Islamism and the Regressive Left

[tkae.]

Considering that Islam is currently the most criticized religion globally, I think that it's just way more comfortable ethically when you're defending minorities, than when you're defending groups in power. Don't know if that's the case with regressive lefts, but definitely for the general public.

Islam is the second largest religion and has the largest number of governments specifically dedicated to it. It's pretty in power.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

This thread got off topic from the original premise but to answer, I think "The Left" instinctively backs the social underdogs. Maybe there is an eye blink reaction to this. Sure.

If the people, topic was under a microscope, they would still have issues with the same people they defend. I think this is broad strokes.

They look at the overall picture and see an unfairness. I'm not saying it makes sense zooming in, but you could say the same for blind defense by "The Right" or "The Left" with knee-jerk defense of whatever subject hits a core tenet.

Basically, broad defense takes away from nuance. It hinders progress. It hinders solving an issue and makes something complex way to simple.

 

[Tellenbach]

Muslims vote 70% Democrat. That's why. If Scientologists voted 70% Democrat, they'd be protected as well.

 

[geedoenfj]

Islam is the second largest religion and has the largest number of governments specifically dedicated to it. It's pretty in power.

But when they are in western countries, they're minorities, unless you're saying that Christian minorities in the Middle East are in power and should be criticized because Christianity is in power in Western countries .
in fact those wouldn't come over to western countries unless the living in their countries is becoming a huge struggle..

 

[SearchingforPeace]

The KKK has existed for 150 years and is certainly a terrorist group. So are the Phineas Priesthood, Aryan Nations, The Army Of God, Jewish Defense League...none of them Muslim. I have no idea why they are not looked upon as terrorists by the general American public, they are to every US law enforcement organization. Every one of these pieces of shit should be dealt with exactly the same way we would treat any ISIS/Al Qaeda/AQAP./al-Shabaab.... terrorist anywhere. There is no difference.

Damn, I must have missed all these groups going to Muslim countries and committing terrorism.....

And I must hsve missed all those groups committing massacres the last five years....

Oh, yeah, these must be real current threats, lol.... just the same as ISIS, riggghhhhhhttttt....

 

[Poki]

This thread got off topic from the original premise but to answer, I think "The Left" instinctively backs the social underdogs. Maybe there is an eye blink reaction to this. Sure.

If the people, topic was under a microscope, they would still have issues with the same people they defend. I think this is broad strokes.

They look at the overall picture and see an unfairness. I'm not saying it makes sense zooming in, but you could say the same for blind defense by "The Right" or "The Left" with knee-jerk defense of whatever subject hits a core tenet.

Basically, broad defense takes away from nuance. It hinders progress. It hinders solving an issue and makes something complex way to simple.

Extremists, because reality is to complicated for simple brains. When anything other then black and white is to much for them to handle.

 

[Poki]

Why is it that the Regressive Left allows criticism of all religions except Islam?

I am so confused by this statement after reading about regressive left. Maybe someone can clear up this confusion. We had "left winged" people who criticized all religions except islam. A guy coined a term regressive left and assigned it to these people. And the question is asking why regressive left allows criticism of all religion except islam. My answer seems way to simple...because that is the definition of the group. If they didn't then they wouldn't have been called regressive left by other people. It's a label for a group of people defined by the fact that they allow this. If they didn't there would be no regressive left group.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

There were wars but no one was forced to join the religion, and in fact most of these people joined without wars at all, only by relationships with Arab traders..

No. It was an agressive religion from the beginning, in the time of Mohammed. Then they attacked the Byzantine Empire, exhausted from decades of war with the Persians, and conquered huge sections. The aggressive spread is well documented.

And terrorism has only a political aspect, and was created by western countries and Iran, if they determine to make a Christianity terrorism believe me they can make it, there are some things in Bible about fighting and some dark middle ages history that they can utilize in that matter, there are in fact some terrorism committed by non Muslim groups in this world but only Muslims are getting under the microscope..

Actually, no. Again western countries didn't invent terrorism. And Iran is Muslim, it was the original Islamic Republic after all....

There were plenty of terrorists under the microscope in the past. Most were Communist related, the Red Brigades, the Bader Meinhoff Gang, the Weathermen. But of course they mostly go away with it, and Obama is good friends with former terrorist Bill Ayers. But they were good lefties. There have been rightest terrorists in the past. And Christian and Jewish and others....

How much do you know about the culture and the religion?
No it's not to be blamed, there are other factors that created that kind of terrorism which if has ever existed in Islamic history, they are exactly the ones that Mohammed warned people about them that they would come after his death, and their ideology and was fought by the most trusted people Mohammed had, and in fact they lost their lives as cost of fighting those terrorists.. They were called "Khawarej" means "out laws"..
And they were actually a result of conspiracy that some other powers in the region at that time tried to attack Islam from the inside by political disagreements using those people, but when they found out that even in their wars and fighting each other, they did not lose the respect and the feeling of unity as one nation, that's why they then turned it to a belief disagreement, and that's how Shia appeared in the region..

Yet no fatwa for terrorists. Mosques remain great recruiting grounds.

The Shia disagree with the origin. I actually feel they have a better position than the Sunni from my review of Islam, and that came after discussing the matter at length with a Sunni who admitted I was correct....

What did you study? Did you read Quraan, Sunna, the sources of legislations?
I can't believe you read about it properly and yet come up with all these wrong ideas and aggressive attitude..

I did. As you may or may not be aware, there is great disagreement among Islamic scholars regarding the validity of the various sunna. Plus there is the hadith. Sunni and Shia use different hadith, of course. And in both, there is strong disagreement about the validity of the various scriptures. As such, any position can be justified and Islam is very diverse. There isn't just the Bible like for Christians...

I find the pruest Islam to be the Sufis, but Sufis are persecuted....

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I think every religion should be criticised, which is a quite different matter from making fun of it.

But many Muslims can't accept that basic idea.....

Islam right now is the proverbial canary in the mineshaft. If we allow governments to use the reality of violence by groups calling themselves Muslim to justify prejudice toward all Muslims, we set a precedent for allowing religious discrimination that we will regret later.

I guess Fort Hood didn't get shot up by a Muslim. And San Bernardino.... the Boston Marathon, and Paris..... and 9/11 etc. None of these were Muslims, right?

ISIS is religious in the same manner that the Spanish Inquisition was religious. It certainly didn't represent "What would Jesus do?".

Oh, that is recent. And Jesus did lead the Jews in revolt against Rome? No? Really? Interesting.

The Spanish Inquisition was horrible government sponsored violence largely designed to assert political control. It wasn't independent acts of terrorism, but explicit legal process, however how vile and despicable.

ISIS isn't equivalent.

This is a much bigger issue than trying to keep out refugees at home. The consistent US support the Saudi government is hypocritical. Still, the Saudi government does not commit violent acts against the US, and our policy seems to be that autocratic governments can do what they like, as long as they keep it within their own borders.

The Saudis spent their oil money well. They are in bed financially with numerous major US corps. They export radicalism. Really bad US and British policy there.

I can come up with a list of Christians who have committed large-scale acts of violence. We just didn't use the word "terrorism" for them until recently, and now for some reason, we want to reserve that word for violence committed by Muslims. No double standards.

Name explicit acts of widescale religious terrorism by organized Christian groups in the last 5 years......especially those conducted in Muslim countries..... please show me something anywhere like Boko Harum, let alone ISIS....

Do you want to tell the Italians to stop eating pasta, and the Chinese to stop celebrating lunar new year, and the Indians to stop opening restaurants featuring Indian cuisine, and the Greeks to stop using Greek in their orthodox worship? No immigrant group has been told to check their culture at the door as a precondition of entering the US. American culture is richer for the many cultural elements brought here from other parts of the world. We expect immigrants to add to their toolbox when they come here, learning English, and how our system of government works so they can be contributing members of society. The things they need to give up are relatively few, and confined to actions, not thoughts and beliefs.

We want them to assimilate into being Americans, just like the French want their immigrants to be assimilated into France.

But why do we need a single one? What national interest is served? In fact, why do we need any immigrants at all, considering 95 million or so out of the workforce. Diversity?????????? Multiculturalism??????? I guess I missed those lines in the Constitution. We have more than enough diversity. And numerous studies have show that increased multiculturalism lowers civic involvement. It isolates groups and people....

And we could bring in millions and still leave the majority outside. It is a drop in the bucket. The major push for increased immigration comes from corporations that want cheap labor, and demagogues thst want it as a tool for power. Every one else is just being taken for a ride.....

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Extremists, because reality is to complicated for simple brains. When anything other then black and white is to much for them to handle.

Exactly. This back and forth blame is pure emotional frustration. Nothing more.

It doesn't allow dialogue. It seeks to lay blame and fill those who do this with a sense of righteous indignation. Mental masturbation feels good, too.

It's a lot harder to examine and then seek answers past feelings to separate what is instinctive/reactive (fear, anger, alienation, etc) with facts and information that will allow viable compromises with your ideological counterpart.

 

[geedoenfj]

No. It was an agressive religion from the beginning, in the time of Mohammed. Then they attacked the Byzantine Empire, exhausted from decades of war with the Persians, and conquered huge sections. The aggressive spread is well documented.



Actually, no. Again western countries didn't invent terrorism. And Iran is Muslim, it was the original Islamic Republic after all....

There were plenty of terrorists under the microscope in the past. Most were Communist related, the Red Brigades, the Bader Meinhoff Gang, the Weathermen. But of course they mostly go away with it, and Obama is good friends with former terrorist Bill Ayers. But they were good lefties. There have been rightest terrorists in the past. And Christian and Jewish and others....



Yet no fatwa for terrorists. Mosques remain great recruiting grounds.

The Shia disagree with the origin. I actually feel they have a better position than the Sunni from my review of Islam, and that came after discussing the matter at length with a Sunni who admitted I was correct....



I did. As you may or may not be aware, there is great disagreement among Islamic scholars regarding the validity of the various sunna. Plus there is the hadith. Sunni and Shia use different hadith, of course. And in both, there is strong disagreement about the validity of the various scriptures. As such, any position can be justified and Islam is very diverse. There isn't just the Bible like for Christians...

I find the pruest Islam to be the Sufis, but Sufis are persecuted....

No it wasn't aggressive religion and I know exactly from where your sources are and can assure you it's all invalid, and honestly I don't know what edition of Quraan did you read..
As for invasions, which Muslims again did not destroy or kill innocent people (at least not as much as innocent people the United States killed since it was found) it's strange talking about the bloody Islamic wars and not talking about Crusade wars, or any other nation war, excluding all of that and making Islam the only source of bloodiness in history..
As for the differences of opinions of scholars, it's a healthy to have varieties to choose what is more suitable for a given situation, unless it is not supported by invalid sources or any sources at all, and only of the teachings are not to be driven out of their context , and the most dominant schools are four..
Now since you've taking the path of concluding and accusing then findings what you think to be the evidence of that conclusion, and any evidence that contradict that conclusion is over your head.
this discussion would be invalid and I'm not interested in continuing this way because there's no mutual ground to start from..

 

[jixmixfix]

Why is it that the Regressive Left allows criticism of all religions except Islam?

Because of their obessesion with victimhood and white privilege.Christians are seen as privliged while Muslims are seen as victims.I hope leftists get what's coming to them.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

As for the differences of opinions of scholars, it's a healthy to have varieties to choose what is more suitable for a given situation, unless it is not supported by invalid sources or any sources at all, and only of the teachings are not to be driven out of their context , and the most dominant schools are four..

So you agree that there is conflict among scholars. And that contradictory positions can be justified. And that Sunni and Shia have different beliefs, different scriptures.

And given all that, how can you exclude an explicitly Muslim group from Islam, when Islamic scholars don't or can't agree. .

And why do Muslims persecute and kill Sufis? And Sunnis and Shias? And non Muslims in Muslim majority countries today? So peaceful... haha....

So, are you Muslim? Have a close family member? Or just studied it?

 

[geedoenfj]

So you agree that there is conflict among scholars. And that contradictory positions can be justified. And that Sunni and Shia have different beliefs, different scriptures.

And given all that, how can you exclude an explicitly Muslim group from Islam, when Islamic scholars don't or can't agree. .

And why do Muslims persecute and kill Sufis? And Sunnis and Shias? And non Muslims in Muslim majority countries today? So peaceful... haha....

So, are you Muslim? Have a close family member? Or just studied it?

It's not a conflict, it's different opinions..
As for Shia and Sunni ect. Unless they have a belief supported by evidence Quraan and sunna and Hadith that was not contain a lier telling it, it's invalid..
As for fighting, yes it's wrong just like any fighting and conflict is wrong, just like the 1st and 2nd world war is wrong, that's when people are willing to destroy others for only the gains that they expect, and I'm praying for them to stop it and instead acccept the differences, that's what we need to work on we've got a lot to work on.
and please don't laugh it's not funny, when your people is killing each other for stupid reasons it's not funny at all..
I am Muslim because I studied it, I study it from different aspects and different sources to finally form my belief structure, and did not only follow my family beliefs, in fact when I was a kid I hated Islam because my parents where strict and emotionally neglectant, so I was quite open to many other options, but I finally chose Islam..

 

[SearchingforPeace]

It's not a conflict, it's different opinions..
As for Shia and Sunni ect. Unless they have a belief supported by evidence Quraan and sunna and Hadith that was not contain a lier telling it, it's invalid.

So again, two Muslim scholars may take opposite positions on the same idea, right?

In Christianity, we do this all the time. So we have lots of sects. But killing over sectarian differences isn't really the norm in the Christian world.

As for fighting, yes it's wrong just like any fighting and conflict is wrong, just like the 1st and 2nd world war is wrong, that's when people are willing to destroy others for only the gains that they expect, and I'm praying for them to stop it and instead except the differences, and please don't laugh it's not funny, when your people is killing each other for stupid reasons it's not funny at all..

People killing each other is sad at best, and horrifying at worst.

But so much of this is cultural, not religious.

I am Muslim because I studied it, I study it from different aspects and different sources to finally form my belief structure, and did not only follow my family beliefs, in fact when I was a kid I hated Islam because my parents where strict and emotionally neglectant, so I was quite open to many other options, but I finally chose Islam..

Great. I applaud you for your effort to find out for yourself.

And if you had left, would you have been killed like happened to a pair of girls not far from where I live (and the father got away with help of other Muslims)? Can people leave, truly? Isn't there rules against that?

And are honor killings, honor rapes, burkhas, etc Muslim or misguided culture? I have never heard of a Christian honor killing......

As I said, I have never had a problem with any Muslims I have met personally. I have been friends with Pakis, Persians, Saudis, Iraqis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, and a few others.

Of course, they were most all very secularized......none of them did daily prayers.....

But there is nonetheless a great section that supports jihadism and terrorism, that openly operates in mosques, recruiting and radicalizing. Do you deny this exists?

 

[geedoenfj]

So again, two Muslim scholars may take opposite positions on the same idea, right?

In Christianity, we do this all the time. So we have lots of sects. But killing over sectarian differences isn't really the norm in the Christian world.


People killing each other is sad at best, and horrifying at worst.

But so much of this is cultural, not religious.



Great. I applaud you for your effort to find out for yourself.

And if you had left, would you have been killed like happened to a pair of girls not far from where I live (and the father got away with help of other Muslims)? Can people leave, truly? Isn't there rules against that?

And are honor killings, honor rapes, burkhas, etc Muslim or misguided culture? I have never heard of a Christian honor killing......

As I said, I have never had a problem with any Muslims I have met personally. I have been friends with Pakis, Persians, Saudis, Iraqis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, and a few others.

Of course, they were most all very secularized......none of them did daily prayers.....

But there is nonetheless a great section that supports jihadism and terrorism, that openly operates in mosques, recruiting and radicalizing. Do you deny this exists?

This whole discussion is about oh Christianity is superior to Islam, not really a discussion, because you already put the other on a lower postion..
If I deny the fact that we have issues I wouldn't say that we really need to work on it, it's sad and horrible situation and yes I know I would have been killed if I didn't leave my country which I miss it soooo bad and would definitely get back to it as soon as the madness stops, with all love and gratefulness for the country that I am in right now..
There are some violence and ignorance specially in rural areas and it's highly criticized by the media and not socially acceptable, and in fact there are many campaigns and lawmen who are working to get it all right, but the political situations seems always to get on the way of achieving so many goals..and there are a lot of norms actually contradict the teachings of Islam, and I face people with that fact all the time and they go like yeah we know but it's the norms we were raised like this.. So you see there is some areas that we need to work on, it makes us people with issues not people who embrace these exceptions and make it a part of our culture..
I can reply to all of subjects you brought up but since they're so many and you got the wrong attitude you already think you nailed it down and trust your superficial opinions, and still mixing religion and society and culture and history and politics all in one bowl, and since I'm not that person who make these assumptions or mirroring the behaviors that I find unacceptable about your country or your religion because believe me I can do it way better than you think but I always try get down to the point that I want to clarify, and my respect for your culture and for your religion (which you know that as a Muslim I'm supposed to believe in it) and also my moral are all stopping me from making these insulting generalizations to describe others..
I'm saving my time and energy only for the ones who are willing to listen..

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Is there another conceivable way to look at these events that comes closer to a more plausible explanation? The first step is that these atrocities all have a single ultimate origin. I do not mean some central command post in Syria ordering operatives today to go to Paris, tomorrow to San Bernardino, the next day you name it, though there may be that too.

The ultimate origin is found in the history of Muslim conquests from its beginning in the 7th and 8th centuries and confirmed by many passages in the Qur’an. Muslim scholars know that this jihadist approach is found within the religion. It is not an outside import; it is not an aberration. It may not be the only position found in this rambling book, but it is one that is there. This same force of spirit to convert all to Islam has abided for twelve hundred years. Yet, instead of grudgingly acknowledging it and dealing with it, we deny it exists.

Islam has no central authority. Passages in the Qur’an and its commentaries advocating holy war may be interpreted literally, symbolically, or poetically, but they are there. The reason why this jihadist inspiration always comes back to incite some Muslim believers is because it is found in the sources as the only true interpretation of Islam. ISIS members insist that their religious motives be taken seriously. This earnestness is what motivates them. We insult them, while at the same time playing into their hands, by refusing to understand what they say and, indeed, give witness to with their lives. It is those Muslims who have died killing in western cities–not those who are murdered–who are considered to be, yes, martyrs.

The so-called “Muslim terrorists”, then, do not think of themselves as “Muslim terrorists”. They consider themselves to be the only real followers of Mohammed. They see themselves as doing exactly what he and his first followers did in the saga of a rapid conquest of much of the African, Arab, and Middle Eastern worlds. The conquest of Europe would complete the stymied efforts at Tours and Vienna, victories that allowed Europe to remain Europe and not become Muslim much sooner. Moreover, jihadists have a perfectly intelligible explanation for what they are doing and how they are doing it. It is a sophisticated intellectual theory deftly designed to explain exactly why these “terrorist” acts are both legitimate and indeed praiseworthy in the eyes of Allah. The voluntarist metaphysics behind such reasoning is by no meant unfamiliar to western thinkers. And it is this intellectual battle that we are unwilling to or unable to fight.

the shootings in san bernardino another view

Not my typical source for news, but seems on target. But I guess that is just the media talking.....

 

[EcK]

I think every religion should be criticised, which is a quite different matter from making fun of it.

It's hard to take crazy statements seriously.

Humour is part of human nature and societies. I don't necessarily find satyres tasteful etc. but I find it problematic if things CAN'T BE MADE FUN OF. As if the right for people to believe in ridiculous stuff is somehow stronger than the right of other people to say 'hey you believe in crazy stuff and it's kinda funny'.

I mean if someone tells you that they believe in the tomatoe god, who will turn all humans in tomatoes to live in the earth forever. But only if you are good to tomatoes in your life. And that caling a tomatoe a TOMATO is a sin that will damn the immortal tomatoe in your to eternal grilling.
You'd think he's either joking OR crazy

Well if you think about it most mainstream religions have core beliefs which are about as weird. So, why can't people find it funny?
We don't have to agree with satyre, but if people have the right to believe stuff that, were their beliefs not classified as 'religious' could be used as ground to institutionalize them as crazy people. Why not allow for the right to make fun of it. Which seems much less harmful.

 

[ceecee]

Damn, I must have missed all these groups going to Muslim countries and committing terrorism.....

And I must hsve missed all those groups committing massacres the last five years....

Oh, yeah, these must be real current threats, lol.... just the same as ISIS, riggghhhhhhttttt....

No they inflict it on their own people. They kill and terrorize who they can where there are - exactly what ISIS advises would be terrorists over and over again.

Just because it isn't a hugely visible, current problem doesn't make it less of a problem. And all of those terrorist groups still exist, I'm certain some are very close to home for you.

http://www.texaskkk.com/

 

[tkae.]

But when they are in western countries, they're minorities, unless you're saying that Christian minorities in the Middle East are in power and should be criticized because Christianity is in power in Western countries .
in fact those wouldn't come over to western countries unless the living in their countries is becoming a huge struggle..

I was responding to the global criticism of Islam, not any local criticisms.

But are you saying that no Muslim has ever migrated to the West without problems in their home country leading them to leave?