Is a puzzlement

Yul Brenner as the King of Siam ended his lament over the death of certainty by saying, "But...is a puzzlement."

Why do people of liberal and leftish persuasions rush to the defense of Islam?

Liberals all believe, with varying degrees of clarity and/or passion, in the Seven Pillars of Progress: multiculturalism, feminism, redistributionism, secularism, pacifism, environmentalism and transnationalism.

How do Muslims score on these values?

Secularism, first of all, is the killer. Islam is essentially theocratic. It recognizes no separate sphere unshaped by religion and, specifically, by Islamic religious law.

Feminism. Despite all the blah blah about respect for women by veiling them and separating them from men, any Western feminist with an ounce of integrity would tell you in a nanosecond that Islam is the most patriarchal religion around.

Pacifism. No way. Islam is a martial religion. Muhammad was a warrior and warlord. Can anyone imagine Muslims apologizing for their use of the sword to bring Islam? Please. Islamic pacifists are rare and local.

Environmentalism. No reason a Muslim couldn't be concerned about that, but you won't find them apologizing to trees or joining PETA (that would make the animal sacrifices at the feast of Eid problematic).

Redistributionism. Well, all I'll say is to take a look at the economics of Muslim countries. I don't notice any of their ruling classes being taxed to fund a welfare state.

Transnationalism. On the surface, some common ground. In theory, the Muslim ummah, or community, is prior to any other governmental arrangement. And the vision of a unified Muslim community under Muhammad's successors, the caliphs, is a big part of Muslim history. It's what the Sunni/Shia split is about. But it is not a secular or non-religious transnationalism; precisely the opposite.

Multiculturalism. Although racial and ethnic strife and discrimination is common among Muslims, that is because they are human, not because they are Muslim. Islam itself provides little support to racism aside from the privileging of Arabic and an ancient animus for Jews. But Islam does make a radical division between believers and non-believers. And there, a further distinction between monotheist unbelievers (the so called Peoples of the Book) and polytheist unbelievers and atheists. Western multiculturalism includes deference toward the religion of Others, regardless of whether it is Buddhist or animist. Islam cannot ignore these things, so while its tolerance of different races as race is unproblematic*, the trouble is that races usually are also attached to a religion as part of their culture. Here Islam is not sanguine...though it has shown itself to be sanguinary.

So here we have culturally relativistic, woman-appeasing, socialist-leaning, pacifist, Gaia-worshipping, UN loving, religion-allergic lefties and liberals showing themselves deferential if not actively supportive of a dogmatically absolute globally-focussed theocracy founded by a lifelong slaveholder, based on male power, celebratory use of force, and an apparently total lack of interest in redistribution of income.

Is...a puzzlement.


*In theory. In practice, various Islamic nationalities have practiced all forms of racial and ethnic hierarchy, what we would call discrimination. But this is their common humanity at play rather than any strong push from the religion.
___________________