Of course the picture was in reference to the relationship between Islam and terrorism. If you want to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative, but you'll have to excuse me if I refuse to play along with the idea that it's plausible that it wasn't.

Well named, do you see this whole Islam cannot be critiqued or ridiculed mindset as harmful for any meaningful reformation of the religion?

Mohammed should be drawn, deeply rooted abhorrent anti-Liberal Muslim views should be ridiculed and they should be ridiculed by whoever wishes to do so without any real risk for repercussions, much like ridiculing Nazis is completely risk free.

As I've said a few times, I have no issue with critiques of Islam, or even ridicule of specific beliefs, actions, government policies, or the like. I have no particular objection to depictions of Mohammad.

I do have a problem with characterizing all Muslims as inhuman creatures. The site rules disallow hateful content. I don't think it's very difficult to distinguish between actual criticism and mere demonization. The former is fine, the latter is not.

My only other comment is that to the extent that there is to be a discussion about Islam in this forum it should relate to politics, of course. For example, debates about the politics of bans on depictions of Mohammad are fine. Content-less posts depicting Mohammad with the intent only to express distaste for the religion, rather than in order to discuss politics, are problematic not because depictions of Mohammad are objectionable but because they are off-topic for this forum. Very general posting on Islam as a religion would be better suited to the RGT forum, imo.

Majid Nawaz is a super intelligent guy alot on both the left and right could benefit from listening to him.

The fact the southern poverty law center have him listed as an anti Islamic extremist just shows you how insane a small section of the left have gotten. And more moderate liberals who should know better will defend that move as well.

Its actually counter intuitive as well because they could be doing other great stuff and making really good points on other issues but people will not take them seriously with stupid moves like this. It will hurt their credibility in the long run.

Let me guess, Nawaz is moaning about how he can't talk about the things he appears on TV regularly to talk about. Maybe jumping in bed with Tommy Robinson isn't the best choice when you're trying to nail the no-longer-extremist look?

Bonus points if there was a mention of just awful leftist identity politics after clarifying that he's Muslim so he must be right.

Well if this is true I can assure you that he doesn't support treating all Muslims as sub-human and blaming all Muslims for the crimes committed by extremists.

Im very well aware that he doesn't believe any of those things and anyone that does is obviously an idiot.

To be fair to Nawaz he has been very critical of Robinson at times as well.

He is moaning that the SPLC have labeled him as an anti Muslim extremist. I think he is well within his rights to be a little upset.

Literally nobody here is supporting ISIS. Literally nobody.

WTF is wrong with your brain?

RaDiCaL IsLaMiStS are the almost the opposite of fundamentalists. For example, there was literally nothing about drawing Muhammad in Islam for the 1st millennium! Again, you don't know what you're talking about!

There's a smallish group of Muslims called Quranists who only consider the Quran to be the book. They also wouldn't qualify as fundamentalists but they are the exact opposite of the extremists. They reject ALL the Ahadith because they consider all the bad stuff in Islam to come from them, to be random bull**** that random fallible men just made up hundreds of years later to justify bad behavior.

I'm an atheist so I'm most sympathetic to the Quranist perspective, and I believe that's really the only logical perspective to approach the geopolitical quagmire that is modern Islam. Consider some random person who finds God through the Quran and the words of Muhammad and the whole lineage of Abrahamic prophets. Imagine how he or she feels to find out there are these wacky epilogues that people tacked on hundreds of years later, in specific parts of the world, to serve their own interests, and he or she is now getting blamed for them.

"Wait, you're blaming my faith for a dude killing another dude for drawing the prophet?!? There's literally nothing about that in the book I just read!"

You don't treat any other religious adherents this way and that's what people mean by discrimination and dehumanization.

And that's the grandest irony of all this. Salafism and Wahhabism and other extremist bull**** is Brand New Nonsense for geopolitical gain yet you believe it's fundamentalist because THEY THEMSELVES TOLD YOU IT WAS! What kind of enemy of critical thinking do you have to be, to believe the words of your enemy?

"I want to kill you. My book told me it's my duty."

"Okey dokey, sounds good to me! Why would you lie?"

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, and I'd like to point out that what you perceive as defending Islam is partially just clowning you for reveling in your arrogant ignorance.

Any questions regressives?

If I'm being fair to him then I'd say that it didn't take long for Robinson to bugger off and join another far right group and start talking **** about Quilliam. So in that sense, it was a cheap shot.

Mostly my problem with him is that he seems to run through a check list of right wing talking points whenever I see him and I'm waiting for him to offer some solutions or even talk positively about Islam. He does that very irritating thing of moaning about not being allowed to have an opinion whilst getting TV time and running a large think tank. He goes through his "why don't the left complain about..." rants over subjects that the left have been speaking out against for years e.g. fgm, gay rights.

I guess I'm just waiting for him to say something useful other than reiterate that he's definitely a good character because he was once an extremist himself.

Did I nail the summary of that interview?

You seemed to the objecting to the ruling.

I'm really not sure what your point is. I'm not in agreement with people who would call Maajid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist. I can't imagine he would agree with dehumanizing Muslims as that Love Sosa post did and I'm all for supporting those who oppose the real extremists. Afaik he would be welcome to post here anytime.

I look forward to Maajid's successful lawsuit against the SPLC.

As to Bladesman's point, the Regressives are now REFUSING to condemn fgm and the killing of gays in Muslim countries. These are Conservative positions in 2017 - perhaps you should keep up.

New York Times says don't say FGM.

Gays for Trump and the real threats to the LGBT community.

I see from der googles that there was some kind of controversy involving the health editor for the times suggesting not using the term "female genital mutilation", but there is still a tag on the site for FGM, and after the date of all the articles complaining about this editorial decision there are articles using the term. I can't find any actual statement on the site explaining any editorial policy regarding the term either. I would agree that the NYT would be wrong to implement such an editorial decision, but I can't find any evidence that they have.

Iv actually never head him moan about not being allowed to speak or not having a platform.

He is trying to reform his religion and talk about some of the problems with Islam and in the Islamic community and I think he has every right to do so. He is talking about sensitive subjects such as homophobia within the Islamic community and I think he should be commended for that. If a white christian American was attempting to do the same in the US the same people condemning Nawaz would be praising the white christian.

It would be more productive if you told me which exact points he has made that you disagree rather than just writing them off as right wing talking points.

Michigan Case Adds U.S. Dimension to Debate on Genital Mutilation

"A version of this article appears in print on June 11, 2017, on Page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Michigan Case Adds U.S. Dimension To the Debate Over Genital Cutting."

The purposefully attempted to softened the headline and had to reprint the article after receiving such criticism.

Famed Regressive Linda Sarsour even attacked a victim of FGM, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

OK. I agree they should just keep using the term FGM where it's appropriate to use it.

I can concede that the ruling of that post was fine, I mostly wanted to get your attention on the way you suppress this important issue, other posts which seemed fine were deleted in this thread like juan's, which make it clear that this is an issue you would rather pretend does not exist.

Muslims should not be a protected group, they can not be protected as a whole without undermining the reformation driven by moderate Muslims or protecting ex-muslims who are a truly vulnerable group.

Be specific. Which left winger have you heard say that FGM is okay?

No, I think we've been over this. When someone posts a 17 minute youtube video without a summary I'm not going to be the one who fleshes out the argument for them. You can tell me what he says in the video that's worth discussing or provide anything of merit you think he's said elsewhere.

I already cited the New York Times and Linda Sarsour threatening the vagina of a victim of FGM.

Not sure if you're such an idiot you believe this or if you're just lying, but no, you did not.

This is the first time I've heard her name but it took me a couple of clicks to get to https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/...130435?lang=en

"FGM has no place in Detroit or any where else in the world. FGM is barbaric & is NOT an Islamic practice."

Are we talking about how Islam the religion is bad in light of some half ass attempts to repel the West's military takeover and destruction of the Middle East/Muslim societies?

I'm not so sure. Last time I checked rates of religious service attendance for Muslim Americans were about the same as those of Christians. They even broke for w bush in 2000. That changed in 2004 (for obvious reasons) but I just can't imagine Christian Americans being tolerant enough to vote for someone as hardcore Muslim as w bush is Christian.

Plus they take care of their families. You have to admire that. Americans (mostly Christians) dump their parents in nursing homes and hardly ever visit. Nursing homes are very often not nice places. You don't see that so much with Muslims. They keep the parents in the home and honor them by taking care of them. I think that says something about the differences between the cultures, at least until American Muslims become more influenced by the Christian philosophy as practiced in this country, which I believe was articulated by the apostle who said "**** you buddy" (book of capitalism).

It is true that from time to time some tiny proportion of Musim's seek revenge on the West for our ongoing wholesale killing of them and the destruction of their societies. But before we paint all Muslims as vengeful and angry, don't you think we should at least try not killing them by the hundreds of thousands and destroying their societies? Or, if worse came to worse and we had to go to war, it wasn't for fabricated, fictitious reasons which change mid illegal war? Or if we do execute illegal wars of preposterously lopsided casualties based on ridiculous lies, that we don't make things worse with torture?

I don't know. Just a thought.