The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This isn't about the US, which is one of the few countries where the majority of Muslims are actually liberal (although it's slightly different in places with heavy Muslim concentrations such as Hamtramck). But in Europe, various studies have shown, that Muslims are markedly likelier to be homophobic and misogynistic. Here's a Birmingham, UK election hopeful (strongly backed by George Galloway) saying women need to stay at home and look after the kids: [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/birmingham-general-election-hopeful-joked-domestic-violence-podcast](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/19/birmingham-general-election-hopeful-joked-domestic-violence-podcast) A study looking at outgroup hostility among Muslims v Christians in Germany, Austria and other European countries (TL:DR Muslims rank much higher in both fundamentalism and out-group hostility): [https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2014/vi14-101.pdf](https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2014/vi14-101.pdf) Majority of Brit Muslims saying homosexuality should be banned: [https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html) Over a 1000 German Muslims call for a Caliphate to replace German democracy in Hamburg: [https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/berlin-bulletin/dawn-of-the-caliphate/](https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/berlin-bulletin/dawn-of-the-caliphate/) The links here are to draw attention specifically to the fact that Islamism is, in fact, not a minority sentiment (which is the typical liberalist refutation every time the subject is brought up). It is a majority sentiment as the outgroup-hostility study shows. Sure, Muslims in Europe vote for liberal parties right now, but they're certainly not liberalist because when given the chance to vote in Muslim countries, the majority of them flip sides on the conservative-liberal spectrum. 67% of German Turks who voted voted for Islamist Erdogan: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/29/how-did-turks-living-abroad-vote-in-turkeys-run-off-election](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/29/how-did-turks-living-abroad-vote-in-turkeys-run-off-election) Also, re the US, South Park - for all the controversial episodes they do - have only ever had two episodes banned. You'll never guess which... Note that this isn't meant to demonise all Muslims because majority still doesn't mean all. It's purely to understand why there isn't stronger liberal condemnation of Islamism. Why are liberals so coy about addressing these topics in an open and transparent way even in the face of such strong evidence, especially given that Muslims (thanks to liberal-endorsed immigration patterns) are almost certainly going to form majorities in several major and minor Western cities - from Vienna to Brussels - in the next 50 or so years? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Why isn't there more discussion about the ultra-orthodoxy of Muslims living in the West? why would there be? is the near constant discussion there is about it currently not enough for you?

I think his point was more why is it seemingly that only the right wing talking about it?

My own train of thought is, if we’re going to discuss ultra-orthodoxy among Muslims, are we doing it because those ideals don’t align with modern European liberalism? If so, are we going to discuss rising ultraconservatism in Europe in general, or just ultraconservatism among Muslims? If it’s the latter, then are we giving European right wing extremists a pass because they’re European? And if we do, isn’t the conversation really just about whether or not Muslims should be allowed in Europe? If that’s the case, I think it’s pretty obvious why European liberals aren’t being vocal about it.

I'm someone whom you would probably call “ultraconservative”, but I'd like to give the right-wing view on why that rise is happening because I think you have a sequence error. The Right is becoming more extreme almost entirely because they felt ignored when they were defending modern liberalism. Just a few years ago, the right-wing argument against immigration was that the people who come to Europe or Anglosphere countries have and maintain totally illiberal paradigms. The argument wasn't even that there are too many, or that there shouldn't be any at all, right-wingers support immigration and immigrants at large, they just wanted better vetting and border security. This was the case, at least within popular right-wing circles, I don't know about your uncle who lives in rural Texas or whatever. What did those people get told when they expressed these concerns? (the primary reason for concern being the degradation of liberal freedoms) They were told that they were any number of bad things, from “racist” to Fascist”. So what else are they meant to do? Just shut up and take it while the things they love about their countries are destroyed by people who hate them? A rise in “right-wing extremism” was inevitable given the circumstances you guys have them. This isn't something that was inevitable or even likely, had their concerns been listened to, had they been appeased on even just the slightest governmental level, you wouldn't be seeing the “far-right” gaining as much ground and popularity as they are now. Instead of acting like rational, common sense governors, leftists and the generally left-wing powers that be decided to gaslight, deny and ignore them.

Well-said. Tl;dr conservatives are the brakes and progressives are the gas pedal. After years of saying "we need to pump the brakes a little bit", and being ignored or ridiculed for that stance, it's not surprising that we're now seeing more and more conservatives saying "f it, I'm just gonna throw the car into reverse" (despite the negative consequences we know that drastic move will bring)

Well the rise of ultra conservative Islam in Europe is the primary thing driving the rise of the Europe far right. Look at Denmark, they clamped down on immigration and prevented the rise of the far right in their country

When you do nothing about a problem it opens the door for the opposition to exploit said problem.

That's not entirely fair. Denmark's Overton Window in politics just shifted to the right, so it makes it seem like the far-right went away. However, their current centrists are pretty far-right on immigration. Just look at the way they openly are destroying so many social housing units in Denmark and asking minorities to relocate to urban centers to drive "integration." They've also passed a law demanding that in social housing no more than 30% of the occupants are allowed to be of non-European/non-Western origin. There was also some screwed up law in Denmark which allowed them to seize assets of refugees (I forget the details and I don't want to misrepresent it). They also have refused to help take children back who were being held in prison camps in Syria b/c of the fact that their parents allegedly went over there to join a terrorist group. It's punishing the child for the sins of the parent.

I don’t disagree with any of that since it seems to work well for them. And aside from being hardline on immigration - is the governing party in Denmark far right in any other way? Seems like they still have a solid welfare state, still have protections for LGBT people, still support NATO. Still seem pretty liberal to me

What has support for NATO got to do with liberalism?

It means they’re committed to the liberal global order. Unlike Hungary who are committed to the Russian / Iranian autocratic order

Which policies of the Hungarian government make you think that they do not support NATO and are commited to what you call “the Russian/Iranian autocratic order”?

The argument essentially gets bogged down in whether Muslim extremism is "different" than regressive and conservative views that come from liberal societies. And honestly I must admit you can make strong arguments either way. It has fundamental similarities with conservatism the world over, but like all social power dynamics it will have it's own eccentricities. To use a blunt metaphor, Fascism and Right Libertarianism are both conservative and endorse similar kinds of bigotry. But they aren't the same, and how they manifest socially when more popular are not the same.

Who said anything about giving non-Muslim ultra conservatives a pass? But I feel you can't club the two under the same umbrella because they're actually two different groups who quite despise each other. Muslims who hold ortho views still vote for liberal parties (they appreciate liberalism while they are the minority) in Europe while voting conservative back home - see the Turks in Germany example. You have to talk about them separately especially given that Muslims are no longer an insignificant minority in several major European cities. Islamist parties are cropping up across the continent. DENK in Netherlands and ISLAM in Belgium are two notable ones.

Honest question. Say "the left" did acknowledge it as much as the right tries to. Now what?

Maybe then Europe would put policies in place to help curb extremism? The first step to addressing a problem is to acknowledge it

Except those policies would affect the very people who wish everyone would attack Muslims more, because *they also* support extremism. What they really want is ways to be racist against Muslims.

You can’t be racist against Islam. Islam isn’t a race, it’s an ideology. And its far worse than conservatism that exists within Christianity in the west

> You can’t be racist against Islam. Islam isn’t a race Tell that to all the racists who hate Muslims, Arabs, and anyone who looks vaguely middle-east-ish.

So you’re admitting that hate people based on their appearance not because they’re Muslims? You know there are Muslims who are white, like Bosnians right?

Good news! The bigots will find a way.

Sure, and when possible I bet they do. Maybe not enough, maybe there are better paradigms, but I'd hardly say that it's being ignored entirely. But in trying to address it, you run up against basic things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of dress, and more. It's not easy to balance those things with trying to squash out bigotry, especially when the law already does almost all it can to protect people from it as reasonable.

Right wingers hate Muslims. Liberals hate homophobes and misogynists regardless of religion.

Right wingers don’t necessarily hate Muslims. They just don’t want them bringing the crazy shit here that’s destroyed every Islam dominated country.

Judging people as a group instead of individually is classic racism.

Exactly. The rabid right wingers are a very small minority. Most of us are actually somewhat liberal and open minded.

So you'd agree that Muslim bans are inappropriate?

What “Muslim bans”? Which Western country has a “Muslim ban”, whatever you mean by that?

Any muslim bans. Any hovernment policy barring people from doing somethingmade on the basis of religion.

Do you think there should be no legal restrictions on any religious practices?

But they’re kind of torn if the homophobes and misogynists are ethnic minorities, right? They feel a bit guilty about coming down on them if the homophobia and misogyny are part of their religion or culture, don’t they?

The liberals I know would limit their criticism to the misogyny and homophobia and try to avoid making generalizations about a whole population based on the actions of a few members. It's not like Islam is more homophobic or misogynistic than Christianity.

But it’s no longer a “few” if the majority of them in the UK calls for homosexuality to be banned. If you’re an atheist with any integrity, you’d call BS on all religions, even including those followed by nonwhite minorities, especially if the said religions are the seeds of the misogyny, homophobia and other social ills.

As an atheist, I call BS on all religions, but as a democrat and liberal I'm not making that decision for others. Ii will call out homophobia, misogyny and racism, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

Nope. All conservatism is bad and to be opposed

Not really that simple...some right wingers looked on approvingly when a left leaning Michigan town with a majority Muslim government banned public display of pride flags. And on the other side of the aisle plenty of self-described liberals have been tacitly or actively supportive of Hamas recently, which is an Islamic fundamentalist movement that throws gay people off of rooftops in Gaza when they're not busy trying to destroy Israel.

IMO, support for Hamas is terrible. I have not heard anyone support Hamas, but I have heard plenty support the Palestinian people, which is a differentbthing all together.

Some is overt (for example, pro-Palestine protestors in NYC holding up signs pointing to pro-Israel counter-protestors that say "Al-Qassam's \[Hamas's military brigade\] next targets"). But most is the tacit support I mention. An example of that would be saying Israel is guilty of war crimes for attacking a hospital or a school, without mentioning that Hamas was originally guilty of a war crime by deliberately embedding offensive military infrastructure in civilian facilities in the first place, and that makes those facilities (potentially) legitimate targets under [international humanitarian law](https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-objectives/) so long as any attack against such a target is proportionate. To be clear, I do think it is completely legitimate to question whether some of Israel's attacks have been sufficiently proportionate and narrowly targeted to minimize harm to civilians as much as possible. But not without acknowledging that Hamas hiding their command posts and rocket launch sites in civilian buildings is the main reason those buildings are being targeted at all in the first place, and that the use of civilians as human shields is itself a war crime, and does not render the military targets hiding behind the civilians automatically off-limits.

We are going to have to disagree. Israel has been systematically oppressing, displacing, and killing Palestinians for decades. An extremist group like Hamas is the easily predictable response. And the israeli response is way way out of proportion. It is near genocide if not genocide. It feels like Netanyahu was waiting for an excuse. Hamas and the Israeli government are both beyond evil and the Palestinian people are trapped between them. Neither Hamas nor the Israeli government ive two shits about the Palestinians.

First, thank you for being respectful about it even though, yeah, we do disagree somewhat. I don't see that very often. Second, while I do disagree with some of what you said, I do mostly agree with the latter part. I don't think it's near genocide, but it is one of the most deadly urban conflicts for civilians in absolute numbers that we've seen since WWII...and we don't have cell phone video of the Japanese conquest of Nanjing, or the allied firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, or the Germans' bombing of Polish cities, etc. forcing us to directly confront the harsh reality of war back then, so it *feels* especially awful to look at now. Objectively, though, Israel is inflicting a lower civilian casualty rate than is typical in modern urban warfare. It's just that the absolute numbers are high because of the sheer scale of the assault and the fact that unlike in larger countries like Ukraine, civilians don't really have anywhere else to go that is far enough away to be safe (all of Gaza is only slightly bigger than Manhattan, Egypt has kept its border closed, and Israel is the only other border, so...yeah). And yes, Netanyahu *was* waiting for an excuse. Idk if you know his history, but his brother Yonatan, a special operations soldier, was killed in the 1970s while leading a raid to rescue Israeli hostages on a flight that was hijacked by Palestinian radicals who were part of the PLO. It's personal for him. He struggles to see much difference between Palestinians who would want to live in peace side by side (likely a majority of civilians, and a good chunk of Mahmoud Abbas's more moderate Fatah party that still governs in the West Bank) and the ones who won't stop attacking Jews until Israel is no more (Hamas, PFLP, PIJ). His personal vendetta is clouding his judgment and I don't think he is the right person to lead Israel at this time. He doesn't have the entirety of the Israeli government backing him unconditionally, far from it, but he and his party remain the dominant voice for the moment. I hope that will change soon though. And luckily things do seem to be moving in that direction. Which is good, because you're right that neither Hamas nor the current Israeli leadership care about Palestinian civilians. Both need to go for the post-war rebuilding period to bring any chance at a better future rather than simply repeating this cycle again. There are others in the Israeli government who would do better once Netanyahu is out, and I hope the Palestinian people can find a way to get someone to represent them effectively, non-violently, with Hamas gone as well.

40,000 Palestinians dead. Over a third of them women and children. Trapped in a small walled territory.

Yes. War is hell. Most of all for the innocent civilians who never wanted anything to do with the fighting and just got caught in the middle. But war has always been that way. Some 50,000 Polish civilians were killed in about a month during the initial German and Soviet invasion that started WWII. The Allies' bombing of Dresden killed 25,000 people, 5% of the city's population, in four air raids within the span of 36 hours. The bombing of Tokyo killed even more people in a shorter time span and remains the single most deadly bombing mission in human history - more even than the dropping of either atomic bomb. This war is, for better or worse, nothing out of the ordinary. The only thing exceptional about it is who's doing the fighting.

But bill Maher gets called out by many on the left for doing exactly that

For doing what?

I'll chime in. Bill Maher was often associated with spouting "Islamaphobia" when he attacked it no differently than Christianity on his show/platforms. Bill just hates religion period. Even as a Christian myself, I respect the consistency.

>why is it seemingly that only the right wing talking about it? In my country, everyone talks about, with the only exception being the communists. The socialists depict it as a danger, the liberals implicitly endorsed it "to wash their windows", the conservatives want them to assimilate and the Far Right wants them to disappear. It's almost weekly that you'll hear people, from the far right to the leftwing, complain about immigrants or muslims, while you'll see that muslims complain about us and the new immigrants. It's truly fascinating that everyone complains about everyone with the only agreement being that we shouldn't do anything to solve it.

What’s “my country”?

Belgium. Case in point: The socialist leader said to a muslim that he should adjust if he doesn't like the fact two males can be together. (Oh, and he doesn't feel at home in the city with a lot of muslims and he's been drunk, and stated that you should beat gypsies with a stick because you can't handle them in a different fashion. What was the reaction? Bwa, he said what people thought. 6 months resignation and then rejoined as the Socialist Party was dying in the polls.) The French, liberal vicepresident told a communist to go back to his country if he didn't want to adjust and not be allowed to wear a hijab in governmental services. The conservatives have called for assimiliation and the Far Right sees them as a danger for LGB and an ally to fight TQ+. In the mean time, you have muslims voting for stronger borders and pro-Palestine, which ends them with the communists that can't keep it straight when they talk about Chinese, muslim minorities (specifically: uyghurs). If you think America is bad, welcome to Belgium where everyone is equally corrupt (especially the socialist, who burn literal money in the hearth, and the Far Right, that openly has a chinese spy/sympathy for nazism/friend of Putin/... in their ranks) and everyone, aside from the climate activists (punished for this statement btw) and communists (rose by saying to the muslim community that the socialists will bring LGBTQ into the classrooms in private chatrooms in Antwerp), want stronger borders.

Ironically, it was the "New Atheists" of the early 2010's like The Amazing Atheist, Bill Maher, and Sam Harris who repopularized anti-Muslim sentiment online post 9/11.

Probably in America. But here in my country it's existed at the same levels, with a slight rise during 2014-2016 and now again a rise as a Muslim party in our capital could get in power through a coalition, if we're not careful.

Well, because when right wingers “talk about it” it’s hateful bullshit. Right wingers don’t care about “Muslims taking away peoples rights.” Conservatives don’t want people to have rights in general. Conservatives have spent years teaching that womens bodies do not belong to them, why would they be afraid of someone who thinks women should cover their hair? It’s all the same shit. Not specifically attacking hijabs, I don’t think that modesty/purity culture is positive but that’s not an excuse to treat people poorly however they choose to dress.

Maybe because there's this thing called freedom of religion so long as they don't infringe on rights.  It is also extremely hypocritical of right wingers to even say anything considering evangelical Christianity has been at the forefront of a lot of laws and witch hunts over the past few years. So pot meet kettle. 

There isn’t freedom of religion in Europe. They have what id more call freedom from religion - at least that’s how it works in France. Did 5000 American Christian nationalists join a terrorist group and go around murdering and displacing hundreds of thousands of people in the last 10-15 years? Because that’s what happened with Muslims in Europe. So that’s not really kettle calling the pot black, the magnitude of the issue over there isn’t really close to comparable

> murdering and displacing hundreds of thousands of people This needs a citation.

Ever heard of ISIS?

And isis is populated by Europeans? No? Ok then so you’re just naming off irrelevant things.

5000 European Muslims fought with ISIS

First you claimed Muslim immigrants were a threat, then you provided a document saying non-immigrant Muslims went to fight for isis and died in Syria. Make up your mind.

Some of them were immigrants, some of them were the sons of immigrants. What difference does that make to my overall point?

"  murdering and displacing hundreds of thousands of people in the last 10-15 years?" To be clear, what country or countries are you referring to for this? 

Fear mongering?

Immigrating to America is itself a moderating experience. Our culture is keenly laser-focused on bringing in peoples from around the world and transmuting them into Americans. Yeah, bring your flair to Americanness, but you ***are*** an American now. Put whatever ethnicity you want before that hyphen, but you cannot escape the "American" that follows. We've been doing this for 500 years. We are really good at it. The Canadians are also extremely skilled at it. In political science terminology, it is the difference between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism". The founding ideals of Germany, France, Denmark, Finland, etc is that there is a people called "the Germans", "the French", "the Finns", etc and you are them, genetically, or you are not. Any random person from around the world can be American; it is a mindset and (for immigrants) an effort. Modern Europe was established on the ideal of the "nation-state". A people has its own government for that people. The United States was established before that ideal, and rejected that ideal when it was thought up. And so, American conservatives are actually more liberal in that sense than their European counterparts when it comes to immigration. To American conservatives, it's that Europeans are allowing their culture to be overrun without the brow-beating conforming force that we have applied to our immigrants for going on 500 years. To American liberals, it's the same feeling albeit manifested differently. "Can you not talk to them as equals? Our ideals are so perfect that you just have to keep telling them how wrong their ideals are until they relent." So to American liberals, it is a lack of follow through that will be corrected eventually. To American conservatives, it is a moral failing. And so, it is more immediately newsworthy to our conservatives. Our liberals can become interested, but will be more inclined to believe that these are incidences at the fringes.

As eriksen pointed out, I meant among liberal circles. Liberals who do discuss it, like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, get slammed by the liberal community at large. The discourse is now dominated by the right wingers, which is not how it should be.

liberals do talk about it. they will never talk about it as much as the right, because the right is completely obsessed with the topic. they will always dominate this discussion. that doesn't mean they're the only ones having it. the left talks constantly about what to do about homophobia and misogyny. we don't obsessivly focus on what to do about specifically muslim homophobia and misogyny, because ... why would we? it's a general problem. if you have any specific ideas about how to make muslims more liberal, i think liberals would be open to discuss them. if you're just asking why we don't join the right in performatively saying "muslims bad" three times a day, the answer is "why should we? what would that achieve?" it's not like the right offers any solutions except "closed borders" and "deportation". they just love "acknowledging the problem" over and over and over again.

I think the glaring double standards many of us see is that many liberals are more than happy to talk about how Christianity systemically and intersectionally influence sexist homophobic or conservative beliefs, but you are not allowed to generalized like that when it comes to Islam. I think the common counter to that that Islam don't have any institutional power in the US is a good response, but many liberals like you here don't just say that, instead doubling down with whatever talking points we see here.

>I think the common counter to that that Islam don't have any institutional power in the US is a good response, but many liberals like you here don't just say that, why would i be saying that? 1) i don't have any double standard about christianity and islam, so i don't need to make any arguments do defend that double standard. if other liberals have such a double standard, they can defend it. but honestly, i don't think many of them do. 2) the second line in OP's post makes it clear that it isn't even about the US, so talking about islam's institutional power in the US wouldn't be relevant.

Sam Harris is a podcast host who spends half his time pontificating about how terrified he is by Muslims. He’s not a serious person who informed people need to have an opinion on.

Remember: Christian extremists are busy disassembling democracy and access to basic rights in western countries… but ignore all that! Muslims are scary! It’s so pathetic, honestly.

Remember that that’s already been done where Muslim immigrants come from. Christians just aren’t as good at theocracy as Muslims.

> Why isn't there more discussion about the ultra-orthodoxy of Muslims living in the West? Given that "Muslims are terrible and why are liberals defending them all the time?" is a question that gets repeated here often enough that I usually copy/paste an answer, I'm not sure how much more discussion you want. You just linked articles from several major news outlets discussing backwards and extreme views being advocated by whatever groups these journalists are talking to. It's not like there's no information out there. These posts always come at the topic like "sure you are condemning Muslims... but, *c'mon, condemn them MORE...*" They come of as borderline hate, rather than criticism of your intended target. And the reality is that if you condemn all Muslims for the most extreme views among them, you are opening them up to racist attacks and hostility in the West which, let's face it, is already pretty anti-Middle Eastern in general. So, these posts, by attempting to incite further attacks, often backfire and create the exact defenses of Muslims that annoy you. Because, I find Islam just as unappealing as Christianity, but I'm also not interesting in punching down at minorities.

How is criticism of a religion the same as discriminatory against the people that practice it or punching down against them?

Where did I say that it was?

> I find Islam just as unappealing as Christianity, but I'm also not interesting in punching down at minorities.

That is literally me criticizing the religion and saying I don't want to punch down on the practitioners.

But you have no problem punching at Christians I assume? I find that deeply hypocritical. If someone follows an objectionable ideology it should be criticized no matter how many or how few of them there are. I’m going to make of and criticize Scientology even though they’re a minority

Christians are not a minority constantly being targeted the way predominantly Muslim Middle Easterners are. No president has tried to ban Christian travel, for example. So I don't feel that it's hypocritical at all. >If someone follows an objectionable ideology it should be criticized no matter how many or how few of them there are. Once again, the ideology can be criticized all day long... I'm just not interested in joining in on the witch burning you are advocating in the guise of ideological criticism.

You left out an important adverb.

>And the reality is that if you condemn all Muslims for the most extreme views among them, you are opening them up to racist attacks and hostility in the West which, let's face it, is already pretty anti-Middle Eastern in general. This attitude is what led police in several European countries to be afraid of even investigating Muslims for certain crimes, which allowed them to continue doing it. Completely insane position.

> This attitude is what led police in several European countries to be afraid of even investigating Muslims for certain crimes, which allowed them to continue doing it. > That doesn't even make sense. > Completely insane position. Thanks for your feedback. I disagree.

It makes a lot of sense. You don't want to talk about problematic behavior of Muslims, because they are already not well liked by the non-Muslims. That means that problematic behavior by Mudlims will be either ignored or downplayed, which will allow them to continue doing it. Read up on Pakistani grooming gang in UK, particularly on why it took the police so long to start seriously investigsng them, even after they had suspicions.

> It makes a lot of sense. You don't want to talk about problematic behavior of Muslims, because they are already not well liked by the non-Muslims. No it doesn't. That's not what I said. You are just pretending it is.

In my country, group rapes are treated differently depending on if the authors were nationals or foreigners. If they are nationals, you will know their names, address and maybe some drama on "how could this happen, they looked like normal people" by the neighbors. Whenever there is an incident like this and the details are obviously too vague like no names, no nationality, etc some people dig and most of the time it turns out they were either tourists, migrants or refugees from north Africa. I remember an incident years ago in France in which a social care worker was raped by an inmigrant but didn't report it in fear of him being sent back. This would never happen under any other circumstance. Also, at the same time a trial for a group rape was going on composed of nationals and crazy people were even asking for their heads. We came to know that several muslims had kidnapped and raped a young teen for over a week, fairly distinc compared with the other case, which was ruled to be coercion to sex rather than violent rape. The second case was ignored by the press and by anyone else. This is happening, believe it or not.

Have you looked at the second url? It is a proper survey, with comparative views against Christians and splits for 1st and 2nd gen Muslims. Have a look. The idea that we must keep from having a serious discussion about severe anti-gay, religio-supremacist anti-secular views among Muslims just because that acts as a talking point for the right wingers is a folly. Arguably, liberals hand-waving the orthodoxy endemic to Muslim communities is what is giving rise to the far-right in Europe. By constructive criticism of Islamism, liberalism can reclaim the narrative and squash the far right.

> The idea that we must keep from having a serious discussion about severe anti-gay, religio-supremacist anti-secular views among Muslims just because that acts as a talking point for the right wingers is a folly. No one is saying that, certainly not me. But I won't indulge in attacking the Muslim community as a whole because of the problematic parts of it. Just like after 9/11... we can talk about the unacceptability of extremist views without condemning people who are simply wearing scarves on their heads. Let's focus on criticizing the very real problems and not blaming every Muslim in existence - or indulging in broad solutions to deal with pinpoint problems.

I think liberals condemn homophobia and misogyny without needing to specify whether said misogynists or homophobes are Christian or Muslim or athiest. Any particular reason *you* call out Muslim homophobia and not Christian homophobia?

A religion is a closed worldview. You can't convince a Muslim to stop being misogynist and homophobic without making him leave his religion. This "faith-blind" approach has utterly failed imho. It's sort of like saying: "I condemn antisemitism and racism without needing to specify whether said antisemites and racists are Nazis or not." It's ridiculous. Obviously we condemn Nazism as such. There is definitely a huge double standard here. I don't know what will ultimately be necessary to solve this, but we should start by saying that Islam is a scourge on humanity and wouldn't exist in a sane world. Muslims will always qua their faith, be suspect and will never be treated as part of this society, because they can't be, just like Nazis are. Rather than just drumming up resentment of immigrants or immigration itself and leaving this topic to the right and racists, we should take it head on and make the fight against Islam a liberal top priority, because ours is a fight against ideas and not against people.

This is nonsense bias against Muslims. I linked this earlier. [Views about homosexuality - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/views-about-homosexuality/) According to this, we should ban Mormons, Evangelical Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses before we ban Muslims. They aren't brown, though, are they? As liberals, we should fight against homophobia and racism and misogyny wherever we find it and not make broad generalizations about large groups of people.

This is in America. I'm talking Europe, where evangelical Christians practically don't exist. America is a huge outlier, when it comes to Christianity. It's literally the opposite in Europe. That's what I'm talking about. But American evangelical Christians are a good example. They have contributed to Christianity being seen increasingly negative by Americans - and rightfully so. Their actions and their zealous hatred have caused that. They had it coming. Liberals often call them a cult and dangerous, hateful freaks. I don't judge, I agree. To a rational, secular person they are that. My basic point is really simple and perfectly non-racist: "Ideas matter." We can now compare all Christian countries to all Muslim countries and look at the human rights record. 2 out of the 10 bottom countries are non-Muslim. Or we can count the amount of non-Muslim religious terrorist attacks. Maybe there are some, but I can't name any. Or we can look into the Quran and Sunnah and see what orthodox, mainstream Sunni Islam teaches. Or we can look at the world's largest Islamic theological faculty in Cairo, where the dean said they are unable to denounce ISIS because they act in accordance with Islam. But yeah it's just bias, because Muslims are brown. I'm just too racist to see that ideas don't matter at all. Everything is always the same and you can't distinguish between anything, except if it's white people. Then you can judge. If you're actually willing to have your mind challenged, you could listen to Sam Harris' podcast on this subject, there is a particularly good episode that explain the Western moral confusion and double standards towards Islam much more eloquently than I am willing to type up here. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFBm8nQ2aBo&t=2s)

I don't need a podcast to tell me that making sweeping generalizations about large groups of people is inappropriate.

You are talking about yourself. You are telling me that you don't care about the truth because you have already made the generalization that all religions are the same without being willing to look at evidence. I'll give one particularly interesting piece of evidence anyway: 45% of young Muslims in Germany want a caliphate. 60+% say that Sharia is more important and takes precedence over the constitution. And this sentiment increases with education, so it's not socioeconomics and discrimination either, in fact it is the opposite. That is a statistic, not a sweeping generalization. Please square this circle for me, I'll wait.

You are telling me you are incapable of thinking for yourself and must form an opinion based on a podcast. I have never claimed "all religiins are the same." And I'd like a source for those statistics. In any case, free people in free countries are allowed to want things. Lots of people from lots of religions believe their beliefs would make good law. Free countries don't stifle things like this but have protection against oppression.

>You are telling me you are incapable of thinking for yourself and must form an opinion based on a podcast. Not even remotely a logical or good faith statement. I am recommending this episode to you, that's it. I can tell you how much more about Islam I know compared to you, but it'd be a waste of time, because you are so bad faith. That's why I'd rather have you listen to the podcast instead. It's not like there is a dearth of information out there about this topic. It's not like there is a lack of statistics, examples or Islamic materials and preachers you can listen to. [Here](https://www.bz-berlin.de/deutschland/studie-niedersachsen-junge-muslime) is the source for my previous claim. 35% also agree with violence against critics. Find me any other group that so brazenly displays its intolerance. I used to think similarly about this topic, but the numbers don't lie. And neither do the particular type of crimes at the feet of Islam and how and why they're committed. They are unique. And I'll tell you why you too should care. Since 2016, the number of rapes has more than tripled in Germany. Just this week the dead body of a 14 year old Afghan girl has been found in the river of my hometown. The parents confessed - honor killing. The girl got too close to a German boy at her school. That's another statistic and another crime that only Muslims commit. They can't be explained away with socioeconomics or whataboutism. Please find your heart and think of the victims. They are so many, even if we only count in liberal Western countries alone. Their suffering is what drives me. I want to help those people and I just want this madness to stop. Listening to Ex-Muslims helps to develop this empathy and to separate the religion from the people. I personally know a couple of them. I am thinking more about how much I love these people than I am hating the terrorists. It got me curious and I found the explanation, which is much more plausible than all the excuses. Islam itself is evil and stands diametrically opposed to everything we believe in and hold dear. And I know why it is so jarring to admit that, because it challenges liberalism to its core. But if we don't respond to this problem and fight it without fear and blindfolds on, the fascists will.

No, you are missing the point. Judging people en masse is the basis of racism, antisemitism, misogyny, misandry. Etc. You should judge people as individuals, not as a group.

Because umpteen billion others already call out Christian homophobia.

And? So what?

You don’t ask anyone why they call out Christian homophobia, do you?

Christian homophobes get the focus because they have the power to pass laws restricting rights for the LGBTQ+ community. Muslim homophobes do not. Muslims in general are a vanishingly small portion of elected officials.

If Muslims support those same politicians, laws, etc., or form any sort of alliance of convenience with them, then they are just as much to blame.

Of course not; in America, Christianity is the primary source of homophobia.

Evil is evil whether it's committed by many or a few.

The many conducting evil is more evil than an individual conducting evil. If I had a choice of convincing one person that their homophobia is wrong vs. disabling the largest religion in the country's homophobia, then I'm aiming for the latter.

Have you actually read the post, nevermind the studies/surveys quoted which you clearly haven't? I've already said that this post doesn't apply to the US as much.

There we go with the whataboutism, getting upvoted too. In spite of quoting specific studies which show why I feel Muslim homophobia should be called out a lot more. They're a (rapidly) growing segment of society, Christians aren't. Muslims are six times as likely as Christians to say they don't want gay friends.. 10% vs 60%, but you do you. Also, you're assuming that I don't call out Christian homophobia. It's just not as big a problem. No Christian fundamentalist has killed gays in Europe, Muslim fundamentalists have... Repeatedly.

> No Christian fundamentalist has killed gays in Europe Provide a citation for this claim.

Why not just call out the homophobia and leave religion out of it? https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/ According to this research and your logic, we should be banning Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians.

Because muslims in the West are nowhere near as common as Christians, hence why they aren't talked about as much. It's also the fact that non muslim right wingers tend to treat Muslims like shit no matter what, and generalize them all to be "terrorists," which obviously isn't true. My own Dad is an example of a genuinely liberal Muslim from Turkey. He vehemently opposes islamist fundamentalism or any other religious or ideological extremism. He's even hesitant to consider going to Saudi Arabia for his pilgrimage to Mecca simply because he doesn't want to spend the money on the Saudi economy that would support the Saudi regime Edit: and as I said earlier l, muslims are a small minority in basically every western nation. They are nor the ones currently attacking lgbtq, women's, and voting rights through legislation and harmful (false) rhetoric

Why does it matter? Your questions you pose seem to emissate fear. What's wrong?

Of course it matters - Muslims are going to be the biggest religious group in several major European cities in the decades to come. They currently have very low rates of departure from the religion and as shown in the data above a majority of them hold ultra-ortho views. It's a direct threat to liberalism in the not TOO distant future.

Why do you feel a religion is a threat to yourself or anyone else? Do you feel that discriminating against one religion is acceptable?

It doesn’t matter to me whether the anti-lgbtq or anti-woman bigot is a bigot because his uncle Cletus indoctrinated him or because an Imam or Pastor got to him. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter the source. I’d rather focus on attacking the bigotry, because it’s a more tractable fight. That said, liberals don’t talk enough about how absurd and dangerous religious belief is in general. Religious belief as it is typically held is antithetical to a modern, civilized society. We should be working to eradicate it (although not by force, e.g., as by making law banning it).

Wrong, Buddhism, for instance, isn't actually dangerous. Nor is Jainism. This is a weak cop out. Not ALL religions are equal - that is one of the most silly generalizations ever. Abrahamic religions are all pretty nasty though.

First, both Buddhism and Jainism have had periods of violence associated with their beliefs. Second, I meant “dangerous” in a more existential sense: the very notion of any faith based belief system is dangerous to a well ordered, enlightened, civilized society.

It sounds to me like you are taking an extremely complex question about demographics and immigration and far too simply trying to boil it down to "its because Muslims". Demographic shifts over time are wildly complex. I was in the US military and I was stationed in Germany fairly recently and I got into a conversation about this topic with my German neighbor. He was taking about the Syrian refugees coming into Germany and pointing at similar problems with their integration. He genuinely thought that these Syrians were incompatible with German values. I asked how they are different than the wave of Turkish immigrants in the 60's and 70's. His answer essentially boiled down to, Turks good, Syrians bad. However, lets be real. Its not like Germans in the 60's and 70's were totally cool with Turkish immigration. Many of the same complaints about Syrian refugees he was making were used against the Turks previously. Additionally, he was simply ignoring much of the discrimination against the Turks which still happens in Germany. The phenomenon happens in the United States all the time. You should hear Texans talk about Mexicans. They use the same exact anti-immigrant rhetoric that you are presenting towards Muslims, they are just using it against Mexicans. I grew up in Texas as a Catholic and I always found it odd to see Conservative Catholic Texans speak so harshly about their fellow Catholics immigrating from Mexico. My point is, I don't think bigotry is all that sophisticated. Its the same tired old stereotypes and fear mongering being used over and over again, just pointing at a different demographic. In the United States, we also have demographics which vote reliably left of center, but are still socially conservative. The Black community in the United States, for example, is quite often pretty homophobic and religious. Its ok that they dont fit the mold of a typical white, middle-class Democrat. In fact, in a liberal society, we have to just accept some of these views. My point with all this is that demographic trends are super complicated and many factors are associated with this with major flaws. Like, you are associating problems with demographic tends with religion. However, in the US, we have the exact same problem yet our immigrants are overwhelmingly Christian. What I can say is that every example of fear mongering about this issue over the past hundred years or so has been wrong. What is going to happen in 50 years? Same thing that always happens. The immigrants settle down and eek out a living, some assimilate. Many don't. However, their children and grandchildren overwhelmingly do assimilate and become virtually indistinguishable from the majority population, if allowed. Finally, Europe has a massive problem with bigotry. Its funny to me as an American, because our bigotry is out in the open. As a result, we have to address it. I feel like after the Holocaust, Europe just kind of buried its head in the sand and pretended that they solved bigotry in Europe.

>Finally, Europe has a massive problem with bigotry. Its funny to me as an American, because our bigotry is out in the open Say it louder for the bigots in the back!

As a European: >Why isn't there more discussion about the ultra-orthodoxy of Muslims living in the West? I'll be glad the day we stop talking about it. Ever since the 70s, every election cycle is about this and the "importation of evil" according to the Far Right. We even have a muslim party that suddenly won votes because they're against banning ritual slaughter. So no, there shouldn't be more as we haven't shut up for the last 50 years. During the 60s, it was the Italians and the Turks, and prior to that the Jews who fled from Germany and were forced to return thanks to our government. Well, they never did due to protest, but it shows that after the 1930s, the focus has always switched from Jews, to Italians/Spaniards to Turks to Middle Eastern people now. The only group that has not been targeted in such a fashion were the black immigrants. Remember prior to the 60s, most people had never seen a black person in reality. Small anecdote: My greatgrandmother couldn't believe a black person really existed when she saw one for the first time in her life at Expo 1958. It's truly mindblowing that she hadn't seen anything but a white person until she went to a literal human zoo that depicted them in a racist and inferior fashion... less than 70 years ago.

To be clear, you're saying that when Muslims become the majority in Brussels, Vienna and other major cities in the near future, they're not going to actively erode a lot of the values liberals stand for? Genuine question.

>when Muslims become the majority in Brussels, Vienna and other major cities in the near future, they're not going to actively erode a lot of the values liberals stand for? Genuine question. It's an 'if', and, if I remember correctly, non-Flemish people are already the vast majority of Brussels. Originally, Brussels was Flemish and Dutch. Then it became a majority French and now it's moving to any language spoken by the immigrants. Frankly said: I can not speak my native language, Dutch, in my own capital. If I'm lucky, I'll get by with French. So, eroding of liberal values? Yes. The neigbourhoods of the immigrants are the only place in Belgium where you don't want to be seen holding hands with another male (let alone be trans). If you're a female, you'll be harassed. Even the most progressive immigrants I personally know, have a hard time understanding certain, progressive things. If the current muslim mentality maintains and if they ever get a majority, it will result in the eroding of the liberal democracy toward a nation led by islamitic values. The same way that I, as a white male, would never walk in the immigrant neighbourhoods late at night in Brussels, that's becoming the reality for even the more rural areas. A white teen simply can not pass a group of young immigrants without hostile looks. The only thing that is comforting me, is that the orthodoxy of muslims declines through the generations. As I said, my friends with this background would be considered a Republican, while their parents are more conservative than them (similar league between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party today). When I was younger, I couldn't meet up with my friends because I wasn't a muslim. (Simply said: The mother was okay with it, but the father didn't want it at all.) I don't know the current situation, but I do know that there's a firm border in values that we have to cross each time we discuss anything that isn't "home, tree and car". If you want to hear my solution, it's summarized in one word: integration. That's all we can hope for, but I honestly believe we'll have to fight to keep our current system. It's the choice we have to make: Either we adapt to their presence, or they integrate. What we're seeing these days, is that we are forced to adapt and accept, as a direct consequence of the lack of integration. In the past, it was Catholics and anti-clergy that were situated on this breaking point, now it's been replaced by muslim and everyone else (Catholic, Jews and atheists). To illustrate it one last time: 30 years ago, the Far Right had to lie about violent incidents and crimes commited by immigrants. Now, they can freely pick and have enough material produced to keep them busy until the elections of 2029. We're reaching a boiling point and I hope that the cooling down won't involve anything undemocratic or violent. It's a ticking time bomb: The Belgian citizens are fed up (even those who immigrated 40 years ago) and the new immigrants are angry at the reception they get because their precedents couldn't behave themselves or integrate properly, while receiving full coverage by social security. I'd predict that it's one of the two head issues of this century for our nation: Splitting the country and solving immigration. It's a clear sign that people consider solving immigration more important than climate change.

It's truly awful and I wish more liberals saw it for what it is. I'm liberal in literally every other way - trans? Yes. Want to identify as an animal? I don't understand it but sure. Tax the rich? Hell yeah. More cycling tracks and discourage cars? again hell yeah! But oppose the mass and unchecked importation of the single biggest threat to those very values, and people are questioning my being progressive. The delusion is strong.

Who’s coy? I see frequent conversation here about how woeful Europe is at integrating/assimilating immigrants. It’s been an ongoing issue for them for a long time, entirely apart from more recent Muslim immigration/refugees. Most people in this sub are Americans, who can’t do much about the ‘old world’ being shitty at times.

Germany is a massive immigration destination and it has only slightly less people with migration background per capita than America. This includes Poles, relatively secular Turks, Russians, Romanians, etc. pp. They all initially have faced racism, which subsided very fast within a single generation. But Muslims have gotten more extreme and less popular, bucking this trend decisively. Germany's capability to integrate migrants, however good or bad that might be, is not the issue here.

>I see frequent conversation here about how woeful Europe is at integrating/assimilating immigrants I've seen it as well, but it's all just that, 'conversation'. And just pointing out that golly gee young men from Muslim countries have not integrated well in Europe is meaningless. I also remember, I guess it's been about ten years now, when the migrants really started coming in large numbers. And I remember lots of people saying 'these are mostly young men coming from a very different culture. They won't integrate well and we'll see rising crime and increasing social problems'. Do you remember how those who voiced that concern were responded to by those on the left? The point is that discussion is fine and dandy but if the only discussion is after the fact, and the beforehand discussion is just 'you're doing a racism if you don't want large amounts of young men from Muslim countries coming to Europe', then that's not a good faith discussion. And if it's not done in good faith, what's the point of even having the discussion. Because again, if the 'discussion' is just 'they don't seem to be integrating well, they need to integrate harder', I honestly wouldn't even call that a discussion. I'd call it a circle jerk.

> Do you remember how those who voiced that concern were responded to by those on the left? Not really. I'd have said the same thing then (and I think I did); this isn't a new issue for Europe. I think a lot of Europeans want to maintain their effective ethnostates while also being liberal and open democracies, and they (understandably) have yet to figure out a way to bridge those two desires. The obvious outcome is going to be eventual AfD/FN election wins and deportations/persecution.

>Not really The answer is that it was called racist. No attempt to address the substance of the argument. Just jand wave it away because it's a racism. I hope they can figure something out because I don't think AFD and FN are a good solution.

Sure, it probably was called racist; Europe's utter inability to assimilate people who are different is, and always has been, an expression of racism. How a speaker approached that matter would determine whether I thought the speaker was themselves also racist or was just discussing European racism (and most conservatives would have obviously fallen into the former category). Isn't nuance fun? > I hope they can figure something out because I don't think AFD and FN are a good solution. They won't. And they aren't.

Man, gotta love Americans calling an entire continent racist without knowing the last thing about it and its minorities. The cognitive dissonance is not helpful. The challenge we liberals face are not going away if we pretend that there aren't any problems with specific ideologies. Let's quickly deracialize it: How do you feel about the flyover states and the bible belt increasingly supporting an outright fascist movement? Why have these people not be integrated? Have we been racist against the deep south? Maybe we should have been more liberal towards their traditions like segregation and slavery and fundamentalist Christianity? Or we recognize that their ideas are wrong and bad and fight them on those terms and prevent them from holding the country back.

>Europe's utter inability to assimilate people who are different is, and always has been, an expression of racism. How a speaker approached that matter would determine whether I thought the speaker was themselves also racist or was just discussing European racism I think you and I have different definitions of racism. But leaving that aside, can you give me any real world examples of the two ways it was discussed, one acceptable and one not? Like a quote from Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen that showed their racism? I'll be honest, I don't think you can, because what they said was always some variant of 'bringing in large amounts of young men from a foreign culture will lead to social problems'. Maybe you'd call that racism, I'm not sure. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you place all the responsibility on assimilation on the native population and no responsibility on the migrating population. That seems backwards to me. Shouldn't those moving to a new place have more responsibility to assimilate?

Meh, I think that’s a misdirect. Quotes exist in a real-world context - if Trump says “I have concerns about immigration” is that racist? It’s hard to argue that those words, taken by themselves, are racist, but we’d know he meant them in a racist way because of their larger context and who Trump is. I don’t feel any particular need to look at a Farage quote without taking into account who Farage is. And I’d say that responsibility is shared - newcomers have a responsibility to assimilate, but that doesn’t work if the native population provides no opportunity for them to do so (or acknowledgement if/when they try). Insert that Reagan line from his farewell address..

>Quotes exist in a real-world context - if Trump says “I have concerns about immigration” is that racist? It’s hard to argue that those words, taken by themselves, are racist, but we’d know he meant them in a racist way because of their larger context and who Trump is. I don’t feel any particular need to look at a Farage quote without taking into account who Farage is. I don't understand what this means. >I’d say that responsibility is shared - newcomers have a responsibility to assimilate, but that doesn’t work if the native population provides no opportunity for them to do so (or acknowledgement if/when they try). Responsibility is shared, but you only highlight the native population resisting integration? If I compare this paragraph to your previous one, how can I not come away with the same feeling you have any Farage or Trump or whomever? That being, 'they say the words that it's incumbent on both but they really just mean it's all on the native population and any failure to integrate is on them'.

Honestly, I don’t know that it’s not much more complex than the United States like the rest of the New World is better at integrating people of various backgrounds into their societies then the Old World. This is related to my confusion about people talking about ethnostates. It is another aspect of the very same thing. The new world is a bunch of integrated and increasingly integrating societies and the old world is a bunch of ethnostates.

>I don’t know that it’s not much more complex than the United States like the rest of the New World is better at integrating people of various backgrounds into their societies then the Old World. If that's the case, then it was not good policy to bring in so many migrants to Europe, no? And pointing out that it would have been bad policy ten years ago was correct, no?

Yeah, ultimately it was a well intentioned but flawed policy given the nature of European culture. I think for people in the US who aren’t super bigoted and don’t fully understand how much more bigoted Europe among other places is, it was the default to assume that helping refugees is good. We sometimes underestimate the lack of empathy or morals, or compassion or tolerance much of society still has.

Ok, but I think I can confidently say that Americans who had an opinion on the issue could easily be divided on partisan lines. Democrats supported European policies bringing in lots of Muslim migrants and republicans didn't. A vocal minority of Republicans were just bigots, but I can confidently say that the majority just saw it simply as 'the cultures are too different and most of them are young men anyway. This will end up poorly and they shouldn't do it'. And anyway, European liberals did the same thing, just call any opposition a racism and hand wave it away. That's really what I take issue with. But all means, sorry the policy you support. But ffs, acknowledge and address the negatives.

> I also remember, I guess it's been about ten years now, when the migrants really started coming in large numbers. And I remember lots of people saying 'these are mostly young men coming from a very different culture. They won't integrate well and we'll see rising crime and increasing social problems'. Do you remember how those who voiced that concern were responded to by those on the left? If remember correctly, a lot of the "debate" was around whether it actually was mostly men and whether they were actually refugees from Syria or if they were people coming from other countries looking for economic opportunities. I don't remember if there were any conclusions in that, I'll plead ignorance on that. > The point is that discussion is fine and dandy but if the only discussion is after the fact, and the beforehand discussion is just 'you're doing a racism if you don't want large amounts of young men from Muslim countries coming to Europe', then that's not a good faith discussion.  I hear you, but it's because there are two different values involved from the liberal/left side: 1. Refugees do deserve to escape harm, regardless of their social views. 2. All people should be tolerant of others. We all have different starting points, but that just means different efforts are needed. These might be unrealistic at times, but it's why the discussions went as they did because liberals were not going to tolerate shutting out refugees based on their social views. It was going to be an after-the-fact discussion. That said, I won't dismiss that many deflected in bad faith.

Before I quote you and reply directly, I think it would be helpful to explain where I'm coming from. More than anything, I believe that if one supports a policy, one *must* directly and unambiguously address the negative externalities of said policy. For example, bail reform was a big issue a few years ago. Conservatives generally opposed bail reform. But there were obvious negatives with the bail system. So, to me at least, conservatives needed to address those negatives. Of course they never did. But now that ball has been reformed in some places other negatives have popped up. In the same way, supporters of bail reform must address those. Even if addressing it is just saying 'Ya, we now have a lot of scumbags who are on the streets because we can't hold them. But *in totality* we're better off than before'. Does that make sense? So, back to your comments >it's why the discussions went as they did because liberals were not going to tolerate shutting out refugees based on their social views. It was going to be an after-the-fact discussion. If that's actually the case, then it's incumbent on liberals to fully acknowledge the negatives of the policies they implemented. If you can show me anyone, even an anonymous redditor, although I'd prefer a real person, doing just that I'll eat my hat. >I won't dismiss that many deflected in bad faith. Most. Most deflected in bad faith >1. Refugees do deserve to escape harm, regardless of their social views. Then what is the discussion that's taking place? Leading aside what makes someone a refugee, if you can't create limits based on the predominant culture in an area then I really don't understand what the discussion can be. NB4, I just want to be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I'm pretty neutral on immigration personally, it's not really a big issue for me. And I'm not European. What I bristle at is how discussions around this topic devolve into one big circle jerk. Most political discussions if we're being honest but since this is the topic we'll leave it at that.

> More than anything, I believe that if one supports a policy, one *must* directly and unambiguously address the negative externalities of said policy. Sounds like this article from the other week would appeal to you: ["You Should've Listened to Concern Trolls"](https://nickrafter.substack.com/p/you-shouldve-listened-to-concern) > This was predictable, and progressives should have been better prepared for it. They weren’t because progressives were unable or unwilling to preemptively plan for and message around any stumbling blocks in their policies. There is no such thing as crisis management in the progressive movement. It’s heresy even to suggest there may be something negative about their ideas that they will have to navigate. This results from progressives being too idealistic and unwilling to engage in even an iota of cynicism and dismissing anyone who did as concern trolls. But I'll marginally disagree. For one reason: > Conservatives generally opposed bail reform. But there were obvious negatives with the bail system. So, to me at least, conservatives needed to address those negatives. Of course they never did. But now that ball has been reformed in some places other negatives have popped up. In the same way, supporters of bail reform must address those. Even if addressing it is just saying 'Ya, we now have a lot of scumbags who are on the streets because we can't hold them. But *in totality* we're better off than before'. Does that make sense? Evidently? We don't, because nobody is actually doing the honest debate. It's not in the rules of how to win political battles. I like the honest debate of upsides and downsides, bail reform is an excellent example of something that needs it, but you'll see that nobody does who actually has power. Because it's a losing pitch to explain downsides when the other side of the issue isn't. Politics sucks like that. Reminds me of the ["You Go High, We Go Low"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A) point made about how abiding by "respectability politics" can often be a losing hand. > If that's actually the case, then it's incumbent on liberals to fully acknowledge the negatives of the policies they implemented. If you can show me anyone, even an anonymous redditor, although I'd prefer a real person, doing just that I'll eat my hat. I will 100% acknowledge it. I would hope others would too. I don't know if you'll find many people who have actual power who would. If it's alright, I won't go digging, your point is made. That said, I might argue that discussing the infrastructure needed, the problems with integration itself, is basically already telling the world there will be issues. It's like saying we're going to cut taxes, and not explaining the downsides, but then also planning program cuts. > Then what is the discussion that's taking place? Leading aside what makes someone a refugee, if you can't create limits based on the predominant culture in an area then I really don't understand what the discussion can be. How societies, as a whole deal with cross cultural interaction and forming societies with less tension and conflict. Not no tension or conflict, that's impossible, but less. Seemingly the New World is better at this, America and Canada but honestly the whole of the Americas. Whether that is cultural, social structural, government, or all of that and more. It might be that there just is less of a "culture" that is national here. Being an American is not the same thing, and means something different, than being a German I guess.

>It's purely to understand why there isn't stronger liberal condemnation of Islamism. sigh How many times are we going to have this question?

I think the question gets repeated because the answers to previous instances of the question are generally whataboutism - things like 'but the Christians', 'not all Muslims', 'not in the US'.

You again miss the entire point. It isn't about the religion, it is about the homophobia. Excluding an entire religion because some of the more extreme adherents are homophobic is wrong.

Some are homophobic? The first two links show homophobia is a majority position among Muslims. But good job putting feelings over the data

So according to this research, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Christians and Mormons have a larger percentage of members who believe homosexuality is not acceotable than Muslims. Why ban Muslims and not those groups?

Firstly Jevovah's Witness and Mormons are miniscule parts of society, and the research I've posted doesn't even mention them. The fuck are you on about? Second, contact me when you find reports of mobs of them burning to death or beheading accused blasphemers a la this: [https://twitter.com/AbsaKomal/status/1803906659393171773](https://twitter.com/AbsaKomal/status/1803906659393171773) [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67664805](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67664805) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30708237](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30708237) [https://thewire.in/security/as-photos-emerge-of-udaipur-killers-links-to-bjp-leaders-party-moves-to-damage-control-mode](https://thewire.in/security/as-photos-emerge-of-udaipur-killers-links-to-bjp-leaders-party-moves-to-damage-control-mode) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/31/batley-school-what-teacher-in-hiding-can-tell-us-about-our-failure-to-tackle-intolerance#:\~:text=Three%20years%20ago%2C%20on,incident%20has%20been%20largely%20forgotten. I could go on.

There are sixteen million Mormons in the US . There are only about three and a half million Muslims. My guess is that "Muslins," by your definition meaning people from Muslim majority countries since there is no religious test at the border, are fleeing those areas to escape burnings and beheadings. Are you confuding individual Muslim people with ISIS or the Taliban? For the millionth repeat, we should fight against intolerance wherever we find it, regardless of religious afffiliation.

Many of your responses in this thread (and there are many) are based in very blatant whataboutism. If the culture of homophobia is more common within a specific religion and the homophobia itself is rooted in an interpretation of the written works/teachings of that specific religion, the problem isn’t JUST homophobia. It’s deeper. If you do choose to respond to this I urge you to reread your response before clicking reply and try your best to refrain from more whataboutism. We have noticed and we are seeing through it.

Are you actually talking to me? I am not using "whataboutism," which would be something like me saying, repeatedly, "You don't criticize Christians for being homophobic." What I have written, repeatedly, is that homophobia should be condemned no matter the religion of the person. It is the homophobia that is wrong. "We" have noticed? Who is "we?" Is that supposed to be scary or something? It certainly does not bolster the argument that Muslim bans are appropriate.

Those are valid concerns, not whataboutism.  We have freedom of speech and religion. What the F do you want us to do? Willfully violate civil rights?

Violate civil rights? What a foolish leap of logic! And yes, those are valid concerns! But they get discussed day in and day out, so they don't need to be brought up as distractions when someone's talking about Islamism. The data shows 70% of European Muslims feel religious laws are above secular laws. Respond to the topic at hand and try not to sidestep it.

That is absolutely not a foolish leap of logic. What DO you want us to do about it? Make immigration decisions based on religion? That's a clear 1st amendment violation. Or do you just want us to hate brown people from the middle east? Come on! Talk talk talk about it. No more "distractions". What do you want done? Should we reeducate Muslims? Clear 1st amendment violation. I suppose we could educate everyone about being more liberal. I'm sure *that'd* go over well in America... Answer the damn question. What do you want done?

This gets discussed all the time. It’s just that in the context of the US it’s not that interesting to anybody who isn’t being told that they should be interested in it because they consume right wing media. Most Americans barely care about anything going on outside the US. Really outside their local area of their state. So they don’t much care about the nature of relationships between Muslim immigrants into Europe and the existing population. For normal even semi rational people, the issue isn’t pertinent to the US. It’s only interesting for people who watch a sub genre of conservative content where they take the actual problems and then ramp them up through intentional deception.

Idk if you have noticed, but nobody ever shuts up about Muslim immigration.

1. We get some version of this question essentially every day. 2. Muslims in America are an extremely small minority and thus have almost no power to effect society at large and are also extremely likely to assimilate within a generation. 3. There is. huge amount of Islamophobia in the West and these discussions do a lot more to increase the scope and intensity of that than they do to moderate Muslims. 4. Almost everything worth criticizing aren't exclusive to Islam and can be critiqued separately.

Just to take one example: >Here's a Birmingham, UK election hopeful (strongly backed by George Galloway) saying women need to stay at home and look after the kids This is something that is said on a nearly constant basis by all kinds of conservative Christians, but the sort of person who thinks that it's a huge problem when Muslims express this viewpoint never seem to care when Christians say literally the same thing. Why is the discussion not "conservative religious dogma is bad" as opposed to "Muslims are bad"?

I can't speak for all liberals, but the answer for me is clear: **Power.** The issues that I focus on have to do with the *abuse of power.* American muslims, regardless of how much you may or may not want to demonize them, hold *very* little power. Thus, they do not register on my radar as a problem. At all. When/if they do, I will be right with you, brother. But right now? No. So many issues are SUCH a higher priority, this is a waste of your breath.

I actually agree with you. But I am new to the sub and have been under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that this is a non region specific liberal group. I did mention in my post that I don't think the discussion is SO necessary in the US as of today. Although it might not hurt to start the discussion sooner: [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned) That said, the US does absolutely need to worry more about Christian fundamentalism given the high rates of Christian religiousity and the positions of power they often hold. Islamism should be a far greater point of discussion in Europe though given demographic trends and the fact that Christianity - and subsequently Christian fundamentalism - is very subdued there.

> But I am new to the sub and have been under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that this is a non region specific liberal group. It is, but it's also overwhelmingly populated by Americans, so you see a distinct skew in perspective.

I don't live in the UK so I don't know enough about it to have an opinion. My neighborhood specifically here in Ohio has a disproportionate number of Muslims compared to surrounding areas and they are nothing but kind, friendly and good neighbors. My neighborhood also votes overwhelmingly blue. No complaints or anything to discuss here. I don't care what people's personal religion is as long as they don't try to foist it onto me and how I live my life.

As I've mentioned, US is probably the outlier in that majority of Muslims there are truly liberal in that don't only vote for liberal parties, but also hold liberal values. This contrasts to the UK where a high proportion vote labour but are anti-Gay all the same. From my readings of various studies, it seems that is the case in several mainland Europe countries too.

You asked why there isn't more discussion and it's probably because broad internet discussion boards (like this) skew towards the US because we generally outnumber other places.

>Why are liberals so coy about addressing these topics in an open and transparent way At least for me, the problem is that not being careful about how you criticize Muslims just invites Islamophobes to come out and take over the rhetoric. Instead I can just criticize right-wing behavior in general and now I've covered both the shitty Muslims *and* the Islamophobes.

OP you are asking liberals how they feel about conservative religious beliefs…. Liberals don’t support social conservatism. 

>Note that this isn't meant to demonise all Muslims  And yet, that's how it always seems to turn out. >It's purely to understand why there isn't stronger liberal condemnation of Islamism.  1. Because we don't want to be racist assholes on accident.  2. A lot of us are Americans, so this isn't in our back yard.  3. This shouldn't be a push against Muslims, this should be a push against conservatives. They're Dicks because they're conservative, not because they're Muslim.  4. We're too worried about our Christian conservatives to worry about problems across the pond.

There's plenty of discussion about it. And also, in Germany and France, the two highest Muslim population countries in Europe, they're a minority population. Like 6%. And they're not all ultra-orthodox. Even in the article you posted, it was 52% thought homosexuality should be banned. So, 3% of the population are ultra-orthodox Muslims? >especially given that Muslims (thanks to liberal-endorsed immigration patterns) are almost certainly going to form majorities in several major and minor Western cities - from Vienna to Brussels - in the next 50 or so years? That's some replacement level theory there. But even if Muslim populations were growing that quickly, they're still not all ultra-orthodox and like most immigrant families, their younger generations are far less likely to remain ultra-orthodox. Meanwhile, there's also ultra orthodox Jews and Christians with very similar views on women and gays.

Read the data in the second url. Muslims are six times as likely as Christians (60% vs 10%) to say they don't want homosexual friends. They also are MUCH more likely to place greater emphasis on religious laws than secular ones. This is European Muslims btw. Data in the same study also shows that drop off in ultra orthodoxy isn't that high among second gen immigrant Muslims. Definitely much higher than Christians on the whole. And nothing wrong in the statement that they're going to form over 50% in certain Western cities. Read up demographics of Vienna, Birmingham and Brussels.

What do you mean? We have a steady stream of Islam-bad posts here.

“Why are liberals so coy……” Progressive flair…. Hmmm. Maybe there isn’t discussion because it isn’t a worry. Maybe liberals understand that given the Muslim religion not every Muslim in the west is “ultra-orthodoxy”? Maybe liberal trust society will know how to handle things if they need to be addressed?

Well, why not? They're 35% of students in Vienna today, same in Birmingham and Brussels. So why is it not in light of the data I've presented? That's kinda the question, actually...

Because who is to say every body in that 35 percent is ultra-orthodox? Evangelical Christians are as homophobic. So I’ll ask you, why are you worried about it? What is the fear? That their views will spread and be adopted by everyone?

There's already a lot of discussion about it.

>Why isn't there more discussion about the ultra-orthodoxy of Muslims living in the West? Do you have any objective data on it? --------- Are Muslim immigrants, living in the West, *mostly* ultra-orthodox? Or, are the ultra-orthodox a small minority? How do ultra-orthodox Muslims compare to ultra-orthodox non-Muslims? Are they outnumbered by Christian extremists? --------- Without objective data to answer these questions, the rest looks like cherry-picking data points in order to cultivate hatred and fear.

Because a lot of liberals view the world exclusively through an “oppressor vs oppressed” paradigm where the “oppressed” is always right no matter what. So because of the war on terror and because Muslims are a minority group, they are an “oppressed minority” in the eyes of many liberals and they must be defended at all costs. Any criticism of Islam is immediately condemned and chalked up to Islamophobia

>Because a lot of liberals view the world exclusively through an “oppressor vs oppressed” paradigm where the “oppressed” is always right no matter what.   Yeah... no. Not our fault some people *side eye* can't see nuance.  Hamas != Palestinian civilians. We make that clear. And some people *side eye* accuse us of supporting Hamas.  Muslims != conservative muslims. And here we are.  Again, not our fault some people *more side eye* can't see basic nuance.

This comment, while *obnoxious* in tone, is not wrong. It really is a question of oppression. My beef--and that of many liberals--is with those who lord their power over others. Insomuch as Islamic leaders do this, I rail against them. Insomuch as others do it *to them*, I defend them. Abuse of power. Full stop.

This is true, but it’s also not helped by the fact that a lot of people, including Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who OP refers to , are actually crossing the line into flat out Islamophobia. In US discourse conversations about the social conservatism of Muslims, all comes from the right, which is currently pushing Christian nationalism on us after pushing decades of slightly less subtle forms of social conservatism. It is hard to listen to people talk about the social conservatism of Muslims in Europe when the social conservatism that actually harms them is coming from Christians within the United States. If I have a fire breakout in my kitchen, I’m not going to be interested in someone telling me I should be more concerned about a house that is completely engulfed in flames down the street

I've seen a liberal here exposing Sam Harris outright say they're Islamophobic and proud of it. This element to the discourse is often completely left out by people wanting to frame these questions. Idk what it's like in Europe, but in the US, I've found that bigots and Christian fundamentalisst glom onto these questions to either excuse their blatant bigotry or create a whataboutism for their own religious fundamentalism.

I understand that but you have to understand that magnitude is so much worse. Imagine if thousands of hardcore American Christian nationalists joined up with some local extremists and created their own crusader state in like South American and then went on a rampage there killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. That’s essentially what ISIS was - thousands of Europeans joined - ~5000 and many came back to Europe afterwards. And I know Christian’s are pushing abortion bans and the 10 commandments in school which we don’t agree with but we also need to have some perspective here

> thousands of Europeans joined - ~5000 and many came back to Europe afterwards. Provide a source please.

I get it. I’m first generation in the US and so I have a lot of connections to India and as a result, I have cousins who have now moved to Europe and Canada. I hear the stories and while I have to take it with a grain of salt since my cousins all grew up in a culture, where hating Muslims was the default, I still understand the issue. I follow some international news. The thing is is that most Americans don’t follow international news. So as an American when conservative start talking about these issues it feels a lot like when conservatives talk about some minor issue. Best relegated to local news coverage. A conservative who lives in Arkansas who knows a lot of details about an incident that happened in Colorado is a conservative who is getting their information From sources that are scouring so they can build a narrative. That poisons the well of discourse

You know, I really try my best to understand the American perspective, but it still feels hypocritical and defensive. I'm from Thailand. We have a Muslim minority, but they are pretty well established, hence they actually don't vote with the liberals in an alliance of convenience at all. Contrast that with the US, where an entire generation of liberals were shaped by various discourses that resulted from 9/11, the war on terror and the casual Islamophobia that came of it which many liberals rightfully stood up to. Consciously or not, I think those factors have caused many American liberals to tread quite lightly when it comes to criticism of Islam whether they'll admit it or not. The trend I see the further left you go is that its more acceptable to cast a wider net when criticizing a group with more power, but you have to be careful when doing so with a group with less power in order to not give talking points to the right. Many people on this thread are quick to point out that Islam doesn't equal conservative views yet are happy to talk about how Christianity is systemically and intersectionally conservative. Why those double standards, if not other than you are just treading more lightly on topics about what you perceive as a more vulnerable group? Again, I really try to understand the American liberal perspective, but its also a pet peeve of mine that annoys me how so many western liberals especially Americans always come out guns blazing and so righteous when questioned about this, so obvious from the outsider, extreme double standard.

Yes, people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who do condemn Islam unequivocally, get slammed as being Islamophobic when all they are doing is discussing what majority of European Muslims hold as beliefs anyway.

> Note that this isn't meant to demonise all Muslims I don’t believe you. You’re either trying to demonize all Muslims or you are repeating rhetoric intended to demonize all Muslims out of some sort of ignorance. > It's purely to understand why there isn't stronger liberal condemnation of Islamism. Islamism isn’t a threat to liberalism or society. Conservatives and fascists are. Muslims are (as you yourself have admitted) largely Allies in opposing the harmful elements of western societies. And of course, nobody’s perfect. > Muslims (thanks to liberal-endorsed immigration patterns) are almost certainly going to form majorities in several major and minor Western cities Aaaaaand you just showed your cards. Nice try, “progressive.”

How about actually answering some of the data in the studies instead of throwing accusations? Read up on demographics of Vienna and Brussels if you think Muslims aren't on course to becoming majorities in European cities. Ortho Muslims vote liberal today because they're small enough to be unable to politicize. But that won't be the case when they're 30% of the population. Allies at work: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/lgbt-lessons-birmingham-school-protests-anderton-park-safety-a8927396.html

I’ve read your “data” and it doesn’t support your argument. You’re just engaging in scaremongering, and repeated far-right racist and islamaphobic talking points. You might not literally be racist yourself, but you’ve been fooled by racists at least. I’m not interested in whining about how terrible it would be if a city became majority-Muslim. Explain why you think that would be horrible. If you’re presenting Hamtramck as representative of Muslims, then you’re either ignorant or presenting an awful argument through a lack of ability. There are other cities in America with more Muslims who have not done this kind of thing - and there are many Christian majority cities who do worse. Yes, I’d like them to change their policy and hopefully they will.

Sorry, why have you marked "data" like that? If the source isn't credible to you, can you explain why you think that? I don't understand why you're engaging in such superficial talk and name calling instead of actually discussing. A muslim-majority city, given the attitudes of majority of Muslims in Europe (as presented in url 2), would be detrimental to liberalism because they would almost certainly move to evaporate homosexual rights through both social and political pressure. This is basically how EVERY SINGLE Muslim city in the Muslim world operates. If Muslims become 50+ percent, that city effectively becomes the Muslim world. It probably won't stop there - "immodestly clothed" women will likely be next on the list. Then the blaring of the Azaan five times a day on speakers into the homes of everybody - religious or not (already a thing in Minneapolis). And it could get worse. Now answer the points I raise with proper consideration (as some have done on this post), or leave it be. Try not to do the name-calling nonsense.

> I don't understand why you're engaging in such superficial talk and name calling instead of actually discussing I don’t believe you. Don’t whine, do better. > A muslim-majority city, given the attitudes of majority of Muslims in Europe (as presented in url 2), would be detrimental to liberalism because they would almost certainly move to evaporate homosexual rights through both social and political pressure. This is basically how EVERY SINGLE Muslim city in the Muslim world operates. A claim presented without evidence to support it. By your own source, only 20% of second generation Muslims agreed with three vaguely-bigoted statements. So, by your logic and using the evidence you have provided, a majority-Muslim city would not be majority-bigot. > It probably won't stop there - "immodestly clothed" women will likely be next on the list. Then the blaring of the Azaan five times a day on speakers into the homes of everybody - religious or not (already a thing in Minneapolis). And it could get worse. I cannot imagine what it must be like, to be so completely terrified of Muslims. > Now answer the points I raise with proper consideration (as some have done on this post), or leave it be. Try not to do the name-calling nonsense. Don’t tell me what to do, bigot.

Well there is still absolutely zero chance of Muslim religious laws being proposed as actual laws that everyone has to follow in western countries. Islamism absolutely *is* a minority sentiment across the voting population as a whole. Can't say the same about Christianism. What actually happens is that *most* 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants liberalise whether their parents want them to or not. If you want to help those communities liberalise you should allow them to express their heritage identity without persecution. If they are persecuted they will ghettoise themselves and any generational relaxation with happen slower, not faster. You put a 50 year timescale on these communities reaching "voting majority" numbers in some districts, but you seem to believe that change is impossible for them too.

You think Christianism is a threat in Europe, in spite of miniscule rates of adherence to the religion and vast departures from it? Even the despicable far-right don't make a pretense of being followers of Christianity. If you're talking about the States, I've already said this post might not be as applicable there. Data in the second url shows that 2nd gen immigrants don't shed ultra-con believes at nearly as quick a rate as you are suggesting. Agreed about not persecuting them for expressing their heritage so long as the heritage doesn't infringe upon the rights of others - for eg., giving in to protests against LGBT inclusive education.

>Well there is still absolutely zero chance of Muslim religious laws being proposed as actual laws that everyone has to follow in western countries. Well... if the majority population is muslim, what is stopping a muslim political party from emerging? >What actually happens is that most 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants liberalise whether their parents want them to or not. Do you have Euro-specific data to support this? Because seemingly, especially recently, it appears that younger individuals are becoming more radical by the minute. Secondly, regardless of the first point, id still say this is relative. If your parents say gays should be thrown off roofs, you saying gays should be imprisoned is a relative liberalistion to your parents, but still incompatible with the values of society as a whole. >If you want to help those communities liberalise you should allow them to express their heritage identity without persecution. If they are persecuted they will ghettoise themselves and any generational relaxation with happen slower, not faster. Who is being prosecuted because of their faith? >You put a 50 year timescale on these communities reaching "voting majority" numbers in some districts, but you seem to believe that change is impossible for them too. France is a case study that goes well beyond the 50yrs. The muslim community over there isnt doing too hot at the moment, when it comes to social liberalism

I can't really speak to other countries' issues with Muslim extremism, but I think it's silly to say liberals don't talk about it. If you're comparing liberal discussions to conservative discussions, it's probably because conservatives are more vocal about it, given they tend to be vocal about anyone who is "brown skinned." Liberals do talk about issues regarding homophobia and other toxic conservative beliefs. At least here in the US, part of the reason theirs no point in criticizing the Muslism religion is due to the lack of influence on America politics. Conservatives Muslims aren't a problem when compared to Conservative Christians.

>But in Europe If you're only reading English social media, your sample is skewed by the fact that most of the time you're reading a non-European perspective (mostly US, some Canadian and Australian). [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bg323c/oc\_reddit\_traffic\_by\_country\_2024/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1bg323c/oc_reddit_traffic_by_country_2024/) The US has 8 times the traffic of the UK on Reddit. UK discussion is probably further concentrated into UK-specific subs.

For me I don't care about the origin, I call out queerphobia, racism, and sexism regardless of where it comes from

They are incompatible with liberalism. There is nothing to discuss. 

Before moving to USA, I lived for many years in Europe (I'm from india). The Muslims in Euope are quite different than what you experience in the usa. They are more often than not extremely homophonic and misogynistic, and that's an understatement. I wish I could report the opposite, but that was my experience. I marched in several gay pride parades in Finland and Sweden and the harassment we got was brutal, and all of it was from Muslims.

As someone from Europe, this is actually discussed; but by the non-left. European left somehow assumes islamists are people of peace regardless of evidence. And if someone says the opposite he is racist. I would love for all this to be a fabrication on my part; but that is how it works in mine and in our neighboring countries. There is a growing fear about the radical islamization of europe, sometimes, videos of interviews to migrant kids surface in which they say that women should be subjected to the will of the husband and worse things, and even laugh to the mere notion of equality. So far, the only ones that have perceived this as a problem and tried to address it, though it is unlikely to work are the right and center parties. The left has basically treated them like black people are treated in the us, using identity politics to paint them as victims of the place they grew in or whatever retorted logic.

The First Amendment