There's much useful info in Lou's piece, but despite that article and others I've read, I remain utterly confused about the dynamics of the Great Respect Affair. Trying to sort out the intricacies of a power struggle like this at such a distance seems impossible even with a common language.
One point in particular in Lou's article puzzles me, i.e.:
"... in an article on Marxism and religion, Gilbert Achcar chided the SWP for working with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) when Respect was being launched:
"All we need to do is look at the arguments used by the fundamentalists in calling for a vote for Respect.... Let us read the fatwa of Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad, dated 5 June 2004 and published on the MAB website.
"The venerable sheikh explains that it is obligatory for those Muslims living under the shadow of man-made law to take all the necessary steps and means to make the law of Allah, the Creator and the Sustainer, supreme and manifest in all aspects of life. If they are unable to do so, then it becomes obligatory for them to strive to minimise the evil and maximise the good…
"This fatwa needs no comment. The deep incompatibility between the intentions of the Sheikh consulted by the MAB and the task that Marxists set for themselves or should set for themselves, in their activity in relation to the Muslim populations, is blatant."
I don't understand why the fatwa of Sheikh Haitham Al-Haddad poses such "deep incompatibility" with the aims of Marxism. The sheikh seems quite conciliatory; he seems to suggest that Muslims should pursue these courses of action: (1) Plan A would be to seek broad social acceptance of Islamic law; (2) if Plan A proves unfeasible, Plan B would simply be to co-exist with non-Muslims in a culturally heterogeneous world so as to "minimize the evil and maximize the good." What, from a Marxist POV, is arbitrary, provocative, unreasonable, and unacceptable about a religious proclamation like that?
Carl