-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Left and Radical Islam
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
MD
qualiaphile
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.
You're stuck between two growing movements. Islam is growing and will be the dominant global religion in the future. Other cultures will respond with their own Right wing ideologies, that will grow. The Left is unsustainable and promotes laziness, despair and apathy. It weakens and decays societies from within. Civilizations cannot sustain themselves on purely leftist ideals. The USSR and China had to be incredibly authoritarian to enforce communism and they ignored liberty and personal autonomy.
You're going to eventually have to pick one of the right wing ideologies. If I remember correctly you flirted with Islam, but I don't think they would be too kind towards your fantasies of Mr. dreadlocks
Last edited:
MD
qualiaphile
You cannot change a system that is diametrically opposed to yours by asking them to 'adopt your views'. The Marxists/Maoists understood this, it's why they completely razed the old cultures where they took hold. The Islamists have been doing this for 1400 years. Just look at Syria and Iraq, and all the history that is gone.
The Christians did this as well but don't anymore. All of history is basically a fight between varying ideologies, and the winners stand here today. The losers are either really small in number (such as my faith) or are completely gone. Some are found in history books, but many have vanished forever.
I somewhat agree with that statement (although I think there is little intentional support involved there), so I guess I should attempt to answer (despite seeing myself as center-left myself).
Seeking awareness of Islam and particularly of Islamic communities as they truly are will always be a good thing to do when it comes to these matters. Same with the Qur'an.
Mainly, I think we should let go of preconceptions that I used to have myself about how reasonable the Quranic teachings should be assumed to be in and of themselves before more circunstantial issues are taken into consideration. A lot of what even Islam apologists say all but assures us that there is in fact not a lot of room for accomodating Islam when all is said and done. We should remind ourselves that ultimately even Hussein and both Assads were often considered "radical secularists" by their own people. while they would be practically preachers by our standards. That is no small matter, and has serious consequences.
Perhaps even more important is to acknowledge how deep the anthropological chasm between most Muslim societies and English-speaking communities with elected representatives runs and take steps to reach effective mutual understanding, at the very least. It seems to me that such understanding is presumed perhaps more often than it is attained.
It would be all-out marvelous to actually find good evidence that Islam has or at least can freely choose to rise above purely tribal thinking, which is as far as I can see incompatible with mutual convivence with democratic societies. I frankly doubt that has happened already and I have serious doubts that Islam can survive such an awakening - or at the very least, it will be very deeply changed by it.
On a more practical level, it seems to me that a left-oriented policy for confronting radical Islam would involve promoting limited but ambitious exchanges of people and ideas among the various groups and factions involved in this knot.
And, of course, stopping those darned military actions that help no one and cause so much calamity. The last thing anyone needs is giving tribal communities good reason to take refuge in their certainty of the truth of the Qur'an because it is so much preferable to hoping that somehow those air strikes will turn out to be constructive and respectful despite the plain facts that they are air strikes from people who do not care to even attempt to understand the social situations involved.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You really think we have changed that much? How much did we leave of Saddam's culture/infrastructure? We made the Russians look like amateurs in Afghanistan.
We aren't really known for asking either. We either decimate them economically or literally.
I'm not saying we do it on the same scale they did, but when we get our panties in a bunch... look out. Our history is littered with destruction. Just over 100 years ago we slaughtered the Indians on a scale that compares to what the Nazi's did.
In the US it isn't generally religious these days, but there is a patriotic fervor that, when it takes hold, isn't much different.
You're stuck between two growing movements. Islam is growing and will be the dominant global religion in the future. Other cultures will respond with their own Right wing ideologies, that will grow. The Left is unsustainable and promotes laziness, despair and apathy. It weakens and decays societies from within. Civilizations cannot sustain themselves on purely leftist ideals. The USSR and China had to be incredibly authoritarian to enforce communism and they ignored liberty and personal autonomy.
You're going to eventually have to pick one of the right wing ideologies. If I remember correctly you flirted with Islam, but I don't think they would be too kind towards your fantasies of Mr. dreadlocks
This is obviously personal for you, so your free to open up and talk about whatever personal affront communists did to you or someone you care about that you feel the need to hold me in some way responsible when you are ready. I'm not the ******* you think I am.
But if you think what you wrote counts as a scathing attack on Communism, you should know you are way out of your comfort zone. Communists committed mass murder on an industrial scale and we didnt do it because we were lazy or apathetic. We were getting high on our belief in the future and it was the magnitude of our ambitions that blinded us to the suffering we caused. I am under the impression that members of the NKVD had a preference for cocaine so they were completely out of their minds when they interrogated, tortured and executed people.
Ive been a Communist sympathiser for over a decade. You really think I would still be attached to such a monsterous ideology if it hadnt grabbed me by the balls and shaken all of my previous beliefs to the core so I couldnt dismiss it and hide from it anymore? If you want a serious discussions about Communism put your so called individualism to good use and do something with that free thought you take so much for granted. You could do worse than read the road to sergdom if you havent already, but there are plentbof sources I could point you to if you show an interest in actually understanding what you are criticisng.
Take the hint. Give me some respect and Ill take you seriously. Keep Trying to push an agenda down my throat and you'll end up on ignore. You are not my problem.
MD
qualiaphile
Oooooh I'm so scared. Lol ignore me for all I care, I have a life outside RF.
Do we even need to fight them?
In a given year, there are about as many deaths in the West from radical Islamic terrorists as there are from food allergies, and about 1/1,000 the number of car accident deaths. Compare that to how many people in the Middle East that have been killed by soldiers from the West. Estimates are between several hundred thousand and a few million over the past couple decades. Just in 2015 over the course of one year, the US military dropped 23,144 bombs in Muslim-majority nations, and that's under a fairly liberal commander-in-chief.
The way I see it, I don't want my government being too involved in this issue to begin with. They can focus on reducing the chance of a major terrorist attack at home, providing humanitarian aid to countries suffering from violence, being rational and tolerant to peaceful Muslims, and engaging in targeted military action only when absolutely necessary and only as part of a global effort.
Economic strength and environmental sustainability are more important for overall national security than fighting radical Islam abroad.