From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Harald
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 02:03:47 +0200


Chris, when I argue on this and other social revolutionary lists I often
will put greater emphasis on some aspects than I would do within the
context of a public statement. In other words, I express myself "less
balanced,"  as I take some things as granted here, as for instance
opposition to the war-efforts of NATO (which now have started, I
just heard on the radio) and oppostion to attacks on muslims, people
who "look like" muslims, and so on.
        Unlike George (Caffentzis) I would neither argue that "their
accomplices, if they had any, should be captured and prosecuted in
the appropriate courts  without the US government ... " Nor would I
campaign against it, had that (very unlikely) been the only reaction
of the government of the United States after September 11. But I
am not a great believer in Justice.

Precisely how to put forth the Islamic dimension it this particular
moment of history is worth discussing. But it cannot be avoided. If
we do, we will not only leave the scene open to racists, and fail to
achieve anything but a US- and Euro-centric comprehension
of September 11. Most workers (including the muslims among them)
just is not going to buy that Islam equals Peace, as Bush and in
particularily Blair, keeps repeating.
        In the United States you of course have the advantage that most
Arabs have christian backgrounds, something which is worth pointing
out to make the picture more complex. It might also be worth pointing
out that muslims religious leaders do not represent the majority of
muslims, which does not imply that they do not have a power in their
communities, in similar ways that Christian priests used to have.  Even
more important is it to point out that it is a quite large group of muslims
who either have strong doubts about their faith or are non-believers,
without expressing this openly.  But above all muslims like christians
often do not practice what they preach in the concrete reality of daily
life,
something we should be glad for in both cases. It is also easier to
critisize Islam as an expressed atheist than as christian.


I am very aware that Christian fundamentalism, and well as
religious beliefs in general are more widespread in the U.S.
than in most of Europe. A pretty harmless illustration of this:
When recently the leader of Chalestone (South Carolina) local
of the International Longshoremen's Assosiation (ILA), Kenneth Riley,
as a guest at the recent Congress of the Norwegian Transport
Workers Union, ended his appeal by suggesting a prayer for
the Charestone Five, the whole congress spontaneously
broke out laughing.
        But not even the United States do you risk your life by
renouncing your christian beliefs. That is a not unimportant
difference. It could also be expressed differently: Muslims
do in fact enjoy far greater relgious freedom in the U.S. and
Europe than in almost  any "Islamic country," a view recently
expressed by a female muslim in the U.K.  Now this is not
wholly correct, as orthodox muslism are not free to carry out
religiously endorsed death penalities. But more secularised
muslims do have far greater freedom, something which is
also expressed in that there in Norway there is also a rather
large community of Pakistani muslim refugees who are
here due to religious prosecution in their homeland, to not
speak of the Iranian refugees (though most of those are
very hostile to Islam even if "born" muslims) as their are
also a far smaller community of christan Pakistanis who are
here for the same reason. Even in the far more secularised
Tunisia a non-muslim woman who marries a muslim is by
law required to endorse Islam.
        I would also claim that Hollywood etc play a far more
important role in the forming of people minds in the United
States than any lingering christian beliefs.
        Your comparison with Christian fundamentalism is
correct in one very important sense, that such sects are
extremely effective in imposing internal oppression, and
it is very hard, and it takes much courage to break out of
them. So I will repeat the words of a friend, Islam is fore-
most the enemy of muslims. There are far more non-believers
and agnostics among muslims than what we are often
led to believe. But it takes much courage to openly
express it, even within the framework of "western" societies.
Not at least this is true for women. This has to do with
fear but also, and related to this, the whole discourse of
shame and honour. There are exceptions to this, as for
instance within the refugee Iranian communities here,
where maybe the majority are atheist or agnostics, if
you disregard a small minority of Mujadeen with their own
particular poisoneous mixture of "marxism" and Islam.
In Sweden the situation has been somewhat different,
with violent confrontation between followers of the Party
of Allah and those who escaped  their reign in Iran. I
will leave these particular them here, as I could go on
for ever.
        But just to end this part, I am of course also aware
of all the nuances and shades within the "world of Islam"
geographically and individually, not at least "the silent
majority " of those who dare not openly express their
doubts and disbeliefs. But then again, In 1981, Lafif Lakhdar
wrote in Khamsin: Journal of revolutionary socialists of
the Middle East:

In a Moment of frankeness, Hasan al-Banna' admitted in
1947 to the members of his [Muslim] Brotherhood [in Egypt]
that the first obstacle they would meet on the path to the re-
Islamisation of secular Muslim society, in his opinion, would
be the hostility of the people. "I must tell you", he said, "that
your preaching is still a closed book to the majority. The day
when they discover it and realise what it aims for, they will
resist violently and oppose you tentaciously

What you see unfolding is in many ways a struggle between
strong forces of secularisation (or "corruption" as the true
believers would put it) and reactionary counter-forces. None
of these should be under-estimated, nor the power of a strong
minority willing to resort to terrror – which the nationalist
hysteria in the late Yugoslavia was yet another example of –
in particular not when they get so much help from "Satan".

Much of this battle unsurprisingly revolves around the issue
of the freedom of women. As such September 11 was an attack
on (the "western" and "corrupting" influence) of women's
emancipation as much as anything else. The whole Honour
and Shame discourse is still the dominant one throughout
the Middle East.

To the question of Judaism. The two special issues on
Politics of Religion of "Khamsin" (mentioned above) also
contains three articles somewhat relevant to that issue (The
Jewish Religion and its Attitiudes to non-Jews," "Religion,
Zionism and Secularism" and "Tragic Heroes and Victims
in Zionist Ideology".)

But anyway today outside of Bosnia,  it is hard for people
to think about an atheist muslim (though they exist) while
athesist jews you hear about all the time, even of jews with
religious beliefs other than Judaism. It has come signify
a cultural background more than, or just as much, as a
religious faith. This said, I am of course also opposed to
prosecution of people on the basis of their religious
beliefs. It is a whole other thing when they try to impose
their _personal_ beliefs on others, including their children,
in particular when this in certain circumstances means
murder.

At last, in down-playing the importance of contemporary
christian beliefs in relation to Islam, I am not saying that
certain ways of thought with their roots in a christian
ideology has not survived, including within an atheist
left. Moralism and the need for a clearly defined evil
forces, as "Western civilisation" and "whites", opposed
to anglelike forces of good, as "the third world" and "blacks"
is an example of this, as is the celebration of guilt
one so often sees. It is a politics for masochists, which
seem to be particular popular in countries with strong
protestant traditions, as both the United States and the
Scandinavian countries, even if Christians today in all
reality constitute a minority group around 10 per cent
in the later countries, where most would find it somewhat
embarising to be seen within a church on other
occasions than baptism, confirmation (to get money gifts)
marriage (for the cermony, the city hall tend to be too
much like an assembly line) and burials. Which again
does not mean that people do not have a notion of a
christian cultural heritage, which they think is fine as
long as the number of Christians are kept to a minimum.

I have repeated myself some times int the above, I believe.
But to restate myself: Maybe to introduce the concept of
atheist and agnostic muslims, is a good idea. The Golden
Age of Islam certainly had its freethinkers (even if censor-
ship today assures that they are out of the reach of the
muslim masses, and there is little interest in reprinting
them in "the West"). In all circumstances a critique of Islam
from those of without muslim-sounding names must in
the concrete context of the present situation, be put forth
within a context, as for instance condemnation of the
military attack on Afganistan, and so on, and where it
is made clear that our critique of Islam is foremost directed
against the oppression of muslims it involves, and then
in particular in "Islamic countries".

Harald







     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---