Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    They're tools to be honest.
    Online

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A wooden egg)
    ...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...
    What? You are claiming that the Battle of Badr is not real?

    Would you provide some examples of different interpretations?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    your subjecting Muslims as rapists ?
    Online

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by officialjaayjaay)
    your subjecting Muslims as rapists ?
    Who is?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thequickspark)
    Religions were made for means of controlling and subjugating people.
    Religions were not made by anybody. They are the result of human development.
    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.
    I responded to your statement that followers of "non peaceful" religions (or believers into "non peaceful" faith) are peaceful people. For me it sounds as nonsense.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Has the NT replaced the OT? That is a hotly debated issue in Christianity.
    Maybe I too naive thinking that if there is Old and New Testaments then one of them should be obsolete? :cool:
    Christians don't accept and don't fulfill commandments of Old Testament. Otherwise it would be Judaism.
    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.
    As I already mentioned Christians are guided by New Testament, by Jesus. That's why they are called Christians. They don't need to "reject" anything in the Bible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    More than anything you've not specified whether the left-wing stance is moral or economic. I am a "leftist" and certainly don't "love Islam" or the examples you've given of violent actions performed by members.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    No "upper class" person would dream of referring to themselves as "upper class". I think he might mean "nouveau riche".
    Indeed. The word itself is quite vulgar; maybe it's a little out of date but "top drawer" works. "One of us". That kind of thing.

    And not to be too waspish but I doubt even nouveau riche would describe the commenter. There are plenty of people who live in a 5-bedroom detached house in the suburbs in Manchester who think they're upper-class because they're the richest people they know.

    In England you're either upper-class by virtue of birth, rank and education (dad's a hereditary baron, you went to Eton and you live in a Georgian terrace in SW1... that kind of thing) or because you're stupendously wealthy (hundreds of millions at least). Mere acquisition of wealth doesn't put you in the English upper-class as it would in, say, America.

    And it's not just those things I mentioned, it's as much a mindset; being a city-dwelling country boy, driving a range, having a shotgun licence, liking dogs, playing cricket, wearing old sweaters at home and out-of-date dinner jackets when you go out. And of course all the top drawer shibboleths (Cholmondeley pronounced Chumley, Beaulieu pronounced Bewlee, etc) that mark out the those with upper-class pretensions from those who are born into it.

    Even someone like David Cameron would really properly be considered upper-middle class (as you can tell, I'm pretty interested in the English class system, from an outsiders' perspective; being a city-dwelling country boy myself, though colonial in origin, I have some sympathy for the English gentry and aristocracy)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Religions were not made by anybody. They are the result of human development.

    I responded to your statement that followers of "non peaceful" religions (or believers into "non peaceful" faith) are peaceful people. For me it sounds as nonsense.
    They were made... that's why they exist. Granted, most likely not by a single person, but a collective. Hence, I repeat my statement that they were made to control and subjugate people. They still are today.

    I said that most people who follow religions are probably peaceful, but the religions themselves are not peaceful. There are also some very aggressive and violent people who follow religions. How is it non-nonsensical to suggest that there are peaceful people following non-peaceful religions. They simply cherry pick the parts they believe in and go about their way.

    Pretty obvious stuff in my opinion.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thequickspark)
    They were made... that's why they exist. Granted, most likely not by a single person, but a collective.
    Then name some of these evil little green creatures and whose directives they performed. People have the right to know the truth. :cool:
    I said that most people who follow religions are probably peaceful, but the religions themselves are not peaceful. There are also some very aggressive and violent people who follow religions. How is it non-nonsensical to suggest that there are peaceful people following non-peaceful religions. They simply cherry pick the parts they believe in and go about their way.

    Pretty obvious stuff in my opinion.
    Yeah, all parts of religious scripts are equally sacred, but some parts are more sacred than others. (~C)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Then name some of these evil little green creatures and whose directives they performed. People have the right to know the truth. :cool:

    Yeah, all parts of religious scripts are equally sacred, but some parts are more sacred than others. (~C)
    Not little green creatures. Not inherently evil either. Just a group of people at some point in time who collectively began practicing the faith and essentially created it. (You'll notice that religions such as Christianity have changed overtime as people have gradually changed.) OT to NT. I wasn't there to see it happen, nor have I been around long enough to see it develop into what it is now, but all religions have a starting point in history. They didn't just come to be, people collectively began practicing faiths and that's how they are made.

    I assume that you agree with my second point, honestly, not picking up the hidden roast there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get it either, I'm as left as they come and I despise Islam. Despicable religion, far worse than Christianity.

    But that doesn't mean we should hate all Muslims as individuals (or Christians).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Left wing thought is inherently totalitarian. It probably started with Rousseau but it definitely got going with Marx. The individual is subsumed by the state.

    So leftists find a similarly totalitarian ideology intellectually sympathique I guess.

    Another reason is that it is a logical offshoot of political correctness and identity politics.

    Finally any opponent of the West, especially America is a friend and kindred spirit according to the left. And Jihadis certainly hate the West.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    Left wing thought is inherently totalitarian.
    There are two ideologies.

    One says "you didn't ask to be born into this world, but at least you have your own body. It's yours, you can do whatever you want with it. Prostitute it, harm it, improve it, exploit it, love it, whatever. It's yours.

    The other says "you didn't ask to be born into this world, but you still have an obligation to use your body to promote your family's beliefs and your country's values. I made you so I own you, I can tell you what to do to yourself."

    Which one sounds more totalitarian?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    carpetguy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    While I agree that racism is a common tool used by certain left wing groups on this issue, the compatibility of Islam and far left political ideologies seems to be more of a factor.

    The bathh party in Iraq openly merged with the communist party and the current civil conflict and occupation of a city in the Philippines was of a communist Islamist group. Just what issues they seem to disagree on seems idiosyncratic, as both demographics are willing to join together whenever the opportunity arises. After the fall of Sadamn the remnents of the communist part and Islamist theocrats formed isis, this marriage of ideologies seems to run deeper than accidently conflating Islam with race.

    On my phone so srry about not providing links or grammar.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CarmenK72)
    There are two ideologies.

    One says "you didn't ask to be born into this world, but at least you have your own body. It's yours, you can do whatever you want with it. Prostitute it, harm it, improve it, exploit it, love it, whatever. It's yours.

    The other says "you didn't ask to be born into this world, but you still have an obligation to use your body to promote your family's beliefs and your country's values. I made you so I own you, I can tell you what to do to yourself."

    Which one sounds more totalitarian?
    I made so I own you is inherently totalitarian. Islam preaches it, do as I wish, or you will burn in fires of hell goes the dogma. North Korea seems quite tame by comparison.

    The former isn't, but then neither is it particularly left wing. Left wing regimes, from the Jacobins down to modern China, feel THEY can tell you what to do with your body better than you. It exists for the state, for the leader,
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Why do alt righters love saying "libtard" "cuck" and "normies" ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's the extent of their large list of vocabulary obviously.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    i'm joking, don't maim me

    (Original post by iamux)
    Why do alt righters love saying "libtard" "cuck" and "normies" ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    I made so I own you is inherently totalitarian. Islam preaches it, do as I wish, or you will burn in fires of hell goes the dogma. North Korea seems quite tame by comparison.

    The former isn't, but then neither is it particularly left wing. Left wing regimes, from the Jacobins down to modern China, feel THEY can tell you what to do with your body better than you. It exists for the state, for the leader,
    Yeah, I hate Islam. Worse than Christianity

    The former is definitely left wing. Doing things for the glory of the state or leader is right wing, in that it's more skewed towards fascism.

    Liberals are far more honest with others in what they can do to their own bodies.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.