Why do liberals like Islam when Islamic Sharia law condemns homosexuals to death?

[sedonaman]

Yes and she wanted to do this to control the family sizes of “poor brown people”. it is glossed over and swept under the carpet.

Yes. What Sanger said is what the Party says she said.

 

[robwar]

Sharia law is divine law based on the Koran and Sunnah. yes Sharia law has a number of variants in different countries. Sharia law is being used in Muslim dominate communities such as Dearborn Mi to justify attacks on Christians when they peacefully demonstrate at Muslim rallies and silence free speech. Our law system whether someone likes it or not IS based on Judeo/Christian values and views. Sharia Law is not based on the same things. An easy google search will bring up numerous web sties that are tracking and documenting the use of Sharia law in our courts. There are many many cases. Sharia law is the goal of Islamist movements and that is directly from Wikipedia. It is accompanied by controversy, violence and even warfare. There are discussion to ban the use of Sharia law in different states. Catholic do not demand the court to use Cannon Law nor do Jews demand the use of the Torah or Talmund in their disputes. This is the issue at hand and what the thread is about.

 

[datritle]

I understand how it may seem like that, and to some extent it may be A LITTTTLE bit like that, sometimes. but what is really happening is they see that american muslims are so hated, they naturally want to stand up for them in their defense. don’t demonize people so quickly…

 

[mafh]

With all do respect to you wanting to defend Sharia law, in areas with large Muslim populations, they do want judges to use Sharia Law. You do not want to live under Sharia law. You would be supporting stoning for adultery, hands and feet being cut off for stealing. Women are treated as second class citizens under Sharia law. A women’s testimony is only given half the weight of a man. That is why rape is often results in the victim being stoned to death. A man can have up to 4 wives under sharia law. While this thread is why liberals ( and I think they mean the press) seems to support Islam and Sharia law, the bigger issue is the way Sharia law treats women. That is scarier than anything else and show the hypocrisy of modern liberal feminism.

As I said in my original post, I was really only talking about American Muslims, which are the only group I have any direct personal experience with.

Most of what you are describing are human rights violations that don’t happen in the US, and I know of no Muslim American that endorses these practices. When it comes to human rights violations in other countries, no matter what the justification, I generally trust the reports from Human Rights Watch: hrw.org/. If you read their reports, you will notice that they don’t condemn any entire religion as you seem to be doing, but instead focus on particular specific practices and events that violate human rights. Any religion or philosophy can be used, and has been used, to justify human rights violations.

 

[ForrestDupre]

Above all, most liberals despise Western capitalism and the individual freedom and responsibility that capitalism is built on. Same with most Islamists.

 

[superamazingman]

Above all, most liberals despise Western capitalism and the individual freedom and responsibility that capitalism is built on. Same with most Islamists.

 

[pismopal]

The Crusades.

Several religious groups have borne fruit that was not so sweet.

Yes…as a matter of fact the "Crusades’ were a direct result of Islamic violence against Christian pilgrims who were being enslaved, robbed and murdered on their way to the Holy Land. Thanks for the reminder, only that wasn’t what you had in mind was it?
By the way…what were muslim armies doing in France when Charles Martel “The Hammer” defeated them and threw them out? Defending their pilgrims on the way to visit the Eifle Tower?

 

[sedonaman]

Yes…as a matter of fact the "Crusades’ were a direct result of Islamic violence against Christian pilgrims who were being enslaved, robbed and murdered on their way to the Holy Land. Thanks for the reminder, only that wasn’t what you had in mind was it?
By the way…what were muslim armies doing in France when Charles Martel “The Hammer” defeated them and threw them out? Defending their pilgrims on the way to visit the Eifle Tower?

 

[Crescentinus]

Yes…as a matter of fact the "Crusades’ were a direct result of Islamic violence against Christian pilgrims who were being enslaved, robbed and murdered on their way to the Holy Land. Thanks for the reminder, only that wasn’t what you had in mind was it?
By the way…what were muslim armies doing in France when Charles Martel “The Hammer” defeated them and threw them out? Defending their pilgrims on the way to visit the Eifle Tower?

^This!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by sedonaman
The myth that fascism is on the extreme right is maintained to this day because Hitler and Stalin were enemies in WW-II. But they conveniently forget that up until the invasion of Russia, they had been allies. Having a sympathetic press also helps perpetuate this myth.

I view it as on par with claims that the KKK isn’t racist.

Do you agree that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist? She actually gave a talk to the KKK as a guest speaker. She, like Hitler, was obsessed with eugenics. And today liberals believe she was a hero.

So what?

What does the racism (or lack thereof) of Sanger have to do with whether or not Fascism is right-wing?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

“The problem with liberals is they know a lot of things that are just not true.” – Ronald Reagen.

How many times was this conservative icon married again?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

With all do respect to you wanting to defend Sharia law, in areas with large Muslim populations, they do want judges to use Sharia Law. You do not want to live under Sharia law. You would be supporting stoning for adultery, hands and feet being cut off for stealing. Women are treated as second class citizens under Sharia law. A women’s testimony is only given half the weight of a man. That is why rape is often results in the victim being stoned to death. A man can have up to 4 wives under sharia law. While this thread is why liberals ( and I think they mean the press) seems to support Islam and Sharia law, the bigger issue is the way Sharia law treats women. That is scarier than anything else and show the hypocrisy of modern liberal feminism.

HOW?

Support for Sharia law is hardly a defining tenet of modern liberal feminism.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

there have been a number of cases in Michigan and else where that the people involved were Muslim and wanted the court to consider and use Sharia Law. I don’t want to see any one harassed Muslim or not, here or anywhere. I think this thread would be better titled using main stream media, ( the main news outlets, channels etc) and the often glossing over, over looking Islam, its history, its practice and what really goes on in Muslim dominated countries. There is too much fear if we say anything that is considered negative about Islam**. When the Danish cartoonist published cartoons about Muhammed, there was such an uproar and death threats over it from all over. Instead of defending freedom of speech, the media condemned the publication. but if the Pope is made fun of, do you see Catholics make death threats? No, you find the news media just go along. This is a double standard that I think many posts on this thread are upset about. When the Dutch film maker made a documentary about what happens to women in Muslim countries, he is murdered yet, the main stream media hardly blinks about it. The horrible attack on the Sikh temple is terrible but the media want to paint it as a mistaken crime to target Muslim because the men wear a turbine**. I don’t think that most liberals really want or support Sharia Law or Islam. But the dominate media in this country is showing its bias and doing the usual dishonest job in reporting. There have been schools in places like California where students were to learn Muslim prayers and recite them but ban all other prayers. It’s a double standard that is wrong.

I believe that there is a double standard (to some extent) but its due to fear.
Fear of offending Muslims and them becoming violent (as you mentioned), more than anything else.

I think the important question is, why did we get to this point?
And how do we change things?

Frankly I think Islam deserves to be mocked even more than Catholicism and the other major Christian denominations. There are many distasteful aspects to the religion in practice, especially with regard to its treatment of women (I honestly think its only a matter of time until Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan start aborting most of their baby girls the way that China and India already are).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Above all, most liberals despise Western capitalism and the individual freedom and responsibility that capitalism is built on. Same with most Islamists.

You’re thinking of Western conservatives
Liberals don’t want to legislate the sex lives of unmarried (and all too often married) adults.

Christian conservatives and Islamists DO want to legislate what goes on the bedroom, including what commercial products can be used (like sex-toys and candoms).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by ForrestDupre
Above all, most liberals despise Western capitalism and the individual freedom and responsibility that capitalism is built on. Same with most Islamists.

Historically speaking, promoting/defending freedom is a liberal thing to do. Not a conservative one (for instance, during the American Revolution conservatives stayed loyal to the British crown, the rebels were the liberal ones).

 

[sedonaman]

How many times was this conservative icon married again?

Sounds like an ad hominem. What does it have to do with his observation of liberals?

 

[sedonaman]

… Historically speaking, promoting/defending freedom is a liberal thing to do. Not a conservative one (for instance, during the American Revolution conservatives stayed loyal to the British crown, the rebels were the liberal ones).

Ray has written about this.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=4F727F1C-01F2-44AA-93B1-ECCB922B38C3

 

[dzheremi]

The way this whole issue is being discussed is stupid. “Liberals just don’t GET IT”, “Conservatives are hypocrites”, etc. You think this is somehow helping to educate people on Shari’a and why we should/n’t be worried about the attempts to impose it in Western societies?

As to the actual question of the OP, I think there is a correlation between the level of acceptance of Islam and the level of acceptance of so-called “multiculturalism” as a goal or a program or whatever to be advocated for in a particular society (not just the USA with its liberal/conservative binary thinking). This is not necessarily to say that there is causation, as I know plenty of people who advocate for coexistence between different cultures but are still against Islamic Shari’a (and actually know what it is, like the religious minorities of the Middle East). But in the West, where most people are either ignorant of what Shari’a means and doesn’t mean, or are being fed bad/less than truthful information on Islam in general, there is definitely a push via organizations like CAIR and other Islamic advocacy groups to provide a sort of “Islamicized” view of the Middle East that is especially gentle toward subjects like the fatuhat (Islamic conquests) or the reality of life under the Shari’a for non-Muslims, which are rationalized or explained by reference to their supposed humanistic aspects or comparison to “worse” things that other religions have done. Islamic content is provided for schools (this was the case even way before 9/11 and the attendant charm offensive on behalf of Islam from Muslims and non-Muslims alike; when I was in school, we were taught world history by an avowed Marxist, which included learning the five pillars of Islam but nothing about the corresponding worship practices of the Copts, Maronites, Syriacs, etc., and of course nothing about how these communities existed hundreds of years before the coming of the Islamic armies that overran their societies…heck, there was nothing about them or the pre-Islamic Middle East period, except for a bit about the Greeks in Egypt during Alexander’s time), media, and other places to make sure that we all know how peaceful and great Islam is. Most people just don’t know any better because there is no non-Muslim organization dedicated to sharing other views on the Middle East that can match the funding of the King Abdullah foundation, with the exception of the Israeli lobby which of course provides only their side of the story which is really only concerned with the defense of Israel’s territorial integrity, i.e., only with defending their tiny sliver of land and its right to be “Jewish”.

Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider CAIR a particularly “liberal” organization, nor the various Israeli groups. This is not to say that they are “conservative” in the way that many people here would identify themselves as conservative. I just mean that it is not a liberal/conservative issue. It is an information issue. Most people don’t speak Arabic, so they can’t know, for instance, that the “rebels” in Syria are fighting to turn that country into an Islamic state and push out Christians to Beirut and completely wipe out the Alawites. And that’s just one example…

So to answer AngryAtheist’s question: We got here because we took Islamic sources and sources friendly to Islam’s version of history at face value, because 99.9% of society don’t know any better. Because we’re dumb. We really don’t understand or respect Islam or Muslims as they are. We only see in them a community or a way of thought that is either like us or not like us, and so the options we think we have are limited to “respect Islam and Muslims as part of the human family deserving of the same rights as anybody or any belief” (the stereotypical ‘liberal’ position) or “oppose Islam and Muslims/continued Muslim immigration to the West on the grounds that it is dangerous” (the stereotypical ‘conservative’ position). The position where we treat Islam as one religion among many belief systems not deserving of any inherent special treatment and Muslims as one people among many also not deserving of any inherent special treatment is mostly not advocated, because it would involve abandoning the extremes found at either pole and telling Muslims, essentially, “Your religion is as peaceful as you make it, and we will not honor your requests that it be handled any more gingerly than any other religion, either in its historical or spiritual claims”, and the related “You won’t get special treatment as people, either”. And, sadly, that is not something that governments, liberal or conservative, have opted to do in the majority of cases.

I feel like I should point out that even though I am personally against it as it seems to be understood by the majority of people, this “multiculturalism” stuff has not had entirely negative effects. Consider, for instance, the re-settlement of a large number of Syriac Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, and Assyrian Church of the East) in Sweden. Before quite recently, Sweden was a very much monocultural, homogenous society. Syriacs along with other Middle Eastern minorities only started settling there maybe as recently as the 1960s, if not later. That same openness that brought the Middle Eastern minorities there eventually also brought members of the majority religions and cultures of the Middle East and North and East Africa (witness, for instance, the rise in Somali immigrants to Sweden). So the same impulse that allowed our people to seek refuge from persecution eventually brought some people who share the religion of their persecutors, too. With the good comes the bad because I don’t think it was until very, very recently that the Western world as a whole began to really wonder what Islam was all about (post-9/11 or 1993 WTC bombing, as things like the Iranian hostage crisis didn’t really involve non-Americans, and Black September 1972 was directed at Israelis, etc. All things that probably wouldn’t arouse suspicion in your average Dane, Nederlander, Englishman, Canadian, etc).

 

[acarlson]

They like it because they view it as a religion, which isn’t Christianity, which seems to be opposed to Christianty, which also seems to have some sort of historical roots (though not as firm as the Christian faith).

I go to a VERY liberal university with a substantial population of students from the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. This quote is the most accurate reflection of my experience. Though I must give some credit where it is due – not ALL of the “liberals” fail to see the hypocrisy here and DO readily point out of the failings of Islam.

It’s interesting: many of the ridiculously “liberal” professors at my school are hesitant to discuss Islam in anything worse than a neutral light. But those professors who are FROM the Middle East, whether they’re Muslim or not, do NOT hesitate in the slightest to criticize Islam.

 

[AzzurriFan]

there have been a number of cases in Michigan and else where that the people involved were Muslim and wanted the court to consider and use Sharia Law. I don’t want to see any one harassed Muslim or not, here or anywhere. I think this thread would be better titled using main stream media, ( the main news outlets, channels etc) and the often glossing over, over looking Islam, its history, its practice and what really goes on in Muslim dominated countries. There is too much fear if we say anything that is considered negative about Islam. When the Danish cartoonist published cartoons about Muhammed, there was such an uproar and death threats over it from all over. Instead of defending freedom of speech, the media condemned the publication. but if the Pope is made fun of, do you see Catholics make death threats? No, you find the news media just go along. This is a double standard that I think many posts on this thread are upset about. When the Dutch film maker made a documentary about what happens to women in Muslim countries, he is murdered yet, the main stream media hardly blinks about it. The horrible attack on the Sikh temple is terrible but the media want to paint it as a mistaken crime to target Muslim because the men wear a turbine. I don’t think that most liberals really want or support Sharia Law or Islam. But the dominate media in this country is showing its bias and doing the usual dishonest job in reporting. There have been schools in places like California where students were to learn Muslim prayers and recite them but ban all other prayers. It’s a double standard that is wrong.

Hi robwar!

The only occurrences of Muslims wanting courts to use Islamic legal interpretations that I’m familiar with involved Muslim couples going through a divorce who wanted the court to accept the findings of an Islamic court as to the terms of the divorce. I don’t know about the law in Michigan, but in California that is perfectly legal. In CA, if a couple seeks advice from their rabbi, pastor, family therapist, etc. regarding their divorce terms (ie division of property, child custody arrangement) and want to follow it, a judge would only reject it if it’s grossly unfair (I can’t remember the exact terms used under CA law). If a couple puts the proposals forth, the judge is very unlikely to reject them.

As to the tragic events at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, I agree with you. The media shouldn’t speculate as to the motive for the shooting until it is clear what it was. However, Sikhs have been targeted in the past because of mistaken identity.

I’m going to echo some of what’s already been said. Probably the faults that one might find with the media’s coverage of various stories is to some degree the result of ideas of promoting multiculturalism. That plus the desire to ‘scoop’ other networks for stories resulting in rushed, incompletely fleshed-out stories, results in at least the appearance of bias. Also, maybe secular media just isn’t very good at covering stories with a religious component? I remember networks covering the election of Pope Benedict XVI as though they were covering a presidential election. You know, who the ‘liberal’ cardinals were and who the ‘conservative’ ones were. For a non-Catholic, this coverage would convey an extremely incomplete picture of what was happening. This isn’t the same as what you’re talking about, but is only an illustration of how poorly/incompletely some stories can be covered, whether or not there is bias.

AzzurriFan