Do you agree with my view on Islam?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Because the Shah made the mistake of persecuting the leftists too, and they helped overthrow him only to lose power once it was over. The Shah should've aligned with the leftists. That would've also kept him the support of Carter, and he wouldn't have been removed.

[phk]

In Iran, we saw the problem emerge with capitalism in these countries and bourgeois movements in the 20th century - the task of liberalism, nationalism, modernism and westernization.

For a period, it was assumed that this process was proceeding, albeit slowly, half-heartedly and partially. These movements, however, ran out of breath in the mid-70s, the Westernization project failed and the political crisis heightened.

Earlier, independence movements in the Middle East had not established pro-West governments in the majority of cases. The fall of royal dynasties led to the appearance or emergence of military governments, which fell primarily under Soviet influence within the context of East-West confrontation. Capitalism and industry in the Middle East have generally spread through oppressive nationalist governments. Bourgeois civil society never formed. In the Middle East, bourgeois liberalism and modernism were not significant movements. Dominant nationalism, whether pro-West or pro-Soviet, has generally remained in a political coalition with Islam.

At any rate, secularism as an intellectual, political and administrative product of capitalist development did not appear in the Middle East. In my opinion, the region's bourgeoisie lacks any secularist agenda and is incapable of taking this type of position. Hence, the establishment of a secular system is the task of the Socialist and workers' movements. And in my opinion, the victory of the Left in the region, at least immediately in Iran, will make this an actual and realistic possibility. People want a secular system, and in the absence of a secularist camp on the Right, people will gather around the banner of the Communist Left which is ready for a fundamental struggle against religious rule.

Any classification and labelling has a purpose behind it. Islam has been around in Iran for one thousand four hundred years and has obviously left its mark on certain things. But this is only one element in portraying this societ.  

The same way that oppression, monarchy, police state, industrial backwardness, ethnicity, language, script, political history, pre-Islamic way of life, people's physical characteristics, international relations, geography and weather, diet, size of country, population concentration, economic relations, level of urbanisation, architecture, etc. are. All of these express real characteristics of the society. Now if out of the hundreds of factors that create differences between Iran and Pakistan, France and Japan, someone insists on pointing to the presence of Islam in some aspects of life in this society and brands all of us with this label - from anti-religious individuals like Dashty, Hedayat and you and I to the great majority who do not see themselves as believers and are not concerned about Islam and the clergy - then they must have a specific agenda.

Iran is not an Islamic society; the government is Islamic. Islam is an imposed phenomenon in Iran, not only today but also during the monarchy, and has remained in power by oppression and murder. Iran is not an Islamic society. They have tried to make it Islamic by force for twenty years and failed. Calling the Iranian society Islamic is part of the reactionary crusade to make it Islamic.

In my opinion, what is utopian and impossible is moderation of Islam and a gradual transformation of Islamic regimes to secular governments. And what is real and probable, and in the case of Iran, now inevitable, is the realisation of secularism through a mass anti-religious uprising, against existing governments and all the different interpretations and readings of Islam.

[opebo]

The way to restrain Islam is by imposed secularism.

Which usally results in a growth of fundamentalism

didn't in Turkey after Ataturk (even though all that nationalist genocide obviously wasn't a good thing) and it's gotten under control in Egypt.

So why didn't it work in Iran then?

My opinion is that the Muslims in Turkey and Egypt were reformed enough to accept it, but not the same in Iran.

I can't say why it didn't work in Iran - I think Marxist knows a lot more about that than any of us.  I will say all the Iranians I have met have seemed a lot less afflicted with religion than the Arabs or Pakistanis I have met.

But as why secularism worked in Turkey and to a lesser extent in Egypt I think can be put down to the wholesale torture and slaughter of the religious muslims.  The methods used were quite harsh.  Tunisia is another great example of a successful anti-Islam program utilizing torture, small scale genocide, and discrimination.

[George W. Bush]

Yea, I agree with you almost 100% on this. wow

[Jake]

No, Muslims are not the same, just like your liberal "Christian" church is not the same as my Roman Catholic church. 

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

No, Muslims are not the same, just like your liberal "Christian" church is not the same as my Roman Catholic church. 

didn't you once say we should set up internment camps for Muslims?

[Jake]

No, Muslims are not the same, just like your liberal "Christian" church is not the same as my Roman Catholic church. 

didn't you once say we should set up internment camps for Muslims?

You misunderstood me. We should watch muslims closer than normal, though we should close the borders to muslim males for now.

[nclib]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Definitely on fundamentalist Islam. We have some minor disagreements on mainstream Islam.

[phk]

No, Muslims are not the same, just like your liberal "Christian" church is not the same as my Roman Catholic church. 

didn't you once say we should set up internment camps for Muslims?

I'd setup internment camps for Muslims

[ian]

Absolutely not.