Why do leftists love Islam?

Indeed. You could. The Israeli govt and IDF have acted unacceptably in some situations. No argument there.

I'm not sure what "anti-Islamic diagram" you are referring to, but if a right-wing politician voiced the opinion that all Palestinians should be transported to Saudi Arabia, leaving the land for Israelis, there would rightly be uproar and calls for their resignation.

So I'm not sure what point you're making?

Sorry by diagrams i meant pictures

and if there would b an uproar it definitely wouldnt be in the westeren european countries as theyd all be arrested for anti semitism

/
You've read the Qur'an??? ;D

How does "context" make a violent or conflictual verse into a peaceful one?

Simply saying, "oh, that was only referring to a particular event" still leaves the passage as violent. For example, 8:12 may well be recounting events at the Battle of Badr, but a passage that says
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
is a violent passage. Context does not change that.

Then of course, you have verses like 5:33, which is unpleasantly violent...
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides,"
and has no historical context as it is a ruling on crime and punishment. In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir states that the verse is general in use and applies to all those who commit the crimes mentioned.

More instruction to violence in in 24:2...
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case"
Like 5:33, this verse is still valid today, and some states even stilll apply it!

As for conflict, 8:39 does not refer to any particular historical event, and is open ended...
"And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah."

Even if there was a historical context for all of these (which there isn't), they are still violend and conflictual passages. They were part of the religion at some point.
Therefore the religion cannot be "peaceful".

As I have said many times, based on the evidence of the Quran and sunnah, Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination.
No reasonable person in possession of the facts can deny this.
The sooner people accept this, the sooner that people can start addressing the unacceptable elements.

Btw I'm speaking as a upper class white atheist so I'm not biased

I define it as a religion that consistently enforces a message of peace through peaceful means. No reference to murdering in the name of achieving peace.

A religion that contains no condoning of or commands for conflict or violence in scriptures that are considered to be infallible and immutable.

Why do they love Islam so much that they shrug their shoulders when its followers rape women in the street? Why do they have the attitude of "it's just their culture man" when Muslims behead gays? Just wondering. Why is it OK for Muslims to act like this but it's not OK for non-Muslims to wear shirts with naughty cartoon pictures of ladies on it?

Good definition for a peace movement. But religions are not belief in peace and as ideologies they were not created to achieve peace.

Then Christianity is "religion of peace". In New Testament, which replaced Old Testament in Christianity, you won't find calls for violence. Only peace and love, peace and love. And millions of killed people in wars and prosecutions.

Well i can tell you ive read the quran as i have with other books and these harsh treatments only apply in extreme events

( i mean even you said it battle of badr means full moon so clearly its not referring to an actual battle therefore being open to lots of different interpretations of when these actions youve spoken about can take place....

and i think its quite clear the peaceful element outnumbers the violent element for example zakat is one of the 5 main pillars which means to give to charity

and i also see for the quote abou 5:33 youve said that ibn kathir has said its for general use but you've just given another persons interpretation and therefore saying thats what the quran meant which can i just say is what isis use in their difference for their actions (ie refer that baghdadi has made this interpretation so therefore its true)

You have a mighty high opinion of yourself. White and atheist? I won't question it.

But "upper class"? Who even says that about themselves? I get the feeling you are under a great misapprehension as to your position in the class system

Then Christianity is "religion of peace". In New Testament, which replaced Old Testament in Christianity, you won't find calls for violence. Only peace and love, peace and love. And millions of killed people in wars and prosecutions.

I can't see the logic in it. Recently I've been leaning farther and farther to the left on social issues but I'll never be able to understand socialists' infatuation with Islam. I think there's a huge memetic element to it with the 'Islam is a religion of peace' and 'not all muslims' slogans. The desire to feel part of a just cause and the ease of jumping on the bandwagon probably makes it seem more attractive than keeping a consistent viewpoint. Also, most of our population has grown up with morals that aren't so divergent from Muslims, to the extent it's more an argument about whether it's less civilized to stone gays or imprison them for years. I was raised as an atheist so I will never be able to get over how alien Islam feels to me.

But that's just focusing only on Islam. I think the majority of backlash against Muslims is not out of a concern for backward cultural practices, but instead comes from Christians and the authoritarian right, who are also vastly inflating the threat posed by the Muslim population. Many of those people are just as bad, and from that perspective I can see why leftists might stick up for Muslims, even if they don't really deserve it.

I think that the explanation is quite simple.
In a display of ironic racism, they conflate "Muslims" with "Brown Foreigners" and so take the position that any criticism of their ideology is a form of cultural imperialism.

In some respects, there is no difference between religion and extreme political ideology. The both require a suspension of critical faculties and the ability to see any criticism as reason for taking offence They both make good use of pejorative terms to describe their critics in an attempt to demonise them. A regressive-left SJW would rather eat their own babies than be publicly accused of racism. And that is what often happens to people who raise concerns about issues like slavery, domestic violence and misogyny in the Quran.

...i mean even you said it battle of badr means full moon so clearly its not referring to an actual battle therefore being open to lots of different interpretations...

your subjecting Muslims as rapists ?

Religions were made for means of controlling and subjugating people.

I was refuting those who claim that Islam, Christianity, etc were religions of peace. They simply aren't. Even New Testament Christianity has lead to mass genocide over the course of time.

Has the NT replaced the OT? That is a hotly debated issue in Christianity.

However, because Christianity does not claim to opreate on the basis of infallible, immutable divine revelation, a perfect guide for all peoples and time, it has transformed into a religion of peace in many cases. As Christianity does not require total and slavish adherence to doctrine (especially in recent times) Christians are able to say "I reject those passages" without fear of takfir and jahannam. "However, there is still plenty of scope for it to be interpreted as a religion of violence.