Leftists have, can, and should oppose Islam

[Gold Harbor]

About time some of yall admit that islam is a threat

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

[Vashtanaraada]

Once again you smugly conflate different things and act as though you've made a point.

You're welcome. I take pleasure in conflating, whatever that means.

Slavery can be a doctrine, which is exactly what atheism is not, but whether slavery is a doctrine or not, it is at least still a practice. Which atheism isn't either.

You cannot be pro-slavery without, in some sense, believing that people can justifiably be kept as slaves. You can be an atheist without doing anything, because atheism has no content.

OK, you have a point. I retract my metaphor.

Violence can still be committed to further atheism though.

I second that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

Or just let them sort this extremism thing out like the Christians did.

[Vashtanaraada]

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

You're an idiot to not support freedom of religion.
Islam is SEPARATE. That's like saying Christianity is the cause for the Westboro Baptist Church - so we'll kill of Christianity.

Honestly, that's the stupidest simplification of an ideology's origins I've ever encountered.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

Islamism is political secessionism with religious baggage.
It is functionally no different to any solely political violent movement.

That it be Islam, Christianity, or anything else is nought but unifying veneer within the extremist movement - much like nationalism, Nazism or secessionism.

[Sun Wukong]

You're welcome. I take pleasure in conflating, whatever that means.

OK, you have a point. I retract my metaphor.

Violence can still be committed to further atheism though.

I second that.

Hear hear?

Well of course it can. Violence can be used to further anything. You could use violence to further Jainism if you were so inclined.

It's a pretty pedantic way to approach the issue, however, because it's fairly obvious that the nature of a thing influences the likelihood of violence being done in the name of it.

[Ashkera]

There is nothing within Atheism telling him to do so. Atheist associations don't count either. Your mugger merely wasn't provided a reason not to mug by atheism, because it contains no moral rules.

Mmhmm.

Likewise, nobody has ever killed in the name of slavery, because slavery didn't tell them to.

Slavery contains not only direct incentives to kill people, but in many forms, says that the "owner" can do whatever to the "slave", including killing. Atheism does not contain direct incentives to kill people, and doesn't make a statement about killing people except (in most Atheists' case) that there's no afterlife.

It's not a reasonable comparison.

This happens every time someone brings up "X religion has standing kill orders."

[Sun Wukong]

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

Or just let them sort this extremism thing out like the Christians did.

Ideally we'd like them to do it a little bit faster, and more completely.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

ISIS recruiters are not theologians. They're doctors and lawyers. Islamism is european nationalism superimposed on a religious doctrine. Look at ISIS propaganda.

[Neo Telangana]

I feel the need to point out that the Young Turks were also responsible for the senseless slaughter of ~1 million+ Armenians. This doesn't dispute the many good things that progressive Turks have accomplished (like you mentioned above), however I certainly think this could've all been done without the murder of innocent Armenians, don't you agree?

Sure, but that's irrelevant to my point. The massacre of ethnic minorities in the erstwhile Ottoman Empire and the secularization of Turkey were two different processes. The fact that they both took place during approximately the same time period does not mean one leads to the other. Of course, it would have been better for everyone if the leftist Turkish nationalists had not promoted any massacres.

The Soviet Union also supported many Islamist regimes further to the West (including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc.) during their mission to stamp out Israel, and the Soviet bloc was very much pro-Islamic theocracy so long as they towed Moscow's line. The reason they intervened in Afghanistan was because the Mujahadeen were anti-communist and were thus counter-revolutionaries supported by the bourgeois oppressors (read: the United States--which, to be fair, they were, but that's beside the point).

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was due to simple realpolitik, not because the Soviet's wanted to uphold their lofty ideals (whatever those were at this point, because the "socialist state" was really putting off that transition to a Communist society they were promising).

I do not deny at all that Soviet foreign policy in the Middle East was often motivated by pragmatic rather than ideological concerns, but most Soviet allies in the Middle East were certainly not "Islamic theocracies". Syria under Hafez al-Assad and Egypt under Nasser were hardly "Islamist" states. Islamists do not give speeches like this. Even Libya under Qaddafi was not an Islamist state, except in a highly superficial sense. The nation anthem was called "Allahu Akbar", but criminal law was not derived from Islamic Sharia (unlike in places like Saudi Arabia), clerics did not hold top-ranking social and/or political positions, and radical Islamists opposed the Libyan state as being man-made and secular rather than Islamic (which was mostly true; Libya was, for the most part, a secular socialist dictatorship).

As for the war in Afghanistan, whether the Soviets truly believed in their own ideals or not, the secular socialist regime was certainly more progressive and more civilized than the opposing Islamic mujahideen, and the Taliban which later seized power. For one thing, there were tens of thousands of female university students in socialist Afghanistan, and zero under the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Considering the term "leftist" is so vague and all-encompassing as to be practically meaningless, I don't think anyone ever knew what it meant to begin with.

I am a leftist originalist, meaning that I subscribe to the original definition of "leftist" (which referred to a supporter of the ideals of the French Revolution). In my view, leftist ideology at its core means advancing the ideals of the European Enlightenment and Age of Revolutions: liberty, equality, fraternity, republicanism, and secularism.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Mmhmm.

Likewise, nobody has ever killed in the name of slavery, because slavery didn't tell them to.

Slavery contains not only direct incentives to kill people, but in many forms, says that the "owner" can do whatever to the "slave", including killing. Atheism does not contain direct incentives to kill people, and doesn't make a statement about killing people except (in most Atheists' case) that there's no afterlife.

It's not a reasonable comparison.

See:

Once again you smugly conflate different things and act as though you've made a point.

You're welcome. I take pleasure in conflating, whatever that means.

Slavery can be a doctrine, which is exactly what atheism is not, but whether slavery is a doctrine or not, it is at least still a practice. Which atheism isn't either.

You cannot be pro-slavery without, in some sense, believing that people can justifiably be kept as slaves. You can be an atheist without doing anything, because atheism has no content.

OK, you have a point. I retract my metaphor.

Violence can still be committed to further atheism though.

This happens every time someone brings up "X religion has standing kill orders."

Solution: disregard the kill orders.

[Replevion]

If you really want me to I'll add together the populations of all those countries executing apostates, atheists, "witches", gays, blasphemers, heretics, etc. I guarantee it's hundreds of millions. We're talking about a religion with a billion adherents. A hundred million is only 10%. Iran is 78 million by itself. It's not the high bar you think it is.

Something people really need to learn when debating me is I already know I can demonstrate everything I say. I wait for people to demand it because a) I'm lazy and b) it makes them look even more stupid for pretending like it's not that way and then having to swallow the proof after challenging it. So please. Challenge what I say. It literally makes my day better rubbing people's noses in facts.

I have no idea why you just said why you're on this forum.
TMI

Honesty bothers you, does it? Why am I not surprised.

Also, nice way to ignore the content of what I said to the topic. Kind of hard to keep the pretense going about how ok Islam is when hundreds of millions of Muslims have created whole blocs of nations that endorse and practice religious murder.

This happens every time someone brings up "X religion has standing kill orders."

Solution: disregard the kill orders.

Which Islam, as a religion, refuses to do. The challenge still stands. Find even ONE leading Muslim who repudiates the kill orders of the Prophet in the Quran.

[Vashtanaraada]

I feel the need to point out that the Young Turks were also responsible for the senseless slaughter of ~1 million+ Armenians. This doesn't dispute the many good things that progressive Turks have accomplished (like you mentioned above), however I certainly think this could've all been done without the murder of innocent Armenians, don't you agree?

Sure, but that's irrelevant to my point. The massacre of ethnic minorities in the erstwhile Ottoman Empire and the secularization of Turkey were two different processes. The fact that they both took place during approximately the same time period does not mean one leads to the other. Of course, it would have been better for everyone if the leftist Turkish nationalists had not promoted any massacres.

The Soviet Union also supported many Islamist regimes further to the West (including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc.) during their mission to stamp out Israel, and the Soviet bloc was very much pro-Islamic theocracy so long as they towed Moscow's line. The reason they intervened in Afghanistan was because the Mujahadeen were anti-communist and were thus counter-revolutionaries supported by the bourgeois oppressors (read: the United States--which, to be fair, they were, but that's beside the point).

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan was due to simple realpolitik, not because the Soviet's wanted to uphold their lofty ideals (whatever those were at this point, because the "socialist state" was really putting off that transition to a Communist society they were promising).

I do not deny at all that Soviet foreign policy in the Middle East was often motivated by pragmatic rather than ideological concerns, but most Soviet allies in the Middle East were certainly not "Islamic theocracies". Syria under Hafez al-Assad and Egypt under Nasser were hardly "Islamist" states. Islamists do not give speeches like this. Even Libya under Qaddafi was not an Islamist state, except in a highly superficial sense. The nation anthem was called "Allahu Akbar", but criminal law was not derived from Islamic Sharia (unlike in places like Saudi Arabia), clerics did not hold top-ranking social and/or political positions, and radical Islamists opposed the Libyan state as being man-made and secular rather than Islamic (which was mostly true; Libya was, for the most part, a secular socialist dictatorship).

As for the war in Afghanistan, whether the Soviets truly believed in their own ideals or not, the secular socialist regime was certainly more progressive and more civilized than the opposing Islamic mujahideen, and the Taliban which later seized power. For one thing, there were tens of thousands of female university students in socialist Afghanistan, and zero under the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Considering the term "leftist" is so vague and all-encompassing as to be practically meaningless, I don't think anyone ever knew what it meant to begin with.

I am a leftist originalist, meaning that I subscribe to the original definition of "leftist" (which referred to a supporter of the ideals of the French Revolution). In my view, leftist ideology at its core means advancing the ideals of the European Enlightenment and Age of Revolutions: liberty, equality, fraternity, republicanism, and secularism.

French Revolution leftism is liberalism.
You aren't left wing fool.

[Imperializt Russia]

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

ISIS recruiters are not theologians. They're doctors and lawyers. Islamism is european nationalism superimposed on a religious doctrine. Look at ISIS propaganda.

It's not European nationalism at all, it's Arab nationalism if anything.

[Neo Telangana]

French Revolution leftism is liberalism.
You aren't left wing fool.

I don't need lectures from apologetic children on what constitutes "leftism". I suggest you read about what the French revolutionaries did to your beloved Abrahamic religions. You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

The original leftists were staunchly opposed to organized religion, and many were either atheists, agnostics, or deists. I am merely suggesting that modern-day leftists treat Islam the same way that Jacques René Hébert, Antoine-François Momoro, and Joseph Fouché treated Catholicism over 200 years ago.

[Gold Harbor]

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

You're an idiot to not support freedom of religion.
Islam is SEPARATE. That's like saying Christianity is the cause for the Westboro Baptist Church - so we'll kill of Christianity.

Honestly, that's the stupidest simplification of an ideology's origins I've ever encountered.

Islam is not compatible with freedom of religion. We must win over the hearts and minds of the non muslim world and stop islam from killing apostates. Then the muslims will realize that islam is to society what collectivist central planning is to economy and they'll tear down the walls built in their minds.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

ISIS recruiters are not theologians. They're doctors and lawyers. Islamism is european nationalism superimposed on a religious doctrine. Look at ISIS propaganda.

It's not European nationalism at all, it's Arab nationalism if anything.

Bro.

[Ashkera]

See:

I was on mobile. Posts are flying quickly here.

---

Anyhow,

...

Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion” that neglects “what their religion has historically and legally required.” Many denials of the Islamic State’s religious nature, he said, are rooted in an “interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.”

Every academic I asked about the Islamic State’s ideology sent me to Haykel. Of partial Lebanese descent, Haykel grew up in Lebanon and the United States, and when he talks through his Mephistophelian goatee, there is a hint of an unplaceable foreign accent.

According to Haykel, the ranks of the Islamic State are deeply infused with religious vigor. Koranic quotations are ubiquitous. “Even the foot soldiers spout this stuff constantly,” Haykel said. “They mug for their cameras and repeat their basic doctrines in formulaic fashion, and they do it all the time.” He regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. “People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”

All Muslims acknowledge that Muhammad’s earliest conquests were not tidy affairs, and that the laws of war passed down in the Koran and in the narrations of the Prophet’s rule were calibrated to fit a turbulent and violent time. In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war. This behavior includes a number of practices that modern Muslims tend to prefer not to acknowledge as integral to their sacred texts. “Slavery, crucifixion, and beheadings are not something that freakish [jihadists] are cherry-picking from the medieval tradition,” Haykel said. Islamic State fighters “are smack in the middle of the medieval tradition and are bringing it wholesale into the present day.”

The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.

Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. “What’s striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,” Haykel said. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”

...

If al-Qaeda wanted to revive slavery, it never said so. And why would it? Silence on slavery probably reflected strategic thinking, with public sympathies in mind: when the Islamic State began enslaving people, even some of its supporters balked. Nonetheless, the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Which Islam, as a religion, refuses to do. The challenge still stands. Find even ONE leading Muslim who repudiates the kill orders of the Prophet in the Quran.

Define leading Muslim.

[Sun Wukong]

ISIS recruiters are not theologians. They're doctors and lawyers. Islamism is european nationalism superimposed on a religious doctrine. Look at ISIS propaganda.

It's not European nationalism at all, it's Arab nationalism if anything.

I'm nearly certain he was suggesting that it is European-style nationalism grafted on to Islam.

Which I think is wrong too.

[Replevion]

Which Islam, as a religion, refuses to do. The challenge still stands. Find even ONE leading Muslim who repudiates the kill orders of the Prophet in the Quran.

Define leading Muslim.

A cleric or politician with a following or constituency. Not a blogger in fear for their lives and/or in prison, since that's what happens to Muslims who dare even think of repudiating the Quran.

[Rhaetia-Grischun]

There is the Marxist left, which obviously opposes all religion; then there is the welfare state/income equality left (like Labour Party of UK) that should obviously allow total freedom of religion. There isn't just one 'left'.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because there isn't a Christian State controlling a massive land area and beheading/stoning people and ruining centuries of history and art? I don't fucking know.

that's right Christians have better technology so they prefer bombs and shooting doctors instead.

They're not doing it in the name of Christianity, just like Stalin generally didn't kill people in the name of atheism.

I'm just telling the truth here, I hate organized religion as a rule.

[Replevion]

There is the Marxist left, which obviously opposes all religion; then there is the welfare state/income equality left (like Labour Party of UK) that should obviously allow total freedom of religion. There isn't just one 'left'.

Pluralism and tolerance have limits. No sane political movement is going to tolerate the resurrection of Aztec human sacrifice, for instance, so "total freedom of religion" is not the case.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's not. Islamism is. Two completely different things.

Islam is the cause of Islamism. Stamp one out and it's two birds with one stone.

There's no reason to violently stamp out a belief system that not everyone takes that seriously. The reason we have Islamic terrorism is American intervention and decades of subjugation. It's mainly the West's fault anyway. We provoked them to it and now we want to bomb them into oblivion? I'd be fucking pissed too. Shit like this only creates more terrorists.