• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you agree with this womans comments against radical Islam?

Do you agree with this womans comments against radical Islam?

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39
Well,for starters, the woman you trotted out as some sort of example of a "moderate" Muslim just happens to be friends with Mohamed Osman Mohamud.

She is described as a family friend, not Mohamed Osman's direct friend. Is this guilt by association?

Now, I realize you are as ignorant of this gentleman as you are of absolutely everything else to do with the subject, but he is that nice fellow who tried to set off a car bomb in Portland in Pioneer Square. She is on record as indicating there is no moral difference between a terrorist and a soldier.

Is that a religious view? Does she believe that killing is wrong in general? Does she support terrorism?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I support her statement that the peaceful ones in all periods of history where the minority has massacred thousands of people are irrelevant because she is absolutely correct. The do nothing to stop the killing. It doesn't matter WHAT that minority is, nazis, radical muslims, Chinese, etc. etc. etc. They are the ones who are doing the killing. And the peaceful ones do nothing.

For your information and hopefully your edification, NO ONE knows how many radical muslims there are. NO ONE. Not YOU or anyone else. And unless you personally have access to the checkbook of every last one you don't have any clue who is bankrolling the radicals.

I'm not the one making the claim. Your hero and presidential candidate is.
 
My only point in this thread is that Brigitte Gabriel is a hack, a fraud, and a pseudo-expert. You align yourself with her at your peril. If you want to be afraid of Muslims for the rest of your life, fill your boots.
 
Then what is the correct percentage, and how does that tally out into actual people? Even % would come to 10 million. That would be more than the population of our largest city.

From your link:



I guess he slept through the Boston Marathon.

Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

13% showed a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda, according to this Pew research poll. 7% identified as radicals, according to the Gallup poll I posted earlier. And even out of everyone who holds radical views, only a small percentage of them are actually terrorists.

So, you do the math. How many are radicals at your proffered percentage? By my calculation that would be roughly 70 million radicals. That is more than the population of most of the United States' largest cities all added together. Ahh.........peaceful islam!

List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Again, just because someone has radical views, does not mean they're going to be willing to commit a crime because of their radical views. And for every one Muslim that identifies as a radical, there are 9 who do not. I hardly see how a fringe element of the religion is a reflection of the religion itself.

I posted a link to a reputable pew research report on Muslim attitudes.

If you are capable of any honesty whatsoever, you will take a look at these attitudes with a critical eye. If you are incapable of honesty, then by all means feel free to just continue with the program.

Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

Are you referring to this one? 13% have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda. That is far from what the video in the OP claims, and even less than that are going to be willing to resort to violence for political reasons.
 
Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

13% showed a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda, according to this Pew research poll. 7% identified as radicals, according to the Gallup poll I posted earlier. And even out of everyone who holds radical views, only a small percentage of them are actually terrorists.



Again, just because someone has radical views, does not mean they're going to be willing to commit a crime because of their radical views. And for every one Muslim that identifies as a radical, there are 9 who do not. I hardly see how a fringe element of the religion is a reflection of the religion itself.



Muslim Publics Share Concerns about Extremist Groups | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project

Are you referring to this one? 13% have a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda. That is far from what the video in the OP claims, and even less than that are going to be willing to resort to violence for political reasons.

13% of 1 billion is 130,000,000. That is and 'insignificant fringe?' Do tell.
 
13% of 1 billion is 130,000,000. That is and 'insignificant fringe?' Do tell.

It's insignificant to Islam itself, because 87-93% to Muslims are not radicals. And as I said before, the vast majority of Muslims who identify as radicals are not going to resort to violence to prove their point.
 
It's insignificant to Islam itself, because 87-93% to Muslims are not radicals. And as I said before, the vast majority of Muslims who identify as radicals are not going to resort to violence to prove their point.

Good effort, bad audience. You're not going to convince these people, and they're the only ones listening. You can get it down to 1% and it won't be enough.
 
It's insignificant to Islam itself, because 87-93% to Muslims are not radicals. And as I said before, the vast majority of Muslims who identify as radicals are not going to resort to violence to prove their point.

So 130 million people who wish the demise of western civilization is an 'insignificant fringe?' Really? You actually believe that?
 
So 130 million people who wish the demise of western civilization is an 'insignificant fringe?' Really? You actually believe that?

In the grand scheme of things they're not relevant to Islam. Do you actually believe Islam is at it's core and evil religion because 10% of its followers hold radical beliefs?

Good effort, bad audience. You're not going to convince these people, and they're the only ones listening. You can get it down to 1% and it won't be enough.

True, but one can always try.
 
In the grand scheme of things they're not relevant to Islam. Do you actually believe Islam is at it's core and evil religion because 10% of its followers hold radical beliefs?

True, but one can always try.
So Even in a very narrow sense, Only support for al Qaeda, we have 10% of Muslims.
Almost Halfway there without even getting to the Bulk/Main body!
Is it "radical" to want Stoning to death for Apostates? Adulterers? Gays?
Penalties for anyone Criticizing Islam?
Radical to want a worldwide Caliphate even if you don't explode or directly support someone who does?
Sunni are killing Shias (and lesser extent reverse) with the help of Sunni countries' governments. Radical?

Care to take a shot? Amadeus WHIFFED 3 times.

The problem here is the use/meaning of 'radical'.
Certainly 25% of Muslims aren't "terrorists" .. the old strawman we see in this string and in the rigged youngturk youtube in the post above mine.
Terrorists would be under 1%.

But how many are Fundamentalist? Literalist? Is that "radical?
If we use those terms the way we use it on Christians it would be a healthy Majority.
The same healthy Majority that supports Sharia worldwide and elected the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with the more "Radical" Salafis second. Between them 70%.
Salafis, Coincidentally (Not), won 25% in 'Moderate' Egypt!

Do you consider the MB "radical"? Salafis?
So her claim is Not at all off base.
Many Muslims and Muslim govts financially support terrorists radicals: Saudi, Pakistan, Hamas charities, etc.

Christians are persecuted and Cleansed in Most Muslim countries by their peoples AND Governments.

So 'radical'? Would you call Falwell/Robertson Radical? Because I would say about 2/3++ of Muslims are at least that 'radical'.
Then, of course, you have the problem of Literal or Radical to What?

Being Literal to the NT would cause what counterproductive behavior exactly? Teaching creationism instead of evolution?
Being literal to the Koran, OTOH, has many Violent repercussions we do see worldwide.
People die Every day in the NAME of Islam/it's scripture.
What would Falwell proscribe for Adultery, Counseling? While a Majority of Muslims support Stoning to Death for Adultery as prescribed by Sharia.

A Christian Fundamentalist is a missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.​
 
Last edited:
So Even in a very narrow sense, Only support for al Qaeda, we have 10% of Muslims.
Almost Halfway there without even getting to the Bulk/Main body!
Is it "radical" to want Stoning to death for Apostates? Adulterers? Gays?
Penalties for anyone Criticizing Islam?
Radical to want a worldwide Caliphate even if you don't explode or directly support someone who does?
Sunni are killing Shias (and lesser extent reverse) with the help of Sunni countries' governments. Radical?

Care to take a shot? Amadeus WHIFFED 3 times.

The problem here is the use/meaning of 'radical'.
Certainly 25% of Muslims aren't "terrorists" .. the old strawman we see in this string and in the rigged youngturk youtube in the post above mine.
Terrorists would be under 1%.

But how many are Fundamentalist? Literalist? Is that "radical?
If we use those terms the way we use it on Christians it would be a healthy Majority.
The same healthy Majority that supports Sharia worldwide and elected the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with the more "Radical" Salafis second. Between them 70%.
Salafis, Coincidentally (Not), won 25% in 'Moderate' Egypt!

Do you consider the MB "radical"? Salafis?
So her claim is Not at all off base.
Many Muslims and Muslim govts financially support terrorists radicals: Saudi, Pakistan, Hamas charities, etc.

Christians are persecuted and Cleansed in Most Muslim countries by their peoples AND Governments.

So 'radical'? Would you call Falwell/Robertson Radical? Because I would say about 2/3++ of Muslims are at least that 'radical'.
Then, of course, you have the problem of Literal or Radical to What?

Being Literal to the NT would cause what counterproductive behavior exactly? Teaching creationism instead of evolution?
Being literal to the Koran, OTOH, has many Violent repercussions we do see worldwide.
People die Every day in the NAME of Islam/it's scripture.
What would Falwell proscribe for Adultery, Counseling? While a Majority of Muslims support Stoning to Death for Adultery as prescribed by Sharia.

A Christian Fundamentalist is a missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.​

I'm talking about radical in the sense that they have a favorable opinion of a terrorist group. If someone wants to hold theocratic beliefs, regarding of the religion they subscribe to, that's their right, even though I strongly disagree with it. Holding fundamentalist beliefs as a Muslim is not relevant to terrorism at all, because as you said, less than 1% of Muslims are actually terrorists. Your statement that you ended with is also false, since as I mentioned earlier, you are more likely to be killed by a member of the radical right than an Islamic terrorist. And the leading party in Pakistan is a very "pro-American" party, and the U.S. government is willing to go miles to defend the oil of the Saudi Arabians. Those two are hardly radical governments.
 
I'm talking about radical in the sense that they have a favorable opinion of a terrorist group. If someone wants to hold theocratic beliefs, regarding of the religion they subscribe to, that's their right, even though I strongly disagree with it. Holding fundamentalist beliefs as a Muslim is not relevant to terrorism at all, because as you said, less than 1% of Muslims are actually terrorists. Your statement that you ended with is also false, since as I mentioned earlier, you are more likely to be killed by a member of the radical right than an Islamic terrorist. And the leading party in Pakistan is a very "pro-American" party, and the U.S. government is willing to go miles to defend the oil of the Saudi Arabians. Those two are hardly radical governments.
Untrue.
One must hold fundamentalist beliefs to be a terrorist and, you show me more and more fervent fundamentalists, I'll show you More terrorists.
The two are Inter-related and highly correlated.

As to Saudis, we are necessary partners. That doesn't make them less Radical, the term at hand.
Confiscating Bibles, arresting those carrying them Executing the above mentioned classes as well as recently making Atheism a crime is RADICAL.
Saudis/Sunnis are also supporting ISIS' slaughtering Shias in Iraq/Syria... as well as Christians being Persecuted and Cleansed in just about Every Muslim country!

And the POINT/Topic/OP:
We were NOT just talking Terrorism, nor OBVIOUSLY was Gabriel in the OP.

Radicals compromise well more than 25% IMO and it has been demonstrated throughout with Poll numbers etc.
 
Last edited:
In the grand scheme of things they're not relevant to Islam. Do you actually believe Islam is at it's core and evil religion because 10% of its followers hold radical beliefs?



True, but one can always try.

Being relevant to islam isn't the issue. Their relevance to western civilization is the issue. Do you believe that any religion that is as repressive to its women as islam is is NOT evil? An islamic man beheading his own wife for infidelity real or imagined, or selling his daughter with no malice toward the west would not be considered 'radical.' Those things are just business as usual. And those things are not 'evil.' Groovy.
 
Untrue.
One must hold fundamentalist beliefs to be a terrorist and, you show me more and more fervent fundamentalists, I'll show you More terrorists.
The two are Inter-related and highly correlated.

As to Saudis, we are necessary partners. That doesn't make them less Radical, the term at hand.
Confiscating Bibles, arresting those carrying them Executing the above mentioned classes as well as recently making Atheism a crime is RADICAL.
Saudis/Sunnis are also supporting ISIS' slaughtering Shias in Iraq/Syria... as well as Christians being Persecuted and Cleansed in just about Every Muslim country!


And the POINT/Topic/OP:
We were NOT just talking Terrorism, nor OBVIOUSLY was Gabriel in the OP.
She clearly differentiated/specified not terrorists.
THAT was the issue and it is now OVER.

Radicals compromise well more than 25% IMO and it has bee demonstrated throughout with Poll numbers etc.

Are you saying people that oppose secularism, support criminalizing homosexuality, etc., must be terrorists? This was a panel on Islamic terrorism, not the beliefs of Muslims whose views may be considered fundamentalist, but not terrorist sympathizers. Do you consider this to be radical as well? Are the governments of Arkansas, Maryland, the Carolinas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas radical terrorist sympathizing governments? No, they are not, even though they place similar restrictions on atheism as middle eastern countries. Fundamentalism=/=terrorist sympathy. We can argue about how many Muslims are radical fundamentalists all day, but if they don't have terrorist sympathies, they're not the kind of radicalism we should be worried about.
 
So Even in a very narrow sense, Only support for al Qaeda, we have 10% of Muslims.
Almost Halfway there without even getting to the Bulk/Main body!
Is it "radical" to want Stoning to death for Apostates? Adulterers? Gays?
Penalties for anyone Criticizing Islam?
Radical to want a worldwide Caliphate even if you don't explode or directly support someone who does?
Sunni are killing Shias (and lesser extent reverse) with the help of Sunni countries' governments. Radical?

Care to take a shot? Amadeus WHIFFED 3 times.

The problem here is the use/meaning of 'radical'.
Certainly 25% of Muslims aren't "terrorists" .. the old strawman we see in this string and in the rigged youngturk youtube in the post above mine.
Terrorists would be under 1%.

But how many are Fundamentalist? Literalist? Is that "radical?
If we use those terms the way we use it on Christians it would be a healthy Majority.
The same healthy Majority that supports Sharia worldwide and elected the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, with the more "Radical" Salafis second. Between them 70%.
Salafis, Coincidentally (Not), won 25% in 'Moderate' Egypt!

Do you consider the MB "radical"? Salafis?
So her claim is Not at all off base.
Many Muslims and Muslim govts financially support terrorists radicals: Saudi, Pakistan, Hamas charities, etc.

Christians are persecuted and Cleansed in Most Muslim countries by their peoples AND Governments.

So 'radical'? Would you call Falwell/Robertson Radical? Because I would say about 2/3++ of Muslims are at least that 'radical'.
Then, of course, you have the problem of Literal or Radical to What?

Being Literal to the NT would cause what counterproductive behavior exactly? Teaching creationism instead of evolution?
Being literal to the Koran, OTOH, has many Violent repercussions we do see worldwide.
People die Every day in the NAME of Islam/it's scripture.
What would Falwell proscribe for Adultery, Counseling? While a Majority of Muslims support Stoning to Death for Adultery as prescribed by Sharia.

A Christian Fundamentalist is a missionary, a Muslim Fundamentalist Kills him.​

The things you name are just part of the religion and governed by sharia law. They would not be considered 'radical.'
 
Are you saying people that oppose secularism, support criminalizing homosexuality, etc., must be terrorists?
Is this a confused take or intentional deflection?
Again, one does Not have to be a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer to be a Radical.
And also again, Your poll was very limited in scope and still got 10%.
Many more support violence in the Name of Islam.


SocialDemocrat said:
This was a panel on Islamic terrorism, not the beliefs of Muslims whose views may be considered fundamentalist, but not terrorist sympathizers. Do you consider this to be radical as well? Are the governments of Arkansas, Maryland, the Carolinas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas radical terrorist sympathizing governments? No, they are not, even though they place similar restrictions on atheism as middle eastern countries. Fundamentalism=/=terrorist sympathy. We can argue about how many Muslims are Radical fundamentalists all day, but if they don't have terrorist sympathies, they're not the kind of radicalism we should be worried about.
See above.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Are_the_Overwhelming_Majority_of_Muslims_Peaceful_Moderates#Case_Studies
[......]
Case Studies
Pakistan


I previously did some number-crunching for "extremists" in Pakistan after it was reported that a December 2010 Pew poll found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to 'allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion'”.[2][3]

Using Pakistan as an example, I noted that the poll found that 76% of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000[4] (96% of whom are Muslim)[5] that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13% of Muslims opposed killing apostates.

So, according to indisputable facts, Muslim "extremists" are not a "tiny minority", but form the vast majority of the population in Pakistan and some of the other countries polled. In fact, the number of "extremists" in Pakistan alone form about 8% of the world's entire 1.5 billion Muslim population. We reach this shocking figure even before we take into consideration the possibility that a lot of those Pakistanis who disagree with killing apostates may still support jihad.

Indonesia

Over in "moderate" Indonesia,
a survey conducted from 2001 to March 2006 found 43.5% of Muslim respondents were "ready to Wage War for their faith" and 40% would use Violence against those blaspheming Islam.[6] 85%, or 200 million, of the country's 230 million population are Muslims. This means approximately 87 million Indonesians, or more than 4 out of every 10 Muslim there, is a violent Islamic "extremist".

Note that this massive figure is not for those Indonesian Muslims who simply support a violent interpretation of Islam, but for those Muslims who are actually prepared to act on them by committing violence against others. If we were to know the number of those who simply support jihad but are not prepared to join in themselves, like in Pakistan, the "extremists" would most certainly be in the majority. And again, this is without taking into consideration that many of the Indonesians who support stoning adulterers to death [42%][3] or killing apostates [30%][3] may not support jihad at all, but would also clearly have to be labeled as "extremists" for holding such barbaric views.

United Kingdom


The picture is not much brighter when we learn the views of young Western-born Muslims who often tend to be more "extremist" than their older Eastern-born counterparts. For example; in the United Kingdom, where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agree that apostates should be put to death,[7] and where only 3% of all Muslims are "consistently pro-freedom of speech".[8]
[.......]​
 
Last edited:
Being relevant to islam isn't the issue. Their relevance to western civilization is the issue. Do you believe that any religion that is as repressive to its women as islam is is NOT evil? An islamic man beheading his own wife for infidelity real or imagined, or selling his daughter with no malice toward the west would not be considered 'radical.' Those things are just business as usual. And those things are not 'evil.' Groovy.

See the link I posted for mbig. Despite the radical, sometimes frightening views of some Muslims, they are not relevant to Islam or to our "national security" (hate that term), as the fact that we face more issues from nationalist radicals here at home.

Is this a confused take or intentional deflection?
Again, one does Not have to be a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer to be a Radical.
And also again, Your poll was very limited in scope and still got 10%.
Many more support violence in the Name of Islam.


See above.

Are the Overwhelming Majority of Muslims Peaceful Moderates? - WikiIslam
[......]
Case Studies
Pakistan


I previously did some number-crunching for "extremists" in Pakistan after it was reported that a December 2010 Pew poll found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to 'allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion'”.[2][3]

Using Pakistan as an example, I noted that the poll found that 76% of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000[4] (96% of whom are Muslim)[5] that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13% of Muslims opposed killing apostates.

So, according to indisputable facts, Muslim "extremists" are not a "tiny minority", but form the vast majority of the population in Pakistan and some of the other countries polled. In fact, the number of "extremists" in Pakistan alone form about 8% of the world's entire 1.5 billion Muslim population. We reach this shocking figure even before we take into consideration the possibility that a lot of those Pakistanis who disagree with killing apostates may still support jihad.

Indonesia

Over in "moderate" Indonesia, a survey conducted from 2001 to March 2006 found 43.5% of Muslim respondents were "ready to Wage War for their faith" and 40% would use Violence against those blaspheming Islam.[6] 85%, or 200 million, of the country's 230 million population are Muslims. This means approximately 87 million Indonesians, or more than 4 out of every 10 Muslim there, is a violent Islamic "extremist".


Note that this massive figure is not for those Indonesian Muslims who simply support a violent interpretation of Islam, but for those Muslims who are actually prepared to act on them by committing violence against others. If we were to know the number of those who simply support jihad but are not prepared to join in themselves, like in Pakistan, the "extremists" would most certainly be in the majority. And again, this is without taking into consideration that many of the Indonesians who support stoning adulterers to death [42%][3] or killing apostates [30%][3] may not support jihad at all, but would also clearly have to be labeled as "extremists" for holding such barbaric views.

United Kingdom

The picture is not much brighter when we learn the views of young Western-born Muslims who often tend to be more "extremist" than their older Eastern-born counterparts. For example; in the United Kingdom, where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agree that apostates should be put to death,[7] and where only 3% of all Muslims are "consistently pro-freedom of speech".
[8]
[.......]​

If they are a radical in terms of their beliefs, but not a terrorist sympathizer, why are they a concern of terrorism? And despite all this focus on radical Muslims who do not even have terrorist sympathies, you are more likely to be killed by a domestic terrorist subscribing to Christianity than a terrorist subscribing to Islam? I cannot emphasize this point enough.
 
See the link I posted for mbig. Despite the radical, sometimes frightening views of some Muslims, they are not relevant to Islam or to our "national security" (hate that term), as the fact that we face more issues from nationalist radicals here at home.



If they are a radical in terms of their beliefs, but not a terrorist sympathizer, why are they a concern of terrorism? And despite all this focus on radical Muslims who do not even have terrorist sympathies, you are more likely to be killed by a domestic terrorist subscribing to Christianity than a terrorist subscribing to Islam? I cannot emphasize this point enough.


Please name all the domestic Christian terrorists who have killed someone.
 
...

If they are a radical in terms of their beliefs, but not a terrorist sympathizer, why are they a concern of terrorism? And despite all this focus on radical Muslims who do not even have terrorist sympathies, you are more likely to be killed by a domestic terrorist subscribing to Christianity than a terrorist subscribing to Islam? I cannot emphasize this point enough.
All radicals have Some terrorist sympathy for Obvious reason/definition: rooting for Islam v the West/Christians/Jews/Hindus.
Nonetheless, we WERE Talking about the term 'radicals', which Ms Gabriel conservatively estimates at 25%.

We keep having apologists for Worldwide Islamic violence do the redirect/Deflection to America alone which is only maybe 2% Muslim.
(So one can assume the debate is Over on the Gabriel claim as it is now UNcontested)

As to your Left Wing article from 'Alternet' it's Misleading/untrue.
Only hundreds of arrests have prevented more Islamic acts of terror.

That would be 50 Foiled plots in/against America since 9/11.
50 Terror Attacks Foiled Since 9/11
Not including 'Successful' plots like Fort Hood.
Ouch.
And since we Are talking Worldwide, not just the USA...
Several Hundred Die Every Week, and 1500-2000 Die Every month in the Name of Islam.
These are Only crimes in the Name of Islam.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/i...es: 1883[/b] Critically Injured: 2137[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Where did I use the term 'tedious?'

You didn't, but asking me to define every word I use in a posting is just that.
 
Are you telling me you are precisely in the middle? The epitome of centrist? What are the odds of that?

I thought of his challenge as well but decided, as you pointed out, that nobody is exactly in the middle. I lean a little left, in general, so I voted Yes. I agree.
 
You can't tell. You've subscribed to the theory that 25% are essentially evil and want to destroy you.

You've given yourself no out, and you have no solutions. All you have is your hate.

I like what she said but I don't for a minute think that 25% of Muslims are "radical". That is absolutely retarded.
 
It's insignificant to Islam itself, because 87-93% to Muslims are not radicals. And as I said before, the vast majority of Muslims who identify as radicals are not going to resort to violence to prove their point.

Are you really so profoundly naive as to think that a person's self-identification is what is important here and not what they actually think?

You quote a finite statistic based upon only one trait, which of course means that you are thus defining as not radical at all such notions as killing people who leave Islam ,killing of homosexuals, and amputations for minor crimes.

If Christians or Jews were running around saying people should be killed if they stopped following Christianity or Judaism, should we also assume you would defend them in equal measure? After all,you have now established that these attitudes are not in the least bit radical to you.

If defending knuckle-dragging views that haven't changed in 1500 years is the sign of "progressive" politics, I'd hate to think what your politics must have been before they progressed.
 
Back
Top Bottom