Muslims and Socialists: Unholy Alliance?
This article about the – perhaps weakening – partnership between Muslims and Leftists in this week’s Economist is of interest to many on the right wing, I believe. Excerpt:
An odd marriage of Muslims and secular socialists, united against America, is challenged by pundits of right and left
(…)
This leftist-Muslim partnership exists not just on the streets, but in the protest movement’s heart. Britain’s Stop the War coalition, which has organised more than 15 nationwide protests and hundreds of smaller events, was largely forged by two small, intensely committed bodies—the far-left Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is close to the international Muslim Brotherhood. These tiny groups have co-ordinated street protests by up to 1m people.
(…)
Almost everybody in the movement shares the belief that “capitalism and militarism” (both epitomised by America) are the main challenges to human welfare. If political Islam can blunt American triumphalism, then so much the better—even from the viewpoint of those who would never dream of donning a headscarf or upsetting a sexual minority.
(…)
Just as Britain is the heartland of the leftist-Muslim partnership, it is also the main locus of a sharp and trenchant critique of political Islam. At its toughest, the argument of a new school of anti-Islamist leftists—mainly rehearsed on the internet—is that parts of the international left are now making as colossal a mistake as they did over Soviet or Chinese communism. They have let hatred of America and capitalism blind them to darker forces.Two sorts of people have stressed this point: European ex-Marxists, embarrassed by their errors over Stalin, and dissident ex-Muslims from the Islamic world who have fled to the West and fear their hosts will “go soft” on their persecutors.
(…)
Political Islam, he [Nick Cohen, of the "center-left"] says, is not just a disaster for many causes (like feminism and gay rights) that the left cherishes; it also overturns the Enlightenment idea that diversity of opinion is desirable.
Also, the Economist ends with an interesting prediction…
4 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Add my RSS feed
Punditokraterne- Uriasposten
- FreeExchange, The Economist
-
Recent Comments
whoever wrote the op… on Some good quotes from Ayn Rand… whoever wrote the op… on Some good quotes from Ayn Rand… poooooooop on Some good quotes from Ayn Rand… poooooooop on Some good quotes from Ayn Rand… poop on Some good quotes from Ayn Rand…
I don’t see that alliance breaking down anytime soon – and in the long run we’re all dead anyway.
I think most of those people on the left who would be able and willing to change their minds have already done so: At least 9/11 gave them one hell of an opportunity to reform their views, and if that event didn’t convince them that at least some level of critical thinking in relation to islam and the muslim minorities might be a good idea in the future, the Cartoon-affair ought to have made the last of them reconsider. Most of them didn’t. Instead, they spent their time digging trenches.
No, I think that over time the opposite will happen – that is, the coalition will strengthen. It is much easier to forgive someone for being wrong (or in this case, naïve) than for being right. It’s always easier to let the other guy change his attitude than it is to change your own. Many lefties have already invested a lot of time and effort in this alliance, and I doubt they would be willing to consider all previous efforts sunk cost and start all over again – and as long as this debate is so split up in two groups, this would be the perceived consequence of a change in attitude for a leftie in doubt. I don’t see any mechanism that makes it easy for these people to reform their views, but I see many that makes it a lot harder.
Many of the radical defenders of Islam, consistent lefties or not, are elitist – and elitists are not easily convinced to take over or adapt to the views of what is considered “the public” (another interesting discussion is if any such “public opinion” indeed exists). The ongoing isolationary process when it comes to both muslims and their defenders, caused by the actions of both sides, will only strengthen the alliance in the years to come, because it is in the interest of both parties most involved in and with most influence on the direction of this debate; the nationalists and the radical islam-defenders. Over much of Europe, many of the people on the left now involved in this “unholy alliance” were also isolated in the 70′es and the 80′es – these people are used to being isolated, and they know that they are rigth, so the isolation itself doesn’t really matter all that much, it certainly doesn’t prove that they are wrong (I would say this perspective is not much different from the perspective of most libertarians in Denmark – tænk Kritik af Den Negative Opbyggelighed). Back then, the isolation didn’t really make them embrace democracy and liberalism. Quite the contrary I would say. I don’t see why the future would be any different – it’s obvious that many of the lefties haven’t changed at all.
Great comment, many good points.
The Economist suggests a weakening alliance, you predict a strengthening.
Maybe a third possibility would be a combination: The coalition strengthens relative to the pro-West and pro-capitalism segmnent, but with success comes internal bickering, in which the two parties turn on each other.
What could I have done all those years ago as one single person? That question will haunt me for the rest of my days. As a younger man I realized just from investigating Religious and Islamic studies departments in universities that the field (especially in regards to Islam) was moribund. The original Arabists and Orientalists had made their mistakes but the issue of their mistakes was hijacked by the likes of Edward Said and seeped into common culture via the likes of Noam Chomsky and others. This was before the Internet and my access to any other channels of information without being regulated by Muslims was rather limited.
This provided for a mass whitewashing of Islam starting in the Sixties from an entrenched “leftish” clique of academics who were (and still are) financed and backed by petrodollars from Saudi Arabia. This is the paradox that hasn’t become generally known and something that zmag.org would be loathe to publish.
Finally, I must say that I agree with the first comment very much. Even amongst the anarchists there hasn’t been much sign of serious change in their attitudes and knowledge of Islam. I left the Left a couple of years before 9-11 and I’m glad I did. So, there is a history to all this and the main problem with explaining it is that it is bound by concision and characterized by paradox. The best and the brightest contemporary critics of capitalism seem to have not understood that colorless green ideas might have slept furiously but haven’t noticed that they’re running around rather rampantly.
The confounding has been evident in both the Right and the Left but it is the contemporary kitsch Left of mainly authoritarian Leninist sectarians that seem to grab the limelight when it comes to being seen as participants in this coalition between the Left and Islam. I wish that anarchists hadn’t gotten involved with jihadis but they’ve been duped also. What a flop. . . .
[...] Rose calls the cooperation between islamists and the radical left “a strange alliance”. In a way it is, because of the whole religion/atheism thing. But it’s not really that strange, the two groups have a lot in common, and I do not see the alliance breaking down anytime soon – as I have stated before. [...]
Pingback by Quote of the day « Econstudentlog | November 12, 2007