Fellow liberals, why do we defend Islam?

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It will happen anywhere Muslims hold any significant political power. They ALL believe in Islamic law. To be a Muslim, you MUST. It's part of the religion; a huge part. Go find out for yourself.

I think that if Jews can take their laws non-literally (as the earliest recorded interpretations would indicate), there's no reason why Muslims have to hold to literal interpretations, either.

Nonetheless, the less Islam has influence, the better.
 
Upvote 0

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Again, you're not pro-life. Only anti-abortion.

If war is a necessary evil at times, could abortion not also be a necessary evil at times? War destroys lives and should be avoided at all costs, is my point. It should not be clamored for and rabidly supported, as was the case in Iraq. You cannot bomb civilian populated areas and proclaim it "necessary," while denying women the right to abortion in all cases. You'd be a hypocrite.

You're right, people should work to take care of themselves. However, there are situations in which people need assistance, ESPECIALLY mothers. A teenage mother unable to afford the expense of having a baby is entitled to assistance should you force her to have that baby. To deny her that is inhuman and un-Christian.

You are NOT pro-life.

"pro-life" is just a title for the anti-abortion stance. I don't think it should necessarily be taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

Rubiks

proud libtard
Aug 14, 2012
4,293
2,259
United States
✟137,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Honest question: of all the stuff in the OT that NOBODY follows because it's impractical, irrelevant, or just plain morally obscene (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), why is it the few passages about gays that we're so rigid, inflexible, and insufferably self-righteous about, to the point where we're oppressive and hostile?

I agree. While it can't be denied that certain stuff in the Bible had to do with the culture of their time, I have yet to see a simple, systematic way of dealing with what things are culture and what things apply for all times. Emotional responses are often the ultimate authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sm412
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I think that if Jews can take their laws non-literally (as the earliest recorded interpretations would indicate), there's no reason why Muslims have to hold to literal interpretations, either.

Nonetheless, the less Islam has influence, the better.

Remember that to the Islamic tradition, following the ways of non-Muslims is not acceptable. Some even say it's not permissible/is a heresy (the type of people who say this would probably use the Arabic term bida'a بدعة, which means "innovation"), which is -- in this view -- supported in classical Islamic literature, including the Qur'an itself (e.g., 5:4, where Allah supposedly says that He has chosen Islam and perfected it for the people who follow it, i.e., there's no need to modify it or follow anyone else in their interpretations of their own religions, because your God has already given you the perfect religion which is Islam).

Given this, which is not really a minority view in terms of the leaders of Islam (see here, for instance, where the ruling is given on Islamic participation in Valentine's Day; it is indicative of how Muslims and their religion see their relationship to others and what others do), there is no reason to suspect that faithful, orthodox Muslims will follow the Jews or the Christians or anyone in taking their laws and scriptures less literally. You'll note at the link that the questioner literally asks for a "ruling" on the subject of Valentine's Day. That's the kind of religion we are dealing with here. Very medieval, and absolutely resistant to change, particularly by imitation of what anyone else is doing.

(Nevermind all the paganism that Muhammad grandfathered into his religion in imitation of his pagan forefathers, e.g., performing tawaf around the hills of Safa and Marwa in Mecca, which sahih hadith record as having been known as a pagan practice by the early Muslim generations, who only kept it going because Muhammad received one of his very convenient revelations from "Allah" about how it's actually good to do.)
 
Upvote 0

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So I must be conservative because gays? Gotcha.

I don't remember Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. I do remember a lot about "love thy neighbor" "judge not, lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Oh, and a few verses praising the poor and cautioning against the worship of money. And a little bit of the rich selling their possessions and giving the proceeds to the needy.

Although there was one verse, "Cut ye taxes on the rich, for they are the job creators. Cut thine programs for thy poor, for they are lazy moochers. Funnel thine nation's wealth into the pockets of the wealthy, for blessed are the rich. They shall inherit the earth. Worship the dollar"
2 Notinthebiblethians 20:36

It is conservatives who have lost sight of what Christianity really is.

Yes the bible has a way of exposing All our favourete sins and calling them just that, 'sins'
Whether it is sexual impurity, the worship of money, fame or anything that is not centered on God.
 
Upvote 0

Sm412

Active Member
Nov 25, 2018
153
129
33
Vancouver
✟16,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
She’s entitled to absolutely nothing. Jesus stated that the poor you will always have with you. He never mandated that the government be everyone’s provider.

So you'd force a pregnant teenager with no financial means to have a child, to have that child, then give her the middle finger and tell her "You're on your own"?

That is.... deplorable. Absolutely disgusting. You are not a good person.

Jesus did not *explicitly* say the government itself should help the poor, but He did say quite a bit about helping the poor in general. We should use all means at our disposal to do so, even government.
 
Upvote 0

Sm412

Active Member
Nov 25, 2018
153
129
33
Vancouver
✟16,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
She’s entitled to absolutely nothing. Jesus stated that the poor you will always have with you. He never mandated that the government be everyone’s provider.

Jesus stated that to his disciples concerning His coming death and ascension into heaven. He didn't mean that we not take care of the poor.

This is why I don't take you seriously when you say you're "pro-life." A teenage girl who becomes pregnant as a result of a sexual assault MUST have the baby, and if she has no means to take care of said child, tough. No public assistance; she's on her own. And if that baby dies from a treatable illness as a result of lacking neo-natal care, that's totes fine with you.

You are NOT pro-life. Only anti-abortion and pro-birth. I'd be much more willing to side with you if you put your money where your mouth is and were pro-life on all matters and not just on abortion. You are only pro-life concerning birth. You are not pro-life concerning those who are already alive. You'll do anything to secure the birth of babies, but you'll gladly increase the infant mortality rate by cutting healthcare for the poor. You'll gladly bomb innocent people and proclaim it "just." You'll gladly take away from the well being of those babies once they come into the world.

It must be difficult living in such self-contradiction and hypocrisy. I have no idea how you rationalize all of it in your head.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Read my entire post above on how I believe Christianity more closely aligns with liberalism, even in the pro-life sense.
That is not really relevant to the thread either.
I think that the Bible is diverse enough to contain both conservatism and liberalism in it.
It is the core values that get trashed when everything gets reduced to the LCD of partisans.
It is a political stance, and not an argument from liberalism, that is incapable of criticizing Islam. “Bogeyman on the right” reduces all criticism of the religion as the crazy stuff of conservative extremism, instead of noticing that the body guards for Hirsi Ali are real enough.
What liberalism is centres on maximizing the freedom of the individual in the face of any authority, especially a religious theocratic authority, which is sharia.
Individual liberty is the core value of liberalism and North American conservatism too.
It is not a core value of Linda Sarsour, and the Muslim Brotherhood “big brothered” into power by liberal B Obama.
Individualism is a core value of liberals and conservatives. It is not a core value of Marxists or postmodern intersectionalists. It is not a core value of political Islam either.
 
Upvote 0

Sm412

Active Member
Nov 25, 2018
153
129
33
Vancouver
✟16,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
That is not really relevant to the thread either.
I think that the Bible is diverse enough to contain both conservatism and liberalism in it.
It is the core values that get trashed when everything gets reduced to the LCD of partisans.
It is a political stance, and not an argument from liberalism, that is incapable of criticizing Islam. “Bogeyman on the right” reduces all criticism of the religion as the crazy stuff of conservative extremism, instead of noticing that the body guards for Hirsi Ali are real enough.
What liberalism is centres on maximizing the freedom of the individual in the face of any authority, especially a religious theocratic authority, which is sharia.
Individual liberty is the core value of liberalism and North American conservatism too.
It is not a core value of Linda Sarsour, and the Muslim Brotherhood “big brothered” into power by liberal B Obama.
Individualism is a core value of liberals and conservatives. It is not a core value of Marxists or postmodern intersectionalists. It is not a core value of political Islam either.

One of my biggest frustrations is that liberals and others on the left will pass off criticisms of Islam as "misrepresentations." Even Saudi Arabia's appalling treatment of women, Iran's repressive government, or the policies of the Taliban or ISIS, for instance, isn't "true" Islam.

A friend of mine once said he was considering looking into Islam. I gave him a rundown of what was in the Quran and what would be expected of him as a Muslim, gained from my reading of the Quran and time spent in mosques speaking to Muslims. I basically told him he'd have to abandon his secular/liberal ideals and embrace Sharia whole-heartedly, which is absolutely true. Another guy, a non-muslim, and a radical secular leftist, interjected and accused me of spreading false information. I was dumbfounded. Like, dude, how much time have YOU spent learning about Islam? Because I've spent a lot of time. Secular liberalism is HIGHLY frowned upon in Muslim circles. I can't even tell you how many times I've been torn into by Muslims for promoting it in my time interacting with them.

In my exploration of spirituality, I approached Islam with an open heart, and with the liberal attitude that it was misrepresented and misunderstood. I found it to be much worse than even the most extreme conservative makes it out to be. Worse because, while conservatives will often point to the policies and actions of radical Islam as evidence of its evils, it is moderate Islam that is completely messed up. Like, if we measure it in the sense of what moderate Muslims believe, it STILL belongs in the garbage.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Sm412

Active Member
Nov 25, 2018
153
129
33
Vancouver
✟16,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
And as far as individualism and collectivism goes, I don't think we should veer off too far in either direction. This is a tad OT, but I believe a sense of a collective, and pursuing collective goals, is very beneficial. However, the individual should absolutely be liberated from excessive collectivism. This is what ultimately led me to reject more extreme collectivist ideologies, such as communism. It has also led me to reject more extreme individualistic ideologies, such as libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. If the former and the latter sit on opposite ends of the spectrum, consider me right in the middle.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Islam doesn’t allow freedom of religion, if that means I or anyone else is misinterpreting that, then they can talk to the 1400 yeas of Islamic scholarship on the subject. If Islam allowed freedom of religion my family wouldn’t tell me to keep my personal beliefs private and shut up to avoid conflict with authorities everyday.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Islam doesn’t allow freedom of religion, if that means I or anyone else is misinterpreting that, then they can talk to the 1400 yeas of Islamic scholarship on the subject. If Islam allowed freedom of religion my family wouldn’t tell me to keep my personal beliefs private and shut up to avoid conflict with authorities everyday.

AH! Islam = Saudi Arabia.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Niblo
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
And as far as individualism and collectivism goes, I don't think we should veer off too far in either direction. This is a tad OT, but I believe a sense of a collective, and pursuing collective goals, is very beneficial. However, the individual should absolutely be liberated from excessive collectivism. This is what ultimately led me to reject more extreme collectivist ideologies, such as communism. It has also led me to reject more extreme individualistic ideologies, such as libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism. If the former and the latter sit on opposite ends of the spectrum, consider me right in the middle.
Individual freedom is the liberal principle. That is where freedom begins and ends. Certainly conservatives understand to that extremes of identifying the collective led to the authoritarian orthodoxies which dominated until the Protestant Reformation. It is real enough, and a good reason to reject the orthodoxy of Political Islam as well; or the secular orthodoxies of the neomarxist post modernists for that matter. It all aims at authoritarianism over the individual.

Family is a collective goal. Work is a collective goal. There is nothing particularly liberal about people belonging to their collectives. When it comes to collective goals being forwarded by the collective of the state, the spectrum of our politics in mature democracies has so far has not been a question of if these programs existing, but funding and sustainability is where conservative and liberal differ.
A compassionate safety net is a liberal goal. Effective management of that net is the conservative one, and the conservative critique of dreamers dreaming up social programs that are unmanageable.

America has always been a diverse nation, since the time that the biggest diversities were religious ones. It is the collective of Identity politics that cultivates diversity, not for diversity sake, but in order to create schism against values, even liberal ones. Mandating tribal advantage, even for the best and most compassionate of reasons, does not bode well for pluralism.

I know what the extremes of a collective going to far would be. It manifests in the myriad of socialist and nationalist movements of absolute control to the collective.

I am not sure what an extreme liberal individualism would look like though.
Too much individual freedom?
Well, there is no such thing as too much fun either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sm412

Active Member
Nov 25, 2018
153
129
33
Vancouver
✟16,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Individual freedom is the liberal principle. That is where freedom begins and ends. Certainly conservatives understand to that extremes of identifying the collective led to the authoritarian orthodoxies which dominated until the Protestant Reformation. It is real enough, and a good reason to reject the orthodoxy of Political Islam as well; or the secular orthodoxies of the neomarxist post modernists for that matter. It all aims at authoritarianism over the individual.

Family is a collective goal. Work is a collective goal. There is nothing particularly liberal about people belonging to their collectives. When it comes to collective goals being forwarded by the collective of the state, the spectrum of our politics in mature democracies has so far has not been a question of if these programs existing, but funding and sustainability is where conservative and liberal differ.
A compassionate safety net is a liberal goal. Effective management of that net is the conservative one, and the conservative critique of dreamers dreaming up social programs that are unmanageable.

America has always been a diverse nation, since the time that the biggest diversities were religious ones. It is the collective of Identity politics that cultivates diversity, not for diversity sake, but in order to create schism against values, even liberal ones. Mandating tribal advantage, even for the best and most compassionate of reasons, does not bode well for pluralism.

I know what the extremes of a collective going to far would be. It manifests in the myriad of socialist and nationalist movements of absolute control to the collective.

I am not sure what an extreme liberal individualism would look like though.
Too much individual freedom?
Well, there is no such thing as too much fun either.

Extreme liberal individualism to its maximum degree is embodied in a few ideologies, the primary being anarcho-capitalism. Are you familiar? Very popular in the bowels of the internet.

Can't tax anyone at all for anything because that would be a violation of individual liberty. Can't regulate commerce or industry at all because that would be a violation of individual liberty. Government is abolished entirely, and all government functions, from police, to courts, to infrastructure, are privatized and operate on a for-profit basis in the context of a fully deregulated market. If you buy into any biblical teachings about the sinfulness of man, or take a look at the history of what has happened when these contexts have existed to varying degrees, can you imagine a good outcome?

I don't know how you feel about it, but to me, extreme individualism boils down to a social darwinist, dog eat dog, free for all. I believe in law and order provided by public institutions, but ONLY under constitutional representative democracy. I believe government has authority over me ONLY if I have representation in that authority. I'm a pragmatist, really. Utopian ideals never took hold with me.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Extreme liberal individualism to its maximum degree is embodied in a few ideologies, the primary being anarcho-capitalism. Are you familiar? Very popular in the bowels of the internet.
Doesn't seem to be something all that relevant to anyone except the few people who believe it in theory.

Can't tax anyone at all for anything because that would be a violation of individual liberty. Can't regulate commerce or industry at all because that would be a violation of individual liberty. Government is abolished entirely, and all government functions, from police, to courts, to infrastructure, are privatized and operate on a for-profit basis in the context of a fully deregulated market. If you buy into any biblical teachings about the sinfulness of man, or take a look at the history of what has happened when these contexts have existed to varying degrees, can you imagine a good outcome?

I don't know how you feel about it, but to me, extreme individualism boils down to a social darwinist, dog eat dog, free for all. I believe in law and order provided by public institutions, but ONLY under constitutional representative democracy. I believe government has authority over me ONLY if I have representation in that authority. I'm a pragmatist, really. Utopian ideals never took hold with me.

When those extreme individualists start taking over countries like the extreme collectivists have done and still do on a regular basis, maybe I will see the reason for the equivalence of concern on behalf of liberals.

Right now, the reason that liberals are having a hard time sticking up for liberal ideals in leftist circles is because collectivist ideals have come to the forefront in those circles.

Moral equivalence, and the need to find a moral equivalence by digging it up the bowels of the internet, does not seem to me to be a particularly effective method of bringing liberal ideals to the forefront of leftist politics.
A 0% taxation rate is not something that is likely to happen in most modern, mature democracies, or any where else for that matter. It does not take any special prophecies from God to predict that that tax rate is not going to be a part of our future.

It is taken as a given that conservatives are all about being critical of Islam because of crazy Islamophobic, xenophobic, racist ideals. That has even been put forward by some educated and thoughtful posters here. Sure those kind of ideas exist. And collectivistic, nationalistic right wing Identity politics is not without historical precedent. Sure racists do exist.

But who is being silenced in criticisms of collective politics, in which authoritarian Islamists like Linda Sarsour and the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR,are given seats at the head tables of leftist politics, is liberals. All thoughtful critiques of Islamist authoritarian systems come from people who tend to the right, people like Daniel Pipes, for example.
Liberal voices are reduced to talking about points taken from bowels of the internet, as if that is as real and as morally equivalent as ISIS and the ayatollahs taking over entire countries, or Saudi Arabia funding the same Islamist authoritarianism across the mosques of the world globally. Just ask Bill Maher or Sam Harris how free they are to lead a liberal movement on this front how those sounds of silence have played out in their own lives.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟209,533.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Saw this thread and I'm a liberal, so I figured I'd chime in!

I don't defend Islam. I defend the right for a person in the United States to practice Islam as their religion, so long as it conforms to US laws. Just like I defend the right for a person to be a Christian, or a Wiccan, or whatever else. The problem is a lot of people confuse the two stances. I'm not especially fond of Isalm itself. There are a lot of problems with regards to human rights in countries that are majority Muslim.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Barney2.0
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why am I a liberal?
I don't know. Maybe because I take issue with paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans by gutting healthcare for seniors.
Conservatives believe in limited government. They want tax cuts for all and the throwing money at a problem is hardly ever the right answer. Take our public schools for example. The U.S. pays more per student than almost any other country. Yet you will still have a far superior education going to a private school which operates on half the budget.

Why am I a liberal?
Or maybe as a follower of Christ, I take issue with the "greed is good" mentality and the worship of money.
Conservatives agree. They do not worship money either nor do they believe that "greed is good". Rather, they value the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual as opposed to the "collective".

Why am I a liberal?
Or it could be because I doubt the holiness of a man who cheats on his third wife with inappropriate contentstars and buys their silence through illegal use of campaign funds.
Once again, no argument from conservatives. In fact, it is usually conservatives that value the sanctity of marriage. Liberals are usually the "free love" types. All reasons listed doesn't necessarily make you a liberal. You may be more conservative than you think. LOL
 
  • Winner
Reactions: SolomonVII
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Saw this thread and I'm a liberal, so I figured I'd chime in!

I don't defend Islam. I defend the right for a person in the United States to practice Islam as their religion, so long as it conforms to US laws. Just like I defend the right for a person to be a Christian, or a Wiccan, or whatever else. The problem is a lot of people confuse the two stances. I'm not especially fond of Isalm itself. There are a lot of problems with regards to human rights in countries that are majority Muslim.

Yet Islam is not a religion in the western sense of the word.

Islam is a religion that encompasses and dictates everything surrounding self, family, community, and state. It's a holistic religion in this manner, there is no aspect of life from birth to death, from self to government, that Islam does not dominate and dictate man's (mankind's) actions concerning.

The west sees religion through the lens of a personal faith, but that is not Islam.

Judaism is a faith that was national, but it never sought to expand. If you didn't care for the laws and the God, then Israel the nation was a tiny postage stamp of a place. You could move if it wasnt for you. It was national, but that nation was limited in scope.

Christianity on the other hand sought expansion, but it's not national seeking to expand borders. (the error of the Islamification of Catholicism aside) There is no nation in Christianity, it's a personal faith between man and his God. (My Kingdom is not of this world)

Islam on the other hand, is both national and expansionist. It seeks to expand borders through the entire earth, and encompass the earth. This is the design of the faith - national and expansionist, all encompassing.

That takes it out of the realm of an innocent personal faith in a non Muslim country, and into the realm of a potential political threat to any non Muslim state.

There is a way for Muslims to live when they are a minority in any country. And a means Muslims are to expand Islam within the country. And a means Islam then takes over as/when when Muslims gain in numbers and strength.

This is laid out in ahadith..it's not hidden. This is why and how it takes over entire nations, there isn't any aspect of anything you do that Islam doesn't have laws ruling..

In order to keep Egypt free from Islamic rule, there can't really be a democracy. In order to keep freedom of religion for everyone in Syria, you need a leader like Assad who will keep the sunni extremists at bay. The Taliban and ISIS are what happens in the absense of strong leadership to keep them at bay and they are always there waiting to rise no matter where Islam is. Why? Because of Islam itself.. they derive the faith from sahih ahadith, as sahih as that Quran is, and as much a part of the faith.

That is the Difference. Islam has as close a resemblance to something political like socialism actively working to take over your national politics and rewrite your constitution as it does to someone going to church 21 times a week to pray, and once a week to hear a sermon.

You look at it through the lens of the more individual and personal faith like modern Christianity, but it's not the case. It's a political entity and should be treated as such..
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0