Islamism and the Left

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

"..But we have to be careful here. There are perfectly legitimate criticisms that can be made not only of Islamist zealots but also of Islam itself—as of any other religion. Pascal Bruckner argues that the term “Islamophobia” was “a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism.” The term was first used, he claims, to condemn Kate Millett for calling upon Iranian women to take off their chadors. I don’t know who “invented” Islamophobia, but it is worth repeating Bruckner’s key point: there has to be room for feminists like Millett and for all the militant atheists and philosophical skeptics to say their piece about Islam—and also about Christianity and Judaism—and to find an audience if they can. Call them to account for bad arguments, but their critical work should be welcome in a free society..."

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/islamism-and-the-left

I think this is a really important topic worth discussing. The default left response towards Islamism seems to be an implicit defense. Because of the dominant "West vs. East" narrative, the left oftentimes attempts to justify the existence of groups like Hamas or the Taliban by placing them in contrast with imperialistic oppression or Israel. I believe that this is the wrong response but I'm not sure what the right response is. The world is complex: I'm pretty sympathetic towards aspects of some Islamist organizations, which stand in opposition towards authoritarian regimes, but I despise others.

[Lurker]

"..But we have to be careful here. There are perfectly legitimate criticisms that can be made not only of Islamist zealots but also of Islam itself—as of any other religion. Pascal Bruckner argues that the term “Islamophobia” was “a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism.” The term was first used, he claims, to condemn Kate Millett for calling upon Iranian women to take off their chadors. I don’t know who “invented” Islamophobia, but it is worth repeating Bruckner’s key point: there has to be room for feminists like Millett and for all the militant atheists and philosophical skeptics to say their piece about Islam—and also about Christianity and Judaism—and to find an audience if they can. Call them to account for bad arguments, but their critical work should be welcome in a free society..."

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/islamism-and-the-left

I think this is a really important topic worth discussing. The default left response towards Islamism seems to be an implicit defense. Because of the dominant "West vs. East" narrative, the left oftentimes attempts to justify the existence of groups like Hamas or the Taliban by placing them in contrast with imperialistic oppression or Israel. I believe that this is the wrong response but I'm not sure what the right response is. The world is complex: I'm pretty sympathetic towards aspects of some Islamist organizations, which stand in opposition towards authoritarian regimes, but I despise others.

Interesting article and discussion.
But which/what kind of Islamist organizations are these?

[bedstuy]

It is an interesting topic. 

But, I think it's important to define your terms.  What is "Islamism"?  What is the "left?"  I think these discussions get derailed by a lack of clarity on those points.

For me, I would draw a distinction between the hard left and center-left political leaders like Barack Obama.  I would argue that Western leaders say diplomatic things about Islam in the interest of, guess what, diplomacy.  Center-left political leaders don't necessarily do themselves any favors by speaking their mind about controversial issues like religion. So, who is on the left?  To me, it's people like Glen Greenwald and the internet left.  People inspired by Noam Chomsky, critical theory, college "studies" departments, Marxism and socialism.  And, even among those people, not all of them feel the same way about Islamism or whatever so it's always an over-simplification.

Next, what is Islamism?  This is more controversial.  We're liable to get into a back and forth with people using phrases like "Wahabi," "Jihadi," "Political Islam" versus "moderate Muslims" and "mainstream Islam."  It's way more complicated than those dichotomies though.  Islam is a religion broken into relatively few sects population wise.  While there are different versions of their canon law, most Muslims are Sunnis and don't consider themselves anything besides Muslim.  To me, the cleanest definition is that we're talking about fundamentalist Sunni Islam.  Whether you call that Wahabi or Salafi or extreme Islam or X-Treme to the Max Islam, whatever.  It's fundamentalism, being fanatical and committed to some idea of restoring the "fundamental" tenets of your faith.

So, what's the left's error when it comes to Islam.  I feel like I've already written a novel here, so a few bullet points: 

-Third world underdogism:  Leftists root for the underdog and the weaker party and ascribe virtue to being the David vs. Goliath. 
-White guilt: Leftists have a cult of white guilt where instead of not factoring race into their worldview, they side with the non-white side so they can never be accused of racism.
-Anti-Americanism:  The left has a knee-jerk tendency to blame America for everything.
-Lack of religious fervor:  Many leftists are atheists or liberal Christians or Jews, so they can't fathom fundamentalism.  They see a terrorist like Bin Laden and they say, "Oh, he can't really be a religious fundamentalist, it must really be all about American foreign policy!"  So, they mentally turn Islamic rebels into their imaginary leftist hero rebels and they don't seem so bad.

[ingemann]

I think this is more a European issue than a American one, American Muslims tend to be better educated and richer than European ones, as such even if some of them are rather reactionary, they at least have wits, to be silent about their more unpalatable views. While the poorer Muslims in USA are often converts and as such they don't have the same baggage as Muslim immigrants (much of the worst part of "Islam" tend to come from cultural aspects which they connect with Islam).

[© tweed]

I don't see why any Left organization needs to have any opinion on "violent Islamism".

the focus needs to remain razor-sharp: everything as critique of political economy.  politics is the battlefield where we fight to determine the distribution and deployment of resources.

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.  meanwhile these 12 deaths will garner endless dialog and media attention.  the state will convince you that we need to use endless resources in combating these people lest they kill you.  and the politicians now have another wedge issue: the focus of electoral politics becomes is gay marriage, abortion, Islamism.  issues that matter nothing either way to the people who actually own your country and control your world.

[IceSpear]

It is an interesting topic. 

But, I think it's important to define your terms.  What is "Islamism"?  What is the "left?"  I think these discussions get derailed by a lack of clarity on those points.

For me, I would draw a distinction between the hard left and center-left political leaders like Barack Obama.  I would argue that Western leaders say diplomatic things about Islam in the interest of, guess what, diplomacy.  Center-left political leaders don't necessarily do themselves any favors by speaking their mind about controversial issues like religion. So, who is on the left?  To me, it's people like Glen Greenwald and the internet left.  People inspired by Noam Chomsky, critical theory, college "studies" departments, Marxism and socialism.  And, even among those people, not all of them feel the same way about Islamism or whatever so it's always an over-simplification.

Next, what is Islamism?  This is more controversial.  We're liable to get into a back and forth with people using phrases like "Wahabi," "Jihadi," "Political Islam" versus "moderate Muslims" and "mainstream Islam."  It's way more complicated than those dichotomies though.  Islam is a religion broken into relatively few sects population wise.  While there are different versions of their canon law, most Muslims are Sunnis and don't consider themselves anything besides Muslim.  To me, the cleanest definition is that we're talking about fundamentalist Sunni Islam.  Whether you call that Wahabi or Salafi or extreme Islam or X-Treme to the Max Islam, whatever.  It's fundamentalism, being fanatical and committed to some idea of restoring the "fundamental" tenets of your faith.

So, what's the left's error when it comes to Islam.  I feel like I've already written a novel here, so a few bullet points: 

-Third world underdogism:  Leftists root for the underdog and the weaker party and ascribe virtue to being the David vs. Goliath. 
-White guilt: Leftists have a cult of white guilt where instead of not factoring race into their worldview, they side with the non-white side so they can never be accused of racism.
-Anti-Americanism:  The left has a knee-jerk tendency to blame America for everything.
-Lack of religious fervor:  Many leftists are atheists or liberal Christians or Jews, so they can't fathom fundamentalism.  They see a terrorist like Bin Laden and they say, "Oh, he can't really be a religious fundamentalist, it must really be all about American foreign policy!"  So, they mentally turn Islamic rebels into their imaginary leftist hero rebels and they don't seem so bad.

Good post. It seems many people, both on the left and the right, have trouble distinguishing between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology. The latter is what is truly abhorrent, and criticizing it does not make you "Islamophobic" or "racist".

[patrick1]

I don't see why any Left organization needs to have any opinion on "violent Islamism".

the focus needs to remain razor-sharp: everything as critique of political economy.  politics is the battlefield where we fight to determine the distribution and deployment of resources.

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.  meanwhile these 12 deaths will garner endless dialog and media attention.  the state will convince you that we need to use endless resources in combating these people lest they kill you.  and the politicians now have another wedge issue: the focus of electoral politics becomes is gay marriage, abortion, Islamism.  issues that matter nothing either way to the people who actually own your country and control your world.

-Islamism is opposed to left economics
-The narrative of western powers spending resources to kill Muslims is false since the front lines on the battle or within Islamic societies themselves
-The chances that a radical islamist will kill or harm someone we know is certainly not zero, 3 k in NYC spread those affected out and being in this area you are a target. Doesnt mean you change your life

[politicus]

Next, what is Islamism?  This is more controversial.  We're liable to get into a back and forth with people using phrases like "Wahabi," "Jihadi," "Political Islam" versus "moderate Muslims" and "mainstream Islam."  It's way more complicated than those dichotomies though.  Islam is a religion broken into relatively few sects population wise.  While there are different versions of their canon law, most Muslims are Sunnis and don't consider themselves anything besides Muslim.  To me, the cleanest definition is that we're talking about fundamentalist Sunni Islam.  Whether you call that Wahabi or Salafi or extreme Islam or X-Treme to the Max Islam, whatever.  It's fundamentalism, being fanatical and committed to some idea of restoring the "fundamental" tenets of your faith.

- You can be a Sunni fundamentalist without being a Jihadist.

- Shiism is equally capable of producing fundamentalism and lets not forget the importance of the Iranian Revolution as an inspiration (also - all though obviously indirectly - to Sunnis) showing that a theocracy can function in the modern world.

[© tweed]

-Islamism is opposed to left economics

if true, doesn't matter.  Islamists are not barrier to the institution of left economic policy in the West.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know what this means.  the West does spend a lot on time and money "killing Muslims" half a world away - this is an incontrovertible fact.  and a whole lot more on surveilliance of their own population in the name of "anti-terrorism" (the majority of law enforcement use of the PATRIOT Act was in drug prosecutions).

if you're saying there are disagreements, often violent, within the "Muslim world", that's also an incontrovertible fact - though the one thing they do agree on is that they (everyone but the elite that stand to profit) don't want US/Israel getting involved and/or dropping bombs on their heads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

even taking the most successful crime committed by a Muslim/Muslims in Western history, that 3k number from 13 years ago is a fraction of the deaths caused by, say, prescription medication every single year.  it is also infinitesimal fraction of the number of Muslims killed, injured, and displaced as a direct consequence of US violence.

one thing that the obsession with Islamist violence reflects is that humans have a more potent emotional response to human/personified evil than other phenomena.

[politicus]

Tweed: Do you not consider stuff like equal rights for women, gay rights, sexual freedom, reproductive rights and free speech important left wing priorities? If so, why isn't Islamism a problem for the left? (at least in Western countries with a significant Muslim population)

[© tweed]

Tweed: Do you not consider stuff like equal rights for women, gay rights, sexual freedom, reproductive rights and free speech important left wing priorities? If so, why isn't Islamism a problem for the left? (at least in Western countries with a significant Muslim population)

my words are more or less meant to be taken from a US perspective.  while I am aware that some European countries have a larger percentage of Muslims that the US (I believe the Us is around 0.6%-0.7%), I'd be shocked to find that 'Islamists' are a decisive factor in infringing on any of those nice-sounding things you listed (unless you mean some of the more unassimiliated Muslims within their own communities -- but what are we to do about that, send the cops in with guns and force the husbands to let their wife go down to the ballot box or dance club?)

on another level, I don't support making gay, women's, minority rights the main focus of a left organization, because it inevitably leads to fragmentation into various identity politics groups.  this is one of the areas where I'm an unrepentant Leninist: the problem is concatenated private power in the form of masses of capital, everything else is secondary (and is often consciously used as "wedge issues" by the powerful to distract people from issues of political economy).

[bedstuy]

Next, what is Islamism?  This is more controversial.  We're liable to get into a back and forth with people using phrases like "Wahabi," "Jihadi," "Political Islam" versus "moderate Muslims" and "mainstream Islam."  It's way more complicated than those dichotomies though.  Islam is a religion broken into relatively few sects population wise.  While there are different versions of their canon law, most Muslims are Sunnis and don't consider themselves anything besides Muslim.  To me, the cleanest definition is that we're talking about fundamentalist Sunni Islam.  Whether you call that Wahabi or Salafi or extreme Islam or X-Treme to the Max Islam, whatever.  It's fundamentalism, being fanatical and committed to some idea of restoring the "fundamental" tenets of your faith.

- You can be a Sunni fundamentalist without being a Jihadist.

That's an important counter-point, but it's kind of simplistic. 

Because, you can support the goal, but not the methods.  And, you can support the methods, but not personally willing to engage in those methods or only willing to support the methods within certain contexts.  In many western countries, joining these Islam Jihadist groups is pretty dangerous.  You subject yourself to the risk of going to prison and you can't always legally organize with likeminded people.

On top of that, if you're preaching the idea the perfect world would be a theocratic dictatorship, but we should arrive there with peaceful means, you're a Jidhadist fellow traveller.  Disgruntled young men can easily take that message as an incitement to violence against the secular West, even when there is that non-violent context.  If you speak in these fundamentalist tones about the evil of democracy, homosexuality, liberalism, sexual license, etc., you sow the seeds of anger and hatred for the secular West.  There are many mosques that preach all the same things that motivate Islamic terrorism, but also say, "but BTW, don't be a terrorist."  That's better than being someone like Anwar Awlaki, but it's still a major part of the problem.

I think it's also naive and just wrong to say that the goals of salafist/extreme Islam could be reconciled with our western society.  That type of Islam is inherently political and thus, it's inherently at loggerheads with secularism and liberalism.  If someone strongly believes in chopping thieves' hands off, the death penalty for gays, subjugation of women and a theocratic totalitarian society, they're an ideological enemy of any decent person. 

- Shiism is equally capable of producing fundamentalism and lets not forget the importance of the Iranian Revolution as an inspiration (also - all though obviously indirectly - to Sunnis) showing that a theocracy can function in the modern world.

Maybe, but the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni and most of the terrorists are Sunni so that's most of the problem.  It's not really about what is theoretically capable of creating these problems in my book, it's about what's happening in the world right now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.

The murderers of Charlie Hebdo have hurt me. Personally. They have also hurt my family, and most of my friends. They have hurt most French people, and many foreigners as well. Don't you dare deny that.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I don't see why any Left organization needs to have any opinion on "violent Islamism".

the focus needs to remain razor-sharp: everything as critique of political economy.  politics is the battlefield where we fight to determine the distribution and deployment of resources.

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.  meanwhile these 12 deaths will garner endless dialog and media attention.  the state will convince you that we need to use endless resources in combating these people lest they kill you.  and the politicians now have another wedge issue: the focus of electoral politics becomes is gay marriage, abortion, Islamism.  issues that matter nothing either way to the people who actually own your country and control your world.

If any Left or Left-oriented organization has the ultimate goal of governing a nation-state, it must take a position on Islamism. Any serious Left-oriented political party or pressure group or trade union must stake out some position on issues that diverge from class: immigrants face forms of oppression that aren't necessarily related to class, women face forms of oppression that aren't necessarily related to class etc. Any left or left-leaning party that takes the position that these issues are "side-shows" isn't a serious party. It's entirely possible to integrate these issues with a broader critique of political economy.

That's not to say that I don't understand your perspective. To a certain extent, it is counter-productive to participate in a conversation that implicitly acknowledges the existence of a fantastical "East vs. West" apocalyptic showdown between Islam and secularism. At the same time, there's no doubt that we live in a globalized world where the problems faced by people in Syria and Bahrain certainly have consequences for people who live in the United States and Sweden. That's the nature of life in the 21st century. There's no possibility of ignoring social/political issues in overseas because societies are dependent on the flow of labor and capital from overseas. There's also the question of ethics: how can any left-leaning party allow religious minorities to be murdered en masse by tyrannical/fanatical fundamentalists?

[patrick1]

Look to the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the growth of multiple religions and Isis, and it will show you how even tiny movements can grow when they are not shy about using violence to achieve their means and when you do not challenge them with force.

To take on the above, you seemed to be splitting this into a East-West dichotomy, which I find false.  This is first a struggle within Islam. The Muslim and Leftist YPG Kurds are heroically fighting the ISIS threat. Liberals and Conservatives in the West should find common cause to support them. If we stopped all of our military engagements, this problem would still exist and these fanatics will simply not go from cutting off all sorts of peoples heads to be quiet gentleman. And Tweed, you are a kafir and would make almost the perfect victim for them.  A Jewish, communist, atheist...You'd be a pez dispenser before you said American tyranny.

[politicus]

Next, what is Islamism?  

- You can be a Sunni fundamentalist without being a Jihadist.

That's an important counter-point, but it's kind of simplistic.  

Because, you can support the goal, but not the methods.  And, you can support the methods, but not personally willing to engage in those methods or only willing to support the methods within certain contexts.  In many western countries, joining these Islam Jihadist groups is pretty dangerous.  You subject yourself to the risk of going to prison and you can't always legally organize with likeminded people.

On top of that, if you're preaching the idea the perfect world would be a theocratic dictatorship, but we should arrive there with peaceful means, you're a Jidhadist fellow traveller.  Disgruntled young men can easily take that message as an incitement to violence against the secular West, even when there is that non-violent context.  If you speak in these fundamentalist tones about the evil of democracy, homosexuality, liberalism, sexual license, etc., you sow the seeds of anger and hatred for the secular West.  There are many mosques that preach all the same things that motivate Islamic terrorism, but also say, "but BTW, don't be a terrorist."  That's better than being someone like Anwar Awlaki, but it's still a major part of the problem.

I think it's also naive and just wrong to say that the goals of salafist/extreme Islam could be reconciled with our western society.  That type of Islam is inherently political and thus, it's inherently at loggerheads with secularism and liberalism.  If someone strongly believes in chopping thieves' hands off, the death penalty for gays, subjugation of women and a theocratic totalitarian society, they're an ideological enemy of any decent person.  

- Shiism is equally capable of producing fundamentalism and lets not forget the importance of the Iranian Revolution as an inspiration (also - all though obviously indirectly - to Sunnis) showing that a theocracy can function in the modern world.

Maybe, but the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni and most of the terrorists are Sunni so that's most of the problem.  It's not really about what is theoretically capable of creating these problems in my book, it's about what's happening in the world right now.

You are moving the goalposts here, since you started asking what Islamism is and Shiism and the legacy of the Iranian Revolution is an important part of that.

That most Muslims are Sunnis does not justify a defnition of Islamism that cuts off Shia Islamism. It is an important phenomenon in a wide range of countries - and it obviously affects Sunni based political Islam.

It is not simplistic to differentiate between Sunni fundamentalism and Jihadism since the methods matter a great deal. It is also important to note that Wahabism is far from the only fundamentalist Sunni tradition.  

If you want to clarify terminology, let's do that. If you want to discuss current influence of Islamist groups in and on the Western world let's do that. But there is no point in muddling everything together.

[bedstuy]

Next, what is Islamism?  

- You can be a Sunni fundamentalist without being a Jihadist.

That's an important counter-point, but it's kind of simplistic.  

Because, you can support the goal, but not the methods.  And, you can support the methods, but not personally willing to engage in those methods or only willing to support the methods within certain contexts.  In many western countries, joining these Islam Jihadist groups is pretty dangerous.  You subject yourself to the risk of going to prison and you can't always legally organize with likeminded people.

On top of that, if you're preaching the idea the perfect world would be a theocratic dictatorship, but we should arrive there with peaceful means, you're a Jidhadist fellow traveller.  Disgruntled young men can easily take that message as an incitement to violence against the secular West, even when there is that non-violent context.  If you speak in these fundamentalist tones about the evil of democracy, homosexuality, liberalism, sexual license, etc., you sow the seeds of anger and hatred for the secular West.  There are many mosques that preach all the same things that motivate Islamic terrorism, but also say, "but BTW, don't be a terrorist."  That's better than being someone like Anwar Awlaki, but it's still a major part of the problem.

I think it's also naive and just wrong to say that the goals of salafist/extreme Islam could be reconciled with our western society.  That type of Islam is inherently political and thus, it's inherently at loggerheads with secularism and liberalism.  If someone strongly believes in chopping thieves' hands off, the death penalty for gays, subjugation of women and a theocratic totalitarian society, they're an ideological enemy of any decent person.  

- Shiism is equally capable of producing fundamentalism and lets not forget the importance of the Iranian Revolution as an inspiration (also - all though obviously indirectly - to Sunnis) showing that a theocracy can function in the modern world.

Maybe, but the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni and most of the terrorists are Sunni so that's most of the problem.  It's not really about what is theoretically capable of creating these problems in my book, it's about what's happening in the world right now.

You are moving the goalposts here, since you started asking what Islamism is and Shiism and the legacy of the Iranian Revolution is an important part of that.

That most Muslims are Sunnis does not justify a defnition of Islamism that cuts off Shia Islamism. It is an important phenomenon in a wide range of countries - and it obviously affects Sunni based political Islam.

It is not simplistic to differentiate between Sunni fundamentalism and Jihadism since the methods matter a great deal. It is also important to note that Wahabism is far from the only fundamentalist Sunni tradition.  

If you want to clarify terminology, let's do that. If you want to discuss current influence of Islamist groups in and on the Western world let's do that. But there is no point of muddling everything together.

Well, if you're talking about the international terrorism problem, Shia Islam is not a driving force there.  Shia Islamic terrorism has been mostly state-sponsored terrorism by Iran, no?

As for breaking down the various ideologies within Islamic fundamentalism, you didn't respond to what I said or really make any sort of point of your own.  Neither of us is an expert on Islamic theology to be sure, so let's not muddy the waters. 

Suppose someone shared every religious position of the Al Qaeda leadership, but didn't endorse their violent methods or terrorism.  That person and their ideology would still be threatening.  It's like the distinction between the KKK in the 1880s and the KKK today.  The current KKK might not be lynching people, but they're still advocating the sort of hate that could incite hate-crimes and inspire groups that might take things further in the direction of violence.

[© tweed]

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.

The murderers of Charlie Hebdo have hurt me. Personally. They have also hurt my family, and most of my friends. They have hurt most French people, and many foreigners as well. Don't you dare deny that.

I wasn't talking about hurt feelings.  you don't have to move, nor will you go without food, nor medicine, etc. 

And Tweed, you are a kafir and would make almost the perfect victim for them.  A Jewish, communist, atheist...You'd be a pez dispenser before you said American tyranny.

if we were to handicap "who is most likely to injure, kill, or otherwise ruin Tweed's life by force?" the heavy favorite would be the USA via the criminal justice system, Islamists way down the list.

[patrick1]

the chance that a radical Islamist will in any way hurt you or anyone you know is zero.

The murderers of Charlie Hebdo have hurt me. Personally. They have also hurt my family, and most of my friends. They have hurt most French people, and many foreigners as well. Don't you dare deny that.

I wasn't talking about hurt feelings.  you don't have to move, nor will you go without food, nor medicine, etc. 

And Tweed, you are a kafir and would make almost the perfect victim for them.  A Jewish, communist, atheist...You'd be a pez dispenser before you said American tyranny.

if we were to handicap "who is most likely to injure, kill, or otherwise ruin Tweed's life by force?" the heavy favorite would be the USA via the criminal justice system, Islamists way down the list.

Home or Away game, o/u, are you hanging out with Johnny Football...

Seriously though,  I think it is important to react rationally to the threat posed . After watching many propaganda vids, (and their abhorrent battlefield and juriprudence behavior) ISIS and AL Qaeda next gen. have large global ambitions.  With the rise in social media, tech savvy jihadists are penetrating the West and the threat is not staying overseas. You dont overlook and ignore those who are trying to kill you because you have problems with income inequality. We can and should address both, although I'm sure my interventions on both would be quite different from yours.

[Simfan34]

The concept of religious war is not unique to Islam. What is unique to Islam, Sunni Islam, is that a radical and intolerant denomination has been actively spread around the world to horrendous effect. It may be their faith that causes Muslims to take umbrage at vulgar cartoons mocking Mohammed, but it is Wahabism that results in some turning to violence in response. There is a reason this sort of thing did not really happen before the 1980s. Islam is not the problem. Saudi Wahhabism and Saudi-funded Salafism is the problem. Saudi Arabia has spent $90 billion spreading Salafism across the world in the past three decades. "Islamist terror" is the result. Obviously, DFB, you know this. Your questioning of the default "left wing position" of apologism for and equivocation on Wahabist terror is prudent.

I have been seeing people pop up, already, who try to shift blame to  entirely predictable grievances, first and foremost the ever-present tyranny of "white straight men"- as I saw one classmate on Facebook describe David Brooks, who in a "fear-mongering", "Islamophobic rant" dared to express the opinion that offensive speech ought to remain legal, presumably because of the "considerable power and privilege" he possessed.

Another condemned the hypocrisy of "white people" who defended the "white value" of  freedom of speech while not standing for "freedom for black and brown people" (in both France and the US) who had to face "micro- and macro- oppression"on a "daily basis". The cause of the shooting, it apparently was agreed, was the marginalisation of "black and brown people", the failure of the French to face up to their colonial heritage, and that "white people continue to terrorise" black and brown people "globally". Someone shared this raving, barely coherent article that gave a laundry list of regular complaints (drones, Iraq, Zionism, racial power differentials, etc) as being the cause of radicalisation. (Yes, all quotes in the two paragraphs above actually were posted on Facebook by people I go to school with)

These kind of leftists ultimately make the kinds of sweeping generalisations that they would almost certainly decry had they been made in any other context. The argument made boils down to the idea that Muslims are "black and brown" people who are "oppressed" by whites ignorant of their "privilege" and the unidirectional history of oppression, beginning with the involuntary colonial encounter. As white people have, since time immemorial, been privileged and oppressed other peoples, their values are inherently oppressive (and rarely compatible) and must be subordinated to those of the oppressed. Their failure to do this has resulted in, depending on who's talking, either the lamentably violent radicalisation of the marginalised, or the decision of the marginalised to end their ongoing oppression by revolutionary means.

This is virtually identical to the rhetoric used to rationalise or explain racial violence and minority underperformance in the United States. The prescriptions about values can apply more or less to any identity group deemed to have been marginalised. In short, what is being said that the ultimate cause of practically all inter-group tensions, is the oppression, by white people, of "black and brown people", who are deemed such even when the context would make that categorisation tenuous at best. The role of individual cultures, religions, histories, and identities is diminished or brushed aside altogether- the same model can always apply with a few modifications.

Nowhere in this model is there a role for the heavy promotion of a puritanical and intolerant strain of Islam the past four decades. Nor is there one for systematic marginalisation of "brown" proponents of more moderate and Sufi schools of Islamic thought by "brown" Saudi-backed groups and clerics across the West. Nor is there a role for the shifting identities of French Muslims in the post-colonial era. It is not just leftists who ignore the central role of Wahhabism/Salafism in driving "Islamist terrorism"; I would say most people who talk about "Islam" and think that Islamic beliefs inherently lend themselves to terror attacks, know nothing, and probably have never heard of, Wahhabism or Salafism. Here, however, the non-consideration of that role on the part of "radical leftists" is facile, ignorant, arrogant, and yes, utterly incorrect.

[Velasco]

"..But we have to be careful here. There are perfectly legitimate criticisms that can be made not only of Islamist zealots but also of Islam itself—as of any other religion. Pascal Bruckner argues that the term “Islamophobia” was “a clever invention because it amounts to making Islam a subject that one cannot touch without being accused of racism.” The term was first used, he claims, to condemn Kate Millett for calling upon Iranian women to take off their chadors. I don’t know who “invented” Islamophobia, but it is worth repeating Bruckner’s key point: there has to be room for feminists like Millett and for all the militant atheists and philosophical skeptics to say their piece about Islam—and also about Christianity and Judaism—and to find an audience if they can. Call them to account for bad arguments, but their critical work should be welcome in a free society..."

True, we must be careful in drawing a clear line between legitimate criticism and knee jerk fanaticism, although often it's not easy. However, in the paragraph above this one you can read that, far from an "invention", the term "islamophobia" describes a form of religious and cultural intolerance which sadly is booming across Europe. There's a huge difference between criticising Islam from a theological or ideological perspective and the claim of Gert Wilders: the Koran is a fascist book which deserves to be outlawed as Mein Kampf is. We should distinguish between the blatant "islamophobic" bigotry and the nauseating political opportunism represented by people like Wilders and other type of criticisms.

I think calling Iranian women to take off their chadors doesn't deserve the "islamophobic" label (actually, I'm sympathetic with that call) and certainly there must be room for feminists, militant atheists and similar people. Furthermore, the latter can be subject of criticism too. To take an example, I'm not a religious person and I dislike Christian, Jew and Muslim fundamentalists. However, I always found disgusting certain elementary anti-clericalism that some people on my surroundings believe neccesary to the affirmation of their atheism. It's possible that you can find some examples on this blessed forum. My feeling is that religion is a very personal and sensible subject and we should be careful in not falling in wanton attacks and generalisations. In that regard, I see no reason to make a distinction between my Catholic relatives and friends and Muslim or Buddhist believers who are foreign to my culture. In my view, trying to be respectful with other people's beliefs doesn't imply being uncritical of the stances supported by the religious hierarchies on issues like women's rights or sexual freedom. It's also true, I know some proven atheists in the left tempted to give a justification or implicitly defend the struggle of groups like Hamas, by emphasizing their fight against a real situation of oppression and obliterating other inconvenient aspects (terrorist methods and religious fundamentalism, for example). It's as simple as to say that oppression explains the surge and the popularity of groups like that, but doesn't represent an automatic justification of methods and goals. It's like all of we should be always forcing ourselves to be in the situation of siding with the lesser evil. There's some kind of fallacy implicit in that.  
 

[politicus]

Terrorism is hardly the most relevant issue regarding political Islam seen from a leftist POV. A one eyed focus on Jihadism would therefore be wrong. Political Islam is a much broader phenomenon. How should the left fx react to a figure like Erdogan and his brand of semi-authoritarian moderate Islamism? A decade ago it was fashionable to view them as a form of Muslim version of Christian Democrats, yet it seems to go in a more sinister direction. Can you build an ideology comparable to Christian Democracy based on Islam? What does the experience of moderate Islamism in Tunisia and Libya tell us? Can the left cooperate with moderate Islamists as it has done with Christian based parties in Europe and Latin America or does some inherent qualites in Islam make it impossible to use it as the basis for general secular guidelines detached from scripture - which is the basis for truly moderate religiously based parties - so the left should consider all Islamist parties as enemies. The difference between a religious party and a party based a ethical principles derived from religion is crucial here. The first kind of parties are inherently problematic in a modern democracy.

IMO the problem is that Islam offers a coherent and detailed set of rules for how to live your life which makes it easy to develop a political ideology based on it - and makes said ideology a lot more inflexible than ideologies based on "looser" religions with more room for interpretation as Christianity and Buddhism. The Islamist ideology can be Salafist, but it can also exist in other versions. All versions of Islamism are reactionary seen from a leftist perspective, so in principle the left should be antagonistic towards all forms of political Islam.

[Velasco]

I think that the different versions of the other two monotheist religions, Christianism and Judaism, offer coherent and detailed sets of rules and a clear vision of which is the correct "lifestyle" for true believers. Consider the mandatory regulations that Orthodox Jews must follow to live their lives accordingly to the precepts of the Torah, or the moral rigorism of certain variants of Christianism. My impression is that the key distinction between 'islamic' and 'western' societies is the degree of secularization reached by the latter, and not the 'loose' nature of the Christian faith.

Not too many years ago, my country was ruled by a dictatorial regime labelled itself as "National-Catholic". From what my parents told me, the Church and the State were extremely zealous in telling people how to live their lives. If the secularisation of the society was unstoppable despite the attempts of control by the authorities and the Catholic hierarchy, I'm certain that it was a consequence of socioeconomic changes undergoing in the country, not because of some quality of flexibility inherent to Christianism. I'd say that Christian hierarchies or Christian based ideologies have evolved driven by social changes, not the opposite.

The issue of 'moderate Islamism' in countries like Turkey is complex to analyse. I don't think that the authoritarian drive of Erdogan must be interpreted as the proof that it's impossible an evolution of 'moderate Islamism' to stances more compatible to secular democracies. Consider the conflict inherent to a secularisation forced from above and the religious conservatism of the majority of the population. At the same time, major socioeconomic changes are undergoing in Turkey. It's up to see if they'll have the consequence of a further secularization in the society.

On the other hand, I think the left should consider political Islam as an adversary, not as an enemy. Cooperation between political opponents is possible under certain circumstances. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The favoured targets of the Pakistani Taliban in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are socialists.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The favoured targets of the Pakistani Taliban in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are socialists.

e.g. noted Islamic Marxist feminist Malala Yousafzai.