Why is sympathy for Islam so common on the political left?

Of course I agree with this. I can't speak for all leftists, but I am familiar with the perspective of some prominent leftists (e.g. Noam Chomsky). Recognizing that a group is being victimized and wanting to defend them from this, to me, doesn't mean that you are aligning yourself with them on all political positions they may take. You seem to think that this is what most leftists do. Maybe you're right, but I don't really see it that way.

I don't understand this. Again, you seem to be implying that one must stand against them on everything, because otherwise they are tacitly accepting all their beliefs.

If there's a group that holds some primitive, backwards beliefs I don't agree with, that shouldn't prevent me from wanting to defend them if I feel they are being victimized. Wouldn't you agree?

Criticizing Islam is easy. I don't have a problem with focused criticism. I think if a leftist refrains from making negative comments about Islam as a whole, it is mainly out of respect for those who peacefully and moderately practice it.

 

This. I hate what is happening in almost all Muslim countries. I hate the big influence religion in general has, And one of the things I am happy with is that in many countries the influence of religion in general is decreasing.

But not all muslims are evil. And many innocent people get caught in the crossfire. On top of that IMHO the demonization of islam only increases the problem and leads to more (not less) radicalization.

 

Where do you draw the line?

Are people who believe that for leaving Islam, you should be killed, "peacefully and moderately practicing it"?

Are people who think that "blasphemy" (even of non-members of the religion) should be sanctioned (in whichever way), "peacefully and moderately practicing it"?

Are people who believe that female adulterers should be stoned, "peacefully and moderately practicing it"?"

Are people who believe homosexuality should be criminally sanctioned, "peacefully and moderately practicing it"?

If you look at the Pew polls and the eye and ear test of what they tell you, in many countries, large majorities of Muslims believe in the things mentioned above.

 

I would answer no to all of those. I don't think any reasonable person should object to you criticizing such beliefs. But that's different from making a sweeping admonition of Islam as a whole. In doing that, you are not only critiquing the specific beliefs you mention, but also offending self-identified Muslims who reject those beliefs for the same reasons you do. I think this is counter-productive. We should be trying to ally ourselves with moderate Muslims, not turn it into an us vs Muslims battle of minds which only helps the cause of extremists on both sides.

 

It's interesting because when a muslim (im assuming) poster tries to "defend" islam and by claiming something there's usually a horde of angry posters that are quick to drop dozens of links on how they are naive and their ideology blatantly contradicts their "peacefulness"

Yet thumbs and hustle town have straight up said ridiculous statements that are obviously contradicted by scripture and yet there isn't a horde of posters rushing to show how wrong they are. Even though they quite clearly are and they are claiming things just as blindly as those aforementioned posters.

I wonder why that happens.

 

My point exactly. Just better stated.

 

No, it's actually not, because Islam is the very reason these beliefs exist. They are taken directly from their holy book. And the only people who do not hold these beliefs are those who are basically secular enough to ignore the fact that they are in the book. So it is exactly right to pinpoint Islam as a whole as the reason for these beliefs.

Actually, the exact contrary of what you say is true. I am not offending self-identified Muslims who reject those beliefs, but I am helping them identify where the fault lines between where the acceptable part of Islam that is reconcilable with modern values lies, on the one hand, and on the other hand identifying what is simply not reconcilable with a free society and basic human rights. If a Muslim rejects these inhumane beliefs, then they are on my side. By criticizing those beliefs rather than sweeping them under the rug, I am helping the secular Muslims or those on the fence realize that I have nothing against them being Muslim in a sense of searching spiritual enlightenment, but that I only have something against the parts of the ideology that actually severely infringe upon the freedoms of other human beings and are not acceptable in a lawful and secular democracy.

If the secular Muslims reject those beliefs for the same reason that I do, how am I offending them by criticizing those beliefs?

Basically, your argument is: Don't criticize Islam, because that might alienate secular Muslims and radicalize them.

Why would they be alienated by me agreeing with them? I'll tell you why: Because Islam is by its nature a repressive ideology that does not allow questioning of any part of it. In some countries, any questioning of any part of Islam is punishable by death. But why should I, as a non-Muslim, bow to that?

My argument is: Only by taking a clear stand on what parts of Islam are most definitely unacceptable in a free society rather than appeasing demands by Muslims and submitting to them will I actually stand for the values liberals have been fighting for and defend these values. It is absurd that liberals would have fought, e.g., for the rights of women and homosexuals against repressive tendencies within Christianity, only to not stand up for these rights when Muslims take them away in a much worse form than Christians ever did, just because it would not be politically correct to stand up against these Muslims "because they are brown" or "because they are a minority" or "one might alienate them". Either you stand up for these rights, no matter who tries to take them away, whether fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, or you don't. If you stand up for them against Christians, because they won't shoot you, but are silent when Muslims take them away because "they might be offended" (and shoot you), then you are a coward.

Maybe your and my viewpoint could be harmonized:

Perhaps criticism of Islam needs to be very precise and work out which exact parts of Islam are simply not acceptable to a decent human being. I pointed out some of those parts. You agreed that they are not acceptable.

But then you made the mental leap of saying that, even though they are not acceptable, I shouldn't say it because it "might alienate Muslims". That's exactly the position of many on the left. And you and they are wrong.

 

Very well said. Best post I've seen in a long long time.

 

We could do the same thing about any religion. Holy books of Christianity and Judaism contains passages which, if taken literally, are hateful and unacceptable in today's society. So we have 3 options:

(1) Say that all religions are basically flawed and stupid.

(2) Pick on particular religions for being flawed and stupid.

(3) Show some respect towards believers who are willing to adapt and reinterpret their religion in a more sensible direction by not saying:

"Your religion sucks." ​

but rather,

"These interpretations of your religion suck, and its a problem that so many interpret it in that way, and we should try to work together to marginalize and discredit such interpretations." ​

In truth, I may believe all religions suck to a degree, and some more than others. But if our goal is trying to get a long in this world and minimizing the negative impact of dogmatic, religious zealots, I don't think a general attack on a religion is a good tactic. It makes it more difficult to have a conversation with and build bonds with moderates of that particular religious faith.

Honestly, I don't think we are that far apart. I'm not saying we shouldn't criticize those Islamic beliefs you mentioned; if I gave you that impression it was unintentional. I fully agree that we should try to define some boundaries of acceptability in our society with regards to religious beliefs.

Its more a difference in the language we use. By saying its a problem with Islam itself, we are undermining the voices of moderate Muslims who insist that's not the Islam they believe in. Is that really the approach we want to take here?

Instead of saying "Islam is unacceptable", we're better of saying "These interpretations of Islam are unacceptable." It might sound like a meaningless distinction, but for the sake of being inclusive to moderate Muslims I think its important.

 

Appreciate your post, durvasa. I agree, I don't think we are far apart. You are intelligent and have the ability to see more than black and white, in contrast to some of the posters from the left who just scream "Islamophobe" or "racist" at any criticism of aspects of political Islam and sharia. I think you do see that I have problems with elements of the religious ideology that I find unacceptable, but not with secular Muslims who primarily see Islam as a spiritual reference, but ignore the "bad parts".

 

Were people really prejudiced towards Muslims in general before some of them started proudly, loudly and boldly killing men, women and children in acts of terror?

 

Hasn't prejudice towards Muslims existed throughout history; at least since the Crusades? In any case, being prejudiced against an entire group because of the actions of some isn't right.

 

So you would certainly agree that this isn't right, correct?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ches-torched-in-anti-Charlie-Hebdo-riots.html

Niger churches torched in anti-Charlie Hebdo riots
Two churches burned in Niger's capital Niamey in the second day of rioting over Charlie Hebdo

Stone-throwing demonstrators set fire to two churches in Niger's capital Niamey on Saturday, in the latest protest in France's former African colonies at French newspaper Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
A day after five people were killed in Niger in protests over the cartoons, protesters in Niamey attacked a police station and burned at least two police cars near the main mosque after authorities banned a meeting called by local Muslim leaders. Police responded with tear gas.
"They offended our Prophet Mohammed. That's what we didn't like," said Amadou Abdoul Ouahab, who took part in the demonstration. "This is the reason why we have asked Muslims to come, so that we can explain this to them, but the state refused. That's why we're angry today."
Demonstrations were also reported in regional towns, including Maradi, 375 miles east of Niamey, where two churches were burned. Another church and a residence of the foreign minister were burned in the eastern town of Goure.
Four Muslim preachers who had convened the meeting in Niamey were arrested, police sources said. Protesters burned the French flag and set up roadblocks on streets in the town centre but no casualties were reported on Saturday.

The French embassy in Niamey warned its citizens not to go out on the streets.
The death toll from Friday's clashes in Niger's second largest city of Zinder, rose to five after emergency services discovered a burned body inside a Catholic Church.
On Friday, churches were burned, Christian homes looted and the French cultural centre attacked during the violence in Zinder, residents said.
A police officer and three civilians had already been confirmed killed in the demonstrations against the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, police sources said.

Peaceful marches took place after Friday prayers in the capital cities of other West African countries – Mali, Senegal and Mauritania – and Algeria in North Africa, all former French colonies.
In Algiers, several police were injured in clashes with protesters angered by the cartoons.

 

And this isn't either?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/w...t-against-charlie-hebdo-in-pakistan.html?_r=0

Anger at Charlie Hebdo Turns Violent in Pakistan


KARACHI, Pakistan — Clashes between the police and protesters outside the French Consulate in Karachi on Friday left four people, including two journalists, with gunshot wounds as demonstrations erupted across Pakistan against the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and its publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The Karachi protest was led by the student wing of Jamaat-e-Islami, the country’s largest religious party. The demonstrators threw stones at riot police officers, who responded with tear gas, water cannons and gunfire.

A photographer for Agence France-Presse, Asif Hassan, was shot in the chest and was “out of danger” after emergency surgery, said Dr. Seemi Jamali, head of the emergency ward at the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center in Karachi. The news agency said it was trying to determine whether Mr. Hassan had been specifically targeted.

Protests in other Pakistani cities passed largely peacefully, but they were the first major reaction since Charlie Hebdo published an issue depicting Muhammad holding a sign that read, “I am Charlie.” The issue was the newspaper’s first after an attack by jihadist gunmen killed 12 people in and around its office in Paris.

On Thursday, the Pakistani Parliament passed a resolution condemning the cartoon as hate speech and calling on the international community to “take a decisive step to stop such practice.”

“Freedom of expression should not be misused as a means to attack or hurt public sentiments and religious beliefs,” said the resolution, which was passed with cross-party support.

In Islam, visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are widely considered to be forbidden and deeply offensive. Irreverent Western depictions of Muhammad have set off violent protests several times in recent years, and that was the case again in several countries on Friday. In Niger, at least four were reported dead when a protest march turned violent, and many were reported injured when riot policemen clashed with protesters in Algeria, Reuters reported.

The public reaction in Pakistan to the Charlie Hebdo shootings was initially muted, but it started to heat up on Tuesday when a cleric in the northern city of Peshawar led a small crowd that praised the killers, Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, for having “defended the honor of the prophet of Islam.”

On Friday, lawyers boycotted the courts in Peshawar and Multan, instead taking to the streets to protest. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, founder of the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, addressed a large rally in Lahore.

“It is time for us Muslims to unite,” he said. “Otherwise, the West will continue with such acts.”

The most serious violence occurred in Karachi, the country’s commercial capital, where protesters yelled slogans calling for the expulsion of the French ambassador and the severing of diplomatic ties with France.

In an apparent bid to enter the consulate, protesters pelted police officers with stones. The police responded with baton charges and water cannons, and tried to disperse the crowd by firing gunshots in the air. The police said some protesters wore motorcycle helmets and had guns. “They want to harm the consulate building,” one officer said at the scene of the protest.

It was not immediately clear whether the injured journalists had been shot by the police or by protesters. “When protesters tried to use force, police did the same,” said Abdul Khaliq Shaikh, a senior police official.



Salman Khan, a protest leader, said 15 people had been arrested. “Protesting insults against the prophet is our Islamic and democratic right,” he said.

A few streets from the French Consulate, a group of civil society activists and members of the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party held a separate demonstration against terrorism and Islamist militancy to commemorate the one-month anniversary of a Pakistani Taliban attack on a school in Peshawar that killed 150 people, most of them children.

Demonstrators brandished placards that read, “Silence is criminal,” and, “Hey Taliban leave our kids alone.” Similar protests took place in Islamabad and Lahore.

“The people gathered here could be bombed, shot or stoned,” said Sharmila Farooqi, a minister in the Sindh provincial government. “But their courage shows that they are frustrated with militancy and want the elimination of the Taliban.”

----------------

What about the "prejudice" of the Muslims in that picture and the Muslims who murdered people in Niger - over cartoons in France? You are aware that their "prejudice" is shared by large percentages of Muslim populations across the world, right? But we should not confront that "prejudice" because "it might alienate Muslims"?

And are you aware that these riots almost always flare up when people come out of the mosques after "Friday prayers"?

What kind of religious preachers incites violence across many countries? What kind of a religious ideology is it that instead of having the followers of the religion leave the place of prayer more peaceful than when they came in has them come out of the place of prayer and riot and murder people?

Would you deny that Islam promotes an "us vs. them" mentality?

 

We should recognize and confront all forms of prejudice. Whether its by Muslims or against Muslims.

I wouldn't deny it; but I also wouldn't deny this mentality is also found in the other Abrahamic religions.

 

As I like to say, "Liberal guilt is a kind of false consciousness."

There have been some good posts in here, and while I agree with Mad Max about painting with broad brushes, there is a tendency of a certain kind on the political left to be defensive of Muslim bad behavior...and it's inconsistent with a humanist (secular or otherwise) worldview.

One poster commented that secular leftists view all people as inherently good -- that isn't the case. They view them as inherently equal. Big difference.

There are some very bright western thinkers that have a romantic notion of "noble savage" and you can see it in other discussions as well, even when they are the right side of an issue, some American and European pundits tend to lose a bit of reason when it concerns people in the developing world. Look back at old Vietnam War debates -- it's cringe-worthy and patronizing.

Chomsky did it in his anti-Vietnam debates, still does it when he discusses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Sartre and many French intellectuals did it when discussing North Africa in the 50s and 60s, and many British pundits do that kind of patronizing hand-wringing when talking about disaffected South Asians in the UK...and some on the radical left in Israel I've known regarding Arabs, thinking that undying support of Assad makes them saints.

And the arguments are weak. If we can defend the right of those traditionally economically oppressed in the developing world to act on an irrational reaction to what they perceive is blasphemy, we should apply the same standard to our very own Klansmen, abortion bombers, NPD Ultras, ultra-Catholic Le Pen fan,
, National Front bigots or any other would-be totalitarians in the west.

If you are truly a humanist, there is no "them" or "us." We are all human and it's our problem.

 

OP can't think his way out of a wet paper bag. The most virulent condemnation of Islam comes from Bill Maher, while James Baker was Islam's favorite SoS and Israel's least.

 

If you support the US government giving 7-10 million of US citizens tax dollars to Israel... You too are a sympathizer. And I notice many on the right have no problem with that.

 

Correction... That's 7-10 million dollars a day folks...