Are the left being brainwashed by Islam?? - Mod warning in OP

constance tench

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Again, I don't support the religion or the ideology and if I was ever in a discussion about Islam I would be very open about my dislike for it. I don't support Islam but equally I don't support discrimination, stereotypes etc. More and more Muslims are becoming an oppressed group, discriminated against and subject to unfair stereotypes. Knowing what I know about human nature, I know these things will only make Muslims more stead fast in their beliefs and create more extremism.




That's not been my experience with Muslims. Full disclosure I was in a significant relationship with a Muslim man. It didn't work out for many reasons and he had some views that I strongly disagreed with but genuinely he was a great person.

He regularly donated blood (before and after we were in a sexual relationship) he gave to charity, he was empathetic, kind, unjudmental and treated everyone with respect regardless of their faith, sex, race. (Although admittedly he was jaded when it came to Jews because of what is happening in Palestine)

I know you might be tempted to say he was not as devout as most muslims given he was in a relationship with a gay atheist. But he by far the most religious person I knew. Fasted during Ramadan, prayed everyday, only ate halal, never drank an dtruly believed in Allah and the word of the Quaran. He struggled with his relationship with me, even believed he would spend time in hell for it.

He also believed many of the more extreme views we associate with Islam were people misinterpreting the quran. He also knew people who turned to extremism were usually people who were marginalised, disenfranchised or subject to extreme conditions.

Durning one of out many debates he once said to me "what would you do your family, your friends, your village was destroyed and all you had left was your faith" It that situation its all too easy to turn to an extremist group. Though I understand it less, its also equally true of groups marginalised in the West, who don't feel ingratiated, excepted and live in relative poverty.



I would never defend Catholic, protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, New age etc beliefs. I dont believe in any of them. I would also never support any laws that crossed the line between Church and state. I would however defend any of these groups if i felt they were being unfairly discriminated against

In reference to Muslim beliefs regarding women my ex would have said that was a combination of misinterpretation of the quaran and cultural values. That was not typical of his muslim community. But he was North African. Anyway he happily went to the pub (not drinking) with me on several occasions and hung around with my mostly female friends. Though he would not shake their hands. He preferred a kiss on the cheek as a greeting (living in France too long)



Kind of referring to what I said above I believe what Trump has done will not resolve the extremist problem but will only exhasterbate it. He can enforce a travel ban on muslims entering into American but how is that going to make American muslims feel. These kind of actions will only cause Muslims in America to feel more marginalised and cause more extremism. Sure I believe immigration needs to be done carefully and responsibly, if only for the protection of immigrants themselves but his outright ban was unnecessary and frankly damaging.

Not my position- but one of the most real posts on this thread,

Thanks.

Walter H Price

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Again, I don't support the religion or the ideology and if I was ever in a discussion about Islam I would be very open about my dislike for it. I don't support Islam but equally I don't support discrimination, stereotypes etc. More and more Muslims are becoming an oppressed group, discriminated against and subject to unfair stereotypes. Knowing what I know about human nature, I know these things will only make Muslims more stead fast in their beliefs and create more extremism.




That's not been my experience with Muslims. Full disclosure I was in a significant relationship with a Muslim man. It didn't work out for many reasons and he had some views that I strongly disagreed with but genuinely he was a great person.

He regularly donated blood (before and after we were in a sexual relationship) he gave to charity, he was empathetic, kind, unjudmental and treated everyone with respect regardless of their faith, sex, race. (Although admittedly he was jaded when it came to Jews because of what is happening in Palestine)

I know you might be tempted to say he was not as devout as most muslims given he was in a relationship with a gay atheist. But he by far the most religious person I knew. Fasted during Ramadan, prayed everyday, only ate halal, never drank an dtruly believed in Allah and the word of the Quaran. He struggled with his relationship with me, even believed he would spend time in hell for it.

He also believed many of the more extreme views we associate with Islam were people misinterpreting the quran. He also knew people who turned to extremism were usually people who were marginalised, disenfranchised or subject to extreme conditions.

Durning one of out many debates he once said to me "what would you do your family, your friends, your village was destroyed and all you had left was your faith" It that situation its all too easy to turn to an extremist group. Though I understand it less, its also equally true of groups marginalised in the West, who don't feel ingratiated, excepted and live in relative poverty.



I would never defend Catholic, protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, New age etc beliefs. I dont believe in any of them. I would also never support any laws that crossed the line between Church and state. I would however defend any of these groups if i felt they were being unfairly discriminated against

In reference to Muslim beliefs regarding women my ex would have said that was a combination of misinterpretation of the quaran and cultural values. That was not typical of his muslim community. But he was North African. Anyway he happily went to the pub (not drinking) with me on several occasions and hung around with my mostly female friends. Though he would not shake their hands. He preferred a kiss on the cheek as a greeting (living in France too long)



Kind of referring to what I said above I believe what Trump has done will not resolve the extremist problem but will only exhasterbate it. He can enforce a travel ban on muslims entering into American but how is that going to make American muslims feel. These kind of actions will only cause Muslims in America to feel more marginalised and cause more extremism. Sure I believe immigration needs to be done carefully and responsibly, if only for the protection of immigrants themselves but his outright ban was unnecessary and frankly damaging.

I agree with some if not all of what you have said , personally i would struggle to be in any sort of relationship with a devout religious person of any faith. Its hard to argue with the undeniable fact that western and particularly American intervention in the middle east has ruined many lives , left many countries as failed sates and people with nothing but hatred (in some case justified) and religion something that is always without exception a toxic combination.

I think allot of opinions in this thread for once seem to be informed by peoples own interaction with Muslims and people from Muslim backgrounds , which makes a nice change from the usual media pained picture you predominantly see across other forums. as i have said i have personally met a number of Muslims from different countries different backgrounds etc... Some like the girl i met from saudi last year , and the guy from Turkey a friend of mine dated were not devout , were decent people . Some like the 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani guys who were mates with my cousins in Birmingham , were as normal and blokey as any other English lads you'd meet on a football weekend , i would have said moderate and not devout given they drank , didn't really fast etc... though they did still attend Mosque and identifie as Muslim, but to hear them speak about the Rochadale abuse case and be able justify the abuse of young girls because they perceived them (and all white girls) as whores was really disturbing again the homophobia among that group was more than id experienced here from any of my mates , my cousin actually fell out with them subsequently after comments they made when his brother came out. These were not marginalized oppressed lads there barely even a minority in Birmingham , they had lived in England their whole lives as had some of their parents yet because of their faith they held so very very backwards and disgusting views on women and LGBT people.

I can see how the left might perceive that they are being marginalized etc , there is no end of media narrative around this to be hones i think the media are playing a pronominal role at present in the widening polarization of society as a whole , along religious , political , cultural and wealth lines. To be honest i think the media have driven allot of negative sentiment around Trump , Brexit etc... Travel bans and restrictions are not new Trump is far from the first US president to do it , 6 of the 7 countries he has banned people from (all people not just muslims) have an equal ban on Israelis entering their countries, it could be argued like you have so eloquently argued that will Jews in the middle east will become more entranced in their views on a jewish state in Israel and continuing to expand settlements , given they feel under threat from the rest of the middle east. I agree the nature of this temporary ban could have been handled better , but it was what he was elected to do.

The left have supported the disastrous policy's of Merkel and Holland that have led to the Migrant crisis , i would be quicker to protest open door economic migration then i would a temporary travel ban on 7 failed states. Not because of racism or islamophobia but because its economic and social suicide. I do honestly believe the left are being incredibly blinkered and nieve when it comme's to their support of Muslims and Islamic immigration , as i just don't think their values and beliefs are in anyway allighned

Rightwing

The Left have a great sense of insecurity. Hence the 'oooh nothing can shock me... I'm just so liberal'. Pandering to this minority and that minority, to see who can be the trendiest.

alastair

Rightwing wrote: »

The Left have a great sense of insecurity. Hence the 'oooh nothing can shock me... I'm just so liberal'. Pandering to this minority and that minority, to see who can be the trendiest.

Best of luck with that theory. :rolleyes:

FA Hayek

wes wrote: »

The marches platform was a pro choice one...... Sure you may as well complain that the march didn't allow Trump supporters.

Why the hell would you have people who are against it, at the march? Your line of argument makes 0 sense, and your claims of intolerance on that basis is utterly bizarre.

Seriously, this is an utterly bizarre statement to make. Why would they have people who oppose there platform at the march? How the hell is that intolerant?

Here is an excerpt from there platform:

Oh, ok. So it was not a woman's march then it was a pro-choice march. So do not call it a woman's march, as believe it or not there are pro-lift women out there.

This is your typical looney left logic. Call it a woman's march but ban women from taking part who do not fit into the idealogical boxes of left wing politics.

wes

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh, ok. So it was not a woman's march then it was a pro-choice march. So do not call it a woman's march, as believe it or not there are pro-lift women out there.

It wasn't just a pro-choice march, and you know that. They had a platform, and why would pro-life Woman want to support a pro-choice platform? The complaint is utterly bizarre.

FA Hayek wrote: »

This is your typical looney left logic. Call it a woman's march but ban women from taking part who do not fit into the idealogical boxes of left wing politics.

If you are against the platform of the march, then don't show up. They didn't hide there platform and made it very clear. Again, you may as well complain about them not wanting Trump supporters at there march, which make about as much sense as your complaints. Sorry, but your talking complete nonsense.

Sure, what next, will you complain that Anti-water charge protesters are against people who support water charges showing up to there protests?

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh, ok. So it was not a woman's march then it was a pro-choice march. So do not call it a woman's march, as believe it or not there are pro-lift women out there.

This is your typical looney left logic. Call it a woman's march but ban women from taking part who do not fit into the idealogical boxes of left wing politics.

I'm still waiting for evidence of this supposed ban. It's not like anyone had to register to participate.

The marches were by women, that's the common thread, along with the focus of defending women's rights. So quibbling that they were not women's marches is head in the sand stuff.

How's that for 'looney left logic' (or just, you know; logic?)

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

why would pro-life Woman want to support a pro-choice platform? The complaint is utterly bizarre..

Sure, what next, will you complain that Anti-water charge protesters are against people who support water charges showing up to there protests?

In that context why would a bunch of liberally minded people who support the progressive ideas of feminism, gay rights , human rights , animal rights etc... Support an influx of immigration of people whose religious views are completely at odd's with this kind of liberal thinking ?

From the outside looking in the socially lefts support of Muslims appears as ridiculous as Pro choice women attending a pro life march, in support

alastair

Walter H Price wrote: »

In that context why would a bunch of liberally minded people who support the progressive ideas of feminism, gay rights , human rights , animal rights etc... Support an influx of immigration of people whose religious views are completely at odd's with this kind of liberal thinking ?

From the outside looking in the socially lefts support of Muslims appears as ridiculous as Pro choice women attending a pro life march, in support

Last I heard Muslims were humans too, with the same rights as the rest. There's your answer.

Walter H Price

alastair wrote: »

Last I heard Muslims were humans too, with the same rights as the rest. There's your answer.

I completely agree but the tenants of the religion they subscribe to are an absolute affront to those rights.

So how do you Mach in support effectively of both

alastair

Walter H Price wrote: »

I completely agree but the tenants of the religion they subscribe to are an absolute affront to those rights.

So how do you Mach in support effectively of both

Again: The marches were not in support of Islam, but of support for the rights of Muslims.

The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us - immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault - and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

Walter H Price

alastair wrote: »

Again: The marches were not in support of Islam, but of support for the rights of Muslims.

Their right to what exactly ? from what i see people of all religions from 7 countries deemed too dangerous for US citizens to travel too are now banned from entering the US.

19 countries including 6 of that 7 ban Israeli passport holders (again of all rligion , predominantly jews), yet i see no marches.

I'm missing how the rights of all Muslim are being infringed here

alastair

Walter H Price wrote: »

Their right to what exactly ? from what i see people of all religions from 7 countries deemed too dangerous for US citizens to travel too are now banned from entering the US.

19 countries including 6 of that 7 ban Israeli passport holders (again of all rligion , predominantly jews), yet i see no marches.

I'm missing how the rights of all Muslim are being infringed here

Yes, you are.

Why not start here: http://www.ijrcenter.org/refugee-law/

Then have a read of this: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/all-the-ways-trump-defies-the-law-by-targeting-muslims-w463616

The whataboutery is noted.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting for evidence of this supposed ban. It's not like anyone had to register to participate.

The marches were by women, that's the common thread, along with the focus of defending women's rights. So quibbling that they were not women's marches is head in the sand stuff.

How's that for 'looney left logic' (or just, you know; logic?)

https://qz.com/890798/womens-march-abortion/

On Monday afternoon, following the criticism, the Women’s March organizers removed the New Wave Feminists from their website and list of partners. “The Women’s March’s platform is pro-choice and that has been our stance from day one,” the organizers said in a statement. “The anti-choice organization in question is not a partner of the Women’s March on Washington. We apologize for this error.

So, they were invited but que outrage from the enlightened tolerant progressive women (one of whom is a Guardian columnist surprise surprise), where all of them are pro choice, they were then dispatched like Thursday nights rubbish.

So, my points was factually correct. The woman's march was indeed not an inclusive pro-woman's march but a pro-choice march where like minded women were asked to attend. So much for tolerance of the left.

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

In that context why would a bunch of liberally minded people who support the progressive ideas of feminism, gay rights , human rights , animal rights etc... Support an influx of immigration of people whose religious views are completely at odd's with this kind of liberal thinking ?

From the outside looking in the socially lefts support of Muslims appears as ridiculous as Pro choice women attending a pro life march, in support

Supporting people rights is not the same as supporting an ideology.

I think this exact arguement has been made dozens of times, and the same answer offered up just as many.

IMHO, your grasphing at straws at this point.

FA Hayek

To reiterate my point.

Shortly after denying partnerships to several pro-life groups, the Women’s March on Washington angered some liberal activists for editing its position on sex workers’ rights.

Mic reported that the phrase “in solidarity with the sex workers’ rights movement” were replaced in the march’s platform with a statement of support for “those exploited for labor and sex.” The change was met with outrage by some activists, who said the words portrayed sex workers as victims. In the face of controversy, the initial statement was restored

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/19/womens-march-pro-life-groups-not-allowed-but-sex-workers-welcome/

Remember when I made the point about the oppressed and the oppressor? All sex-workers are oppressed right? This is the world view of the left.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

https://qz.com/890798/womens-march-abortion/


So, they were invited but que outrage from from the enlightened tolerant progressive women (one of whom is a Guardian columnist surprise surprise), where all of them are pro choice, they were then dispatched like Thursday nights rubbish.

So, my points was factually correct. The woman's march was indeed not an inclusive pro-woman's march but a pro-choice march where like minded women were asked to attend. So much for tolerance of the left.

Your points are factually incorrect. The status of New Wave Feminists as a partner organisation was removed, but they still participated in the march. They were not banned from the march.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPjpMS8lbao/

Walter H Price

wes wrote: »

Supporting people rights is not the same as supporting an ideology.

I think this exact arguement has been made dozens of times, and the same answer offered up just as many.

IMHO, your grasphing at straws at this point.

I'm really not , not a single one of you have convinced me why the left supports Muslims , but i see no such support for , Christians , Jews , Hindus , Scientology etc...

To be honest no religious ideology fits with the values and belief of the socially left. I wouldn't support more devout Christians coming in looking to keep schools catholic and abortion illegal either , what i see with Muslims is for the most part a group of people who have a strong faith in a religion who's tenants are completely at odds with western culture and values , hence the major issues with integration of immigrants and growing tensions across the continent. we've just about grown out of of one poxy middle eastern religion in the Europe we don't need to import a new one

I hard to know what the people on half these march's actually stand for and while i disagree with posters saying its just a fad or attention seeking , i really don't understand the motivation to be honest.

alastair

Walter H Price wrote: »

I'm really not , not a single one of you have convinced me why the left supports Muslims , but i see no such support for , Christians , Jews , Hindus , Scientology etc...

To be honest no religious ideology fits with the values and belief of the socially left. I wouldn't support more devout Christians coming in looking to keep schools catholic and abortion illegal either , what i see with Muslims is for the most part a group of people who have a strong faith in a religion who's tenants are completely at odds with western culture and values , hence the major issues with integration of immigrants and growing tensions across the continent. we've just about grown out of of one poxy middle eastern religion in the Europe we don't need to import a new one

I hard to know what the people on half these march's actually stand for and while i disagree with posters saying its just a fad or attention seeking , i really don't understand the motivation to be honest.

You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

You've been provided with perfectly understandable answers. Your lack of understanding speaks more to you, than the people you claim not to understand.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Your points are factually incorrect. The status of New Wave Feminists as a partner organisation was removed, but they still participated in the march. They were not banned from the march.

They were banned as they were removed from the list and website after being invited. They were told, not welcome. Some still came of course out of their own free will, it is a free country after all but many were spat on and had their signs torn down.

This was not a woman march, it was a pro-choice event dressed up as a pro woman's march.
So much for being inclusive and tolerant.

wes

Walter H Price wrote: »

I'm really not , not a single one of you have convinced me why the left supports Muslims , but i see no such support for , Christians , Jews , Hindus , Scientology etc...

IMHO, you are. I remain unconvinced by any of your claims. Its the same thing again and again, with no real change to any points you have rasied, or any counter points to what people reply with.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

They were banned as they were removed from the list and website after being invited. They were told, not welcome. Some still came of course out of their own free will, it is a free country after all but many were spat on and had their signs torn down.

This was not a woman march, it was a pro-choice event dressed up as a pro woman's march.
So much for being inclusive and tolerant.

New Wave Feminists were not 'invited' to partner, they applied for partner status on their own initiative.

They were not banned, and they participated. Both verifiable facts (not 'alternative facts')

The organisers have a completely clear position on reproductive rights. That didn't stop women with a different attitude to abortion participating, on the basis of a raft of other commonly-shared concerns. The marches probably didn't actively seek out women pigeon fanciers either, but they were still women's marches, directed towards supporting women's rights.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

...support for “those exploited for labor and sex.”

All sex-workers are oppressed...

No. You don't get to rephrase something in order to fundamentally change its meaning, and then make an argument on the basis of your misrepresentation.

Some people are exploited for labour and sex. This is a truism. It doesn't mean that all sex workers are oppressed, and it's deeply dishonest to attribute that meaning to someone else's words.

CMOTDibbler

Walter H Price wrote: »

I'm really not , not a single one of you have convinced me why the left supports Muslims , but i see no such support for , Christians , Jews , Hindus , Scientology etc...

To be honest no religious ideology fits with the values and belief of the socially left. I wouldn't support more devout Christians coming in looking to keep schools catholic and abortion illegal either , what i see with Muslims is for the most part a group of people who have a strong faith in a religion who's tenants are completely at odds with western culture and values , hence the major issues with integration of immigrants and growing tensions across the continent. we've just about grown out of of one poxy middle eastern religion in the Europe we don't need to import a new one

I hard to know what the people on half these march's actually stand for and while i disagree with posters saying its just a fad or attention seeking , i really don't understand the motivation to be honest.

You've pretty much answered your own question in this post.

You labelled the people (women) who took part in the marches as 'the left'. The only reason for doing so is that they were (and are) opposed to Trump. To clarify, many Repblican supporters spoke out before the election to say they wouldn't vote for him. Many women (of whatever political leaning) didn't like his comments about women or his open bragging about what he did to particular women he met.

Oh and btw, it's 'tenets' not 'tenants'. Had me scratching my head there for a bit.

whydoc

Mod note:

<snip>

This thread is for political discussion and Ive already given an on thread warning re: staying on topic. The merits and tenets of Islam as a religion can be discussed elsewhere.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

New Wave Feminists were not 'invited' to partner, they applied for partner status on their own initiative.

They were invited, accepted, then after an outcry from the 'tolerant feminists' they were given the boot and the organisers appologised for any harm caused. So much for tolerance of progressive feminists. The modern left is more a church then a wide ranging umbrella grouping. The message was clear, women with pro-life views were not welcome.

KingBrian2

One reason for all these protests is the economy. Employment in a lot of places is bad very bad so we see a lot of demonstrations and violent protests. During the fall of the Berlin Wall a stream of East Europeans flowed into the West. Filling up job vacancies and of course the peace dividend that followed. That number has fallen considerable the return of Poles and others back to their former countries yet since the early 00's economic prospects are still not great. My reading of the situation through the data is that job opportunities are not as good as they could be in a lot of countries. These marches seem to pass for entertainment in a lot of countries.

FA Hayek

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. You don't get to rephrase something in order to fundamentally change its meaning, and then make an argument on the basis of your misrepresentation.

Some people are exploited for labour and sex. This is a truism. It doesn't mean that all sex workers are oppressed, and it's deeply dishonest to attribute that meaning to someone else's words.

These are not my words, they are the words of many outspoken feminists, in the US or even closer to home from the likes of Ivana Bacik who has been on a crusade to criminalise the purchase of sex, primarily directed against men.

I have always believed in women’s liberation and right to choose. But I cannot believe that the “freedom” to enter prostitution,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ireland-should-adopt-a-ban-on-purchase-of-sex-1.1991233

How tolerant of her to tell women what not to do.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

They were invited, accepted, then after an outcry from the 'tolerant feminists' they were given the boot and the organisers appologised for any harm caused. So much for tolerance of progressive feminists. The modern left is more a church then a wide ranging umbrella grouping. The message was clear, women with pro-life views were not welcome.

They were not invited. Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa Is very clear that she applied for partner status on her own initiative.

They were given the boot as a partner because they have a fundamental difference of opinion over a core aspect of the organiser's agenda.

They were not banned from marching, and did so, posting up pretty enthusiastic posts about the solidarity over issues they did agree on, and agreement to differ on others.

But don't believe them. No doubt you know better. :rolleyes:

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

They were not invited. Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa Is very clear that she applied for partner status on her own initiative.

They were given the boot as a partner because they have a fundamental difference of opinion over a core aspect of the organiser's agenda.

Yes, they were accepted into the fold after the initial application, which by any definition means 'invited' and then given the boot because they as women had different beliefs. So, it was not a pro - woman's march, it was a pro-choice march, but marketed as some all inclusive march for all women when in fact it was from the outset intolerant from the get go to people with differing views.

You seem to be fine with this intolerance.