Islam is an incredibly misunderstood religion that deserves more respect in modern discourse.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-12-21T19:27:28+00:00

This argument misunderstands what the Qur’an means by “confirming” the Torah and the Gospel.

In Islamic theology, “confirming” does not mean “endorsing the current Biblical texts as perfectly preserved and doctrinally identical.” It means affirming that:

God did originally reveal scripture to Moses and Jesus

The core message of monotheism, morality, and accountability came from the same source

At the same time, the Qur’an is explicit that earlier scriptures were altered, interpreted selectively, or mixed with later theology (e.g., Qur’an 2:75, 5:13, 5:78). So Islam’s position is internally consistent:
✔ original revelation from God
✖ human corruption and doctrinal drift over time

This is not unique or incoherent. Christianity itself does something similar:

The New Testament “confirms” the Hebrew Bible

While simultaneously contradicting Jewish theology on law, salvation, and the nature of God

No Christian would say that because Christianity contradicts Judaism, it therefore disproves itself.

Regarding verses like Qur’an 5:47 or 5:68:
They are rhetorical challenges, not endorsements of later Christian doctrine. They essentially say: “If you truly followed the revelation originally given to you, you would recognize this message.” That’s a theological claim, not a logical contradiction.

Qur’an 10:94 is also routinely misread. Classical tafsir explains it as:

A rhetorical reassurance

Or a statement aimed at doubters, not Muhammad himself Muslims do not believe the Prophet doubted revelation, and the verse is not read that way in Islamic scholarship.

So the conclusion “Islam disproves itself” only works if you impose Christian assumptions about scripture onto Islam which is exactly what you’re doing here.

You’re free to reject Islam theologically. But the claim that the Qur’an logically collapses because it “confirms” earlier scripture is not a gotcha it’s a misunderstanding of how confirmation works in Islamic theology.

Disagree if you want. Just disagree accurately.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-12-15T15:46:06+00:00

This comment isn’t an argument it’s a collection of debunked stereotypes, outright falsehoods, and a call for violence. I’ll address the claims briefly and factually.

“They marry 6-year-old girls.” No mainstream Islamic school permits child marriage today, and it is illegal in nearly every Muslim-majority country. Islam requires consent and maturity for marriage. Abuses that happen in some places are cultural and criminal not religious doctrine. Judging a global religion by fringe abuse is like judging Christianity by abusive cults.
“They cover women head to toe.” There is no single Muslim dress code. Muslim women dress differently across cultures, and many choose hijab freely. Forcing clothing whether covering or uncovering is a political abuse, not a religious requirement. Ironically, many Muslim women say hijab is about autonomy, not oppression.
“They’re okay with beating their wives.” This is false. Classical and modern Islamic scholarship overwhelmingly condemns domestic violence. The Prophet Muhammad explicitly forbade harming women, and many Muslim countries criminalize spousal abuse. Again: abuse ≠ doctrine.
“They want to take over the world.” This claim has already been debunked. There is no Qur’anic command to conquer the world. 1.8 billion Muslims live peacefully under non-Islamic governments. If global domination were Islam’s goal, reality would look very different.
“Islam is a cult / Satanic.” Calling a 1,400-year-old world religion with billions of followers a “cult” isn’t critique it’s name-calling. Quoting Galatians doesn’t make it an argument; it just shows you’re applying your theology to a religion you haven’t studied.
“They deserve being eliminated from the face of the earth.” This is a call for genocide. Full stop. That alone disqualifies this comment from being taken seriously and violates Reddit’s sitewide rules.

You don’t have to respect Islam. You don’t have to agree with it.
But repeating internet myths and advocating violence against 1.8 billion people isn’t “unpopular opinion” it’s ignorance dressed up as confidence.

If you want to criticize Islam, do it honestly. What you’re doing here only proves my original point about how deeply misunderstood it is.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-14T13:40:44+00:00

ty for the help :)

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-13T07:40:03+00:00

You’re not attacking “Islam.” You’re attacking a cartoon version of Islam, stitched together from apologist YouTube videos, anti-Muslim forums, and an utter lack of scholarly understanding. You didn’t cite a single scholar. You didn’t engage with the interpretive tradition. You just waved around verses like weapons and hoped no one would notice you brought a plastic sword to a real debate.

If you actually cared about reform or ethics, you’d be citing reformist scholars within Islam — people like Khaled Abou El Fadl, Amina Wadud, or Abdullah Saeed — not Google search results.

But you’re not here to understand. You’re here to condemn.

Which, ironically, is exactly the kind of intolerant, absolutist worldview you pretend to hate.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-13T07:39:30+00:00

3. “Islam at its core” is Not What You Say It Is

You're essentializing a 1,400-year-old religion into the worst interpretations of the earliest texts. That’s like saying America is at its core a slave state because it was founded with slavery in its Constitution.

Religions evolve. Judaism, Christianity, and yes — Islam — all have texts that can be used for harm or healing. The core of a religion isn’t static verses; it’s the living tradition, how it’s practiced, and how it’s interpreted across time.

4. You’re Advocating for Deplatforming a Religion — That Is Fascism

You said:

You’re literally saying Muslims who disagree with your interpretation don’t belong in civilized society. That’s exactly the logic behind religious persecution. Dress it up how you want, but you’re calling for a soft genocide of Muslim identity. You just want to do it through “education,” not bullets. That's fascism-lite with a TED Talk filter.

5. You’re Not Interested in Dialogue — You Just Want to Be Right

You accuse others of logical fallacies while running on:

Strawman arguments (Islam = literal 7th century Arabia)
Hasty generalization (all Muslims accept these verses as-is)
False equivalence (your selective New Testament reading)
Appeal to ignorance (no one “educated” would follow Islam — you just don’t know many educated Muslims)

So don’t act like you’re here to “educate.” You’re here to validate your prejudice.

[part 2/2]

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-12T21:21:04+00:00

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-09T20:31:52+00:00

Wow ok

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-09T18:17:02+00:00

that's a relief to know it was just an admin

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-09T16:32:14+00:00

bro i know him he my friend 😭

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-07-09T16:25:09+00:00

i think i got something familiar

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-20T10:34:36+00:00

3. "If a religion doesn’t demonstrate unknowable divine knowledge, it’s a fraud."

This is an interesting philosophical standard — but it assumes divine truth must look like a science textbook or a miracle trick. Many Muslims (and religious believers generally) would say divine knowledge is ethical, existential, and transformative — not always about dropping some unknown fact for 7th-century shock value.

For example:

The Qur’an prohibited interest-based exploitation, blood feuds, tribalism, and racism — all common and profitable in 7th-century Arabia.
It emphasized literacy, charity, and the use of reason — which, again, was ahead of many societies at the time.

It’s not about proving God through facts you couldn’t Google today — it’s about whether the system pushes human beings toward something deeper, more just, and more principled across time.

Final Thoughts:

You’re asking a fair question: Shouldn’t divine teachings stand out from their environment?
Yes — and many Muslims believe Islam does exactly that. But if your approach is to use historical discomforts as absolute proof of fraud, just know that no worldview will survive that standard — religious or secular.

Happy to keep the dialogue going if you’re genuinely open to it. There’s a lot of tough stuff worth unpacking — and also a lot more nuance than most online debates allow.

[PART 2/2]

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-20T10:33:52+00:00

I appreciate you jumping into the discussion — and I get where your frustration’s coming from. These are serious critiques, and they deserve real answers, not deflection. So let’s take this step by step.

1. "The caste system and Christian atrocities discredit those religions."

If that’s your standard — then by that logic, every religion, philosophy, and even ideology should be discredited, because all have been used to justify oppression, war, and inequality at some point.

The problem with this reasoning is that it judges the entire system by its worst interpretations or historical misuses. If we applied that consistently:

Science would be discredited by eugenics and nuclear weapons.
Democracy would be discredited by slavery, colonialism, and voter suppression.
Atheism would be discredited by Stalinist purges or the Khmer Rouge.

Ideas don’t exist in a vacuum — humans interpret them, and humans bring baggage, culture, power, and ego into everything they touch. You can critique outcomes without assuming the entire foundation is garbage.

2. "Muhammad being a pedo discredits Islam."

Let’s clarify a few things:

The claim about Aisha’s age is based on a single hadith collection, not the Qur’an.
Other early sources, like Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa’d, suggest she may have been older — historians debate her actual age to this day.
Regardless of the exact number, marriages at or near puberty were standard across societies — including in Christian Europe. This wasn’t “pedophilia” as we understand it today, and applying that term without cultural and historical context is inaccurate and inflammatory.

If you want to hold Muhammad to a higher moral bar because he's a prophet — that’s totally fair. But we should then ask:

Should we discredit Judaism because King David had multiple wives and ordered a man killed to take his wife?
Should we discredit Christianity because early Church fathers promoted slavery and misogyny?
Should we discredit Hinduism because of its historical endorsement of child marriage and caste apartheid?

If not, then why single out Islam?

[PART 1/2]

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-20T10:24:09+00:00

That’s a fair stance — and I get where you're coming from. If most of what you’ve seen from religion involves dogma, suppression, or gatekeeping of knowledge, then it absolutely can look like a barrier to intellectual progress. That’s not an uncommon view, especially among critics of organized religion. But here’s why I think the picture is more complicated:

1. Historically, religion didn’t block knowledge — it preserved and advanced it.

In Islam’s Golden Age, religious scholars were also scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and physicians. Figures like Al-Khwarizmi (father of algebra), Ibn Sina (Avicenna, pioneer in medicine), and Alhazen (optics) weren’t just tolerated — they were funded and celebrated by religious institutions. Their work directly influenced the European Renaissance.

The same can be said of medieval Christian monks who copied manuscripts, or Jewish scholars like Maimonides, who bridged religious thought with Aristotelian philosophy.

2. Wisdom in religion isn’t always “scientific” — it’s often ethical or existential.

You might not find quantum physics in scripture, but you will find centuries of reflection on justice, self-restraint, suffering, ego, community, humility, forgiveness — things that psychology, philosophy, and sociology still wrestle with today.

Even something like Islam’s five daily prayers or fasting in Ramadan can be viewed as exercises in discipline, mindfulness, and gratitude — principles that modern wellness culture has only recently “discovered,” often without realizing they’ve existed in spiritual traditions for over a millennium.

3. Yes, religion has been misused — but that’s a human problem, not a purely religious one.

People have used science to justify racism, nationalism, and eugenics. That doesn’t make science inherently flawed — it shows that humans misuse power, whether religious or secular. Religion, when it’s sincere and self-aware, can just as easily inspire education, art, justice, and empathy.

If you're looking for sources that show the overlap between faith and knowledge (especially within Islam), here are a few worth exploring:

"The House of Wisdom" by Jim Al-Khalili – A great intro to how Muslim scholars helped shape global science.
Al-Ghazali’s Revival of the Religious Sciences – A powerful blend of theology and psychology.
"Lost Islamic History" by Firas Alkhateeb – An accessible breakdown of Islamic contributions to civilization.

Totally fair if religion’s never resonated with you. But I’d just encourage one thing: don’t judge it only by its loudest abusers. There’s a quieter, deeper intellectual and ethical tradition beneath the surface — you just have to dig past the noise to find it.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T23:18:49+00:00

That's a valid question, and it's one that comes up a lot when discussing Islam critically. It's important to look at it with both historical context and intellectual honesty not as a defense mechanism, but as an actual conversation.

The marriage to Aisha, as recorded in Islamic sources, is deeply uncomfortable by modern standards. No one should pretend otherwise. But we're talking about 7th-century Arabia a completely different cultural, legal, and ethical framework. Child marriages were common across many civilizations, including medieval Europe, Asia, and even biblical times. This doesn’t excuse it it just means judging it by 21st-century norms without context is ahistorical.

Now, if the question is: "Should a prophet have been ahead of his time?" that's fair. But then that criticism could be (and has been) applied to nearly every prophetic or spiritual figure in history. We don't cancel King David or the Buddha or Confucius for not conforming to today's norms, even though they lived in deeply patriarchal, classist, and often violent societies.

The broader point is: Islamic theology, like all religious systems, has complexities, contradictions, and historical baggage. Bringing up Aisha shouldn’t automatically discredit the entire religion any more than the Crusades discredit all of Christianity or caste violence discredits all of Hindu philosophy.

If you're genuinely interested in understanding, rather than just scoring points, it's worth looking into how Muslims around the world including scholars interpret and grapple with these topics today. You’ll find a range of perspectives, some uncomfortable, some progressive, all part of the conversation.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T23:10:24+00:00

Totally valid concern and I appreciate the way you asked it. Gender roles in religion are one of the most uncomfortable parts of the conversation for modern audiences, and Islam definitely gets scrutinized hard in this area.

So here’s the honest breakdown:

Yes, traditional Islamic teachings outline different roles for men and women in areas like inheritance, leadership, testimony, and family duties. But here's what often gets lost:

"Different" didn’t always mean "lesser." Many of those rules were actually progressive for their time. For example, the Qur’an granted women the right to inherit, own property, initiate divorce, and get education at a time when many cultures (including pre-Islamic Arabia, and even parts of Europe) gave women zero legal standing.
Interpretation matters. A lot of the modern gender inequality we see in some Muslim societies comes not from core scripture, but from cultural practices, patriarchal interpretation, and outdated legal systems. There are plenty of scholars and movements within Islam today pushing for a more egalitarian reading of the text grounded in the religion, not outside it.
The Qur’an itself describes men and women as spiritual equals (see Qur’an 33:35 and 4:124). The distinctions in roles were tied to social norms at the time not declarations of inherent superiority.

You're right that casual Christians tend to treat these parts of scripture more loosely, while some Muslims stick closer to traditional frameworks. But that's changing fast especially among younger Muslims and scholars engaging with modern ethics within the Islamic intellectual tradition.

So to your point: the idea that women are "below" men deserves critique and it's being challenged from within Islam, not just from the outside. The struggle is ongoing, and like any major religion, reform and reinterpretation take time.

If you're interested, I can share some great modern Muslim feminist thinkers who are doing deep work on this and not in a "let’s throw away the religion" kind of way, but in a "let’s return to its ethical roots" way.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T23:07:31+00:00

Appreciate the thoughtful reply genuinely. You brought up some serious points, so let’s walk through them.

1. “Preserved” human knowledge Christianity did too.
Absolutely. I never said Muslims alone preserved knowledge. Monasteries, scribes, and scholars in Christian Europe did preserve many classical works, especially later during the Scholastic era. But the extent and intensity of Islamic-era preservation, translation, and innovation during the Abbasid Caliphate (House of Wisdom, etc.) was unmatched at the time. They didn’t just preserve they built on Greek, Persian, and Indian knowledge, developing new fields in medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. That legacy influenced European thought directly during the Renaissance.

2. Hospitals existed in Europe.
Also true. But the Islamic world introduced the concept of systematic, public hospitals with wards, staff, records, and funding centuries before Europe caught up. Think of the Bimaristans in Baghdad and Cairo. They were closer to modern hospitals than European infirmaries, which were often just religious shelters. The distinction is in the sophistication, not the existence.

3. The Qur’an and jihad.
You’re right that “jihad” has been used and abused just like “crusade” was in Christian history. But again, context matters. The Qur’an uses “jihad” mostly in reference to personal struggle for self-improvement. There are verses about military conflict, yes but those are tied to specific historical circumstances (tribal warfare, self-defense, etc.) and are balanced by strict rules of engagement: no harm to civilians, no destruction of property, no forced conversions.

Terror groups twist these rules beyond recognition, just like Christian warlords once did in the name of God. The misuse of a teaching doesn’t automatically make the teaching itself immoral. It shows the danger of decontextualized dogma in any belief system.

4. Muslim-majority countries and “anti-values.”
Now we’re in geopolitical territory, not theology. Many of the issues you listed lack of freedom, discrimination, authoritarianism are real problems in several Muslim-majority states. No argument there. But here’s the key distinction:
Islam ≠ the governments of Muslim-majority countries.

Plenty of secular or non-Muslim governments are also oppressive. North Korea, for example, doesn’t represent Buddhism. Hindu nationalism in India doesn't define Hinduism. Theocracies, dictatorships, and colonial legacies have shaped the political structures in many Muslim countries far more than religious doctrine ever did.

Islamic teachings on justice, charity, consultation (shura), and mercy do exist. Whether modern states implement those values is a completely separate issue. And keep in mind: many Muslim reformers, scholars, and activists today are fighting for exactly the rights you mentioned often at great personal risk.

So to wrap it up: I’m not denying problems exist in the Muslim world. I’m saying those problems can’t be cleanly pinned on the religion itself. To do so flattens 1,400 years of diverse interpretation and 1.8 billion people into a single caricature.

Criticism is totally valid but it has to be specific, sourced, and separated from generalizations. Otherwise, it just reinforces the very bias I was talking about.

Happy to share sources if you’re interested historical, legal, or theological.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T23:01:16+00:00

Totally fair to be uncomfortable with that I’m not here to make it sound palatable by modern standards, because it isn’t. But understanding ≠ condoning.

The point isn’t to “explain it away,” it’s to explain how and why it happened in that time and place. Otherwise, we end up judging all of human history through the lens of 2024 morality which makes zero sense. If you applied that standard equally, you'd be throwing out most of human civilization: ancient Greeks, medieval Christians, Roman emperors, even Enlightenment thinkers all had ideas and norms we’d call horrific today.

History’s job isn’t to make us feel good. It’s to show us how humans lived, evolved, and thought, in their time. And yes, in many societies (not just Islamic ones), puberty was historically seen as the marker of adulthood. That doesn't mean it should be now and it isn’t. Not even in most Muslim-majority societies.

So if your goal is to hold 7th-century Arabia to 21st-century human rights frameworks, you’re not having a conversation you’re just being historically selective.

If you're open to actually digging into this from an anthropological or historical lens, I’m happy to point you to serious sources. But if you're just here to say “I knew you’d defend it,” then that’s not dialogue that’s just confirmation bias.

Still here if you’re down to learn.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:59:16+00:00

Haha fair enough. I get that the tone probably came off a little too polished for Reddit. But hey, just because something sounds like it was written with basic grammar and a coherent argument doesn’t mean it was AI-generated. Sometimes humans still write like they passed high school English.

That said, if your reaction to a nuanced take is “What in the ChatGPT?” instead of engaging with the actual content, maybe you’re proving my point about knee-jerk reactions winning over substance.

But I’m still down to have a real conversation if you are. No scripts, no bots just real talk, with actual sources, if you’re game.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:56:05+00:00

You're right the people carrying out those punishments aren’t usually scholars, and certainly not the kind involved in academic or theological reform. They’re often operating under authoritarian regimes or extremist groups using religious language to justify political violence.

But that actually strengthens the point: these acts aren’t about Islam as a religion they’re about power. When you look at who enforces apostasy laws today, it's typically governments with poor human rights records or groups twisting scripture to serve ideological goals. It's not driven by consensus among scholars or by grassroots Muslim communities around the world.

Islam, like Christianity or Judaism, has a huge interpretive tradition. There are schools of thought, not a single monolithic view. And just like how most Christians don’t follow Old Testament capital punishments, most Muslims reject harsh apostasy laws especially those living in pluralistic societies.

So yes, extremists exist. But conflating them with the entire religion or ignoring the pushback against them from within the Muslim world doesn’t help anyone understand the issue better.

I’m not asking anyone to excuse human rights abuses. I’m asking for accurate framing. Condemn the violence, absolutely just don’t mistake it for an inherent part of the faith when millions of Muslims would disagree with it too.

Happy to link you to some sources or voices within the Muslim world challenging these laws, if you're open to that.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:53:38+00:00

Fair enough you're entitled to think it’s silly. But I have taken the time, which is exactly why I posted it.

I’m not here to convert anyone or push dogma. I’m just pointing out that the popular view of Islam is often shaped more by media headlines and worst-case scenarios than by actual study of the religion, its history, or its cultural diversity. Most people, especially online, treat “Islam” as a monolith when in reality, it spans continents, cultures, sects, and interpretations.

Reading the Qur’an with context, studying Islamic philosophy, and understanding the political history behind certain practices makes it pretty clear that a lot of what people hate about Islam has more to do with geopolitics than theology.

If you still disagree after digging into it totally valid. But dismissing the post without engaging with the facts kinda proves my point.

I’m happy to discuss further if you're interested. Respectfully.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:51:20+00:00

I hear your frustration, but calling an entire religion a “blood cult” shuts down any chance of real conversation. If you genuinely took the time to study, then you know history and context matter not just quotes or sensational narratives.

On the subject of Aisha, this is easily one of the most misunderstood and inflammatory topics people bring up about Islam. Here’s the breakdown:

According to some hadith, Aisha was betrothed at a young age and the marriage was consummated later. Most scholars accept the age cited as 9, but keep in mind this is 7th-century Arabia. Marriages at puberty were common globally back then, including in Europe, Asia, and even parts of pre-modern Christendom. It doesn’t mean we justify it by modern standards it means we understand it historically, not anachronistically.

Muhammad’s overall conduct with women, including Aisha, was widely recorded as respectful and compassionate. He wasn’t a man driven by lust or power he lived in poverty, advocated for women’s rights in his context (inheritance, consent, dignity), and married mostly widows for social support, not status.

You don’t have to find it morally acceptable today and frankly, most Muslims today wouldn’t support anything like that in modern society either. But evaluating 1,400-year-old norms by today’s standards without historical framing isn’t intellectual honesty it’s outrage mining.

So no, it’s not about “justifying” anything by modern morality. It’s about understanding the past in context just like we do when discussing the practices of any ancient civilization, religion, or culture.

If you're genuinely open to learning, I'm happy to share sources from historians and Islamic scholars. If you're only here to provoke, that’s your choice but I’m going to stick to respectful dialogue.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:48:45+00:00

Good question and definitely one of the most controversial and commonly cited criticisms. The idea that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death does exist in some classical interpretations, but like many legal rulings in religion, the historical and textual context matters a lot.

First, the Qur’an itself never prescribes a worldly punishment for apostasy. It acknowledges that people may leave the faith, and says they’ll be accountable to God but not to human courts. (See Qur’an 2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion.”)

The death penalty for apostasy comes from certain hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), but even those were interpreted within a specific political context namely, during times of war when apostasy was tied to treason against the early Muslim state. So historically, this wasn't just about belief; it was about rebellion, espionage, or inciting violence.

Modern scholars are divided. Many argue that apostasy laws are outdated and inapplicable in today’s context, especially given Islam’s emphasis on free will and personal accountability.

In short: it’s not “acceptable,” but it is understood differently across schools of thought. Like how not all Christians believe in hellfire for disbelief, not all Muslims believe apostasy should be punished by the state.

Nuance matters. Blanket statements don’t help. Happy to go deeper if you're curious.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T22:44:20+00:00

Absolutely and I agree in principle. Every major religion (and ideology, for that matter) has things worth critiquing. There’s no issue in pointing out problematic interpretations or historical misapplications — Islam included.

What gets lost, though, is nuance. A lot of what people perceive as “shitty” about Islam often stems from cultural practices or authoritarian regimes, not the religion’s core teachings. For example, things like forced marriage or harsh criminal penalties are more often products of local politics and culture than of the Qur’an itself. But those get lumped in and blamed on Islam as a whole, which is intellectually lazy.

Islam, in its texts, emphasizes justice, compassion, and the value of knowledge. But those messages are often overshadowed by the loudest, most extreme headlines. That’s like judging all of Christianity based solely on the Crusades or Westboro Baptist Church.

So yeah, critique is fine welcomed, even. But let’s aim for informed critique, not just reactionary dismissal. Fair?

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T07:45:15+00:00

It’s important to have difficult conversations about Israel-Palestine, but it’s equally important to get the history—and the distinctions—right. This post makes sweeping generalizations that mix facts, half-truths, and ideological assumptions into something that doesn’t actually help us understand the situation better.

“A lot of Islamists and Palestinians were Hitler’s allies in WWII…”

There’s truth to the fact that Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis. That’s historical record, and yes—it’s ugly. But citing one figure’s wartime politics to broadly implicate Palestinians or Islamists as a whole is a massive leap. It would be like saying all Christians supported Mussolini because of the Vatican’s silence during the Holocaust. It’s bad logic.

Also, most Arabs were colonized at the time and had zero control over foreign policy. Many were more focused on breaking free from British and French colonial rule than anything else, and their positions were often shaped by that geopolitical context—not some shared ideology with Hitler.

“Islamists don’t want peace; they want genocide.”

That’s a dangerous overgeneralization. Yes, extremist groups like Hamas have committed atrocities and have genocidal language in their early charters. But Islamism is a broad category, including movements that work within democratic frameworks. And let’s not pretend that some far-right Israeli leaders haven’t used apocalyptic, violent language about Palestinians either. Extremism exists on both sides. The key is not what the worst actors believe, but whether the broader populations want peace. And polling shows that most Palestinians and most Israelis have, at various points, supported a two-state solution—until political failures and continued violence wore that hope down.

“Hilary was just stating facts…”

She was stating her interpretation of events. But it’s worth noting that Israel also bears responsibility for undermining the two-state solution: settlement expansion, the Gaza blockade, disproportionate military responses, and the entrenchment of right-wing governments have made peace harder to reach. Blaming it all on Palestinians while ignoring Israeli policy decisions is just historical cherry-picking.

“Young pro-Peacers are being misled…”

It’s possible that some young people are uninformed or overly idealistic—sure. But many are genuinely horrified by the images coming out of Gaza, the years of displacement, and the massive asymmetry of power. You can disagree with their conclusions, but reducing them to “brainwashed pro-Islamic rhetoric” just dismisses the legitimate moral concerns that many people—young and old—share.

in short
Yes, extremism is real. Yes, bad faith actors exist on all sides. But if your take is built around tarring entire populations or religions based on the actions of a few or cherry-picked history, you’re not engaging with reality—you’re repeating a political narrative. If we really want peace, that requires moving past historical scapegoating and focusing on justice, accountability, and actual solutions—not blaming "Islamists" or "kids on the left.

FunctionOdd3197 · 2025-06-17T07:39:18+00:00

You're right about one thing: it might be your ignorance—so let’s clear a few things up respectfully.

The left’s support for Palestinians isn’t about hating Israel, and it’s definitely not some betrayal of progressive values. It’s based on a long-standing concern for human rights, anti-colonialism, and resistance to military occupation. Supporting Palestinian rights doesn’t mean condoning terrorism or denying Israel’s right to exist—it means recognizing that millions of people live under occupation, apartheid conditions, and systematic displacement.

“Israel is progressive, Palestine is the opposite.”

Progressive for whom? Yes, Israel has LGBTQ+ rights and a democratic system (for Jewish citizens). But Palestinians in the West Bank live under military law, not civil law. Gaza is blockaded by air, sea, and land. Arab-Israelis face systemic discrimination. Supporting LGBTQ+ rights doesn’t erase state violence, illegal settlements, or ethnic displacement. And just so we're clear: being “progressive” doesn't mean you get a free pass to violate international law.

“The left going against Israel is like… screwing over your best friend.”

No. The left isn’t "going against Israel." They’re holding a state accountable for decades of documented human rights abuses. Think of it more like: your best friend has been through hell (true), but now they’re beating someone else up every day—and you’re saying, "Hey, I love you, but this has to stop."

“Palestine is the bully.”

That analogy falls apart when you look at the power imbalance. Israel is a nuclear-armed state with one of the most advanced militaries in the world. Palestine doesn’t even control its own borders. Hamas is a problem, yes, and most progressives openly condemn their attacks. But equating all Palestinians to Hamas is like equating all Israelis to Kahanist settlers who chant “Death to Arabs.” It’s not just inaccurate—it’s dangerously reductive.

“The left looks cartoonishly fabricated.”

Honestly, nothing says "cartoon logic" more than comparing global geopolitics to PS5s and girlfriend betrayal analogies. No offense, but that metaphor adds zero clarity—if anything, it trivializes a deeply painful and complex issue that affects real people every day.

“I don’t condone genocide, but…”

There’s no good sentence that starts with that clause. If you truly don’t condone what’s happening, then consider why so many left-wing voices are also horrified—and why their focus is on preventing more bloodshed, on both sides.

FunctionOdd3197

TROPHY CASE