[Roam]

Quote:

why is it so hard then to understand that these people are fighting for theirs?

what they are fighting for is important of course, isn't it?
I understand that those people are fighting for theirs but what they are fighting for is not what I believe...

They mislead the proletariat . Let's say they are fighting for a religion, religion and nationalism(etc..) are tools which goverments[capitalists] use to control people and send them to war;
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori
it's sweet and right to die for your country.
that's how they use it on people and people do it without thinking about it.

Muslims hate you. go and advertise communism in a middle eastern country and you'll get shot.

I don't understand why you are defending religions, aren't you communists?
... armed struggle only.

Quote:

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.

False consciousness is in principal of Leninism. since we are encouraged to educate people against such ideas.
It is our responsibility as humans!

[kaneva]

on the topic of women in islam.

Quote:

"And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women according to what is equitable;but men have a degree (of advantage) over them."

Quote:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded;and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

that bassicly means, if the women is rebellious beat her untill she is not. Otherwise no beating of women is ever allowed.

Quote:

I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.

[Roam]

Quote:

that bassicly means, if the women is rebellious beat her untill she is not. Otherwise no beating of women is ever allowed.

What is your Islamic source?

[fontis]

I don't know who your Islamic source is, but I'm a Muslim and I've lived in an Islamic influenced culture and country. I can tell by my knowledge and experience that women and men are equal in the eyes of Islam. Whoever is telling you that line of crap is full of shit.

Quote:

They mislead the proletariat . Let's say they are fighting for a religion, religion and nationalism(etc..) are tools which goverments[capitalists] use to control people and send them to war;

Erm.. Again, your lack of knowledge regarding Islam blows my mind. Islam's expansion was due to the fact that it was, and still is, an internationalist religion. There is no ethnicity that is superior to others in Islam. There is no nationalism, as all Muslims are brothers and sisters. How the f*ck do you paint in nationalism there?

Quote:

Muslims hate you. go and advertise communism in a middle eastern country and you'll get shot.

If you conduct capitalistic tactics in Cuba, you get imprisoned. If you refuse to get shipped of to a war during a draft, you get imprisoned in US. If you don't get a permit to strike/rally, you get imprisoned in western nations. So... your point being?

Just because a country poses to be something, doesn't necessarily mean that it follows those ideals to the fullest extent. DDR was said to be a place of freedom, yet STASI was evidently seen as a necessity to police the citizens.
What you fail to analyse is the fact that in most M-E countries there are strong anti-capitalist tendencies. Obviously communists in the M-E actually DO something for a change, such as engaging in a People's war against the oppressors, whereas you just sit behind your monitor uttering b-s without even knowing the first things about Marxism.

Quote:

I don't understand why you are defending religions, aren't you communists?
... armed struggle only.

What armed struggle? You think that just because you skipped paying for a train ticket once in your life, or that you overdid your library loan that you're conducting armed struggle? ROFL, please either you do something or you stop criticizing those who are actually doing something. The reason I'm defending religious groups is because they are the progressive elements within the M-E.

I see the matter rather dialectically, they share a common goal with me - why should I oppose them? It's retarded to fight those who share the same enemy as I do. As comrade Mao once said;

Quote:

We must oppose whoever our enemy supports, and support whoever our enemy opposes.

Quote:

False consciousness is in principal of Leninism. since we are encouraged to educate people against such ideas.
It is our responsibility as humans!
So... I didn't exactly mean "ME & YOU" by saying "WE".
and why do you say

Comrade arif and the treacherous WCM already explained this to you, but I'll take it down a deeper level.
You do realize that there are people who are far more conscious than you think you are. Being class-conscious doesn't mean that you oppose capitalism, it means that you're aware of your position within society. There are class-conscious bourgeois just as there are class-conscious aristocrats and priests/mullahs/whatever. The only responsibility you have as a human is to try and put in your opinion within the bigger whole. You are in no way in any position whatsoever to call 90% of the world morons just because they are conscious and you are not.

Oh, that's right, because you do realize that religion in fact IS a part of you, right? We are all religiously influenced to a certain extent. Where do you think our morals and norms come from? To deny the influence of which religion has had on society and on YOU is like denying Darwins theory of evolution. It not only makes you look silly, but also puts a nice beamer on your head saying "HI, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT LOL".

Now as I said, I do not share their political policies, but I do not call them morons. In terms of class-consciousness, they are surely moving together as one unit towards their goal, which is something we fail to do, a lot.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

Muslims hate you. go and advertise communism in a middle eastern country and you'll get shot.

Yes. That's because Mid Eastern countries are run by elitist exploitative to the core MONARCHIES that have the tacit approval & support of the capitalist West, to whom these Middle Eastern monarchies are puppets of.

At the same time, in India, Kerela is the only state in the ENTIRE SOUTH ASIAN REGION to achieve near first world HDI. Strangely, it's a Muslim majority state & one of the few to elect a Communist government.

You also seem to have forgotten Gemal Abdul Nasser, Abd Al Karim Kassim, and Abu Hassan Al Bakr. They were all Muslims & Socialists. Too bad the Socialist world did nothing but watch as all these pro proletariat regimes were toppled by the imperialist West & installed incompitent intolerant poster boys in their places.

The Socialist world blundered big time in bailing out & actively aiding pro progressive regimes in the Middle East.

Quote:

that bassicly means, if the women is rebellious beat her untill she is not. Otherwise no beating of women is ever allowed.

You're murdering the English language here. Read the phrase again...

Quote:

those on whose part you fear desertion

Desertion isin't "rebelling"- it's something completely different. Well, as far as even the most egalitarian Communist society goes, deserters don't get treated nicely either.

In a family & personal level, desertion = shit like attempting to hoodwink a person into marriage and then trying to make away with their wealth, adultery etc. Well, men were publically lashed in Islamic courts & jailed for these crimes.

And as per Islamic law, women aren't to be imprisoned in public places like jails for obvious reasons- today, a large % of female inmates are raped by different male guards in almost any prison in any society. The issue of guards raping female inmates is a core issue in almost any women's right groups today. So, it stated that matters of familial betrayal for a female be dealt with at home.

Desertion is a crime that should be dealt with firmly, both at home & in society. DIVORCE is NOT desertion. Divorce is a publically announced separation. And desertion is betraying a spouse's trust.

Divorce: desertion (in the household) as to Voluntary resignation: abandoning one's post & duty (in the armed forces).

Desertion such as hoodwinking & adultery received stiff criminal penalties in the Socialist world- most certainly the USSR under Lenin & Stalin. You can't have egalitarianism free of opportunism in society when the system as a whole is unable to accomplish that in the household- which is a building block of society, capitalist or Socialist. So, Islamic law, like the law in most SOcialist systems we've seen- punished both household & societal deserters severely.

I can have some sympathy for the woman adulterer if there were no divorce laws in Islam- but there clearly is. Islam basically states that if a woman doesn't like a man, she should get divorced & then do whatevers rather than DESERT him (and his trust). In Arabic lang., phrases like "He won me", "She deserted me" are used to denote "one's trust in.." So, "he won me" is essentially "he won my trust."

Just watch any Arabic language TV show, or watch an Arabic language drama play with an Arabic speaking friend/ collegue or something.

The lingual factor is why the Koran SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES believers to READ THE TEXT IN ORIGINAL ARABIC.

Quote:

They mislead the proletariat . Let's say they are fighting for a religion, religion and nationalism(etc..) are tools which goverments[capitalists] use to control people and send them to war;

We're not supporting political / organized theocracy. We're just saying that as long as it doesn't get into the political / social fabric of society, religion shouldn't be suppressed just for sake of being a religion.

Tito's Yugoslavia & the USSR handled this quite well, instead of indulging in idiotic mono culture. And speaking of punishing deserters, don't forget- athiest & 100% Communist Anver Hoxha had his own defence minister executed in 1949 for charges of deserting Albania by spying for Yugoslavia. Not to mention Mehmet Snehu got the same fate in the early 80s. Hmmmmmm....I wonder what Stalin did to deserters Give 'em free passes to disneyland?!

Do you agree that those who betray Socialism's trust should be dealt with sternly & without mercy? The same thing should apply to the household too. Whats common here is betrayal & desertion.

Quote:

I don't understand why you are defending religions, aren't you communists?
... armed struggle only.

Put it this way comrade.

If I was say- the Premiere of India, I would rather focus on ejecting those NATO barbarians out of Afghanistan & liberating Pakistan from US' grip and forming a regional military & economic bloc between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran- and engage the imperialists in Iraq by prepping up a local Marxist resistance group there (or supporting one if such a nationwide group exists) & help in the installation of proletariat friendly regime there rather than demolish mosques & temples and prosecute people for believing in a certain philosophy, in my own back yard.

Quote:

what normal perosn in a modern society would blow himself up and suicide bomb for a religion? hm?

Suicide bombing was popularized as a mass para state tactic by the LTTE, which is an ethno nationalist- not a theocratic outfit. Incidentially, the LTTE was and still is the first & only para state outfit to employ air power.

Quote:

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

People blow themselves up not for 70+ virgins in the "after life" but because they've cried for justice and nobody bothered listening & that they don't have F-15s & "smart weapons" to fight with.

And for some reason, I have a hard time believing that those young kids in Palestine indulge in suicide bombing because they're bored of playing Command & Conquer: Generals.

There were many Muslims living in the USSR & under Tito's Yugoslavia, and there wasn't a single reported case of suicide bombing in any one of those systems by a single Muslim, even if both the systems allowed folks to practice their religion (as long as they didn't make religion into an organized political agenda).

Quote:

religion and nationalism(etc..) are tools which goverments[capitalists] use to control people and send them to war;

Communism can also be used as a tool, as it was by Pol Pot. And most "Socialist" regimes today (other than Belarus, Cuba & North Korea) cry "aam aadmi (proletariat)" 24*7 whenever a publicity opportunity arises, while they blatantly & shamelessly bend to corporate imperialism.

Most "Socialist" or "Peoples'" systems today politically & socially preach proletariat policies & social justice to stay in power, but economically- they practice brazen capitalism by invoking strange terms like "road to Socialism", "temporary adjustment" etc., etc. Those "Communist" systems are fooling people too, not just theocratic systems.

And quite practically, if you were a Palestenian TODAY- you'd rather bank on the Hamas (which is there & actively opposing imperialism) rather than some future potential SOcialist saviour considering the imperialist IDF makes every day raids into your neighbourhood, bulldozes home, erects fences and arrests folks indifinitely at will.

Take the following scenario:

Quote:

You're a school teacher in the UK who doesn't care too much about politics or religion. You just enjoy teaching math to children. Let's just imagine, due to some crisis (zombie outbreak, massive natural catastrophe etc)- law & order has broken down and the military & police is no longer able to maintain order in the streets.

Then, out of the blue, a bunch of armed raiders arrive in a dozen or so Toyota pickups to your street and storm your neighbour's house. They take away your neighbour's son & daughter to an undisclosed location & destroy your neighbour's home with an RPG for kicks & leave. You then hear news that they'll be coming again next week, and your their next target. You are a family man with a wife & a pair of kids as dependents.

Now, say there is a local hardcore Christian militant group that offers landmines & sniper rifles, personnel support & a protection plan for free provided you joined them and shout "Christianity ROCKS everything else BLOWS" daily. Now, say there's another group preaching proletarian brotherliness, non exploitation etc., but offering nothing more than lectures, posters & communist literature- which group would you join?

If your survival & normalcy of life is at stake, usually, you won't give 2 shits as to the belief & value system of the group offering you means to ensure better survivability & offer hope for normalcy.

I'd call you a damn liar if you told me you'd join the latter. Now, replace the UK with Gaza, toyota pickups with APCs, the RPG with a bulldozer and throw a few uniforms around those raiders- and you know what a Palestenian in Gaza has to go thru & it's the same in SOuthern Lebanon.

As of now, the only ones who are able to answer IDF's brazen regional imperialism & heavy handedness are Hamas & Hiznollah. I sure do wish it was a Socialist group, as much as you do- but the fact is, the Socialist world brazenly neglected the plight of suffering people in the Middle East.

The people continually cried and eventually, a bunch of theocratic outfits answered the call. That's not Islam's fault as a religion. Middle Eastern Socialist movements such as Nasser's Egypt, Abd Al Karim Kassim's & Al Bakr's Iraq were poised to alleviate the suffering of the Mid East proletariat class. They were continiously sabotauged by the Western Capitalist governments and the Socialist world did absolutely nothing to counter the kind of destabilization that was imposed on these regimes, by external imperialist systems. And naturally, they fizzled out of existance & out of public minds.

Theocratic systems such as Iran managed to assist local anti imperialist resistance groups much more thorroughly & solidly than did the Socialist world. So, obviously anti imperialist struggles in the M-E will have a distinct theocratic flavour as a result.

Quote:

False consciousness is in principal of Leninism. since we are encouraged to educate people against such ideas.

I highly suggest you read the DEcember 4 1917 declaration addressing Muslims in particular, jointly signed by comrade Lenin & comrade Stalin.

In English, it reads:

Quote:

To the Muslims in Russia, be they Tartars of Volga, the inhabitants of Cremia, the Kaukaz of Siberia or Turkistan, the Turks of Kaukaz, the Charks, the dwellers of Kaukaz mountains, to all those whose mosques and worship places and whose faith and traditions were trampled upon by the Tsars of Russia or the other tyrants; Be assured that your traditions and faith and your national and cultural institutions shall be free from this day and nobody will object to these in future. You are free to organize your national life without any interference and obstacles from outside."

Wahabi run establishments were closed down and Wahabi elements were checked, but not Islam as a whole.

Religion in the USSR:

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ar ... /index.htm

Ramadan preparations in Uzbekistan SSR:

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ar ... -palov.jpg

In households, pulov is mostly prepared during Ramadan in Uzbekistan. Islamic festives such as Eid & Ramadan were celebrated with much fanfare amongst Muslims in USSR, especially Central Asian SSRs.

Muslim Red Army veteran:

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ar ... worker.jpg

Non Muslims & athiests of Uzbek / Central Asian origin never donned the "thopi"- especially a black one- which you can clearly see on this pic.

Last but not least- about 15% of the USSR total population were Muslims & I'm glad to hear the Soviets didn't idiotically try & impose some grand "enlightened" mono culture on them.

[quirk]

fontis wrote:

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'.

Your faith in mankind is in fact based on evidence. Your everyday contact with human beings and the fact that you are human yourself is the evidence on which you believe that people are good at heart. You faith in communism is no doubt based partially on this and also on the fact that people will want it to work because it will be in their own best intrests.

Faith in a religion and a belief in a supernatural entity on the other hand is nothing like this. It is based on no evidence whatsoever. Can we ever really know for certain that their is no God? No we cant but the evidence is so lacking that the probability of it is similar to the probability that fairies actually exsist.

As you say there is so much that science has not proven or discovered but this does not mean there is a God. Islam might not deny evolution but it certainly does not support it. The belief that God made man and the story of Adam and Eve is in fact incompatible with the theory of evolution in my opinion.

As you correctly pointed out Islam was well in studying all aspects of our life but this is beside the point. Because it does positive things does not make it right and these things could and would still be done in the absence of Islam or any other religion for that matter.

fontis wrote:

I don't know who told you this, but beating wives is completely against the sunnah. Muhammed never laid a hand on any woman.

No one told me. I read it in the Koran.

arif_moin wrote:

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.

If they are derived from logic, human psycology and science then why do we need to keep the religion which on top of this incorporates many reactionary ideas and traditions which although you may not be required to follow some will choose to do so and will feel completely justified in doing so as these ideas in their opinion are from God?

The haddiths may be written by individuals but as far as I am aware the Koran was revealed to Mohammed by God himself. Again I ask if it is from God who gets to choose which pieces of it to follow and which to reject? If you believ it is God revealed surely then this gives fundamentalists ground for saying it should be followed to the word.

arif_moin wrote:

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

Maybe because it is not God inspired but rather a book written by man which contains contradictions. The fact is that it does say in the Koran that a man can beat his wife. If you dont believe me just take your Koran out and read surah 4:34. It is there in black and white.

arif_moin wrote:

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.

I agree with you that some Islamic principles are positive but if you look hard enough at anything you can find both positives and negatives. The problem is to see Islam as a whole as positive you have to ignore an awful lot. Also alot of these principles which are said to be religous(not just Islamic) were adopted by religion because they were positive and did not derive from religion itself.

fontis wrote:

I don't know who your Islamic source is, but I'm a Muslim and I've lived in an Islamic influenced culture and country. I can tell by my knowledge and experience that women and men are equal in the eyes of Islam. Whoever is telling you that line of crap is full of shit.

According to the Koran men and women are not equal:

Quote:

2:228, And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them

Quote:

2:282, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.

Quote:

4:11-12, Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:

Quote:

4:34, Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

If in muslim countries men and women are treated equally then this is in despite of the Koran and not because of it.

fontis wrote:

Oh, that's right, because you do realize that religion in fact IS a part of you, right? We are all religiously influenced to a certain extent. Where do you think our morals and norms come from? To deny the influence of which religion has had on society and on YOU is like denying Darwins theory of evolution. It not only makes you look silly, but also puts a nice beamer on your head saying "HI, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT LOL".

We are influenced by many things we come into contact and so they are all part in our development. This does not make them right or positive. Morality did not come from religion as you claim and exsisted before Islam or christianity. I would not like to know anyone who upholds the morality in that is in the bible or koran because for one they would already have killed me for being an unbeliever. Morality is influenced by many things and is ever changing and the morality in these holy books is a reflection of the morality that exsisted in the time and place which they were written.

arif_moin wrote:

So, it stated that matters of familial betrayal for a female be dealt with at home.

Look at some of the things this has led to such as so called honour killings.

[fontis]

You've read the Koran? I had no idea you could read Arabic

The prophet didn't write the Koran, Omar did.
And as I said before, I'm curious to see where, because throughout my upbringing, throughout my entire cultural experience and throughout my personal experience, I am yet to see any evidence showing that it's OK to lay hands on a woman.

I'm not going to bother replying to this again, I've already explained it, arif has explained it and it's coming from two muslims, yet you claim you know the "truth". So feel free to keep your anti-islamic stance, I can't be bothered to argue with someone who has clearly already made up his mind.

[quirk]

I am merely pointing out what I see as the problems of Islam. I have problems with all religion but this thread is on Islam so that is what I have been concentrating on.

I dont read arabic so maybe you could tell me what is said in the surahs I quoted above and if the english version from which I got them wrong made the wrong interpretation.

I dont know alot about Islam and am trying to learn more. I know several muslims who are very religous and they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. But in my opinion this doesnt negate what is written in the religous books.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

If they are derived from logic, human psycology and science then why do we need to keep the religion which on top of this incorporates many reactionary ideas and traditions which although you may not be required to follow some will choose to do so and will feel completely justified in doing so as these ideas in their opinion are from God?

I'm not advocating keeping religion "on top." I'm just suggesting we don't need to waste resources to ban it & enforce the subsequent ban. It's stupid.

If people want to follow religion, let them, as long as it doesn't interfere in politics. As long as religion doesn't become a political force, no amount of reactionary ideas derived from religion can harm a Socialist society.

Islam coexisted w/ Socialism in almost every Socialist system w/ a large Muslim population, except DRA.

Quote:

Look at some of the things this has led to such as so called honour killings.

The frequency of instances of "honor killings" is similar to the frequency of spouse murder in the modern world & in the Socialist world.

Even though the USSR was a very egalitarian society comparable to anything we have today- some men still killed their wives at all stages of the Soviet Union- from Lenin to Gorbachev. That's why the USSR had a penal code against murder in its laws. If the one committing the crime is a Timothy McVeigh or an Asakara- it's disturbed individuals or charismatic cultists, but if it's a Mahmud Razzaq doing the same- it's "violent Islam"

You can't hold an entire philosophy hostage for the actions of a select few. Men murdering wives is treated like individual crime in our media, whereas "honor killings" are treated like a social phenominon, influenced by a religion.

Islam doesnt encourage honour killings- as it clearly states that:

Quote:

As for those from whom ye fear desertion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.

As in- if they correct their ways & renounce the betrayal attempt- forgive & accept them.

Quote:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females:

A woman will get inheritance from BOTH her parents and from her husband, whereas a man can only claim inheritance from his parents. A woman can claim inheritence & a % of her parents AND husband's wealth & assets, whereas a man can only claim the same from his parents.

Since there are 2 sources of inheritence income for a woman, and only 1 for a man- out of that single source- a man gets more share from that single source (parents). That's logical (if inheritence laws are ok in your personal moral code).

Quote:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

That's one of the main point about that philosophical texts being translated into a foreign language- words can be manupulated. Here's the SAME excerpt ppsted by another member in page 2.

Quote:

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded;and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

Those are entirely 2 different meanings wih just 2 words changed. And the second quote was posted by Kaneva on the very same page.

What do you want the Koran to say?

That good women are materialistic, opportunistic, frag everyone but me- self centred bigots?! The phrase is merely suggesting that a good woman should support the household & her family, and if the woman is betraying a husband's trust- strict action be taken against her until she corrects her ways. what's so evil about that?

As far as males go, in Islam- they were prosecuted by the criminal justice system & jailed for things like hoodwinking & adultery. Islam prohibits women from being held in public places like jails, and for a good reason too.

So, if Islamic law prohibits the legal system from holding a woman w/ a criminal record in the jail, due to rape, humiliation concerns (by guards- it happens EVERYWHERE)- how should she be punished otherwise?

And Islam is a family centric system, not an individual centric one. That doesn't make it evil.

Quote:

The fact is that it does say in the Koran that a man can beat his wife.

Both male & female deserters & criminals get the shit beaten out of, and deservingly so in Socialist systems as well. And betrayal is one of the most henious crimes in the history of humankind, can you deny that?

In most modern post industrial systems (even the more egalitarian ones), punishment against betrayers is carried out not by the husband, but by the criminal justice system, prison guards & fellow inmates. And the Koran clearly states that physical discipline can only be enforced if the spouse is betraying the husband's trust- i.e. cheating, hoodwinking etc. What do you want to do w/ adulterers & betrayers of trust? Give them Lenin Peace Prizes

The state security services & other government run agencies in Socialist systems beat the eight shades of shit out of deserters & betrayers as well, believe me on that.

Quote:

Men are the maintainers of women

Before you cry "EVIL OPPRESSOR SCUM" on this statement, most pre-industrial agrarian cultures have a single income households. Meaning to say- the wife takes care of the home & the man works in the fields (or with his livestock) to feed the family.

Why? Because agrarian life- whether you're in Estonia or Arabia- requires a large family. Unless you hire slaves or bonded labour (banned in Islam)- the only way you're going to sustain agrarian life is by having a large family.

And men don't exactly give birth to children. Please correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise. And it's kind of inhumane & barbaric on a woman to force her to work during pregnency periods. And you can't exactly write a petition along the lines of "Sir/ Ma'am- my wife is pregnant and I kindly request 3 month maternity leave" to mother nature (the only major "input" or raw material in a pre industrial agrarian society).

Having a large family in pre industrial agrarian communes & locales isin't a matter of "pro choice" or what not for either the man or the woman. It was a necessity- unless you were exclusively rich (a select few in any society)- without a large family you'd find your family dying of fatal hunger sooner than you'd have imagined.

Also, there were or "Dial 911" when Islamic philosophy was written. So, if a woman, whilst pregnant- was travelling on camelback to do some trading, or if she was labouring on the land alongside her husband- and ran into a pregnency complication because of hard labour / physical stress- her health would be screwed for good, considering there were no helicopter dispatches or ambulance services 1400 years ago.

And having a large family meant more numbers of children. Which inevitably implied frequent pregnencies for womenfolk. It would be economically inefficient to have a woman take up employment when she'd be on pregnency leave most of the time. So considering the ground realities that ALL societies of the time faced- women were encouraged to stay home & look after the family as per Islamic philosophy.

Women & men were treated equally, but with different sets of responsibilities & perks based on the ground realities of the time 1400 years ago. To examplify where a woman had advantage over a man- a woman was protected from the criminal justice system and from prison & all the undesirable shit that constitutes prison life. A man was not given such protection. And in another example, during a divorce- a woman got 50% of ALL the husbands earnings AND assets. The man got nothing in return out of a divorce, even if the wife's family was wealthier than the husband's- even if if the husband needed the $$$ to support himself (after divorce considering he has to part w/ 50% of his earnings AND assets).

Briefly touching on another issue- at least now you do you understand why North Korea doesn't allow most outsiders to interact w/ locals?

Quote:

I am yet to see any evidence showing that it's OK to lay hands on a woman.

COmrade- the surah on hitting women only applies to DESERTERS & BETRAYERS OF TRUST such as adulterers & hood winkers. Man, woman, Asian, Caucasean, white or black...ANYONE who betrays trust should be sternly punished.

Comrade, physical punishment is really something unpleasent. But in all due honesty- setting aside all the emotionalisms- is it REALLY better to subject a wrongdoing woman to the criminal justice system, where she gets repeatedly raped & abused by other inmates and prison guards?

The punishment metted out in the Islamic system offers a chance for redemption & correction. The criminal justice system in almost all modern societies don't. After a stay in a prison, many women come out mentally, emotionally broken & psychologically scarred for life. And you can't let betrayers of trust & deserters go scot free either. Betrayal of trust is a SERIOUS crime- regardless of country or system.

The Islamic system perhaps took into account that physical punishment in the household- though certainly undesirable- is much more preferrable than exposing the culprit to permanent & irrepairable damage such psychological, mental and emotional wounds caused by the brutalities in institutions in the criminal justice system of almost any modern society- Socialist or capitalist.

[Roam]

Quote:

We must oppose whoever our enemy supports, and support whoever our enemy opposes.

like saying;The enemy of my enemy is your friend
it's false because The enemy of your enemy is not your always your friend
e.g. In Iraq, will you support the imperialist USA or the iraqiu insurgents?
none. because they are both your enenmies.

Quote:

those who are actually doing something.

yeah, they did something. what did you do? what did communists do? -nothing
you just argue with each other and disagree with each other.

Quote:

It's retarded to fight those who share the same enemy as I do.

who's that enemy?
e.g. you support muslims to fight USA and you eventually defeat USA, then what? can you get along with them?

Quote:

call 90% of the world morons just because they are conscious and you are not.

that's what the fundamentalists do. they reckon their philosophy is best and flawless.

Quote:

IS a part of you, right? We are all religiously influenced to a certain extent. Where do you think our morals and norms come from?

sadly from religion. our cultures and norms etc.. been influenced by religion.
we are in 2007 you know? I know that religion has always been a part of ourlives but why can't we change it & liberate our minds?
we're always repeating history, we are not learning from it.

Quote:

together as one unit towards their goal, which is something we fail to do, a lot.

How can we move together with one who disagrees with what you believe?
you know, if the people in this forum were united(in real life)under one particular idea, they really could do something, couldn't they?

1524100
they are not united that is why they are weak today and as stalin says weak ones always get beaten.

Quote:

without even knowing the first things about Marxism.

Marxism's views are materialistic.
in the M-E there are not too many communists(compared to the total population)/.

Quote:

If I was say- the Premiere of India, I would rather focus on ejecting those NATO barbarians out of Afghanistan & liberating Pakistan from US' grip and forming a regional military & economic bloc between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan & Iran- and engage the imperialists in Iraq by prepping up a local Marxist resistance group there (or supporting one if such a nationwide group exists) & help in the installation of proletariat friendly regime there rather than demolish mosques & temples and prosecute people for believing in a certain philosophy, in my own back yard.

yes but what about raising people's consiousness?

Quote:

Religion in the USSR:

cause that was the only way they could get those muslims (who lived in southeren republics) to go to war; ussr had units under the name Muslim battalions, they were used during the occupation of afghanistan...

Quote:

How the f*ck do you paint in nationalism there?

didn't say they are the same but I said they are both different modes of false consiousness.

Quote:

but I'm a Muslim

see..

Quote:

armed struggle

Like 17N or RAF

[arif_moin]

Quote:

cause that was the only way they could get those muslims (who lived in southeren republics) to go to war; ussr had units under the name Muslim battalions, they were used during the occupation of afghanistan...

The USSR never was a battle frenzy society- unless you're drawing up an image of the USSR from Red Alert .

From the end of WWII up until the Afghanistan occupation, there was no international conflict the USSR allocated massive amounts of resources & manpower into directly (which would require mass mobilization of citizens). They didn't have any regional strife whatsoever, suggesting a COMMON SENSE social policy.

1946- 1979. That's alot of time to actively suppress religion & stamp it out of SOviet society, especially considering the power the USSR wielded in a military / law enforcement angle both at home & abroad.

But the Soviet planners rightfully figured MONITORING religion and SETTING PARAMETERS to what limit religion has influence on society is MUCH smarter than pissing off 15% of your population over an idiotic mono culture.

And as far as the Soviet Islamic community went, most of them follow the SUfi school of thought. It involves the use of psychotropics as a part of the religious & social regimen. Psychotropics were hardcore illegal in the USSR (0.1 grams of weed could get u arrested in a place like Moscow), but in locales with large Sufi populations- Soviet law never even bothered people using psychotropics, eventhough psychotropic use was a criminal offense in the USSR.

To put things in perspective, psychotropics flowed free in such locales (ex: Termez) as it does in modern Amsterdam. That shows you the degree of tolerance the USSR afforded people, who didn't necessarily derive their moral & value system from Soviet Socialism, and whose cultural regimen conflicted with local common law.

WHenever there was a clash between local culture & common law- unless it blatantly propagated anti Socialist values (such as capitalism & slavery & hatred)- local culture prevailed as far as the Soviet system went on a practical perspective.

Also don't forget in Soviet times, would be separatists like Shamil Basayev served with the Soviet military (joined voluntarily). The Muslims population of the USSR had a very cordial relationship with the Soviet syestem in general.

That's because the system looked after them rather than spend all the money on skullfragging their minds w/ mono culture crap.

Quote:

we are in 2007 you know? I know that religion has always been a part of ourlives but why can't we change it & liberate our minds?
we're always repeating history, we are not learning from it.

No seriously- let's also force people to wear red underpants so that they liberate their bodies fully from the evil stenches of exploitative capitalism & lets force schools at gunpoint to serve Leninade to ensure they wouldn't get influenced by arch devil Coca Cola:lol: Sorry man, I had to.

Comrade, resources are scarce and time doesn't stop. As a Socialist society, people should work to create common ground & set mutually agreed upon parameters & set common achievable goals a step at a time, positively- rather than allocate valuable resources & time in brainless & irrelevant domestic activities such as stamping out religion.

If people want it, let them have it. If some people reject it, good for them. If they don't- it's not the end of the world. We should focus on time & resources on shit like better quality education, housing, medical care, employment, etc. etc., on common ground.

As long as religion doesn't manifest itself in politics- let it be. People are smart enough to decide whether or not they want to rid themselves of it. A Socialist regime isin't about imposing what you believe in to others. It's about finding common ground & integrating- keeping the best interests of the proletariat & joint development in mind.

A Socialist society- by virtue- has a large degree of social consience & long run security embedded in it very deeply. A smart Socialist leader would devote most of the national resources & time towards improving living conditions of the people rather than "freeing peoples minds." As time goes by, peoples expectations out of the system in terms of quality of life tends to increase over a period of time & the Socialist government must fulfill those aspirations for all rather than put effort into curbing belief systems as national policy.

I'm very sorry to say but stomping religion as a matter of national policy is blatantly retarded. Which accomplishes NOTHING on the ground & gobbles up time & money.

People by nature are very diverse & different- else we'd be like the Borg. And thought on an entire population can't be forced by the perceptions of a few. You're degenerating the proletariat by implying they're too stupid to think on their own.

Offer the proletariat a solid education & a secure, improving quality of life. They'll figure the rest out themselves. Khomeini's revolution in Iran (though the Iranians approved it) received very low enthusiasm in Central Asian SSRs. Muslims in the USSR generally liked the Soviet system.

Forcing a belief system on people is as stupid as telling them what to smoke & what not to smoke.

Quote:

yes but what about raising people's consiousness?

People are smarter than reanimated corpses, you know As long as the system focuses on improving the quality of life for the people conteniously, the people will figure the rest out themselves. Some may abandon religion. Others may not.

But as long as common goals are being achieved regionwide & capitalism & elitism are being done away with & the proletariats are getting a fair share of a growing economic pie- that's the true hallmark of a Socialist system, not some sensationalist crap like an athiest Al-Qaeda campaign

Quote:

sadly from religion. our cultures and norms etc.. been influenced by religion

Sadly, we need to intake food in order to survive. Sadly there isin't infinite resources. Sadly, bears maul the shit out of lost backpackers.

Sadly, hope is an integral part of human character, which an economic & social doctrine designed for the masses like Socialism can't do anything about.

By saying "religion is the opium of the masses" it's implied that active theocracy manifests itself in poor & stagnant living conditions. So, by offering solid, scientific educational foundation to the masses & improving their living conditions vigorously will make theocratic elements (i.e. fanatical opportunists & supersticion con artists) lose significant influence.

You can't force a belief system onto a population. YOu can only improve their quality of life.

If living conditions decline, people are much more prone to active & firebrand theocracy. So as a Socialist- just make sure people are treated well, and their living standards are improving, so that potential opportunist theocratic & nationalist & any other segregationist elements wouldn't surface & mainfest itself in society and politics.

[fontis]

Quote:

e.g. In Iraq, will you support the imperialist USA or the iraqiu insurgents?

Iraqi insurgents? You mean the Iraqi resistance, and yes I support them wholeheartedly. Their heroic display against the biggest most powerful imperialist force on the planet stands out as a beacon to the rest of the world.

What I've done? Well, let me put it this way, I'm from Iran, but I'm forced to live in Sweden - you do the math.

P.S
I hate the use of the word "insurgents", it's a tactically used keyword by the bourgeois in the mass-media to condescend the heroic display of consciousness in Iraq. Just like Hamas and Hezbollah are labelled as "some dumbshit camelriding sandniggers blowing themselves up", whereas their political and military consciousness surpasses many modern 1st world countries. I might not agree to all of their policies, but we share a common goal for the moment, and that's why I'm supporting them.

What Mao said makes perfect sense.

[DSCHBACH]

No, much as scriptural Christianity implies communism.

[Roam]

Quote:

Their heroic display against the biggest most powerful imperialist force on the planet stands out as a beacon to the rest of the world.

I can't argue on that but..
I prefer vietcong & democratic Vietnam's resistance to USA since they unified Vietnam under a communist government which I personally agreed with. they defeated anti-communist america & their allies.
If I was born back then I would go as a volunteer to fight in vietnam.

Quote:

What I've done? Well, let me put it this way, I'm from Iran, but I'm forced to live in Sweden - you do the math

.

how long have you been in exile? you are old now? :s

Quote:

I might not agree to all of their policies, but we share a common goal for the moment, and that's why I'm supporting them.

How about you not supporting any of them, and let them destroy each other, that's another possibility.

Quote:

I hate the use of the word "insurgents",

is it an offensive word...I didn't know
cause that's the name they use in the news. by definition meaning an armed uprising or a revolt against a goverment, this includes guerrilla warfare, sabotage etc...

about the 1944 -1949 Greek civil war which was an uprising of Greek communists and Elas guerrillas(anti-nazi) against royalist greek army and British forces, In this war do you call the greek communists as insurgents? ..or resistance?

Quote:

. Just like Hamas and Hezbollah are labelled as "some dumbshit camelriding sandniggers blowing themselves up", whereas their political and military consciousness surpasses many modern 1st world countries.

also in american films, they usually portray them really badly.

Quote:

Hamas and Hezbollah

I wish they and jews could live together peacefully.
just like how many polish citizens gave reffuge to the jews fleeing the Holocaust or how they supported the Jewish resistance during the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
(I don't like the way the Zionists treat the palestinians )

Quote:

What Mao said makes perfect sense.

I'm not very happy with Mao about the Sino-Soviet split.

arif_moin, Thanks for the explaining!
don't forget that soviet union was officially non-religious, and they had atheist ideas. they tried to suppress religion but it's not easy, it takes alot of time so they couldn't massacre half of their population for having religion, could they?
I know that many people who served the ussr were religious.

[arif_moin]

Quote:

can't argue on that but..
I prefer vietcong & democratic Vietnam's resistance to USA since they unified Vietnam under a communist government which I personally agreed with. they defeated anti-communist america & their allies.

Oh believe me comrade, I too wish the Iraqi resistance had a much more pro proletariat stance (versus a purely theocratic one) as much as you do.

But the fact still remains that when the Middle East was on the verge of embracing pro proletariat Socialist systems, and moving away from theocracy- the SOcialist world did absolutely nothing to aid these movements against mammoth sabotauge initiatives against such systems by the US, Israel & the capitalist West. Examples are NAsser in Egypt & Kassim & Al Bakr in IRaq.

The imperialist world was willing to risk confrontation by destabilising these regimes, but the Socialist world by and large wasn't as committed to preserving such movements as much as the imperialist world was on destabilising them.

Socialist leaders such as Nasser, Karim & Al Bakr generally enjoyed good popular support in their respective regimes and they enjoyed good regional support as well. Even ultra right wing uber puppet Saudi Arabia at the time was willing to back leaders like Nasser.

If the Socialist world massively initiated efforts to counter destabilization efforts in M-E Socialist regimes by the West, Israel & US...you still might have seen popular resistance along Socialist lines, had the US attacked Iraq today.

The lack of a pro proletarian movement in the Middle East is not because of Islam or its influence- but it's because the Socialist world failed to aid & sustain such movements in the Middle East, in their embryonic stages.

In Egypt today, amongst the traditional agrarian & semi agrarian circles, there is still very passionate support for Socialism, but the general notion is that people seem resigned to the Mubarak era propaganda that Socialism won't work. The SOcialist world's performance sheet in the Middle East isin't anything worth writing home about either.

While the Socialist world did nothing more than paint sympathy posters and cry "injustice", whenever an attrocity was committed against people by imperialists in the Middle East (ex: Gaza)...theocratic outfits like the Hamas & Hizbalah took up arms for their people & filled the power vaccum- something the Socialist world should've done decades ago in the Middle East.

Unfortunately today- it's only the populist theocratic outfits that are the ones offering resistance to imperialist domination in the Mid East. And imperialist meddling in the Middle East was evident even when the SOcialist world was in full strength.

While you rightly point out a pro proletariat anti imperial struggle is superior to a populist theocratic centric one, it would've only been a serious possibility if the SOcialist world showed the same level of commitment in the Middle East they did in Vietnam.

The Socialist world blundered hardcore (perhaps since Socialism's inception) in the Middle East & now we Socialists are wondering why there is so much fanaticism there. While I don't agree with theocratic resistance, I understand why it happened.

Let's say you're a Socialist revolutionary and I\\\'m a pro Hamas run of the mill Palestenian, our conversation will go along these lines:

Roam: Theocracy is a regressive social model in the long run. Socialism is progressive because it professes logic, science and is free of supersticion & all sorts of restrictions theocrats like to place.

Me: Where were you when my younger brother got dragged & taken to a torture cell into that IDF jeep?

Roam: The Hamas may have helped you in the short run, but it was done only to gather popular support so that those theocrats could cement & consolidate political & social power.

Me: I value my family's safety first & utmost. The Hamas gave me the means to guarantee that.

If you abandon a people in a life & death struggle but expect them to somehow take up your cause, your voice for the most part will fall on deaf years.

Quote:

I wish they and jews could live together peacefully.

JEWS don't have much say in Israel- militant Zionists do.

Quote:

don't forget that soviet union was officially non-religious, and they had atheist ideas. they tried to suppress religion but it's not easy, it takes alot of time so they couldn't massacre half of their population for having religion, could they?

I'm not advocating a "pro religious" setup in the official or social bodies by ANY barometer either. Socialism is a SOCIO ECONOMIC and a POLITICAL doctrine. It was never really designed as an individual level belief system, just as religion was never really designed as a political & socio-economic system.

Religion becomes ugly when you apply it in situations it wasn't designed to tackle (ie. socio-economy, polity). The same thing applies to Socialism and it's not a one way foolproof ticket to Shangri-La either. It can only be beneficial for the people as long as it's used as a model to manage the nation's resources and improve the peoples' quality of life.

WHen Socialism is used as an individual level belief system- it ends up becoming counter productive. Just as how a knife works great to slice meats but not so great when used as a bicycle seat...

Quote:

don't forget that soviet union was officially non-religious, and they had atheist ideas.

I wouldn't call the USSR as "non religious" but more so of a compilation of radically different belief systems existing & working together, under a single flag. However, no single belief system was allowed to streamroll over another.

Coming back to personal belief systems & "enlightening the masses"- as a Socialist leader, you can perhaps have public debates in a large auditorium w/ live TV & radio broadcasts, which will bring together a collection of experts on every single belief system out there (Islam, Hinduism, Athiesm, etc) and have a frank, open public debate.

For instance, after the show, if a few Buddhists, Hindus & Christians see "the light" & embrace scientific atheism, well- good for you. If they don't- theyve made their personal choice & governments can\\\'t breast feed every single person's thought either, so it'll be best to let them be.

And some aspects / implications of SOcialism won't work in all societies. Some policies will seem like heaven in a particular locale but would be staunchly opposed in others.

For instance, the concept of dual working families (double income families) was received with much fanfare in Industrial Russia, Estonia, Belarus, Hungary, urban DPRK & GDR but was highly frowned upon in Nehruvian India, Uzbekistan SSR, the DRA (Socialist Afghanistan), Kassim's & Al-Bakr's Iraq & Nasserian Egypt and agrarian DPRK. Though they were all Socialist systems, they had very contrasting public reactions to the same set of policies.

And in Romania, Ceausescu's concept of large families was very much frowned upon and was looked upon as a "violation of women's body." Whereas in India, if someone made rules which gave perks to large families in South Asia- they'd be treated like demi Gods- by both men & women. .

Religion works the same way too. Some people value it highly-others aren't too bothered about it- and some despise anything about it. The best thing a Socialist regime can do is get all these different opinions together & set limits to ensure nobody ends up trampling over others. THat includes limits on folks rejecting religion as a whole too.

All in all, the Socialist world shares much blame for their lethargy in the Middle East. The chief player to be blamed more than anyone else is India- which was very much a part of the world SOcialist map when there were strong Socialist undercurrents in the Middle East. India did a great job crushing Portuguese troops in Goa- but they blundered big time in the Middle East.

Even when India faltered in its international commitments to Socialist movements in the Middle East, the USSR didn't step in and take charge either- instead, they comforted themselves with a "they're not a part of the Warsaw Pact, so we don't have to send in assistance" attitude. Other Warsaw Pact countries like the GDR didn't send in any concrete help either- who got too busy snooping around their own people.

And the PRC was in no shape economically to even think of regional commitments during the time, so no point blaming them. And you really couldn't expect Yugoslavia to intervene in a physical confrontation internationally w/o Indian guarantees.

The prevailence of theocracy in the Middle East is because of the lethargy / inaction of the Socialist world to nurture & protect infant (but highly popular) movements in the Middle East against US, Israeli & Western sabotauge attempts.

[Kav]

Personally i think that what needs to be looked at is whether or not we believe the current system in the middle east to be true islam. what must be understood is that the radical development which has taken place over the past 5 decades or so isnt what islam started out as. i believe that islam and communism arent a perfect parallel however they arent on opposite ends of the spectrum either.

[Roam]

Well, thank you,Arif_moin for the detailed explanation.

Kav
religions often get modified or re-written for the benefit of a goverment or a particular group. I give you an example from christianity: like how the leaders in christendom supported Hitler at that time(even though Hitler's actions were completly agains christianity). & today the homosexuals have their own church in USA( I saw on news) even though homosexuality is against christianity.
of course they had good ones like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who made plot to assasinate Hitler and end the war.

They have their bad fruits, kind of like us.

To Fontis:
A victory for any country against imperialism is our victory, just as any country's defeat is our defeat.-Che Guevara

[Fitzy]

Quote:

And in Romania, Ceausescu's concept of large families was very much frowned upon and was looked upon as a "violation of women's body." Whereas in India, if someone made rules which gave perks to large families in South Asia- they'd be treated like demi Gods- by both men & women. .

I dont understand how it violates a womans body. Can you explain what is meant by "large" families?

[fontis]

Quote:

To Fontis:
A victory for any country against imperialism is our victory, just as any country's defeat is our defeat.-Che Guevara

What has this got to do with anything? I've never disagreed with this, you're the one claiming that I'm the idiot for supporting the resistance in Iraq and in Palestine

[arif_moin]

Quote:

I dont understand how it violates a womans body. Can you explain what is meant by "large" families?

"Large" families mean households where a single couple has 6+ kids. I don't understand how large family friendly policies violate a woman's body either. You'd best redirect that question to someone who understands the modern concept of "feminism" & modern cosmopolitan culture in general...