The Left and Radical Islam

[Laika]

Very often a few members on here will portray the left as in an alliance with "radical islam". My question is what actually would a person who agrees with that statement expect the left to do to change their position. Has the left done enough to oppose radical Islam? What more can we do?

Keep in mind it was the Soviets that tried to forcibly secularise afghanistan whilst the USA complained about war crimes, human rights violations and observing international law and armed the taliban out of sheer expediency. President Reagan even invitied them over to the White House to help protect their sexist, homophobic, fundamentalist way of life from the godless communists.

there is a more than a precedent for the left taking practical steps to counter the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and we are more than prepared to throw human rights out the window to get the job done.

Relax everyone. The Commies are here to help out. It can be like back in the good old days when we fought Nazism together. What could possibly go wrong?

What practical steps should the left do to help fight the threat of radical Islam?

 

[psychoslice]

The commies ?.........what the ....

 

[MD]

Both groups wish to destroy the cultures of nations and replace them with their own versions of 'utopias'. They ally many times together. Many leftists see the Islamic revolutions with a romantic lens.

But my own perspective is shaped strongly by the Left allying with the Islamists in the Iranian revolution. By going against the Shah, the Marxists aligned with the Islamists and resulted in suffering for many people, including some I know personally. There's also the Naxalites in India who work with China to destroy the Indian state.

Believe it or not, I was heavily involved in many social justice movements in college and I was a leftist of sorts. Within these circles I witnessed the insane support of Palestinian organizations (some of whom were linked to terrorism), the defense of the Iranian Islamic regime, the defense of Pakistan while attacking India and the admiration of Islam. There was also the fact that Leftists in general don't criticize Islam while attacking Christianity or Hinduism with vigor.

It lead me to believe that the Left has a romantic fascination with Islam and on some level the far Left sees Islam picking up its own 'global revolution' where it failed. I had to choose between the facts of reality and the bizarre delusions of the Left.

 

[Laika]

The commies ?.........what the ....

This may help. Communists are fighting ISIL too.

 

[psychoslice]

This may help. Communists are fighting ISIL too.

There maybe some good in communism, but it certainly hasn't got a good past record, and also communism should never be pushed onto any society.

 

[Laika]

There maybe some good in communism, but it certainly hasn't got a good past record, and also communism should never be pushed onto any society.

Both groups wish to destroy the cultures of nations and replace them with their own versions of 'utopias'. They ally many times together. Many leftists see the Islamic revolutions with a romantic lens.

But my own perspective is shaped strongly by the Left allying with the Islamists in the Iranian revolution. By going against the Shah, the Marxists aligned with the Islamists and resulted in suffering for many people, including some I know personally. There's also the Naxalites in India who work with China to destroy the Indian state.

Believe it or not, I was heavily involved in many social justice movements in college and I was a leftist of sorts. Within these circles I witnessed the insane support of Palestinian organizations (some of whom were linked to terrorism), the defense of the Iranian Islamic regime, the defense of Pakistan while attacking India and the admiration of Islam. There was also the fact that Leftists in general don't criticize Islam while attacking Christianity or Hinduism with vigor.

It lead me to believe that the Left has a romantic fascination with Islam and on some level the far Left sees Islam picking up its own 'global revolution' where it failed. I had to choose between the facts of reality and the bizarre delusions of the Left.

So you both support the victory of Islamic Fundamentalism as the lesser evil to Communism rather than support a tactial alliance between Communists and the West based on shared secularist ideals? Or are you saying that its not an either-or choice?

 

[MD]

So you both support the victory of Islamic Fundamentalism as the lesser evil to Communism rather than support a tactial alliance between Communists and the West based on shared secularist ideals? Or are you saying that its not an either-or choice?

Both need to be go. While some socialist and Islamist principles and philosophies are good, overall they have no place in humanity's future when it comes to governance.

 

[DawudTalut]

.......What practical steps should the left do to help fight the threat of radical Islam?

Peace be on you.
1=If they too fund and sell arms to them, stop that.
2=Realize that radicals [extremists] are no friends to anyone.
3=Help other world to end their hatcheries [so called those religious schools which actually prepare future suiciders and others].
4=Be freinds with moderate religious groups.

 

[psychoslice]

So you both support the victory of Islamic Fundamentalism as the lesser evil to Communism rather than support a tactial alliance between Communists and the West based on shared secularist ideals? Or are you saying that its not an either-or choice?

I simply don't support Communism, it would be a terrible world to live in, it sound good in theory, but certainly not in practice.

 

[Laika]

Both need to be go. While some socialist and Islamist principles and philosophies are good, overall they have no place in humanity's future when it comes to governance.

I simply don't support Communism, it would be a terrible world to live in, it sound good in theory, but certainly not in practice.

Fair enough. Just remember that Communists are here to help out if you ever change your mind.

 

[Laika]

Peace be on you.
1=If they too fund and sell arms to them, stop that.
2=Realize that radicals [extremists] are no friends to anyone.
3=Help other world to end their hatcheries [so called those religious schools which actually prepare future suiciders and others].
4=Be freinds with moderate religious groups.

Thanks Dawud.

On number 3, are you saying that the left should oppose religious schools for specific groups or in general? And would you say that applies within muslim majority countries and/or outside of it?

 

[DawudTalut]

Thanks Dawud.

On number 3, are you saying that the left should oppose religious schools for specific groups or in general? And would you say that applies within muslim majority countries and/or outside of it?

In some countries, there are religious schools who offer food and boarding to children of poor parents and bring children with claim that they would be taught religious teachings. But the result come as fanatics who are not taught new knowledge, they spend time in learning commentaries written in many centuries back. ....... The true Islam is ever green. But Islam of fanatics is not so.

 

[Underhill]

Both groups wish to destroy the cultures of nations and replace them with their own versions of 'utopias'. They ally many times together. Many leftists see the Islamic revolutions with a romantic lens.

But my own perspective is shaped strongly by the Left allying with the Islamists in the Iranian revolution. By going against the Shah, the Marxists aligned with the Islamists and resulted in suffering for many people, including some I know personally. There's also the Naxalites in India who work with China to destroy the Indian state.

Believe it or not, I was heavily involved in many social justice movements in college and I was a leftist of sorts. Within these circles I witnessed the insane support of Palestinian organizations (some of whom were linked to terrorism), the defense of the Iranian Islamic regime, the defense of Pakistan while attacking India and the admiration of Islam. There was also the fact that Leftists in general don't criticize Islam while attacking Christianity or Hinduism with vigor.

It lead me to believe that the Left has a romantic fascination with Islam and on some level the far Left sees Islam picking up its own 'global revolution' where it failed. I had to choose between the facts of reality and the bizarre delusions of the Left.

I think everyone in the world has their own version of utopia. How badly they wish to push that on other nations seems to correspond almost directly with the preponderance of religion in the country in question.

 

[MD]

I think everyone in the world has their own version of utopia. How badly they wish to push that on other nations seems to correspond almost directly with the preponderance of religion in the country in question.

What religion did the Maoists or the Bolsheviks have?

 

[Acim]

Very often a few members on here will portray the left as in an alliance with "radical islam". My question is what actually would a person who agrees with that statement expect the left to do to change their position. Has the left done enough to oppose radical Islam? What more can we do?

Draw a sharp distinction between Islam and radical Islam. In doing that, then scrutinize the heck out of radical Islam in much the same way members here may deconstruct fundamental Christianity. Don't hold back in the scrutiny and be very clear to emphasize the radical Islam part.

 

[Underhill]

What religion did the Maoists or the Bolsheviks have?

Valid point. But in those cases they simply replaced religious intolerance for political intolerance.

 

[sun rise]

Very often a few members on here will portray the left as in an alliance with "radical islam". My question is what actually would a person who agrees with that statement expect the left to do to change their position. Has the left done enough to oppose radical Islam? What more can we do?

Keep in mind it was the Soviets that tried to forcibly secularise afghanistan whilst the USA complained about war crimes, human rights violations and observing international law and armed the taliban out of sheer expediency. President Reagan even invitied them over to the White House to help protect their sexist, homophobic, fundamentalist way of life from the godless communists.

there is a more than a precedent for the left taking practical steps to counter the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and we are more than prepared to throw human rights out the window to get the job done.

Relax everyone. The Commies are here to help out. It can be like back in the good old days when we fought Nazism together. What could possibly go wrong?

What practical steps should the left do to help fight the threat of radical Islam?

Your basic question is a very good one. I don't think the answer is a left vs right question but an issue for all Americans:

The first step is to understand that radical Islam is not a monolith.

There are crazies who espouse it just like there are crazies on the right (alt right and 'sovereign citizen' types). These people, being lone wolves, are the hardest to track down. Law enforcement needs to do a better job of following up on reports and keeping track of those who fall into this category. And we need to make sure that the FBI and others have the financial means to have enough agents and the proper tools to do their jobs.

As far as the Daesh and al Queda's of the world, we need to keep taking territory away from them and reduce their support amongst people. It's not easy to win the war against organized terrorism as we've seen in various nations where armed groups keep fighting for decades. So we need to be patient and keep up the pressure. A big part of this is to understand motivation and help others see alternatives to better their lives. Especially younger people are motivated by ideals and we need to offer them ideals other than the false ideal of hatred and violence.

Another aspect is to crack down harder on the anti-Islam terrorists who have escalated their violence in the US. They need to be caught and have the full force of the law come down on them putting them out of circulation and sending the message that terrorism, whether pro- or anti- is not tolerated and that perps will be locked up.

We need to live up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and including the poem in the Statue of Liberty showing the world that there is a positive alternative. We need to become that ideal expressed by John Winthrop: "We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us."

Part of the answer is also to not wave the Quran around cherry picking verses to prove something about Muslims or Islam but to distinguish amongst Muslims based on how they see their religion. Those who see it as a religion of peace and offer their hands in peace should be greeted by non-Muslims responding with our hands in peace. Those who see it as a call to terrorism should be met by the sword.

As I said in another thread, if a Muslim says to me, a Jew, "Assalamu alaikum", peace be onto you, I will respond "aleikhem shalom", and upon you, peace.

 

[Laika]

Your basic question is a very good one. I don't think the answer is a left vs right question but an issue for all Americans:

The first step is to understand that radical Islam is not a monolith.

There are crazies who espouse it just like there are crazies on the right (alt right and 'sovereign citizen' types). These people, being lone wolves, are the hardest to track down. Law enforcement needs to do a better job of following up on reports and keeping track of those who fall into this category. And we need to make sure that the FBI and others have the financial means to have enough agents and the proper tools to do their jobs.

As far as the Daesh and al Queda's of the world, we need to keep taking territory away from them and reduce their support amongst people. It's not easy ato win the war against organized terrorism as we've seen in various nations where armed groups keep fighting for decades. So we need to be patient and keep up the pressure. A big part of this is to understand motivation and help others see alternatives to better their lives. Especially younger people are motivated by ideals and we need to offer them ideals other than the false ideal of hatred and violence.

Another aspect is to crack down harder on the anti-Islam terrorists who have escalated their violence in the US. They need to be caught and have the full force of the law come down on them putting them out of circulation and sending the message that terrorism, whether pro- or anti- is not tolerated and that perps will be locked up.

We need to live up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and including the poem in the Statue of Liberty showing the world that there is a positive alternative. We need to become that ideal expressed by John Winthrop: "We shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us."

Part of the answer is also to not wave the Quran around cherry picking verses to prove something about Muslims or Islam but to distinguish amongst Muslims based on how they see their religion. Those who see it as a religion of peace and offer their hands in peace should be greeted by non-Muslims responding with our hands in peace. Those who see it as a call to terrorism should be met by the sword.

As I said in another thread, if a Muslim says to me, a Jew, "Assalamu alaikum", peace be onto you, I will respond "aleikhem shalom", and upon you, peace.

A while back I would have said it was neccessary to defend Muslims from the far-right, whether it was in terms of loss of religious liberty within a country or military interventions by western countries overseas. In practice however, that means defending Islamic Fundamentalism which is clearly wrong.

Islamic fundamentalism does pose a clear threat to secular values in the west as well as the rights of women, atheists and the LGBT community, all of whom are traditionally groups whose rights have been defended by the left. An Islamic reformation is the best outcome with promoting liberal and progressive views, but it is also clearly an assertion of cultural imperialism and the supremacy of western values based on the enlightenment.

As someone on the far left, there is an enourmous tension between the secular-enlightenment side of my thinking and the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist one. However, it is neccessary to meet the violence of Islamic fundamentalists with violence, if only in self-defence.

I'm still very uncertian where this leaves me, but I felt it was worth adding "something" in response to your post. It would clearly be better to live up to the ideals of liberty in the constitution but it simultaneously requires cultural values that uphold secularism. Im unsure what comes first: personal liberty for Islamists, or forcing secularism as a cultural value. This seems to be my dilemma but it is essentially one shared by progressives of all political shades as something that goes beyond "normal" partisan politics to the core of the enlightenment principles from which liberal secular institutions originated.

 

[MD]

Valid point. But in those cases they simply replaced religious intolerance for political intolerance.

They're both fundamentalists who wish to destroy the West.

 

[sun rise]

A while back I would have said it was neccessary to defend Muslims from the far-right, whether it was in terms of loss of religious liberty within a country or military interventions by western countries overseas. In practice however, that means defending Islamic Fundamentalism which is clearly wrong.

Islamic fundamentalism does pose a clear threat to secular values in the west as well as the rights of women, atheists and the LGBT community, all of whom are traditionally groups whose rights have been defended by the left. An Islamic reformation is the best outcome with promoting liberal and progressive views, but it is also clearly an assertion of cultural imperialism and the supremacy of western values based on the enlightenment.

As someone on the far left, there is an enourmous tension between the secular-enlightenment side of my thinking and the anti-imperialist and anti-fascist one. However, it is neccessary to meet the violence of Islamic fundamentalists with violence, if only in self-defence.

I'm still very uncertian where this leaves me, but I felt it was worth adding "something" in response to your post. It would clearly be better to live up to the ideals of liberty in the constitution but it simultaneously requires cultural values that uphold secularism. Im unsure what comes first: personal liberty for Islamists, or forcing secularism as a cultural value. This seems to be my dilemma but it is essentially one shared by progressives of all political shades as something that goes beyond "normal" partisan politics to the core of the enlightenment principles from which liberal secular institutions originated.

Personally I would put more weight on the secular side of things. Religious dogma to me has no place in the legal system no matter whose religious dogma we're speaking of. When it comes to things like dress codes, there should be no compulsion unless there's a clearly important principle involved like seeing the face for driver's licenses, for example. Here I think the US is doing a pretty good job, more or less, compared to other nations.