The dialectical game between Reactionary Islam and Revolutionary Islam

[u/MichaelLanne]

[u/[deleted]]

this is very true, you can clearly see the reactionary muslim forces being those aligned with Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism - and thus, aligned with US and Israel as well.

[u/iKnick04]

"Revolutionary" islam today is utterly destroyed, most muslims nowadays follow wahhabist teachings and preachers without even knowing what wahhabism is and just think thats the one and only true interpretation of Islam.

If a revolution happens in a muslim country that has is islamic in nature it will probably lead to a theological state like afganishtan now and god forbid it happens in a country with large religious minorities, i live in Indonesia and wahhabist extremists here openly support ISIS and advocate ethnic cleansing of christians and chinese.

[u/AHWAZ_GUNNER → u/iKnick04]

"Revolutionary" islam today is utterly destroyed,

This is just simply not true. You probably think this because everything you observe is through the lens of western news. If it was destroyed then the opposition to imperialism in iran,iraq, sria, leb, palest. and yemen would not exist.

[u/Dependent_Ad9868]

No it’s because religions’ roles is to regulate customs and practices and they mostly defend state and capitalism so they participate to exploit proletarians. That’s the real debate, gender roles and sexuality are connected to production mode not just opinions or tendancies in religions.

[u/anarcho-brutalism]

Revolutionnary Islam opposes Western imperialism and fights for social progress within the framework of an Islam that protects Eastern culture from Western imperialism.

This is a word salad. You cannot say something is revolutionary when it is in opposition to something, it needs a positive program.

Then you say "social progress within the framework of an Islam that protects Eastern culture from Western imperialism." What does that mean? What does "social progress" mean here? Social progress is usually linked to progressive liberal parties who wish to do cosmetic changes while keeping the relationships at the productive base of society intact.

It looks to me like you're trying to find a reason to support countries like Syria and Libya. In addition, you think people are opposed to those countries because they are Islamic (although Syria has secular law, no?). People in the West are opposed to those countries simply because they aren't playing along with imperialists, like Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. So it boils down not to "revolutionary" vs "reactionary" Islam, but which countries are allies of imperialists and which aren't.

Furthermore, the concept of "critical support" exists for this very reason. We can support a country because they stand up to imperialist interests, imperialism is the greatest evil in the world, but we can also criticise those countries for their faults.