-6

What is everyone's thoughts on the "left' constantly apologizing for the actions of islam when it is used to justify injustice?

Submitted by conishuser in AskRaddle

It seems like a lot of people on the left more closer to the center than here have this obsession with "caring about lgbt rights" only when it is convenient for them. Sure they stand with lgbt people as a baseline, but when someone who follows islam suggests that they can not support lgbt people because it "goes against their relgion" the "left" becomes more supportive of them than lgbt people often times.

The left also calims to be against "islamaphobia" despite the fact that islam is just like any other relgion, and is opressive at its core, should be feared as much as any other religion, and often times used by a lot of bad people to justify a lot of bad things. Now obliviously this is not to say that all Muslims are bad imo (they are not), but more of the fact that as a religion Islam is not a postive thing even if the majority of people who follow it may be fine.

To me it seems like we should be against islam just like any other relgion. Is their some reason islam is special that I am missing?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

tranarchy wrote

apologizing for the actions of islam

Islam cannot act, it is a concept, not a person.

It seems like a lot of people on the left more closer to the center than here have this obsession with "caring about lgbt rights" only when it is convenient for them.

If you care about LGBT rights, you should care about the freedom of LGBT Muslims to practice their religion. Intersectionality and all that. Do you think gay Muslims are defending or protecting homophobic Muslims by practicing their religion? Do you think you know their religion better than they do?

Opposition to homophobia and transphobia is simply that, opposition to homophobia and transphobia. Since there exist gay and trans Muslims, then that means that Islam cannot be inherently homophobic and transphobic, otherwise LGBT Muslims would not exist.

Certainly there exist issues regarding LGBT rights within Muslim communities, both in the West and elsewhere, but the same goes for literally every community outside of the ethereal LGBT community itself. Homophobia and transphobia are issues that transcend religion. The Soviet Union severely restricted religious activities, and they also criminalized homosexuality. Restricting religious rights does nothing to help LGBT people.

The left also calims to be against "islamaphobia" despite the fact that islam is just like any other relgion, and is opressive at its core, should be feared as much as any other religion, and often times used by a lot of bad people to justify a lot of bad things.

That's because Islamophobia is fundamentally, inseparably based around xenophobia, racism, nationalism, white supremacy, and Christian supremacy. Religion is not oppressive at its core, religious institutions forming the basis of communities and nations are, and in the West there aren't Islamic institutions with any real power. Muslims in the West are as a class oppressed, not oppressive. If you want to rail against an oppressive Islamic power structure, go to a place where there exists a Muslim majority that effects government decision-making and upholds religious authority and supremacy. In the West, the oppressive religious authority you're looking for is Christianity.

Now obliviously this is not to say that all Muslims are bad imo (they are not), but more of the fact that as a religion Islam is not a postive thing even if the majority of people who follow it may be fine.

No religion has any inherent moral value. It is only when people practice it that its ethics can be examined. The gay and trans Muslims are just as much Muslims as the homophobes and transphobes. They are practicing Islam. They obviously consider it to be a positive force in their lives despite the disagreement of other Muslims. Islam has to be examined not only from the perspective of those who use it as an excuse to do harm, but also from the perspective of those who use it as an inspiration to do good, just like every religion should be.

The domination of religious practice by hierarchical, authoritarian institutions making decrees and laws does not preclude the existence of libertarian religious practices, any more than the existence of an oppressive state precludes the existence of democratic and libertarian social organizations. Corporations exist, but that doesn't mean worker co-ops can't.

Is their some reason islam is special that I am missing?

The practitioners of Islam, in the West, are victims of racist, fascist, and nationalist violence, and should be defended from that violence as should any other person, and that includes recognizing that Islam is not a special case, not different from any other religion. Islam is singled out by racists and fascists and nationalists as something fundamentally different from Christianity because racists and fascists and nationalists want to further Christian supremacy (and yes, there exist atheists among those bigots furthering Christian supremacy, you don't have to be a Christian to be a bigot).

If you are anti-religious, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you can throw Muslims under the bus when we're up against a blatant fascist threat. Defending against this threat means supporting those who are victimized by it, which means supporting the lives and liberty of Muslims against those trying to take it from them. If you want to protect the rights and the lives of the downtrodden, and you live in a country where Muslims are a victimized minority, that means protecting Muslims and their right to practice whatever religion they desire as long as they're not harming other people. Attack the real issues: patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, xenophobia, capitalism, etc. Support the voices of Muslims who speak out against these issues. Realize the fact that there do exist Muslims who are not dangerous despite practicing a religion, and that they are under attack by actually dangerous people.

If someone is practicing a religion in a way that does not harm anyone, why should they be stopped? We don't need to burn books and erase cultures to dismantle oppressive social structures.

3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Oh hey, it's the "all religion is bad and wrong please suck my enlightened dick" brigade.

2

selver wrote (edited )

99% of the mainstream criticisms of Islam are just jingoist racism, in North America at least, I can't speak for other places.

1

Anarcropolis wrote

Why do we defend christains despite the catholoic church's pedophilia and colonialism and oppression of lgbtq+?

Why do we defend men when some rape and kill innocents?

A: We don't. We criticize the systems of power not the vague religious beliefs or identities of those groups.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Why would 'we' be against any religion? How is someone's spiritual beliefs any of our fucking business? Being against the rulers of religions (like the pope) isn't the same as being against the people that follow the religion.

someone who follows islam suggests that they can not support lgbt people because it "goes against their relgion" becomes more supportive of them than lgbt people

Bullshit. I'm no fan of the 'left' but no leftist tells LGBTQ people to shut up and take oppression from an authoritarian bigot, whatever religion they use to justify their bigotry (Christianity most often). You're just spewing the usual far right talking points from the boring bright-white echo chambers that are insulated from the real world.

All you know about the left is what chucklehead rich white boys that have never had a bad day in their lives meme about the left on voat.

-1

conishuser wrote

I never said this is all of the left though, just a small faction of it. I put left in quotes for a reason. You would have to be a fool indoctrinated by voat to believe this is how most of it is.

But their are segmants of the left that are like this is my point.

Also imo religion is a structure of leaders is it not? Spirituality is ones own beliefs. I could phrase what you are saying as "I dislike the people in the government but I dont actually dislike the government". It makes no sence. Part of going after the corrupt leaders is going after the corrupt institutions they lead too. It would be like killing trump to get rid of corruption, but then holding another "election"right afterwards and electing another person from one of the two parties.

5

ziq wrote (edited )

No it's like hating citizens for their state's actions.

Worshippers aren't in the 'government' (clergy). Hating worshippers for their rulers' (clergy) actions is like hating all Americans for their genocidal state's actions.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm non-religious and generally opposed to almost all religious belief structures. But to be fair, religion does not require hierarchy. The Unitarian Universalists and some variants of Buddhism, for example, don't have a hierarchy of authority.

You'll find the left very splintered, and thus zig has no regard for members of the left that would prioritize a defense of Islam over GLBTQ+ rights.