i'm defending my views on this by pointing to liberalism, but i will acknowledge that my liberalism is on the far anti-authoritarian extreme of the spectrum, and i have made no secret of the fact that i identify as an anarchist.

you can't call yourself an anarchist and then go walking around apologizing for islam. there's no such thing as an anarcho-muslim. it's a contradiction in terms.

and, as an anarchist, my fundamental concern is with the abolition of the illegitimate use of power, which means two things:

1) i am simply not going to stand with a group of people that define themselves by a system of brutal oppression, and muslims are exactly that. my political vision necessitates abolishing their religion; co-existence isn't actually possible.
2) nor will i offer blanket condemnation for any group fighting against a system of hierarchy, no matter how misguided their approach may be. so, i will not offer blanket condemnation towards palestinians fighting the occupation, and i will not offer blanket condemnation towards anybody fighting against the spread of islam in the west - even if i don't like their tactics, one bit.

in a sense, i'm refusing to take a side in a debate between white supremacists and muslims because i actually view them as essentially interchangeable, and the truth is they largely are - they both hate jews, they both hate queers (if anything, nazis are less anti-queer than muslims), they both hate africans, they both believe in slavery, they're both hyper-capitalistic, etc. i'm not sure that the differences between the modern saudi state and the historical nazi state are very substantive; there's terrible people on both sides, here.

but, i'm also sincere in my belief that this is not something that ought to be fully condemned, because there is a basis of resistance underlying it.

discourse is always preferable, granted. but, if we can't win this argument, there may come a time when violence is actually rational.

is that an acceptable diversity in opinion?