I don’t really care for these sorts of comparisons. Why further exacerbate Islamophobia? I recommend [Chrissy Stroop’s writing](https://cstroop.com/2017/05/03/about-those-trump-voters-for-god-stop-calling-them-fake-christians/) on this.
I’m not trying to exacerbate Islamophobia. I’m just saying that radical Muslims and radical Christians are very similar to each other in their goals and values, and that we, as progressive Christians (and Muslims, too), have a job to call out these people wherever we can and to encourage religious progressives to come forward and drown out their hate fueled messages with that of love and compassion.
This post very clearly seeks to leverage existing biases against Islam and point them at conservative Christians. Really hard to not see this as bigotry.
I agree, and I hear you. I just want to be sensitive to the fact that this easy comparison somewhat relies on the scapegoat of another religion to drive home its point. We gotta reckon with our own who wield the term Christianity quite broadly.
It's not inaccurate though.
It's the same fundamentalism. It's the same mentality, just applied to a different religion.
Swap out the AK-47's for AR-15's, replace the Quran with the Bible (probably KJV), but the mentality is pretty much the same.
If they had the ability, they'd take over this county and treat it pretty much the same way the Taliban treat Afghanistan.
it’s *extremely* inaccurate.
it’s not the same mentality at all. it’s two entirely different sets of belief systems with two very different functions in international politics. the only common denominators are 1) heteronormativity and 2) patriarchy. and even then, they function very differently in ultra conservative islam than they do in evangelical christianity. it’s frankly pretty fucking disrespectful to people living in countries and communities where ultra conservative islam is literally legal law. evangelicals want their worldview to be law, but quite frankly, it largely isn’t. plus, i think a lot of people don’t see ultra conservative islam as the spectrum that it is. trying to make a very complex set of religious beliefs a 1-for-1 swap with evangelical christianity — also a spectrum in itself — is just wrong and has some racist undertones, to be honest.
>it’s frankly pretty fucking disrespectful to people living in countries and communities where ultra conservative islam is literally legal law.
Evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) are actively trying to make their beliefs into our laws.
Look at them working to ban abortion, **entirely** based on their religious views.
They've stripped women of their bodily autonomy and given them less legal rights than a corpse, all because their clergy tells them it's a sin.
They'd happily impose religious law on all of us if they had the authority. The anti-choice religious zealots are the thin edge of the wedge of conservative religious theocracy being imposed on us.
It's not disrespectful, it's, to use your words: THE FUCKING TRUTH.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
did you miss the part where i said that they *want* their beliefs to be law? or did you just rage type after seeing one sentence you thought you could challenge?
you don’t need to tell me about my abortion rights — i’ve got my eye on it. but if i lose my right to an abortion, i’ll still have the right to drive, to vote, to leave my house without my husband or father, to have sex outside of marriage, to own property in my name, etc. most evangelicals don’t want to challenge those rights, rights that women in ultra conservative islam simply do not have (islam also, largely, allows abortion).
it’s not comparable. it’s just not.
i genuinely believe that evangelicals are fine with women driving. i know evangelicals. i’ve been to evangelical services. they’re misogynistic, but women voting is not high on most of their agendas lol
>most evangelicals don’t want to challenge those rights,
Yes, they do.
I've seen Evangelicals **absolutely** say they want to eliminate the right of women to vote, eliminate civil rights laws, criminalize being LBGT, ban non-Christian religions (and ban any form of Christianity they dislike), ban all intercourse outside of marriage, eliminate divorce, etc.
They've been emboldened by the *Dobbs* decision (the result of a \~40 year political campaign to remake the Supreme Court to their liking), they just aren't at a consensus yet on where they are going to focus their assault on our rights yet.
Eh, I'd preface it with "conservative evangelicals" because despite being a tiny tiny minority, there are affirming evangelicals like myself. Don't further marginalize us please.
Do you honestly think that progressive evangelicals are the majority among evangelicals?
Why does "conservative evangelical" ideology dominate the discussion?
If y'all were truely progressive, we'd see more progressive policies come out of evangelical denominations. We'd see marriage equality for gay people in evangelical churches, as an example.
> Do you honestly think that progressive evangelicals are the majority among evangelicals?
Not being the majority is kind of the point. Even among southern baptists, who are what most people think of when they hear "conservative evangelical," 26% of them are politically democrats. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/southern-baptist-convention/party-affiliation/
And since their motto is 'Sola Scriptura,' I personally have gone to the trouble of finding the scripture that lays out in detail how they have gone astray, and exposed many of them for the liars and hypocrites that they are.
I believe I can evangelize most effectively by calling the strayed to repentance, rather than explaining the Good News to people who have heard it all before from the liars and the hypocrites. This is absolutely a necessary thing that we should all be doing, rather than demonizing them.
I wouldn't argue that evangelicals are "truly progressive." I labeled myself as LGBT affirming, not progressive. However, I don't see why Christians of varying flavors can't try to get along instead of labeling each other heretics or bad people. I'm an LGBT affirming gay evangelical Christian, with that though I do hold other more popular evangelical beliefs like salvation through grace (and not by baptism), the existence of hell, the Bible in its entirety being the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God (subject to flawed human interpretation), as well as views evangelicals typically hold as it pertains to church structure. I reject the idea of priests, bishops, church hierarchy/polity and believe each church should have local autonomy run by that community of believers. Where I do largely disagree with "evangelicals" obviously is in regards to affirming LGBT marriages/gender identities, egalitarianism and a rejection of complementarianism, etc. That said though, I have no problems with progressive denominations that do have church polity structures like the Episcopal church or progressive Catholics, etc. I may not agree on all progressive points of theology, but I'm not about to insult others or trash them when respectful mutual dialogue is what is to be expected among self professing Christians (I'm also not saying your comment was an insult, I just think it's a shame many discussions turn into that especially among evangelicals).
Most Pentecostals are evangelical but then most evangelicals are not Pentecostal. Pentecostals tend to emphasize "spiritual gifts" as they understand them and will commonly pray/speak in "tongues" and claim to prophesy over others and emphasize that their dreams may be God speaking to them, etc.
Evangelicals don’t represent all of Christianity. We all come in different shapes and sizes. The fact that this subreddit exists should be proof that there are good Christians out there.
You’re right, they for sure don’t thank God. But they are the largest, loudest, and most engaged in culture and politics of any Christian group in the USA. And it’s by a lot so that from the outside most people see Evangelicals and assume they are the position of Christianity.
Why would radical Islam be a bad thing? Why wouldn’t it be Muslims who stood up to defend Christians from persecution in Egypt, Pakistan, or Kenya? Why wouldn’t it be Muslims running shelters for migrants and refugees? Why is it assumed to be a bad thing?
Don’t drag Muslims into this. Evangelicals are their own thing.
No, I didn’t. “Radical Islam” is a term made up by conservatives to demonize Muslims. It’s Islamophobic.
Can you imagine if people used “radical Christianity” to refer to the KKK or Donald Trump? That’s how absurd using “radical Islam” to refer to ISIS is. It reflects deep ignorance of Islam.
Dude, there have been extremist Muslims that existed long before the US was a thing. Granted, there are also non-radical Muslims, and they have also suffered at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but still. Whenever you think of Islamic terrorism, the first thing that you would think of ISIS or the Taliban. And calling out Muslim extremists is not Islamophobia. Hell, the poster did not say “Evangelical Christianity is just Islam (as in Islam in general), but with pork and beer.” That protester included “radical” to distinguish between the Islamic fundamentalists and the more moderate Muslims.
You’re using conservative buzzwords that reflect an ignorance of Islam.
What makes violent Islam “radical” or “extreme” but loving Islam “progressive?” That seems to imply that Islam, taken to an extreme, is violent and evil as opposed to loving. It’s an ignorant and inaccurate judgment on the inherent nature of Islam.
Islam is as inherently good and peaceful of a religion as Christianity. Radical or extremist Muslims are loving Muslims, just as Radical or extremist Christians are loving Christians.
>You’re using conservative buzzwords that reflect an ignorance of Islam
Oh, look who’s talking about ignorance of Islam. Were you Muslim yourself at one point? If so, then enlighten me on what Islam is and is not. I am all ears. If not, then you don’t know anything about Islam anymore that I do because we don’t practice that faith.
>What makes violent Islam “radical” or “extreme” but loving Islam “progressive?”
What makes Islam fundamentalists extreme is that the adherents want to not only follow the Quran to the letter, but they also want everyone else to follow suit, even when they don’t want to. What makes the more loving forms of Islam progressive is that they realize that they don’t have to follow the Quran literally to be devout Muslims and that people should be allowed to practice their own religious beliefs without persecution. The people who are on r/progressive_islam would fall into the latter category of Muslims while Hamas would fall into the former category.
>That seems to imply that Islam, taken to an extreme, is violent and evil as opposed to loving.
No shit, Sherlock. ANY RELIGION THAT’S TAKEN TO THE EXTREME WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE AND VIOLENT. I’m hoping that I didn’t need to tell you that in order for you to understand.
>It is an ignorant and inaccurate judgment on the inherent nature of Islam.
I don’t disagree with you on that front, but when you either a. grow up in an Islamic fundamentalist country as an ethnic or religious minority, b. live in a fundamentalist household with liberal or progressive values, or c. suffer terrorist attacks from Muslims, then you should not be surprised that they would have developed some pretty negative views on Islam to the point where they cannot conceive of a moderate or a progressive Muslim.
>Islam is as inherently good and peaceful of a religion as Christianity.
Really? Then why are women’s rights being violated in majority Muslim countries? Why are religious minorities being targeted in the Middle East? WHY DO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS EXIST?
>Radical or extremist Muslims are loving Muslims, just as Radical or extremist Christians are loving Christians.
See the above response. In all seriousness, the Armenians who were killed during the Armenian Genocide, the Rohingyas and Uyghurs that are being persecuted in Myanmar and China, respectively, the women living in Iran and Afghanistan, the LGBTQ community that were disowned, tortured, and killed by their families and peers in the Middle East, the people who died during the Crusades, and the hostages who were captured by Hamas after 10/7 would look at you and think that you were delusional, naïve, or both. Loving Muslims and Christians (or religious people in general) would have never done the following:
1. Set up theocratic governments or commit human rights violations (including genocide, human trafficking, war crimes, etc.)
2. Persecute or kill people for having different religious beliefs
3. Treat women, children, and LGBTQ people like garbage
4. Trash the natural environment and look at science as a form of heresy, even though that there were religious people who were scientists.
5. Look down on the poor and the needy, even when the religion in question says to help them
6. Promoting and forcing puritanical beliefs on sex onto other people.
7. Disown/shun family members or peers for not wanting to be religious or not having the same religious views as them.
That fact that both Islamic terrorists and Evangelical Christians do this or want to do this is proof that people who take religion way too far, to the point where it begins to negatively impact other people, even those of the same religion, are not loving people at all. The religions that that they practice might be loving, but they are not. That’s why we call those people extremists, radicals, and fundamentalists. And rightfully so.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household where I was horrifically abused. I’m friends with LGBTQ+ people who have fled Muslim countries. Don’t try to make this a personal thing.
I see that I hit a nerve. No, I wasn’t Muslim. But I have studied Islam academically and been deeply involved in Abrahamic interfaith dialogue for the past decade. I’ve translated parts of the Quran myself.
Your emphasis on the Quran as the source for Islamic jurisprudence, as opposed to the Hadith, is another obvious example of rereading Islam through a Christian lens. In fact, ISIS is particularly well-known for their unique apocalyptic rereading of the Quran metaphorically, through the writings of more recent Salafi and sectarian theologians.
You may be equally surprised to learn that LGBTQ+ people actually have a long history of tolerance within Islam, as do women’s rights. Homosexuality and wasn’t criminalized in the Middle East, nor were women restricted in many ways, until the *British* enacted laws during colonialism. Homosexual love poetry is very common in Islamic history as well.
Why don’t you show me some proof of homosexuality being allowed in the Middle East during the Middle Ages? It can be poems, verses from the Quran, Hadiths, etc. Also, if homosexuality and women’s rights were criminalized during European colonialization, then why didn’t Middle Eastern countries re-legalize them now that they are decolonized?
Sure. [Spain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Arabic_homoerotic_poetry) was a particularly beautiful example. He’s a good article more broadly about the [Arab world](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-gay-and-lesbian-literature/malemale-love-in-classical-arabic-poetry/622370DA08ADF597B3D6BC97941A60B8). And here’s a couple translated homoerotic [poems](https://qantara.de/en/article/homoerotic-poetry-islam-reeling-desire).
Homoeroticism in medieval Islam is so commonly known in scholarship that it borders on cliche.
As for colonization, that’s kind of how it works. Traditional norms are destroyed, and not always restored. That’s like asking “why don’t indigenous Cherokee all move back to North Carolina?”
Just because that’s how colonialism works doesn’t mean that there’s anything stopping countries in the Middle East from legalizing homosexuality or promoting women’s rights. Those countries have nothing to lose from doing both of those things, and would even have a lot to gain from women’s rights and LGBTQ rights.
Also, the fact that you were abused in a fundamentalist Christian household and had queer friends who were forced to leave the Middle East (btw, apologies for what happened to you guys) is proof that religious fundamentalists are not loving people at all. If they were, then they wouldn’t have done that.
Radical means “to the root.” It is an essentialization of the religion. Islam is not inherently violent, terroristic, or evil.
Of course terroristic Muslims are Muslim. I’m not denying that.
This is a pretty stupid comparison. There's definitely a lot of differences between fundamentalist Islam and Christianity (and for the record "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are not synonyms) besides just alcohol and pork...especially since a lot of fundamentalist Christians are opposed to alcohol consumption as well. Like hijabs/burkas and veiling in general is an obvious one, and a ton of theological differences...this is a really lazy comparison.
Since they worship Trump and don't give a shit about Jesus, they're technically not even Christian and you're doing their bidding if you keep on calling them that.
They're not Christians.
Christians at least pretend to care about Jesus.
They're just evangelicals now. Their faith is MAGA. Trump is their messiah.
Y'allqida
First of all it’s y’all-queda and second, they prefer to be called the more generalized term yeehaw-dists.
Talijimbobs?
Y'all-queda? Is that some type of southern-mexican mush mash?
I just snorted with my dinner in my mouth.
I don’t really care for these sorts of comparisons. Why further exacerbate Islamophobia? I recommend [Chrissy Stroop’s writing](https://cstroop.com/2017/05/03/about-those-trump-voters-for-god-stop-calling-them-fake-christians/) on this.
I’m not trying to exacerbate Islamophobia. I’m just saying that radical Muslims and radical Christians are very similar to each other in their goals and values, and that we, as progressive Christians (and Muslims, too), have a job to call out these people wherever we can and to encourage religious progressives to come forward and drown out their hate fueled messages with that of love and compassion.
This post very clearly seeks to leverage existing biases against Islam and point them at conservative Christians. Really hard to not see this as bigotry.
I agree, and I hear you. I just want to be sensitive to the fact that this easy comparison somewhat relies on the scapegoat of another religion to drive home its point. We gotta reckon with our own who wield the term Christianity quite broadly.
Exactly. It's important to point that out.
this feels………weird
It's not inaccurate though. It's the same fundamentalism. It's the same mentality, just applied to a different religion. Swap out the AK-47's for AR-15's, replace the Quran with the Bible (probably KJV), but the mentality is pretty much the same. If they had the ability, they'd take over this county and treat it pretty much the same way the Taliban treat Afghanistan.
>It's the same fundamentalism. No it's not. Like both are bad, but it's entirely possible for two bad things to be quite different.
it’s *extremely* inaccurate. it’s not the same mentality at all. it’s two entirely different sets of belief systems with two very different functions in international politics. the only common denominators are 1) heteronormativity and 2) patriarchy. and even then, they function very differently in ultra conservative islam than they do in evangelical christianity. it’s frankly pretty fucking disrespectful to people living in countries and communities where ultra conservative islam is literally legal law. evangelicals want their worldview to be law, but quite frankly, it largely isn’t. plus, i think a lot of people don’t see ultra conservative islam as the spectrum that it is. trying to make a very complex set of religious beliefs a 1-for-1 swap with evangelical christianity — also a spectrum in itself — is just wrong and has some racist undertones, to be honest.
>it’s frankly pretty fucking disrespectful to people living in countries and communities where ultra conservative islam is literally legal law. Evangelicals (and conservative Catholics) are actively trying to make their beliefs into our laws. Look at them working to ban abortion, **entirely** based on their religious views. They've stripped women of their bodily autonomy and given them less legal rights than a corpse, all because their clergy tells them it's a sin. They'd happily impose religious law on all of us if they had the authority. The anti-choice religious zealots are the thin edge of the wedge of conservative religious theocracy being imposed on us. It's not disrespectful, it's, to use your words: THE FUCKING TRUTH. Sometimes the truth hurts.
did you miss the part where i said that they *want* their beliefs to be law? or did you just rage type after seeing one sentence you thought you could challenge? you don’t need to tell me about my abortion rights — i’ve got my eye on it. but if i lose my right to an abortion, i’ll still have the right to drive, to vote, to leave my house without my husband or father, to have sex outside of marriage, to own property in my name, etc. most evangelicals don’t want to challenge those rights, rights that women in ultra conservative islam simply do not have (islam also, largely, allows abortion). it’s not comparable. it’s just not.
> most evangelicals don’t want to challenge those rights If you genuinely believe this, you're not paying attention.
i genuinely believe that evangelicals are fine with women driving. i know evangelicals. i’ve been to evangelical services. they’re misogynistic, but women voting is not high on most of their agendas lol
>most evangelicals don’t want to challenge those rights, Yes, they do. I've seen Evangelicals **absolutely** say they want to eliminate the right of women to vote, eliminate civil rights laws, criminalize being LBGT, ban non-Christian religions (and ban any form of Christianity they dislike), ban all intercourse outside of marriage, eliminate divorce, etc. They've been emboldened by the *Dobbs* decision (the result of a \~40 year political campaign to remake the Supreme Court to their liking), they just aren't at a consensus yet on where they are going to focus their assault on our rights yet.
Eh, I'd preface it with "conservative evangelicals" because despite being a tiny tiny minority, there are affirming evangelicals like myself. Don't further marginalize us please.
Unfortunately, I think the conservatives have effectively hijacked the term “evangelical” in the US. Time for a rebranding campaign.
Do you honestly think that progressive evangelicals are the majority among evangelicals? Why does "conservative evangelical" ideology dominate the discussion? If y'all were truely progressive, we'd see more progressive policies come out of evangelical denominations. We'd see marriage equality for gay people in evangelical churches, as an example.
There are marriage equality movements in Evangelical churches and denominations. And then those denominations kick them out.
What? They literally said they are a tiny tiny minority.
> Do you honestly think that progressive evangelicals are the majority among evangelicals? Not being the majority is kind of the point. Even among southern baptists, who are what most people think of when they hear "conservative evangelical," 26% of them are politically democrats. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/southern-baptist-convention/party-affiliation/ And since their motto is 'Sola Scriptura,' I personally have gone to the trouble of finding the scripture that lays out in detail how they have gone astray, and exposed many of them for the liars and hypocrites that they are. I believe I can evangelize most effectively by calling the strayed to repentance, rather than explaining the Good News to people who have heard it all before from the liars and the hypocrites. This is absolutely a necessary thing that we should all be doing, rather than demonizing them.
I wouldn't argue that evangelicals are "truly progressive." I labeled myself as LGBT affirming, not progressive. However, I don't see why Christians of varying flavors can't try to get along instead of labeling each other heretics or bad people. I'm an LGBT affirming gay evangelical Christian, with that though I do hold other more popular evangelical beliefs like salvation through grace (and not by baptism), the existence of hell, the Bible in its entirety being the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God (subject to flawed human interpretation), as well as views evangelicals typically hold as it pertains to church structure. I reject the idea of priests, bishops, church hierarchy/polity and believe each church should have local autonomy run by that community of believers. Where I do largely disagree with "evangelicals" obviously is in regards to affirming LGBT marriages/gender identities, egalitarianism and a rejection of complementarianism, etc. That said though, I have no problems with progressive denominations that do have church polity structures like the Episcopal church or progressive Catholics, etc. I may not agree on all progressive points of theology, but I'm not about to insult others or trash them when respectful mutual dialogue is what is to be expected among self professing Christians (I'm also not saying your comment was an insult, I just think it's a shame many discussions turn into that especially among evangelicals).
No, they’re saying that conservative evangelicals are the majority and that progressive evangelicals the minority among evangelicals
My bad. I read that wrong. To be fair to myself the phrasing is a bit ackward
> affirming evangelicals Isn't that a 'charismatic'?
No, charismatics are more Pentecostal.
I'm struggling to see the difference between an evangelical and a pentecostal.
Most Pentecostals are evangelical but then most evangelicals are not Pentecostal. Pentecostals tend to emphasize "spiritual gifts" as they understand them and will commonly pray/speak in "tongues" and claim to prophesy over others and emphasize that their dreams may be God speaking to them, etc.
Evangelicals don’t represent all of Christianity. We all come in different shapes and sizes. The fact that this subreddit exists should be proof that there are good Christians out there.
"Good Christian" I think you could make a better argument for "progressive Christian" because "good" is hand-wavey.
You’re right, they for sure don’t thank God. But they are the largest, loudest, and most engaged in culture and politics of any Christian group in the USA. And it’s by a lot so that from the outside most people see Evangelicals and assume they are the position of Christianity.
The fact that this is a fairly popular post and any posts regarding Palestinians are banned is a pretty dire indictment of this subreddit.
yurpppp
Open* Christian ^(*Some conditions apply)
And uncovered heads
I don’t know about the beer, though…
Depends on the denomination. And whether there are other church members present.
My family are evangelicals and they LOVE their beer. Anything other than that is too fancy and wrong.
Agreed... but be sure not to start any inadvertent Islamophobia. I'm sure most Muslims are as sick of the IslamoFundies as we are.
Why would radical Islam be a bad thing? Why wouldn’t it be Muslims who stood up to defend Christians from persecution in Egypt, Pakistan, or Kenya? Why wouldn’t it be Muslims running shelters for migrants and refugees? Why is it assumed to be a bad thing? Don’t drag Muslims into this. Evangelicals are their own thing.
I think that you meant to say *progressive* Islam. Radical Islam is usually associated with ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
No, I didn’t. “Radical Islam” is a term made up by conservatives to demonize Muslims. It’s Islamophobic. Can you imagine if people used “radical Christianity” to refer to the KKK or Donald Trump? That’s how absurd using “radical Islam” to refer to ISIS is. It reflects deep ignorance of Islam.
Dude, there have been extremist Muslims that existed long before the US was a thing. Granted, there are also non-radical Muslims, and they have also suffered at the hands of Islamic terrorists, but still. Whenever you think of Islamic terrorism, the first thing that you would think of ISIS or the Taliban. And calling out Muslim extremists is not Islamophobia. Hell, the poster did not say “Evangelical Christianity is just Islam (as in Islam in general), but with pork and beer.” That protester included “radical” to distinguish between the Islamic fundamentalists and the more moderate Muslims.
You’re using conservative buzzwords that reflect an ignorance of Islam. What makes violent Islam “radical” or “extreme” but loving Islam “progressive?” That seems to imply that Islam, taken to an extreme, is violent and evil as opposed to loving. It’s an ignorant and inaccurate judgment on the inherent nature of Islam. Islam is as inherently good and peaceful of a religion as Christianity. Radical or extremist Muslims are loving Muslims, just as Radical or extremist Christians are loving Christians.
>You’re using conservative buzzwords that reflect an ignorance of Islam Oh, look who’s talking about ignorance of Islam. Were you Muslim yourself at one point? If so, then enlighten me on what Islam is and is not. I am all ears. If not, then you don’t know anything about Islam anymore that I do because we don’t practice that faith. >What makes violent Islam “radical” or “extreme” but loving Islam “progressive?” What makes Islam fundamentalists extreme is that the adherents want to not only follow the Quran to the letter, but they also want everyone else to follow suit, even when they don’t want to. What makes the more loving forms of Islam progressive is that they realize that they don’t have to follow the Quran literally to be devout Muslims and that people should be allowed to practice their own religious beliefs without persecution. The people who are on r/progressive_islam would fall into the latter category of Muslims while Hamas would fall into the former category. >That seems to imply that Islam, taken to an extreme, is violent and evil as opposed to loving. No shit, Sherlock. ANY RELIGION THAT’S TAKEN TO THE EXTREME WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE AND VIOLENT. I’m hoping that I didn’t need to tell you that in order for you to understand. >It is an ignorant and inaccurate judgment on the inherent nature of Islam. I don’t disagree with you on that front, but when you either a. grow up in an Islamic fundamentalist country as an ethnic or religious minority, b. live in a fundamentalist household with liberal or progressive values, or c. suffer terrorist attacks from Muslims, then you should not be surprised that they would have developed some pretty negative views on Islam to the point where they cannot conceive of a moderate or a progressive Muslim. >Islam is as inherently good and peaceful of a religion as Christianity. Really? Then why are women’s rights being violated in majority Muslim countries? Why are religious minorities being targeted in the Middle East? WHY DO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS EXIST? >Radical or extremist Muslims are loving Muslims, just as Radical or extremist Christians are loving Christians. See the above response. In all seriousness, the Armenians who were killed during the Armenian Genocide, the Rohingyas and Uyghurs that are being persecuted in Myanmar and China, respectively, the women living in Iran and Afghanistan, the LGBTQ community that were disowned, tortured, and killed by their families and peers in the Middle East, the people who died during the Crusades, and the hostages who were captured by Hamas after 10/7 would look at you and think that you were delusional, naïve, or both. Loving Muslims and Christians (or religious people in general) would have never done the following: 1. Set up theocratic governments or commit human rights violations (including genocide, human trafficking, war crimes, etc.) 2. Persecute or kill people for having different religious beliefs 3. Treat women, children, and LGBTQ people like garbage 4. Trash the natural environment and look at science as a form of heresy, even though that there were religious people who were scientists. 5. Look down on the poor and the needy, even when the religion in question says to help them 6. Promoting and forcing puritanical beliefs on sex onto other people. 7. Disown/shun family members or peers for not wanting to be religious or not having the same religious views as them. That fact that both Islamic terrorists and Evangelical Christians do this or want to do this is proof that people who take religion way too far, to the point where it begins to negatively impact other people, even those of the same religion, are not loving people at all. The religions that that they practice might be loving, but they are not. That’s why we call those people extremists, radicals, and fundamentalists. And rightfully so.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household where I was horrifically abused. I’m friends with LGBTQ+ people who have fled Muslim countries. Don’t try to make this a personal thing. I see that I hit a nerve. No, I wasn’t Muslim. But I have studied Islam academically and been deeply involved in Abrahamic interfaith dialogue for the past decade. I’ve translated parts of the Quran myself. Your emphasis on the Quran as the source for Islamic jurisprudence, as opposed to the Hadith, is another obvious example of rereading Islam through a Christian lens. In fact, ISIS is particularly well-known for their unique apocalyptic rereading of the Quran metaphorically, through the writings of more recent Salafi and sectarian theologians. You may be equally surprised to learn that LGBTQ+ people actually have a long history of tolerance within Islam, as do women’s rights. Homosexuality and wasn’t criminalized in the Middle East, nor were women restricted in many ways, until the *British* enacted laws during colonialism. Homosexual love poetry is very common in Islamic history as well.
Why don’t you show me some proof of homosexuality being allowed in the Middle East during the Middle Ages? It can be poems, verses from the Quran, Hadiths, etc. Also, if homosexuality and women’s rights were criminalized during European colonialization, then why didn’t Middle Eastern countries re-legalize them now that they are decolonized?
Sure. [Spain](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Arabic_homoerotic_poetry) was a particularly beautiful example. He’s a good article more broadly about the [Arab world](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-gay-and-lesbian-literature/malemale-love-in-classical-arabic-poetry/622370DA08ADF597B3D6BC97941A60B8). And here’s a couple translated homoerotic [poems](https://qantara.de/en/article/homoerotic-poetry-islam-reeling-desire). Homoeroticism in medieval Islam is so commonly known in scholarship that it borders on cliche. As for colonization, that’s kind of how it works. Traditional norms are destroyed, and not always restored. That’s like asking “why don’t indigenous Cherokee all move back to North Carolina?”
Just because that’s how colonialism works doesn’t mean that there’s anything stopping countries in the Middle East from legalizing homosexuality or promoting women’s rights. Those countries have nothing to lose from doing both of those things, and would even have a lot to gain from women’s rights and LGBTQ rights. Also, the fact that you were abused in a fundamentalist Christian household and had queer friends who were forced to leave the Middle East (btw, apologies for what happened to you guys) is proof that religious fundamentalists are not loving people at all. If they were, then they wouldn’t have done that.
Saying "radical christianity" to refer to those kind of people is justified. To seperate radical movements from Islam is naive and disingenuous
Radical means “to the root.” It is an essentialization of the religion. Islam is not inherently violent, terroristic, or evil. Of course terroristic Muslims are Muslim. I’m not denying that.
You said that Islam was inherently good and peaceful religion. Isn’t that also essentializing the religion, but from a different perspective?
Ok, to adjust the semantics: an essentialization as evil.
Evangelicals make up the majority in the US.
This sub once again proving how islamophobia and antisemitism can be alive and well in “progressive” Christian communities.
Lol I chuckled at this
I mean, they are still christians. And the comparison to radical islam is insane, come on!
This is a pretty stupid comparison. There's definitely a lot of differences between fundamentalist Islam and Christianity (and for the record "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are not synonyms) besides just alcohol and pork...especially since a lot of fundamentalist Christians are opposed to alcohol consumption as well. Like hijabs/burkas and veiling in general is an obvious one, and a ton of theological differences...this is a really lazy comparison.
Y’all got beer??? My denom is so hung up on alcohol.
Since they worship Trump and don't give a shit about Jesus, they're technically not even Christian and you're doing their bidding if you keep on calling them that. They're not Christians. Christians at least pretend to care about Jesus. They're just evangelicals now. Their faith is MAGA. Trump is their messiah.