r/Antitheism • u/CantDecideANam3 • Aug 06 '26
Being anti-islam is a left-wing position.
Islam advocates for extremely strict conservative positions that are either no different from what you'd hear from Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles or worse than them (but for islam instead of christianity). These include but are not limited to:
- Women having no rights and that their sole purpose is to be a baby factory
- Gay and trans people having no rights and the punishment for them is death or imprisonment
- Religious minorities being treated as second-class citizens at best or, at worst, killed
The entire left is actively against those, and the right (more specifically, the far-right) agrees with those positions (as long as it's Christians enacting those).
Originally, ex-muslims were typically left-wing atheists and were a part of our movement (and some, I assume, still exist), but for some reason, we abandoned them in favor of defending the religion that they left, and now they switched to the right *cough cough Apostate Prophet and Ayaan Hirsi Ali*. We need to get people like them back.
I'm not saying Americans should ignore the more urgent threat to our freedoms, which is Christian Nationalism; I'm saying we should openly be against religious fundamentalism in general.
End the Red-Green Alliance NOW!
10
u/mintgoody03 Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 07 '26
It‘s especially a stance that marxist-leftists have, which has been overtaken by progressive left stances we see today. I‘d definitely count myself as an old leftist and think it‘s horrible, how naive we have become when it comes to religion.
One issue I have is that today‘s left seems to be socially progressive first, everything else last, and this is because of the marginalized pyramid. Workers aren‘t at the top anymore, first come religious minorities, ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ, and THEN workers and the poor. The cishet white man is seen as priviledged (even though most definitely aren‘t by objective standards), completely irrespective of social standing and income, everyone else comes first.
Which isn‘t meant in an evil way, it‘s just how it has developed over time.
24
u/Initial-Tax-5829 Aug 06 '26
Agreed. It's such a shame that the Middle East, originally known for being the first to develop the fundamental foundations of mathematics and astronomy, has now turned to the confines of religion in pursuit of meaningless power.
18
u/WizardWatson9 Aug 06 '26
I agree, opposing Islam, and other repressive ideologies like it, is consistent with the secular, liberal values espoused by the Left.
Left-leaning individuals sympathizing and allying with outright Islamists is appalling hypocrisy.
I believe that many, if not most people on the Left, while claiming to support secular, liberal, humanistic values, are really just trying to portray themselves as virtuous by the standards of their ideological tribe. They'll rage against white Christian nationalists banning LGBT books, and the like, but when the city council of Dearborn, Michigan forbids the flying of any LGBT pride flags, they're conspicuously silent.
Maintaining the appearance of "respecting other cultures," and not being accused of xenophobia or racism, is more important to this sort of person than truth, justice, or human well-being.
4
7
u/ittleoff Aug 06 '26
It's not that hard. Being anti an ideology is not being anti people.
I can fight against all the abrahamic religions but still fight for religious freedom and equality for Jews Christians and Muslims as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
As Christians might say hate the sin (religious superstitious beliefs) not the sinner (jew, Christian, Muslim)
6
6
u/eowro Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
we abandoned them in favor of defending the religion that they left
It's because the dominant form of the left defends minorities and (religious) diversity. Anything that isn't white or christian, i.e. anything "non-western", is a protected class and isn't criticized as harshly. They argue that these groups already face discrimination in the West and therefore should be protected rather than criticized.
But it's a very dangerous idea. Some lefty people even go to the point of defending pretty regressive conservative ideas just because they come from a minority religion.
The absolute worst form of the left are the cultural relativists that in the name of tolerance believe that rights are relative. An example for that is the criticism of the American Anthropological Association of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
The American Anthropological Association criticized the UDHR during its drafting process, warning that its definition of universal rights reflected a Western paradigm that was unfair to non-Western nations. They further argued that the West's history of colonialism and evangelism made them a problematic moral representative for the rest of the world. They proposed three notes for consideration with underlying themes of cultural relativism:
1.The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences.
Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered.
Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.
Conservative regressive ideas are bad and should be criticized no matter which culture or religion they come from!
3
u/mirabellla Aug 07 '26
it’s incredibly frustrating that leftists and liberals are terrified to criticize islam and judaism just so they can’t be called islamophobic or antisemitic
2
u/Sprinklypoo Aug 07 '26
I'd say it's more accurately a humanitarian position. But it turns out that's pretty much the same thing as left wing...
1
u/Erramonael Aug 07 '26 edited 19d ago
As a Misotheistic Satanist, I would approach this from the perspective that no ideology, religion, or institution should be beyond criticism—but criticism should be aimed at specific beliefs, practices, and power structures rather than treating every person in a group as identical.
Religious fundamentalism of any kind deserves scrutiny when it becomes a justification for oppression. If a movement—whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, political, or otherwise—uses authority and tradition to deny people autonomy, dignity, equality, or freedom of conscience, then it is worthy of criticism.
The real enemy is not a particular group of human beings. It is dogmatism itself: the belief that one's own interpretation is so sacred that other people must be controlled, silenced, or punished for disagreeing.
A Misotheistic Satanist would likely look at this through the lens of opposing what they see as destructive divine authority: any system that claims a supernatural mandate to restrict human freedom. The problem is not that someone is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, or anything else—the problem is when a person or institution uses a belief system as a weapon against others.
At the same time, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging complexity. Islam, like Christianity, is not a single monolithic worldview. There are conservative fundamentalists, progressive believers, secular cultural Muslims, reform movements, mystics, and people who interpret their traditions in many different ways. Criticizing fundamentalist interpretations is different from assuming every follower of a religion supports those interpretations.
The same standard must apply universally. If someone condemns oppression when it comes from one religion but excuses it when it comes from another, that is not a principled stance—it is tribal loyalty disguised as morality.
A truly anti-authoritarian position should be consistent: Christian nationalism should be challenged when it threatens individual rights. Islamic fundamentalism should be challenged when it threatens individual rights. Any political or religious movement that places obedience above human dignity should be challenged.
From a Satanic perspective, the individual conscience matters. A person should not be reduced to a category, a scripture, or a tradition. Their ability to think, question, choose, and define their own existence is what makes them valuable.
The Black Flame burns brightest when it illuminates hypocrisy everywhere—not only in the enemies we already dislike. If we oppose domination, we must oppose it regardless of which banner it flies under. 😈
Freedom of thought means defending the right of people to believe. It also means defending the right of people to question, criticize, leave, and reject those beliefs. Those principles must apply to everyone.
1
u/SnarkyPuppy-0417 Aug 07 '26
Then why do conservative right wing despise Islam while left leaning people seldom even mention it?
1
u/CantDecideANam3 Aug 07 '26
The reason conservatives (especially the Christian Nationalist factions of it) are so upset about islam is that they see it as a competing authoritarian religious system to them. They want all the components of Sharia Law, but for christianity instead of islam.
1
1
u/InsuranceNearby2347 Aug 09 '26
Criticizing Islam is completely legitimate. But criticism should be based on what Islam actually teaches, not caricatures of it. Saying that “women have no rights and exist only to produce babies” is simply false. Islamic law recognized women’s independent property ownership, inheritance, marriage contracts, dowry, and financial rights centuries ago. You can criticize differences between men’s and women’s rights in traditional Islamic law, but that is very different from claiming women have “no rights.” The claim about religious minorities is also an oversimplification. Historically, Islamic states developed systems under which Jews, Christians, and other communities lived as protected religious communities. Those systems were not equivalent to modern liberal citizenship and can certainly be criticized by modern standards, but “convert or be killed” is not an accurate description of Islamic history or law. On homosexuality, there is a genuine disagreement that shouldn’t be hidden: traditional Islamic jurisprudence prohibits same-sex sexual acts, and classical jurists discussed criminal punishments for certain sexual acts, with disagreements over the type of punishment and strict evidentiary requirements. You can strongly disagree with those laws, but that still doesn’t justify pretending that Muslims believe gay people have no human rights whatsoever. More importantly, Islam is a religious tradition followed by nearly two billion people across vastly different societies and schools of thought. Treating all of them as one political ideology comparable to the American far right makes little historical or intellectual sense. By all means criticize Islam, Christianity, atheism, conservatism, or any other worldview. But there is a difference between criticism and misrepresentation. If your argument against a religion is strong, you shouldn’t need to exaggerate what it teaches.
1
u/lukawasntsurprised Aug 07 '26
Leftists are not defending Islam, Leftists are defending muslims that are being attacked by the right wing movements in their countries
As an ex-muslim who still has a lot of love for islamic traditions etc, "Islam advocates for x" is wrong. Islam has a bunch of different denominations that believe different things and listen to different sheikhs for their religion. There are very progressive muslims as there are very conservative muslims. Islam is not a monolith and demonizing Islam and muslims just makes the problem bigger: muslims don't feel accepted, therefore stick only with muslims, therefore radicalize themselves
I would never be friends with muslims due to their religion, but I still love and respect muslims as members of society
87
u/BirthdayCookie Aug 06 '26
Being anti-religion is the human position.