CRITIQUE OF THE SOCIALISTS DEFENDING ISLAM
''The criticism of religion is the
prerequisite of all critique.'' Karl Marx
To take
sides with Islamists in the name of democracy, to support the existence of
Islamic sharia is to maintain its objectives to organize, strengthen and take
power which, in case it succeeds, due to its intrinsic structure, due to the
theology of Islam, will take all of your freedom from you, hang, imprison and
exile. Just like what happened after the ''Islamic Revolution''.
Islam
in itself is the enemy of democracy and freedom. You can see the concrete
examples in countless incidents happening everyday in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somali and Nigeria. Never be deceived by the ignorant
persons who tell you that ''It's not what Islam really is'', because Islam is
precisely that. The Islamic law sees stone to death, homophobia, cutting hand
as punishment, pedophilia, women who have been taken prisoners as war booty
being sex slaves, woman being a second rate person who solely exists to serve
her husband as a commodity, necrophilia being legitimized based on Muhammad's
''lying next to one of his wives'' which implies that he raped the corpse,
defending the right to have sexual intercourse within 6 hours from the moment
of death based on the acts of Muhammad considered as ''tradition'', to kill the
ones who it labels as ''heretic'', rape their women, extort their property and
land as it's right and duty; so anyway you cut it, Islam is a crime against
humanity. And crime has nothing to do with freedom.
Islam,
which reserves in its heart the potential for massacre, rape and the
instigation of extort, must be prohibited, and its propagandists should be put
on trial within the context of contradicting human rights and crimes committed
against humanity.
Nevertheless,
there are socialists unfortunately taking sides with the Islamists in the name
of democracy. Even though the position of the ''Libertarian Left'' is a
political structure that i agree with most of the time, which seizes upon the
attitude of defending the struggle of sexual and ethnical minorities in
conjunction with class struggle as a ''must be'', I tend to stay away from it
to avoid the negligence of those who support the Islamists in the name of
democracy.
However,
the analysis of both Lenin and Marx are erroneous because of the lack of proper
assessment. Because; their predicating solely on Christianity in their analysis
on religion, in order to develop an attitude against while defending the
internationalist class struggle, is a great deficiency. In the
Communist Manifesto, they adopt a particular attitude towards religion in line
with their analysis solely based on the ''church''.
Although
Marx's phrase ''religion is the opiate of the masses’’ is popular (opium was
used as a medicine to obtund and cure the pain caused by diseases) the part at
the beginning of the same sentence is commonly skipped. When Marx was saying,
''Religion is the sigh of
the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of
soulless conditions.'', he was interpreting religion only through Christian
theology which commanded ''If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other
cheek also'' and he was going into the
effort of showing ''empathy'' with the religion which he saw as a medicine that
eased the pain of the uneducated masses, which had inhuman rules commanding
women to be killed by being stoned to death, defending pedophilia-necrophilia,
seeing it as a right to kill the ones who are not Muslim; because he knew nothing about the theological
essence of Islam, he never considered it
necessary to make any research on the subject, while calling the proletariat
in every country to be organized. Unfortunately, Marx who said ''The criticism of religion is the
prerequisite of all critique.'' haven't criticized ''all religion'' and thereby
adopted a deficient and wrong attitude towards religion. Without any doubt,
those who follow Marx blindly continue to repeat the same mistakes he did.
''Religion
must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express
their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be
accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be
held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we
consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned.'' says Lenin. If you talk like
Lenin, observing religion through Christianity which its existence for the
masses didn't pose any threat of a ''nation of Islamic sharia'' to be built
within a period of struggles for reformation throughout hundreds of years and
subsequently a period of development of
rationality, science, art and philosophy without restraint, and without making
a proper research on the theology of Islam, certainly you fall into
carelessness as the atheist socialists had to have the right attitude against
religion. So you say ''We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the
state is concerned.'' just like Lenin, but considering religions on the face of
earth doesn't consist of Christianity; no socialist state, and of course no
socialist has the right to fall into heedlessness like saying ''religion be
held a private affair'' as Islam kills, rapes, extorts the property of people
who aren't Muslim in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia; which are the countries
that haven't passed over the ''stone age'' period yet.
To
get back to the issue of ''Libertarian Left''... To support Islam in the name
of democracy is no different from being ''the stupid steer which licks the
knife of the butcher'', as you go on licking, the knife would cut your throat
sooner or later...
Wake
up from your sleep of negligence before it's too late...
SERKAN ENGIN
Translated by Metin Anli
0 Comments
