Leftie Students Are Completely Silent on the Bigotry of Islam

[LuisDantas]

My best guess is that left-wing thought is somewhat predisposed to presume, perceive and denounce situations where a "western" power of either governmental or corporative nature causes damage to a native culture out of greed.

And since from the very Qur'an Islaam presents itself as the victim of unfair persecution (because otherwise it could not justify its own imperialism and persecution), the first reflex would indeed be to side with the Muslims.

Of course, that is a tentative explanation, not a justification. Any school of thought has a duty to try and get the facts before being that judgemental.

As for Islamophoby, it is indeed such a deeply loaded term that is has become quite useless. In common usage, it is used to any and all criticisms and questionings of Islaam and/or Muslims, which ill serves anyone.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who would you want to sign it, any way? Who speaks for all Muslims in your country?

They have their representatives...as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists do...so, yes ...it is an organized religion.

 

[icehorse]

Why is that a dishonest term and why would use or application of it necessarily have anything to do with "left?"

With all due respect: Your questions could be taken as not being in good faith, perhaps as a form of sea-lioning.

Can you clarify why you're asking these questions, they seem well within the realm of common knowledge for anyone who would respond in this thread, no?

 

[Quintessence]

The American left has showed double standards too many times, that is: it is ok to criticize Christianity...and in fact I never hear of the term Christianophobia from them.

I don't find the politicalization of this topic to be at all useful. I don't know what "the left" is (or what "the right" is for that matter). Considering having "double standards" is universally human regardless of political labels, why not frame the entire discussion differently? Why not instead point out that "while it is important to be critical of anti-Islamic sentiment given Islam is a diverse religious demographic, it is also important to not overlook human rights violations done by some members of Islamic traditions." Why politicize it at all? I don't see the point.

 

[stvdv]

Why, in your opinion, they are the only religious denomination, in my country, which hasn't signed an agreement with the state yet?

In my country a religion can be officially recognized only if their representatives sign an agreement with the state (very inflexible, I admit it) where they accept to recognize their juridic subordination to the secular laws and the Constitution.
Like gender equality, monogamous matrimony, etc...

These are the religious denominations that signed the agreement:
- RCC
- Six Protestant Churches (Waldensians, Lutherans, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals, Apostolicals)
- Orthodox Church
- LDS Church
- JW
- Judaism
- Buddhism
- Hinduism

Great that your country let them sign this.
Islam will never do that. If you read Quran verse 5:51

And I was just about to mail Geert Wilders he can use this verse in his advantage.
Thanks for sharing the italian way. That's the way to deal with it.
Pope is smart. Must have read this verse.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

They have their representatives...as Jews, Hindus, Buddhists do...so, yes ...it is an organized religion.

I didn't say it wasn't. I asked who speaks for all of them? Who could sign such a thing on all of their behalf? I'd be interested to see a non biased source for more information on this matter, too. I still haven't heard why this is a reason to be anti-Islam, any way.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Great that your country let them sign this.
Islam will never do that. If you read Quran verse 5:51

And I was just about to mail Geert Wilders he can use this verse in his advantage.
Thanks for sharing the italian way. That's the way to deal with it.
Pope is smart. Must have read this verse.

...the heck are you talking about??

 

[David1967]

In my country a religion can be officially recognized only if their representatives sign an agreement with the state (very inflexible, I admit it) where they accept to recognize their juridic subordination to the secular laws and the Constitution.
Like gender equality, monogamous matrimony, etc...

As any group / religion moving to another country should. How could it possibly be objectionable to be expected to follow the laws of the nation you are moving to?

 

[David1967]

These are the religious denominations that signed the agreement:
- RCC
- Six Protestant Churches (Waldensians, Lutherans, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals, Apostolicals)
- Orthodox Church
- LDS Church
- JW
- Judaism
- Buddhism
- Hinduism

Good for them!

 

[David1967]

Well...they said they cannot accept our secular law because it's too strict. Or quoting their representative "it looks like a police-state imposition"

The answer? Don't move there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't find the politicalization of this topic to be at all useful. I don't know what "the left" is (or what "the right" is for that matter). Considering having "double standards" is universally human regardless of political labels, why not frame the entire discussion differently? Why not instead point out that "while it is important to be critical of anti-Islamic sentiment given Islam is a diverse religious demographic, it is also important to not overlook human rights violations done by some members of Islamic traditions." Why politicize it at all? I don't see the point.

Is that actually making the matter political, though?

There is considerable evidence that the matter is indeed strongly correlated to political stances. It may very easily be misleading to fail to point out that it is a left-wing phenomenom.

 

[David1967]

When Trump tried to ban all Muslims from emigrating to the U.S., that's "religious bigotry".

Was he specifically banning Muslims from certain countries, or was the travel ban for all people from those countries?

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't find the politicalization of this topic to be at all useful. I don't know what "the left" is (or what "the right" is for that matter). Considering having "double standards" is universally human regardless of political labels, why not frame the entire discussion differently? Why not instead point out that "while it is important to be critical of anti-Islamic sentiment given Islam is a diverse religious demographic, it is also important to not overlook human rights violations done by some members of Islamic traditions." Why politicize it at all? I don't see the point.

The OP contextualized the debate in the US and politicized it. I didn't.
As a foreigner, I see that the debate is indeed politicized.
Hillary condemns Islamophobia...while Mike Pence complains about Christianophobia...

Thanks for sharing the italian way. That's the way to deal with it.
Pope is smart. Must have read this verse.

Thank you ...but it's the Italian Republic...not the Pope

 

[LuisDantas]

I didn't say it wasn't. I asked who speaks for all of them? Who could sign such a thing on all of their behalf? I'd be interested to see a non biased source for more information on this matter, too. I still haven't heard why this is a reason to be anti-Islam, any way.

I am not actually aware of the specifics, but there is no need for any one organization or person to speak for all of Italy's Muslims, as long as the most significant groups have established representatives that agree to sign.

According to this news piece, at least, it is possible to find such representatives and negotiate with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ge-that/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.328b8df10d7f

And failure to clearly acknowledge the authority of the government over that of their faith in matters of law is certainly grounds for questioning the extent of their legal rights. That is true for Muslims as for anyone else. It just turns out that Muslims are the noticeable objectors.

 

[metis]

Was he specifically banning Muslims from certain countries, or was the travel ban for all people from those countries?

His original ban was against all Muslims from any country emigrating here, which he altered only after a federal court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[David1967]

His original ban was against all Muslims from any country emigrating here, which he altered only after a federal court ruled it unconstitutional.

Thanks Metis.

 

[metis]

Just a short note to say that there are no pope-types in Islam, so it isn't organized as you see it in Catholicism. Much like Judaism, there are different branches, and some of them don't get along with with each other. The Sunni/Shi'i division has historically been brutal, for example.

 

[Estro Felino]

[/QUOTE]

Much like Judaism, there are different branches, and some of them don't get along with with each other. .

But there are the representatives of religious communities.
In fact the UCEI Unione Comunità Ebraiche Italiane signed tha agreement.

The UCOII Unione delle Comunità Islamiche d'Italia didn't want to sign the agreement.

Underlining the text of this agreement is identical

 

[metis]

But there are the representatives of religious communities.
In fact the UCEI Unione Comunità Ebraiche Italiane signed tha agreement.

The UCOII Unione delle Comunità Islamiche d'Italia didn't want to sign the agreement.

Underlining the text of this agreement is identical[/QUOTE]
Just because there are representatives doesn't mean that these representatives will always be in agreement. On top of that, since Islam is what we call a "desert religion". Much of the emphasis is put on the individual, so the individual is not always expected to tow the "company line". Same is true in Judaism with the exception of the chasidim. OTOH, Christianity tends to more emphasize conformity, which is why there are roughly 30,000 denominations.

 

[metis]

Just because there are representatives doesn't mean that these representatives will always be in agreement. On top of that, since Islam is what we call a "desert religion". Much of the emphasis is put on the individual, so the individual is not always expected to tow the "company line". Same is true in Judaism with the exception of the chasidim. OTOH, Christianity tends to more emphasize conformity, which is why there are roughly 30,000 denominations.

I would like to see a thread where someone can actually name all roughly 30,000. That would be something.[/QUOTE]
You might want to correct your use of the QUOTE on the above post-- or death by a thousand insults!