine that they can establish fraternity among men, and, on the contrary, they create pride, contempt; they sow discord, hatred, war; they establish slavery." These words today are applicable to Islam.I think I heard this from the documentary of Richard Dawkins book the God delusion.

In Sharia, or "Islamic Law," there is no division between matters social, political and religious should exist. This is inimical to the very idea of separating church and state. The integration of church and state is thus a part of the Islamic creed. Under Shari'a (Islamic) law the penalty for Apostasy (Muslims who reject Islam, for instance they "might state that the universe has always existed from eternity"), is execution for men and life imprisonment for women.Actually there are some that argue that Muslims need not establish Islamic states and even the democratic systems that are in place in the west are not contradictory to Islam. Muslims should live by the Shariah means that Muslims should just live by and according to the Shariah within their own lives.

In this alone, Islam has proven itself to be a throwback to the primitive days of the Church under Galileo.This is some weak parallel. The Muslim world was pretty much at the forefront of science and technological advancements from the 7th century to the 14th/15th century. Its only when the Ottomans faced major military threats (we are talking about it being at war with 1/2 of Europe at certain times) that their resources and energies shifted away from the arts and sciences to exclusively being on warfare. You can learn more about Islamic scientific contributions to the world (which the west likes to play down and minimise) from here (http://www.1001inventions.com/). You made a terrible parallel between Gallelo and the church and of Islam and science, because Islam despite what you think encourages learning, that we should always be seeking knowledge and learning new things everyday (yes even the women).

Islam insists that the Quran is almost entirely a document dictated by God to Muhammad. Like most 'holy books' it is full of absurdities and cruelties which are well documented on the web by Muslim apostates. For instance, it says about Jews in 2:191 "Kill them where you find them," and in 5:33 against anyone who is not Muslim, "they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, [and then] be expelled out of the land." God also dictates that women are second class citizens, in Quran 4:34 he dictates "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion andmonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Of course anyone who is familiar with the Christianity will know that Christianity is no so much better. Authentic socialists should pay no more favors to Christianity tha to Islam. The Christian New Testament denigrates Jews in the worst anti-semitic propaganda which dominated the middle ages up until the time of Hitler. The Christian New Testament contains justifications for slavery e.g. Matthew, 24:46 "Blessed is that slave whom the master finds at work when he comes...But if that evil slave...begins to...eat and drink...[excessively]...then the master...will cut him in two." The difference is that the attempt to impose a Christian state has been defeated almost everywhere. The fundamentalist movements that seek to promote the idea may be influential (as shown by their attacks in the US on the teaching of evolution) but in general do not attempt to impose their complete religious program.Your attempts at Quranic and Biblical exegesis is just a distortion of the actual texts to try and serve your anti-religion agenda. Some of these charges have been discussed in other threads.

With Islam however we see the continued existence of religious states in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We also see a growing movement that seeks to create new Islamic states, even in multi-faith countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Israel/Palestine and which actively seeks to impose Islamic law on Muslim communities everywhere. In Northern Nigeria this has resulted in high profile cases where Islamic courts have sentenced women to death by stoning for 'adultery'.So? The Iranian people overthrew the American backed tyrant Shah of Iran. The Shah of Iran was backed by the CIA and he deposed the democratically elected government of Iran at the time. I don't think Ahmadinejad is a bad guy, most people can see through the western propaganda against him and his democratically elected government (he won by a wider margin than Obama). Many Muslims are calling for the Shariah, they want to live under the Shariah, why does it concern you how other people live their lives in other countries? Why does it bother you that many Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan want the Shariah? Its the Islamic community itself that wants Islamic law. It isn't always this minority elite imposing their wishes upon the general populace. In the UK, Muslims voluntarily go to Shariah courts because they want to adhere to the Islamic judgement of whatever matter they are going to the Shariah court for.

About 1 in 5 of the world's population is Muslim.Don't forget a huge swing isn't needed too make 20% (1/5) become and 25% (1/4). We are talking about a 300 million people out of 7 billion people to swing 20% to 25% and don't forget the Muslims have youth, and demographics are on our side.

The general label applied to this movement is Islamic fundamentalism. It's not a great label for a wide range of reasons, not least because it lumps together some very different trends and ignores the fact that many of the most objectionable elements are part of mainstream Islam. That said I'm going to use it anyway because there are no better alternatives that people will readily understand.

The rise of fundamentalism in the modern period owes much to the struggle against colonialism and the failure of the Arab nationalist projects to deliver a better life for the working class, including the peasantry of the region. Frequently it is based on a revolt against colonial control on the one hand and the westernisation of the country on the other. The failure of successful national liberation struggles to relieve the desperate poverty of the masses on the one hand and the obvious growing enrichment of the westernised elites on the other leads easily to the idea that the answer lies in a return to 'traditional values'.
Fascism has failed, Nationalism has failed, Communism has failed, Democracy is dying, Secularism is dying, Capitalism is dying, Shariah is the only solution left for these people. Can't you just accept that not everyone wants western values. Not everyone wants their countries to become Americanised, not everyone wants to see American sitcoms on television.

Should I continue? Most of your post wasn't really analysing Islam from a leftist pov. I will address the last part of your post (and save the rest for another time).

For opportunistic reasons sections of the western left are happy to build alliances with Islamic fundamentalist groups that are not only essentially uncritical but that discourage others from raising criticisms. This is sometimes defended by the straightforward observance that such groups oppose 'western imperialism' and in countries with large Muslim populations sometimes succeed in attracting the masses to their organisations.Surprise, surprise politicians tend to be opportunistic people. Does it ever occur to you that its mainly the liberal parties that allow mass immigration to happen because the immigrants are highly likely to vote for the liberal parties and the parties that allowed them into the country in the first place. Who cares about what the electorate want when you can just import a new electorate in their place.

The problem with this position is that it fails to recognise the hostility of such groups to the left - a hostility that includes physical attacks and murder- in the countries where they are strong. This is not terribly different from the situation with fascist groups in the west. Of course for the western left with no basis in immigrant Muslim communities this is easy to ignore - they are not the targets of such activities themselves.Wake up and smell the coffee because Communism when actually implemented also oppressed people who spoke out against it, it oppressed homosexuals, it oppressed people of faith, it persecuted religious minorities, it persecuted ethnic minorities (and in some cases - ethnically cleansed them) it burnt books that didn't fit in with its ideology, it executed people who wore glasses or watches and the middle and upper classes, it wanted to change the year to year zero in Cambodia. Large sections of the populations under its control were forced into labour and into collectivization on farms. It lead to "cultural revolutions", "great purges" and "great leaps forward" in which countless millions died. It lead to the confiscation of peoples properties and businesses. It resulted in absurd situations where doctors were paid the same as street cleaners. It led to the establishment of secret police who monitored what everyone said. It liquidated the Kulaks ("rich" peasantry) in the USSR, sent many people to the gulags. It put many people into concentration camps. It censors the internet in China. Communism seeks to export its ideology onto other people and countries that don't particularly want it.

Oh yeah a Fundamentalist means someone who follows the fundamentals of their faith. So I sure hope people that adhere to a religion are fundamentalists otherwise they aren't exactly following the fundamentals of their faith.

Leftists and Marxists have a long and proud tradition of fighting the power of organised religion, including in countries like Spain fighting fascist gangs formed on a religious basis. I wouldn't call this a proud tradition, look what Communism has done to eastern Europe. The people don't get married anymore, their populations are suffering demographic decline and there is mass alcoholism.

While we recognise the freedom of people to hold a religion we also recognise that there has to be a freedom from religion - an idea that runs against the basis of Islam. There is no compulsion in religion (chapter 2, Quran).

Anarchists in the Middle East and beyond will need to determine for themselves the most effective ways of counteracting the influence of the fundamentalists there. In the west we can at least make sure their attempts to impose themselves on the immigrant communities are opposed.I know why don't the Americans and her allies install corrupt oppressive leaders across the middle east. Oh wait thats already been done hasn't it.

To stop this radicalism you need to win the hearts and the minds of the Muslim youth. Invading Muslim countries and attacking their religion isn't the right way to go about it.

[Holden Caulfield]

Yeah I heard she got an honorary doctorate from some university.
She got an honorary doctorate because her work is worth recognizing, and someone recognized it.


I'm sure you are probably aware by now that the Monotheistic Abrahamic religions look down on homosexuality.
I don't care what some stupid book with a bunch of imaginary fairy tales says about modern lifestyles. Because I can just write my own book and say that anybody who believes in those religions should be looked down on and it would be just as valid :thumbsup:


Just remember if every human was homosexual today the human 'race' would die out in a generation.
Irrelevant. Homosexuality occurs naturally in every animal population from bacteria all the way up to humans. I'm sure there are gay gods and goddess too. :lol:


The path of Tawheed, the path of worshipping none but Allah, the path of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, the path of following the five pillars of Islam, the path of being charitable, the path of being God fearing.
Reactionary religious hogwash.


I dislike these kind of statements. How about the densely populated Palestinian residential areas that Israelis have bombed and destroyed.
Israel has a right to defend itself. If the Palestinians didn't launch missiles into Israeli territory or throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, they could live in peace. The Palestinians have already had a chance to share their land with the Jews and have peace. The Jews continue to give them a chance to have a portion of their historic territory, even to have land within Israel, as long as it's shared equally with the Jews. But they refuse. So what are the Israelis supposed to do. You tell me.


Do you have any idea about how many Palestinians villages and towns where destroyed in 1948?
The Palestinian villages were massacred by other Arab armies as they invaded Israel in 1948, just hours after Israel declared its independence.


How many people were made homeless and stateless?
Loaded question. Palestine was never a country. They were never citizens of a state called "Palestine" so how could they be made stateless?


Not if it goes against scripture and long established tradition.
Tradition sucks. Religion sucks. All religion does is hold people back from progress, from discovering the freedom inside themselves, and all tradition does is try to make people conform. Individual liberty is better than tradition.


I thought multiculturalism meant that you were accepting of other cultures.
Yes. I consider myself a multiculturalist. I like watching Bollywood movies. I hang prayer flags hand made by Tibetan refugees in my room. I eat Ethiopian food and am not afraid to wear non-european ethnic clothes in public. I listen to rap and hip-hop. I could go on and on.

Does Islam embrace other cultures, or do they want to make everyone Muslim? Iran even banned American music, for crying out loud. Multiculturalism and tolerance only works when everyone willingly comes into the fold, thinks alike with one mind, and respects others cultures and lifestyles as being equal to his own, mixing and mixing and mixing until we have something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Assimilation to this melting pot is absolutely necessary.



Fascism has failed, Nationalism has failed, Communism has failed, Democracy is dying, Secularism is dying, Capitalism is dying, Shariah is the only solution left for these people. Can't you just accept that not everyone wants western values. Not everyone wants their countries to become Americanised, not everyone wants to see American sitcoms on television.
Communism hasn't failed. Socialism hasn't failed. STALINISM has failed. Secular liberal democracy will flourish, driven by those with the will to seize their own means of production and establish an egalitarian state. I don't believe in Americanization either, because Americanization means Capitalistization and Consumerism, but the natural progression for each and every country, and indeed all of humanity is towards secular liberal socialist democracy.

Thanks for playing, but you still have yet to refute anything I've said.

[Loxias]

I don't care what some stupid book with a bunch of imaginary fairy tales says about modern lifestyles. Because I can just write my own book and say that anybody who believes in those religions should be looked down on and it would be just as valid :thumbsup:

Those stupid books with a bunch of imaginary fairy tales have been the main point of reference of civilisation, have pushed men to the paroxysm of their artistic creations, have been endorsed by some of the greatest thinkers in philosophy and science. Yet, you, insignificant person (like me and pretty much anyone on this forum) decides that they aren't worth anything because they say stuff that go against your ideas, that go against what your instincts drive you to like?
Why not give it a bit more credit, even if you want to remain critical.



Irrelevant. Homosexuality occurs naturally in every animal population from bacteria all the way up to humans. I'm sure there are gay gods and goddess too. :lol:

Homosexuality in bacterias?? I'd be surprised, I don't think there are that much gendered bacterias... ;) but yeah, I disagree with Chechenrebelz' argument here.
The main religious point about homosexuality is that, it is a sexuality that has no aim but to satisfy itself, and that in the religious point of view, sexuality without the aim of reproduction is a materialistic passion that doesn't conduct to spiritual growth, it doesn't bring man closer to God, but only closer to his earthly, material, temporary needs.
The idea that homosexuality is chiefly an identity is pretty recent, and most religions don't consider it valied. Humans can and do have homosexual pulsions, what religions teach is not to act on them or encourage them. They have to be transcended for a greater good, that is, God/spiritual pursuits.



Israel has a right to defend itself. If the Palestinians didn't launch missiles into Israeli territory or throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, they could live in peace. The Palestinians have already had a chance to share their land with the Jews and have peace. The Jews continue to give them a chance to have a portion of their historic territory, even to have land within Israel, as long as it's shared equally with the Jews. But they refuse. So what are the Israelis supposed to do. You tell me.

It's a difficult situation, especially for Sabra Israeli who were born there and didn't really chose the shit they are in.
But honestly, what do you expect from people who feel that their land have been stolen by a more powerful people, backed up by the most powerful country in the world? They feel desperate, that a crime has been commited against them. It's human, and Israel doesn't do much to better the situation.


Tradition sucks. Religion sucks. All religion does is hold people back from progress, from discovering the freedom inside themselves, and all tradition does is try to make people conform. Individual liberty is better than tradition.

Most people's freedom within themselves is limited to satisfying their material needs and basic instincts, they have no real freedom, they will all follow trends, or just simply not care about anything but their little pleasure, buy their food at the supermarket, watch TV, live lives empty of meaning, without any interests in transcending their digestive/genital existence for anything.
Of course, not everyone is like this, the others will identify with subcultures that attract them through their aesthetics and the values they promote, and they will behave towards those subcultures often in very similar way that people behave towards religions, adopting dress codes, mixing only with particular crowds, liking particular music, having particular ideologies, political orientations.
You see, nothing has changed, people rarely ever create their own destiny like existentialism and humanism would wish to promote, even the alternatives are just conformists to smaller structures.
People have recreated traditions, and religions, yet those new traditions and pseudo-religions are mostly very superficial as they still claim to promote individualism and rarely put a greater good for people to look for.
Real religions and traditions, on the other hand, promote brotherhood between the people, courage, self-sacrifice, mindfulness. They encourage objectively desirable qualities in people. They also provide for the aesthetic needs of people as well as for their need of community, value and hope. Traditions and religions offered a system adapted to people's psychological, spiritual and social needs throughout their lives from birth, through initiations to death.
You see, without even going into metaphysical and theological questions, traditions and religion have a lot of good to them, which, unless you are a nihilist, you can't deny are more adapted and more conducive to harmony and growth in a community than what has come to replace them.
And I am mainly talking from a simply utilitarian perspective. There is much more to religion and tradition than this.


Yes. I consider myself a multiculturalist. I like watching Bollywood movies. I hang prayer flags hand made by Tibetan refugees in my room. I eat Ethiopian food and am not afraid to wear non-european ethnic clothes in public. I listen to rap and hip-hop. I could go on and on.

Tibetan prayer flags are very traditional and religious objects, why do you like them while you say traditions and religions suck?
I wouldn't be surprised if to you those objects have no more meaning than their image and the image they send to people, as you haven't grown up in a traditional Tibetan culture.
Your multiculturalism is about appropriating for yourself objects and experiences from cultures without getting the full package, while it's very interesting, entertaining, it remains very superficial. I'd say you would be truly multicultural if you learned Ethiopian and went to live there in the mountain for a few years, then went to Bombay, speak Hindi for a few years, live just like the people, then go to Compton and continue...
That would be a truly enriching and genuine multicultural life and experience, on the other hand.

[David Noi]

Leftists and Marxists have a long and proud tradition of fighting the power of organised religion, including in countries like Spain fighting fascist gangs formed on a religious basis.

Why is the majority of todays Leftists not fighting the Islam but fighting those who do? Any idea?

[Holden Caulfield]

Why is the majority of todays Leftists not fighting the Islam but fighting those who do? Any idea?

The problem is that most people confuse islam the political ideology with the human beings who are being brutalized by the Imperialists.

The Iraqis as a people are being brutalized by the Americans, and it is proper for leftists to stand with them. We should want the Iraqis to develop secular democracy anyways, but not for America to force it on them.

Islam on the other hand IS another variety of imperialism and reactionary politics. Leftists have no business defending Islam.

[Holden Caulfield]

Tibetan prayer flags are very traditional and religious objects, why do you like them while you say traditions and religions suck?
Many traditions are only used to control and suppress people's inner emotions and potential. For example the "tradition" that men work and women are home-makers, or the "tradition" that you have to follow certain rules. Traditions are used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Tibetan Buddhism is not like that. Buddhists don't go around telling people that they have to starve themselves during Lent or Ramadan, or who they can and can't sleep with, they don't question my lifestyle choices or what I put into my body. They're not forcing me to get up at 8AM to go to Church and saying that I'll burn in hell for eternity if I don't. The only thing that Buddhism requires is that you become a vegetarian, and I've been vegan since I was 16 anyways, so that's not a huge issue.

I'm against organized religion, whereas Buddhism is more of a philosophy of self-affirmation. Buddhism relies on the potential of oneself without having to seek out gods or priests, and what is more, is actually promotes a classless society. There are many parables in Buddhism which parallel the victory of the working class over the oppressive bourgeois.

[Loxias]

Many traditions are only used to control and suppress people's inner emotions and potential. For example the "tradition" that men work and women are home-makers, or the "tradition" that you have to follow certain rules. Traditions are used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I can't agree with this last sentence. It's in the absence of tradition that money and money-making becomes the rule, and that the rich become richer and the poor poorer.


Tibetan Buddhism is not like that. Buddhists don't go around telling people that they have to starve themselves during Lent or Ramadan, or who they can and can't sleep with, they don't question my lifestyle choices or what I put into my body. They're not forcing me to get up at 8AM to go to Church and saying that I'll burn in hell for eternity if I don't. The only thing that Buddhism requires is that you become a vegetarian, and I've been vegan since I was 16 anyways, so that's not a huge issue.

Buddhists don't question your lifestyle choice, but do your lifestyle choices agree with what is considered right by Buddhism?
I thought Buddhist practice (as a householder, not a monk or an ascete) required daily practices and observances. It probably doesn't ask you to wake up early in the morning, but most likely does promote a discipline that will go against what you feel like in a way or another.
I am also pretty sure Buddhism doesn't encourage promiscuous sexual activities (which is in line with other religions).


I'm against organized religion, whereas Buddhism is more of a philosophy of self-affirmation. Buddhism relies on the potential of oneself without having to seek out gods or priests, and what is more, is actually promotes a classless society. There are many parables in Buddhism which parallel the victory of the working class over the oppressive bourgeois.

That's odd, I thought Buddhism was mainly about getting rid of your passions and attachments, realising the nothingness behind the notion of the self... Hardly what I would call self-affirmation.
As of the rest I don't know. Admittedly, I don't know that much about Buddhist scriptures, and I could very well be wrong. But what you say goes pretty much against the image I had of Buddhism, Tibetan or not.

[DrDawud]

Many traditions are only used to control and suppress people's inner emotions and potential. For example the "tradition" that men work and women are home-makers, or the "tradition" that you have to follow certain rules. Traditions are used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Tibetan Buddhism is not like that. Buddhists don't go around telling people that they have to starve themselves during Lent or Ramadan, or who they can and can't sleep with, they don't question my lifestyle choices or what I put into my body. They're not forcing me to get up at 8AM to go to Church and saying that I'll burn in hell for eternity if I don't. The only thing that Buddhism requires is that you become a vegetarian, and I've been vegan since I was 16 anyways, so that's not a huge issue.

I'm against organized religion, whereas Buddhism is more of a philosophy of self-affirmation. Buddhism relies on the potential of oneself without having to seek out gods or priests, and what is more, is actually promotes a classless society. There are many parables in Buddhism which parallel the victory of the working class over the oppressive bourgeois.

In other words, Holden, you have a romanticised view of the "exotic" Eastern religions only because they are different from what you're used to, and you perceive them to be a wink and a nod at your own decadent lifestyle. (That lifestyle, by the way, would considered inappropriate even in the atheistic communist societies which you also claim to admire).

Your approach to Buddhism is probably spurred on mostly by the superstitious qualities of Buddhism, and not its "mystical" qualities (there is a difference, strictly speaking), and because it is presented to them as far more "different" than than the monotheism in which you claim to have been raised.

[Loxias]

Did he ever hint at having a decadent lifestyle?
The only thing I can guess is that he doesn't like waking up at 8am. Not ideal, but not decadant...
Or maybe I missed out on something.

I'd like to believe that his interest in Buddhism goes beyond what you suggest, Dawud.

[DrDawud]

Did he ever hint at having a decadent lifestyle?
The only thing I can guess is that he doesn't like waking up at 8am. Not ideal, but not decadant...
Or maybe I missed out on something.

I'd like to believe that his interest in Buddhism goes beyond what you suggest, Dawud.

Well, here in the US where I live, interest in Buddhism, especially among the oversocialized liberal types, usually comes from a "rebellion" against Christianity, or by proxy through association with some activist movements.

[Saif ad-Dhib]

The ideas in Buddhism are not radically different from ideas in the Abrahamic faiths. It is rather the methodology and structure of the faith that differs the most. Buddhism being atheistic in or henotheistic depending on vehicle will have a different way of solving the human problem compared to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. It is interesting to note that the former share some concepts with Theravade Buddhism in spite of being theist (obliteration in God, liberation), while Christianity which can be considered henotheist or adulterated monotheism shares similarities with Mahayana Buddhism (sainthood, obliteration in God, collective salvation). This is not merely on the surface even though the religions are very different.

I would say that in spite of their rebellion, many of these younger people are choosing a variant much like their own faith. The compassion of the Bodhisattva is not that different than Christ's love. Those who can truly accept true Buddhism deserve respect, but those who seek simply another way of justifying libertine behavior will not find acceptance in Buddhism because of its rigid code.

[JWill]

Well, here in the US where I live, interest in Buddhism, especially among the oversocialized liberal types, usually comes from a "rebellion" against Christianity, or by proxy through association with some activist movements.

I would second this opinion. There seems to be a substantial interest in other religions by more liberal-minded individuals raised within Christianity. Whether or not this is a "rebellion" against the Christian religion in and of itself or more of a "rebellion" against a culture influenced by Christianity, is the question to be asked.

[solkiM]

I would second this opinion. There seems to be a substantial interest in other religions by more liberal-minded individuals raised within Christianity. Whether or not this is a "rebellion" against the Christian religion in and of itself or more of a "rebellion" against a culture influenced by Christianity, is the question to be asked.

I have to agree with the two of you. It seems incredibly fashionable to discredit ones own culture (christianity often) and scream mantra's such as free tibet, and all kinds of other fads. However though i don't mind a true and honest search for knowledge and truth and thereby undoing oneself of dogmatic believes that are actually hindering you.

In fact Buddha himself hinted towards that:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

[Geto-Thracian]

[QUOTE=ChechenRebelZ;33540]Yeah I heard she got an honorary doctorate from some
I dislike these kind of statements. How about the densely populated Palestinian residential areas that Israelis have bombed and destroyed. Do you have any idea about how many Palestinians villages and towns where destroyed in 1948? How many people were made homeless and stateless? Does the sanctity of Palestine life and property have less importance than some Israeli bus.

What about the tens of thousands of Jews which were kicked out of their arab nations (made stateless and homeless) all over the middle east and north africa after 1948 as a result of the Jewish victory? They are never mentioned even by western media.

These innocent Jews which had lived in these nations for thousands of years were forcibly dispossessed, assaulted and often killed by mobs of bitter Arabs because the Jews won a war fair and square after trying to share the land.

The Jews tried to settle for an initial two-state solution but the Palestinians wanted no part of it and would only accept a complete Jewish withdrawal from Palestine and Israel altogether. The Palestinians chose the sword as arbiter and lost, yet they still bellyache like it was not fair...well it WAS!

The Palestinians got what they deserved and they do not deserve to be repatriated unless you Arabs repatriate all the Jews who suffered the same fate through no fault of their own whatsoever.

[Holden Caulfield]

I would second this opinion. There seems to be a substantial interest in other religions by more liberal-minded individuals raised within Christianity. Whether or not this is a "rebellion" against the Christian religion in and of itself or more of a "rebellion" against a culture influenced by Christianity, is the question to be asked.

I am against sexism, racism, slavery, homophobia, murder, and violence - all of which are found in the Bible.


These innocent Jews which had lived in these nations for thousands of years were forcibly dispossessed, assaulted and often killed by mobs of bitter Arabs because the Jews won a war fair and square after trying to share the land.

The Jews tried to settle for an initial two-state solution but the Palestinians wanted no part of it and would only accept a complete Jewish withdrawal from Palestine and Israel altogether. The Palestinians chose the sword as arbiter and lost, yet they still bellyache like it was not fair...well it WAS!

The Palestinians got what they deserved and they do not deserve to be repatriated unless you Arabs repatriate all the Jews who suffered the same fate through no fault of their own whatsoever.
:thumbsup: It's great to see a sane voice here. Israel might not be perfect, but it is FAR, better than any Arab Muslim country.

The Arabs are imperialists, pure and simple. Just as Hitler wanted to unify the "Germanics" into a Christian Reich, so to the Arab world wants to unify the Arabs into a Muslim "Reich" or Caliphate - and "wipe israel off the map," as declared by so many Middle Eastern leaders. This is a reactionary, imperialist wet dream: the subjugation of an innocent people (the Jews) who are looking for independence.

There are two dozen Arab Muslim states. What's wrong with a single Jewish state? The reason for this is of course simple: reactionary, imperialism in the form of Anti-Semitism.

Israel is an occupied country where Arabs are the occupiers, and not the reverse. Israel and the Arab world is akin to the relationship of Kosova and Serbia, Tibet and China, the First Nations and Canada, and the Native Americans and the USA.

Then the fact remains also that the Arab imperialists attacked Israel only hours after it was founded, and lost. Embittered, they created a people - "Palestinians" who had indeed never existed in order to attempt to claim the land. In much the same way, Hitler created a people "Sudeten Germans" in order to justify their invasion of Checkeslovakia. Of course, there is no basis for the existence of Palestinians. Nobody has heard of a Palestinian culture, or of a famous Palestinian author, scientist, or musician. However, there is a Jewish culture, and hundreds of Jewish authors, scientists, and musicians.

The Arabs began the war because they refused to share the land with the Jewish people. The Jewish people, having been expelled from many European countries before - stood up and refused to be bullied again. And thus the Arabs lost fairly.

The existence of the Jewish state is fair and just. Israel has a right to exist by UN law. The defense of Jewish women and children is also fair and just. Israel has a right to defend itself.

Israel is fighting a legitimate war of resistance -- resisitance to being exterminated.

[moleson]

I am against sexism, racism, slavery, homophobia, murder, and violence - all of which are found in the Bible.
The Jews believe that god ordered them to drive out the Canaanites,occupy their land and kill them... very peaceful!

---------- Post added 2010-02-14 at 03:28 ----------



Then the fact remains also that the Arab imperialists attacked Israel only hours after it was founded, and lost. Embittered, they created a people - "Palestinians" who had indeed never existed in order to attempt to claim the land.
The Palestinians seem to be perfectly adapted to their environment while Israel has the second highest skin cancer rate in the world.

[ChechenRebelZ]

She got an honorary doctorate because her work is worth recognizing, and someone recognized it.Her work is worth recognising for who? The Muslims or for policy makers in Washington, Brussels, London and the security agencies like the CIA, MI6? I will give her one thing though, it was through her book that I first heard of the Islamic concept of Ijtihad but she just wants to use that concept to help her promote anti-Islam ideas as being valid.

I don't care what some stupid book with a bunch of imaginary fairy tales says about modern lifestyles. Because I can just write my own book and say that anybody who believes in those religions should be looked down on and it would be just as valid :thumbsup:Ok first write a book and then see if people will follow you. No ones stopping you, go for it. Lets see how far you get...

Irrelevant. Homosexuality occurs naturally in every animal population from bacteria all the way up to humans. I'm sure there are gay gods and goddess too. :lol:
Well I only believe in one God and not in GodZ and he isn’t too happy about homosexuality being practised by us humans. I am of the view that homosexuality is learnt anyway. Have they found the gay gene yet?

Reactionary religious hogwash.Hogwash to you, but very much the Truth to me.

Israel has a right to defend itself. If the Palestinians didn't launch missiles into Israeli territory or throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, they could live in peace. The Palestinians have already had a chance to share their land with the Jews and have peace. The Jews continue to give them a chance to have a portion of their historic territory, even to have land within Israel, as long as it's shared equally with the Jews. But they refuse. So what are the Israelis supposed to do. You tell me.If the Palestinians were allowed to live somekind of a normal life then they wouldn’t have to resort to throw those rocks (the only available means to defend themselves with). The Palestinians haven't had any chance to have peace, you mean at certain times they were pressured to accept what Israel wanted them to accept (but of course accepting peace would be acknowledging that these Zionists were right in appropriating Palestinian territory and it would give up Palestinian territorial claims).

The Israelis must return to their original homelands in Russia, central Europe, the UK and the USA. They should return the land that they appropriated off the Palestinians back to the Palestinians.

The Palestinian villages were massacred by other Arab armies as they invaded Israel in 1948, just hours after Israel declared its independence.Is this that hogwash you were speaking of?

Loaded question. Palestine was never a country. They were never citizens of a state called "Palestine" so how could they be made stateless?Deceptive response. The land Israel appropriated was part of the British Mandate of PALESTINE. Even though they labelled the state as Transjordan. It was still Palestine in the Palestinian hearts and minds (even if the treacherous British didn’t call it as such).

Tradition sucks. Religion sucks. All religion does is hold people back from progress, from discovering the freedom inside themselves, and all tradition does is try to make people conform. Individual liberty is better than tradition.If personal liberty is an open invitation to sin, to live a bad life and detach ourselves from our responsibilities then I don’t want one. I consider myself to have liberty but I try (and I should obviously try much much harder) to not transgress the bounds that I believe have been set forth for me. I have chosen my path and I will stick to it. No one is making me become a Muslim this is my own personal liberty making this conscious choice.

Your really more interested in Muslims following what you consider to be liberty and not what they consider liberty, liberation, freedom and peace.

Yes. I consider myself a multiculturalist. I like watching Bollywood movies. I hang prayer flags hand made by Tibetan refugees in my room. I eat Ethiopian food and am not afraid to wear non-european ethnic clothes in public. I listen to rap and hip-hop. I could go on and on.I suppose your not a multiculturalist when it comes to cultures emanating from Muslim nations.


Does Islam embrace other cultures, or do they want to make everyone Muslim? Iran even banned American music, for crying out loud. Multiculturalism and tolerance only works when everyone willingly comes into the fold, thinks alike with one mind, and respects others cultures and lifestyles as being equal to his own, mixing and mixing and mixing until we have something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Assimilation to this melting pot is absolutely necessary.If by culture you mean going to the pub and getting wasted every Saturday night or congregating in a park to smoke hashish, then no it doesn’t accept other cultures. But if your talking about culture in terms of styles of music, styles of literature, styles of architecture, styles of cuisine, styles of clothing then it does accept other cultures unless it violates Islamic law.

A lot of American music is evil and promotes immorality. The Iranians don’t want American immorality spread to their country. The USA banned the Peoples Muhajideen of Iran. The Iranian people can do without decadent American influences. The USA demonises Iran everyday through its government and media, what do you expect Iran to do?

Since when did multiculturalism mean we have to think alike?

Thanks for playing, but you still have yet to refute anything I've said.The thing is I thought you were going to examine Islam, or political Islam from leftist schools of thought, so I thought you were going to analyse Islam from a Marxist school of thought, then a Leninist school of thought, then a Trotskyist school of thought, then a Stalinist school of thought. I must say that I was very disappointed by the opening post in this thread.

Heres my plan if we were to adopt some ideas of Lenin:

My fellow Muslims we should not seek to integrate within the existing Kafir structures and systems and follow their erroneous ways, that we may be led astray. We should seek to carry Islam to the non-Muslims and promote Islam as the superior way of life and make them all wary of what Islam says about all of the wrongs that they are doing. Our aim should be making them integrate into Islam not vice versa. We should take lessons from Lenin and his Bolsheviks. We need to be organised, we need to be highly trained, highly dedicated and motivated to our task and goal. We need to organise ourselves into small groups of highly dedicated revolutionary vanguards. When the relevant social, economic, political situations arise whereby a power vacuum is created, we can then literally pick up the power from off the streets, then we should no doubt exploit this.

---------- Post added 2010-02-16 at 14:02 ----------


What about the tens of thousands of Jews which were kicked out of their arab nations (made stateless and homeless) all over the middle east and north africa after 1948 as a result of the Jewish victory? They are never mentioned even by western media. Well the 10,000s of Jews lived peacefully with their Muslim neighbours for the past 1300 years prior to this rise of nationalism (an idea introduced to the area by Europeans). How about the 100,000s of Palestinians made homeless?Where should they have gone? The Jews moved into the large parts of occupied Palestine that became depopulated due to the expulsion of the Palestinians. Where could the Palestinians go? Why should they have given up their land and property for some Jews? Just because the Jews see themselves as chosen people?


These innocent Jews which had lived in these nations for thousands of years were forcibly dispossessed, assaulted and often killed by mobs of bitter Arabs because the Jews won a war fair and square after trying to share the land.Why was a Jewish victory taking place in Palestine? The Holocaust of the European Jews occurred in Europe. A Jewish state should have been made somewhere in central eastern Europe (or Madagascar).

Innocent Jews, Bitter Arabs. You sound very objective.

The Jews tried to settle for an initial two-state solution but the Palestinians wanted no part of it and would only accept a complete Jewish withdrawal from Palestine and Israel altogether. The Palestinians chose the sword as arbiter and lost, yet they still bellyache like it was not fair...well it WAS! Look the only solution is that the Jewish people that live in Israel should return to their original homelands in Europe.

If your ethnically Romanian how would you like it if say the Kenyans had a war with the Tanzanians and then after losing the Kenyans decided to invade and colonise Romania. Would you accept giving away half of Romania (the most fertile parts) to some Kenyan outsiders? No? Then why should Palestinians accept this?


The Palestinians got what they deserved and they do not deserve to be repatriated unless you Arabs repatriate all the Jews who suffered the same fate through no fault of their own whatsoever.The Palestinians deserved it! Are you friggin kidding me? Whats eventually going to happen is that Israel will be demographically taken over. The Palestinians don’t even need guns, they just need the wombs of their women, the womb of the Muslim woman to defeat these "Israelis". There are about 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and in Israel proper about 20% of the population is Palestinian (1.5 million out of 7 million). The 1.5 million Palestinians within Israel proper will make it a majority Arab country at some point in the future. Hopefully the Jews would have returned to their original homelands in central/eastern Europe by this time.