Critique of the Socialists Defending Islam

islammarxlenin

“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

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)
Critique of the Socialists Defending Islam, 10.0 out of 10 based on 4 ratings
Posted in Freedoms and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

2 Comments

  1. Defend Islam defend the deceiving devil.He will not teach this:Muslims think they are so smart but they know nothing about God’s word. Exodus 20:13 –
    13 Thou shalt not kill.

    Hair is the covering of the head.
    1 Corinthians 11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
    1611 King James Version of 1 Corinthians 11:14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

    Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
    Romans 13:10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
    .? 1 Corinthians 13 ? Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
    Colossians 3:9-11:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
    Ecclesiastes 9:18: Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
    Galatians 6:3:For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
    1 Corinthians 6:19: 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    Galatians 6:2: 2Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5For every man shall bear his own burden.

    James 3:17: 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
    Philippians 4:8: 8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
    The Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900 to circa 1970s).
    I can show people a lot more than this.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPEG only)

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.