[Dagoth Ur]

Quote:

Karl Marx on feudalism

How exactly does this prove I'm wrong?

[Roam]

read it

Quote:

For Marx, what defined feudalism was that the power of the ruling class (the aristocracy) rested on their control of the farmable lands, leading to a class society based upon the exploitation of the peasants who farm these lands, typically under serfdom.

In renaissance era & middle ages there was class differences.

Monarchs & rulers,knights, bishops etc...
on the other hand; serfs,workers, peasants and slaves etc...

Marx revised history and saw all these class struggles.

-little off-topic.

Quote:

religion is a enemy of communism...

That's correct.

[Misuzu]

I believe that Islam, like all religion, is neutral. As Arif_moin said, you have the Progressive Sufis, on the other hand, you have the Reactionary, Anti-Communist Wahabiists.

Quote:

we must massacre them!!

Yeh, let's kill them all!11!! We may take the good with the bad, but at least we're da Good Guysâ„¢ [/sarcasm]

[quirk]

We as communists should completely reject Islam. Communism seeks the truth as oppossed to religion which is based on faith alone. If we are to bring truth and a scientific understanding to people then we must reject and opposse all forms of superstition.

Also look at all the reactionary crap in the Koran. On the issue of women to take just one example. What the Koran says on this issue and others is in complete opposition to what we are seeking to achieve.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

On the issue of women to take just one example

So Islam says you have to dress modestly. It does NOT require the veil- the full body veil covering the face is the dress code for women in bedouin culture, not Islam. Speaking of which, Japanese ninjas covered their whole bodies from head to toe- except for the eyes, with plain jet black coloured clothing. But I don't see anyone making a big deal out of that.

The fact that it has been incorporated into Islam & made as a rule is the testament to the outreach & power of Wahabi fanatics, who were globally empowered by the capitalist West (ex: Al Sauds Saudi, Taliban Afghanistan- after the DRA fell).

Requiring modest dressing isin't something that's exclusive to Islam- the USSR had a dress code too, whether you like it or not. I highly doubt in the Soviet Union, a girl would be able to wear a skimpy mini & a sports bra with the inscriptions "$100", "touch me", "Stalin's b#$ch", "Lebed's ho" etc., either. Many museums, schools and other public places and even guided tours in the Soviet Union required a dress code, which kind of seemed a bit on the "harsh" side for me.

In the USSR, to attend a guided tour- I had to wear a sleeved shirt, slacks and shoes. Not just in Moscow even in Central Asian SSRs. I couldn't participate if I wore a printed Tee, a sleeveless shirt, tight torn jeans etc. The USSR didn't exactly demand "formal wear"- but there still had a dress code in many public places nevertheless.

And even in the West, women & men are required to adhere to a rather uptight & strict dress code while entering job fields- most notoriously the non IT (Info Tech) white collar fields. And in the so called "bastion of freedom" EU- in countries like France, CHILDREN who wear a headscarf out of their own choice are forcibly chucked out of the classroom because it violates "secular values" So don't give me lectures on how Islam restricts womenfolk. To show how "liberal" the West is, try wearing "inner city gangsta" clothing and try to check yourself into a hotel in your city's business centre and tell me the reception you get.

Point though is, wahabi fanatics do indeed treat women poorly, but so do fanatics in almost every religion / philosophy out there- Socialism included. In the Socialist world- take Ceaucescu's stance on women, for example.

Quote:

On the issue of women to take just one example.

WHat issues on women?

The fact that divorce is guaranteed just with repeating "talaq" thrice- whereas in other theologies this isin't even a possibility? How's about the fact that women were guaranteed entrepreneural rights...not to mention the right to remarriage.

Oh true evil!

Islam doesn't encourage women to become wage slaves & encourages them to take care of the household, what's so evil about this? This way, people wouldn't need to tax the economy for social services like free daycare centres, boarding schools, old age homes (parents of both the husband & the wife are taken care of by the wife), tutoring the child, quality family time etc.

Single working households (versus dual) aren't necessarily indicative of a backward system. A good chunk of DPRK runs this way too, and I can assure you the professional & social perks enjoyed by a North Korean woman is far superior to most countries in the world out there.

But if the woman doesn't choose marriage- she is free to pursue entrepreneurship. There was no mention of work or factory jobs in Islamic texts because factories & industrial wages didn't exist 1400 years ago.

But every non Wahabi hadith grants women the right to work, if she so chooses. Married women are discouraged from taking up work or a biz (if the spouse is making enough to sustain the household) but not banned. Two different things. Well, Socialist leaders like Nehru & Kim Il Sung also encouraged single working families, there's nothing archaic or feudal about that.

Given the challenges & perils Socialism faces today, the last thing we need is a Red Stormfront Confusing Wahabi'ism w/ Islam is like confusing Nazi skinheads w/ normal Germans.

In simple English...

Wahabi'ism : Islam as to Pol Pot : Communism.

Quote:

seeks the truth as oppossed to religion which is based on faith alone.

Communism, Socialism & Capitalism are socio-political doctrines. Religion is something that's something very personal to an individual. However, I will hold that theology shouldn't be allowed to manifest itself in politics.

As long as that's achieved, I don't see why we have to be so uptight about a group of folks who value their religion / culture etc.

Also, while Islam's (i.e. not Wahabi Islam) outlook on women may not be "perfect"- what can we brag about in modern cosmopolitan culture as far as women go?

So, I suppose "Free" women implies 10-12 year old preteens putting on makeup heavier than the armour plating of a T-72 MBT and dressing like prostitutes, thanks to advertising overkill How's about the fact that a good chunk of families are in utter dissaray in most modern, cosmopolitan societies, with divorce rates reaching as high as 50%, and adultery, neglecting the child etc., are "common incidents" that don't even attract a semi stiff criminal penalty

That's a pretty damned retarded system, as far as women go.

This sort of uneducated single track cultural chauvenism as seen in the post above, when assessing a philosophical doctrine that's different from one's own is the one of the reasons why North Korea doesnt allow most outsiders to interact w/ the locals.

[Roam]

Quote:

We as communists should completely reject Islam. Communism seeks the truth as oppossed to religion which is based on faith alone. If we are to bring truth and a scientific understanding to people then we must reject and opposse all forms of superstition.

Also look at all the reactionary crap in the Koran. On the issue of women to take just one example. What the Koran says on this issue and others is in complete opposition to what we are seeking to achieve.

Beautiful words comrade!

Quote:

Yeh, let's kill them all!11!! We may take the good with the bad, but at least we're da Good Guys

remember the lines from L'Internationale:
"There are no supreme saviours,
Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
Producers, let's save ourselves!"

..."The world is going to change from its base,
We are nothing, let's be everything!
This is the final struggle"

you see we need to fight, destroy them( we try to educate them but some of them might resist) then we shall make a peaceful new world.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

There are no supreme saviours,
Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune.
Producers, let's save ourselves!"

That's just another way of saying:

get your lazy ass to work and count on yourself rather than sit on your ass 24-7 and hope for some sort of miracle to happen from above.

Well under monarchies of the past, the ruling elite would swindle peoples' hard earned labour and give them nothing in return. This caused them immesurable suffering, and bought forth periods such as the dark ages, etc. The clergy- often tied to the political elite- would pacify the masses from revolting using phrases such as "divine duty", "miracles", "suffering induced by the wrath of the supreme being" etc.

The internationale simply suggested that in a Communist society, workers control the factors of production and thus, must make full use of it and not laze around.

Quote:

The world is going to change from its base,
We are nothing, let's be everything!
This is the final struggle"

That just goes to say that in elitist run systems, peoples' voices mean nothing as far as the impact on the decision making processes go. That stanza is suggesting that since elitism would be done away with in Communism, people have the full power to decide their own present & future and how society turns out to be. And it's suggesting that workers take advantage of their new found power in Communism and shape their own destinies, rather than bank on a ruler or a set elite.

Neither of the stanzas has anything to do w/ abolishing religion by force. You're taking stuff out of context.

Quote:

you see we need to fight, destroy them( we try to educate them but some of them might resist) then we shall make a peaceful new world.

Don't worry- if you want a fight, there are plenty of capitalists & elitists who'd keep you busy on that front. As a Socialist society, I highly doubt you'll have the time & resources to actively enforce prohibition on religion.

And finally....

PROHIBITION BLOWS GOATS. People don't like being told what to do & what not to do. As long as people aren't hiring others for their own profit motive, I couldn't care less on who they worship in the privacy of their own homes- be it Jesus Christ, Hammurabi or a toaster.

[quirk]

arif_moin my criticism of Islams posistion was not based on the fact that women in Saudi Arabia have a particular kind of dress code but rather I think that the oppression of women is embedded much deeper in the religion (and all religions).

Pointing out the problems that women face under other systems is not a defence for Islam. All opression should be ended and because under capitalism for example woman are forced to become wage slave does not make Islams treatment of women any more acceptable.

Quote:

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541

Look at the above quote and tell me if you think it is acceptable. This is the kind of thing we find right throughout Islam. Also what about the following quote from the Koran which tells husbands to beat their wives:

Quote:

"Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand." (Quran 4:34 A.M. Daryabad Trans.)

There is much more like this which I can find if you are not convinced that the oppression of women in not inherent in religion including Islam. Also look at the life of Mohammed who muslims hold up as the perfect man. He married one of his wives when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. That in my book is rape and someone who carries out such acts (not to mention the many other barbaric things he done) should under no circumstances be held up as a role model.

When I refered to the issue of women I was just pointing to one aspect of Islam which I found distasteful. There are many many more.

arif_moin wrote:

Also, while Islam's (i.e. not Wahabi Islam) outlook on women may not be "perfect"- what can we brag about in modern cosmopolitan culture as far as women go?

Again you are trying to excuse one form of oppression by saying another form is just as bad. We must end it all if we wish to bring into being a better world.

arif_moin wrote:

That's a pretty damned retarded system, as far as women go.

Yes it is I agree and I have as much contempt for the oppression of women in the west as I do the oppression of women under Islam or christianity.

arif_moin wrote:

This sort of uneducated single track cultural chauvenism as seen in the post above, when assessing a philosophical doctrine that's different from one's own is the one of the reasons why North Korea doesnt allow most outsiders to interact w/ the locals.

I dont think it is chauvenist to say that we should fight against oppression and superstition. Religion is not just wrong in some neutral sense but is harmful to humanity. Not only does it breed ignorance of the world but it leads to oppression.

[fontis]

Your quotes are completely taken out of context.

I'll prove this here:

Quote:

woman are forced to become wage slave

I just made you look like you're the kind of person who wants to force women to become slaves.


Islam values women more than you could possibly know. Khadija was the first muslim for crying out loud. This whole "women are oppressed" is just mumbo-jumbo preached by Salib-riders who just can't get over the fact that they were owned on multiple occasions.

Quote:

Religion is not just wrong in some neutral sense but is harmful to humanity. Not only does it breed ignorance of the world but it leads to oppression.

You're right, religion in general can have a negative effect. But when speaking of Islam, I could never claim it's harmful to our case, incompatible with my political ideology nor oppressive in any way. Islam actively preaches that Allah gave you the ability to forge your own destiny. That you should FIGHT oppression everywhere and crave for social equality. There is no "this is Islam" with Islam, because as I said, it emphasizes on how YOU interpret Islam, and how YOU interpret Islam can be 100% good as long as you're not breaking the main points.

i.e, I interpret Islam in the sense that it tells me to be a good person, to not be greedy, to not abuse drugs in the sense so that I harm myself extremely and to avoid being addicted to anything. It tells me that I shouldn't sit back and roll my thumbs when shit goes down and that I should respect and honour logic, rational thinking, the elders and women.

I drink my share of alcohol, I smoke my share of dope, I eat anything I like but I continue to do so under strict supervision so that I do not become addicted to my "ways". For some this might be seen as bad, but the beauty is that they are in no way the ones to decide if I'm doing the right or wrong thing, because Allah gave me the ability to think and I should thus using this ability to forge my own destiny.

[quirk]

fontis wrote:

Your quotes are completely taken out of context.

In what context then was the above quote about men beating their wives originally written. In my opinion no matter what context it was it has no justification whatsoever.

I respect what you say about the positive aspects of Islam such as forging your own destiny. But this is not an argument for religion as we can do this anyway. Also if the Koran is from God who are you to decide which bits to follow and which to reject? Surely if it is from God and he is perfect you must follow all that he says. You obviously dont so do you think when God told Mohammed that men should beat their wives God was wrong?

Religion asks you to have faith. That is believe in something without any evidence to back it up. As communists we seek the truth based on evidence and I do not see how this can be compatible with blind faith. There is no evidence for God so why should we follow any God?

[fontis]

Quote:

Religion asks you to have faith. That is believe in something without any evidence to back it up. As communists we seek the truth based on evidence and I do not see how this can be compatible with blind faith. There is no evidence for God so why should we follow any God?

There is no evidence showing Communism will work. But at the same time there is no evidence to say it won't. In other words one could claim that you have faith in such a society. There is so much that science still hasn't proven. Contrary to popular belief, Islam does not deny evolution. Islam was well onto studying and questioning all aspects of our lives, thus taking on and discovering several mathematical, biological and physical formulas.

Faith is a necessity. I have faith in mankind in the sense that I believe that people are truly "good" at heart. There is no evidence to deny this, nor prove it. I have faith in knowing that my political ideology is the 'best'.

Quote:

In what context then was the above quote about men beating their wives originally written. In my opinion no matter what context it was it has no justification whatsoever.

I don't know who told you this, but beating wives is completely against the sunnah. Muhammed never laid a hand on any woman. In middle-eastern culture, a man beating a woman is a horrible crime. Wars have been fought simply because a man tried to ruin a some woman's reputation by force or words. As arif stated earlier, women hold a high place in Islam, several prominent "leaders", or VIP's, were women.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

Surely if it is from God and he is perfect you must follow all that he says.

Well, the "absolutes" are pretty logical as far as Islam goes. Such as:

1. giving 2.5% of your TOTAL ASSETS to the poor during Ramadan as a collective,

2. having a stong family foundation,

3. not eating pork & carnevorous animals,

4. refraining from drinking & gambling,

5. making pilgramage to Mecca.

All of those "pillars"- the ONLY objective points in Islam- have a strong logical foundation. Beyond that are hadiths written by various INDIVIDUALS- which you're not required to follow. The rest are your common codes of conduct such as no cheating, no stealing etc., etc.

Each of those 5 "absolute" pillars are derived entirely from logic, human psychology & science.

Quote:

In what context then was the above quote about men beating their wives originally written.

The Koran prohibits physical violence & discipline against women & female children. Why on Earth would Islam encourage / approve of wife beating only to give women the liberty of divorce simply by saying "talaq" thrice

The Mecaic pre-Islamic bedouin cultural code specifically demoted women socially, and modern sources often confuse Wahabi bedouin code of conduct with that of Islam's simply because the most prominent geographical landmark in Islamic history coincidentially is in Mecca. And Wahabi Mecaic bedouin culture & Islam are often used interchangably.

And don't forget successful Socialist leaders like Comrade Josip Broz Tito incorporated quite a few Islamic principles into the Yugoslav secular code. And in the USSR, many Muslims fought very valiantly for the Red Army, eventhough they didn't denounce their faith. And in the CEntral Asian SSRs with huge Muslim populations, people were freely allowed to practice their faith as long as it didn't intervene into politics.

Muslim or Christian, White or Black, man or woman- Socialism & Communism is supposed to view all people as comrades, as long as they aren't economically exploiting others. If a Muslim cleric is exploiting folks economically- remove the cleric not the entire faith, for crying out loud.

[Roam]

Quote:

Muslim or Christian, White or Black, man or woman...

religion is whole different story from ethnicity/colour and background...
So is sex(being male or female)
don't mix them up

Quote:

Muslim or Christian, White or Black, man or woman- Socialism & Communism is supposed to view all people as comrades, as long as they aren't economically exploiting others. If a Muslim cleric is exploiting folks economically- remove the cleric not the entire faith, for crying out loud.

Our enemies are not our comrades. The word "comrade" refers to a fellow Communist. muslims(or any other religion in that case) rejects communism.

(in polish: kameraad)

To quirk,
In order to support your words, I wanted to post some pictures of the way women are being treated in the muslim world but I thought maybe some people here don't like to see those violent pictures.
just go to google and see how women are being stoned to death or being beaten up...



arif moin, why are you defending religion?
I also know that if a muslim quits Islam, others have the right to kill him. It's same about any religion what they have in common: bloodbaths,atrocity, and disgrace.

[Misuzu]

Quote:

religion is whole different story from ethnicity/colour and background...
So is sex(being male or female)
don't mix them up

Of course, but religion is a very important part of life for some people, and besides, not all Muslims are fundamentalists.

Quote:

Our enemies are not our comrades. The word "comrade" refers to a fellow Communist. muslims(or any other religion in that case) rejects communism.

Would a Libertarian Athiest be less of an enemy to you than a Socialist Muslim?

[Trentski]

Quote:

arif moin, why are you defending religion?
I also know that if a muslim quits Islam, others have the right to kill him. It's same about any religion what they have in common: bloodbaths,atrocity, and disgrace.

Behind the foundations of fanatics are the keystones to modest society. The problem is looking at what's etched into that stone: The fanatic over thinks, over examines, and over studies what everyone else simply sees as scribble in the stone.

I hate to break it to you but that's common among faith, idea, and society, period.

Religion, and its texts itself I do not agree with entirely, but it's still good word. I've always been more attracted to stones, and all that crazy jazz: those things you can't over think because it's so lost in time.

[Roam]

Quote:

Would a Libertarian Athiest be less of an enemy to you than a Socialist Muslim?

Both of them are stupid idiots.


I know that all of them are not fundamentalists and they are the ones which we must educate and teach them the correct and revolutionary awareness.

the fundamentalists you mention, They are brain-washed people, what normal perosn in a modern society would blow himself up and suicide bomb for a religion? hm?
( I mention Ignatei Hryniewiecki was earliest suicide bomber who assasinated tsar Alexander II -not for a religion)

religiously motivated suicide bombers are told to do so for the reward of hereafter.

The fundamentalists are unchangeable but they have faith in their religion. If we had faith in communism, we could defeat all of them but unfortunately there is no faith or courage in any of us. everyone of us wants to go a separate way...

this is why we got wiped out of this world.

[kaneva]

Quote:

and besides, not all Muslims are fundamentalists.

this reminds me of somthing i heard on a russian television program, it went like this

Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

[Misuzu]

Quote:

Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims.

Yes, Timothy McVeigh, Shoko Asahara and David Koresh were such good muslims.

[Wheelchairmaniacal]

Roam wrote:

Both of them are stupid idiots.

I beg to differ. I've met very religious people who were smarter than both you and I. Being faithful and being an atheist does not have a huge weight on intelligence, and education.

Roam wrote:

I know that all of them are not fundamentalists and they are the ones which we must educate and teach them the correct and revolutionary awareness.

And yet you overlook the complete and utter lack of revolutionary awareness that exists among your neighbors. How do you plan on exporting this if you can't convince the people around you?

Roam wrote:

the fundamentalists you mention, They are brain-washed people, what normal perosn in a modern society would blow himself up and suicide bomb for a religion? hm?

All societies and cultures have different definitions of awareness. Perhaps you should put some thought into their situation. Let's say you lived in a country, and in this country was a military. This military was not made up of your countrymen, and this military was making life for your family very hard. They made it hard for your father to keep a stable job with all the restrictions. And they made it very hard to get a good job for his background. Perhaps some of your uncles or aunts or cousins have been shot by this military. In fact perhaps your little sister was. Or your girlfriend or your mother. Or your brother or your father. When you live in these conditions. And there seems to be no hope. It is not uncommon to do rather strange things.

Roam wrote:

religiously motivated suicide bombers are told to do so for the reward of hereafter.

But why do you pretend to understand them?

[fontis]

I fail to see your reasoning.

All I sense is a chauvinist attitude, I doubt you even know what Marxism is, so please don't use phrases such as "we must educate them", because I see no relation between you and me, or any marxist for that matter, so don't insult us please.

Marxism is not just about not being greedy, it also comes with analysing every situation in societies. This is the part were you fail tremendously. I'm not going to bother to cut this down into dialectic proportions, I'll just do everyone here a favour by asking you to read up on your Marxism.

I know tons of "fundamentalists", they are no different than me. Because unlike other religions, Islam can be more than just a religion, it can also represent a political and socio-economic system. In that term, I assess these "fundamentalists" accordingly. Many people claim anarchists are terrorists for occupying houses or fighting the police. Many claim communists are terrorists in places all over the world for fighting a People's war against their oppressors. You disagree with this label because you supposedly follow the ideals of what they are fighting for, why is it so hard then to understand that these people are fighting for theirs?