The idea that the Palestinian people have only been able to persist because of their religion is ridiculous to me. They are resisting because colonialism, apartheid and genocide are very bad things to which nobody would want to be subjected, not because of Islam. If Palestinians were atheists, is he suggesting that they wouldn't have the strength or the will to resist? Would their lack of a belief in the supernatural turn them into doormats for Isn'treal?
I like Hakim's content, but his position on religion is quite frustrating. He is a Muslim first and a Marxist second. Also, Joram van Klaveren is still a right-winger.
You are definitely correct that there is not much communication going on, let alone productive. But another reason for that this is an awkward and difficult conversation to be had as Marxism and Islam are ideologically contradictory is a very strong, formal sense. Obviously this is most immediately an abstract, theoretical point, though that is not irrelevant, as moving through differences and formal contradictions towards consistency is necessary for moving towards truth, and truth is not irrelevant to politics, especially Marxist politics. There is also the issue of the political history of Islam, which is not very progressive and has become less so in the modern era imo. The contradiction between them is also not only something perceived by Marxists, but is very much clear to Muslims as well. An issue that Marxist militants ALWAYS have in my experience in situations like this is that if you are talking politics, or trying to agitate or organize, and you are doing so with religious individuals, especially if they are radicalizing and becoming interested in Marxism, is the contradiction they clearly perceive between their religious convictions and their developing Marxist/Communist political beliefs. At a point if you are in a party you do have to have the conversation with potential militants or members that Marxism is not compatible with the liberal position on religion of pretending like it is politically irrelevant, simply to appeal to the insecurity or narcissism of particular individuals who want to have their cake and eat it too. It is completely incompatible with the Leninist conception of the party.
It shouldn't be surprising that Marxists are not, in general, going to be attracted to a religion which not only explicitly states that they deserve to be and will be burned and unimaginably tortured in hell for eternity, whose metaphysics is clearly incompatible, but more importantly from it's inception to the current day has proscribed very different political structures and relations than Marxism (again, not a surprise, given that it emerged in Arabia in the 7th century CE, and that it's founder was not only a political and religious leader but a warlord who seems to have committed war crimes and whose values were profoundly different to those of modern socialism).
It's not a coincidence that the modern radical and dynamic expressions of political energy in the Islamic world of the modern era have been Islamist, and that Islamists immediately crush any progressive forces when they come confidently into power. Every place they have come to power they have enacted absolutely depraved social policies. The success of Islamism in the modern era is not only an expression of the religiosity of these societies and the effects of Imperialism and Colonialism, but also an expression of the failures of progressive forces, i.e. communists and socialists in these societies.
Honestly a consequence of this is that individuals then often end up taking pretty simplistic or nationalist positions in relation to certain political struggles, because there is also a reticence among many people of the left to recognize the self-evidently reactionary aspects of certain movements which stem directly from their religious, theocratic ideologies, as well as broader material conditions, due to the risk that that will be perceived as an attack of the downtrodden. It's a bizarrely moralistic, un-Marxist, and frankly moronic position to take, because more fundamentally its a question of being realistic about the political possibilities available to movements which are not driven ideologically by socialist or communist ideology, which I think worsens alot of the analysis you see on these problems.
This right here is exactly what I'm talking about, If I went out to a Muslims right now and asked them about Marxism they'd talk about China torturing the Uyghurs or that Stalin killed one gazzilion people, you have not read about Islam and you're perceiving it from whatever source you got it from, that's why you said Muhammed was a warlord who committed warcrimes [search the Islamic laws of war] instead of commenting on something that can actually be criticized.
This is why it is important to understand Islam, there's 1.6 billion Muslims, you can not fight against all of them and you can not magically convince all of them to pick a political side that was heavily red scared to them and that contradicts them, in fact they will declare Jihad on you and I think for being so ignorant you'd deserve it at that point.
Once again what I said, I did not suggest that Hamas should rule the universe or that the next Caliphate be built in China, you just read Islam and thought of idk a communist caliphate or islamic socialism or some bullshit, you've proved yourself to be speaking out of Islamophobic propaganda just like Muslims speak out of red scare propaganda, I am telling you need to actually read and understand something to do an analysis on it, and this is also what Hakim was calling for in the first place.
What on earth are you talking about? Again, your comment has either nothing to my points, as you are getting aggressively moralistic and missing, ignoring, or misinterpreting and misrepresenting them. You are claiming I am stating things which I am not. Everyone liking this comment should be a bit embarrassed frankly as they clearly decided not to understand what I wrote and just confirm their feeling of moralistic virtue.
I think I should put my cards on the table somewhat and point out that I used to be a very devout Christian, as nearly converted to Islam in my local context as a result of my alienation from Christianity and my desire to retain my spirituality, given that my Muslim friends were essentially marketing it to me as Christianity without the contradictions. I was actually very intellectually and emotionally attracted to Islam at a certain point, but not for too long. I continue to be interested in Islamic philosophy and theology to the present day. I'm saying this simply to get across that this is not a view I'm taking from wherever you clearly think. Of course, someone being intellectually interested in a subject, or having been attracted to a viewpoint in the past, doesn't preclude prejudice in the future, but you have given literally no argument or evidence for how anything which I said was Islamophobic. And again, you're making the same error I've mentioned before: you seem to be intimating that I'm saying something Islamophobic because I'm critical of religions in general (and Islam in particular), and that so are Islamophobes. Which is the same thing as looking at a red square, seeing then that there is a red circle, and saying that the circle is therefore a square. My source of Islam was me repeatedly reading the Quran and the Hadith and works of Islamic philosophy for a year, and discussing it intimately with my Muslim and ex-Muslim friends before deciding it clearly incorrect based in particular on what my ex-Muslim Marxist friends told me. So there were both intellectual and political reasons for rejecting it. Again, you are just fulling a completing vicious and unjustified accusation out of thin air because you are too thin-skinned and intellectually immature to admit that there is an inconsistency between Marxism and religion, or because you don't like something critically pointing it out. Really bizarre.
Where TF did I say not to understand Islam? I am in fact clearly arguing for the opposite in everything that I've said, and that of course requires sensitive conversation and seriously sympathetic understanding and study of the religion and its history, which I have again said is necessary. The fact that you are unable to distinguish be being critical of a religion from an attack on people who happen to believe in it for a variety a material and intellectual reasons says a lot frankly about your own maturity. You seem to just been assuming that a critical view of Islam must be based on ignorance of it. That Muhammad was a warleader is trivial. The idea that he was purely pursuing his conquests purely out of spiritual virtue is so idealistic an opinion as to beggar belief, especially given that that view can only be maintained by simply taking Islamic religious documents' claims at face value, which is absurd for any Marxist, as completely historically uncritical. That he committed war crimes is my opinion. Am I, as a communist, supposed to hide the fact that I don't admire or take as either ethical or political role models a man who had a very young wife, several wives in fact, and beheaded Jews. I am not a Muslim. I'm under no obligation to take those as the valid basis for what is, or is not, a war crime. In any case, I'm not going to intellectually respect a religion in which the mainstream view which is that that those who do not believe after hearing the 'revelation' are doomed to, and deserving of, eternal torture in hell. The idea that I should respect that because it is part of an ideological structure of spiritual value to someone is absurd and cowardly. And again, this has nothing to do with respecting those people. People are, in general, better than the religions they practice.
No where did I claim that anyone should be forcibly converted. In fact I'm pretty critical of the USSR's history related to religion (not that they forcibly deconverted, though they did place, at certain points, intense pressure on religion and were clearly very negative towards it), and think that there was significant Islamophobia. Because, as any Marxist would know, the conditions of people's ideology is not to just be determined by the will of particular groups, but by their broader socio-economic material conditions. Again, that view is for anarchists, not Marxists. But you do not seem to be understanding that part of my basic point is that there is a difference between being open, sensitive, sympathetic, and careful about critique in public and especially when political alliances are required, but that should in no way lead to communists pretending, like a bunch of cowardly liberals, that materialism is not the correct basis not only for a scientific view of the world but also for effective socialist politics. That does not preclude working with non-communists and religious individuals or even groups, but is does inform it. Anything else is intellectual and political cowardice and will be politically counterproductive in the long-run. Communist politics has never, ever, been effectively based on hiding the implications of our views.
Also the fact that you are justified religious war in your comment should have earned you a ban from the mods. I thought this was supposed to be a Marxist forum? So in one sentence you are happy to do a superficially, vulgar materialist maneuver of saying that 'you have to recognize the material reality that there are 1.6 billion Muslims', which is trivial and obvious and adds nothing to the conversation, and then you move to moralistic claim that I should be murdered by holy war, for something which is not only what I have not done, but the precise opposite of what I've called for in my comment. Honestly your comment is either profoundly dishonest and I'd be pretty ashamed if I were you, or deeply ignorant.
I did not claim anywhere that you said that Hamas should rule the universe or that there should be a Caliphate in China. Where in God's green earth did you pull that bullshit from? Honestly there are no real coherent points in anything that you've said. If you don't have anything to contribute except ignorant, vile, vicious and completely unjustified insults then kindly don't respond again. You are poisoning a forum that is supposed to be for principally for Marxists, which you clearly are not.
Where in the Muslim holy texts is this stated?
Can you give some examples that weren't more or less created by the West? I'm not aware of Libya having depraved social policies before the coup
Quran [2:39], it also says it a few more times, but It's about the afterlife, anyone who doesn't believe in the afterlife and just believes a person lives in complete darkness also sees a shitty afterlife for believers of any religion, basically working your entire life just to be stuck in complete darkness and disappear, you can't be neutral about the afterlife. it is something that shouldn't matter for anyone who wants to stay out of idealism, what should matter to judge a religion or a school of thought is how it teaches to act towards anyone who's not from it, and the Quran says in [60:7] [60:8] [60:9] what it says.
Iran, the laws against women are real, but a lot of the laws were made up by the Iran, the example I can give instantly is that in Islam there is no law that punishes women for not wearing Hijab, while Iran law criminalizes it.
thanks for the references; the first one is unfortunate, but you're right that it's ultimately inconsequential based on the latter three and similar surahs
the Hijab requirement is certainly restrictive and should be abolished (at least from my perspective), but I wouldn't consider it a depraved policy
I mean if you don't consider patriarchal control of and violence against women's bodies depraved then that's on you frankly. Iran's misogynistic laws and religiously justified social norms go way beyond simply the Hijab requirements. The fact that you are even caveating the point that it should be abolished is frankly a disgrace. Just to give another example: in Iran, based on what all my Persian communists comrades have told me, a common way in which child abuse occurs is through houses which act as sites for religiously sanctioned 'temporary marriages', which basically allow these to act as brothels (including for underage women). There are many Imams who frequent these, and feel protected by the supposed religious sanction. I have communist comrades who still live in Iran, and whose families who murdered and tortured to death by the theocratic regime. Also, Iran is not the only example of Islamism (I should have been more general instead of simply saying societies), as we can take any Islamist group you like whether in West Africa (the current hot spot for violent Jihadism), North Africa, the Middle East, or South East Asia. They can be governing political parties, governments or militant groups. If someone can give me a single example of non-reactionary Islamists I'll be legitimately amazed.
Rania did not answer your answer about Islamism and the West. You saying it's inconsequential based on the idea that there are tree surahs which can be interpreted in a certain way is a a completely idealist, un-Marxist position. The mainstream view in the Muslim world is that hell is eternal (at least for non-Muslims), notably among intellectuals and the main theological schools. There is indeed debate, and there will inevitably be a great amount of variation among Muslims, notably in the more liberalized societies of the West. This seems to me to be using purely abstract, religious justifications to argue for something being materially and politically inconsequential, which I don't think follows. Whether or not the Quran explicitly calls for women to cover their faces is not irrelevant (it of course does not), but Islam as a real, material phenomenon in the real world, does play a role in justifying and enforcing this. Just because we cannot will out of existence the material conditions that produce this situation doesn't mean they shouldn't be ruthlessly critiqued an distinguished from the socialist and communist conception of a society and its desired gender relations.
In terms of other verses:
Soorat al-Nisa:
“Verily, those who disbelieve and did wrong [by concealing the truth about Prophet Muhammad and his message of true Islamic Monotheism written in the Tawraatt (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) with them]; Allaah will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to any way. Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever” [al-Nisa’ 4:168-169]
“and whosoever disobeys Allaah and His Messenger, then verily, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever” [al-Jinn 72:23] :
The Hadith/Sunnah also contain several gruesome descriptions of the punishments in hell, including (in al-Bukhaari, the most significant Hadith compiler) the cutting off of lips, flogging, drowning, stoning. Bukhaari also cites a tradition of Muhammad supposedly claiming that the majority of the inhabitants of hell will be women, for classically misogynistic reasons. Unbelievers, as those 'too proud to submit to God' are almost always included in the category of those who merit hell.
What Rania is either ignorantly or dishonestly ignoring above is that is is not only absurd and idealistic to presume, but is also not the case, that these beliefs have no influence on the views of, say, Christian minorities. They are used to justify religious violence against Christian minorities, for instance in West Africa.
I wouldn’t describe atheist death as darkness and despair. It’s simply the absence of everything. There is nothing to perceive. As if you were never born. You’re right it doesn’t matter what religious people think happens to us after death.
On the bad laws in Iran or other countries, that is in the context of colonialism and the coups of progressive governments.
Sorry for my mistake.
You are correct on the atheist conception of death, so thanks for pointing that out. Absence of experience is not the same as experience of absence.
One question I have though: How does the (obviously correct) point that Islamism in general can not be understand as having emerged except in relation to, and in an essential way as a result of and reaction to Western Imperialism and Colonialism, influence in any way whatsoever the answer to whether or not Islamism is reactionary? This also just strikes me as a way of avoiding another important discussion of the reactionary effects of Islamism on the societies they influence. Did the US actively supporting, arming and financing Jihadists such as the Taliban mean that these are not bad laws, or that Islamism is not reactionary? I'm genuinely asking here as it's a complete mystery to me what anyone thinks they are meaningfully pointing out when they say things like things like this beyond correctly underlining how reactionary the effects of US imperialism are. But you can't even make that point with full strength without recognizing that the effects through flaming Islamist radicalization are also reactionary because Islamism is profoundly reactionary.
Yes comrade atheism is what I am referring to here. And Marxism was born in part out of a critique of religion, as a political extension of scientific critique of religion, as Marxism is the Proletarian stage of Scientific Revolution. The concepts of socially real abstractions such as commodity and money fetishism has intellectual roots in the Marxist critique of religious fetishization. There are religious communists, and contrary to what might be expected I'm actually very sympathetic to the pursuit of mystical and spiritual experience as a key component of a flourishing life. I sympathize deeply with this motivation behind religious belief, though desire to experience the numinous is not limited to non-atheists. Like honestly if I was pushed to it in some ways my metaphysical beliefs in the light of modern science in conjunction with my interpretations of dialectical materialism almost lead to a form of pantheism, though I'm considering that to be atheistic here. Part of my sympathy is because for 16 years of my life I was in a cycle of devout religiosity and alienation. So I understand the appeal intimately and think that that has a place in a socialist and communist society, though in a form very different from that which organized religion currently takes.
There are several places in the Quran and the Hadith were the punishments in hell and the idea that it will be eternal are implied or described. Please see my other response to your comment for some examples. It is a completely ad hoc, idealist method to ignore the Hadith/Sunnah, which is almost as important in the discussions over Islamic social policy and legislation, as the Quran, as the latter leaves alot of question unanswered, for the materialist reason that it is an imperfect religious text, despite it still being a really marvelous text in many ways. The Quran itself is a fascinating text, and I recommend that everyone read it. There are passages of immense beauty, sublimity and philosophical depth, as well as poetic effect, but though the question of whether or not I think it intellectually impressive overall is a secondary concern, I do also think that, no matter how progressive Islam as a social force might have been during it's rise to prominence, relative to the Byzantines or Arab paganism, it is not any real basis as an ideology for progressive, let alone communist politics in the current era, so we have to make that clear if asked, as we would for any other organized religion as they currently materially exist, or could feasibly so exist in the relevant political futures open to us. Of course, as Rania correctly points out (while bizarrely assuming that I am suggesting the opposite), this in no way implies that discussions with religious believers cannot be open, sympathetic and sensitive, and doesnt change that it is of course reactionary to simply go around telling people they are incorrect or attacking them personally for their religious beliefs. The point is that Marxists have to understand, realistically, the nature of organized religion as it currently exists. But that, again, is not the same thing as making clear that the communist ideological position that has to be staked out cannot be on a religious basis, and that the legitimacy of religious justifications in politics has to be contested, and that we have to make clear that that politics based on organized religion is fundamentally limited in terms of the progressive potential which it opens up. In societies where religion is very powerful, it is a key obstacle to Socialism and Communist radicalization. Rania seems to be suggesting that Communists should simply hide their views and ignore reactionary aspects of religion, which is not communist in the slightest.
Libya is a weird case because Gaddafi's relationship to Islam was very strange, and he was, as always, pretty incoherently unorthodox when you look as his expressions on it detail. Libya never really engaged in any real thoroughgoing Islamization of its political structures. Certainly not in any way comparable to, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia. It was certainly the society in the Middle East and North Africa with the most notable economic success. No disagreement there.