Demographic shift

Is it an issue?


thecommentator.com/article/3770/the_islamic_future_of_britain


Is the future islamic gommunism or bust?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EgAXukM5s98&list=PLJ8ujkc1jhUZvk_C0qK6PFVtaUtvmWvqH&index=1
montfort.org.br/eng/documentos/decretos/anticomunismo/.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976611
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya
edition.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/muslims-moment-khan/
youtube.com/watch?v=oTp18arMLFc
youtube.com/watch?v=VzhOg7FnvWc
youtube.com/watch?v=hfXYzRR1eDM
youtube.com/watch?v=PEgWHNbsPyc
youtube.com/watch?v=zzKk0L6H1ms
youtube.com/watch?v=nwo5xpO390k
youtube.com/watch?v=l1X5F3xkN0M
reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1q6w17/is_socialism_compatible_with_islam/cda2tum
independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sunni-and-shia-islams-1400-year-old-divide-explained-a6796131.html
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-offers-germany-200-mosques-one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Three threads is pushing it tbqh

Allahu Akbar

Importing religious kooks into your country is never a good idea. The United States already has enough of those to begin with. lol.

...

Fair enough. That article has been 'debunked'. So lets pushg the boat out. Britain will be majority muslim by 2070. Is this an issue?

And this isn't some wild assumption. Between 2001 and 2011 the UK muslim population grew from 1.55 million to 2.71 million. That's an increase of 75% in ten years. This gives a growth rate of about 6%. Such an increase, if maintained, will see a doubling of the muslim population if 11 and a half years.

so.

2011 - 2.71
2022 - 5.4
2034 - 11
2045 - 22
2056 - 44

It is probably fair to say the birth rates will decrease over this time. But even if it fell drastically, to average say 3% over the 21st century, the population would still double every 20 years.

I wonder what they're going to call themselves after Corbyn crashes the party?

...

British Asians, niggers and ethnics?

More Muslims is a very good thing for socialists.

Muslims are the ONLY group capable of bringing in revolutionary change to the world, because 1. they identify beyond national lines and show solidarity with all other Muslims everywhere, 2. they are the most oppressed right now given Western wars in the Middle East and islamophobia in the West, and 3. the nature of their religious traditions and culture are collectivist, meaning they're already conditioned into working in a mode of egalitarianism.

Plus Muslims have to have a national/religious consciousness before they can have a class consciousness, so higher Muslim birthrates and more white converts will be good for socialism in the future.

...

good. if the muzzies do pose a threat then britain would be a third world country in no time, giving it a great chance of having a revolution.
if the muzzies dont pose a threat then brits can live together in peace and harmony hope corbyn doesnt get a muzzie gf tho

I can never tell if you're being sincere, so I'll treat every reply as though it is.


Who will have the revolution in this scenario? The now dominant muslim majority or the others?


Maybe so but they strictly segregate from non muslims. What becomes of the non Muslims?

...

None of those things are inherent to Islam. Honor killings have been denounced by clerics as anti-Islamic and used to be just as common in Christian and Hindu cultures as Islamic ones. Polygamy was only allowed because so many men were dying in battle during Islam's early years that it was needed to ensure widows were taken care of. LGBT were more liberated during the Islamic Golden Age than any other period of human history (women too).

Yeah I'm going to go right on ahead an judge them based on their actions, not their words.

Islam has historically been more progressive than the West. The Qur'an prescribes more rights for women than the Bible. It was only when Europeans colonized the Islamic World when patriarchy became a thing there.

You've still to address a point. When will socialism happen under out new muslim overlords? Will they do it as soon as they're the majority or will it only come about once the kafir are bred out?

Islam inherently promotes a form of socialism. In fact Islam is the only religion where it's completely forbidden to be a capitalist as it prohibits interest on money, hoarding wealth and refusal to give back to the community.

Large Muslim populations in the West will bring the West to a more socialistic culture because Islamic culture is collectivist and puts a ton of emphasis on social justice and egalitarianism. Plus Muslims are the most class conscious group of people in the world right now and the only group willing to fight imperialism. Where are all the leftist intellectuals when it comes to actually fighting?

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim

Ok you've taken that too far.

How does Islam harm socialism? There is more socialism in Iran than there is anywhere in the modern West.

I accept this. Gaddafi's state was probably the most socialist in contemporary africa. Assad wasn't bad either. But they done it in spite of Islam, not because of it. Like Egypt proves, muslims can be easily led to voting for nationalistic/islamist governments that are nothing to do with socialism.

Gaddafi's system was literally called Islamic Socialism, which is a redundancy.

It is. Well, it would be too king to call it an assumption, because this is outright sophistry and wilful ignorance. Why? Because it assumes population growth is constant and ceaseless, let alone non-fluctuating. Literally any look at historical population growth statistics (including those of muh slim) countries will show you that population growth stagnates, ceases or even becomes negative following certain time periods, which are all influenced by material conditions. The growth even ignores the sidelined growth of non-Muslims, and the figure itself interprets as "Muslim" anyone originally coming from the middle east, northern/central Africa or the orient, when there are degrees in which "Muslim" means either basic entry or full-blown practicing or even being an Imam.

youtube.com/watch?v=EgAXukM5s98&list=PLJ8ujkc1jhUZvk_C0qK6PFVtaUtvmWvqH&index=1

I think this is because you are confusing Saudi Wahhabism for Islam. The British imperialists supported the Saudis and the Americans supported them afterwards. The Saudis have spread their version of Islam. The Saudis actually opposed Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan along with the West because they weren't Wahhabist Islamists.

Wahhabism is just Islam stripped back to its original roots.

Then why did the Saudis destroy so many of the relics in Mecca? They destroyed five of the seven renowned mosques built by Muhammad's daughter and his companions. The Saudis just want you to think they have the true version of Islam.
The truth is that they were a fringe group which had been marginalized by the Ottomans and the British empire used the Saudis as part of the Arab revolt against them. The leader of Mecca Hussein bin Ali didn't support the British attempt to colonize Arab land and the plan to put Jews in Palestine (defined in the Balfour declaration) so he was replaced with the more complacent Saudis who are puppets of the west. Saudis opposed Nasserism, Gaddafism, Baathism, the PDPA and any other ideology that wasn't part of their reactionary Wahhabism and they have always been supported in this effort by the West.

There is no such thing as a "real Islam." Sunnis believe their Islam is the real Islam. Shias believe their Islam is the real Islam. Ismailis believe their Islam is the real Islam.

If the Saudis believe their doctrines to be real Islam, who are you to say otherwise?

You just said otherwise yourself. You said there is no such thing as "real Islam."

Whose Islam is the true Islam?

Who are right: Sunnis or Shias?

There is no true Islam as you said yourself. There is only reactionary Islam (which isn't inherently true Islam as I said) like what the Saudis are pushing with the help of the Western imperialists and non-reactionary and socialist Islam.

There is no objective, real Islam. Every muslim think his Islam is the correct one.
That's like arguing wether orthodoxs catholics or protestants is the real Christianism.

Which is my point. I stated that Wahabbism has no objective claim to being real Islam or really being Islam returned to its original roots.

Did you miss this bit?


So over what timescale do you see muslim briths dropping to match western levels? Soon enough?


I'm well aware of this. But from Europe to indonesia, teh wahhabist or related strain is spreading, sheltered safely in the bosom of the larger Sunni faith.

Which sects are these?

So you must believe then that socialist forms of Islam also can't be designated the "real Islam."

Nasserism, Gaddafism, and Ba'athism among others

I don't know that any form of Islam can be designated the "real Islam" but I do oppose the Saudis attempt to claim they have found real Islam because they are so reactionary. To claim that this version of Islam is the correct one for Muslims to follow would be counter-productive.

No, I'm asking on what theological basis would it be accurate to call socialist Islam the original Islam.

It's a reactionary medieval ideology that murders anyone who suggests atheism, if the world turns Islamic we'll never have socialism.

Islam is the #1 threat to socialism, considering Christian nations at least allow us to exist.

The Catholic church will not allow us to exist see the decree against communism montfort.org.br/eng/documentos/decretos/anticomunismo/. No monarch rather it is a pope or a Saudi king will ever allow socialism to exist and they will oppose it at any turn. It has nothing to do with the religion itself. There is nothing to make Islam a "reactionary medieval ideology" so go fuck off with that Islamophobia / identity politics nonsense.

...

These ideologies were closer to fascism than Marxism, numbskull.

If anything, Islamic socialists should embrace Fourth Position (Dugin and whatnot) given that they understand culture and tradition as metaphysical rather than the typical Marxist base-superstructure dialectic.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Islamic world colonized Europe, not the other way around. At one point Western civilization included North Africa and the Levant, the only reason you think of Western civilization as "European" is because Muslims invaded North Africa and the Levant. The Muslims even directly invaded Europe, read up on the Ottoman empire and the Moorish invasions of Spain.

And the Muslims have been patriarchal since their desert nomad stage, when Mohammed first came to Medina.

Yeah the right to be beaten with a stick no thicker than a thumb, the right to be worth HALF of a man, and the right to be stoned to death if she gets raped!
What an egalitarian philosophy.

Meanwhile Christianity is the reason why Rousseaou got off the ground, because Christianity assumes everyone is endowed by a soul from god, and thus it's logical to assume everyone has equal intrinsic worth. This is basically the cornerstone of socialism that Marx drew on.


The current Pope is literally a socialist, he's even so far left wing that he agrees with morons like you and kisses the feet of Muslims.

Would you say the same about Christianity or Judaism?

I'm starting to think the Left only props up Islam as a "revolutionary religion" because they fetishize brown people with guns. If leftists took the time to study Islamic theology they would see it has very little in common with Marxism.

...

Islam believes this as well. We are all equal in Allah's eyes. It's only our roles on earth that are different.

Yes. I am fine with Christian socialists assuming they oppose the pope and the decree against communism. Equally so I am fine with Muslim socialists as long as they oppose the Saudis and other reactionary monarchs. Realistically, we cannot build a movement entirely on atheists considering that they have a lower percentage of the population so Christians and Muslims should be considered too.

Then why is it that all of the people that invented socialism were Christian, or at least residing in Christian countries and being taught Christian values?

This is classism. Stop supporting a class based system.

Pretty sure Jews contributed a lot to socialism too.

Then it's not socialism. It's a caste system.

And how many of those Jews grew up in Islamic countries, or were taught Islamic values.

I think you are just throwing the word fascism around as a scare word like terrorist. Fascism is historically linked to imperialism and the imperialist forces of the axis that participated in world war two. Mussolini was supported by the British empire in the great imperialist war WW1 in order to get Italy into the war and he was very much an imperialist.

With that said the countries adopting ideologies like Gaddafism and Nasserism were all attacked by imperialists rather then being imperialist themselves. The imperialists destroyed Libya. Gaddafi in his green book says "The final step is when the new socialist society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear" which is similar to Engels in principles of communism. Nasser was even given the order of lenin by the soviet union. Yes none of these Muslims were Marxist really but to expect them to be Marxist (when that is associated with atheism) in one of these religious or socially conservative countries is incredibly idealistic and unrealistic.

Islam is inherently imperialist.

It didn't spread from Arabian deserts peacefully you moron.

Perhaps not "fascist" but definitely turd position.


There have been religious Marxists in the past. Unfortunately, very few of them have been Muslim.

Truth. Usually, the claim goes that the Arabs were peaceful until the Byzantines and Persians attacked them, but this is not true. It's also BS to assume the Muslims were "tolerant" by allowing Christians and Jews in the regions they conquered to keep their religion. In reality, the reason forced conversions weren't allowed had far more to do with needing religious minorities to tax and fund the growing empire than it did any idealist conception of an "egalitarian religion".

This is completely false. The Western Europeans colonized essentially the entire Islamic world. All of Africa was colonized by Western Europe by the time of the Berlin conference. South Asia was colonized by the British. After the great imperialist war (WW1) the imperialist forces of Britain and France took all of the colonies of the defeated forces of Germany and the Ottomans with the imperialist predatory treaty of versailles. They even occupied Constantinople for a time but they were forced out by the Turks. Essentially all of the Islamic world was colonized then in recent history.


You are talking about what happened a millenia ago and what happened there is certainly not the same process as the colonialism of Western Europe which involved an overseas empire. Actually North Africa and the Levant were later colonized by the West. Under Sykes-Picot the British and French colonized the Levant.


No he is not "literally a socialist" you need to learn the difference between socialism and liberalism. Kissing the feet of Muslims like that at most makes him a liberal. You cannot be a socialist and a monarch at the same time and the pope is a monarch. Also the point about the decree against communism and Catholic opposition to socialism stands. There are different strands of Christianity but the pope will not support meaningful socialism.

to be fair, if you look at the whole history it's a fucking ping pong game.

ping roman empire colonize middle east
pong caliphate colonize Spain
ping Crusades
pong Ottomans invasions of East Europe
ping XIXth century European imperialism.

Islam is not inherently imperialist. In fact, it was the European powers that colonized the Muslim world in recent history.


No that is not true as the Europeans were the ones that colonized the Muslim world.


I don't think the saying goes quite like that. What happened is that the Romans and the Persians were fighting each other for almost six hundred years before Islam came around. In this context the two empires used Arabs like the Ghassanids and the Lakmids as their clients. When Islam came around after the ridda wars all the Arabs were united.


At the time of the Muslim conquests the Chalcedonian Christian establishment in the Byzantine empire did not support oriental orthodox groups like the coptic orthodox church of egypt where as the Muslims did. This is one of the reasons they were supported in the places they conquered. If the Byzantines were completely supported by the population the conquest wouldn't have been possible.

This doesn't answer anything I said.

Basically, I was implying leftists who understand "Islamic tolerance" through idealism (i.e. claiming that Islam itself has tolerance of others as one of its primary ideals) rather than understanding such a thing through MATERIALISM are idiots.

Muslims needed minorities to tax so they could fund their empire. They also needed political allies, which was one of the primary reasons why the Ottomans took in the Sephardim after their expulsion from Spain in 1492 (hint: it wasn't because the Muslims just loved the Jews soooo much). Benevolent acts should never be looked at in a vacuum.

Islam is inherently imperialist because its entire theology revolves around a civilizing mission, no different than what the British and French did in Africa and elsewhere. Muslims believe they have an obligation to "civilize" corrupted peoples, specifically Jews and Christians, and that the world will never know peace until Islam is spread all throughout it.

This is why religious Muslims will never become Marxist: their entire epistemology is 100% pure, grade-A idealism. It's an old ideology that lingers to this day, really not all that different from the white working class which turns to fundamentalist Christianity.

There's also a reason why ZOG Occupied Government conspiracy theories are so big with Palestinians. Yes, the only Jews they see on a daily basis are colonizing them, but at the same time, how the FUCK are these conspiracy theories something socialists should defend or make excuses for, especially when they hurt their ability to resist in a socialist manner?

This is merely a disagreement over the meaning of words. I believe that it is possible to be a Muslim and merely believe in god and the prophetship of Muhammad and to pray towards Mecca and so on without believing in imperialism. I contend that claiming Islam is imperialist won't do us any favours - that is only going to turn Muslims away rather then even giving them a chance. We should try at least to make more Muslims socialists and that means allowing for some leeway with the meaning of the word "Islam." I agree with you about anti-semitic conspiracy theories they don't help.

At this point, the world's Muslims are far more right-wing and traditionalist than they were 50 years ago, no doubt due in part to the Saudis spreading wahhabi ideology.

Fifty years ago there was a shot for the left to have merged Islam with socialism, albeit creating a heretical form of both, because communism was the ideology of resistance. Today, it's arguably much harder, and whiny white liberals who deny internal contradictions within Islamic societies, or who insist Muhammad was a socialist or some other bullshit, aren't doing us any favors.

Islam for one is entirely metaphysical (hence idealism). Social roles are defined by God, not by man, as are economics, politics, and whatnot. Given that stricter interpretations of the faith are becoming more popular, it's going to take A LOT to move Muslims in our direction.

No, it wasn't. The Islamic world has never been colonized moron.

Are you talking about the fact that European powers freed the Arabs from Ottoman oppression? Because that isn't colonization.

But this is your personal belief, which is completely disconnected from reality and history. Islam has always been and currently still is fully engaged in imperialism.

Islam started as a religion in deserts of Arabia.

Islam spread through Arabia via conquest.

Islam spread to the Middle East via conquest.

Islam spread to Central Asia via conquest.

Islam spread to North Africa via conquest.

Islam spread to Spain via conquest.

Islam spread to Eastern Europe via conquest.

Islam spread to the Balkans via conquest.

Islam is currently colonizing Europe and the West.

Demographics are spooky. Cultural shift actually matters.

You know some people converted to Islam too. It is an Abrahamic religion with similarities to Christianity and Judaism which predate Islam. People in other Abrahamic religions were among those that converted to Islam. There were also converts from Zoroastrianism and other religions. But every religion has a mix of conquest and conversion. There is nothing particularly special about Islam in this regard. The only thing that distinguishes is it that we have the backwards tyrannical monarchy of Saudi Arabia using its oil money to fund its reactionary version of Islam.

This is just like saying Israel shouldn't be boycotted because apartheid exists in some form in most other western states.

What is maghreb?

Algerian elites screwed over their own people, handing everything to the French.

Colonization isn't just about who has the bigger gun but who is willing to sell out to whom.

Indeed. Why single out Israel for boycott? Perhaps Finkelstein was right about BDS.

#AllLivesMatter

Yeah I'd convert too if I was banned from worshipping my own religion, had to pay a tax for being a different religion, and had to give my firstborn son into military service for the Islamic state.

In what fucking way are they not imperialists???

...

Ottoman imperialism is LITERALLY NOT THE SAME THING as western imperialism you sad orientalist sinner!!!!

The place where Moors came from and invaded spain.
The place that contained the Barbary states that practiced terrorism and white slavery for centuries.


lol its worse

It's a dialectical analysis: the pre-colonial elites usually make alliances with colonizers, and they too are just as much to blame as colonial powers for the colonization.

Even in regards to Palestine, the Zionists wouldn't have been able to just come in had absentee Palestinian elites in Alexandria, Damascus, and Constantinople not willingly sold them anything.

The noble savage trope belongs in the graveyard. Colonized peoples are not a monolith who are spared from any criticisms. The working class ones, yes, but the national bourgeoisie are almost always scum in their own right.

Also the place colonized by the French during XIXcentury.
It's a fucking pingpong game.

OK so lets see:
1. Muslims hit the ball by invading north Africa.
2. Muslims hit the ball by invading Andalusia.
3. Muslims hit the ball by terrorizing and enslaving Europeans.
4. Muslims get conquered by other Muslims (Ottomans).
5. Europeans free them and guarantee protection, while allowing Muslims to immigrate into Europe.
6. Muslims continue terrorizing and enslaving Europeans into XX century.
7. Muslims colonizing Europe in XXI century.

True
There was no chance of spreading it peacefully the meccans taifians and Yemenis exiled them and starved them to death so they moved to Medina where the political struggle took over the spooky struggle
The only wars that have been fought was between mecca and Medina and some in the north against Rome
Ancient Yemen , Najd , al-hijaz ,were converted peacefully out of being soo spooked by the new religion
returning to the political and material , both eastern Rome and Persia starved and waged proxy war using arabs for centuries
and both empires felt the need to end Islam to continue dominating the Arabian peninsula

True

only 50% the other 50% convert peacefully to the spook trying to get prestige and alliance with the Arabs traders

That was not an Islamic conquest it was the old monarchy "the ammuaines " running from the new "abbaseds "
It was political and materiel driven

When the Turks wanted to rule Arabs the Arabs agreed under one condition that the Turks never enslave them
So it was politically motivated

True

Last one
Via treading and treading alone

laughing in terrorist

Anyway Holla Forums next time you try to talk about something try to READ about it before talking k ?

This is like Ibn Saud making an alliance with the British.

My point exactly. The NB are not to be trusted, ever.

Okay, debates about colonialism and who colonized who aside, in every discussion over Islam and communism we must ask: what can Islamic theology teach Marxism (or anarchism)? If we accept that the modern far-left has a moral obligation to accept Islam as it has become the "religion of the oppressed" since 9/11, what does the left actually benefit from doing so as far as our praxis is concerned?

For example, would throwing out the materialist dialectic - or radically altering it - and taking up an epistemology closer to that of traditional Islam help the far-left overcome some of its major pitfalls, or help us gain a better understanding of our place in the world and relation to history?

What about Islamic teachings of ethics? Would taking those up ensure that the far-left is able to transcend the mentality of our adversaries?

In this case, almost all calls for Marxism or anarchism to be "islamofied" are not coming from Muslims but from do-gooder white liberals who just like to project their revolutionary dreams unto oppressed peoples. I doubt any of them have in-depth knowledge of Islamic theology or philosophy aside from the things their do-gooder white liberal college professors have told them.

So let's have this talk: in what ways would Islam benefit our theory and practice?

Wanted to add: the biggest issue I see with the far-left dabbling with Islam is how heavily the left has become saturated with postmodernism. Islam, like most religions, is an absolutist school of thought: God is real, God's role in everything is real, the Qur'an is the exact word of God, God's law is to be obeyed, sin and morality exist, etc.

Now, the left's application of the cruder form of postmodernism is funny. On one hand, you have the moment where absolute truth in metaphysics and ethics is realized to be nothing more than a myth, and everything comes down to the will to power. But then they swing like a pendulum right back to absolutist ways of thinking ("white people eating sushi is cultural appropriation because whites are literally colonizing the Japanese by touching their culture!!!"). So let's introduce Islam into the mix: how does it change all of this?

It should also be noted that most of these "hijabi feminists" you see on SJW sites are completely modern and have little connection to the traditionalism of their great-grandparents.

seconded.
not sure whats the goal with importing millions of people who are at the polar opposite of western value.

western leaders have either been borderline retarded naive to believe that they would integrate or are pushing for a civil war on purpose.

Some of them are just in the pockets of the Saudis and the other monstrously rich gulf monarchies. When you are near the highest concentration of oil reserves in the world, namely the Persian gulf, there is a lot of oil money to go around. The Saudis get western leaders to spread Wahhabism. Most of the recent Western imperialist wars including against Iraq, Syria, and Libya have benefited the Saudis rather then actually confronted Wahhabism and radical Islamism. The war on terror is a farce.

I can say nearly all Muslim immigrants in the EU are there for economic reasons or to escape war/conflict. None of these Algerians in France come over to "become French" but to make more money and create a better life for them and their kids.

Interestingly enough, Islamic Law actually prohibits migration for economic means.

Many of these wars / conflicts are against relatively secular leaders that don't support Saudi Wahhabism. Assad is a secular leader that allows Shias, Sunnis, and Orthodox Christians to coexist yet the West needs to oppose yet another secular leader allowing Wahhabist forces like the Army of conquest and Al Nusra to take hold in the country which plays right into the hands of the Saudis who also oppose Assad. The West does nothing to stop the Saudis who fund this Wahhabist version of Islam and rather they consistently fight wars against the Saudis enemies.

Islam and Marxism is like fire and ice. Doesn't work and leaves you with a mess.

people wrongly assume that Islam is just a religion like Christianism.
Islam is in its own a social code, and it isn't compatible with other societies.
most Muslims in western countries will shield themselves from the outside world and live in their own bubble. they're own areas ect…
they will not integrate because doing so would mean laving Islam.

Yes it is a problem. Go look at statistics on British Muslims. A huge amount want to impose Sharia law and don't even like the country.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=976611

A fairly decent study on Muslims in regards to Europe, its fairly long but its very well researched and goes into a lot of different topics. It was written in 2008 so it may seem outdated but it predicts most of the issues that have occurred in recent time like the migrant crisis.

Islam allows for the ownership of slaves and concubines (as long as either are non-Muslim, and the concubines are unlimited as opposed to the 4 wife rule). Muhammed himself owned slaves and concubines too in addition to his many official wives.

So socialist!

I am personally of the opinion that we should use reactionary spooks to lure in all different kind of people to radicalize them along our lines.

It will be difficult to institute socialism in islamic societies


This is false.
I've been on haj, have you?

All humans are social btw. Saying muslims are more likely to be eglitarian because of a few cultural values is sophistry at best.

I'll just take your multiple bullshit claims one at a time.
Prove Hindu and Christian cultures both have at any time had honor killings to the tune of modern islam.

If you want an analogy, take a look at the lifestyles of ultra-orthodox Jews. They shield themselves from the profane world almost entirely. They only life among each other and most of them won't mingle with goyim at all. And they believe the words of their rabbis trump secular law, hence why they only have religious marriages, don't get vaccinated, etc. Deeply religious Muslims are the same way.

...

Demographics and culture go hand in hand. Even if you only immigrated healthy children under 3 months old which is impossible.

It's bad philosophy and bad sociology.

It is true that Marx and Engels said the proletariat were the revolutionary class because proles were collectivist in their work, but applying this notion to cultures is dubious.

By that logic, indigenous Polynesians are the true revolutionary subjects because they're collectivist as hell.

I just wish religions like atheism died out.

ITT: Retards letting one retard get away with the premise that the population increase isn't linear, but it will only drop by 3% over 100 years.

ayy nice argument!

Forgot your >, because it would sum up the whole thread.

Nice argument tho lmao

MEEMS!

Not going to sage because you're clearly deadset on keeping this absolute shit show on page one.

Also, what Christian? Protestant? Catholic? Orthodox? Miaphisite?

What muslim? Indians and Pakis that are there because colonialism? Refugees? British?

IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS PROPAGANDA OR ANYTHING!

You're forgetting every tribe that didn't convert was put to the sword.

How the fuck can they starve them? Fuck off.

Yeah you usually only have to kill half before the other half will convert out of fear, you fucking mong. Fuck off.

Muslim conquest. Fuck off.

What does this have to do with the conquest of Eastern Europe?

Via Jihad and Jihad alone. Both the Shaliendra and Majapahit dynasties resisted Islamic conquest.

The only reason Islam won in the end is because the Buddhists preached peace and nonviolence despite Islamic incursion. They were the only people to choose death in response to Islamic "convert or die" ultimatum.

The Mongol invasions of Iraq and Iran by more violent Buddhists Chengiz Khan and his son Hulagu Khan were in direct response to the Islamic destruction of Buddhist sacred places.

Considering you agreed to half his stuff and pathetically tried to excuse the other half, I'd say he made his point.

It's only an issue if you play idpol, and since they are everyone's fucked

Lie , they converted out of being spooked , the Kaaba had it is own precipitate before islam so when memehemt toke over it they got spooked peacefully

The taifians exiled them and the meccnas held them in "shaab ibn talib" where they ate tree leaves and leather out of hunger for three years after that the ran to Somalia some of them lived their "and spread spookilslam" peacefully and after that they moved to Medina

only Egypt and Tunisia , Morocco Libya and Algiers were spooked peacefully

That is like calling the colonization of Egypt and Jordan by the brits and the french a crusade
Stop being a retard

The Turks needed slaves so what is the closest source of that ? eastern Europe

True
But i wasn't talking about the main land "India etc "
i was talking about Indonesian and the rest of the southeast Asia islands

the islands were converted by trading alone

No he was a Tengrist that simply wanted to expand the land look at Russia and Europe , read about him the next time

I am no Muslim spook and i recognize their fuck ups
But he used incorrect historical info to wove a narrative for him that was wrong from the base
Next time read from a book no twitter k ?

interesting find, thank you

Forced conversion isn't even allowed in Islam. It's shit, but not that particular kind.

It's institutionalized.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

That's not only not forced conversion, it's light years ahead of modern Islamic nations.

Obviously it's barbaric by current social standards, but it certainly kept up with the ethics of contemporary Western culture.

Thats a nice way of saying they saw people being beheaded for having a different faith, and decided they wanted their heads attached. There's even a process in Islam for beheading all the male members of a tribe and enslaving the females.

HOW COULD ROMANS STARVE MOHAMMED MORON

Fucking lol.

What proportion of Egypt and Jordan are British colonists?

Are you trying to get people to hate you even more.

Shaliendra and Majapahit are Indonesian dynasties.

lol do you have a single fact to back that up?

You agreed with half his claims, and even agreed with mine. You just made excuses for the imperialism of Islam.
That's not an argument.

It's the definition of forced conversion, since the purpose of it is to create a poor underclass of non believers, just like being forbidden from having houses that can overlook those of muslims.

That's not even getting into the kidnapping of children so they can be forcefully converted, the utter ban on the construction or repair of non-muslim places of worship, the inability of dhimmis to testify against a muslim in court meaning a muslim can commit any crime against them up to rape and murder, the kidnapping of boy children for soldiers and girl children for slaves, being forbidden to own horses, being forced to give land to a muslim if he demands it… The entire Islamic system is designed to put pressure on unbelievers and get them to convert, if you don't call this forced conversion, that's on you.

You are actually this retarded.

Hi you seemed to have left out a major part, in fact the most important one. Why don't you kindly go fuck yourself.

England is the most atheistic country in the world.

They banned forced conversions because they needed a group of people to tax and subjugate.

Someone please answer this.

I literally used to work for this taxi company in Leicester, the guy should have called the office instead of letting the driver do it instead.

The office staff and management were well aware that none of the drivers could refuse a guide dog by law, drivers were allowed to refuse pets but NOT guide dogs. We'd obviously not send Muslims if possible as we couldn't stand their BS (to be fair it was only one or two who were uppity like this, others didn't care at all, there was nazi white driver who refused pets altogether as well but stfu with guide dogs).

Anyway typical disciplinary process would have been to turn the guy's PDA till he spoke with the head manager (often the following morning as he finishes by half 2), these drivers pay a weekly rent to the office (£100 I think 3 years ago I think) and we dole out jobs from the phone to them in return for them keeping the fares.

Ignoring entirely the fact the most people who say they are Muslim are not really, particularly second or third generation immigrants

That is clearly implied in OP. Muzzies bring their culture with them. Will the resultant cultural shift be good for socialism or the west in general?

You don't necessarily stay in the religion you were born into for all of your life. So these predictions are nonsense.

Islam has a better retention rate than most. In fact some of that growth came from converts. Humour me for a minute and assume for the purposes of this thread that Islams stay islamic for the most part.

So, to escape subjugation, one goes to the mosque and declares the shahada. Seems to be a small issue in your modelling of the situation.

more like

If you look it up a large amount of converts deconvert soon after.

I noticed a trend of something I call the Neo-Muslim. A Neo-Muslim is like a person who calls themselves a Neo-Nazi because they think it is cool to be rebellious or because it gets them a ton of attention. With all the Islamic Terrorism going on Islam is the go to ideology for this attention whoring. Plus on top of that it gives them an excuse for a victimhood mentality. Muslims fucking loooove to have a persecution complex and hugely exaggerate any hate toward Muslims. This is why you see so many Muslim black women these days, its a power play in the Oppression Olympics.

ALL RELIGION IS ANTI-MARXIST

Perhaps you can give a better explanation as to why Muslims banned forced conversions other than "Muhammad was soooo gracious!"?

Because there are zero material analyses of Islam or how or why the Islamic state and religion formed as it did. All I'm seeing are noble savage tropes.

.

Islam declares that the believer should have a personal relationship with the almighty. Whereas simple profession and ritual will do for Christianity, the Muslim must wholeheartedly commit to their faith. Ergo, forced conversion is ultimately counter productive.

The Qu'ran itself rages against the brutal consequences of poverty in pagan Arabia, one ayah exhorts believers not to kill their own children because of destitution. Muhammad's Quraysh antagonists are portrayed as doing quite nicely out of the pre-Islamic status quo, too.

This is idealism 101, folks.

I take it you're a religious Muslim who is just hellbent on dawah.

Also:
No.

So do Hasidic Jews. Do you believe Hasidic Judaism benefits communism?

Confirmed for being full of shit.

Okay, so WHY is this the case?

WHY is Islam organized in this manner? What were the material conditions which made it this way?

Those goalposts must have no inertia to accelerate like that.

I was not asked if X benefits communism and do not see why you are now trying to imply that was the question I answered.


Thanks for your opinion. I'm going to assume you have never met a church congregation.


*sigh*. As I stated above, the Qu'ran itself states pre-Islamic Arabia was a tribal society. You have gross levels of inequality with rich tribal leaders (the Quraysh) co-existing alongside the utterly destitute (people murdering their own kids for lack of food). I'm surprised I'm having to spell out that a religion that recruited primarily the poor would have an interest in flattening the pre-existing hierarchy.

It's probably worth mention that the position of priest within Christian denominations is itself hierarchical to complete my point, tbh.

It is not only the UK, in France 1/3 of every child is checked for sickle-cell anemia which basically means 1/3rd of newborns are black.
I really wonder what this dysgenic trend it will do to the state given a couple of generations.

Nigger I fucking grew up in the dutch bible belt, I've been to church a lot, I was in a hard core christian school, I live next to the people who are fanatics.

You are full of shit, mostly your skull, it seems.

Except Islam doesn't resolve class contradiction. Qur'an only says the rich are forbidden to hoard wealth but not extract it. Usury on money is prohibited but not usury on land (landlordism).

Also, the idea that Islam emerged as a "response" to the growing class inequality in Arabia - and is thus a "good" religion - is dubious at best. Muhammad himself was a wealth merchant who became something of a pope-king.

How many catholics follow their church teaching on birth control, pray tell?


Where did I say it did?

Plenty do. Hell, half my neighbourhood follows the "no birth control allowed" rule. Fucking cunts.

Again, get of your high camel.

forgot to add:

And i live in a protestant area. They are litterally all about whats in the book.

Islam also has strict views regarding human sexuality. I don't see why its lack of a bureaucracy means anything. Authoritarian standards are authoritarian standards regardless as to whether or not they're enforced by the gun.

If Islam was just virtue ethics, as a lot of "progressive Muslims" like to claim, then the notion of sin and hell wouldn't exist.

You implied that Islam is somehow a "proletarian" or "socialist" religion by claiming that Islam emerged as a response to class contradictions in Arabia. If that were the case, why didn't Islam call for communal sharing of property, abolish inheritance (inheritance is a big thing in Islamic Law), abolish commodity relations, abolish landlordism, etc.? Islam's "socialism" is really nothing more than old Arabian social democracy.

Not to mention, the idea that Islam was brought in to "civilize" Arabian society doesn't add up once you realize that the vast majority of polemics in the Qur'an are aimed at Jews and Christians, when most of pre-Islamic Arabia was pagan. Why would pagans care about what the Jews and Christians believe?

No. I claimed merely that Islam responded to class contradictions in Arabia. Similarly, Social Democracy is a response to class contradictions without meeting the arbitrary criteria you have laid out and are attacking me for not meeting.

So Islam is a religion of class-collaborationism?

Sounds about right.

In the story anyway. There is no real proof he ever existed and if he did there is evidence the Quran could have pre-dated him so he just took it and used it as propaganda for war waging.

Most of the Qur'an was plagiarized from heretical Christian texts and Jewish oral Torah.

My guess is the "Muhammad" of Islam never existed but was merely a mythologized version of a figure or two who became merged.

Except that doesn't make sense, since if a Muslim stops having a personal wholehearted relationship with Allah and wants to stop being a Muslim… he gets MURDERED.

Honestly your Taqqyia is so transparent it's not even funny.

You have to ask what hair covering, not eating pork, not having sex until marriage, etc. has to do with a "personal relationship with God."

...

No, it dosen't become okay to apologize for religion just because of imperialism.

What do you do when someone openly professes they are against socialism? Do you let the rotten apple spoil the barrel? No, you send them to Gulag, when they will be worked to death.


To test each individual and separate the faithful from the unfaithful.

Depends. Anarchists would have different ways of dealing with those people than stalnists.

Islam calls for killing apostates because apostates were seen as the same thing as a traitor to a STATE, which proves Islam's authoritarian nature.

In Judaism, there are esoteric/kabbalistic meanings behind each of the mitzvot. Islam, to my knowledge, lacks this, and Sufis (the mystics) are seen as heretics and routinely killed in places like Egypt.

This. There is a difference between defending spooks and attacking the kind of repressive social authority required to prohibit them from the top down.

My experience with muslim immigrants is that the parents are usually fairly secular but still believe. Their kids on the other hand tend to radicalize or stop believing completely though they'll fake it to not upset their parents.

Additional info, I'm in the US so it could easily be way different in the EU with the numbers you're seeing.

So Muhammad was basically Kautsky, someone who saw the state as an institution to RECONCILE the contradictions between classes rather than move to abolish class outright.

Nothing. Unless they're actively working to undermine socialism their opinion is worthless, especially considering nothing they say could damage socialism.

Do you think Islam is so easy to weak a religion that it can be defeated by privately held beliefs, or words?

"Mohammed you have two options for testing faithful and unfaithful:"
"A) Demand that the faithful lead a virtuous and righteous life, never lie, never do crime or harm another."
"B) Demand that the faithful not eat pork. Also they must behead those who disagree."
"What do you choose, oh Highest Prophet?"

The punishments anarchism would offer are no less a death sentence for the transgressor.


You would be happy for reactionaries to openly agitate against socialism?

Furthermore, God commands Muslims to enact both of those clauses within your question.

edition.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politics/muslims-moment-khan/

How do American Muslims feel now that they too can pointlessly die in Middle Eastern quagmires that only further destabilise the lands of their co-religionists?

And this is why you're incompatible with socialism, Mr. Dawah "Opiate of the Masses" Taqqiya.

There is a BBC documentary called "What British Muslims Want".

youtube.com/watch?v=oTp18arMLFc
youtube.com/watch?v=VzhOg7FnvWc
youtube.com/watch?v=hfXYzRR1eDM
youtube.com/watch?v=PEgWHNbsPyc

Oh please. Now you're just making assumptions.

Also:
Muhammad = Kautsky

Not supporting Trumps ban or anything here, but that's disingenuous. The amount of Muslim immigrants and their offspring who join the army is minuscule as a percentage of their number. You probably have a higher percentage of rapists and terrorists than you would have Muslim soldiers in the army.

He definitely existed, his contemporariness outlived him and even his successor Abu Bakr was his father-in-law through Aisha could attest to him and Muhammad/Aisha's daughter Fatima gave rise to the Fatamid dynasty not long after. It's absurd to say he didn't exist, his savage exploits were clearly recorded and including the exploits of a man who went apostate Abu Ibn Saar but recanted (Muhammed wanted him dead when he was brought to him on his knees, but his guards wouldn't act without explicit instruction and Muhammed couldn't be arsed to follow it up later after he scolded him).

Even John of Damascus born only 43 years after Muhammed's death, a wealthy Christian aristocrat who had to learn the quran and the auxiliary Hadiths as part of his Arabic education (alongside his Greek education) could regurgitate the same stories (through his polemics) on Muhammed and his successors, many of whom his own father and grandfather lived and collaborated with.

Watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=zzKk0L6H1ms
then this
youtube.com/watch?v=nwo5xpO390k

What you're describing is just what Muslims believe not facts.

The quran obviously went through several iterations (Uthman's actions, early Christian scholars making references to now non-existent surahs, and archaeological findings of non-conforming texts).

However Tom Holland is being an attention whore, don't forget history in academia is very ideological and it entertains a broad and varying range of interpretation to point where mere conjecture based on coins can be passed off as objective truth on the lineage and time-frame of dynasties (albeit till further evidence is discovered).

Again what does this say of dialogues and communications, treaties made between the Byzantine Emperors (even pretenders and traitors) and several of the early caliphs that personally knew Muhammed?

So Abu Bakr suddenly led the Arabs out of Arabia with this new religion (more like a cult of personality) based on a man who apparently didn't exist but fucked his daughter and provided him a granddaughter Fatima, as well as this same man being close friends to many of the other tribal leaders that would also take their turn in running the caliphate.

If there was no Muhammed, then there wouldn't even be a reason for the Shia and Sunni split to have occurred either. In any case Ali was Muhammad's cousin as well as his son-in-law.

I am not convinced by Holland to say the least.

And? Who's to say they won't all grow up to be atheist adults? Who even cares what religion they are, anyway? That's not indicative of the type of person they are, just what comic book fan club they're subscribed to.

DAILY REMINDER ANTIFA ARE JUST AS FASCIST AS ACTUAL FASCISTS.

youtube.com/watch?v=l1X5F3xkN0M

Did you actually watch it? Aside from just the second vid. Just to sum it up Muhammad and Islam doesn't really appear in history by name till long after he was supposed to be dead. Christianity and Judaism split. Hell even Buddhism split. So that isnt a good argument.

...

There's also the fact that there's zero evidence outside of Muslim sources which prove Muhammad existed the way Muslims believe he did.

If anything, the figure of "Muhammad" was a compilation of two or more individuals, one of them a warlord/emperor and the other a mystic. The Qur'an is obviously a forgery so there's no reason to believe it was dictated directly from God to anyone.

These are the same people that say shit like "for antifa everyone right of Stalin is a fascist."

Wouldn't anti-fascist apply to anyone who's apposed to fascism?

Like it or not, there are serious implications for the far-left AND the far-right.

The far-right plays off of paranoia, as they're doing right now in most of western Europe. Take all of the recent terror attacks into consideration (Nice, the handful of lone-wolf attacks which happened in Germany over the past two weeks, etc.) and you're bound to see a fascism revival soon.

Here's the thing: if the far-left had any brains, they'd go into the banlieues and teach ghettoized Muslims historical materialism so they'd understand their oppression through a Marxist lens, ditch the religious bullshit, and turn to us for support and action. But that's not what's happening. The left, for some reason, assumes that doing so would make us "western chauvinists" since teaching HistMat to kebab ultimately entails kebab let's go of its special snowflake Islamic epistemology and adopts a materialist way of thinking. So, you continue to see scores of angsty, unemployed Muslim men take up the ISIS ideology and attack the west for the name of Muhammad rather than the name of Marx.

Now, you can bet the far-right are going to benefit from this the most. Without a strong left, the right seeps right in and takes power.

By forgery you mean how it copies Christian and Jewish texts while also working in things from Zorostrianism?

All that would do is turn the governments against communism and socialism even more if they kill with that reasoning. They shouldnt kill at all. But if you can convert the Muslims you pretty much have the liberals won over too since they dont use logic when it comes to arab immigrants. They will just do whatever they do.

Yes. The Qur'an contains tons of plagiarisms from Orthodox Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, Judaism (specifically, hardcore orthodox Jewish sects which existed in what is now southern Iraq at the time), Zoroastrianism, Arab paganism, and perhaps even Hinduism (the Kaaba in Mecca looks very similar to a Shiva temple).


Liberals aren't principled. They go where the narcissistic supply is, which, given the new moral agenda that has appeared since the dawn of neoliberalism and in the aftermath of 9/11, today lies within islamo-chauvinism and multiculturalism. "Muslims have such better values than the West, guize! We need to be more like those noble savage Muslims because they do everything better than us!"

The only reason you see Muslims take up the ISIS ideology and attack the west is because of the actions of the west itself. It was the British who allied with the Saudis and who established them in Arabia allowing them to spread Wahhabism like that ISIS holds. And the West is attacking secular countries like Syria, Iraq, and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan well supporting fundamentalist ones like the Saudis. This is the opposite of opposing fundamentalism & terrorism. The west is the main sponsor of terrorism.

ISIS is a Wahhabi group which has a similar ideology to the Saudis and it only came into power after the execution of Saddam in 2006 demonstrating the combined Western / Saudi role in creating ISIS. Now the West is supporting "moderate rebels" and other Wahhabi terrorists overthrow Assad. This is not the fault of the left nor of liberals who worry about being "western chauvinists" who aren't actually leftist.

Bro, read what I said again: at this point, ISIS ideology is as much a failure of the left TO ACT as it is Western imperialism's for destroying secular/progressive leaders in the Arab World. You are committing a grave sin as a "Marxist" for thinking in a fashion that's undialectical: yes, our enemies are at fault but the solutions to both the West and ISIS lie with the role of the party/organization.

So yes, regardless as to how much money the West gives the Saudis and the Saudis give the fundies, WE are the ones who need to be proactive which, in this case, would absolutely entail recruiting disenfranchised Muslim immigrants into the far-left by teaching them Marxist/HistMat and forcing their religious superstitions and metaphysics out of their minds.

Do you suggest this for all religious groups or just Muslims?

Sure, but given the large number of dispossessed Muslims in European ghettos (who, by the way, have all the will in the world to rebel), our priorities should be with them.

reddit.com/r/islam/comments/1q6w17/is_socialism_compatible_with_islam/cda2tum

All three Abrahamic religions (and probably every religion ever) and socialism are inherently contradictory. They rob humankind of their historical agency and give it to God instead. Religion is the spookiest spook.

To add, you don't just let Muslims rot in ghettos until imperialism ends. The role of any serious ML Party or anarchist federation should be to take these people under our wing and expose them to radical philosophy so they'll fight under the red and/or black banner rather than the shahada. There is currently zero difference between Muslims in France who carry out attacks for ISIS and Jews who flee antisemitism by running off to Israel and living as Zionist-colonials: both are examples of the oppressed turning to reactionary ideologies due to the failure of the left to bring them in.

Yes, that's why Muslim countries are generally known for being socialist utopias.

Assumptions need not be incorrect. All I have assumed is that you will give the one of the almost mechanically predictable pair of anarchist answers to such a question.

Every. Fucking. Time.

What about Liberation Theology?

Albania and Yugoslavia have had large Muslim populations for centuries. If you think muh ebul caliphate is why the Middle East is a shithole, you are either retarded or still think being an atheist makes you smart.

Nice cherrypicking m8.

Hoxha heavily repressed religion to the point where it was illegal to grow a beard, as long beards were symbolic of Islam and Orthodox Christianity.

Bosnian Muslims follow a very unorthodox Islamic teaching which makes them distinct.

No, we're saying the teachings of Islam are incompatible with communism in the same way the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity or Confucianism are. "Islamic socialism", as was mentioned earlier, is far closer to turd position than ML or anarchism. Even standard Islamic teachings on economics render something much closer to Proudhon's mutualism (sans the anarchism stuff of course) than ML.

Tito was one of the most successful socialist leaders in history.

This is true, but why didn't the Muslims overthrow him?

And I'm the one that's cherry picking? Islam is Islam. Examples that prove your point are not "more" Islam.

I don't know why this one autismal idiot insists on posting an "islamic socialism" thread every week, but this is not what I was contending. Islam is no less compatible with secularism than other religions as well.
Though being incompatible with ML isn't necessarily a bad thing. It belongs in the past.

A majority of Albanians may call themselves Muslim, but a Gallup poll a few years ago found that 63% of respondents said religion did not play an important role in their life.

Promoting an Islamic socialism could be used to attract spooky reactionaries towards our own absolute radicalism, we should also promote a satanic socialism and a germanic pagan socialism to attract other spooky reactionaries.

The same could have been said for Iran before the burgers ruined it, though, that's my point. Middle Eastern theocracies don't give a shit about social security or safety, they use religion as a tool to keep people pacified. It's become a symbol of resistance to the West in particular, not merely all nonbelievers; they don't take well to Westernized Muslims either.

By that, I hope you mean Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia.

And if so, nice cherrypicking, because they're easily the best Muslim countries to live in the world (if we're not talking economically wise).

Culturally Muslim, but with free open societies and a healthy democratic system. If I was a woman, I'd easily pick to live there if given a choice.

Compare these to the shitholes in the Muslim world.

...

Untrue. Islam is as sectarian as Christianity, if not more so. Sunnis don't consider Shias "real Muslims" and vice-versa. Sufi mystics are often killed by more orthodox Muslims. A large reason why so many Syrians hate Assad is because he and his family aren't considered "tw00 Muslims" (they're Alawite).

You people do know that Malthus was basically wrong on population crashes, right?

Once a population peaks, it doesn't keep increasing but slowly stabilizes and goes down. Of course this has to do with education,class, income and available opportunities.

Even if a second generation Muslim shits out 6 kids, only a couple of his third generation kids will get a high end education degree or a job that isn't flipping burgers. This explains why so many third generation Muslims are so disaffected an angry with the Western societies they are brought up with, they have no chances of sucess, so that they can get a job, grow a family and become successful, as the competition in cheap/blue collar labor jobs has become too great in the west.

See:

The whole "they don't REALLY believe in it" trope doesn't work here. I'd even go so far as to say claims like that are nothing more than a case of modernity universalizing its "God is dead" condition.

social security? As in welfare and over social services? I'd hardly think Middle Eastern theocracies are completely brazen when it comes to this, but I don't think that even there that religion acts as a complete substitute for materialistic satisfaction. In Iran's theocracy (like in all other theocracies), it is a tendency for the ruling clerics to rule through paternalism, which extends to light social services. As in you're all sons of Iran, or Saudi Arabia. The public services there are probably a bit shoddy compared to the west, but recently Ahmadinejad in Iran ran a quite hefty scheme of giving everyone a small allowance every month (which I think was cut recently). It came to the point that they had to have $146 for a barrel of oil to balance the budget. The society in Saudi Arabia is a essentially a welfare state, where virtually education and health is provided free of charge to its citizens (and most of the heavy work is done by expats).

All in all, I think is a bit wrong to suggest that religion is to make up for the deficiencies of the rule in a particular country. It's more of a glue for social cohesion. You don't necessarily have to be a Shia to have a cleric blare at you that Britain and the evil West is responsible for all your country's problems due to ingrained historical grievances, but religion acts as a sort of lubricant or vehicle.

It's more of an insidious thing.

And thus do We diversify the verses so the disbelievers will say, "You have studied," and so We may make the Qur'an clear for a people who know. - 6:105

It heavily depends on infant mortality and female participation in the workplace, which is tied to overall education of women. I don't think there is more of a broad rule when it comes to alleviating out of poverty and getting the woman out of the animalistic cycle of reproduction.

Look at Iran for example, where women mayhaps are not seen overall as truly equal to men, but are able to vote for things, drive a car, are educated and able (and most of all encouraged, considering Iran's sticky economic situation) to work. Iran has a fertility rate that is hovering under the replacement rate. And then look at Saudi Arabia, which is much richer but where women barely work, not allowed to drive and have a rather high birth rate (70% of the population is under 30) that will bite them in the future when economic and job growth will not be able to keep up with the demographic fecundity. Just more things to eat way at the overall budget.

Knowing people from Iran, I can fully attest to this. Iran's political system basically is turd position: large welfare state with something of a national-syndicalism.

KSA's entire workforce is imported from other countries (primarily shitholes like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen) while the average Saudi is given a large stipend by the monarchy. It's ironic in a sense, because while the laws in KSA are highly traditionalist and authoritarian, Saudi culture is heavily modern and consumerist. Saudi women spend a shitload on cosmetics, for example.

Once again, we have yet to see an Islamic Marxism. Islam's teachings don't solve shit in the modern world.

I never said otherwise. Albanian Muslims don't deviate from it like, say, the Nation of Islam.


I never said they don't personally believe in it, I'm stating how this applies to their politics. They pick and choose what the holy book says, and so has every other theocracy ever.


I never said it was compensating for material conditions, though I can see how you would get the impression. I mean it is used to reinforce it, like your glue metaphor.

What I was trying to get at to begin with was that just because religion is cancer, doesn't mean religious people are. You cannot force religion out, but you can make it obsolete.

What make socialist Islam the real Islam and not just a cherrypicking of certain scriptures?

...

My premise is a bit different though, I just think spooked people tend to be more virile, and it would be useful to lure and radicalize such people along our lines.

Wahhabism = a sectarian sect put in power by the West to divide and conquer the middle east

Islam was heavily sectarian from the very beginning. Followers of Muhammad fought with each other for years, and once you take into consideration that many Hadith contradict one another you can be certain there was a lot of in-fighting going on.

"schism"

Distinction without a difference. "Islam" has never been a united religion and history shows this.

This dangerous, almost biblical thinking is gong to be the end of the west fucking swear it. GTFO you goddamned appeasive, degenerate faggot. Jesus listen to fucking islamic communism poster ITT. He tells you first hand about the oppressive, backwards nature of fundamentalist islam and you just shrug it of cause 'welp, at least the hate the capitalist pigs in the west.' If this is sincerely your understanding and interpretation of the world, morality, right and wrong you need to take a long hard look at yourself before writing a nice note to your parents and FUCKING KILL YOURSELF.

This applies too to anyone else who sides with Islam vs the west cause muh oppression.

Maybe they tell themselves it's not migration. Maybe it's not.

You have to ask: if orthodox Sunni Islam really is the "religion of the poor and orphans" which rejects hierarchy and promotes all the things leftists love, why NOT just support a Caliphate rather than the DoP? What can Marxism provide in terms of empowering the oppressed and eliminating class antagonisms that orthodox Islam can't, according to these people?

The only form of "Islamic socialism" I could see being embraced by Muslims en masse today would look closer to Dugin's Fourth Position, basically [email protected]/* */ with an Islamic twist. At this point, most of the world's Muslims identify as Muslim first and understand their oppression as Islam vs. the West. They will never accept a socialism rooted in an atheistic epistemology like DiaMat which removes God and religion from the equation entirely.

But it begs the question: WHY ought the far-left embrace this? Communists have historically been critical of bourgeois nationalisms even if those nationalisms were anti-imperialist/anti-colonial at one point. If we're going to embrace traditional Islam, it has to be for OUR purposes (or rather, the purpose of furthering global communism and class struggle) rather than just for the sake of "muh feels" or a ridiculous fetishization or moral agenda.

It seems to me there is no reason for 'leftists' who embrace islam beyond the dangerous 'enemy of my enemy' thinking. That and general edgy contrarianism of the white sub-urbanite teenie-boppers looking to prove a point to their oppressive, heteronormative parents.

My guess is that it isn't even so much a "the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend" thing, but a mea culpa one. The average white liberal today takes on a persona of self-hatred in order to conform to the new moral agenda (neoliberalism/multiculturalism) which pretty much consists of casting aside their Western-ness and insisting that the cultures of the East are more moral and thus need to be imitated.

One could make the argument that both Christianity and Islam began as "religions of the poor and oppressed", so why is Islam championed as a liberating religion whereas Christianity is not? I doubt it has much to do with Christianity's priestly class given that Islam also has institutionalized hierarchies (remember, Muhammad was a pope-king, and even before he was a successful merchant who had completely outgrown his orphan roots). It's pretty obvious the fascination with Islam and Islamic cultures is nothing more than the need for moral superiority among hipsters.

Holla Forums would attribute this to [spoiler]cultural memism[spoiler]

Yes, because we all know an atonal guru and a Jewish mystic-turned-Marxist destroyed the west by critiquing art…

Pure horseshit you Wahhabi apologist filth. How much of their oil money do the Saudis pay you to spew your horseshit?

What is Sunny vs Shia? Another western plot no doubt.

Can you provide historical evidence to the contrary?

Please stop

Yes

(1) during the iran-iraq war the west supported Saddam and Iran at the same time by sending arms to Iran through Israel. It doesn't matter that Iran was Shia and Saddam was Sunni they supported both sides all the same in order to create sectarian tension.

(2) When they executed Saddam they had Shias do it well mocking him to further antagonize Sunnis. The West surely knew that Nouri Al Maliki would create further sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shias and that this would split up Iraq on sectarian lines. The death of a secular dictactor like Saddam could only create more sectarian tension between Sunnis and Shias leading to the rise of ISIS.

(3) the west has been supporting the Saudis who are ultra sectarian against Shias in all of their conflicts including in Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain

Just think about it. The last thing the West wants is a united Muslim world to confront Israel. They have created Sunni/Shia strife. There are sects of every religion and Christianity has way more like nestorian, Oriental orthodox, eastern orthodox, catholic, lutheran, and anglican yet it happens that Sunni / Shia is being used to divide & conquer the middle east as we speak. Stop talking about Islam as if it has inherent properties or as if it is a force taht actually exists throughout time rather then as a changing social phenomena that is interpreted by different sects.

kek.


independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sunni-and-shia-islams-1400-year-old-divide-explained-a6796131.html

...

The West has been interfering in the Middle East long before Zionism. What was the French takeover of Algeria?

No, they may have furthered it, but they didn't create it. The Ottomans and Safavids went to war. Oh hell, the Safavids even forcefully converted Sunnis to Shi'ism and vice-versa. Sectarianism in the Muslim World is as old as Islam itself.

No, we're debunking the idea that Islam 1. has the ability to resolve its own contradictions and 2. is without its own contradictions.

Islam can't save the Islamic World. Only historical materialism can do that.

So you're saying that Islam has no effect on the actions of it's adherents? That Islam is a harmless system and anything done its name is a misinterpretation? Leaving aside for a second the pure number of 'misinterpretations', presumably you extend this same benefit of the doubt to middle ages Christianity?

...

Islam is different then it was over a century ago. Social phenomena change. Interpretations change.


Islam doesn't inherently have its own contradictions or its own tendencies towards sectarians or anything else its an idea. You are ridiculously idealist for someone who pretends to support historical materialism.


Islam is an idea. Look up the difference between idealism and materialism.

I like this. But would add that 'saved' means neutered. It can only be made safe when we're in a position that the majority of it's adherents acknowledge it is largely metaphorical in message and any attemp at literal interpretation, or any actions taken by individuals on this belief are essentially dangerous and regressive. Islam has a long way to go before we get there. So going back to OP question,

Is the future islamic gommunism or bust?

No. There will be no islamic communism and muslims are damaging to the cause of building a socialism in any country. Their over-arching international agenda places caliphate and domination over kafir as way out there ahead of restructuring the economy in any way that benefits anyone beside their very own elite.

A dangerous idea. An idea that promotes better treatment of the ingroup than the other. Basically supernatural fascism.

No such thing. There are no dangerous ideas only dangerous material conditions. Like say the condition of having the West supported Saudis using oil money from the Persian gulf to fund Wahhabism bringing that idea into practice.

Fascism isn't a dangerous idea. Its only dangerous due to material support like Mussolini got from the British in WW1 and Hitler got from the German industrialists. Its the material conditions that create danger not muh spooks

Islam developed within a certain historical framework. Muhammad himself was a wealthy businessman who became a king - if that doesn't spell "class character" I don't know what does. And no one is denying that interpretations change. What we're tossing aside is the ridiculous notion that the ontological hierarchies and moral codes of traditional Islam have any answers for us in the modern day.

50 years ago Islam was the enemy of communism, and arguably still is to a large extent. Are we supposed to forget the thousands of Indonesian comrades (who were mostly heretical Muslims and Hindus) who were slaughtered by ORTHODOX Muslims with the backing of the US and Australia during the 1960s, or the Iranian comrades who were imprisoned, exiled, or killed by the clerics after the 1979 coup came to an end?

What can Islam offer Marxism? What problems does Islam solve that Marxism can't? In other words, why should the left take up Islamic theology as if there's nothing inherently anti-communist within it?

Nonsense.

Ideas can drive all sorts of crazy.

Muhammad exists now only as an idea. What part of that don't you understand. Its only the interpretation of the ideas in people's minds that matter not the ideas themselves.


Mainly the Saudis & the Arab gulf monarchies were the ones actually giving FUNDING you know ECONOMIC support which would be important to an actual historical materialist to anti-communist movements. But its all monarchies that are anti-communist not just the Saudis so you could so the same about the pope.


Ideas are only significant in historical materialism when they have economic support.

Islam, and people bent of spreading it, have shit-tonnes of money sitting on hand. How do you think the madrassas and mosques in Europe are built?

Fascism is just an idea right? But y'all take great pride in 'fighting' fascism. Yet islam is given a free pass?

Let's talk about some of the ideas that come directly from Islam. You can justify each to me from a humanist perspective and if your answer is any good I'll drop that line of criticism.

First off. Dhimmi tax.

Justify it.

Why do you continue to stereotype Islam in general rather then naming the Wahhabi elephant in the room?


Saudi Arabia offers Germany 200 mosques

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-offers-germany-200-mosques-one-for-every-100-refugees-who-arrived-last-weekend-10495082.html

Why are you asking me, an atheist, to justify this shit? WTF?

Ideas are vital in the reproduction of material conditions. You're conveniently disguising mechanical materialism as historical materialism in order to vindicate Islamic teachings for the fucked up things they've contributed to.

How do we re-interpret Muhammad as a communist revolutionary?

The theory that things are the other way around is called historical materialism lol


I am not vindicating shit I am an atheist and actually a historical materialist I am trying to tell you to not be an idealist who is completely spooked out of his mind

Are you honestly blaming the expulsions and executions of IRANIAN communists post-79 on the Saudis and Wahhabism when Iran is Shia?

Were mosques in Indonesia being funded by the Saudis during the 1950s when the religious orthodox Muslims were killing comrades?

What about Algeria where the same thing basically happened: Islam and nationalism succeeded in wiping out communism/socialism after the decolonization struggle ended?

Or better yet, why were there Turkish communists during the tail end of the Ottoman Empire who wanted to abolish the theocracy/caliphate, assuming Islamic theocracy was already promoting things communists desired?

Historical materialism sees things dialectically. Yes, material conditions create ideas but ideas reproduce material conditions. Does hegemony mean nothing to you?

It is a sect of Islam. Even before the turn of the 20th century though, Islam was violent. Sure, it had periods of peace to break up its wars, but was generally violent, even by the standards of the Abrahamic religions.

Even without Wahhabism islam would preach spooky shit and the superiority of muslims over non-muslims. The only way Islam would bring peace to the world is if there were only muslims. And even then only if they were all the right kind of muslim.

The only place Islam can have in the modern world is if it is completely neutered, that is the majority of its adherents know deep down it is all bullshit.


Because you're shielding it from valid criticism, I assumed you had a bested interest. I forget it's only cool for atheists to criticise christianity.

holy fuck. So now opposing a dangerous set of ideas makes one spooked?

All of humanity is violent. This has nothing to do with Islam which is just an idea. Humanity has been a violent species. Every other religion has had a violent history.


Yes its spooked and its also counter productive to attack an entire religion without nuance. There are over a billion Muslims is the world and there will soon be two billion. Blaming them over shit that happened centuries ago isn't going to win you any favours.


I am not shielding anything from valid criticism. I am opposed to monarchy and I will criticize monarchies regardless of their religion. The tsar and the pope who are Christian were all reactionary even though they apparently are Christian. The Arab gulf monarchies and the Saudis are reactionary even though they apparently are Muslim. All monarchies regardless of their religion must be opposed.

We can't do anything about the population of over a billion Muslims over the population of over a billion Christians due to the demographic shift. But there is a chance we can actually oppose the Saudis and the Arab gulf monarchies that fund Wahhabism. That is all.

I still don't see a single benefit to western society as a whole or aspiring socialist movements of uncritically embracing islam.


I don't care. While as spooked as they are they're worthless to revolutoin of indeed any progress.


I'm all for this but assuming that the rest of the muslims will become vectors of positive social change afterwords seems like skipping more than a few chapters to me. Most belief systems we call religion are regressive as they start from a false premise (there is a god who gives two fucks what you do here). Nothing good comes from deceiving ourselves.

This is good evidence for the ethno-nationalist position that the Islamic problem is primarily racial not religious. The problem is low-IQ brown people who cannot function in European societies and resent European civilization, not the particular Semitic demon that they happen to worship.

...

Attacking you dumbfucks and your shitty ideologies doesn't mean Holla Forums has any love for capitalism.

...

Islam's history did not begin in 1917. The religion and its various sects (yes, Islam is highly, highly sectarian; sects were warring with each other ever since the death of Muhammad) have a 1400-year history full of break-offs, re-interpretations, attempts at getting back to the "pure" doctrine, etc. To even suggest that Muslims today will unquestionably pick communism over theocracy if given the chance simply because of their recent colonized past is laughable. The Arab Spring ended in LIBERAL DEMOCRACY with a few theocratic elements (MB taking over in Egypt, moderate Islamist party taking over Tunisia) not socialism. Muslims in ghettos fight for theocracy, not socialism, not anarchism.

...

Is there a name for this or did even Marx not see it getting this bad?

By this logic, Marxists shouldn't be protesting pro-imperialist speakers like Ayan Hirsi Ali because, apparently, her words don't mean shit.

They think they are against capitalism, but they still support private property, ergo they support capitalism even if they claim to be anti capitalist like many reactionaries do.

This kind of ideological purity is exactly why Holla Forums is winning the latest culture war, at least online.

ONLY online and ONLY in Taiwanese loom weaving forums. So in other words, not much of an accomplishment.

It's happening bitch-nigger. Look at Europe too. right wing parties are seeing a resurgence. While the left as defined by you guys is nowhere to be seen.

So many idiots in this thread.

When people talk about the "good old days" of progressive regimes in the Islamic World (Nasser, papa Assad, Gheddafi) they're specifically talking about secular NATIONALIST regimes which, despite having some proletarian elements to them, were effectively turd position and still dictatorships of the bourgeoisie. Pan-Arabism was not communist and actually toted itself as an alternative to both western capitalism and Soviet socialism (even though Nasser and Assad were buddies with the Soviets, the point still stands). Marxism-Leninism has never been big in the Islamic World, and yes, one could easily see that Islamic metaphysics played a role. You had groups like the PFLP, FLN in Algeria, and communists in South Yemen (basically a Soviet puppet regime) but nothing all that wide-scale.

There are people here who claim the "Islam" being followed today is nothing more than a heretical form orchestrated by the Saudis. Assuming this is true, how do communists deal with it? The underlying assumption here is that Muslims themselves are fault-less and the job for us socialists should be to let them off the hook entirely and only focus on ending western imperialism or Saudi influence. The problem this is that it completely ignores the role of the people in struggle. You're just assuming Muslims will turn to socialism and proletarianism en masse once the Saudi influence is gone and they can decide their destinies organically. Again, this is heavily determinist and downright wishful thinking.