Why do leftists love Islam?

The problem I have with posts like this is that you treat Islam like it's the only religion which puts forward a bad agenda. You can interpret the Quran the same way you interpret the Bible.

So how come the Koran is so widely interpreted to be discriminatory and violent? Why the others on a much lesser scale?

That's what people like you don't get or want to get.

"...such people blaspheme the Buddha. Killing them would not be wrong."

I contend that Islam is no more inherently violent that Christianity. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis other than assuming that correlation implies causation?

It's funny how non-muslims act as if they have read the quran to entirety.

Heck, Arabic speakers NEED a literal translation of the Quran to understand it. People all over the world know this. I have yet to see a single arabic speaker that reads the quran and says that s/he understands it. Yet you guys just pick up quotes and and argue about it.

The Quranic verse about killing all infidels is placed IN the war of Uhud. In this war there were 1000 muslims and about 10,000 infidels (The muslims won in the end) for the conquest of Makkah. This verse has no relation of going out in the street and killing others for no reason. The infidels mentioned in the verse are the opponents IN the war. That's what the opponents were called in the war of Uhud.
In places like Iraq and Syria, the children there are mostly orphans. Their parents have been killed by airstrikes, bombings, shootings etc. Their parents, siblings and relatives have been ruthlessly murdered in front of their eyes. I believe these attacks are more like revenge in the name of religion. There have been around 500,000 deaths in the Iraq war and around 470,000 in Syria so far. Millions have been displaced. Just imagine the type of conditions these children are living in. They will be growing up with complete HATE in their minds towards the western world. They wouldn't bother reading the Quran....how would they even get access to it? Violence just breeds more violence.

Please provide a quotation from Buddhist scripture that justifies this? Or some incident from his life story which would suggest that was theologically appropriate? You can't can you?

So on the one hand you have NO aspect of Buddhist scripture which offers anything but criticism of murder, and on the other you have a direct command that (can be interpreted as meaning) anyone who blasphemes again God or Mohammed is to be seized and killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting


Yes obviously I disagree.

We have discussed Islam's propensity to incite violence although we have barely scratched the surface. I won't go into incidents in Mohammed's life (believe me I could) because it would get this post deleted.

By contrast, were Christians to actually follow Christ's teachings (obviously few if any do as they are so impractical), they would "turn the other cheek" if hit over the head by a psychotic aggressor. (Matthew 5:39)

It is the difference between following the teachings of a ruthless warlord and a stoned hippy.

(To your last point. Correlation does not IMPLY causation. But it doesn't mean there can't BE causation).

The problem I have with posts like this is that you treat Islam like it's the only religion which puts forward a bad agenda. You can interpret the Quran the same way you interpret the Bible.

Maybe because our society has to make someone the scapegoat?

The Quran is "so widely interpreted to be discriminatory and violent" in Christian countries because of the age old argument that one religion is better than the other. While I am an atheist, I completely respect that every religion has pros and cons to it, and the reason why Islam is considered to be "disgusting" is because a tiny proportion of Muslims commit crimes to innocent civilians in places such as Brussels, Paris, and London because our government is involving themselves in wars in Muslim countries that aren't anything to do with us, killing millions of innocent civilians, and ruining the infrastructure, economy, and future for the state.

When people come to countries and kill our civilians, they're called "pigs", "creatures, and "immoral". However, when we go to their countries and do the same it's just "how life works". Surely both of these occurrences should be considered as awful, not just one of them..?

the reason why Islam is considered to be "disgusting" is because a tiny proportion of Muslims commit crimes to innocent civilians in places such as Brussels, Paris, and London

because our government is involving themselves in wars in Muslim countries that aren't anything to do with us, killing millions of innocent civilians, and ruining the infrastructure, economy, and future for the state.

When people come to countries and kill our civilians, they're called "pigs", "creatures, and "immoral". However, when we go to their countries and do the same it's just "how life works". Surely both of these occurrences should be considered as awful, not just one of them..?

Hey I know you @Aceadria
Indian right?

Nope, and my nationality is irrelevant.

You've got some Hindu king or raja as your profile......Indian

We don't love Islam. I am not a leftist, nor a Muslim, yet I find myself defending Muslims on every thread since I joined this forum, despite having had a blog dedicated to the criticism of Islam.

The problem is simple, we believe in individualism. We also believe that no person should be judged based on their background, a person is only to be judged by his actions. Then, we go on the internet to find people saying things like "Don't trust Muslims" and "Muslims are backward" or "They don't deserve to be here.".
Those claims are against everything we stand for. You're judging a group of people not based on their actions, but based on the actions of a minority of them. (I am referring to Muslims in the West, you can judge Muslim in the East all you like, they are not subjected to your opinion anyway). A person is innocent and free until proven guilty, that's not the trend nowadays. A Muslim, or even a Nazi, is free to believe in whatever they want, until they act, or attempt to act on their beliefs.

So the simple answer is, we believe in the innocence of all until proven guilty.

We don't love Islam. I am not a leftist, nor a Muslim, yet I find myself defending Muslims on every thread since I joined this forum, despite having had a blog dedicated to the criticism of Islam.

The problem is simple, we believe in individualism. We also believe that no person should be judged based on their background, a person is only to be judged by his actions. Then, we go on the internet to find people saying things like "Don't trust Muslims" and "Muslims are backward" or "They don't deserve to be here.".
Those claims are against everything we stand for. You're judging a group of people not based on their actions, but based on the actions of a minority of them. (I am referring to Muslims in the West, you can judge Muslim in the East all you like, they are not subjected to your opinion anyway). A person is innocent and free until proven guilty, that's not the trend nowadays. A Muslim, or even a Nazi, is free to believe in whatever they want, until they act, or attempt to act on their beliefs.

So the simple answer is, we believe in the innocence of all until proven guilty.

Very interesting post.

But I ask you this. You are arguing we should accept all. That would imply we should accept all that say "I don't want Muslims in my country". It's a bit of a conundrum.

Every single country in the world discriminates against against some group of people for some reason for another. Pretty much every Christian organisation in the world discriminates. The issue with Islam is that many of these Muslim-majority countries have not shaken the state and law free from religious doctrine. It isn't all that long ago that many Christian countries also discriminated in such a way. These countries need to change, but Islam itself is not the issue.

Islam is just a religion, like Buddhist, Christianity, Judaism.

People make their religion violent or peaceful.

India didn't exist before 1947. Try again.

If being a Nazi means supporting an abhorrent ideology, I do not think this "innocent until proven guilty" shtick really works if people are labeling themselves as Nazis in the 21st century.

Similar, if you have to accept Allah as your god and Muhammad as your ideological leader in order to be a Muslim, I think non-Muslims are quite reasonable to be wary of those who identify with a violent religion and one of the most evil people in history.