Well they're different things, so there's no especial name in particular. It's like, what do you call someone who's a leftist and a pantheist? Or a rightist and a henotheist?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Is Wrong With Those Leftists Who Support Islam?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Well they're different things, so there's no especial name in particular. It's like, what do you call someone who's a leftist and a pantheist? Or a rightist and a henotheist?
The West's hands aren't clean, of course. But nuance can be tricky.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Then why do 'left socially and left economically' and 'right socially and right economically' have names?
This makes no sense at all.
Interesting. Personally (and I could be wrong), I view "socially left/right" as generally relative to individual countries' or regions' politics. Usually, a "centrist" in the U.S. is absolutely off-the-charts left of a "liberal" in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make sense to me to compare the labels as if they were universal.
It doesn't make sense that people say 'left socially' and 'right socially', correct. That doesn't mean anything. It's like being right and left epistemologically or something. Doesn't really have a proper meaning. Left and right are politico-economic.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
Oh the westerners....they come to your land for oil and proclaim you as bad people because you decide to defend your lands.
See, I think that makes plenty of sense, except that the words best used there are socially progressive/conservative.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
The British came to the Middle East because the Muslim Ottoman Empire fell apart as a direct result of interfering in a war between European powers. If the victorious side in WW1 hadn't taken up governance of former Ottoman territories Muslims today would be complaining about how it's the West's fault they live in a bunch of ****ty failed states.
All the Westerners did that, did they? There are hundreds of millions of them, with varying views about all sorts. Many people in the UK were vigorously protesting against the Iraq War, for example. Also, there's a bit more than oil involved in all this - can we say KSA is blameless just because it's the USA and UK who bankroll them
But should human rights be thrown under the bus along the way? I think not.
I don't know how many times you're going to have to say this on here lol.
I don't support many Islamic beliefs. I think that Islam is part of the cause of the turmoil in the ME, along with the economic, political, and cultural aspects (which only serve to fuel this preference for the harsher, more radical Islamic interpretations).
But I do not think that Islam is inherently bad. I do not think that all Muslims want to kill people. I have Muslim coworkers who treat me with nothing but respect and kindness.
My hope is that Islam will eventually become more like Christianity: a bit tamer, less literal, less strict, more liberal. But, like Christianity, there will likely always be pockets of radical fundamentalists.
I don't know if this means I support their ideology (I mean, where are these "SJWs" who actually support the burka or stoning adulterers or killing gay people?), but I think it's probably the common sentiment among liberals.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
No. They came because they needed oil. Their ships were running on coal.
I didn't realize we Arab atheists came to take oil from our own homelands. Must be why millions of Muslims believe we should be killed. Self-defense and all, you know.
A great-grandfather of mine spent three years in Palestine/Lebanon/Syria fighting the Ottomans in WWI. And bloody lived, somehow.
Not only that. There is IMO a huge danger in running so readily to the excuse that there was "foreign manipulation".
People can't very well present themselves as easily manipulated to the point of engaging into mutual destruction when they would presumably know better otherwise without raising the question of whether they should be left alone at all.
There is a direct contradiction between appeals for "sovereignity" (fictional and counterproductive a concept as it is) and claims that their internal faults are "foreigners'" fault.
Oftentimes it feels like many Muslims haven't quite decided - or even noticed any distinction - between demands for their own autonomy and demands for being guided in a presumably autrustic way by someone else.
Great question! I like Steven Pinker's idea: If you're standing at the North Pole, every direction is South. Similarly, Pinker says that a "Left Pole" has been created, and if you're standing there, every direction is Right.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
Well yeah. Western leaders represent their entire nation.
Great question! I like Steven Pinker's idea: If you're standing at the North Pole, every direction is South. Similarly, Pinker says that a "Left Pole" has been created, and if you're standing there, every direction is Right.
Who would you say stands on that pole? I assume you are referring to social "leftism" (i.e. progressivism) rather than politico-economic leftism.