Can Islam be read as an ideology of emancipation?

Islam isn't egalitarian. Period.

Men are prioritized above women. Also, it's a myth to say Islam is "anti-racist". It's actually very Arab-centric, and in parts of the world undergoing "islamification" (Pakistan and Indonesia come to mind) such a thing is inseparable for Arabization (i.e. many deeply religious Pakistanis will claim Arab ancestry for credibility as Arabs were the "original Muslims").

t. Robert Spencer

Where do you assholes keep comming from?

I have never seen sutch an awfull contradiction in my life.

Sure, but in the modern Western right the Jewish ideologues are pretending that Islam really is super different.

It's irritating to no end when people conflate religions with the people who adhere to them, which is usually a cultural and psychological matter, not an ideological one. Very few people are insane enough to not question what they are told to believe.

Are you one of those people who read 'religion is the opium of the people' but then didn't read any furhter?

The part about gender is correct, but the Middle East is only Arab-centric because it's mostly Arabs. Some nations like Iran even have racial discrimination formally banned in the constitution. I also wouldn't take Pakistani public opinion very seriously since it's the one nation on Earth where negative opinions on ISIS are the minority.

It is true that Arabic is intrinsic to the religion, but you also can't really understand the Holy Bible without reading it in the original ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. One of the few positive aspects of its doctrine is that its divine rules are meant for everyone, and if a white, Hispanic or Asian man is a Muslim, you have to fucking respect him.

There's no shame in admitting that every culture is backwards in some way.

It'd be far fetched but sure.
Never underestimate religious people's skill for mental gymnastics.

The fuck are you talking about?

Nazpols being annoying as usual

yes, but so can "the hobbit"

Opium is delicious

Then we still have the issue the the ideology itself is not incredibly helpful in creating class consciousness and revolutionary thinking.

No, not at all. What would it emancipate you from?

Islam is one of the more reactionary religions.

That's my point. I don't think most people who call themselves Muslim could bring themselves to commit atrocities in the name of Islam (though even in this case they'd have to bend some rules to make it not a sin).

I agree, but we are talking about emancipation, which implies going against the status quo and improving our loves materially and politically. Does Islam do that?

Oh, well, obviously not. I was only giving some context; I don't get why OP posts this thread every week.

How about you red the context yourself since I posted an Islamic run website with the entire text of the Quran along with the original text in Arabic.

And this means the left should play into the right's rhetoric by seeing Islam as a completely different doctrine from Judaism, because….?

Also, I fail to see what Islam offers in terms of "lessons the western left can learn" that Judaism doesn't: discipline, commitment to something higher than oneself, sense of brotherhood, etc. The only reason the left hates da joooz is because, despite what they say, they still firmly believe: Jews = Zionists = Israeli state apparatus

"Do your own research" = "I have no argument"

I'm not OP, I'm only criticizing the "regressive left" view of Islam in politics because there is a real double standard against it. This is borne out of the need for a new "Other" to justify US imperialism, which is why conservatives treat any fucking idiot that tells them what they want to hear as an expert, like Robert Spencer.

If you look into the Red Shia movement, you'll see that it can. With that said, though, it's very easy to read Islam in 10,000 different ways. It can be a pacifist dicksuck if you want it to be, or it can be a neo-nazi death cult, if you want that.

Religions are incredibly open to interpretation. But yeah, there are marxist interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. Their practical implementations aren't always perfect, but the interpretations are certainly there.

My argument is the text of the Quran, I literally put it at your fingertips but you're going to ignore it so you can continue your cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you take leftypols advice and

And yet you only provide out of context quotes. When someone calls you out on your bullshit only then do you have the "decency" of enlightening us with a direct link followed by "D-D-O YOUR OWN RESEARCH, WHAT DO I LOOK LIKE?"

Whether or not Islamaphobia exists, anti-Islam shitposters are the single most annoying fucks on the internet

Religion itself can not be emancipatory

In theory they have, but minorities still get treated as lesser in Iran (especially Baloch people in the southern part of the country). Iran has even come out against an independent Kurdistan (most likely for political reasons but still).

That's way oversimplified. Most of Islam's rituals come from Arab pagan traditions, and yes within the Muslim World there is a huge amount of "Arab p r i v i l e g e" if you will in that Islam is associated with Arab culture.

Just look at what we consider to be the stereotypical hijab style: that's entirely native to the Levant (Greek and Armenian Christian women also wear headcoverings identical to that) yet has been increasingly taken up by women in Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Western Africa, and such as those countries become more and more fundamentalist.

Also realize that Islam only demands that Muslims respect other Muslims. If you're pagan or atheist the rules don't apply and you're free to be treated as a lower specimen.

That's actually not how context works. Reading more Quran won't tell you what the Quran actually is.

A lot of people think that the Quran is god talking to them. It often seems like this is the case. But it isn't. It's god talking to the prophet, in the 7th century, and it needs to be understood in that cultural and historical context. In the 7th century, Arabia was in turmoil. There were insane, genocidal maniacs running around, gunning for the early muslims. Little girls were often buried alive, at birth. Slaves were beaten to death for sport, on a regular basis.

The Quran liberalizes this hellscape, but it does so in a way that is measured, and nuanced. It does so in a way that is intended to continue. Everyone knew what happened to people who tried to liberalize too quickly. They got nailed to crosses.

So when people talk about the context of the Quran, they're talking about the cultural and historical realities of the 7th century, because when you look at the Quran in that light, you see that Muhammed was the San Fransisco Liberal of that era, and of that environment.

But keep on reading the Quran like a moron, I'm sure the ISIS interpretation will start making sense sometime.

Are you too stupid to open the link I gave you, find the chapter and verse and read it?

Here's one of the quotes in context just to shut you up.

(3:149-3:157)
O you who have believed, if you obey those who disbelieve, they will turn you back on your heels, and you will [then] become losers.

But Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until [the time] when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order [given by the Prophet] and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love. Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter. Then he turned you back from them [defeated] that He might test you. And He has already forgiven you, and Allah is the possessor of bounty for the believers.

Remember] when you [fled and] climbed [the mountain] without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind. So Allah repaid you with distress upon distress so you would not grieve for that which had escaped you [of victory and spoils of war] or [for] that which had befallen you [of injury and death]. And Allah is [fully] Acquainted with what you do.

O you who have believed, if you obey those who disbelieve, they will turn you back on your heels, and you will [then] become losers.

3:150 Copy
ﭞﭟﭠﭡﭢﭣﭤﭥ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
But Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.

3:151 Copy
ﭦﭧﭨﭩﭪﭫﭬﭭﭮﭯﭰﭱﭲﭳﭴﭵﭶﭷﭸﭹﭺﭻ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

3:152 Copy
ﭼﭽﭾﭿﮀﮁﮂﮃﮄﮅﮆﮇﮈﮉﮊﮋﮌﮍﮎﮏﮐﮑﮒﮓﮔﮕﮖﮗﮘﮙﮚﮛﮜﮝﮞﮟﮠﮡﮢﮣﮤﮥﮦﮧﮨﮩ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until [the time] when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order [given by the Prophet] and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love. Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter. Then he turned you back from them [defeated] that He might test you. And He has already forgiven you, and Allah is the possessor of bounty for the believers.

3:153 Copy
ﮪﮫﮬﮭﮮﮯﮰﮱﯓﯔﯕﯖﯗﯘﯙﯚﯛﯜﯝﯞﯟﯠﯡﯢﯣﯤﯥﯦ
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
[Remember] when you [fled and] climbed [the mountain] without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind. So Allah repaid you with distress upon distress so you would not grieve for that which had escaped you [of victory and spoils of war] or [for] that which had befallen you [of injury and death]. And Allah is [fully] Acquainted with what you do.

Then after distress, He sent down upon you security [in the form of] drowsiness, overcoming a faction of you, while another faction worried about themselves, thinking of Allah other than the truth - the thought of ignorance, saying, "Is there anything for us [to have done] in this matter?" Say, "Indeed, the matter belongs completely to Allah ." They conceal within themselves what they will not reveal to you. They say, "If there was anything we could have done in the matter, some of us would not have been killed right here." Say, "Even if you had been inside your houses, those decreed to be killed would have come out to their death beds." [It was] so that Allah might test what is in your breasts and purify what is in your hearts. And Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts.

Indeed, those of you who turned back on the day the two armies met, it was Satan who caused them to slip because of some [blame] they had earned. But Allah has already forgiven them. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.

O you who have believed, do not be like those who disbelieved and said about their brothers when they traveled through the land or went out to fight, "If they had been with us, they would not have died or have been killed," so Allah makes that [misconception] a regret within their hearts. And it is Allah who gives life and causes death, and Allah is Seeing of what you do.

And if you are killed in the cause of Allah or die - then forgiveness from Allah and mercy are better than whatever they accumulate [in this world].

I'm pretty sure those "Islamic communists" in Iran were exiled, imprisoned, or killed after the clerics took over.

FYI Jews have a completely different understanding of why Jesus was crucified than Christians do, if that's what you're trying to say.

Mind me asking, do you have any Islamic theologians who could make a case for a claim like this?

Islam, Like any religion, can serve as a justification for every imaginable ideology if you nitpick hard enough. Believing that it serves anything other than it's own existence is wishful thinking at best and delusional at worst.

Then show us that there is no context that changes the meaning. Can't be that hard!

True, but some things are inevitable even if they are hypocritical.

Race is not culture, and culture is not theology.

Doesn't change my point.

...

Islam will never pro-marxist.

Its no different than evangelical Christianity in its regard to conversion as the highest good.

leftists that think they can make marxists out of muslims are retarded.

Shariah is the law that they will follow and marxists will be beheaded for their atheism.

Sharia isn't literally law. Rojava is secularist and socialist but still populated mostly with Muslims.

...

...

...

Claiming the Kurds are "dedicated Muslims" is like claiming the Frankfurt School were "dedicated Jews".

Region where you have private ownership over the means of production, wage labor, production of value is socialist ?

Shariah dictates every aspect of your life, from how you eat, what you eat, when you eat, how you sleep, how you dress, how you wash yourself, when you wash yourself, who you're allowed to marry, how your genitals determine your place in society, etc. It's literally no different from the legalism of - SHOCK! - Orthodox Judaism.

Granted, there are different schools of jurisprudence each with their own interpretations but they all have major agreements in certain areas.

Most Communists get exiled, imprisoned, or killed. Most political upheavals actually fail miserably.

As for your second question, the term 'San Fransisco Liberal' isn't used, but the basic concept is a huge element of the overall Jaringan concept.

Are you the arbiter of what is and is not 'true Islam'? Who appointed you caliph?

No, I want you to name a few Islamic theologians who would agree with your conclusion that Muhamamd was far-left for his time and place.

I also want to know why you think it makes sense to compare Muhammad to Jesus in this regard given that both were in entirely different positions in their societies.

Do you fucking know what the sharp shooter fallacy is?

...

Islamic socialists were tailing the clerics so badly during the 1979 coup that they literally changed their slogan from: "Workers of the World Unite!" to "God is Great!"

I'm not kidding.

I've heard Rebecca Masterton say similar things, but the person who comes to mind immediately, is Javed Ghamidi. But I get the feeling that you're the type of person who's just going to dismiss them both for one reason or another, because it's more convenient to take the ISIS interpretation as the only one ever.

I really don't care about whoever these people are.

You said all Muslims are opposed to secularist thought, then changed it to "far right" Muslims, which is moving the goalposts.

Still moving the goalposts. Many left figures were Jewish but very few of them devoutly religious, even when they were not irreligious.

And then they fucked off into Iraq, and collapsed into a cult. Yes, I'm aware that their revolution failed miserably. Most revolutions do.

I'm well-aware that the ideology of ISIS is far from being orthodox Islam, and the organization is far less of a religious one and much more of an outlet for angsty Muslim youth.

I made that post in order to show how dumb you selfie theologians sound whenever you try to naively assume all religious dogmas are compatible with modern Marxism.

You are committing the sharp shooter fallacy by highlighting one islamic nation as socialist and then pretending that this means islam will be friendly to world communism

And the Kurds are basically the same way. They follow a version of Islam that's considered heretical, hence why their liberation doesn't get much support from other Muslims.

Kurds get more support from Zionists than they do orthodox kebabs.

So your solution is what, then? Smarm at them until they all become atheist dickwads just like you?

Except I'm not arguing this at all.

All fundies think non-fundies are "heretics". In Israel you get ostracized for criticizing the notion that the Jews should own all of Palestine.

If you continue to ignore the words of a holy book and then insist that Islam will be friendly to marxists then I won't waste my time anymore.

You are no different to a SJW by not understanding that Islam =/= Muslims.

...

It's not in my power to do anything, and I'm not proposing anything.

You're claiming that the Kurds (Rojava specifically) are an example of how Islamic doctrine can be "Marxified" with little to back it up.
Also, here:

reddit.com/r/islam/comments/2i55b6/why_do_muslims_care_more_about_palestinians_than/

So, you're going to ignore experts on Islam just because you believe orthodox Islam can be shoehorned into a modern leftist political philosophy?

I don't think you understand just how many interpretations of Islam there are, or just how many times the Islamic world has jumped through different interpretations, when it became convenient for them to do so.

That's actually the point I was trying to make in the first place. said "Muslims". Not "devout Muslims", not "far right Muslims", he said "Muslims".

I don't think it's exactly unfair to take what people say at face value.

You aren't even arguing with me, you're arguing with the liberal oppression fetishist that exists in your head.

Which school of Islamic jurisprudence (Sunni or Shia) advocates:
?????

Advocates, or does not prohibit? Not even most fundies get literally everything they think and believe from their holy book.

No, I'm arguing with a naive selfie theologian who thinks religious Muslims will willingly bend their doctrines in order to make it fit with a modern Marxist or anarchist paradigm.

Whatever Jamahiriya was based off of, probably.

Advocates.

Also, inheritance and private property are big things in Islam, as are marriage and the patriarchal family structure.

Gaddafi was closer to turd position than Soviet or Chinese socialism.

The original subject was just "Muslims". Either you can't be bothered to type if you aren't salty or you can't admit you made a gaffe.

Where in Islam can one derive a conclusion that world communism is to be followed?

How does one judge the religious imperative that non-Muslims must pay jizyah while being a communist?

"Religious Muslim" is a redundant.

All of those elements are huge within Christianity, and yet Liberation Theology is still a force in the world.

Merely failing to prohibit is pretty useless for our purposes

Liberation Theology has always been looked at negatively by the Vatican.

And even if it wasn't, why would you trust an institution such as the Vatican with liberation?

So all Muslims that aren't completely devout are not real Muslims? By this logic, a very small percentage of the world population is actually religious.

who is a real muslim shia or sunni?

So why are we not having this conversation about the Catholics? Why do they get a free pass?

Yes, Islamic law promotes punishment for the less devout.

Completely devout and holding fast to whatever fucked-up ideology thinks is 'true islam'

Whose Islamic law?

These people think that Islam is ever going to be pro-Communist.

I wonder what the jizyah is?

Reform Jews are not considered to be practicing the actual Judaism by the Orthodox either. At what point does someone cut out so much of their religious teachings and still get to call themselves "devoutly religious"?

I never said they get a free pass. In fact, I was specifically pointing out that the Church has never viewed LT in a positive light for the same reason the Kurds are not viewed as good Muslims (and thus unworthy of support compared to, say, the Palestinians) by most of the so-called ummah.

Which school of Islamic Law allows for heretics to get a free pass?

Which school openly advocates a communist mode of production?

So again we hit the wall of "welp, gotta convert everyone to fedorism, then maybe we can get our unions back"

Why has no one responded to this very good point?

Don't waste your time.

We have SJW-tier leftists on here.

We have brain dead retards on this thread.

I'm not OP, was responding to

It's almost as if the identitarian and cultural aspects of religion can be separated from the ideological aspects.

No, we need full secularism. One primary goal of the Party is to help the masses overcome the mythologies of the past modes of production and lead them to a new, communistic culture which does away with backwards superstitions.

You seem to be demanding some kind of theocratic proletarian dictatorship. What element of Christianity demands free elections, and separation of powers?

So what happens when they tell you to get bent?

Jizyah hasn't been around for years, its clearly a result of imperial Muslim nations.

None, which is why I don't advocate it.

Again, if the higher-ups in the Party have any brains they'll propose ways of fighting religious ideology.

Secularism means people can still practice their religions in private, and will slowly whittle away because of decreasing value as a societal opiate.

What you are heavily implying is that we need to force people to give them up or they will render all left-wing effort moot.

No aspect of Christianity, but since Christianity does not state that such things are not sinful Christians do not feel like they are committing a sin by taking part of the democratic process.

The problem is that Islam has political descriptions of how to run a state.

...

Limiting the role of theology in the public sphere is normal. Demanding that everyone throw away all concepts of spirituality is a one way trip to the grave of history.

Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not behave according to the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and submit to it.
— Qur'an

No, I'm saying the Party needs to be entirely secular. We do NOT tolerate pandering to religious groups or creating a special snowflake "communist Islam" just to appease them, because doing so would be a nearly impossible task.

This, unless someone can figure out how to make theocratic communism work the religion must be abandoned.

I don't get how some people here will argure spooks all day long but get a bit more stifled on the topic of Islam. I get that it appears like a useful tool but it is a Pandoras box because at the end of the day Allah is the only true rule.

So just Ba'ath again?

Would you tolerate Orthodox Jews having a role in communism?

Ba'ath are fascists.

OP seemed to be advocating that, but rest assured I was absolutely not.

What I was attacking is an apparent belief that Muslims are so rigid that they must be abandoned entirely as a people, which will descend into yet more idpol instead of avoiding it. Ironically, this seems to validate Islam as being as magical as it says it is.

most people here are unempirical.

Also, I am willing to bet that they are your typical SJW when it comes to the Islam.

Blowing up churches (or mosques, or synagogues) will only end in a failed state. People want to be spiritual. You can limit the interference of the church in the public sphere, but you aren't going to hand out fedoras and expect people to just follow along.

That's why the Soviets loved them, right? Russia is still in Syria.

As long as they left their ideology at home, yeah, I have no problem with personal spiritual beliefs.

You don't have to blow them up, but arguing that it can be a useful part of a communist society is delusional.

Tell them that Allah is a spook and these leftists will be beheaded.

Like Islam, Orthodox Judaism isn't just something you "leave at home". Halachah, like shariah, dictates every aspect of your life.

In New York, Hasidic Jews will all vote exactly how their rabbis tell them to. They also attack women for singing, stepping in front of men during funerals (yes, look it up), and wearing "immodest" clothing. Child abuse is also a huge thing in those societies.

Oh, but, you know, they study the same mystical doctrines pic related was into, so you know they'll all become communists too, right?

Yeah man, I'm sure 1050% of them are all like that, with zero variance, whatsoever. You realize that South Yemen functioned reasonably well for decades, right? Socialism in the middle east is not some never before seen concept.

It's not that some aren't like that, its that the religious text says to punish those elements until they conform.

The punishers will be rewarded in paradise and the punished will receive no mercy from Allah.

So says mullah user, mastermind theologian, and doctor of islamic jurisprudence.

I can get you the Quran verse that says that, but you will disregard it like you always do.

Most people aren't this religious. Even American Muslims are rapidly becoming socially liberal. Probably because they hate the US government, which fits well into American culture.

fuck no.

the same could be done to the Bible, and often is in Fedora youtube channels, does that mean we should ban Christianity too? No, because Christians aren't a threat to anyone since due to living mostly in 1st world nations with good living standards they don't turn to religious extremism.

youtube.com/watch?v=TX4RK8bj2W0
Learn history or go back to your hellhole. >>>Holla Forums

a real life muslim is here ask what you want .

where from?

Why do you think a pedophile is gods perfect man?

pedophilia has been historically accepted everywhere.
Now that degeneracy and "fooling around" are the norm a loving relationship between a young woman and a man who will provide for her seem unacceptable.

this is not a leftist post
so sage

not impotent

ready yourself for bad grammar

other than post ?
that it can work user in real life
my grandfather was 13 and my grandmother was 11 when they got married
now they are both in their 80s and they live a happy life with a 6 sons 2 died , one of them is my father :_; and 6 daughters , i have a 120 cousin that is a lot of fun trust me
we are a highly educated family most of us are engineers and teachers i am an engineer
if you want a proof i will look up photos only for you
and we a good health record with only 1 autistic child and 2 mentally ill members of the family
she can get divorced form the qadie "judge" for free

I actually agree with you here. But since you've accepted that society has progressed since then, why still keep the 1500 year old Koran as the ultimate moral code? If God's holy prophet did things that were acceptable back then, but not acceptable now, why can't we say the same for some of Islam's laws?

and we have a *

I hate my English

Fucking THIS.

They agree with socialists on anti-imperialism, however:

1. "Anti-imperialism" doesn't entail anti-capitalism, because the latter is perfectly capable of existing without the former given that capitalism is the base on which the imperialist superstructure rests.

2. Most American Muslims are "socially liberal" because they tend to be highly educated. I grew up in Boston where the vast majority of the Muslim population came over precisely for the sake of education. Compare this to the situation in, say, Dearborn, MI where you're seeing European-style Islamo-Kiryas Joels form as most of the Muslims in that area being deeply conservative and traditional.

South Yemen was a clusterfuck bro.

Strawman. No one advocating that we attack people for believing in God. We're only tossing out the insane idea that orthodox Islam can be molded into a complementary ideology to Marxism.

Have You converted, or were You born muslim?
What do Yo think about reactionary stuff in islamic faith? Is this just euro-liberal misinterpretation, cultural difference or historical artifacts?

That's what I've been trying to get at, in a way. Muslims that are exposed to Western cultural norms that we aren't embarrassed about are noticeably more tolerant than not, which is why they go full reactionary when they form ghettos. Even in highly conservative Muslim nations, the citizens with Internet access are usually the ones that have a softer view of the West.

Similarly, there is a reason so many US soldiers come back from a stint in the Middle East with a much warmer view of its denizens.

It is true that anti-imperialism doesn't mean anti-capitalism, but the latter is basically the entire reason for the former in the Islamic world. Playing on this is imperative.

The liberals and the rightards have failed the Muslim community because they are colossal pussies that think they need to be treated differently or risk explosions. Treating them as thinking adults will warm them up to left-wing thought.

And how do we do that, especially when Muslims seem to be far more receptive to mythologies about their "Golden Age" and its economy, rather than all the benefits they could get from communism? Muslims today are far more likely to fight for a return to semi-feudalism or small-scale capitalism than socialism.

No one denies the West destroyed much of the secular leftism in the Middle East, but we have ZERO means of recreating what was destroyed, and many of the "Islamo-communism" claims seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking when applied to the existing reality.

Sure, but asking liberals to do that is way too much, given that your average liberal will deny internal contradictions within Islamic communities (i.e. patriarchy, child abuse, religious authoritarianism).

There's no such thing as a revolutionary ideology. Even communism is reactionary at most.

This.

islam is a load of dogshit and all mudslime will go into gulags once the revolution succeeds.

Why do people assume the "Islamic Golden Age" was anything close to egalitarian or communistic when the only people for whom the age was "golden" were the elites in Cordoba and Baghdad?

Who says this? The Golden Age is a scientific reference from when the sand people were crunching numbers the hardest.

Islam is simultaneously apologized for and demonized as unholy. Throughout history it was just sort of…there. Not that much ethically different from Western kingdoms.

holy shit

absolutely brilliant

Born a Muslim then when i was 19 i became an atheist for like 2 years after that i returned to islam

Hahahaa no. But that goes for 95% of religions. Islam is not special.

What are those 5% special ones?

The ones that nobody buys into because their opiates are too weak.

Can You name at least few of them? I'm really interested.

The state of the Islamic world has to be seen in context: like Americans, they are victims of groupthink. Most people in the Middle East do not actually dislike Western amenities and media because of negative experience, they are told to dislike them by their imams. On the contrary: pewforum.org/2013/05/31/among-muslims-internet-use-goes-hand-in-hand-with-more-open-views-toward-western-culture/
Similarly, most Americans love the idea of socialism if you don't use "socialism" to describe it.

I'm not the "Islamig gommunism" poster, I'm contending that we can set religion aside entirely instead of basing policy around it one way or another, which includes forcible secularism, aka wrongthink.

Liberals are just pussies that are as pathologically afraid of them as the right. The difference is that they try appeasement instead of repression.

Western capitalism is not even religious or as authoritarian as Islam. Even Not Socialism is more progressive than Islam. The fact that you have to ask is proof to me that the Left is just cucked.

You can't have a proletarian consciousness without first having a national consciousness. How the FUCK are Palestinians supposed to see themselves as proles without first seeing themselves as colonized?

It is just as authoritarian, just not to its own people. :^)

Colonialism IS class repression.

What kind of "socialism" are we talking about here? Social democracy? Market socialism (muh co-ops)? Anarcho-syndicalism? Marxism-Leninism?

The problem is religious institutions are arguably the most powerful ideological apparatuses in the Islamic World at this point in time. The Arab Spring almost descended into a religious fundamentalist takeover; it remained a secular, liberal democratic uprising but even then it begs the question as to whether or not it would have resulted in a socialist outcome assuming that Islam is "inherently socialist" as some like to pretend.

I'd like evidence that liberals appease Muslims out of fear, rather than out of their own narcissism, i.e. getting narc highs off of being thought of as oh-so multicultural.

So we're creating hierarchies of identity now, are we?

You really think those fatcats in Ramallah give a shit about the Palestinian working class? Hell, if/when there's a one-state solution, Gaza is going to go from the world's largest prison to the world's largest sweatshop.

Gaddafi slaughtered communists FYI.

As in the concrete base definition of socialism: democracy and collective ownership of the workplace.

Again, I am not OP, nor do I understand why he asks such inane questions every week. However, the power and influence of religious figures in the Middle East has its own political basis.
What we need to do away with altogether is the idea that people will naturally come to accept ideas they haven't even heard of. Notions of spreading left-wing thought in the Middle East is hand-waved as a fool's errand. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Same shit. The appeasement feeds their narcissism as well as their fear of the Other.

Hmmm, I'm still not convinced liberals are acting out of fear.

Do you actually think they give two shits about the muhnorities they claim to be so concerned with? They can't even bear to live near them. They support the neoliberal status quo that fucks them over first when the job market takes even a light hit and pretend that feckless, destructive affirmative action programs make up for it.

I don't, but I'm not seeing how they "fear" them.

...

No. The central tenet of Islam is submission.

...

The difference is that Christian terrorism happens like once a year and kills 2 people, whereas Muslim terrorism kills dozens of people daily in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Depends on the denomination. Bahá'í, Ahmadiyya and Sufi certainly have emancipatory aspects.

Sounds like you need to read some Feuerbach, Chesterton and Zizek, my man.

There are Christian terrorist groups in Indian and Central Africa that routinely slaughter Muslims. You just never hear about it. Because reasons.

No.

Bahais are considered apostate heretics, hence why orthodox Muslims will slaughter their members (also why their headquarters is located in HAIFA rather than a Muslim country).

Actually, Chassids would be communists' natural allies had they chosen communism/socialism over religious Zionism and racism. They shun liberalism, capitalism, and modernity, preferring instead of live in isolated, close-knit communities where everyone is dependent on EACH OTHER rather than the capitalist state apparatus. They also believe in direct action in order to bring the Jewish messiah (who, according to them, will usher in full communism, no joke).

Given that leftists love plastering images of Neturei Karta on their FB pages every time Israel starts bombing Palestine, in order to "prove" that "real Jews" hate Zionism, I'm certain the left DO, in fact, see something admirable about them.

Ah, so they really would be a perfect fit for the modern left. Yes.

If you're talking about CAR and Nigeria, those countries are practically in civil war.

Why is it that all the people who demand Marxism return to religion are all men?

Hmmmmm.

lol no

Except the richest and most powerful Christian state hasn't created a reactionary literalist interpretation of their religion complete with "if you're not as fundie as me you're as good as a heathen" and spent billions of dollars funding it across their region since, like, the 1400s

Okay comrades, pick ONE. JUST FUCKING ONE.

It literally means to "submit". No, it can't. Religion is just another way to control people.

In what ways?

Is this a joke right? Just because there a few tenets and sayings about charity and generosity in the Quran, and how everyone is made equal, doesn't make Islam a central a pillar to "socialism" or even "communism", unless you're a filthy Stalinist.

Besides, Islam is a meager plagiarism on Christianity with a few totalitarian shavings thrown in, and Christianity is a plagiarism on Judaism and the Talmud. Just get rid of organized religion altogether.

I think the answer to this would be the obvious assertion that the Saudis don't practice nor enforce "true Islam", that their interpretations are too extreme and not at all what Islam originally was.

can religion in general be read as an ideology of emancipation?
I'd say no.
Same thing applies to liberation theology and other muh abrahamic values ideologies.

Islam is more reminiscent of Judaism than Christianity.

How do you deal with religious Muslims then?

Yes, but so can Pastafarianism.

…
Are you kidding?

God has given the law.
It is. He's right.

Kek, yeah that's funny bc I have to deal with religious Muslims often because I'm a Muslim immigrant myself and live in a neighborhood with many Muslims. I don't know really, I suppose most Muslims here in Western Europe are religious due to the conditions they have to endure. For them Islam poses some sort of escapism, a pure and righteously good alternative to the life that has alienated them completely. If we communists are able to show them that a better life is possible I think we'd have less problems to deal with religious Muslims.

why would I be joking?

Because that's pretty dumb.
Islam, unlike Christianity and Judaisim, is anti-clerical. It also puts a much greater emphasis on the individual's relation with god, something that is delegated to the prists in judaism and didn't really exist within Christianity until the reformation.

If anything, Chrisitanity is closer to judaism.

Absolutely not. Judaism's idea of sin and redemption is wayyyy closer to Islam than Christianity.

Wrong. Shias, whose doctrines are older than the Sunnis', have clerics (what are ayatollahs?).

Where are you getting this information? Islam, like Judaism, is legalistic, and mysticism is only limited to certain sects (in Islam, Sufism, in Judaism, Hasids).

And yes, Islam has ontological hierarchies.

Shia and Sunni islam arose simulatenously as mainly a secular struggle between two factions. And Sunni is by far the larger faction.

Buddy, I know Islam has rules, but the whole Ummah is equally close to God. Islam is way more based upon self-control and a personal relationship to God than the other branches, in which intermediary actors were necessary (priests).

Sunnis and Shias have completely distinct theologies. They don't even use the same hadith nor do they agree on the nature of God.

Also, the irony is the vast majority of "Islamic socialisms" have been Shia-influenced, not Sunni. Sunnis tend to be far more in favor of free markets and capitalism.

Not necessarily.

Wonderful, you're literally describing Hasidic Jews.

Or protestants.

Which developed after the shia/sunni split.
Just like the shia clergy.

Btw, this is quite funny.
This is mostly because there were a lot of Mazdak people that were converted to Shia.
It has nothing really to do with Shia itself.

Is this how orthodox Muslims interpret it?

Seeing how they're anti-clerical and all are equal before God.

Yes.

This is not entirely true. Again, Islam does have ontological hierarchies (men over women, believers over non-believers, virtuous over non-virtuous, etc.).

Unlike judaism and christianity?

It does, but his point is that it's more about individual worship than the full state of humanity.

Monotheistic faith can't be considered 'emancipatory' unless it's something weird like Gnosticism. On the individual level, it demands that a person adhere to a strict set of guidelines instead of deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, although at the end of the day it's all interpretive and a peace-loving saint can worship the same god as a blood-drunk murderer while justifying themselves with the same sources. On a social and political level, anything less than absolute secularism is coercive and cannot be considered emancipatory. You can be a muslim and believe in socialist liberation, but you would have to be a very specific kind of muslim who has accepted certain islamic teachings and rejected many others. It's the same for any religion.

In short, any belief you bring to the table has to coincide with the goals of human liberation, regardless of whether or not said beliefs come from a theological source.

absolutely. in fact it is, and is being used that way today.

t. Judith Butler

You should have formulated the question like this, "Can Islam be emancipatory?"

The answer is arguable. There were some figures who thought like that here, like Tan Malaka or DN Aidit. However, their attitude, especially Aidit, are kind of ambivalent.

Related: Pancasila and God, interview with Aidit.
historia.id/modern/wawancara-dn-aidit-pki-menentang-pemretelan-terhadap-pancasila
Use google translate for the text. For some reason, I can't directly copypasta the link into the Google translate translation box, as it breaks the page.

So basically the religious practice should be judged whether it's revolutionary or not (and really he avoided taking a clear stance regarding this). Earlier he talked about Christianity. He probably meant Thomas Muntzer, for obvious reason (Marx).

Is there a similar figure to Thomas Muntzer in Islamic history?

absolutely. emancipation from the kafir scum

...

absolutely. it is!

There was a pre-communist style Shia sect that once stole the meteorite from the Kabbah in the middle ages.

However you also have to know Mohamed was a literal slave trader who used women as property and did away with the tradition of one woman issued to each man, which would be the equitable distribution of women.

Gnosticism is not Monothestic. It has a minimum of Seven Gods and as many as 365. You must remember it predates Jesus by 35 years. They only included him in the Pantheon because his teachings against fleshly desires.