What do lefties on r9k think of Islam?

Religion is the opiate of the masses. All religions should be abolished.
Any other take is shit desu.
this
>moral compass
wew lad

>alt-lite tranny calling others insane

allah this post

Not all Islamic philosophy is bad. Sure there is the wife beating and throwing the gays off roofs, that much is true. But the underlying theme of the Koran is to submit oneself to God and to prostrate before Him and live as if God is ever present in your daily life. It was Mohammad who said something along the lines of "Worship God as if you see Him. Although you do not see Him, He sees you." Basically there are certain religious traditions and beliefs that are not necessarily in line with Western traditions (for example using Shari'ah as a form of Islamic jurisprudence) but are not ultimately evil. The point is, having an Islamic identity as a religious person is just as important as a Christian having a Christian heritage and identity. Or a Jew identifying as God's chosen people or some such.

btw I'm a conservitard who doesn't necessarily believe in God

Fair enough, but I don't even consider submitting to God to be something good. Blindly submitting to authority, especially when that authority authorizes some real fucked up shit is definitely not a good thing. It's not good for Christians or Jews to do it either.

I'm left leaning. Generally indifferent to Islam, and other religions. I hate jihadism, etc, though

>Why do lefties say "don't be islamophobic" when Islam is responsible for more terrorist attacks than white nationalists and incels combined?
White nationalism is a much worse problem in the U.S. at least. The issue is that conservatives and outright fascists use the atrocities committed by ISIS as a justification for violence against muslims within the U.S.

>Not to mention how women are treated under Sharia law.
No real leftist agrees with sharia law or thinks it should be implemented. Leftists would be the first to oppose any attempts to implement anything like Sharia law. Right wingers would be totally fine with it if it were rebranded to "christian values".

>Also, why do lefties compare criticizing a religious ideology, something you can choose or choose not to believe (in a free country) with criticizing things you have no control over, like skin color, gender, and mental illness.
It is fine to criticize islamic fundamentalism. The issue is that conservatives take this criticism of islamic fundamentalism and use it as a cudgel against any muslims, regardless of whether or not they are violent, what their political beliefs are, etc. Furthermore, they never seem to generalize their conclusions about islam to other abrahamic religions, like say, christianity.

I don't really care about social issues that much. Islam is pretty fucked, but its just the same shit as non-house trained Christianity. And right wigners get insanely triggered by it when sharia is just a very authoritarian right society.
But they do make for worse migrants. But im for easing all immigration the fuck up because it's only so high so neo-liberals can make more money because it puts downwards pressure on wages.
i'm not even sure how being pro immigratino became a left wing thing. It's incompatible with an integrated welfare state and its outcomes are generally economically right. Lower wages, more competition and economic growth. Reliance on the family more than state and market.

>The issue is that conservatives and outright fascists use the atrocities committed by ISIS as a justification for violence against muslims within the U.S.

name one that actively says that violence against innocent Muslims is okay

>It's incompatible with an integrated welfare state and its outcomes are generally economically right. Lower wages, more competition and economic growth.

This is actually correct. There are a number of conservatives and right wingers that are not totally opposed to immigration. What the question that most people on the right have with immigration is: are people who come into the country going to be a net benefit to society or a net loss. Meaning are they going to work, get educated, get involved with their communities, adopt american and western values, or are they going to mooch off the welfare system that the left loves to fund and bring over all 20 of their extended family members in? The left likes to construe these legitimate concerns with racism, bigotry, and white nationalism. Oh and also ILLEGAL immigration is what most people on the right don't like.

>name one that actively says that violence against innocent Muslims is okay
Actions speak louder than words. The Christchurch shooter is pretty emblematic of the white nationalist movement's opinion on what should be done with muslims.

Gavin Mcinnes, Joey Gibson, Trump, etc. are the enablers of likes of the Christchurch shooter. Do you really think fascists would come out into the open with their viewpoints? They know they aren't popular and that they can't seize power through popular movements.

Even Hitler at the height of his power would not conduct his atrocities in public view. There will never be a fascist who publicly states he wishes violence against muslims, just like there will never be such a thing as dehydrated water.

Leftist here. I hate Islam. But countries were founded on the principle of states that do not discriminate based on religion. That said the negative consequences of islamic immigration are too high to ignore. There should be a limit % of the islamic immigrant population based on empirical studies of when it becomes too costly or disruptive for your country.

I also believe the economic elites push for immigration to grab a hold of cheap labor and keep wages down.

dehydrated water is oxygen

Again, these people you mentioned have never openly incited violence towards Muslims. You're confusing the Christchurch's interpretations of their rhetoric to a call for violence. I'm specifically talking about a call to actively engage in violence against Muslims of which none of those people have done so. People on this board talk about Jew hating all the time and yet that isn't a call to shoot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh despite the shooter being influence by general anti-semetic rhetoric.

I'm a leftie who isn't keen on Islam - or any religion for that matter. I haven't done enough reading on the subject (or literally had any proper interaction or conversation with any Muslims as there aren't many where I live). I just have no respect for religions that propogate a totalitarian mindset of "I'm right, you must do this because of my holy book". How about you fuck off and stop telling people what to do and how to live.

I don't know much about Islam though and do admit that my views kind of just echo what I've read of christopher hitchens on the subject

you confuse dehydrated for dehydrogenated:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehydrate
>to remove bound water or hydrogen and oxygen from (a chemical compound) in the proportion in which they form water

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehydrogenate
>the removal of hydrogen from a chemical compound

>Again, these people you mentioned have never openly incited violence towards Muslims.
They don't need to, and they never will.

>You're confusing the Christchurch's interpretations of their rhetoric to a call for violence.
How else would you interpret their rhetoric? What other actions would you take if you were convinced by these people's rhetoric?

> I'm specifically talking about a call to actively engage in violence against Muslims of which none of those people have done so.
See first point.

>People on this board talk about Jew hating all the time and yet that isn't a call to shoot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh despite the shooter being influence by general anti-semetic rhetoric.
So you admit that it does influence people to commit acts of terror? If this isn't the intention, why haven't they shifted their rhetoric?

When I'm doing something that has negative consequences I didn't intend, I usually rethink what I'm doing. Yet they don't seem at all distressed by the results of their rhetoric, which leads me to believe these "side effects" are not nearly as unintentional as they'd like you to believe.

all these points can be summed up by saying that there is something that is called free speech. And that free speech is protected if it is not directly inciting violence. I don't like Trump's rhetoric or Gavin's or this fucking board on Jews, but it is still every person has a right to exercise their opinions and views so long as it is not an ACTIVE call to violence. All I'm saying is that no one is actively calling to commit acts of violence on innocence which is what you originally claimed.

>none of their leaders ever called for a mass genocide
You don't fucking say. What do you think would happen if they openly said that? It's a common tactic to evoke emotions and narratives that support your idea without explicitely saying it out loud.

>it's okay to be a fascist as long as you don't DIRECTLY invoke PHYSICAL violence
>but it's not okay if you try to limit one's freedom of speech who actively advocates forcefully taking away the freedom of speech of others
Damn, libertarians really believe THAT

>all these points can be summed up by saying that there is something that is called free speech. And that free speech is protected if it is not directly inciting violence. I don't like Trump's rhetoric or Gavin's or this fucking board on Jews, but it is still every person has a right to exercise their opinions and views so long as it is not an ACTIVE call to violence. All I'm saying is that no one is actively calling to commit acts of violence on innocence which is what you originally claimed.
My original point was simply explaining why the left does not take right wing criticisms of islam seriously, namely that it is a way to the right to further oppress muslims. Just because they don't go so far as to outright call for genocide does not mean that their rhetoric doesn't lead down that path.

Don't interpret any of this as a call for government regulation of free speech. I have seen that the government prefers to preserve the free speech of fascists and conservatives over leftists, so inevitably any restriction on free speech would invariably be enforced mostly against leftists.

my main issue with islam for the fact that Muhammad raped and married a child bride

to me thats just fucked up and its never talked about enough

Attached: 1876543234567.jpg (474x380, 24K)

if you adjust for life expectancy inflation then he she wasn't underage

Do you also blame Catholicism for the IRA? Or, if you swing the other way, do you blame Protestantism for the Black and Tans?

he was 53 she was 9 thats still extremely waaaaaaaaaaay too young for him even a 14yo wouldnt be as bad and to me that also disgusting

besides forcing kids to give birth makes them more prone to dying in childbirth what a freak lol

>t. manlet incel loser

yeah you're right. i was being edgy. it's obviously fucked up as heck

BECAUSE LEFTY POLITICS AREN'T BASED ON ESSENTIALISM ; YOU ONLY THINK THAT THE LEFT IS INCONSISTENT BECAUSE YOU ASSUME THEY HAVE THE SAME BASE ASSUMPTIONS AS THE RIGHT.

This is the only reasonable answer to this stupid question.

Can you elaborate on this for a brainlet?

The "right" doesn't have the same base assumptions either, otherwise they wouldn't have conservatives, libertarians, alt-right, new right and identitarians.

They have gone of the rails, they see that muslims have a slightly darker skin tone and immediately think that they must be oppressed and virtue signaling for them might earn them brownie points.
The current left is a fucking joke.

Attached: 1554975361945.png (680x680, 268K)

You can't be both progressive and condone Islam. You're just a normie sheeple who just accepts everything and doesn't know when to quit.

>people killed in islamic terrorist attacks in the past 2 decades: ~3000
>people killed in white nationalist terrorist attacks in the past 2 decades: 5?
>people killed in white nationalist terrorist attacks in the past century: 20
>"White nationalism is a much worse problem in the U.S. at least."

>caring about terrorist attacks
Left wingers hate all abrahamic religions.

Mecca and the Vatican and Israel all would need to be simultaneously nuked.

>t. transexual

Have kids and go donate plasma.

Islam should win to be honest.

>child denounces faith
>gets legally executed
It's shit. Most of the userbase would be killed by such people not just the lewd women and obnoxious gays.

Have you ever heard, seen, or read any of the shit trump fucking talks about?

>people killed in 9/11: 3,000
>people killed in the Iraq war: 460,000

>>people killed in white nationalist terrorist attacks in the past 2 decades: 5?
>>people killed in white nationalist terrorist attacks in the past century: 20
lmao sounds legit

Attached: Anders-Behring-Breivik-sm-010.jpg (300x180, 6K)

>ctrl+f "Wahabbism"
>no results
"Islam" as a religion isn't responsible for all those terrorist attacks you mention, it's the Saudi Wahabbist interpretation of it. And I do protest Saudi Arabia as much as white nationalism: we 100% need to stop providing them with arms sales and military aid when they're backing al-Qaeda-linked groups, committing horrific human rights abuses, and funding mosques overseas to preach their insane nonsense. Same with the UAE, Bahrain, etc.

sharia law is an attack in itself and with democracy being a valuable thing if they invade you now are forced into sharia law as most in Islam countries support it. Even the ones that move usually support it. They want to rape women for not wearing that silly head thing and kill children that grow out of religion.

I'm a "lefty" and I think Islam for the most part is a shit religion, but only in the Middle East. Muslims from America or Africa or Asia or Europe don't behave like middle eastern ones. But I don't hate anyone just because they belong to a racist religion and misogynistic culture.

I'm a leftist and I strongly disagree with Islam. I have no problem with muslims who are able to adapt to western culture while still maintaining aspects of their Islamic identity. The ones who cannot adapt though are an issue.

Also it's generally the enlightened centrists, or centre-left that are avidly pro-islam.

only based post on this thread
orgiganioeo

I don't like it but I know it's used as excuse by assholes to just be racist.

morality is a subjective measurement. Just because your favorite book was written about a heretical Jew doesn't mean that you are an objectively moral person
But typical christcuck, you're never actually going to accept this basic truth

Have sex
Incel tripfag

religion is opium of people, it's harmful, especially invasive religion like that, wasting so much time on some made up god.

> opium is bad

Whatever you say, hat-tipping pedo.

>White nationalism is a much worse problem in the U.S.
All interracial crimes in the USA can be blamed on anti-nationalism so white nationalists are among the most peaceful (the only ones more peaceful are the 10 people that aren't white nationalists and also don't hate white nationalists)

>Iraq war
>white nationalism
Was the war in Iraq actually in order to drive all the arabs away and establish an ethnostate for white americans over there?

Opium is great, until you run out

sauce: personal experience.

Is Norway a state in the northern US?

No but one would think that US economic protectionism is a far greater threat to humanity than muslim terrorism.

>Sharia law is just a ton of incels
I figured it out

Attached: 56DD9529-AEBA-4B86-85FD-3F2FA7B6B0CC.jpg (750x601, 221K)

>Islam is responsible for more terrorist attacks than white nationalists and incels combined?

In what context. Against Israel. Sure. Against Europe or America? Are you fucking stupid?

>Sharia law
You can guess how welcoming lefties would be to fundamentalist law enforcement.

>Also, why do lefties compare criticizing a religious ideology, something you can choose or choose not to believe (in a free country) with criticizing things you have no control over, like skin color, gender, and mental illness.

I don't know what you are talking about. SJW lefties? I don't think half qualified leftie would resort into pulling race card. Most muslims are brown, guess. Did I need to tell you this?

>It seems like honest lefties should be against Islam and protest it to the same degree as white nationalism and inceldom.

I really have not seen iceldom as big adversary on leftie politics. It's more like a joke and a sad one. Most incels are mentally off. White nationalism is panic, hysteria that could lead into disastrous events and immeasurable violence and injustice. Especially in mongrel nation like USA. So of course lefties would be against it.

Back to your question. Why not protest Islam? It's bit trickier since it is a religion. Also many who follow it are disadvantaged and lefties just love them. Problem is that Islam is very fragmented in way that it has more sects than Christianity that sometimes violently disagree with one another. Some sects are more compatible with leftist ideas than others. Also there are agents from Saudi Arabia that instigate unrest within muslim communities garnering hatred for them. In my opinion core idea of leftism is live and let live. Leftist do oppose cutting girls like rightist do but they have no racial dread driving them to choose so. Just logic.

>Why do lefties say "don't be islamophobic" when Islam is responsible for more terrorist attacks than white nationalists and incels combined? Not to mention how women are treated under Sharia law.
Islam is not a monolithic ideology, and neither are muslims a monolithic group of people. Most muslims are against terrorism and misogynist interpretations of sharia law. White nationalism meanwhile, is racist not matter what the variation is

>Also, why do lefties compare criticizing a religious ideology, something you can choose or choose not to believe (in a free country) with criticizing things you have no control over, like skin color, gender, and mental illness.
Because islam is as much a sociocultural identity, both chosen by and imposed upon individual muslims, both by muslim and non muslim societies. It would be near impossible for a muslim to dissociate himself from being identified as a muslim even if he wanted too

Of course. It's not related to white nationalism though.

>pedo is bad
Pedo isn't even real.

RELIGION BAD
KILL ALL SPOOK WORSHIPERS
THE ONLY LIFE WE HAVE IS THE ONE WE GET ON EARTH, LIVING OTHERWISE IS WASTING YOUR TIME AND ENERGY.
MAKE A STAND FOR HUMANITY

>Most muslims are against terrorism
right
>and misogynist interpretations of sharia law.
very wrong

Just as 9/11 isn't relevant in a debate on the current rise of white nationalism.

bump. gas the muslims! secular humanistic socialism now

we do not gas them. we are not barbarians. we send them to gulag so they can learn to praise comrade stalin while freezing to death in honorable service to the motherland

youtube.com/watch?v=AjlHmfgr_qU

i love how they yell "ALLAHU AKBAR!!" excitedly before they're about to do something

then when it goes wrong the camera man is like "allahu akbar.... :C"

Are you the same poster as that I replied to?

Yes but not who claimed, that white nationalism is a much worse problem in the US which I interpreted as a current problem unless you want to also go back to the times of segregation and further back which would lead us to the death count of the KKK.

>Also, why do lefties compare criticizing a religious ideology, something you can choose or choose not to believe (in a free country) with criticizing things you have no control over, like skin color, gender, and mental illness.

is funny because that's what right wings people take when you criticise christianity.

the obvious reason is you can criticise a religion, many left atheist do, you don't go against the people that believe in that religion the same way you can talk about christianity flaws but don't try to ban christians for coming to you country or don't speak to a christian.

is that easy

Religion should be a private thing and religios groups should not take a role in actual politics, see France and other european countries as examples.

>Religion should be a private thing and religious groups should not take a role in actual politics, see France and other european countries as examples.
Atheist "libertarians" will just use culture or any other form of tribalism to express their blatant rascism. Religion itself is fine, it's about keeping shit to yourself that seems to be an issue with some people.

>but the Catholic church is more evil as it's an organization that has real power here in the U.S. and that rapes children. Catholics should be put in camps and priests and church officials should be tortured and executed.
Wrong thread pal. This one is about Islam.

>However, I think that it is important for Muslims and Islam to keep it's own heritage and history and not adoptong Western values just to appease the West. Also, the radicals should stop blowing people up and beating women. That would be nice.
That's why it's better for them to stay in their own countries. Islam should be non-existent in the West, since it's shit.

>Not every muslim is a terrorist just like not every critic of Islam is a white nationalistic terrorist.
But there is no reason for them to come to the West. Since allowing them to immigrate invariably creates problems, it's ok to generalize.

I have some good news for you. White nationalism in the real world are nothing like the ones in your mind. They don't want to go back to that segregation.
There's also some bad news though. The interracial crime now has a much higher death count than the KKK. Fortunately there's a solution to both of those two sources of killing, it's called white nationalism.

>The point is, having an Islamic identity as a religious person is just as important as a Christian having a Christian heritage and identity. Or a Jew identifying as God's chosen people or some such.
As long as they stay in their assigned places in the planet.

>morality is a subjective measurement.
It isn't.
Morality is what produces a benign outcome for those who agreed upon and follow those moral principals.
If your morals conflict with the one's of a different group, then your actions would be imoral in their society, therefore you must leave.

The law and current death count says otherwise.

protip: you can be against terrorism and human rights violations while still supporting religious freedom. There's at least like, a few hundred muslims out there that aren't actively suicide bombing America. Gotta be.

>you can be against terrorism and human rights violations while still supporting religious freedom. There's at least like, a few hundred muslims out there that aren't actively suicide bombing America. Gotta be.
But in order to have a functioning nation, they need to stay out.

>it's called white nationalism.
But that's offensive to non-whites. You could argue that we can just segregate ourselves, but then they would have no one to feed them and to give them nice stuff.

Without the white man keeping them down, they'll become wakanda instantly and a type 3 civilization in just a few centuries. Meanwhile we'll probably go back to what we were before their wisdom was bestoved upon us and go back to the dark ages, I'm not sure about that though since Europe was diverse back then too

>it creates problems, it's okay to generalize
Why?

>white nationalists don't want to go back to segregation
It's either segregation, forceful assimilation or down right genocide what they want.
>the interracial crime now has a much higher death count that the KKK
Are you implying that interracial crime is always racially motivated?
>a solution to killing is more killing
Kill yourself then.
To what? Please don't use brainless one-liners where you can't explain your reasoning.

Classic strawman bait. Virtually no "leftie" supports Islamic terrorism.

1. Muslims can be as moderate as Christians, thus not all Muslims are bad. This is what people in the West are arguing when they say not to discriminate against Muslims solely because they are Muslim at all.

2. Islam can be critiqued, and should be, without condemning all Muslims. The same goes for all Faith's.

3. When critiquing Islam, one finds that it promotes inherently unjust (in the "lefty" sense) principals in a similar way Christianity and Judaism do, but is also uniquely interwoven with state building and thus Islamic governments and militants should be heavily criticized.

If someone holds left views and isn't your suburban meme fed lefty retard (of which there is an equivalent in virtually all respected ideologies) then they hold actual principals. They likely hold that someone's race, which they can not change, says little of their character and should not be grounds for judgement. They also likely hold that someone's religion does not inherently mean they condone the extremes found in all religions or held by extremist sects. Thus religion is not grounds for judgement and discrimination outright. They certainly also hold that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is chocked full of oppressive principals not compatible with left-thought. Thus, should someone take every word of the Quran as absolute truth then a "lefty" might despise their views in a similar way they despise the views of the extreme christian right or ethnonationalists. Lastly, despising ones views, according to principals of liberalism and the left, is no grounds to rescind someone's rights. Instead, they will just try to argue and yell at you to death.
There are plenty of retards on the American left, but the actual ideology is not inherently contradictory as this oft used strawman implies.

Attached: 1555927995917.gif (687x500, 1.48M)

>Why?
Because I don't want terrorist attacks happening in my neighborhood, and it's not only more convenient but also it's more effective to generalize in order to prevent this sort of thing.

>To what? Please don't use brainless one-liners where you can't explain your reasoning.
To your claim that white nationalism is a worse problem, let alone a problem at all.
Here is a muslim terror timeline.
since911.com/explore-911/terrorism-timeline

>It's either segregation, forceful assimilation or down right genocide what they want.
But the segregation can be voluntary in the form of freedom of association. Or at least establish different settlements for each group. It would benefit everyone.

>a solution to killing is more killing
White nationalism in reality is nothing like the thing in your imagination. The killings happen because some people thought that the different peoples should live in the same country. Both racist killings and interracial crime that isn't motivated by racism. With nationalism, we'd live in different countries.

>Are you implying that interracial crime is always racially motivated?
Does't matter. The point is that some groups are more inclined to commit violent crime than others. So the fact that these two groups coexist in the same country makes it a racial matter.

>With nationalism, we'd live in different countries.
And everyone would be happy with that.

>Muslims can be as moderate as Christians
But their book not only endorses but encourages violence. If they were really good people, they would resign their faith.

>anti (((usury)))
>women are expected to stay at home instead of working
>compatible with socialism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism
We Muslims only reject your modernity and Jewish corrupting influences so your crypto jews sanction and bomb our republics such as Syria Libya and iraq (next is iran) or install even more backwards and corrupt monarchies that kiss your ass like the Saudis.