No doubt, Yoshie will respond to this, but I thought I would toss in my slightly less articulate two cents. To me, this kinda reads like Chris Hitchens lite. Fundamentally, Ali's point is that attacks on Muslims (and Islam) within Europe and the United States are fundamentally racist and xenophobic and these need to be responded to as such. I think that it is a fairly serious mistake embattled subaltern religious groups (for example a Muslim Student Union on a university campus) with a highly funded and powerful Christian religious right.
It also ignores the fact that all of the religions that you list are spaces of contestation and struggle (like any ideological institution). My experiences within the anti-war movement (my largest involvement with this was mostly around anti-sanctions stuff actually) brought me in contact with a lot of folks from the religious left and for the most part, they're pretty impressive folks. A colleague who did CISPES work noted that most of the leftists involved in solidarity work with El Salvador have moved on to other things, while the religious folks are still involved.
As a Spinozist, I tend to agree with Doug that I wish that we lived in a world without these modes of mystification, but as an organizer I don't see the point of alienating potential allies who have similar beliefs as me, despite their need for transcendental mystification....
robert wood
>
> Tariq Ali is wrong. For socialists Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.
> should rightly be considered modalities of repression to be opposed.
> They are superstitions which have nothing to offer in guiding modern
> society. The only question is how opposition to such superstitions is to
> be incorporated into strategy. In many cases it should play a very minor
> role but in other instances a much more prominent role could be favored.
>
> John Thornton
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>