The Student Room Group

Why does the left defend Islam and the right oppose it?

deleted
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

The guys on the right don't like brown people holding similar views to them.

Some kind of racial superiority complex.
The left generally places a greater emphasis on tolerance whilst the right dislikes any threat to a homogenous society with shared values and history.

The right in the USA (for example) have more in common with the theocrats in the middle east than they'd like to admit...
Yes, but Muslims are a minority group that is persecuted in Israel and the West alike. Lefties naturally support the oppressed minority and so Muslims get accepted into the identity politics fold. The left as represented by Labour-type parties is essentially an anti-establishment force (I know, I know, New Labour etc), and thus it doesn't get to command the big powerful blob in the middle but instead has to be a broad church unifying a load of smaller blobs around the periphery. The problem is exacerbated because blobs are blobs (and not united) because they have very little in common.

Occasionally a powerful idea comes along like socialism which manages to convey to blobs in the periphery that the very fact of being in the periphery is their commonality. These blobs can then merge quickly and challenge the establishment effectively; this is called solidarity, and its speed is why socialism is associated with revolution. In so doing, the left becomes the establishment, and disillusion sets in when it delivers on its promises of socialism but is unable to serve the remaining demands of its diverse clients all at once, not to mention those of the traditional establishment.

So in the absence of socialist solidarity, what marks out the left from the other major political groupings is its lack of an overarching monocultural philosophy to which everyone can or must subscribe. (The Liberal party is a third way, because they use the rule of law and equality through blindness to create monoculture and try to convince the core and periphery that they're all created equal; essentially, it advances the cause of the periphery by convincing them that they are entitled to the privileges of the core, and to merge with it on individual terms, which is why it's not revolutionary. The Conservative party is obviously of the right (the core), because it uses entrenched power bases to impose a monocultural philosophy.)

This is the reason why Islam, despite its lack of liberal principles, is presently accepted on the left, and why the left must tangle itself in knots trying to justify Islam and, say, feminism in the same breath. The left is not essentially liberal at all, and never really has been; that's the job of the Liberal party. This isn't in theory a terribly massive ideological problem for the left (the only reason Labour has pretended to be liberal since the war is because it stole electoral territory from the Liberals, and because Hitler, Stalin and Mao made illiberal socialism unelectable). What is a massive problem for them is if they are unable to marry the competing interests of their client groups. The narrative of socialism has been disfavoured since the 1970s economic crash, so there is no way to do this with clients as opposed as Islam and, say, feminism other than tortuous twistings and verbal trickery.

As for the Guardian, it has always been a Liberal paper - Manchester liberalism, Manchester Guardian:

The Manchester Guardian was founded in Manchester in 1821 by cotton merchant John Edward Taylor with backing from the Little Circle, a group of non-conformist businessmen.[14] They launched their paper after the police closure of the more radical Manchester Observer, the paper that had championed the cause of the Peterloo Massacre protesters.[15] Taylor had been hostile to the radical reformers, writing: "(T)hey have appealed not to the reason but the passions and the suffering of their abused and credulous fellow-countrymen, from whose ill-requited industry they extort for themselves the means of a plentiful and comfortable existence. 'They do not toil, neither do they spin,' but they live better than those that do.[16] When the government closed down the Manchester Observer, the mill-owners' champions had the upper hand.[17]

The influential journalist Jeremiah Garnett joined Taylor during the establishment of the paper, and all of the Little Circle wrote articles for the new paper.[18]

The prospectus announcing the new publication proclaimed that it would "zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty ... warmly advocate the cause of Reform ... endeavour to assist in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy and ... support, without reference to the party from which they emanate, all serviceable measures".[19] In 1825 the paper merged with the British Volunteer and was known as The Manchester Guardian and British Volunteer until 1828.[20]

The working-class Manchester and Salford Advertiser called the Manchester Guardian "the foul prostitute and dirty parasite of the worst portion of the mill-owners".[21] The Manchester Guardian was generally hostile to labour's claims. Of the 1832 Ten Hours Bill the paper doubted whether in view of the foreign competition "the passing of a law positively enacting a gradual destruction of the cotton manufacture in this kingdom would be a much less rational procedure."[22] The Manchester Guardian dismissed strikes as the work of outside agitators "... if an accommodation can be effected the occupation of the agents of the Union is gone. They live on strife ..."[23]

The Manchester Guardian was highly critical of Abraham Lincoln's conduct during the American Civil War, writing on the news that Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated: "Of his rule, we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty ..."[24]
C. P. Scott
C. P. Scott made the newspaper nationally recognised. He was editor for 57 years from 1872, and became its owner when he bought the paper from the estate of Taylor's son in 1907. Under Scott the paper's moderate editorial line became more radical, supporting Gladstone when the Liberals split in 1886, and opposing the Second Boer War against popular opinion.[25] Scott supported the movement for women's suffrage, but was critical of any tactics by the Suffragettes that involved direct action:[26] "The really ludicrous position is that Mr Lloyd George is fighting to enfranchise seven million women and the militants are smashing unoffending people's windows and breaking up benevolent societies' meetings in a desperate effort to prevent him". Scott thought the Suffragettes' "courage and devotion" was "worthy of a better cause and saner leadership".[27] It has been argued that Scott's criticism reflected a widespread disdain, at the time, for those women who "transgressed the gender expectations of Edwardian society".[26]

Scott commissioned J.M. Synge and his friend Jack Yeats to produce articles and drawings documenting the social conditions of the west of Ireland (pre-First World War), and these pieces were published in 1911 in the collection Travels in Wicklow, West Kerry and Connemara.[28]

Scott's friendship with Chaim Weizmann played a role in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and in 1948 The Guardian was a supporter of the new State of Israel.

In June 1936 ownership of the paper passed to the Scott Trust (named after the last owner, John Russell Scott, who was the first chairman of the Trust). This move ensured the paper's independence.Spanish Civil War
Traditionally affiliated with the centrist to centre-left Liberal Party, and with a northern, non-conformist circulation base, the paper earned a national reputation and the respect of the left during the Spanish Civil War. With the pro-Liberal News Chronicle, the Labour-supporting Daily Herald, the Communist Party's Daily Worker and several Sunday and weekly papers, it supported the Republican government against General Francisco Franco's insurgent nationalists.
Post-war
The paper so loathed Labour's left-wing champion Aneurin Bevan "and the hate-gospellers of his entourage" that it called for Attlee's post-war Labour government to be voted out of office.[29] The newspaper opposed the creation of the National Health Service as it feared the state provision of healthcare would "eliminate selective elimination" and lead to an increase of congenitally deformed and feckless people.[30]

The Manchester Guardian strongly opposed military intervention during the 1956 Suez Crisis: "The Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt is an act of folly, without justification in any terms but brief expediency. It pours petrol on a growing fire. There is no knowing what kind of explosion will follow." [31]
Social Democratic Party and New Labour
Three of The Guardian's four leader writers joined the SDP on its foundation in 1981, but the paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his successful bid to lead the Labour Party,[39] and to be elected Prime Minister.[40]
(edited 8 years ago)
Because the left are cultural relativists and don't believe you can criticise other cultures because they're just parallels of Western culture (supposedly).

The right are cultural objectivists and tend to believe that their own cultures are the better, less savage culture which can be measured by inventions, art and literature. They have reality on their side.
Reply 5
Yep. And all religions hate each other even though they all believe in God.

Weird

Isn't it funny we live in a world where 90% of people believe that the world is controlled by an invisible man.
Original post by noobynoo
Yep. And all religions hate each other even though they all believe in God.

Weird

Isn't it funny we live in a world where 90% of people believe that the world is controlled by an invisible man.


Yeah, I'm not sure that holds any weight...
Because the left are history revisionists, who dismiss every Islamic terrorist attack as "independent" and "one-off", and accuse the West of actively oppressing them as if it was 1870s.
Islam is incompatible with the West, and since right-wingers tend to either be cultural (most likely) or racial (less likely) supremacists, the idea that immigrants can uphold their Islamic values and religious practises while simultaneously assimilating is viewed as close to impossible.

There is one common factor between 99% of terrorist attacks each year: their perpetrators follow the Qu'ran, one way or another.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SotonianOne
Because the left are history revisionists, who dismiss every Islamic terrorist attack as "independent" and "one-off", and accuse the West of actively oppressing them as if it was 1870s.
Islam is incompatible with the West, and since right-wingers tend to either be cultural (most likely) or racial (less likely) supremacists, the idea that immigrants can uphold their Islamic values and religious practises while simultaneously assimilating is viewed as close to impossible.

There is one common factor between 99% of terrorist attacks each year: their perpetrators follow the Qu'ran, one way or another.


Did you not read the OP who stated that the views of Muslims are more in line with your typical right wing nutjob?

How is that equate to "Islam being incompatible with the West"?
Reply 10
In Sweden left wingers actually turned on homosexuals when they tried to do a gay pride march through a Muslim area. It's really mysterious why they defend a group that openly spits on everything they stand for.
Original post by SotonianOne
Because the left are history revisionists, who dismiss every Islamic terrorist attack as "independent" and "one-off", and accuse the West of actively oppressing them as if it was 1870s.
Islam is incompatible with the West, and since right-wingers tend to either be cultural (most likely) or racial (less likely) supremacists, the idea that immigrants can uphold their Islamic values and religious practises while simultaneously assimilating is viewed as close to impossible.

There is one common factor between 99% of terrorist attacks each year: their perpetrators follow the Qu'ran, one way or another.


Yet the vast majority of Muslims in the west respect the laws and follow them.
It's just the 'bad' Muslims are the ones on the News everyday.

I'm not saying we as Muslims should pretend there isn't a problem with the wider Muslim community (there are many issues that need tackling such as the stance on Homosexuality) however to think it isn't compatible is absurd.
The left is automatically in favour of any group which can help with its objective, ie to destroy Western civilisation and impose totalitarian communism upon the ruins.
Original post by Lady Comstock
The papers and groups that seem to adopt the most pro-Islam, anti-Islamophobia stance seem to be on the left, whereas the papers and groups that seem to adopt the most anti-Islam stance seem to be on the right.

This does not make sense to me. Surely the fundamentals of Islam and beliefs of Muslims generally correlate with the views of the right on homosexuality, feminism, faith schools, crime and punishment, etc. Additionally, most of Islam's fundamentals seem to utterly conflict with traditional left-wing and liberal beliefs of papers like the Guardian and groups like the Labour Party.

Thoughts?


Part of the problem (though not the whole problem) is that 'right' means a lot of different things.

For instance, there is a lot of difference between a committed One Nation Tories and more Libertarian types.

Therefore, different elements of the right oppose Islam for different reasons. Paternalistic right-wingers might reject it because of our Christian heritage, while Libertarian right-wingers reject it because it is authoritarian typically, and without reference to the specific character of its authoritarian.

The reason the Left likes to fawn over Islam? God knows, really. They have authoritarianism in common, but not much else. One might suspect that it is something to do with the clash of cultures which is currently developing. Probably Leftists judging just by the principles of the religion (as opposed to its position on the world political scene) would reject it quite simply.
Why do people keep referring to "the left" as though it's some sort of hive mind with everyone on the left supporting the same views about things like Islam?
Original post by thesabbath
The left is automatically in favour of any group which can help with its objective, ie to destroy Western civilisation and impose totalitarian communism upon the ruins.


Of course it is: see my post. By "Western civilisation", of course, you really mean the Western ruling class and its institutions.

You couch your statement as if it amounted to attack by foreign powers: "destroy", "impose", "ruins", which is a different thing from the ruled rising up against the rulers. How, for example, can a people hostilely "impose" anything on themselves? (The only exception is when you suspect they are the agents of a foreign power. However, there is no nation, organisation or individual with the power to fund left-wing groups; though there are for the right wing.)

You use the term "civilisation", rather than, say, "establishment", which is you wearing Liberal clothing to provide legitimation for your argument that the present ruling class, and its orthodoxy, should remain. Civilisation would not disappear if left-wingers got in, but the establishment would.

You ignore that the ruling class is also totalitarian in imposing its ideology (though it too wears Liberal clothing): you are in fact colluding with totalitarianism by speaking quite so slanderously against the left, rather than listening to, respecting and rebutting their concerns.

You could be a Liberal, I suppose, but that would mean you were deluded enough to think the rulers and the ruled have true equality of opportunity and under the law. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that is the case and as long as it is so Liberals have no business allying with the right (as that will reverse equality): they may either remain independent or ally with the left.

I would consider myself a Liberal disposed to a left-wing alliance.
I dislike Islam because I'm a lefty liberal. I agree that it's the height of intellectual dishonesty to throw all your weight behind efforts to support civil rights, gay rights and feminism but then defend a religion which seeks to undo all the progress we've made in these areas. We need to remember that while religion may try to present itself as friendly and harmless in secular democracies whenever it has had any amount of power it has sought to enforce regressive and damaging policies. Is it coincidental that since the Russian Orthodox Church has regrown homophobia has become part of Russia's legal system? Is it a coincidence that wherever Islam is a fundamental part of the government women have far fewer basic human rights than men?

The left should oppose Islam in order to defend all the progress we have made. But some of us are clearly just oppositionists. Some of us insist on sticking up for the little guy, even if the little guy is a misogynistic, homophobic and hateful religion, many of whom want the entire Western World to be annihilated.

Of course most muslims are better than Islam wishes them to be. Even if a religion is utterly hateful people's humanity does break through it. I met a muslim girl recently who is a western feminist, hates the hijab/burka and thinks that if Allah has set these laws then human beings' attempts to enforce these rules is an attempt by humans to displace Allah, which she considers to be far more haram than anything the Qur'an prohibits. If all believers had that same attitude the religious debate would be limited entirely to philosophers and wouldn't be of any interest to anyone else. It's only because it actually affects people that the god hypothesis actually matters.
(edited 8 years ago)
Because the right wing will take every opportunity to attack other religions/races ect.. to make them seam better and to use fear in people to make the people let them deal with "the real problems"
Neither "the left or the right" oppose Islam as it doesn't have any power to be opposed. They are doing it for votes. One lot trying to get Muslims votes and the other trying to get votes from non-Muslims. The only thing which would ever oppose Islam would be something which also opposes Liberalism. Which would be High Toryism, but you see the "right" wing Liberals never talk about High Toryism. As this isn't about Islam, it is about the Progressive and Classical Liberal using Islam to increase their own power.
I don't really know why 'the left' isn't championing those kurds in Rojava who are fighting ISIS. Like why are they ignoring them.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/08/why-world-ignoring-revolutionary-kurds-syria-isis
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/can-the-revolution-in-kurdish-syria-succeed

I'd be fine with our government supplying these guys with weapons and military advice etc. The catch? A lot of them are Muslims who are fighting ISIS. I'm very much against Islamic fascism but I'm not sticking every single Muslim in the world under that name tag, especially when there are Muslims on the front line fighting ISIS. But then the left has always generally been against fascism so it's nothing new. I do think the modern popular left has a bit to dogmatic no interventionist stance. Not that I'm on the side of the Tony Blairs and George Bushes of this world but... I dunno. Compare to when people on the left in this country volunteered to fight fascism in Spain. What would happen now?

(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply