The Inexplicable Liberal Defense of Islam

Published on February 8, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I want to be fair here. Not all liberals defend Islam. In fact, most that I know do NOT (except in the sense that they defend the rights of all humanity). But for those who do, their defense of Islam is inexplicable, considering their traditional political positions. Let's go over a few "liberal" positions for analysis, shall we?

The environment: Liberals are quick to condemn our dependence on fossil fuels in the west. They are quick to decry our environmental atrocities, while failing to hold Islamic countries accountable for the same.

Equal rights: Women are second class citizens in Islamic countries, and homosexuality is justification for murder in many villages, without consequence from the national government.

Free Speech: Do I even have to go here?

Freedom of Religion: There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.

Democracy: virtually nonexistent

Civil Liberties: The Hussein regime in Iraq was a horribly ruthless and oppressive regime. Islamic countries are constantly at the top of Amnesty International's watch lists.

Fair labor standards: Again, Islamic countries come in on the low end.

Now, I will again reiterate that not all liberals defend Islam. But for those who do, I would be interested in knowing precisely WHY you do. The United States is far from perfect, but we have made TREMENDOUS strides in ensuring liberty and opportunity for all of our citizens, while working to preserve and better our environment. Why do you not hold Islam to the same standard?

Comments (Page 3)

Daiwa

on Feb 10, 2006

Islam could have proved itself violent and yet failed entirely to match the bloodthirstiness of Catholic crusaders.

I'm scratchin' my head over that one. Two bloodthirsty groups duke it out and the loser is considered less bloodthirsty and non-violent?

Hmm...

cactoblasta

on Feb 10, 2006

I'm scratchin' my head over that one. Two bloodthirsty groups duke it out and the loser is considered less bloodthirsty and non-violent?

Compare, for example, the sack of Jerusalem by Crusader forces and the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, all occuring within the first few crusades. Oh, and who invaded whom, and the pretexts and reasons behind the whole deal. I have trouble believing you're even arguing the point.

Rightwinger

on Feb 10, 2006

I think we've taken Gid's article far enough off-track, don't you?

--cacto

On the contrary; I think it plays right along with the topic in its own way. But I'll go along with you. I'm not going to post an article for you to "lay it all out", though. I'm not versed enough in the subject to adequately discuss it...it wouldn't be worth it.
Though, if you wanted to post on your own, I'm sure you'd have some takers.

You're not stupid, I'll give you that.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 11, 2006

The Siege of Jerusalem 1099, part of the First Crusade:

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

Source Link

The Siege of Jerusalem 1187, led by Saladin:

Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. Saladin also allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099. Even Heraclius, who disgusted the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani by hoarding all his wealth and the treasures of the church instead of contributing to the ransom of the poor, was escorted from the city unmolested. The ransomed inhabitants marched away in three columns; the Templars and Hospitallers led the first two, with Balian and the Patriarch leading the third. Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli.

Source: Link

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades; President Bush is often referred to as a "Crusader." I am glad that this point was raised because the Crusades were a war by Christianity against Islam and I asked Gideon if we were at war with Islam. Afterall, if I as a Liberal am defending Islam, someone must be attacking it, no?

I thought we were at war with Terror, but maybe we are at war with Islam. We have no problem in working with and supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that leads the world in honor-murders of women. If the US is at war with Islam, are they on the list? How about Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation? Are we going to go to war with all Muslims, all 1.8 billion of them?

Gideon listed seven criteria, starting with the environment and going through Fair labor. Islamic countries rank low in almost all those. But so does China, a country that has warred mightily with its Islamic population. Conservatives LIKE China these days. You know China, Walmart East. How does China rank in terms of say Free Speech?

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

I asked before and will ask again, which of my Liberal stances would you like me to change? Should I say that its okay to demonize Muslims? Should we draw up plans for Muslim interment camps in the US? Lets not recognize Hamas as the duly elected government in Palestine, because endless war is preferrable to negotiation with terrorists?

Gideon started off with the assumption that Liberals defend Islam, without ever explaining what that meant. Give me some examples and I can argue pro or con, but what we have hear is a sweeping generalization that has no substance.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 11, 2006

The Siege of Jerusalem 1099, part of the First Crusade:

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

Source Link

The Siege of Jerusalem 1187, led by Saladin:

Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. Saladin also allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099. Even Heraclius, who disgusted the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani by hoarding all his wealth and the treasures of the church instead of contributing to the ransom of the poor, was escorted from the city unmolested. The ransomed inhabitants marched away in three columns; the Templars and Hospitallers led the first two, with Balian and the Patriarch leading the third. Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli.

Source: Link

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades; President Bush is often referred to as a "Crusader." I am glad that this point was raised because the Crusades were a war by Christianity against Islam and I asked Gideon if we were at war with Islam. Afterall, if I as a Liberal am defending Islam, someone must be attacking it, no?

I thought we were at war with Terror, but maybe we are at war with Islam. We have no problem in working with and supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that leads the world in honor-murders of women. If the US is at war with Islam, are they on the list? How about Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation? Are we going to go to war with all Muslims, all 1.8 billion of them?

Gideon listed seven criteria, starting with the environment and going through Fair labor. Islamic countries rank low in almost all those. But so does China, a country that has warred mightily with its Islamic population. Conservatives LIKE China these days. You know China, Walmart East. How does China rank in terms of say Free Speech?

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

I asked before and will ask again, which of my Liberal stances would you like me to change? Should I say that its okay to demonize Muslims? Should we draw up plans for Muslim interment camps in the US? Lets not recognize Hamas as the duly elected government in Palestine, because endless war is preferrable to negotiation with terrorists?

Gideon started off with the assumption that Liberals defend Islam, without ever explaining what that meant. Give me some examples and I can argue pro or con, but what we have here is a sweeping generalization that has no substance.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 11, 2006

Oops! Sorry for the double post. JoeUser was being naughty again.

Dr Guy

on Feb 11, 2006

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

You mistake foreign politics with a political movement. There is a vast difference as I have demonstrated to kingbee.

Leauki

on Feb 11, 2006

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades

That's because they are uneducated.

They don't know about the history of the crusades and they ignore what is actually going on in Iraq.

Your tale of the crusades is true. But the roles have changed. Today Christians (and atheists and Jews and others) invade and don't kill the inhabitants of the invaded country.

A thousand years ago Islam was the superior culture and Christianity was barbaric. But times have changed.

Anything you say about the glorious past of Islam makes it clearer how wrong things have gone in today's Islam.

Larry Kuperman

on Feb 11, 2006

Leauki said:

"That's because they are uneducated." All of them? Kind of a sweeping generalization, don't you think? What do you call it when one makes a sweeping generalization that encompasses almost 2 billion people?

"They don't know about the history of the crusades and they ignore what is actually going on in Iraq." They don't know the history of the Crusades? Any support for that? Among those that "ignore what is actually going on in Iraq" would you include the Iraqi people themselves? Are you saying that YOU really know because you watch TV?

"Today Christians (and atheists and Jews and others) invade and don't kill the inhabitants of the invaded country." Ah, I would like to summon forth the ghosts of those that died in Lebanon at the hands of the Christian Phalangists to rebut your argument.

"A thousand years ago Islam was the superior culture and Christianity was barbaric. But times have changed." And you are comfortable with your role as judge?

"Anything you say about the glorious past of Islam makes it clearer how wrong things have gone in today's Islam." Let me make this clear. Islam is not monolithic. The Shiites are not the same as the Sunnis, Indonesia is not Saudi Arabis, not all Muslims are the same.

This isn't personal and Leuki, you have written some good posts. But throughout this blog people have made overly broad generalizations. There is a wide diversity of belief among Muslims, as among any people. There are many Muslims, for example, who were not angered by the recent cartoons. There are many Muslims who want peace with Israel. When you lump all Muslims together, you do them and yourself a disservice.

bakerstreet

on Feb 11, 2006

lol, i'd agree. Islam and barbaric, middle ages Europe have a lot in common. I'm not insulted by the comparison, I applaud it. Here's hoping it won't take them a thousand years to catch up. Appeasement at this point is just inviting more bloodshed in the future. Modern Islam, at least for most of the world, is a bully who has decided the only way to preserve their barbarity is to impose it on as much of the world as possible. Tolerance of it must end, violently if necessary to prevent further violence.

wow

on Feb 11, 2006

wow I'm absolutely amazed. Many people here regard the defense of Islam as equal to defense of terrorism.

You're wondering why many of them are chanting "we're misunderstood!!!" ?

The points in the blog entry was more of a list of (generally perceived) traits of a Islam-dominated country and not Islam per se.

Coming from a Muslim country I truly understand how many freedoms are stifled for followers of other religions, but this post does so little to illuminate the facts.

Saddam's regime was secular and many in the Muslim world opposed it because of that. Of course the minute a non-Muslim nation invades him they'll be right behind his back.

bakerstreet

on Feb 11, 2006

"wow I'm absolutely amazed. Many people here regard the defense of Islam as equal to defense of terrorism."

That would be all you could really defend, given that no other aspects of Islam are really under attack. We tolerate the barbaric hacking of limbs and mistreatement of women. The only time you'll see this sort of outrage is when we are attacked and when Islamic values are imposed upon us, contrary to the rights spelled out by our own form of government.

Otherwise, let them foul their own nests. WHen they make themselves a threat, they shouldn't be surprised to be treated like one. Despite Western outrage, you don't see us storming through Muslim neighborhoods like the scum in Lebanon did in their own Christian neighborhoods. So far I think you'll agree that our angst is well-targeted. So far, anyway.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 12, 2006

All US citizens are second class citizens.

Some ethnic groups as well as women are still fighting for true "equality".

So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty.

My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas

(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth).

bakerstreet

on Feb 12, 2006

"All US citizens are second class citizens."

As I said on another blog, you can see something akin to the Romantic era's "Noble Savage" ideal at work here when people start talking about the US. Back then, all the bobble-heads started making this Liberal mythology where folks like Arabs and Native Americans and such were really just idealistic Liberals steeped in Christian ideals; untouched by nasty Western culture.

It's idiotic, and people still do it today with statements like I quote above. The US is evil compared to nations where they hang little girls and other nations where you are rubber hosed to death for your religious beliefs. We suck compared to nations that make political ideologies illegal to express. It could be all free ice cream and lemonade and we'd still suck... because we're the US.

Let the pissants moan about the US's "second class citizens" and move to places like Denmark which make it illegal to question the holocaust, and at the same time test those wanting citizenship as to whether they are more devoted to the Constitution or the Koran. Or someplace like France, with double-digit unemployment that doesn't matter because it is among those "non-French people", and who make it illegal for your kid to wear a yarmulka to school.

Silver Surfer

on Feb 12, 2006

"So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty."

You may be saying that; I am not.

You can break down equality into sections and title them, but they are only parts of the whole. The same holds for classes (subclasses). While you are all second class citizens, some enjoy higher and more privileges than others.

"My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas"

What evidence is there that supports the "left" giving Muslim nations a FREE PASS in ALL of these areas?

"(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth)."

1. It is your belief, however that does not constitute that it is right / correct.

2. "far more promise"... It is helpful (for one's psyche), to have hope that the future will bring the desired condition. However, the track record indicates otherwise. [A group was promised 40 acres and a mule: didn't happen; the US broke all treaties with the Native Americans; development and implementation of an alternative fuel and a "supercar"... canned that as well]

'til dawn...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!