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

Help!!!! wrote:

As the title says are the left being brainwashed by Islam?? One of the organizer's of the women's march - Linda Sarsour - is pro sharia law but she tweets about how credit cards & loans would be interest free under sharia law & not that women would be second class citizens again. You then have the women's march in Berlin where you have a group of women holding signs & one of them is singing " Allahu Akbar " on a megaphone the video moves to another girl in the crowd with tears in her eyes.

Jebus, why don't these people look into less contentious things such as public banking!

smokingman wrote:

I would say it's the far right that are being brainwashed by Islamic extremists to be honest. Their minds are weak anyway but the likes of ISIS probably love and feed them into thinking they're a huge force in the world when in fact they're not.

Weak, I doubt that! Never underestimate the right

I don't know is brainwashed the right term but certainly its odd the relationship between the those who are socially left leaning and Islam. You would imagine they would have a similar adversarial relationship with devout Muslims as the have with devout Christians , at the end of the day both religions are very similar in their treatment of women as second class , gays , atheists etc... they have similar views on abortion which again those who are socially more liberal strongly disagree with.

sharia law goes much further even then cannon law in terms of punishments , beheadings , public floggings , rape victims being treated as criminals , stoning's and other medevil punishments for crimes such as adulatory , child marraiges etc.... Sharia Law is an absolute a front to the liberal western values thees people hold yet they are strong to defend Islam , Muslims and to an extent sharia even, its bizar.

I'm an athiest would describe myself as socialy right leaning in terms of welfare and immigration but more liberterian in my outlook in relation to abortion , gay rights , legalization of drugs etc... which i fully support. I would have a similar reaction to a devout muslim as i would to a devout jew or catholic in that i would strongly disagree with their beliefs and hold firm that their beliefs should be placed on a pedastal free from challenge or criticism. What facinates me with the socialy left is that they seem to be able to differentiate between the two and show respect for Islam but challenge and ridicule Catholicism , i have no idea why this is, i have been call Islamophobic many times for expressing my disgust at sharia law or making a joke about the Muslim faith but never Christianophobic (if such a term even exists) for expressing similar views towards the catholic church its teachings and position on certain social issues.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Sorry I left out banned for 6 months

Can you provide an official link for that?
As I said, the official State Department numbers show at least 400 Iraqi refugees being granted entry to the US every month in the last 10 years.


Here's a link to the numbers:
https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/prm/releases/statistics/184843.htm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Fringe lunatics on both the left and the right aren't representative on either group.

Unless you're trying to discredit the other side you disagree with then it's all about the acts of the lunatics and a one brush stroke for them all.

Help!!!! wrote: »

It wasnt an outright ban but neither is what Trumps doing
http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

The Obama action wasn't a ban at all, and had nothing to do with visas. It was a review of the process for assessing applications for refugee status. The review led to delays in processing, so it took longer for people to get decisions on their applications than would otherwise have been the case but, as already pointed out, applications continued to be processed and the admission of refugees never ceased at any point. This is in no sense comparable to what Trump has done, which is an entry ban, and not one confined to refugees.

Phoebas wrote: »

Why do people have to be so dishonest in their posting - it just completely undermines the points you are trying to make.

In fairness, he's not dishonest - just gullible. He assumes that if the President of the United States says it, it must be more or less true.

He'll learn, I dare say.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Obama action wasn't a ban at all, and had nothing to do with visas. It was a review of the process for assessing applications for refugee status. The review led to delays in processing, so it took longer for people to get decisions on their applications than would otherwise have been the case but, as already pointed out, applications continued to be processed and the admission of refugees never ceased at any point. This is in no sense comparable to what Trump has done, which is an entry ban, and not one confined to refugees.

if it was a ban on immigration of people with hard christian right wing ideology would the the liberals still protest , would they be shouting Jesus saves at pro abortion women marches ? would they welcome their views on gay rights (i.e there should be none) what is the actual difference with Islam ? i accept all devout Muslims are not terrorists 100% , but all devout Muslims do subscribe to a value and belief system that is an absolute afront to western secular , liberal values arguably even more so then devout Catholics or Jews, so why the support ? Why the Islamophobic branding of anyone who disagrees ? How can Islam be called a Religion of peace when its Prophet was a war mongering pedophile ? you don't have to look at the brutality of ISIS , look at actual Muslim states Saudi , Pakistan etc... look at the brutality and inequality in those society's and explain how anyone in anyway liberally minded can stand in defense of Islam

It makes literally 0 sense for Islamic immigration to have the support it does among the socially left

Walter H Price wrote: »

if it was a ban on immigration of people with hard christian right wing ideology would the the liberals still protest , would they be shouting Jesus saves at pro abortion women marches ? would they welcome their views on gay rights (i.e there should be none) what is the actual difference with Islam ? i accept all devout Muslims are not terrorists 100% , but all devout Muslims do subscribe to a value and belief system that is an absolute afront to western secular , liberal values arguably even more so then devout Catholics or Jews, so why the support ? Why the Islamophobic branding of anyone who disagrees ? How can Islam be called a Religion of peace when its Prophet was a war mongering pedophile ? you don't have to look at the brutality of ISIS , look at actual Muslim states Saudi , Pakistan etc... look at the brutality and inequality in those society's and explain how anyone in anyway liberally minded can stand in defense of Islam

It makes literally 0 sense for Islamic immigration to have the support it does among the socially left

But it's not a ban on Muslims.

It's a ban on people who have passports from certain countries.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

But it's not a ban on Muslims.

It's a ban on people who have passports from certain countries.

Hardly matters, this ban is a boon for ISIS and similar organisations. Its a foolish, deliberately divisive action by a man who is essentially trolling the world. What angers me most is people like Spicer and Conway defending it by saying its a measure to protect america. Why the hell isn't Saudi on the list then?

There was another twerp on a news show defending this EO saying that his background was Irish and that he would have accepted a travel ban on Irish people if the country had a problem with terrorism. How stupid can you be?

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

But it's not a ban on Muslims.

It's a ban on people who have passports from certain countries.

My understanding from the title of this thread was that it would be a discussion on why western liberals show support for Islam , not another thread on the travel ban , perhaps i was mistaken.

It has been determined there is strong anti american sentiment in all of the countries affected by the travel ban , it has already been identified by the previous administration with American citizens being advised not to travel to theses ares , in that light surely it makes sense to restrict travel into the states from these countries.

In addition ISIS have openly said they will send jihadis to the west disguised as refugees , this has already been proven to be happening and terrorist attacks have been carried out in Europe, we live in uncertain times i see Trumps restrictions as far more an appropriate solution for protecting the people who elected him then Merkel or Holland's open door policy's which have lead to crime and terrorism in their respective countries.