  On What is Right: I am going to speak from a revolutionary anarchist perspective because there is a huge difference between an activist and a rev. anarchist. The reason is because many activsits are liberals with a kind heart which is very different from revolutionaries with a kind heart. Many of the problems you have seen with activism is a derivative of liberal politics which I am opposed to. So from the revolutionary perspective on what is right is dependent on what brings about social and economic justice in the long run.
That is the fundamental guiding principle of ethics in revolutionary politics in a sense. I am aware that the sense of rightousness is different between Islam and revolutionary politics and that is an important political difference. For example: revolutionaries are against patriarchy (oppression of women) in its totality meaning that women have the right to have sex with who they chose without the social stigma of being a slut, afterall men (including Muslim men) have sex with other women and live to brag about it. Women have the right to be independent of men socially and economically. Women should not be in essence forced to take care of children just because the husband wants to work. Women have every right to fullfill their dreams and desires and revolutionaries work to build a world where women are free of legal and societal constraints such as the ones we see in the United States and in other parts of the world. Women control their own bodies and can wear anything they chose to wear without judgement wether it is the hijab or a revealing dress. Women cannot be treated as sexual objects. And from an anarchist perspective these things cannot be decreed from above as laws but need to be argued on the ground level so there is an actual change in people's politics towards the question of patriarchy. Why these positions? That is probably the next question and a valid one. Because looking at history and seeing how oppressive forces use the oppression of women to advance their own agenda shows that the only way those oppressive forces will be defeated are by the complete liberation of women.
You see the actually play out in revolutions (wether national liberation or actual working class revolutions) in Iran, in Palestine, India, European countries, and of course the United States. In all these places, at some time or another, women were told to sit on their demands for social and economic justice and each time women were the first ones to suffer.
Women are also told to play subservient roles precisly because they are women and are expected to take care of the kids or are not supposed to do x,y, and z which hurts the struggle for social and economic justice. Shariq said: But a muslim, is concerned with working to that end, with the absolute knowledge that if he doesnt make the change, it wasnt meant to happen yet. I do disagree with Shariq on mulitple levels on this statement, especially the last part of the sentence, "it wasnt meant to happen yet.
" That statement is a trap because it can box in people's thinking into saying that if slavery is still around, black people are not meant to be free and they should accept their role, until God deem's it is their timme to be free. And we actually see oppressed people using that line of thinking that if they are oppressed, then God has wanted it that way.
I also need to mention that I am a strange anarchist in the sense that anarchists generally do not believe in God, and so I am an anomoly since I believe in a higher power. The reason revolutionaries do not believe in God is once again based on how God and religion in general is used to divide people on religious lines, and used to mask the differences between the haves and the have-nots. The latter difference is critical because all Muslims do not have the same interests. The interests of the rich Muslims do not coincide with interests of poor Muslims. Looking at the needs of Canton Muslims and the needs of urban Muslims is a good example. But the one example that really brings out the class difference is the 2000 elections when the majority of Muslims voted for Bush. They voted for him knowing that he would give them a nice tax break and that is where class comes into play. So the Muslims who voted for Bush ignored the plight of poor Muslims in this country and obviuosly the plight of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, etc etc.
(There are a lot of other reasons religion is problematic but I will stop here for the sake of this discussion. ) My viewpoints are biased: they always are in defense of working and poor/ oppressed people. (Everyone has a bias. Anyone that denies their bias is either ignorant of it or lying. Revolutionaries are the first to admit their bias lies with oppressed people.
) So why do I hate cops? We can look at it at two ways. The personal: I have been to countless demonstrations where I have seen peaceful protesters beatup by the police. The police were not there to protect us or anything of that sort. They were there to protect the million dollar buildings and to intimdate people who were dissenting. I have seen and read even more countless stories and accounts of violence on PEACEFUL demonstrators. In Washington DC, I have seen the police with my own eyes encircle hundreds of students, and beat them and then cart them to jail. These were unarmed civilians who were peacefully demonstrating. I have seen the police with my own eyes crack skulls. And of course if people fight back I will defend that right with every ounce of political and physical strength I have. That is one of the reasons activists get burned out because of the intensity of these clashes with the police. The legal consequences they face, the psychological problems, the pyshical pain inflicted on them all take a toll. I highly recommend that people interested in learning about police brutality and the nature of the police visit some of these websites: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/1658211.php http://www.refuseandresist.org/police_state/art.php?aid=1273 Notice this picture with head injury and the (most likely) revolutionary covering the face. The police not only are armed with the latest methods to inflict pain, but they also carry camcorders to document who goes to these protests.
http://ftaaimc.org/en/2003/11/1349.shtml Here is a booklist if you are more interested in the topic: http://www.criticalresistance.org/creast/resources.htm Lastly, one of the best ways to learn about the theory is to read history. When you look at history in revolutionary periods or times of massive social upheaval, you see the State using the police smashing movements for social and economic justice. This is seen in every part of the world, including the Muslim world, which is something to think about... (This is why it is absolutely critical that Muslims join some struggle because only then can see how the ruling classes, the police, the army, corporations etc actucally work. Currently most Muslims watch tv or read the newspaper and base their judgements on that which is obviously biased toward the ruling classes.
The glaring exception right now is Iraq where the US cannot keep the flow of its own crimes from reaching the media, so although the war was meant to bring democracy, we are now seeing that democracy flourish in the cells of Abuh Gharib. ) The historical viewpoint: history has demonstrated the purpose of the police; they protect the rich and powerful, the state and corporations. Sure poor folks call the police when they are being robbed and that is a contradiction and simply the reality of not having neighborhood committees of safety or something along those lines. But in all progressive movements that we have seen in history, the police plays one role, and that is to crush it by any means necessary. And we also see at certain times sections of the police actually breaking off from the police and joining progressive movements. The political meaning of that is huge because why should the police have to quite their own force if they are not already protecting the poor and oppressed? The implication is that the whole time the police were protecting the rich and powerful and the social movement showed certain sections of the police force who they are really protecting; especially when cops see their hungry mothers or cousins on the other side of the line; of course they are going to join the social movement.
Why did the police attack anti-war protesters, protest after protests? Why does the police use violence to breakup peaceful labor strikes? Who are they serving? So in the case of Detroit, the police use the excuse that they are protecting peole in the city . How does Islam relate to the police on a political level? Where is the Islamic position? That is what I mean by Islam and the post-industiral world.
I do not believe Islam gives us the tools to understand these things. The police in this country has locked up 2 million people; 25% of the world's prison population with only 5% of the world's population. Who are those people: Mostly minorities. And what are they doing their time for: They are in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Instead of putting them in jail why not treat them instead and help them come back into society? I will not answer all the questions here but some other things to think about are: What are the political reasons and consequences of such incanceration? What affect does it have on the American political landscape? Why do they put so many people away in this country? All these things are not coincidence, but purposeful political calculations by the American elite/ ruling classes. Was Abu Gharib an accident: Af course not, they have been practicing those torture techniques on American prisoners for 200 years--which is well documented. They practice the torture methods on poor Americans in this country and use it in other countries... I will stop with that note... We should remember George Orwell's words in this time of history that war is peace and peace is war.
Many things we see are not what they seem. Where do we get our information from, the mainstream media. Who owns the mainstream media? The rich and powerful. Their interests lie in a stable society and the police insures that stability at all costs. Lastly, Shariq raised a lot of points and I know I did not answer all them well. I think from now on, I will only reply to only one point at a time just because of time contraints and I would like to go in-depth on whatever issue I talk about. And sorry if things are not as polished; I am in Chicago attending a revolutionary socialist conference. with respect shemon 
