AUT: Interesting piece on Political Islam

["cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C23290.97B73180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Earl,
Thank you for responding to my email. Before I say a few things about =
your response, I would like to indicate that the articles we write are =
our personal responsibility, and it does not reflect the position of the =
network.  As I have said before we should make it clear for our readers =
that only editorials are the official position of the network.  From our =
next issue in the front page, right underneath "Workers Democracy" in =
one line we ought to clarify our policy to our readers.  I do realize =
that the paper will be implicated in one way or another by the articles. =
 But, people who do not agree with an article, they always have the =
chance to write a response and express their opposition.  This is =
consistent with our policy that the paper should encourage debate among =
members.  Therefore, Instead of shutting down an idea we should tell =
people to engage in debate and discussion. The political content of =
article is our own responsibility and the Newspaper Committee, as far as =
I am concerned, has no right to censor them. This also goes for the =
content of the titles for the articles.  Of course we need discussions, =
debates, feedbacks, exchange of ideas on the articles we write, but the =
final decision belongs to the writer of the article.  I am not trying to =
say that people in the committee can do whatever they want.  I am only =
talking about the content of the articles and nothing more.  I hope this =
will be clear for all of us.   =20
      =20
Now, let me respond to your email.  You say:  Why not "Oppose Religious =
Fundamentalism: Jewish, Muslim and Christian."  I see lots of problems =
with your position.  When you say, "oppose religious fundamentalism" it =
implies that there are religious moderates and that you have no =
opposition to.  More important, it also indicates that you have no =
opposition to religion being used as an instrument of political power.  =
The Western bourgeoisie and capitalist media have concocted dividing =
religious movements and organizations into "fundamentalists" and =
"moderates". Their intention is clear.  They want to protect religion as =
an institution of control, oppression, and humiliation of the masses.   =
In addition, such distinction is based not on freedom and civil =
liberties but on the economic and political interests of capitalist =
world.  According to their view, fundamentalists are anti-American and =
anti- Western, and moderates are pro-Western or are willing to maintain =
somewhat good relationship with Western powers. For example, Saudi =
Arabia and other Islamic Arab regimes are moderates even though there is =
hardly any trace of political freedom in those countries.  =20

In the case of Iran, they see a moderate faction led by Khatami and a =
fundamentalist faction led by Khamanei.  The fact that these two =
factions are extremely reactionary, brutal fascists and have along =
criminal and murderous history is not an issue.  Again, here, the basic =
criterion for this division is Western political and economic interest. =
Khatami talks about "Dialogue of Civilization" and normalizing relations =
with the US and strengthening ties with the West, and that is why he is =
called moderate, while Khamanie continues his anti Western and =
"Anti-Imperialist" rhetoric, and the West considers him to be a =
hardliner or fundamentalist. Islam as we know it today is an instrument =
for Arab and Iranian bourgeoisie as well as Western powers to protect =
capitalism against freedom-loving people, equality and socialism.=20

Many liberals and leftists use the same language as western capitalist =
media but have a different meaning for "fundamentalism." =
Fundamentalists, for them, are people who interpret religion literally =
and want to institute religious teachings and principles in public life, =
that is, they want to suppress civil liberties and freedom.  However, =
these groups or individuals are open to the idea that certain religious =
interpretations are acceptable over others and that religion can or has =
the potential to play a progressive role in the struggle for freedom and =
equality.  Here we come to another point in your email where you say, "I =
only wish there was liberation theology movement in Islam.  So then it =
would be politicized...on our side." First of all, I find it pretty =
bizarre and ridiculous for a Marxist to be longing for "liberation =
theology movement in Islam."    To be frank, this is a position that =
some Islamic liberals could take, but not those us who claim to be =
Marxists.  Religion, as Marx put it, is the opium of the masses.  It =
symbolizes powerlessness and humiliation in people, and it is the =
culmination of self-alienation.  No wonder booze, drug, and churches are =
rampant in poor communities.  =20

As Marxists, we should uncompromisingly fight against religion and =
religious domination of people's lives.  This does not mean we should go =
around insulting people; it only means our position must be crystal =
clear and our banner ought to be up high around this issue. We should =
work incessantly to educate people so that they free themselves from =
religion, religious nonsense and thoughts. This should be an important =
part of our work not only, for example, in Middle East, but also in the =
US.  John Ashcrofts of the U.S. are all the reasons why we need to carry =
out such struggle, and it is a best time to do it.  Republicans, =
democrats, entire U.S. ruling class and their capitalist state are hard =
at work to protect god and religion.  Just look at how they hastily and =
forcefully responded to the court ruling in California that said "one =
nation under God" in the Pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional.   =
Look at the Catholic Church.  For decades they have brutalized children =
and committed so much crimes, and while there is a widespread =
indignation against the church, they continue to enjoy a privileged =
status given to them by the state.=20

I don't think we should ban religious.  On the contrary, I believe in =
religious freedom. I strongly oppose religious prosecution and =
discrimination based on religion.  More important, I believe in freedom =
from religion and the right to oppose god and religion altogether. I =
insist on complete freedom to agitate and propagate against god and all =
religious teachings. While I believe in religious freedom, I also =
believe that religious institution should be subjected to equal =
treatment under law in any civil society. There should be no privileged =
status for religion, none whatsoever. Any religious practice contrary to =
the principles of freedom and civil norms and liberties must be =
completely banned from public and family life.  Not even one penny of =
public money, under any circumstances, should go to any religious =
institution.  Moreover, religion and all religious teaching and morality =
or any reference to god must be pushed completely out of public life. =
God must become strictly a private business of individuals, and nothing =
more.=20

You are baffled by the term political Islam. You seem to make a mockery =
out of the term "Political Islam" by putting question marks in front of =
it and by saying that "to balance 'Political Islam' we would have to say =
'Oppose Political Judaism'." Yes, in a way you can also talk about =
"Political Judaism," if you wish to do so. Islam today is more than an =
opium.  Political Islam in the contemporary world is an extremely =
brutal, savage and medieval force against human dignity, freedom and =
communism.  It is the second largest capitalist backlash against =
communism after the rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s.  Of course, =
only racism prevents western intellectuals and leftists from viewing it =
in this manner.  If it had happened in the west, westerners would have =
no problem to see it the way I described it.

"Defeat political Islam" is an attempt to confront capitalist media in =
the west and Iranian or for that matter Arab nationalist, liberals, and =
religious intellectuals who love to talk about good and bad religious =
movements, good clergy and bad clergy, and nice interpretation and bad =
interpretation of religion.  Moreover, it deals with Western liberals =
and leftists who believe that a politicized religion is not necessarily =
bad and that it could be a progressive force.  "Defeat political Islam" =
also upholds the idea that religion and everything that has to do with =
it should be thrown out of public life.    Marxists should be at the =
forefront of struggle for secularism and freedom from religion. There =
must be no doubts where we stand on this issue. We must draw a deep and =
clear line against those leftists who flirt with religion and Islam.     =
      =20

In addition, the term political Islam helps distinguish Islam as a faith =
from Islam as an instrument of political power or struggle. When we say =
defeat Political Islam we are targeting the latter not the former.  I =
should tell you that there is a very important difference between Islam =
and Christianity.  Islam was born while building political opposition to =
overthrow ruling elites in Arabia. Mohammad himself established the =
first Islamic government and initiated to expand Islamic system to other =
regions. His immediate followers soon after Mohammad died took Islam, =
through war and blood, to a many other regions of the world, all the way =
to Spain.   In a way, Political Islam is at the heart of the Islamic =
teaching, and that is why it must be confronted head on.=20

I am sorry that my email has turned out to be so long, but I thought I =
should take my time to clarify my position to you, and I hope you too =
will try to do the same thing rather than sending a four or five line =
email that is more sarcastic than explanatory.
Yours,
Mahmood
[ 07-15-2002

Cheers,
Chris
"In a world which really is topsy-turvy, the true is a moment of the =
false." - Debord

------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C23290.97B73180
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Earl,<BR>Thank you for responding =
to my email.=20
Before I say a few things about your response, I would like to indicate =
that the=20
articles we write are our personal responsibility, and it does not =
reflect the=20
position of the network.&nbsp; As I have said before we should make it =
clear for=20
our readers that only editorials are the official position of the =
network.&nbsp;=20
>From our next issue in the front page, right underneath "Workers =
Democracy" in=20
one line we ought to clarify our policy to our readers.&nbsp; I do =
realize that=20
the paper will be implicated in one way or another by the =
articles.&nbsp; But,=20
people who do not agree with an article, they always have the chance to =
write a=20
response and express their opposition.&nbsp; This is consistent with our =
policy=20
that the paper should encourage debate among members.&nbsp; Therefore, =
Instead=20
of shutting down an idea we should tell people to engage in debate and=20
discussion. The political content of article is our own responsibility =
and the=20
Newspaper Committee, as far as I am concerned, has no right to censor =
them. This=20
also goes for the content of the titles for the articles.&nbsp; Of =
course we=20
need discussions, debates, feedbacks, exchange of ideas on the articles =
we=20
write, but the final decision belongs to the writer of the =
article.&nbsp; I am=20
not trying to say that people in the committee can do whatever they =
want.&nbsp;=20
I am only talking about the content of the articles and nothing =
more.&nbsp; I=20
hope this will be clear for all of =
us.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
<BR>Now, let=20
me respond to your email.&nbsp; You say:&nbsp; Why not "Oppose Religious =

Fundamentalism: Jewish, Muslim and Christian."&nbsp; I see lots of =
problems with=20
your position.&nbsp; When you say, "oppose religious fundamentalism" it =
implies=20
that there are religious moderates and that you have no opposition =
to.&nbsp;=20
More important, it also indicates that you have no opposition to =
religion being=20
used as an instrument of political power.&nbsp; The Western bourgeoisie =
and=20
capitalist media have concocted dividing religious movements and =
organizations=20
into "fundamentalists" and "moderates". Their intention is clear.&nbsp; =
They=20
want to protect religion as an institution of control, oppression, and=20
humiliation of the masses.&nbsp;&nbsp; In addition, such distinction is =
based=20
not on freedom and civil liberties but on the economic and political =
interests=20
of capitalist world.&nbsp; According to their view, fundamentalists are=20
anti-American and anti- Western, and moderates are pro-Western or are =
willing to=20
maintain somewhat good relationship with Western powers. For example, =
Saudi=20
Arabia and other Islamic Arab regimes are moderates even though there is =
hardly=20
any trace of political freedom in those countries.&nbsp;&nbsp; =
<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In the case of Iran, they see a =
moderate faction=20
led by Khatami and a fundamentalist faction led by Khamanei.&nbsp; The =
fact that=20
these two factions are extremely reactionary, brutal fascists and have =
along=20
criminal and murderous history is not an issue.&nbsp; Again, here, the =
basic=20
criterion for this division is Western political and economic interest. =
Khatami=20
talks about "Dialogue of Civilization" and normalizing relations with =
the US and=20
strengthening ties with the West, and that is why he is called moderate, =
while=20
Khamanie continues his anti Western and "Anti-Imperialist" rhetoric, and =
the=20
West considers him to be a hardliner or fundamentalist. Islam as we know =
it=20
today is an instrument for Arab and Iranian bourgeoisie as well as =
Western=20
powers to protect capitalism against freedom-loving people, equality and =

socialism. <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Many liberals and leftists use the same =
language as=20
western capitalist media but have a different meaning for =
"fundamentalism."=20
Fundamentalists, for them, are people who interpret religion literally =
and want=20
to institute religious teachings and principles in public life, that is, =
they=20
want to suppress civil liberties and freedom.&nbsp; However, these =
groups or=20
individuals are open to the idea that certain religious interpretations =
are=20
acceptable over others and that religion can or has the potential to =
play a=20
progressive role in the struggle for freedom and equality.&nbsp; Here we =
come to=20
another point in your email where you say, "I only wish there was =
liberation=20
theology movement in Islam.&nbsp; So then it would be politicized...on =
our=20
side." First of all, I find it pretty bizarre and ridiculous for a =
Marxist to be=20
longing for "liberation theology movement in Islam."&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
To be=20
frank, this is a position that some Islamic liberals could take, but not =
those=20
us who claim to be Marxists.&nbsp; Religion, as Marx put it, is the =
opium of the=20
masses.&nbsp; It symbolizes powerlessness and humiliation in people, and =
it is=20
the culmination of self-alienation.&nbsp; No wonder booze, drug, and =
churches=20
are rampant in poor communities.&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As Marxists, we should uncompromisingly =
fight=20
against religion and religious domination of people's lives.&nbsp; This =
does not=20
mean we should go around insulting people; it only means our position =
must be=20
crystal clear and our banner ought to be up high around this issue. We =
should=20
work incessantly to educate people so that they free themselves from =
religion,=20
religious nonsense and thoughts. This should be an important part of our =
work=20
not only, for example, in Middle East, but also in the US.&nbsp; John =
Ashcrofts=20
of the U.S. are all the reasons why we need to carry out such struggle, =
and it=20
is a best time to do it.&nbsp; Republicans, democrats, entire U.S. =
ruling class=20
and their capitalist state are hard at work to protect god and =
religion.&nbsp;=20
Just look at how they hastily and forcefully responded to the court =
ruling in=20
California that said "one nation under God" in the Pledge of allegiance =
is=20
unconstitutional.&nbsp;&nbsp; Look at the Catholic Church.&nbsp; For =
decades=20
they have brutalized children and committed so much crimes, and while =
there is a=20
widespread indignation against the church, they continue to enjoy a =
privileged=20
status given to them by the state. <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't think we should ban =
religious.&nbsp; On the=20
contrary, I believe in religious freedom. I strongly oppose religious=20
prosecution and discrimination based on religion.&nbsp; More important, =
I=20
believe in freedom from religion and the right to oppose god and =
religion=20
altogether. I insist on complete freedom to agitate and propagate =
against god=20
and all religious teachings. While I believe in religious freedom, I =
also=20
believe that religious institution should be subjected to equal =
treatment under=20
law in any civil society. There should be no privileged status for =
religion,=20
none whatsoever. Any religious practice contrary to the principles of =
freedom=20
and civil norms and liberties must be completely banned from public and =
family=20
life.&nbsp; Not even one penny of public money, under any circumstances, =
should=20
go to any religious institution.&nbsp; Moreover, religion and all =
religious=20
teaching and morality or any reference to god must be pushed completely =
out of=20
public life. God must become strictly a private business of individuals, =
and=20
nothing more. <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are baffled by the term political =
Islam. You=20
seem to make a mockery out of the term "Political Islam" by putting =
question=20
marks in front of it and by saying that "to balance 'Political Islam' we =
would=20
have to say 'Oppose Political Judaism'." Yes, in a way you can also talk =
about=20
"Political Judaism," if you wish to do so. Islam today is more than an=20
opium.&nbsp; Political Islam in the contemporary world is an extremely =
brutal,=20
savage and medieval force against human dignity, freedom and =
communism.&nbsp; It=20
is the second largest capitalist backlash against communism after the =
rise of=20
fascism in the 1920s and 30s.&nbsp; Of course, only racism prevents =
western=20
intellectuals and leftists from viewing it in this manner.&nbsp; If it =
had=20
happened in the west, westerners would have no problem to see it the way =
I=20
described it.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Defeat political Islam" is an attempt =
to confront=20
capitalist media in the west and Iranian or for that matter Arab =
nationalist,=20
liberals, and religious intellectuals who love to talk about good and =
bad=20
religious movements, good clergy and bad clergy, and nice interpretation =
and bad=20
interpretation of religion.&nbsp; Moreover, it deals with Western =
liberals and=20
leftists who believe that a politicized religion is not necessarily bad =
and that=20
it could be a progressive force.&nbsp; "Defeat political Islam" also =
upholds the=20
idea that religion and everything that has to do with it should be =
thrown out of=20
public life.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Marxists should be at the forefront of =
struggle=20
for secularism and freedom from religion. There must be no doubts where =
we stand=20
on this issue. We must draw a deep and clear line against those leftists =
who=20
flirt with religion and=20
Islam.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =

<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In addition, the term political Islam =
helps=20
distinguish Islam as a faith from Islam as an instrument of political =
power or=20
struggle. When we say defeat Political Islam we are targeting the latter =
not the=20
former.&nbsp; I should tell you that there is a very important =
difference=20
between Islam and Christianity.&nbsp; Islam was born while building =
political=20
opposition to overthrow ruling elites in Arabia. Mohammad himself =
established=20
the first Islamic government and initiated to expand Islamic system to =
other=20
regions. His immediate followers soon after Mohammad died took Islam, =
through=20
war and blood, to a many other regions of the world, all the way to=20
Spain.&nbsp;&nbsp; In a way, Political Islam is at the heart of the =
Islamic=20
teaching, and that is why it must be confronted head on. =
<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am sorry that my email has turned out =
to be so=20
long, but I thought I should take my time to clarify my position to you, =
and I=20
hope you too will try to do the same thing rather than sending a four or =
five=20
line email that is more sarcastic than =
explanatory.<BR>Yours,<BR>Mahmood<BR>[=20
07-15-2002</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"In a world which really is =
topsy-turvy, the true=20
is a moment of the false." - Debord</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0085_01C23290.97B73180--




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---