The Student Room Group

How does being concerned about spread of Islam in the West make someone far-right?

So let me get this straight.

Am I correct in thinking that although I support decriminalising drugs; opening drug rehabilitation centres; getting rid of the legal benefits of marriage entirely (so no one is discriminated against); freedom of speech; secularism; publicly funded healthcare, schools, and university; and a welfare system, I'm actually far-right because I have the consistancy to dislike all kinds of traditionalist ultra-conservatism, and don't make an exception for Islam?
Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?

Scroll to see replies

I guess it's because some genuine racists dislike all non-whites including muslims, and peabrains can't tell the difference between the former, and people concerned about the spread of islam for sensible reasons.
Reply 2
Original post by MildredMalone
I guess it's because some genuine racists dislike all non-whites including muslims, and peabrains can't tell the difference between the former, and people concerned about the spread of islam for sensible reasons.


Are you suggesting that certain left-wingers often base their opinions on simply being opposite to the opinions of those they see as enemies, rather than actually trying to use critical thinking?
Original post by KingBradly
So let me get this straight. Being opposed to ultra-conservative ideologies generally means someone is against ultra-conservatism, except if the ideology in question is Islam, in which case that means one is actually an ultra-conservative, far-right winger themselves.

Am I correct in thinking that although I support decriminalising drugs; opening drug rehabilitation centres; getting rid of the legal benefits of marriage entirely (so no one is discriminated against); freedom of speech; secularism; publicly funded healthcare, schools, and university; and a welfare system, I'm actually far-right because I have the consistancy to dislike all kinds of traditionalist ultra-conservatism, and don't make an exception for Islam?
Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?


You're just a racist because you don't support Corbyn and that's that.:biggrin:
Reply 4
It doesn't. Opposing Islam is not synonymous with hating Muslims, the former is an acceptable act, the latter being at the very least bigoted, but generally racist as such hatred is often directed to even Ex-Muslims and non Muslims who come from Muslim majority countries. Opposing Islam is the liberal thing to do, given how much Islam is against liberalism, however, defending Muslims and their right to believe in what they want is, also, the liberal thing to do. People who are called ultraconservative are those who oppose Muslims and want them to either be banned from the country or for their beliefs and views to be banned. Those who oppose the ideology can be belong to any party.
Eww, you socialist swine :tongue:

But yes, it's funny how being critical of a conservative religious ideology and being concerned about it spreading makes one a supporter of the 'far right.' More ironically, if it happens to be Christianity, you're on the Left again!

What's even more sad is how having even the mildest sense of patriotism in Europe (compared to what we'd see in North America) suddenly makes one a far right nationalist. What's that? You're proud of your country? You racist Nazi.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by oShahpo
It doesn't. Opposing Islam is not synonymous with hating Muslims, the former is an acceptable act, the latter being at the very least bigoted, but generally racist as such hatred is often directed to even Ex-Muslims and non Muslims who come from Muslim majority countries. Opposing Islam is the liberal thing to do, given how much Islam is against liberalism, however, defending Muslims and their right to believe in what they want is, also, the liberal thing to do. People who are called ultraconservative are those who oppose Muslims and want them to either be banned from the country or for their beliefs and views to be banned. Those who oppose the ideology can be belong to any party.


While banning Muslims from the country would be an illiberal action, I think criticizing Muslims can come from a liberal perspective. For example, over half of Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal. I think any liberal can criticise Muslim's as a demographic for harbouring such homophobic views, just as they can criticise bible thumpers in the Deep South. Additionally, a certain degree of intolerance towards intolerant groups is necessary for a level of tolerance to exist at all.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
Reply 7
Original post by KingBradly
While banning Muslims from the country would be an illiberal action, I think criticizing Muslims can come from a liberal perspective. For example, over half of Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal. I think any liberal can criticise Muslim's as a demographic for harbouring such homophobic views, just as they can criticise bible thumpers in the Deep South. Additionally, a certain degree of intolerance towards intolerant groups is necessary for a level of tolerance to exist at all.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper


Liberalism is about this, I will fight your absurd claim that homosexuality should not be allowed, but I will defend your right of having it.
Also, a Liberal should realise that not all Muslims are homophobic. So, the point is that a Liberal would not attack individuals, until their views are known. And as being a Muslim does not guarantee one's a homophobe, a Liberal would not attack Muslims, but would happily criticise their beliefs if shown to be homophobic.

As to your quote, you can't be intolerant for just thinking that gays should not be allowed to marry. One can only be intolerant if they act on their intolerant beliefs, so a Liberal would defend the Muslims right to hate gays or whatever, but would fight those who should decide to act upon it.

In the end, it boils down to this: what do you mean by anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic?
Do you mean criticising Islam, its prophet and the actions carried out by Muslims? That's pretty liberal to me.
Do you mean discriminating against Muslims for having certain beliefs, specially if you are not even sure what exactly the individual you're judging believes in? That's pretty illiberal.
Do you mean spreading awareness against the current form of Islam, and helping Muslims to reform it, or at least develop and embrace better ways of understanding it? That's liberal.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 8
Original post by oShahpo
Liberalism is about this, I will fight your absurd claim that homosexuality should not be allowed, but I will defend your right of having it.
Also, a Liberal should realise that not all Muslims are homophobic. So, the point is that a Liberal would not attack individuals, until their views are known. And as being a Muslim does not guarantee one's a homophobe, a Liberal would not attack Muslims, but would happily criticise their beliefs if shown to be homophobic.

As to your quote, you can't be intolerant for just thinking that gays should not be allowed to marry. One can only be intolerant if they act on their intolerant beliefs, so a Liberal would defend the Muslims right to hate gays or whatever, but would fight those who should decide to act upon it.

In the end, it boils down to this: what do you mean by anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic?
Do you mean criticising Islam, its prophet and the actions carried out by Muslims? That's pretty liberal to me.
Do you mean discriminating against Muslims for having certain beliefs, specially if you are not even sure what exactly the individual you're judging believes in? That's pretty illiberal.
Do you mean spreading awareness against the current form of Islam, and helping Muslims to reform it, or at least develop and embrace better ways of understanding it? That's liberal.


Yeh I think I agree with all that, very reasonable. Although perhaps one would be able to aim criticism at the particular demographic of Muslims who are homophobic, and while it wouldn't be aimed at the individual, it would still be reasonable and I think liberal.
Original post by KingBradly
Are you suggesting that certain left-wingers often base their opinions on simply being opposite to the opinions of those they see as enemies, rather than actually trying to use critical thinking?


Sort of. I really meant that lefties see racists as representing all people who are anti-islam.
Someone being concerned about Islam isn't right-wing (just like any religion, there are parts of the Quran which are shady to say the least), it's more somebody who discriminates against a person who worships Islam which makes them right-wing.
Reply 11
Original post by Craig1998
(just like any religion, there are parts of the Quran which are shady to say the least)


Show me one part of the Dhammapada which is "shady". This seems like an uninformed overgeneralisation.
Reply 12
Original post by KingBradly
So let me get this straight. Being opposed to ultra-conservative ideologies generally means someone is against ultra-conservatism, except if the ideology in question is Islam, in which case that means one is actually an ultra-conservative, far-right winger themselves.

Am I correct in thinking that although I support decriminalising drugs; opening drug rehabilitation centres; getting rid of the legal benefits of marriage entirely (so no one is discriminated against); freedom of speech; secularism; publicly funded healthcare, schools, and university; and a welfare system, I'm actually far-right because I have the consistancy to dislike all kinds of traditionalist ultra-conservatism, and don't make an exception for Islam?
Could someone explain how this works? Does far-right just mean "anti-Islam"?


I think this the important part - Islam itself is not an ideology, it is a religion. Just like Christianity has poisonous ideologies based upon it (KKK, sectarianism in Ireland), Islam has ideologies cultivated based upon it. ISIS being of course the most prominent, alongside brutal regimes such as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan. Whilst most of the worst of Christian idologies and regimes have died out in the last few centuries, many Islamic ones still persist and are even growing.

These brutal regimes and cult-like ideologies based on Islam (and Buddhism, and Christianity, et...) should be condemned wherever they appear, of course.

But to rail against Islam itself is to rail against the billions of peaceful Muslims living all around the world. For me it is when people do this that I am likely to have some thoughts about their attitudes, with the exception of those who condemn all organised religion, which is a viewpoint that I don't agree with but do understand.
Reply 13
Original post by offhegoes
I think this the important part - Islam itself is not an ideology, it is a religion. Just like Christianity has poisonous ideologies based upon it (KKK, sectarianism in Ireland), Islam has ideologies cultivated based upon it. ISIS being of course the most prominent, alongside brutal regimes such as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan. Whilst most of the worst of Christian idologies and regimes have died out in the last few centuries, many Islamic ones still persist and are even growing.

These brutal regimes and cult-like ideologies based on Islam (and Buddhism, and Christianity, et...) should be condemned wherever they appear, of course.

But to rail against Islam itself is to rail against the billions of peaceful Muslims living all around the world. For me it is when people do this that I am likely to have some thoughts about their attitudes, with the exception of those who condemn all organised religion, which is a viewpoint that I don't agree with but do understand.


The fact that Islam is a religion doesn't change the fact it is also an ideology. Why does it being a religion give it a special privilege anyway? Given that religion is generally based on superstition and baseless rubbish, I don't see how it is somehow more deserving of respect. Why should I care how many people follow the Quran if I believe that the book is filled with many atrocious views? How does being concerned about the fact that a huge proportion of Muslims harbour extraordinarily illiberal views make me illiberal myself? Ideas, perspectives, even cultures are not individuals. They're abstract concepts that should be completely open to debate.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 14
Original post by KingBradly
The fact that Islam is a religion doesn't change the fact it is also an ideology. Why does it being a religion give it a special privilege anyway? Given that religion is generally based on superstition and baseless rubbish, doesn't that mean it should be given even less respect? Why should I care how many people follow the Quran if I believe that the book is filled with many atrocious views? How does being concerned about the fact that a huge proportion of Muslims harbour extraordinarily illiberal views make me illiberal myself? Ideas, perspectives, even cultures are not individuals. They're abstract concepts that should be completely open to debate.


So you dislike organised religion? I don't agree with that opinion but i understand it.

However Islam is no more an ideology than Christianity or Buddhism. The only different here is we are familiar with the names of the dangerous ideologies based on Christianity, so we are more able to differentiate the religion from the ideologies. We tend to be too lazy to differentiate between the dangerous ideologies and regimes based on Islam, so we sometimes just call it "Islam".

Given your uncompromising stance on respecting the opinions and beliefs of others, I find it strange that you are starting a thread essentially concerned with what other people think about you.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 15
Original post by offhegoes
So you dislike organised religion? I don't agree with that opinion but i understand it.

However Islam is no more an ideology that Christianity. The only different here is we are familiar with the names of the dangerous ideologies based on Christianity, so we are more able to differentiate the religion from the ideologies. We tend to be too lazy to differentiate between the dangerous ideologies and regimes based on Islam, so we sometimes just call it "Islam".

Given your uncompromising stance on respecting the opinions and beliefs of others, I find it strange that you are starting a thread essentially concerned with what other people think about you.


Christianity is an ideology, and all dangerous Christian movements have their routes in the Bible. Same with Islam and its Quran and the Hadiths. I see no problem with criticizing the source. In fact, this is surely the most effective course of action. You can break religions down into three parts: their original texts, their history, and how they are in the present. In both Christianity and Islam, all three of these parts are riddled with terrific amounts of authoritarian ultra-conservatism and violence, although Islam easily trumps Christianity in the present. What part of these religions is not deserving of criticism?

What I have a problem with is any criticism of Islam being discredited as "far-right", when there is clearly a very reasonable argument for a liberal cause against the religion. Yes it concerns me, but it also concerns many others such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Douglas Murray, who, regardless of what they called themselves, have argued against Islam from a liberal perspective.
It doesn't, Islamic ideology is directly opposed to the core principles of liberalism.
I see it the same way I see other "us vs them" hate movements
It's a very old strain of left-wing thought that leads to this attitude. Have you ever heard of noble savages? The left tends to apply this romantic lens to every non-European culture. Everything evil about such a culture is always seen as somehow being brought out by the White man's carelessness or misunderstanding of it, or spoiling their good nature somehow.

Muslims are today's noble savages, and thus above reproach. Everything they do is excused and protected as part of their culture. Sadly, this was applied to even cannibals and tribes guilty of human sacrifice back in the day, so this madness knows no bounds. It's just that in the old days, average people were too smart to listen to that form of left-wing thought seriously. Now, there are enough of these starry-eyed, noble savage praising romantics running around that we have to worry what they think.

They should know better and stick to principles, but their hearts get the better of them and they start accepting sloppy ideas like thinking women shouldn't report rapes because it makes Muslims look bad, even saying that they were "tempting" them with their skimpy clothing and should respect their culture by covering up. The fact that few feminists are willing to attack those people for talking like that and try to come up with morally relativist arguments underscores just how much influence these people have.

These noble savage promoters are actually undermining people within these cultures who see these problems as problems, and want to reform it, by saying that they shouldn't be brainwashed into reforming and thus "spoiling" their beautiful and exotic culture with European standards and that it's perfect the way it is.

The problem with this kind of moral relativism is that it doesn't allow for people on the left to have any principles at all where other cultures are concerned. It's broken, and it forces people to look to the right for principles or values of any kind beyond the moral relativism accepted by the left. Something they're now desperately hungry for.
Reply 18
Original post by KingBradly
Christianity is an ideology, and all dangerous Christian movements have their routes in the Bible. Same with Islam and its Quran and the Hadiths. I see no problem with criticizing the source. In fact, this is surely the most effective course of action. You can break religions down into three parts: their original texts, their history, and how they are in the present. In both Christianity and Islam, all three of these parts are riddled with terrific amounts of authoritarian ultra-conservatism and violence, although Islam easily trumps Christianity in the present. What part of these religions is not deserving of criticism?

What I have a problem with is any criticism of Islam being discredited as "far-right", when there is clearly a very reasonable argument for a liberal cause against the religion. Yes it concerns me, but it also concerns many others such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, or Douglas Murray, who, regardless of what they called themselves, have argued against Islam from a liberal perspective.


Yes, as I've said I do understand being anti-religion, without agreeing with that attitude.

But the part in bold interests me - course of action to what end? What is your objective?
Reply 19
Original post by jeremy1988
It's a very old strain of left-wing thought that leads to this attitude. Have you ever heard of noble savages? The left tends to apply this romantic lens to every non-European culture. Everything evil about such a culture is always seen as somehow being brought out by the White man's carelessness or misunderstanding of it, or spoiling their good nature somehow.

Muslims are today's noble savages, and thus above reproach. Everything they do is excused and protected as part of their culture. Sadly, this was applied to even cannibals and tribes guilty of human sacrifice back in the day, so this madness knows no bounds. It's just that in the old days, average people were too smart to listen to that form of left-wing thought seriously. Now, there are enough of these starry-eyed, noble savage praising romantics running around that we have to worry what they think.

They should know better and stick to principles, but their hearts get the better of them and they start accepting sloppy ideas like thinking women shouldn't report rapes because it makes Muslims look bad, even saying that they were "tempting" them with their skimpy clothing and should respect their culture by covering up. The fact that few feminists are willing to attack those people for talking like that and try to come up with morally relativist arguments underscores just how much influence these people have.

These noble savage promoters are actually undermining people within these cultures who see these problems as problems, and want to reform it, by saying that they shouldn't be brainwashed into reforming and thus "spoiling" their beautiful and exotic culture with European standards and that it's perfect the way it is.

The problem with this kind of moral relativism is that it doesn't allow for people on the left to have any principles at all where other cultures are concerned. It's broken, and it forces people to look to the right for principles or values of any kind beyond the moral relativism accepted by the left. Something they're now desperately hungry for.


Nice little rant, but you are stereotyping liberals in exactly the same way that OP is complaining about people stereotyping those who criticise Islam.

Quick Reply

Latest