Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the mosques...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#21  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » May 01, 2016 10:37 pm

It speaks to the issue of her tunnel vision, which frustrates a lot of people so much. With absolutely no regard for Canada's unique political struggles (radical Islam - insignificant here) or with respect to anything else Stephen Harper represents, exclusively based on a dude in Canada being vocally tough on radical Islam, she told Canadians how to vote. She promoted conservative leadership, which has been really harmful to our country, based on an argument that isn't even particularly relevant in the country she was telling how to vote!

And if you think the dumbass "vote Harper" tweets are her only moment of promoting conservatism, you're mistaken. Seriously. I get that it doesn't come up in her books (it would make them less palatable to her reader base and she and her editors and publishers aren't stupid) but when you look outside her work with respect to what she writes about she's really not the liberal people want her to be.

Would be nice if criticising her wasn't written off as hating and knee jerk defense of Islam and generally silenced.

I say all that as someone who really likes and supports some things about her and considers her very impressive in a lot of respects.
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 13038
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#22  Postby felltoearth » May 02, 2016 2:37 am

Actually, Harper's policies were arguably more divisive and tone deaf to the issues of radical islam and therefore could make the issue of radical islam in Canada worse. Hirsi aligns herself with ideologues and it harms her credibility, taints her opinions and seemingly her judgement.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 12390
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#23  Postby Onyx8 » May 02, 2016 3:02 am

Yes, I admire the woman greatly but her Harper comment was ignorant in the extreme.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 63
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#24  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » May 02, 2016 3:50 am

I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive. I hope I'm misremembering that or it was made up. I remember being completely embarrassed for her when I read it though.

She's a neocon. It doesn't cause me to dismiss her thoughts and opinions on everything but I certainly dismiss her opinions on certain topics! She's like anyone else - terrific in some respects and so wrong in others.
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 13038
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#25  Postby Mac_Guffin » May 02, 2016 4:45 am

crank wrote:I get so disgusted by this issue. You have both sides getting so vitriolic when they are in essence on the same side, for the most part. It's possible to be adamantly against fundamentalist, extremist Islam, while still not wanting to paint all muslims with that brush. And to also recognize the rise of all of the extremist Islamic forces is the result of the West's meddling in the region. It isn't hard to show how this rise pretty closely follows the rise of the meddling. Nor is it hard to show the Saudis have aided in fomenting the extremism, or that the US was right in there with them. We'll get to see some really juicy info about it if they declassify the redacted pages of the 9/11 report. To point at Islam as the root cause of the violence is not only wrong, it is unhelpful. For one thing, it impedes any progress in woman's rights, which have steadily improved in the developing world, especially after women have been allowed education. Giving them an enemy to point to that appears to be waging jihad against muslims, an idea Bush so intelligently helped immensely with his idiotic natterings, only serves to harden their religious affiliations.


this is how I feel about religion in general.
I'm all about just being cool with other cool people, no matter what and who the fuck they are.
User avatar
Mac_Guffin
 
Name: Christopher
Posts: 6649
Age: 32
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#26  Postby crank » May 02, 2016 5:28 am

Yeah, but what do you do when you're surrounded by the uncool? Religion is really good at heating shit up, like people.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#27  Postby Arjan Dirkse » May 02, 2016 1:58 pm

crank wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:
crank wrote:And to also recognize the rise of all of the extremist Islamic forces is the result of the West's meddling in the region.


Seriously? Islamic extremism predates the founding of the United States, and Western meddling...Islam was "extremist" right from the start. It has had periods when there were more enlightened leaders, but extremism in Islam goes right back to the beginning.

Seriously? We're going all the way back to Muhammad? Then why not go after Dark-Age Christianity when the Muslim wold was flourished in culture and science?

That the west is the source is well known and understood. It's been established in numerous ways, even the Defence Dept. published a report back in 2004 saying this, ordered by Rumsfeld no less. I've linked to it in at least 2 previous threads I'm pretty sure, but I'll do so again in case anyone else is ignorant of such a important fact about the War of Terror we're waging over there and around the globe. I've highlighted some key info in the quotes below. You can find it here.
Report of the
Defense Science Board Task Force
on
Strategic Communication

September 2004
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Washington, D.C. 20301-3140


2.3 What is the Problem? Who Are We Dealing With?

The information campaign — or as some still would have it, “the war of ideas,” or the
struggle for “hearts and minds” — is important to every war effort. In this war it is an
essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the
vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But
American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the
opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature
of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to
single-digits in some Arab societies.
Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The
overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in
favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing
support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic
societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that
Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do
not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions
appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in
order to best serve American national interests
at the expense of truly Muslim self determination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire
radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy
among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an
Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public
support.
• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups.
Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a
shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian
boundaries that divide Islam.
• Finally, Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic — namely, that the war is all
about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is — for Americans —
really no more than an extension of American domestic politics and its great game.
This perception is of course necessarily heightened by election-year atmospherics, but
nonetheless sustains their impression that when Americans talk to Muslims they are
really just talking to themselves.


How does anyone not understand at this late a date that Islam and religion are not the root cause of the terrorism? Surely you've heard about the prevalence of 'Islam for Dummies' and 'The Koran for Dummies' bought by folk off to join ISIS? It has to be willful ignorance, that's the only thing that makes sense. Or gullibility, someone who believes the utterly compromised MSM. Considering this has been established in previous threads, and I think maybe I've had this same argument or something quite similar with you a while back, the willful ignorance explanation seems more likely.

Anyone could spend about 20 minutes on the google and figure this out for themselves, though it's kinda obvious when you consider how little truth you get out of Washington, how often we find out the exact opposite of what they've been telling us. Here, take a look at a recent Foreign Policy Institute piece, ISIS: The “unintended consequences” of the US-led war on Iraq


Warnings that trying to defeat ISIS by doing more of the same of what led to its rise in the first place are falling on deaf ears.



In a recent interview with Shane Smith, the founder of VICE News, President Barack Obama said: “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences.” This admission is evidence of the general causality between Western military interventionism in the Muslim world, and the rise of reactionary armed militia groups. In this particular case, the US-led invasion of Iraq undoubtedly paved the way for the rise of the self-professed ‘Islamic State’, better known as ISIS. Depending on who highlights this “unintended consequence” when commenting on recent events in Iraq and Syria, it is usually given very little importance or completely dismissed. Understandably, the pro-war policymakers in Washington and London who orchestrated the invasion of a sovereign state based on false intelligence, would rather focus on how to “degrade and destroy” the monster they created, as opposed to acknowledging fault and accepting blame.
...


It's so bad, even the president is admitting it now, though anyone with half a brain understood this more than a decade and a half ago.


I agree with all that. But you said all Islamic extremist forces are a result of something the West did, so I intended that to mean all the way back to Mohammed.

It is a view held by some...The Karen Armstrong view, that Muslims conquered Persia, Northern Africa and Spain by giving away tulips and algebra books or something and that all radicalism just came into existence because of the crusades and other Western nastiness.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 1743
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#28  Postby crank » May 02, 2016 2:46 pm

OK, sorry, miscommunication, I did mean the recent shit we're dealing with. There are many, even on this forum I'd bet, that still refuse to see this, no matter how much evidence there is. I haven't heard the tulips and algebra books rationale, did they press tulip leaves in the pages of the books? I don't actually know if the muslims used scrolls or codices [codexes?], I guess you could roll them up in a scroll, but it just wouldn't be the same. Plus, it would really piss Euclid off, the muslims saved him for us too.

The crusades are a different matter. It's not the cause of radical islam, just the genesis of the rivalry, which was SOP back then. The crusades were by and large farcical fiascos, other than the first one the main accomplishment was the sacking of Constantinople, a crucial weakening that allowed it to be taken over by the footstools AKA Ottoman Turks later. What I would say now is that many neoliberal types still have a crusade-like mindset.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#29  Postby Arjan Dirkse » May 02, 2016 10:07 pm

crank wrote:I haven't heard the tulips and algebra books rationale


Well I think tulips came from Turkey, not Arabia so the example doesn't really work. Basically what I meant is Armstrong's view is very rose coloured, the Islamic conquest was a good thing and people were happy to embrace Islam. I think it's pretty mixed, the Byzantinians probably had a higher level of learning than the Arabs at the time, and the Sassanids as well. But maybe that's not for this topic.

I do agree the Western influence has mostly been very bad the last couple of decades. Especially supporting the Saudis, the coup against Mosadegh, the propping up of the Taliban and the Iraq war.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 1743
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#30  Postby crank » May 03, 2016 2:33 am

OK, I just saw Bill Maher mentioning a dildo with a mini-urn so you and your deceased hubby can still get it on. This does not speak or bode well for western civilization
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 4
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#31  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 03, 2016 5:46 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive.


How is that a dumb remark? If that piece of shit was busy finding or holding down a job, then at the very least he'd have had less time to pursue his ambition to become the Netherlands's most violent film critic.

She's a neocon. It doesn't cause me to dismiss her thoughts and opinions on everything but I certainly dismiss her opinions on certain topics! She's like anyone else - terrific in some respects and so wrong in others.


How is she a neocon? And why is that sufficient justification for dismissing her views on "certain topics"?
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#32  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 03, 2016 5:52 am

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I do agree the Western influence has mostly been very bad the last couple of decades. Especially supporting the Saudis, the coup against Mosadegh, the propping up of the Taliban and the Iraq war.


Reckless Western foreign policy has definitely reactivated the Islamic cancer. The only thing more stupid than bombing and radicalizing Muslim countries is to then let people from those same countries into your own en masse.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#33  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 03, 2016 5:58 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:the notion that radical Islam, specifically, is the greatest threat to liberal values is black and white nonsense.


You're right - that illustrious distinction currently belongs to the Socialists.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#34  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 03, 2016 6:11 am

surreptitious57 wrote:She knows far more about Islam than Western liberals since she used to be a Muslim. Though that aside
they may still be reluctant to criticise it for fear of being labelled racist whereas she can do so without
being labelled one. Both of these reasons may be while she angers them. The first is justifiable but the
second not so because legitimate criticism of Islam does not equate to racism under any circumstances


Lefties are all about Big Government and wealth redistribution. Islam is all about Big Government and wealth redistribution - indeed Islam is about as 'Big Government' as you can get. Islam hates Christianity and the Jews, as does the Left. Couple this with the unacknowledged Christ Complex that lefties collectively have which causes them to equate criticism of Islam with racism against poor defenseless little "brown people", and it's no wonder that they fulminate with sanctimonious indignation when Hirsi dares to tell the truth about Islam.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#35  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » May 03, 2016 6:23 am

Enter tantrumming white knight!

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive.


How is that a dumb remark? If that piece of shit was busy finding or holding down a job, then at the very least he'd have had less time to pursue his ambition to become the Netherlands's most violent film critic.


Lol, a lack of social assistance doesn't result in lower levels of unemployment. Derp. The notion social assistance was the difference between Theo Van Gogh being murdered or not is based on a false assumption.

It's not like having a job would have prevented him from murdering the dude anyways.

She's a neocon. It doesn't cause me to dismiss her thoughts and opinions on everything but I certainly dismiss her opinions on certain topics! She's like anyone else - terrific in some respects and so wrong in others.


How is she a neocon? And why is that sufficient justification for dismissing her views on "certain topics"?[/quote][/quote]

Because neoconservatism is, in the literal sense of the world, retarded. Opinions based on unreliable, dumb, ignorrant philosophies should be dismissed.

I see you're not at all familiar with the AEI, at which she's been a fellow, but you're welcome to educate yourself! I just have better things to do than teach the bigotted.
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: a certain type of girl
Posts: 13038
Age: 31
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#36  Postby Ven. Kwan Tam Woo » May 03, 2016 6:42 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Enter tantrumming white knight!


You already entered this thread on page 1.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive.


How is that a dumb remark? If that piece of shit was busy finding or holding down a job, then at the very least he'd have had less time to pursue his ambition to become the Netherlands's most violent film critic.


Lol, a lack of social assistance doesn't result in lower levels of unemployment. Derp. The notion social assistance was the difference between Theo Van Gogh being murdered or not is based on a false assumption.


A lack of social assistance gives you an added incentive to find a job. Generous social assistance does the opposite - why go to the trouble of finding a job when you can get paid for sitting on your arse? Besides we are not talking about "levels of unemployment" here, we are talking about one particular individual. And if - unlike thousands of other individuals in the Netherlands every month - he couldn't manage to find a job, then he was more than welcome to take advantage of Schengen and piss off to some other EU country to find one.

FWIW I agree that social assistance didn't make the difference, because some other Islamaniac probably would have attempted to kill Van Gogh sooner or later anyway. But at the very least it would have made it less likely that this particular Islamaniac would have successfully attempted to murder him. Regardless of your ideology, planning to murder someone over a fucking film is a sure sign that you need to get a life!

It's not like having a job would have prevented him from murdering the dude anyways.


How do you know this?

She's a neocon. It doesn't cause me to dismiss her thoughts and opinions on everything but I certainly dismiss her opinions on certain topics! She's like anyone else - terrific in some respects and so wrong in others.


How is she a neocon? And why is that sufficient justification for dismissing her views on "certain topics"?


Because neoconservatism is, in the literal sense of the world, retarded. Opinions based on unreliable, dumb, ignorrant philosophies should be dismissed.


Why is it retarded? What about it is retarded? How is it unreliable, dumb, ignorant? And how does any of this automatically render her opinions invalid when it comes to "certain topics"? What topics would they be?

I see you're not at all familiar with the AEI, at which she's been a fellow, but you're welcome to educate yourself! I just have better things to do than teach the bigotted.


Why am I bigotted (sic) ? Is Hirsi also bigotted (sic) ? What exactly is it about Hirsi's association with the AEI that invalidates her views on certain topics?
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."
- Cicero

The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo
 
Posts: 556

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#37  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 03, 2016 7:12 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I recall another dumb remark about how, if social assistance hadn't been available, the guy who killed Theo Van Gogh would have had a job and been at work and Van Gogh would be alive.


How is that a dumb remark? If that piece of shit was busy finding or holding down a job, then at the very least he'd have had less time to pursue his ambition to become the Netherlands's most violent film critic.

Really? How many premeditated murders have been postponed or inconvenienced to the point of impracticality, due to the murder having or seeking a job?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30274
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#38  Postby Thomas Eshuis » May 03, 2016 7:12 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:She knows far more about Islam than Western liberals since she used to be a Muslim. Though that aside
they may still be reluctant to criticise it for fear of being labelled racist whereas she can do so without
being labelled one. Both of these reasons may be while she angers them. The first is justifiable but the
second not so because legitimate criticism of Islam does not equate to racism under any circumstances


Lefties are all about Big Government and wealth redistribution. Islam is all about Big Government and wealth redistribution - indeed Islam is about as 'Big Government' as you can get. Islam hates Christianity and the Jews, as does the Left. Couple this with the unacknowledged Christ Complex that lefties collectively have which causes them to equate criticism of Islam with racism against poor defenseless little "brown people", and it's no wonder that they fulminate with sanctimonious indignation when Hirsi dares to tell the truth about Islam.

A textbook examples of black and white thinking. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30274
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#39  Postby Rumraket » May 03, 2016 11:44 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:She knows far more about Islam than Western liberals since she used to be a Muslim. Though that aside
they may still be reluctant to criticise it for fear of being labelled racist whereas she can do so without
being labelled one. Both of these reasons may be while she angers them. The first is justifiable but the
second not so because legitimate criticism of Islam does not equate to racism under any circumstances


Lefties are all about Big Government and wealth redistribution. Islam is all about Big Government and wealth redistribution

What senseless blather and an extreme equivocation. These are just pathetic, overgeneralized one-liners about two extremely diverse populations that within them are pretty much only unified by the fact that the individuals that make them up would describe themselves as either "leftist" or "muslim".

Within "lefties" you find people with socially progressive ideals who grudgingly accept that some times government regulations on business and industry in an otherwise largely capitalist society might be necessary, to on the other end where you find your die-hard Mao-communists. Neither of these groups could be said to represent "true lefties". And neither group hold any particular commonalities or alignments with "Islam", whatever the fuck you even mean by that.

"Islam" (if one could even say there is such a thing, that would fully capture every viewpoint believed to be warranted by belief in something from the Qu'ran and Hadith) is so extremely diverse so as to almost defy categorization. But yes, if you're going by the type of fundamentalist, literalist islamism advocated by Saudi-Arabian wahabi clerics, ISIS and the like, then yes it is very much a total "Big Government" theocracy. Of a type that nobody I recognize as "lefties" actually want or advocate.

Problem is, that's not the only "Islam" there is. Just as Rousas Rushdoonian Reconstructionist Calvinism isn't the only "Christianity".

- indeed some versions of Islam is about as 'Big Government' as you can get. some versions of Islam hates some versions of Christianity and some versions of the Jews, as does some versions of the Left.

Couple this with the unacknowledged Christ Complex that some versions of lefties collectively have which causes them to equate criticism of Islam with racism against poor defenseless little "brown people", and it's no wonder that they fulminate with sanctimonious indignation when Hirsi dares to tell the truth about Islam.

FIFY.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13184
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Why Ayaan Hirsi's Criticism of Islam Angers Western Liberals

#40  Postby NineBerry » May 03, 2016 12:02 pm

In fact, in 2003, Harper said he found "vile and disgusting" the notion that same-sex marriage might be a civil rights issue.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/06/29/Ha ... -Marriage/
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5828
Age: 41
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Islam

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest