Hi comrades,
We’ve received some reports recently and so I’m making this announcement.
In our rules, Lemmygrad does not lean one way or the other towards religion. This means that in effect, we accept all communists no matter their religion or lack thereof.
However, this doesn’t mean we allow feuds or unprincipled criticism. This seems to come especially from our atheist comrades, who sometimes (from what has made its way to us) see it fit to remind religious comrades that religion shouldn’t exist.
While we appreciate that the criticism is about religion and not the particular beliefs of some comrades, this kind of discourse does not have its place on Lemmygrad as we effectively don’t lean one way or another and expect users to lean that way too.
edit: as such, this reminder also applies to religious comrades.
We’re very hands off with moderation and we’d like it to remain that way in a community as tight-knit as ours.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize religion or atheism, as long as it comes in good faith and is done from a Marxist basis.
This principle also applies to other contentious topics that are prone to debate on our platform.
I’m a Muslim Marxist who doesn’t support Secularism in the long term because I would ultimately prefer an Islamic Worker’s State
Doesn’t that immediately disparage and discriminate against everyone in the state that isn’t Muslim? How can a Worker’s State that values the equality of the proletariat value some of those proletariat and their practices more simply because of a religious affiliation?
Why should a government operate off of the principals of a religion? And why should it be expected or forced that people support a state that governs through a rule that they have no belief in?
State sponsored atheism is a contentious topic of much debate, and religions should never be oppressed, but secularism is perhaps one of the most basic principles that a socialist government should embody.
an Islamic State or a Caliphate does not mean every citizen is a Muslim - it just means that the state is governed by Quranic ideals. A basic tenet of Islam is believing the Quran to be perfect so why as a Muslim would I not want to be involved in the running of a country?
Jews and Christian’s were treated much better under the Muslim caliphates than they ever were in Europe - where Spaniards violently expelled Andalusian Muslims after the Reconquista, Caliphate’s housed sizeable religious communities who were treated on equal status as Muslims outside of a small Jizya tax (which would be foregone if the Jizya collector deemed that a tax collection would put unnecessary strain on a minority family, such as a single mother looking after her children or a sick man unable to work and provide).
There is so much more to Caliphate than “Muslims rule everyone else” - it’s living life in accordance to the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW and striving for social justice and unity as emphasised in Qu’ran so many times. What other Abrahamic religion specifically condemns slavery (24:33), makes taking care of the poor a religious obligation which if not performed takes one out the fold of the religion (Zakat).
I’m not opposed to Secularism because I believe Islam is inherently superior, or because I want to rule over minorities, I’m opposed to Secularism because it is the obligation of the Muslim to live by the equality prescribed by the Prophet SAW - to separate the government of a Muslim nation from the teachings of Islam is like cutting a people at their jugular vein. There’s a reason why even the most “progressive” Muslim politicians of our time such as Imran Khan would never dare ask their people to separate themselves wholly form the Qu’ran in the political sphere
I obviously have no issue with working with the vast majority of Socialists who are Secularists, and of course it’s a rather inconsequential issue in the face of Imperialism - improving material conditions is all that matters at this rudimentary stage of multipolarity and liberation
I’m definitely opposed to theocracy, but I can sort of see where you’re coming from. Under socialism an area will probably be governed with lots of influence from the local culture, so certain places will be governed similarly to sharia, and you’ll be free to move there or live according to Islam wherever you live, but the state should never officially endorse one religion over others. I get your point about Islamic states being more tolerant of other religions than they would be in return, but why settle for a lesser evil when you could have the ideal?