Can someone explain to me the left's fetish with Islam?

Here is one, from that well know liberal paper, the Guardian, and quoting number of "lefty" cultural types attacking the Saudi regime

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/25/cultural-figures-human-rights-groups-call-release-ashraf-fayadh-poet-facing-execution

Although I genuinely don't know why I am indulging this strawman.

The left does no support Islam, left wingers just oppose the demonisation of the entire religion and all of its followers through the generalisation that every Muslim is a bomb wielding Salafist.

Look at the recent "crisis" about the US accepting the multitudes of Syrian refugees who aren't currently turning up on its border. When people get outraged at Donald Trump wanting a database of Muslims, do you think that is an indication of a fetish for Islam? Or of horror at the implications of such a thing?

Real Point wrote:

To help you out here just a bit (and really, your willful ignorance on this topic can only be broken by your own willful effort to wrestle with reality instead of fighting that little bogeyman 'lefty' who resides in your head) the following individuals are certainly liberals:

Bill Maher

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

They are also very well known. And VERY critical of Islam.

Now, please begin to think more clearly. You can start here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/bill-maher-dangerous-critique-of-islam-ben-affleck/381266/

Of course, it IS much easier to see the world in simplistic terms. But truthfully I had developed the impression over time that you were one of the few posters here on LRC who had a bit of respect for truth. Prove me right.

Ok I'll take those three. Points scored.

But

Maher is well known - the others are of course not well known at all outside the elite. Harris only cracked into my consciousness a few weeks ago. They don't influence politics, they don't influence campus thought, they don't write for the Washpo or NYT...

You seem to think I am anti-liberal. I am not. I am a proud Obama voter.

le veritable wrote:

Here is one, from that well know liberal paper, the Guardian, and quoting number of "lefty" cultural types attacking the Saudi regime

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/25/cultural-figures-human-rights-groups-call-release-ashraf-fayadh-poet-facing-execution

Although I genuinely don't know why I am indulging this strawman.

The left does no support Islam, left wingers just oppose the demonisation of the entire religion and all of its followers through the generalisation that every Muslim is a bomb wielding Salafist.

Look at the recent "crisis" about the US accepting the multitudes of Syrian refugees who aren't currently turning up on its border. When people get outraged at Donald Trump wanting a database of Muslims, do you think that is an indication of a fetish for Islam? Or of horror at the implications of such a thing?

Well said.

agip - play this ^ in your mind.

Look, I will happily concede that there are pockets of folks on the left who are unable to criticize Islam. One of them is composed of naive students who are virtually indistinguishable from the pocket of "lefty" students from when I was in school who could not criticize communism (in particular I remember many calling the Great Leader in North Korea a "visionary" who was simply misunderstood).

There will always be naive students. But to blanket the left with the silliness of this pocket (or to blanket Islam with the psychotic depravity of ISIS) is intellectual laziness. It is true that I expect better of you.

well I do appreciate the kind words. Seriously.

I do think you are putting words into my mouth and trying to pigeonhole me.

I think the terms here are just too broad for this kind of argument. I tend to think of prominent lefties as Krugman, Jon Stewart, Hillary Clinton, BHO, Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Ariana hufffington, Harry Reid, Oprah, Al Gore, Rahm Emmanuel, George Clooney, Chuck Schumer, NYT editorial board. You could name a different slate of liberals.

I tend to look at numbers for answers...and the facts are that Islam is a problem. on a different thread I established that something like 17/18 wars in the world today involve muslims. But there is a reluctance to put blame on Islam. I think it is because no brown people can be criticized in polite company for almost anything.

In the end we're not really arguing the same point.

You all are saying the main point is that all muslims shouldn't be tarred with the AQ/Daesh brush.

I'm saying something else - that countries like Iran and Saudi really, really shoudl be protested against and denounced every day til Sunday but they aren't.

So our discussion isn't really head to head.

agip wrote:

In the end we're not really arguing the same point.

You all are saying the main point is that all muslims shouldn't be tarred with the AQ/Daesh brush.

I'm saying something else - that countries like Iran and Saudi really, really shoudl be protested against and denounced every day til Sunday but they aren't.

So our discussion isn't really head to head.

I agree with this ^ .

I will also happily concede that you are the best poster on LRC - which is why I hold you to a higher standard.

It should be noted, regarding "countries like Iran and Saudi really, really should be protested against and denounced every day until Sunday" that Republican Presidents as well as Democrats have been in bed with the Saudis for a long, long time. And Iran? I don't really see a whole lot of folks heaping praise upon them from either the left or the right.

agip wrote:

I tend to look at numbers for answers...and the facts are that Islam is a problem. on a different thread I established that something like 17/18 wars in the world today involve muslims. But there is a reluctance to put blame on Islam...

I think that was the thread where nobody seemed willing to take on this:

"If the mental model that you have is to be considered the right framework for considering Islam (or at least on the right track) then it has to match world history since Islam was founded.

It is not enough to say that it seems to match the last 50 years as well as the first 50 years of the existence of Islam. If it doesn't match the reality of the 1200 years in between then the model must be discarded and you need to look at what ELSE has been going on in the last 50 years as a viable explanation for current events."

.[/quote]

well I do appreciate the kind words. Seriously.

I do think you are putting words into my mouth and trying to pigeonhole me.

I think the terms here are just too broad for this kind of argument. I tend to think of prominent lefties as Krugman, Jon Stewart, Hillary Clinton, BHO, Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Ariana hufffington, Harry Reid, Oprah, Al Gore, Rahm Emmanuel, George Clooney, Chuck Schumer, NYT editorial board. You could name a different slate of liberals.

I tend to look at numbers for answers...and the facts are that Islam is a problem. on a different thread I established that something like 17/18 wars in the world today involve muslims. But there is a reluctance to put blame on Islam. I think it is because no brown people can be criticized in polite company for almost anything.[/quote]

Most of those conflicts are the result of various Islamic insurgencies that draw direct and indirect support from the Saudi Wahabi sect of Islam. Most of ISIS and Al Qaeda can be traced back to Wahabism. The goal of Boko Haram is not to implement a moderate Muslim government along the lines of Malaysia. It is to bring about a Caliphate that is more extreme version of Saudi Arabia. And the revolutionaries in Tunisia were not trying to bring about the strictest interpretation of Sharia. They wanted democracy, economic reform and human rights. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism are all neutral. You can do whatever you want with them. You can use Christianity to justify polygamy and the rape of child wives as did Warren Jeffs and his cult. You can be devoutly Hindu and become the worlds most prolific suicide bombers as did the Tamil Tigers. You can be Jewish and assassinate the Prime Minister of Israel in order to stop peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Also, when you talk about liberal politicians, you now bring in the issue of diplomacy. If Trump is elected president and rounds up Muslims, do you think countries in the Middle East will let us use their airspace to carry out bombing missions against ISIS? Do you think intelligence services in Lebanon will tell us everything they are learning from Syrian refugees to help us target ISIS?

I don't accept the premise of the question.

Too many variables. Islam hasn't been the same for 1400 years - there is no constant.

And now that nuclear weapons exist we can't be so tolerant of the crazy- the human race could be obliterated - that's a new thing that changed everything.

Maybe I'm missing the point of your question, but I don't think it is valid since there is no stable "islam" through the centuries.

Anyway - Here's the latest Maher - the convo on this bit could be you and me. he's arguing that we can't ignore that a large portion of muslims even in moderate islamic countries are for things utterly against western priniciples. His opponent says 'we shouldnt' talk that way, it's mean'

I would approach this conversation systematically in terms of: percentages of population, probability of events, and severity of events.

Some questions that fall out from this:

- what is the [percentage of people] of a particular religion that commit so-called religion-based violence?

- what is the [percentage of people] of a particular religion that do not condemn, in words AND actions, violent acts conducted in the name of their religion?

- what is the [probability] of the violent-prone [percentage] actually committing an act?

- given an act of religious-based violence takes place, what is the [severity] of the action?

Fill in these factors with numbers based on your knowledge, establish a threshold, and then determine where the muslim religion places.

Because the hatred of Islam has been ginned up by lies from right wing Zion*sts.

Look at your post -- you've been taken in!

No, actually it could not be you and me. Your implicit suggestion that I am arguing (or ever would argue) along the lines of "we shouldnt' talk that way, it's mean" displays a profound and willful ignorance on your part that is so far beneath the perspective that I have had of you as to certainly make me question my mental model.

You should be ashamed of how low you have fallen here. Seriously think about rebooting your mental processes on this topic

Geez.

dingle wrote:

It's called tolerance.

Then where is the tolerance for Conservatives and Christians? There is outright vitriol against them from a lot of the same people that embrace muslims.

Then again, a lot of the people doing this are the same college kids that are demanding "safe spaces", while at the same time holding rallies and screaming at people and spitting on people with differing opinions than them.

It's the Occupation of Palestine, stupid.

Real Point wrote:

To help you out here just a bit (and really, your willful ignorance on this topic can only be broken by your own willful effort to wrestle with reality instead of fighting that little bogeyman 'lefty' who resides in your head) the following individuals are certainly liberals:

Bill Maher

Richard Dawkins

Sam Harris

They are also very well known. And VERY critical of Islam.

Now, please begin to think more clearly. You can start here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/bill-maher-dangerous-critique-of-islam-ben-affleck/381266/

Of course, it IS much easier to see the world in simplistic terms. But truthfully I had developed the impression over time that you were one of the few posters here on LRC who had a bit of respect for truth. Prove me right.

The irony.

Maher, Dawkins, and Harris all routinely point out liberals' collective unwillingness to criticize Islam.

agip wrote:

I tend to look at numbers for answers...and the facts are that Islam is a problem. on a different thread I established that something like 17/18 wars in the world today involve muslims. But there is a reluctance to put blame on Islam. I think it is because no brown people can be criticized in polite company for almost anything.

There are a multitiude of reasons as to why so many conflicts involve Muslims, and specifically radical Islamism.

Bear in mind that the emergence of this Jihadi ideology is a product of the last 40 or so years, until even two decades ago, the vast majority of war was along nationalist lines. So to pinpoint Islam as the root cause is grotesquely simplistic.

The fact is, Islamism emerged as a force in part due to the Wahhabi sect and the Saudis, but also for loads of other reasons, including the unpopular regimes of "secular" dictators (Assad plays a huge part in the emergence of ISIS); the lack of economic growth and opportunity in the Middle East and North Africa; western intervention (like it or not, both recent things like the invasion of Iraq and the ridiculous borders drawn up by the colonial powers). And, crucially, the rise of Islamism has been driven by exactly the same forces that have caused the Front national in France or Trump in the US to emerge - globalisation and both the decline of the nation state's ability to provide for its citizens and resentment at those who have seemed to benefit from it.

Islamism emerged because it was able to provide a simple narrative of people to blame for everything that was wrong in people's lives, especially when it seemed to chime with their experiences of poverty and repression by local dictators or the west or whatever.

Also, hatred of Western standards is not unique to Muslims, there is plenty of it among Christians in Africa, Hindus in India and even Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe.

[quote]agip wrote:

here - play this in your mind -

can you imagine

Any country other than Israel having the juice to extort the American taxpayer to the tune over over $3.5 billion per year? Then trying to interfere with out pols and get us dragged into a war with Iran and then, failing to achieve that, start whining that they must be compensated by raising their annual welfare check to $5 billion?

and yet somehow the christian nations andt he buddhist nations manage to live without constant war. They found a way to deal with bad governments, globalism, "decline of the nation state's ability to provide etc..."

You cite mostly true issues, but they are true around the world yet other groups manage them much better.