The Centrists and Leftists of the Western World are Dancing to the Tune of the Far-Right and Islamists

[PointOfViewGun]

Sunnis and Shias are both Muslims though. They both have the Quran in common, the Quran in Iran and in Saudi Arabia will say basically the same thing. The Shariah law in Saudi Arabia and in Iran is almost the same.
That is an epic conflation on your part. Muslims and Christians are both Abrahamic and the similarities end there.

Yet, Iranian government sponsors sex-change operation, Saudis would probably just kill them right away. Shariah law in Saudi Arabia and Iran are quite different in many aspects. Both Christians and Muslims believe in one god. They both worship in dedicated buildings with a religious head for the community. Many of the stories that come from their holy books are the same. They both talk about the same set of people from history. They both believe in heaven and hell. Many of the moral codes are similarly underlined. Once again, which group of Muslims are the right Muslims? Iranians? Saudis? Someone else?

I posted what you are talking about right below. It doesn't matter what the topic of this surah is. I am proving what I said above about Iranian and Saudi atrocities. The Surah tells me to kill non-believers and it is in the Quran.

Does it? I love how everyone's reading skills start to ignore this little fact of life called context when Islam and Quran are of topic...

4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

It's quite clear that Quran only tells you to fight those that fights you. Those who do not fight, and want peace, is not for you to fight. If you don't believe people have a right to defend themselves let me know.

So women have to cover their heads but it is okay because they don't need slit for their eye?
it does indeed mention head covers "wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests", you were probably distracted by the words "cover" and "chest", that it does not say "cover your head" explicitly is irrelevant because it directly uses the word "head covers" where else do the head covers go other than on your head?
So it basically says, wear a shirt oh and cover your head. There is barely a distinction between a burqa and a hijab. Both are absurd.

Do not deflect or base your claims on ignorance of what I said. Quran is quite clearly doesn't sanction use of burkhas as an Islamic duty. Why can't you acknowledge that? And, no. It doesn't use the word "head cover" in Arabic. It uses an Arabic word that means cover. Using "head" in that verse is merely the invention of the translator.

How do I know your ways have not been tainted by the likes of Ataturk and non-islamic infidel steppe culture?
Anyway this is the international version of the Quran. Your issue is that it is poorly translated apparently. I could find like 4 other translations that say the same thing. Why is your preferred version the true translation?

Even if we interpreted the way you want it, they would be devoutly obedient to Allah in order to do what their husband wants. Arrogance and lack of obedience is apparently a reason for divorce according to Islam.
It doesn't if we interpret it your way, it does not imply equality.

...

Soon I will run out of translations.

How do you know if my ways is not tainted by Atatürk or the steppe culture? A man who himself paid from his own wealth to print the Quran? The same steppe culture that spread Islam and produced many of the brightest and most devout scholars of Islamic history? Perhaps, if you didn't spend time on such petty attacks you might have known.

My way is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of proper reading comprehension. You're posting me interpretations of these verse. I prefer to base my judgment on actual translations backed by etymology and grammar. I'm not really surprised that you couldn't go beyond repeating your claim. If you can't address anything I say, why should we bother?

[mishkin]

Are words of an individual insufficient?

Are my words as a feminist enough? Feminism is not pro Islam.

You specifically asked for an organization. Does an organization represent every individual's opinion. In line with that how would you define Feminism? Do I need a source from a "second wave" Feminist and a "third wave" Feminist or just one of those?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism Wikipedia. A very long entry. Its origin, evolution, derivations, 2nd wave, third wave, post-feminism, relation with various political ideologies and movements... Not a word about feminism supporting Islam, only a paragraph about muslim feminists (other about budhist feminists, etc)

Islamic feminists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded within an Islamic framework. Advocates seek to highlight the deeply rooted teachings of equality in the Quran and encourage a questioning of the patriarchal interpretation of Islamic teaching through the Quran, hadith (sayings of Muhammad), and sharia (law) towards the creation of a more equal and just society.[199] Although rooted in Islam, the movement's pioneers have also utilized secular and Western feminist discourses and recognize the role of Islamic feminism as part of an integrated global feminist movement.[200]

looks like Islam is not alien to feminism, but I repeat: Not a word about Feminism supporting islam (i.e: "Women of the world, join the Islam") or any other religion.

That is like when Feminists say that Islam is pro-Feminist. Burkhas and being subjugated to man is Feminism okay then.

-----------------------
When you see a leftist defending Islam, other races ("multiculturalism"), feminism, etc., probably its because on the other side, attacking (trying to lynch) Islam, "multiculturalism" or feminism, there is a really charming neoliberal.

[PointOfViewGun]

Let's recap. In this thread, it was claimed that Left, as if as a block, defends Islamism. The only example Lord Oda Nobunaga could give was of Muslim leftist organizations siding with Ayatollah gains the Shah. Later, he further implied that Feminists, again as if as a block, say that Islam is pro-Feminist. Again, the only example he could give were random web pages and YouTube videos. This is a total failure.

[DaVinci]

So, you can't come up with other examples? Whether you think there can't be a genuine leftist Islamist movement doesn't really mean much. Nor, the idea that there was a leftist Islamist movement from Iran means that leftists in general defended Islamism that we know of today. These are really weak arguments.

I am honestly not surprised to see that your stance is based on convoluting multiple issues.

Exactly this (bold part).

And that is pretty much the main issue by apparently young people (or partly older people, too) which often quickly take up dogma's to make themselves a picture of the world, a guider or compass, a simple one, because they can't do with the complexion of things going on, in history and comtemporary related items.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Are my words as a feminist enough? Feminism is not pro Islam.
On the one hand we have religion which is supposed to be the absolute word of God, on the other hand we have the definition of Feminism which does not claim to be absolute and which people (Feminists) have gone against.
Just because literally not all Feminists does not mean that no Feminists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism Wikipedia. A very long entry. Its origin, evolution, derivations, 2nd wave, third wave, post-feminism, relation with various political ideologies and movements... Not a word about feminism supporting Islam, only a paragraph about muslim feminists (other about budhist feminists, etc)

Islamic feminists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded within an Islamic framework. Advocates seek to highlight the deeply rooted teachings of equality in the Quran and encourage a questioning of the patriarchal interpretation of Islamic teaching through the Quran, hadith (sayings of Muhammad), and sharia (law) towards the creation of a more equal and just society.[199] Although rooted in Islam, the movement's pioneers have also utilized secular and Western feminist discourses and recognize the role of Islamic feminism as part of an integrated global feminist movement.[200]

looks like Islam is not alien to feminism, but I repeat: Not a word about Feminism supporting islam (i.e: "Women of the world, join the Islam") or any other religion.

-----------------------
When you see a leftist defending Islam, other races ("multiculturalism"), feminism, etc., probably its because on the other side, attacking (trying to lynch) Islam, "multiculturalism" or feminism, there is a really charming neoliberal.

mishkin, as a Feminist your words are valid. But you are only a single individual.
There are individuals who have defended Islam, Hijabs etc.
For example Christina Hoff Summers would not defend Burqas or Hijabs. Margaraet Atwood however did, along with many other Feminists when the Prime Minister of Canada tried to ban Burqas and Hijabs on the claim that it was oppressive to women. A claim which I support.

Moreover you completely disregard the existence of Muslim Feminists which do in fact exist. Though you refused to watch the YouTube videos which have interviews with said Muslim Feminists. Do you not consider Muslim Feminists to be Feminists? If so is it because they do not meet the definition that you posted?

In your last bit you basically admitted that Leftists have indeed defended Islam. So where is the contention?
For some reason you have conflated races (ie genetics) to cultures (ideas or way of life).
Also it's not like there is nothing to attack in Islam. Have you read any of the quotes from the Quran I posted? Multiple translations all say the same thing. Individuals, Muslims themselves, can confirm this.

[mishkin]

Moreover you completely disregard the existence of Muslim Feminists which do in fact exist.

I have mentioned muslim feminists... and budhist feminists too. And you know... I have heard there are christian feminists in some weird countries too. Amazing, I know. That, of course, does not mean that feminism is pro islam, pro budhism, pro christianism, etc.

In your last bit you basically admitted that Leftists have indeed defended Islam. So where is the contention?
For some reason you have conflated races (ie genetics) to cultures (ideas or way of life).

Mate, dont say Leftists. That could be the point of all this thread. Say "some leftists". I said "a leftist defending..." and I meant that some leftists oppose indiscriminately any position taken by a conservative/neocon/fascist, and they will oppose indiscriminate attacks on Islam, feminism or multiculturalism.

Also it's not like there is nothing to attack in Islam. Have you read any of the quotes from the Quran I posted? Multiple translations all say the same thing. Individuals, Muslims themselves, can confirm this.

There are probably many reasons to attack Islam, but I wonder why Christian society (Western society) is dedicated to criticize Islam, usually from ignorance, instead of criticizing something that affects us more directly. For example, Christianity.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yet, Iranian government sponsors sex-change operation, Saudis would probably just kill them right away. Shariah law in Saudi Arabia and Iran are quite different in many aspects. Both Christians and Muslims believe in one god. They both worship in dedicated buildings with a religious head for the community. Many of the stories that come from their holy books are the same. They both talk about the same set of people from history. They both believe in heaven and hell. Many of the moral codes are similarly underlined. Once again, which group of Muslims are the right Muslims? Iranians? Saudis? Someone else?

Are you asking for my personal opinion or an absolute?
The fact that sex changes have been permitted in Iran is entirely due to a fatwah, I don't think we could even call it that, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. There is no precedent in Islam for sex change. It is not written in the book because the people of antiquity did not think it could even be possible. When Gabriel was telling the Quran to Muhammad I guess Allah must have miscalculated or forgot.
Much like the Pope declaring a crusade or the existence of the Pope himself despite it not being mentioned in the New Testament.
Anyway this is one example. I have provided sources directly from the Quran which back the insane laws in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Does it? I love how everyone's reading skills start to ignore this little fact of life called context when Islam and Quran are of topic...

It's quite clear that Quran only tells you to fight those that fights you. Those who do not fight, and want peace, is not for you to fight. If you don't believe people have a right to defend themselves let me know.

Yes I was waiting for this argument. Much like you employed the bad translation argument now you are using the out of context argument, a common tactic. How about you address why all the translations I provided were wrong?
What other context could there even be?
Verse 89 of the 4th Surah clearly states not to take allies from among the non-believers because if you do this might cause you to convert to their religion instead. You must only accept them if they convert to Islam, but if they ignore the calls for conversion then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and ally with no one from among them. If you want the context from these passages it is about waging war with the non-believers, kill everyone unless they convert, yeah a war crime by our modern standards.

Do not deflect or base your claims on ignorance of what I said. Quran is quite clearly doesn't sanction use of burkhas as an Islamic duty. Why can't you acknowledge that? And, no. It doesn't use the word "head cover" in Arabic. It uses an Arabic word that means cover. Using "head" in that verse is merely the invention of the translator.

Even if it doesn't sanction Burkhas it still sanctions covering of the head.
The word used is Khimar or khumur which is a type of head covering. Some versions are translated as Jilbab which is basically the same thing. The only real difference between it and the Burkha is that the Burkha only has a small slit for the eyes.
Even apologists like Reza Aslan and Leila Ahmed disagree with you, if you ask them they would clearly say veil.
The Hadiths support this as well.
So even if you took only the word Khimar to its most basic meaning which is "to cover" as in cover your bossoms you could easily infer that it means with your head dress.
Now it is a well known fact that women in those days wore veils, even if it only said to cover your body then it is obviously referring to the veil worn on a woman's head. Throughout history Muslims have disagreed with you.

How do you know if my ways is not tainted by Atatürk or the steppe culture? A man who himself paid from his own wealth to print the Quran? The same steppe culture that spread Islam and produced many of the brightest and most devout scholars of Islamic history? Perhaps, if you didn't spend time on such petty attacks you might have known.

It isn't an attack. You said this is only an example of Arabic patriarchy. You are a Turk, how do I even know that your interpretation is not the wrong one based on the cultural difference.
BTW even Ataturk and the Ottomans disagree with you:

My way is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of proper reading comprehension. You're posting me interpretations of these verse. I prefer to base my judgment on actual translations backed by etymology and grammar. I'm not really surprised that you couldn't go beyond repeating your claim. If you can't address anything I say, why should we bother?

All of the translations are wrong? Translations most of which were done by native Arab speakers (the exception being Marmaduke Pickthall).

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I have mentioned muslim feminists... and budhist feminists too. And you know... I have heard there are christian feminists in some weird countries too. Amazing, I know. That, of course, does not mean that feminism is pro islam, pro budhism, pro christianism, etc.

Yes that is nuts. Religion and Feminism. Might as well be a Catholic Marxist.

Mate, dont say Leftists. That could be the point of all this thread. Say "some leftists". I said "a leftist defending..." and I meant that some leftists oppose indiscriminately any position taken by a conservative/neocon/fascist, and they will oppose indiscriminate attacks on Islam, feminism or multiculturalism.

Obviously I don't mean all Leftists. But a great deal of Leftists defend Islamic culture unnecessarily. Go to a university campus and you will see this. Go to Sweden or Germany and you will see this.

There are probably many reasons to attack Islam, but I wonder why Christian society (Western society) is dedicated to criticize Islam, usually from ignorance, instead of criticizing something that affects us more directly. For example, Christianity.

Christianity has been attacked endlessly. The Atheist community has basically destroyed Christianity. Ray Comfort and other Christian apologists have been left bones in a desert. The Christian Left pretty much doesn't exist anymore within the USA or most of Europe.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Let's recap. In this thread, it was claimed that Left, as if as a block, defends Islamism. The only example Lord Oda Nobunaga could give was of Muslim leftist organizations siding with Ayatollah gains the Shah. Later, he further implied that Feminists, again as if as a block, say that Islam is pro-Feminist. Again, the only example he could give were random web pages and YouTube videos. This is a total failure.

As I said to mishkin, define who the Leftists are. Is it people who identify as Leftists or is it people who only conform to the exact values of the Left. I never said all Leftists. For example Michael Ignatieff would be rolling in his grave at Trudeau, who succeeded him as leader of the Liberals.
No I did not imply Feminists as a whole are in support of Islam nor did I imply that Islam has anything to do with Leftist principles.

The links I provided are of people on the Left, that is to say people who vote as Leftists, who identify as Leftists and who have control of the Left (such as Justin Trudeau) saying the things that I am calling them out on.

Now to recap. Setekh claims that Islam is a religion of peace which gives equal rights to women. He was provided with multiple translations of Quranic verses which outright disprove and contradict his claims. He then went on to say that it was wrong and tried to argue minor semantics. Using known tactics such as claiming that the verses were mistranslated or misinterpreted or even that they were out of context. This is despite the fact that some of these translations were done by scholars, most of whom were native Arab speakers and Islamic interpreters by training and law.

[The Gurkhan]

Irony of ironies. A non-Muslim essentially declaring what is or isn't 'True Islam' just because it clashes with what is purely his own opinion as to what it should be. This is identical to when some Muslims are often jeered at for using the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy when claiming that certain acts go against 'True Islam'. Priceless. The same observation stands vis-a-vis the invective against people of other religious traditions for identifying as Leftists, feminist etc.

Personally I find there is often a correlation between people regularly using the term 'Regressive Left' and a profound ignorance about whatever subject they are harping on about.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Irony of ironies. A non-Muslim essentially declaring what is or isn't 'True Islam' just because it clashes with what is purely his own opinion as to what it should be. This is identical to when some Muslims are often jeered at for using the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy when claiming that certain acts go against 'True Islam'. Priceless.

Personally I find there is often a correlation between people regularly using the term 'Regressive Left' and a profound ignorance about whatever subject they are harping on about.

I didn't say they were not true Muslims. They are Muslims but they do not act in accordance with what is written in the Quran itself. If you think otherwise please go read the Hadiths and the Sunnah and see how they support the exact interpretation as given in the Quran.

Even with the argument that fundamentalist Muslims misinterpreted the Quran this still ignores their poor behaviour. Hence we could say that Islamic culture is at fault and either way you would be pinning yourself up against the wall.

[Cyrene]

Verse 89 of the 4th Surah clearly states not to take allies from among the non-believers because if you do this might cause you to convert to their religion instead. You must only accept them if they convert to Islam, but if they ignore the calls for conversion then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and ally with no one from among them. If you want the context from these passages it is about waging war with the non-believers, kill everyone unless they convert, yeah a war crime by our modern standards.

:/

Clearly your statement is false for multiple reasons, the tl;dr version:

1-the verse does not address a unified, universal block of "non-believers", it rather talks about "the Hypocrites"
2-it never demands their conversion to Islam
3-it explicitly states not to fight these "Hypocrites" if they want peace.

Details:

first, here is the Context of this passage:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

{What is the matter with you that you are two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back into error and disbelief for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way of guidance, They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper, Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at the prospect of fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. but if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them} {4:88-90}

1) as mentioned earlier, the verse does not address a unified, universal block of "non-believers", it rather talks about "the Hypocrites", who are certain members of the clans of Banu Aslama, Banu Bakr and Banu Munat, these clans settle in the vicinity of Yathrib (Medina), when Muhammad and his disciples emigrated to the city and established the Constitution of Medina with the inhabitants, and with the beginning of the military confrontations with the Pagan Meccans, these clans refused to officially join the Medinan State (and thus abide by the Constitution), leaning in times to the Medinans, and sometimes to the Meccans - whichever they thought was in their current interest as the war continued, hence they were named "Hypocrites".


2) considering their dangerous position just outside Medina, the Medinans feared that in the event of a siege (which did happen in late 626 ) these clans would join the besiegers, thus they demanded these clans take an official stance: A) either side with the medinans and emigrate to the City (thus the Surah says {do not take from among them allies until they emigrate in the way of God) or B) refuse and be attacked, No Conversion to Islam was required.

3) in the next verse (90) the Surah adds another condition, if they {take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty, or those who come to you, their hearts strained at the prospect of fighting you or fighting their own people} or {remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace} then the Muslims and their allies were ordered not to fight them: { then Allah has not made for you a cause for fighting against them}

so the verse does not even talk about any "non-believer" , does not order any forced conversion.

[The Gurkhan]

I didn't say they were not true Muslims. They are Muslims but they do not act in accordance with what is written in the Quran itself. If you think otherwise please go read the Hadiths and the Sunnah and see how they support the exact interpretation as given in the Quran.

Even with the argument that fundamentalist Muslims misinterpreted the Quran this still ignores their poor behaviour. Hence we could say that Islamic culture is at fault and either way you would be pinning yourself up against the wall.

When you state they have no basis for their beliefs you are claiming just that.
Aside from the usual quote mining you haven't shown how various Islamic Leftist or feminist etc groups fail to rationalise compatibility with their beliefs.

Your jibe about sex changes in Iran being only based on a fatwa (whatever that means), is a case in point. The same controversial positions you claim to be intractable from 'True Islam' are actually not that different in terms of methodology.

Fiqh was formulated in the centuries after Muhammad's time by interpreting a plethora of sources be it Quran, Hadith or Sunnah. Some concepts taking even longer to be articulated and being done so as result of circumstance within Islamic domains, for instance the codification of the concept of a Sultanate in the 11th century.

You reduce Islamic discourse to a few disjointed snippets of regularly regurgitated often unrelated text. Usually badly as evidenced by your ignorance as to how contemporary Islamic jurists rationalise Nisa 4:89 as a verse with a specific context much as Setekh argued.

http://www.askmufti.co.za/index.php?...slam&Itemid=30

Or how said verse was clearly identified with 7th century hypocrites by the likes of Ibn Kathir during the medieval period.

http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir...r/4.11861.html

Hypocrites likely encountered before Uhud.

http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir...r/4.11879.html

Even in this context and classical interpretation stipulations were raised regarding those with whom treaties were in place, were not hostile etc.

http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir...r/4.11899.html


As for whatever you think the traditional view towards spousal abuse was, here is a contemporary view by Islamic scholar Jonathan AC Brown. It relates both to views such as yours as well as Setekhs which argues (not unreasonably in my opinion ) that the translation in question can indeed depend on whatever sentiments prevailed with the exegete at the time.

Ironically, the unstated assumptions that many readers today would generally see as encasing the ‘literal meaning’ of 4:34 were shared by none of the pre-modern ‘ulama. They are, in fact, totally foreign to the Islamic tradition. Reading the verse as an unambiguous legitimization of spousal abuse assumes that the Qur’an should be read in isolation and that duties should be derived from it unmediated. Yet, no pre-modern Muslim school of thought ever advocated that (except perhaps the early Kharijite extremists), and Islamic modernists who claim they do this today cannot manage to do so consistently. . . . The ‘ulama who articulated the Islamic tradition were men. Taken as a whole, however, their reading of Qur’an 4:34 was characterized by neither the interests of patriarchy nor what is sometimes imagined to be an untempered indifference to violence. Rather, the most salient theme in the ‘ulama’s writings across the centuries has been one of restricting almost completely the apparent meanings of the verse. This seems to have appeared with the first, infallible interpreter of God’s revelation, the Messenger of God himself.

[DaVinci]

mishkin, as a Feminist your words are valid. But you are only a single individual.
There are individuals who have defended Islam, Hijabs etc.
For example Christina Hoff Summers would not defend Burqas or Hijabs. Margaraet Atwood however did, along with many other Feminists when the Prime Minister of Canada tried to ban Burqas and Hijabs on the claim that it was oppressive to women. A claim which I support.

Moreover you completely disregard the existence of Muslim Feminists which do in fact exist. Though you refused to watch the YouTube videos which have interviews with said Muslim Feminists. Do you not consider Muslim Feminists to be Feminists? If so is it because they do not meet the definition that you posted?

In your last bit you basically admitted that Leftists have indeed defended Islam. So where is the contention?
For some reason you have conflated races (ie genetics) to cultures (ideas or way of life).
Also it's not like there is nothing to attack in Islam. Have you read any of the quotes from the Quran I posted? Multiple translations all say the same thing. Individuals, Muslims themselves, can confirm this.

Bold part: That's the issue. You make up dogma placates.
The reality is but, that people (of all political colors and religions)* defend free speech, free press, free votes, free choice of marriage/family/sex life and in accordance a free choice of religion - in a democratic society or for becoming first a democratic shaped society. * except that extremist wings have radical goals and/or are against all that liberty&progressive civilisation anyway

You call those people who are doing this "Leftists" (as pool of what exactly?). In conclusion, you have simply no idea from what you are talking, probably as you went through a certain filter when you grew up aka education/experience does not allow a merely objective and differentiating view. I'm what you call a leftist (just politically a democratic thinking individuum), and i know many of the likes who have similar worldviews like me (probably it's still the overwhleming majority in western societies). I know nobody of them who defends supressive politics/practises, equal against whom or what, but looking for justice, while religious radicalism like Islamism is an absolute no-go in every shape or form. Same with subcultural radical practising Salafists or only socially wrong family business aka family-honor kills etc. such items (when a muslim woman wants to live its personal chosen life but can't), these ideologies/traditions/practises are for me criminal. Same but goes with far right idiots.

(When i say "you", many are meant, so not take it really personally)

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Bold part: That's the issue. You make up dogma placates.
The reality is but, that people (of all political colors and religions)* defend free speech, free press, free votes, free choice of marriage/family/sex life and in accordance a free choice of religion - in a democratic society or for becoming first a democratic shaped society. * except that extremist wings have radical goals and/or are against all that liberty&progressive civilisation anyway

You call those people who are doing this "Leftists" (as pool of what exactly?). In conclusion, you have simply no idea from what you are talking, probably as you went through a certain filter when you grew up aka education/experience does not allow a merely objective and differentiating view. I'm what you call a leftist (just politically a democratic thinking individuum), and i know many of the likes who have similar worldviews like me (probably it's still the overwhleming majority in western societies). I know nobody of them who defends supressive politics/practises, equal against whom or what, but looking for justice, while religious radicalism like Islamism is an absolute no-go in every shape or form. Same with subcultural radical practising Salafists or only socially wrong family business aka family-honor kills etc. such items (when a muslim woman wants to live its personal chosen life but can't), these ideologies/traditions/practises are for me criminal. Same but goes with far right idiots.

(When i say "you", many are meant, so not take it really personally)

So how many on the Right are defending Islam?
By comparison not that many.
I know that people on the Right are apologetic of Christianity, but Christianity in itself is nowhere near as violent as the Islamic ideology. Even if we accounted for extremist Christians and the amount of extremists in Western Society compared to Islamic Societies the disparity in the numbers would be massive. A Christian Extremist trying to defend their actions is forced to resort to using the Old Testament not the words of Jesus.
When you question a Muslim and refer to the extremist Hadiths and the Sunnah they will say that the Quran is better and not violent. Yet as I have pointed out the Quran is indeed violent. We do not have to limit ourselves to a single verse in a Surah. I could easily get more Surahs.

[DaVinci]

So how many on the Right are defending Islam?

When? Today or in history? What do you mean with "the Right", far right or simple conservatives? In the latter case, the majority of normal conservatives are for a free choice of religion and have no issue with the Islam in itself (just when it is not rather fanatically practised in whatever shape). Do you overall differentiate between Islam and Islamism?
You know probably that there were and still are quasi alliances between the Far Right and rather radical "Islam-believers" aka undemocratic muslims (within a majority of rather non-radical muslims in this world - remember, that Islam is the religion that is shared by the most people of the world in comparison to all other religions)? Ie. when it comes to Jews? That's where those people are on the same racism level. And, the Far Right and Islamists have more in common than they themselves would believe. Nationalists of western shape and nationalists and/or arch-conservatives of eastern shape (aka religious rather for our thinking radical muslims) have often common goals. Comicably though, when a muslim is found to act criminal in a western country, then the uprise by the far right is loud, then it is just an easy thing to play the "foreigners out" thing.
I recommend, start to differentiate items accordingly, that's all.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Right now. I am not talking about the Reagan administration defending the Afghan Mujahideen.

[PointOfViewGun]

Are you asking for my personal opinion or an absolute?
The fact that sex changes have been permitted in Iran is entirely due to a fatwah, I don't think we could even call it that, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. There is no precedent in Islam for sex change. It is not written in the book because the people of antiquity did not think it could even be possible. When Gabriel was telling the Quran to Muhammad I guess Allah must have miscalculated or forgot.
Much like the Pope declaring a crusade or the existence of the Pope himself despite it not being mentioned in the New Testament.
Anyway this is one example. I have provided sources directly from the Quran which back the insane laws in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Ah, dance around the facts all you want. You merely provided verses that proved some cultural practices to be un-Islamic. Remember the burqa failure? I do.

There are many other examples. Years ago, you couldn't hold public office in Saudi Arabia as a women. Today you can in municipalities. Both were based on Sharia laws of Saudi Arabia which are supposed to have a basis on Quran.

Yes I was waiting for this argument. Much like you employed the bad translation argument now you are using the out of context argument, a common tactic. How about you address why all the translations I provided were wrong?
What other context could there even be?
Verse 89 of the 4th Surah clearly states not to take allies from among the non-believers because if you do this might cause you to convert to their religion instead. You must only accept them if they convert to Islam, but if they ignore the calls for conversion then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and ally with no one from among them. If you want the context from these passages it is about waging war with the non-believers, kill everyone unless they convert, yeah a war crime by our modern standards.

If you were expecting it then you deliberately used a faulty argument knowing full well that it was faulty. Thanks for at least acknowledging that. Now, you're moving to making false and ignorant claims. The verse doesn't talk about conversion. You just lied about that. You also ignored the context I gave you. Why did you do that? Why did you lie?

Even if it doesn't sanction Burkhas it still sanctions covering of the head.
The word used is Khimar or khumur which is a type of head covering. Some versions are translated as Jilbab which is basically the same thing. The only real difference between it and the Burkha is that the Burkha only has a small slit for the eyes.
Even apologists like Reza Aslan and Leila Ahmed disagree with you, if you ask them they would clearly say veil.
The Hadiths support this as well.
So even if you took only the word Khimar to its most basic meaning which is "to cover" as in cover your bossoms you could easily infer that it means with your head dress.
Now it is a well known fact that women in those days wore veils, even if it only said to cover your body then it is obviously referring to the veil worn on a woman's head. Throughout history Muslims have disagreed with you.

Sigh. It's not just a type of headcover. Khumur is the plural for khamara which simply means to cover. This is like as if you claimed gay only meant homosexual...

It isn't an attack. You said this is only an example of Arabic patriarchy. You are a Turk, how do I even know that your interpretation is not the wrong one based on the cultural difference.
BTW even Ataturk and the Ottomans disagree with you:

Did he?

All of the translations are wrong? Translations most of which were done by native Arab speakers (the exception being Marmaduke Pickthall).

As long as it's a translation that I can linguistically show to be wrong, yes. they are wrong. I base my opinions based on facts, not my biases.

As I said to mishkin, define who the Leftists are. Is it people who identify as Leftists or is it people who only conform to the exact values of the Left. I never said all Leftists. For example Michael Ignatieff would be rolling in his grave at Trudeau, who succeeded him as leader of the Liberals.
No I did not imply Feminists as a whole are in support of Islam nor did I imply that Islam has anything to do with Leftist principles.

The links I provided are of people on the Left, that is to say people who vote as Leftists, who identify as Leftists and who have control of the Left (such as Justin Trudeau) saying the things that I am calling them out on.

Now to recap. Setekh claims that Islam is a religion of peace which gives equal rights to women. He was provided with multiple translations of Quranic verses which outright disprove and contradict his claims. He then went on to say that it was wrong and tried to argue minor semantics. Using known tactics such as claiming that the verses were mistranslated or misinterpreted or even that they were out of context. This is despite the fact that some of these translations were done by scholars, most of whom were native Arab speakers and Islamic interpreters by training and law.

I never said Islam is a religion of peace. Why did you lie? Your whole summary of what we discussed here is false. The posts speak for themselves. You can make up all you want. So far, you based your position on ignoring most of what I say or outright lying about it. It was fun at first but now it's just annoying. I'm not surprised anymore that you couldn't produce any counter arguments.

[DaVinci]

Right now. I am not talking about the Reagan administration defending the Afghan Mujahideen.

"Right now" with the western societies seem to become more divided than ever (see the US or UK), it is getting obviously modern to be against progressive societal developments including shaking hands between cultures and religions.
Old (and new) far righters and religious fanatics welcoming the multiple crisis' to rat-catchering the youth which is confused and is seeking for answers in a everyday more complex world, easily finding followers.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Ah, dance around the facts all you want. You merely provided verses that proved some cultural practices to be un-Islamic. Remember the burqa failure? I do.

There are many other examples. Years ago, you couldn't hold public office in Saudi Arabia as a women. Today you can in municipalities. Both were based on Sharia laws of Saudi Arabia which are supposed to have a basis on Quran.

The Quran had nothing to do with it. The Sultan Salah made that move on his own and the majority of the Ulema does not support him, it had nothing to do with an interpretation of Shariah. Those who did support his decision only did so because of his personal influence and authority. There are a great many in Saudi Arabia who disagree with Sultan Salah's decision.]

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. As if there is much of a difference between a Burka and a Hijab or the Khumur in the first place. As I said the passage still states that women must cover their heads.
Using your interpretation then the Quran ought to say, that woman need not cover their heads but that is not made clear at any point.

If you were expecting it then you deliberately used a faulty argument knowing full well that it was faulty. Thanks for at least acknowledging that. Now, you're moving to making false and ignorant claims. The verse doesn't talk about conversion. You just lied about that. You also ignored the context I gave you. Why did you do that? Why did you lie?

No I didn't. The argument was not faulty nor was my intention to make it faulty. You merely used the same tired arguments as so many others and I expected it.

"Surah an-Nisa (4:89): They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper."
It clearly states that they must convert, you might interpret it as accept Islamic rule but either way it tells you to kill them if they do not.
Where did I lie?

Sigh. It's not just a type of headcover. Khumur is the plural for khamara which simply means to cover. This is like as if you claimed gay only meant homosexual...

Again I provided 5 translations (6 if you count Spanish) and they all disagree with you. Even if you took the word in its basic form to mean the act of covering oneself it implies using the headdress. As I said headdresses were used in Pre-Islamic Arabia so the context is obviously referring to the covering in question as pertaining to a veil. The fact that it does not say "but women do not need to cover their heads" is proof enough that you are wrong, otherwise Allah forgot which is impossible.

Did he?

The Ottoman state certainly disagreed with you. Mustafa Kemal was a secularist who separated religion from the state and made massive reforms to the Turkish state. He even gave his daughter permission to never wear the veil.

As long as it's a translation that I can linguistically show to be wrong, yes. they are wrong. I base my opinions based on facts, not my biases.

As I said 5 different translation, 4 of which were done by native Arab speakers, as well as Reza Aslan and Leila Ahmed disagree with you. The Iranian and Saudi Ulemas disagree with you as well. A huge chunk of the Muslim population disagrees with you as well. I reiterate the Quran does not say "do not wear a veil" so one must easily infer that the passage in question refers to a headdress. Moreover the Sunnah and the Hadiths disagree with you.

I never said Islam is a religion of peace. Why did you lie? Your whole summary of what we discussed here is false. The posts speak for themselves. You can make up all you want. So far, you based your position on ignoring most of what I say or outright lying about it. It was fun at first but now it's just annoying. I'm not surprised anymore that you couldn't produce any counter arguments.

You were opposed to the violent passage I quoted. So is Islam not a religion of peace?
No I did not lie. I also provided sources. I'm beginning to think that it is you who is being dishonest, if not with me then at least with yourself. I produced counter arguments and poked holes in your statements. All you did was to make statements which I provided examples to counter and then you resorted to claiming I was being dishonest.

According to you out of 5 translations there were multiple errors including but not limited to wearing veils, killing "hypocrites" and beating wives.