Day by day I begin to wonder more and more if I can even call myself a communist anymore. Its becoming hard to really reconcile my faith with communism if the ideology itself is theorically opposed to it. Bukharin's book, "ABCs of Communism," has an entire section on Chapter 11 that directly talks about why religion and communism are incompatible. Communists believe history is driven by class struggle and material conditions. Religious people believe in stuff like divine intervention or divine will. A communist would probably look at islam (my faith) and be like "No prophet was sent a message by God and acted upon it, it was their material conditions that made them act." I don't see how one could believe both, it feels like its either or.
Sure, it is perfectly possible for religious people to largely agree with Marxists on such things as historical materialism and present-day class struggles, not to mention struggles for national liberation, against racism, etc. It is possible be anti-capitalist and fight for a classless, moneyless, and stateless society where MOP is colletively owned but at the end of the day, there is philosophical tension.
I feel at best, I can be an ally, but the way I see it, I will never be one of them. I do not belong. My voice does not count equally and my beliefs make me suspect. I have faced hostility from leftists that are atheist and hostile towards religion and been called a revisionist. If this is how me and others are gonna be treated just because of our faith, I'd rather die than simply be used as cannon fodder in a revolution.
Isn't it possible to be culturally part of a religion without necessarily believing in the supernatural parts of it? In the sense of looking at the religion as a historically constituted shared social and moral framework rather than a metaphysical statement about the nature of reality?
I'm pretty sure some of the famous Islamic philosophers and writers of the Islamic golden age were probably somewhere on the spectrum between materialist atheism and metaphysical theism. It didn't make them any less important to Islamic history and culture.
People, especially intellectuals, tend to privately hold very heterogenous beliefs, even when outwardly they perform the appropriate rituals of their respective culture. I suspect a lot of Christian monks in the Middle Ages were skeptics too.
A lot of Christian priests, pastors and nuns. As well as Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Jainist, Zoroastrian...
in my opinion: you can't be only culturally part of islam,
the practice of the religion is at it's core fundamentalist, any deviation from it would make you excluded from the religion (in theory), at best it makes you a bad muslim,
it is also in it's core principles conservative, by that i mean it's goal is to be preserved and never evolve, it's a structure that aims to never be in movement, contrary to culture which is constantly evolving, because why would god make laws that evolves when he can make perfect divine laws? isn't he all powerful?
it's not a individual believes/faith system but a framework of how a society must work and how those individuals should behave in it, and faith is your engagement and submission to those laws,
taking example of muslims that are more progressive or that use atheistic methods to explain the world is like the "good landlord" argument, we're not talking about good or wrong or moderate, religion is a structure that has a function in class society, which (not only) is protecting it,
as a movement we kinda need ideological purity to achieve our goals down to the philosophical base (i may sound like an ultra but 😛), personally i don't care about the believes of people in general, i (principally) defend freedom of cult, but you can't be part of both, you can't fence-sit because you'd end up excluded from both sides,
i have no theory to back up what i'm saying tho, i'm just trying to echo what i understood, but for me it makes sense, also sorry if i made errors english is not my first language
This would seem to be contradicted by the diversity of ways in which Islam is practiced around the world, adapted to local cultural conditions, and merged with local pre-existing traditions. In Asia for instance it is not uncommon for certain Muslim groups to have a tradition of drinking alcohol. In Africa Islam frequently coexists with indigenous traditions. Fundamentalism certainly exists and is in fierce opposition to all of this, but fundamentalism exists in every religion, no?
And to the point that it is supposed to be eternally unchanging, that doesn't sufficiently explain how various denominations and sects emerged throughout history that reinterpreted the doctrine sometimes in quite radically different ways. Or am i wrong?
the point is, i am not talking about islam in practice, in Algiers where i live, most people don't fully follow the laws, a lot of women don't wear the hijab, some people drink, some have intimate relationships out of marriage, BUT we all understand and accept that islam (at least suni islam) is one true religion that must be unchanged, tho we compromise or try to excuse, but it's in vain because it's written very explicitly that you can't change or deviate from the text, if you don't follow the text or you don't care you're just an unprincipled muslim (at best),
and not only the practice, but the believes also, if you don't have faith in god, it's prophets and messengers, the books, the angels, the day of judgment and the divine decree, you're not considered to be a muslim, it's a take it or leave it situation, bending the religion to suite the cultural practices may be a reality, but it's in direct conflict with what the religion says, and that conflict mostly is resolved by repenting fully and accepting religion and it's believes as is, and that process is weaponized by the bourgeoisie as a counter-revolutionary tool,
(currently) most of the muslim population is sunni (like 90% or 80%), the existence of some random cult doesn't really matter as a contradiction because it's a really small minority, (tho the shia community is also a major part of the religion but idk about them), we all follow the same version (dictated by Saudi Arabia) no matter the part of the world,
islam through history was struggling for it's conservation, the fact that it fails or not doesn't contradicts what it stands for, it's just an impossible task because everything is in constant movement
what i mean is, keeping faith is a burden, because it will always pull you backward, we can't reconcile those contradictions so we have to liberate ourselves from them
Very informative, thank you. I can only observe this topic from the outside and as a history enthusiast, since i am not religious myself.
You're welcome, tho it's only based on my observations and my understanding of where I stand, I don't have actual theory to back it up but I hope I'm making sense 🤓
Didn't ksa have a more moderate Islam before CIA interference led to Wahabbism? Genuinely asking.
the fact that it turned into that shows that keeping that "moderate islam" is a vulnerability ready to be exploited by the bourgeoisie, most religious ppl would choose religion if they have to choose, and that choice is not imposed by secular revolutions but by religious authority
Maybe it's a difference of region, education, material and emotional stability. Western Europe used to be pretty religious and relinquished it fairly rapidly, imo. I speak in very general terms, obviously.
because their material conditions allows them to lose faith since it's proletariat also profit from imperialism (tho they are/will be losing it with their current fascist/neo-liberal regimes),
it's the opium of the people, if there's no pain to calm, there's no need for opium
Astute! I have no argument.
Is @ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world banned here? I'd be interested in their perspective. Mathmachristian as well.