Time for radical Islam to be opposed?

[The39thStep]

No, but some pretend better than others.

As I said above, what Husain says is mostly sensible and non-controversial, and commercial imperatives certainly don't negate the validity of his observations, they merely inform them. As long as we bear in mind that he's "playing to an audience", then everything is fine.

Without lapsing into reductionism ie Quillam is funded by the PVE fund ,what is the 'audience' and what does it want to hear?

 

[The39thStep]

The trouble with the fictionalist/Khaldoun debate is that it mananages to achieve exactly the opposite of what is required ie that to discuss Islamic extremism you need to be versed in what or what was not revealed to Mohammad.

Whilst the ins and outs of religous interpretation are , for some, of some interest, the sort of analysis that is more helpful regarding religion is the sort of thing that EP Thompson churned out regarding Methodism etc in The Making Of the Englsh Working Class ( I was tempted to whisper that in case The Black Hand /Attica appeared from somewhere) and works like The Meek and the Militant. That sort of anlysis which link supports for religion in the context of the impact of the external world on individuals and communities rather than focussing on an internal dynamic of religious beliefs is far more productive. The latter , I would suggest, is a product of the first.

 

[durruti02]

The trouble with the fictionalist/Khaldoun debate is that it mananages to achieve exactly the opposite of what is required ie that to discuss Islamic extremism you need to be versed in what or what was not revealed to Mohammad.

Whilst the ins and outs of religous interpretation are , for some, of some interest, the sort of analysis that is more helpful regarding religion is the sort of thing that EP Thompson churned out regarding Methodism etc in The Making Of the Englsh Working Class ( I was tempted to whisper that in case The Black Hand /Attica appeared from somewhere) and works like The Meek and the Militant. That sort of anlysis which link supports for religion in the context of the impact of the external world on individuals and communities rather than focussing on an internal dynamic of religious beliefs is far more productive. The latter , I would suggest, is a product of the first.

could you expand that at all to look at how islam is working in the uK now? and whether that gives us any lessons on how to react to it? woudl be interesting ( in a succinct paragraph! )

 

[The39thStep]

could you expand that at all to look at how islam is working in the uK now? and whether that gives us any lessons on how to react to it? woudl be interesting ( in a succinct paragraph! )

I will try and have a stab but it will be a stab rather than the gospel ( to coin a phrase)

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

The trouble with the fictionalist/Khaldoun debate is that it mananages to achieve exactly the opposite of what is required ie that to discuss Islamic extremism you need to be versed in what or what was not revealed to Mohammad.

I wouldn't say you need to be well versed in that debate at all. I was just trying to use it to demonstrate how flawed that ahistorical pov is when used to explain everything that happens now. While it is helpful to have a basic grasp of religion, the fundamental answers have to be sought in politics.

 

[The39thStep]

I wouldn't say you need to be well versed in that debate at all. I was just trying to use it to demonstrate how flawed that ahistorical pov is when used to explain everything that happens now. While it is helpful to have a basic grasp of religion, the fundamental answers have to be sought in politics.

Ok with that. I just thought that there was a danger of the discussion becoming too based on what is said or not said in religious texts. My own view is that most people are guided by the principles of their religion and use those as a way of informing their life rather than using religous texts as a script that is methodically followed.

That's why I like the Quillam statement about how the left should engage with Muslims ie on the same basis as anyone else .

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Ok with that. I just thought that there was a danger of the discussion becoming too based on what is said or not said in religious texts.

Absolutely. I didn't start that, I only went along with it in order to negate that very thing, to demonstrate its flaws.

My own view is that most people are guided by the principles of their religion and use those as a way of informing their life rather than using religous texts as a script that is methodically followed.

The ritualistic, hollow, methodical version of religion is a political tool. What is assumed to be the case - that the methodical 'rigid' interpretation is 'truer' and 'traditional' and necessarily reactionary - is the opposite conclusion to draw from appearances. The rigid 'science' of scholarly exegesis actually demonstrates this itself (even sometimes most tellingly when it seems to carry the most legitimacy!). If not, why are innumerable scholars there in the first place!?

Note: Both religious 'reformists' and 'fundamentalists' engage equally in the same approaches.

That's why I like the Quillam statement about how the left should engage with Muslims ie on the same basis as anyone else .

I have already given my view of them, and now I will turn to their statement:

The left should not shy away from confronting far-right Islamist extremism. Fascism is not only a white-European problem. The left sees minority communities as those that should be protected and not criticised. This liberal paralysis ends up in doing a disservice to minority communities. Instead, the left must confront attitudes in these communities that are anti-women, anti-secular etc.

I would call this an empty gesture, if it wasn't completely disingenuous.

Again, their terms of reference serve the problem that they ostensibly address.

Whether or not what they call "Islamic extremism" being characterised as fascist is problematic, it is irrelevant to the subject of the so-called "radicalisation" of British muslims. The only point of conflating the two separate phenomena, is to suggest that muslim minorities in Britain are an enemy within, to excuse the failure social policy, and the inequality and racism that is responsible in the first place. Thus, it is justifies and reinforces the status quo (this is why Islamophobia is promoted in a systematic fashion by the ruling class). And: what place is it of "the left" to "confront attitudes in these communities that are anti-women, anti-secular etc."? What is that actually supposed to mean?

 

[durruti02]

Whether or not what they call "Islamic extremism" being characterised as fascist is problematic, it is irrelevant to the subject of the so-called "radicalisation" of British muslims. The only point of conflating the two separate phenomena, is to suggest that muslim minorities in Britain are an enemy within, to excuse the failure social policy, and the inequality and racism that is responsible in the first place. Thus, it is justifies and reinforces the status quo (this is why Islamophobia is promoted in a systematic fashion by the ruling class). And: what place is it of "the left" to "confront attitudes in these communities that are anti-women, anti-secular etc."? What is that actually supposed to mean?

yes 'to claim an enemy within' is a KEY point of this issue but it is not the ONLY point .. and to claim ANYTHING has a sole determinant is frankly bizarre .. life is way to complicated

but you seem to imply Islam has no autonomy and only exists as a reflection of imperialism .. there is truth in this but it is not the whole story as the long history of Islam clearly shows .. elements within Islam ( as in Xtianity ) have always been deeply socially conservative and imperialist .. yes how much that today depends on the role of Imperialism is fundamental but it is relevant

but for any real w/c / social movement, debate and concern about the way gays and women are treated is essential and fundamental

but it is for those in those communities to deal with and for those outside those communities to support those people in fact .. the opposite from what the EDL say and do ..

my interest in EDL has not been as quite a few posters bizarrely think because i support them over being against Jihadis (we all are surely??) but as it indicates a new autonomous ( maybe but surely manipulated) frustration with the status quo that is not on 'the lefts' radar .. to try yet again to illustarate that there are miliions of people out there that the left with their obsessions have almost entirely lost contact with .. and how dangerous that is

 

[durruti02]

I have already given my view of them, and now I will turn to their statement:

i am unclear ..do you say we should treat people who are Muslim simply as Muslims or, regardless of who suggests this, actually treat people as people whether they be 'chav', 'muslim' or british' .. it seems both the govt with its support for Muslim schools ( btw how does this fit into the Islamphobic agenda) and right (EDL/BNP/SIOE) and 'the left' ALL treat people from muslim backgrounds as 'Muslims' and 'Muslims' alone .. surely this IS part of the problem

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Whether or not what they call "Islamic extremism" being characterised as fascist is problematic, it is irrelevant to the subject of the so-called "radicalisation" of British muslims. The only point of conflating the two separate phenomena, is to suggest that muslim minorities in Britain are an enemy within, to excuse the failure social policy, and the inequality and racism that is responsible in the first place. Thus, it is justifies and reinforces the status quo (this is why Islamophobia is promoted in a systematic fashion by the ruling class). And: what place is it of "the left" to "confront attitudes in these communities that are anti-women, anti-secular etc."? What is that actually supposed to mean?

that's fine, but don't then claim to be in favour of sexual equality, gay rights etc.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

yes 'to claim an enemy within' is a KEY point of this issue but it is not the ONLY point .. and to claim ANYTHING has a sole determinant is frankly bizarre .. life is way to complicated

I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you may have misread me.

but you seem to imply Islam has no autonomy and only exists as a reflection of imperialism .. there is truth in this but it is not the whole story
as the long history of Islam clearly shows .. elements within Islam ( as in Xtianity ) have always been deeply socially conservative and imperialist .. yes how much that today depends on the role of Imperialism is fundamental but it is relevant

Of course Islam doesn't have an autonomy of its own. But, from the start, I've wanted to limit this to contemporary political movements for whom Islam is the central part of their mobilizing strategy. To substitute Islam as a whole for the real object of discussion makes for confusion - as evidenced by your post, quite honestly.

but for any real w/c / social movement, debate and concern about the way gays and women are treated is essential and fundamental

A point which, of course, I don't negate.

but it is for those in those communities to deal with and for those outside those communities to support those people

It is ultimately for people in 'those communities'. And there's no reason for social movements to not be present there.

However, the idea that anti-female attitudes (which, let's face it, are hardly limited to muslims) and anti-secular ones are all about "extremism" (i.e politically violent, say) is erroneous. The same goes for a lot of other things.

But anyway, it's a bit like saying "the left needs to go into white communities and confront racist and anti-liberal attitudes" (or something) as a strategy against the BNP

in fact .. the opposite from what the EDL say and do ..

It's not the opposite, since the EDL have no interest in what happens in muslim communities, beyond that they are there and should be attacked.

my interest in EDL has not been as quite a few posters bizarrely think because i support them over being against Jihadis (we all are surely??) but as it indicates a new autonomous ( maybe but surely manipulated) frustration with the status quo that is not on 'the lefts' radar .. to try yet again to illustarate that there are miliions of people out there that the left with their obsessions have almost entirely lost contact with .. and how dangerous that is

So does so-called "radicalisation". They are both symptoms of the same disease, being the reverse side of the failure of social policy, inequality, and the weakness of the left. Except, unlike the "radical muslims" the racist far-right is a real political threat - and more extreme.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

i am unclear ..do you say we should treat people who are Muslim simply as Muslims or, regardless of who suggests this, actually treat people as people whether they be 'chav', 'muslim' or british'

The latter.

My objection to the QF statement is its New Labour communitarian bollocks language which lends itself to doing the exact opposite. But above all its ultimate vapidity.

.. it seems both the govt with its support for Muslim schools ( btw how does this fit into the Islamphobic agenda) and right (EDL/BNP/SIOE) and 'the left' ALL treat people from muslim backgrounds as 'Muslims' and 'Muslims' alone .. surely this IS part of the problem

Yes, this is what I'm getting at, actually

Political Islam, for whom membership of religion is their basis of organising; self-appointed muslim 'representatives'; the government with communitarian language that patches up its deficiencies and assists their attack on the working class in general; the racist right exploiting the divisions created by the latter; much of the left (and even far left) - partly because of their weakness, and because they've been infected by reactionary discourse themselves... It's a big part of the problem, especially the labelling of everyone from immigrant backgrounds from muslim countries as 'muslim', whatever their beliefs or lack of, in the first place. Islamophobic discourse is all about depending divisions, reflected by the government's promotion of faith schools, as well as sharia arbitration - which portend ominously for what the ruling class intends of secularism.

 

[The39thStep]

Absolutely. I didn't start that, I only went along with it in order to negate that very thing, to demonstrate its flaws.



The ritualistic, hollow, methodical version of religion is a political tool. What is assumed to be the case - that the methodical 'rigid' interpretation is 'truer' and 'traditional' and necessarily reactionary - is the opposite conclusion to draw from appearances. The rigid 'science' of scholarly exegesis actually demonstrates this itself (even sometimes most tellingly when it seems to carry the most legitimacy!). If not, why are innumerable scholars there in the first place!?

Note: Both religious 'reformists' and 'fundamentalists' engage equally in the same approaches.



I have already given my view of them, and now I will turn to their statement:



I would call this an empty gesture, if it wasn't completely disingenuous.

Again, their terms of reference serve the problem that they ostensibly address.

Whether or not what they call "Islamic extremism" being characterised as fascist is problematic, it is irrelevant to the subject of the so-called "radicalisation" of British muslims. The only point of conflating the two separate phenomena, is to suggest that muslim minorities in Britain are an enemy within, to excuse the failure social policy, and the inequality and racism that is responsible in the first place. Thus, it is justifies and reinforces the status quo (this is why Islamophobia is promoted in a systematic fashion by the ruling class). And: what place is it of "the left" to "confront attitudes in these communities that are anti-women, anti-secular etc."? What is that actually supposed to mean?

I don't think it says that Muslim minorities are an enemy within what so ever and there is little evidence to say that the motivating factor for those involved in terrorism has been inequality and racism.

I don't necessarily equate radical Islam or Islamism with terrorism in the same way as I don't equate the rise in the BNP vote with a desire for neo Nazism.However the failure of the left to offer a political alternative to both disaffected Muslim youth or disaffected white youth is quite apparent.

And why should it be the case that only those within their communities ( and I take it that these are racial or cultural communities) can tackle or confront sexist views? This not only panders to the most backward and traditional elements within communities but actually creates the accusation 'you can't say anything cos its racist'

In some way this latter tactic is at the root of much of the govts failed multi culturalism ie that they see society as a succession of racial and cultural and religious pressure groups each fixed with a static identity and agenda.

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

that's fine, but don't then claim to be in favour of sexual equality, gay rights etc.

Why not?

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

I'll extract the two (relevant) points:

the failure of the left to offer a political alternative to both disaffected Muslim youth or disaffected white youth is quite apparent.

This is indeed one of the most disastrous things to see.

they see society as a succession of racial and cultural and religious pressure groups each fixed with a static identity and agenda.

It is hardly surprising that exactly this view of society is something the ruling class has appropriated from the americans.

As for the rest of what you said: Try again, sorry.

 

[durruti02]

The latter.

My objection to the QF statement is its New Labour communitarian bollocks language which lends itself to doing the exact opposite. But above all its ultimate vapidity.



Yes, this is what I'm getting at, actually

Political Islam, for whom membership of religion is their basis of organising; self-appointed muslim 'representatives'; the government with communitarian language that patches up its deficiencies and assists their attack on the working class in general; the racist right exploiting the divisions created by the latter; much of the left (and even far left) - partly because of their weakness, and because they've been infected by reactionary discourse themselves... It's a big part of the problem, especially the labelling of everyone from immigrant backgrounds from muslim countries as 'muslim', whatever their beliefs or lack of, in the first place. Islamophobic discourse is all about depending divisions, reflected by the government's promotion of faith schools, as well as sharia arbitration - which portend ominously for what the ruling class intends of secularism.

ok i am clearer abut where you are coming form and i think we prob agree