From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: AUT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Harald
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:57:19 +0200


Chris asks me:

        Do you really think that Hussein's regime came closest to post-WWII
        Hitlerism?  Really?  You must be joking.  At least try Cambodia
under the
        Khmer Rouge.  Or any other Middle Eastern country, since all of them
were as
        bad (including Israeil in many ways.)


Khmer Rogue is a thing all for itself. And to much understanding, very
different than Nazi Germany. But that it was a hell of regime, I certainly
agree. Your claim that the regime of any other Middle Eastern country
"were as bad" as the Ba'th rule in Iraq, I am not able to take this
seriously,
and to me is just an expression of that this is not something you have
studied much. Not that there is much good to say about the other regimes
in the region. A comparison with Assad's Syria and Khomeni's Iraq
is instructive though, as they both have roots in the Ba'th party, have some
very similar traits but still there hav ebeen important qualitative
differences
between them, and that says a lot about the later. Of course, to say the
obvious, Ba'thist Iraq has in no way been, or could be, indentical with
Nazi Germany, despite some very common traits. To say that the regime
of the late Shah was "as bad as Iraq's" again to me speaks of a lack of
basis knowledge.
        Sorry, that I can only express as this now, to go further into it
would
requite a very long article (Had you read Norwegian, I could have sent you
such an article I wrote back in 1992.)

I am not at all saying that secularism does not have its limits. But I do
not al all agree that Turkey is as secular as you claim. But it is an
interesting (and the first) example of trying to impose a (semi-)secularism
from above. Your "That is why posing the problem as one of Islam vs.
is a dead end," I think misses my point. I am formost interested in a
secularisation from below. And for women, in particular,  such things
as Sharia laws, is not some minor issue.

I wholly agree that a critique of Islam must be carried out in the context
of the 20th-21st cenetury, of course, but is not as that could wholly
exclude what is said in the Qur'an. Not as long as this book de facto is
interpretated literally and is used as a means of oppression. The retrun
of Islamism, as generally accepted, largerly grew out of the failure of
Arabic nationalism. But an important part of this story is that the later
was never really secular. About the general acceptance of the tolerance
of Islam (as an imperial ideology) from the from the 10th to the 15th
centuries, this has some truth in comparison to Christanity at the time,
but is also in many respects a lot of liberal nonsense. Jews and
Christians were mostly recognized as second rate citizens, which says
nothing about the "tolerance" for people who were not of the Book.
That you can find worse within the history of Christanity, does not
mean that we should buy this defintion of "tolerance".

"To say that Islam is doctrinally worse than Christianity or Judaism is
wrong," you write. My reference is of course linked to dominant de
facto theology of today. You just cannot pretend that things similar
to the Sharia laws is on the political agenda within the "christian sphere".
Such things as stoning of women will find in the Bible for sure, but
I don't see even such figures as Bush proposing that as a Christian
nation" we must reintroduced this penalty, however much he other-
wise is a warm defender of capital punishment. I have never heard
nice old, and not so old men with Christian beliefs defend the murder
of women who have comitted adultery, trying to convince me by
referring to the Bible, sincerly believing that if I only had read the
holy text he had (which I in fact already had) I would have to agree.
I have heear this kind of "argument" too many times to say this is
not a problem. I don't mind too much when the same reasoning is
employed on question of eating ham or not.

Yes I beleive you are right that religious fundamentalism is a sign
of the times, linked to an increaded level of capitalist alienation.
That has always been an important part of my understanding in
all circumstances.

You write:
     I suppose the real question is, "What burden do we place on
    consciousness?"  Is it possible to educate people out of their
    religiosity? I don't think so.

Well someone is certainly educating them into it. It has a very real
material basis on more than one level. Of course the most perfect
practical critique of Islam has been carried out by the Party of Allah
in Iran. But it would hope we could avoid too many such lessons.
And making a critique more available, is important. We might not
be able to do much our selves, but we could become better to
support those in a better (but far more dangerous) postions to
do so, rather than the opposite. Or in other words seeks alliances
with social revolutionaries and other secularising forces and not
Mullahs. And to repeat, Arab Nationlism (or militarism) was
never really secular. Anyway what is needed is a non-hierachical,
and secular (these are very much related) class struggle movement.

Of course US intervention is precisely what the Islamist wanted.
The more dead muslisms the better fror them. This is a point
it is critical to argue, that they are being exploited.As such this
whole murderous mess can also be used positively,  to mini-
mise death.







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