nntp2http.com
Posting
Suche
Optionen
Hilfe & Kontakt

The Left and Jihad

Von: Visual Purple (doreendotan@gmail.com) [Profil]
Datum: 20.10.2007 23:06
Message-ID: <1192914416.193045.103410@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
Newsgroup: alt.fan.noam-chomsky alt.current-events alt.anarchy.rules alt.anarchism alt.politics
Lucien van der Walt of South Africa is a rare breed of Anarchist. He
speaks the truth about radical Islam and is not taken in by their
attempts to hijack the Left.

Leftists love to bash Israel for being part of the American hegemonic
satellite.

The truth is we are a very weak suzerainty of the US. As van der Walt
says below, the US has far more powerful countries in its satellite,
among them Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and lesser
partners: Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan.

How many Leftists know that and, if they know it, dare to "break
ranks" and write it on the net?

However, let me hasten to say, and this is critical if we will have
peace, that is a small number of genuine Muslim Anarchists and other
progressive thinkers in Britain, the US and elsewhere.  They are
intrepid individuals. I am sure there are some in Arab lands too, but
they dare not speak.

We Jewish Anarchists have A LOT in common with them. Every effort
should be made to join forces with them. We have more in common as
Anarchists who hold to a Monotheistic tradition than we have
differences. Muslim Anarchists are not jihadists. They are very much
"live and let live".

We should exert ourselves to put out "feelers" for Anarchists and
progressives in our area and establish ties with them, support their
efforts, let them know there are like-minded Jews in the area, and let
them know they are not alone.

It transpires that there have always been a few Muslims with
Libertarian ideas. This article is very interesting:

"Ibn Khaldun; A 14th C. Arab Liberatarian":
http://tinyurl.com/2ljek5

Let's put our conditioning and prejudice aside, as we ask them to do
concerning us, and build bridges.

On Anarchy Africa van der Walt posted the following link:

"The Left and Jihad"

http://tinyurl.com/lw79a

He also wrote:

"I think we need to distinguish several things here: 1) the propaganda
the US wages in its imperialism 2) imperialism and its effects on
countries and 3)
criticisms of Islam, as such.

On the first point, sure, the US government has sometimes invoked the
supposed flaws of Islam to justify its current interventions in the
Middle East, and the more nebulous "war on terror" through which it is
pursuing its military project elsewhere. I think, though, its a
serious misrepresentation of the US propaganda
to claim it is outright "Islamaphobic". Give me some concrete cases,
not vague references to lots of materials being produced by the
flunkies of the CIA, and
show me I'm wrong.

I don't think the idea that "one who doesn't like muslims is not going
to tell you he doesn't like muslims he's going to tell you he wants to
defend the rights
of women or freedom of speech" helps your case. You are simply
asserting a hidden agenda, not showing one. And the implication of
your argument that
Islamaphobia is orchestrated by the CIA, and that critics of Islam are
the conscious or unconscious tools of imperialism, is that every
critic of Islam is
a scoundrel and a rogue, which is just insulting.

Moreover, how does your theory explain the US setting up a puppet
regime in Iraq, run by Muslim extremists? The fact that the US
invasion of Iraq toppled a
relatively modernist secular Arab nationalist in favour of his
Islamist rivals? The point that one of the merits of the overthrow of
Hussein highlighted by
Washington was the massive expansion in public space for Muslims in
Iraq? That the US-backed constitution makes Islam the official
religion and source of law?

Things are a bit more complex than the West versus Islam.

On the second point. Some historically Muslim countries are directly
oppressed by imperialism but are they oppressed because they are
Muslim? Are they oppressed any more than countries that are not
officially Muslim? Are historically Muslim countries oppressed on a
larger scale, in a larger number,
in a more systematic fashion than other countries?

Some historically Muslim countries are junior partners of Washington
(like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt); some are lower-level imperial
powers who also
sometimes clash with American agendas in their own regions (like
Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan); some are directly subject to
Washington (like Afghanistan,
Iraq); some are seeking allies with other great powers (like the EU).
The variety of relationships shows the picture is much more complex
than the notion
of "Islamaphobia" suggests; the same variety of relationships that
exist between between historically Muslim countries and the great
powers can be found for any other grouping of less powerful countries
one might identify (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa).

Yes, I am against imperialism and capitalism, but I am also critical
of Islam in general, and absolutely opposed to Islamic fundamentalism.

On the third point, there is nothing wrong with criticising mainstream
Islam, and there is an absolute necessity of fighting against Islamic
fundamentalism.
The first is a broad set of religious ideas, which take many forms,
and have many contradictions, and which certainly contain many
objectionable elements.
The second is an actively reactionary movement, and the expression of
the same upsurge of the far right that is represented in western
Europe by forces like
the NF in France. (We can and must distinguish between criticism of
Islam as a religion, and the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism,
although it is misleading of groups like the Labour Party in Pakistan
to draw a neat and absolute distinction between the two, and claim
that Islam as a religion is not a political force). We live in a time
of all-sided ethnic, tribal, religious and
racial conflict, promoted, deliberately and also accidentally, by the
great powers, but also driven from below by local warlords and thugs.

An anarchist must be a merciless critic of any doctrine, or behaviour,
or institution, that hinders social and economic equality. Just like
mainstream
Christianity, mainstream Islam can and should be criticised. Islamic
fundamentalism is a quasi-fascist and counter-revolutionary movement,
actively
involved in massacring leftists and union members and feminists, and
repressive in the extreme in power. It is anti-imperialist, but that
is no saving grace:
some of the worst thugs to cross the 20 century stage were anti-
imperialist, among them Hendrik Verwoed, Idi Amin, and Mao Zedong.

I don't hold back on criticising capitalism because Stalin might have
agreed with some of my points, and I don't hold back from attacking
mainstream Islam
just because George Bush might have agreed with some of my points.
That a character like George Bush might agree with some of the
criticisms that honest
people make of Islam in no sense makes such criticisms illegitimate.
If George Bush thinks slavery is bad, or that murder is bad, does it
follow that people can't criticise slavery or murder? .

The only logical endpoint of the position that criticism of Islam is
"Islamaphobic" is the uncritical defence of Islam, in all its forms,
and regardless of its record.

Finally.

I said before why I think its a problem to call, without
qualification, these countries "Muslim countries": do we call Latin
American countries "Christian
countries" or part of the "Catholic world"? This is just stereotyping:
it ignores the struggles and varieties within these countries (the
great clashes
after 1945 between radical Islam/ Arab nationalism/ Communist forces,
for example; the revolt of many youth against the old traditions; the
rise of labour
etc.), and concedes the key claim of the Islamic fundamentalists (that
all countries where Islam played some role in the past are essentially
part of a
universal Ummah).

But things are not that simple. See, for example,

Iraqi Communists Celebrate May Day 2007
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2583/Iraqi_Communists_Celebrate_May_Da\
y
Farooq Sulehria, Making Of The Islamic Threat, Labour Party Pakistan
http://www.laborpakistan.org/articles/intl/notmyname.php

Houzan Mahmoud, The Constitution, Islamic Sharia law, and Women's
Rights in Iraq
and Kurdistan, Worker-Communist Party of Iraq
http://www.wpiraq.net/english/2007/HouzanMahmud-Media210307.htm

Lucien"

Let's clear out the obfuscations of radical Islam that is dressing up
in Leftist clothing and make peace with real Muslim Anarchists and
progressives.

In response to this, a contributor to another list wrote:

"Dear Doreen:

Having been a history buff, having studied all types of history for a
lot of years; I've read some pretty horrendous things done to people,
done mostly to the Jews who lived along the route either by the
Christian or by the Muslims. Things I won't discuss on this thing as I
won't talk like that in front of women or children. It's not obscene
language it's the terrible things that were done to the Jewish women.
When I first reared it I simply couldn't believe one human being could
do this to another but after you read account after account of this
sort of thing being done to innocent people just because they were
Jews.
Now to learn that these people are teaching it to their
children as though they or those who did this awful thing to the women
and babies just because they were Jews, then these people are compared
to devils. Not so, I wouldn't down grade a devil to level. Compared to
these people who could justify the terrorist actions of those to
children, they're worse than the one's who committed the acts in the
first place.
I'm sorry for these as they'll have to pay for their
crimes either in this life or in the next.
Shalom, Shalom."

To which I responded:

You may rest assured that Muslim Anarchists and progressives are not
the kind of people who commit atrocities and are as sickened by them
as you are.

They are as critical of that which does not serve humanity in their
religion as Jewish Anarchists are aware of same in our religion.

It is no more fair to assign collective guilt to another ethnic group
or religious group, in toto, than it is for the anti-Semites to assign
such to all Jews.

There are those who fault all of us Jews for the horrific deeds that
have been carried out at the behest of the super-wealthy Jews. The
wars that have been waged to keep them rich have spawned deeds
(carried out not by them, oh no, they don't get their hands dirty, but
by the soldiers that were sent to do their dirty work for them and die
and be maimed if need be) were *just as ugly* as anything ever done to
us.

Yes, we have to *admit* the guilt of the Jewish rich. AND we have to
admit that they have harmed the rest of Jewry no less than our enemies
have and no less than they harm other Peoples and cultures. They care
not one whit for our welfare.  We should not excuse them to ourselves
or to the world.

If we separate ourselves from the rich Jews who cause so much harm to
the world, we will not be despised for their sake. It is because we
cover for them that the guilt is laid at our doorstep too. The effect
of this is that poor Jews in Israel die to keep rich Jews in America
and Europe and Asia rich AND we have incurred the disgust of the world
as well.

I say, let the world know that the rich Jews are no less a pox on us
than they are on them.

Shabbat Shalom,
D2

In response to this he answered simply:

"Dear Doreen:
Amen!
Shabbat Shalom"

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com


[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]