What's wrong with islam?

[dave riley <dhell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[ converted from html, last warning. ]

Tariq Ali's new book The Clash of Fundamentalisms is frustrating reading. He
informs me that it was primarily written to open a dialogue with young
Moslems. With some success apparently. But for Marxists its polemic seems
unfocused and selective.

Is the problem with Islam -- as Tariq Ali suggests -- that it never
experienced a Reformation? Others -- including Maxine Rodinson (who did
excellent work on Zionism) and Ibn Warraq (in Bertrand Ruissull mode)condemn
it as overwhemingly reactionary. Primarily because it has not embraced
modernism.

This may seem just a mute point except that you can argue that
"fundamentalism" is the norm rather than the exception in Islam.(This is the
outlook of the Labour Party of Pakistan for instance.) They are one and the
same.

http://www.labourpakistan.org/art3.htm

With Judaism, Zionist ideology was a significant and separate (political)
platform developed within a certain historical context in the main by card
carrying secularists...pretending theu were nationalists. You cannot say that
of "fundamentalist" Islam. It has been a long term historical current which
for many years was dominant under many Arab regimes.

If that's the case -- which I tend to think it is -- then all the projections
onto Islam by some feminists for instance(that at its core Islam isn't
mysogynist) are grossly mistaken. Even Nawal El Saadawi (albeit not a Marxist
but a popular feminist in the Arab world)is considerate of Islam in this
regard despite her activism. And feminism is a sort of a primary pc issue
relative to this religion -- it is even painted as a pro women movement by
some ...and the mysogny is the only thing about it lamented by others.

The main challenge is deciding what the best political response should be. The
easiest option is of course to ignore it -- as is the norm of the Marxist
movement (re Islam), or try to adapt to and claim aspects of it as (excuse the
term) kosher (eg: some left responses to many features of the Iranian
revolution).

So in one sense the challenge is to debunk all religion -- whether they've
been "reformed" or not -- and insist that the key issue is secularism.  But
that's not sufficient.

You can get caught between defending people who practice Islam and opposing
them taking their religious tenets into political action. But Islam is
constructed on a rationale of aggressive activism -- so it's difficult to say
one thing and do another with any level of consistency. Primarily it has to be
about (& against) religion per se -- a focus that is linked to a consistent
anti-imperialist program.

But that doesn't make the anti-racist response any easier.  Islam deserves to
be criticised for what it is: It is grossly reactionary.  But from the Baku
Congress to Malcolm X to Nawal El Saadawi the left has played lip service to
it. Its response to the Rushdie fatwa is indicative of a a certain craven knee
jerk driven by fears of not wanting to seem racist (and since no obvious
"class" issues were involved -- well, why bother?)

So when it comes to the context of today we're unprepared to argue against the
racism that is being engendered in Australia and elsewhere focusing on
Moslems.  Very unprepared. In the wake of the Bali bombings, "the war on
terror" and a recent serial rape case here -- Islam stands out like a
proverbial sore thumb as a major issue. Over the last 12 months there have
been attacks on mosques in two states.

Obviously I think this is a significant and challenging issue. I do think that
even the argument needs to be put that (at least) Fundamentalist Islam is
wrong for .....all these reasons (but in fact the argument will be one against
the core tenets of Islam) and for these reasons only. If we cannot separate
Fundamentalist Islam from the practices of local Moslems then we (and they)
are in trouble. Similarly, the same must be said of all religious
fundamentalisms...all religion.

Secular Islam commentators have adopted the approach of urging Moslem
communities to assert their allegiance to the western country they live in.
That's not a preferred option. Unfortunately the secularist equate Modernism
with western capitalist regimes which is like turning the whole fundamentalist
thing on its head. However, I understand there is a major meeting of Islamic
secularists in New York in November -- which may be worth while
monitoring. It's ironic that the major secular regimes in the Middle East --
Iraq and Turkey aren;t noted for their allergiance to Modernism.  And Gaddafi
now seems to be posing as the new Mahommed.

Historically in modern times Islam has pursued a very competitive tact towards
Communism and just as significantly, has been worked as a primary tool in
suppressing the communist movement.by local bourgeoisies and imperialism. EG:
In the context of Indonesia in the wake of the Bali bombings: who served as
shock troups for the post 65 massacres? The Islamists as well as the army and
the apparatus of state.

The analogy with fascism are very interesting especially as practiced by
Franco....but it is very difficult to grasp the class nature of this new wave
of political Islam while pursuing this analogy.  Fundamentalist Islam has
served many of the same functions as fascism -- but it is nonetheless a
(Third)world away.

Ali's book along with Gore Vidal's brilliant essay (Permanent War for
Permanent Peace) does raise the whole ideological issue of how these movements
-- rampant imperialism and political Islam -- are justified by their
adherents.

I 'd be grateful to anyone who can point me in the direction of worthwhile
research material on this topic...

Dave Riley



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.