What constitutes a bigot? Are you a bigot because you acknowledge the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence between the teachings of the Quran and the behaviour of any given self-identified Muslim, but continue to hold an unfounded prejudice against all Muslims?
Islam breeds intolerance. There are many illiberal teachings contained within the Qu'ran and the Qu'ran is the word of Allah as revealed by the prophet Muhammad: the Qu'ran is a sacred Islamic text. If you criticise it you therefore run the risk of insulting Muhammad, Allah and everything that Muslims deem holy, and we know how Muslims react when they feel their religion is being insulted. They go bat**** mental.
If you believe that Islam is a peaceful religion why don't you stand outside a mosque (in somewhere like Bradford) whilst criticising the barbaric practices the Qu'ran promotes? Go and see for yourself how these "self-identified Muslims" react to a bit of legitimiate criticism instead of listening to "bigots" like me. Be sure to report back with your results.
What are the essential elements of Muslims and English people that would allow that conclusion and why are you treating them as mutually exclusive? Being a Muslim does not necessarily make someone illiberal and being English does not necessarily make someone liberal; furthermore, they are obviously not mutually exclusive.
Why are you always taking things to the extreme? I am not saying that "all Muslims" believe this or that "all English people" believe that but in general there are certain things we can say about each community based upon the evidence available.
In the Qu'ran for example it openly advocates amputation as a form of punishment. Surah 5:38 says:
Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are a man or woman, as punishment for what they have done.
This is the word of Allah remember so by definition in order to be a 'good' Muslim you must heed this teaching. Not all Muslims will advocate amputation of course but the good Muslims will and this is one reason why we should try and contain Islam within North Africa and the Middle East. I don't want any of that stone age stuff in Europe thank you very much and anyone who believes this sort of thing will enrich Britain or end racism needs their head checking.
Read my discussion with Hopple and my reply to Aoide in that thread. I would argue your suggestion that all Muslims are illiberal and incompatible and should be deported is equally illiberal. Somebody's identity alone is enough to cause you to despise them, it seems, insofar as you believe the state should act to remove them from the country.
There are moral/political/ideological clashes everywhere. For example, between those who want to deport an entire identity group indiscriminately, and those who believe members of that identity group should be treated as individuals and judged according to their individual actions.
I find it quaint that you're concerned about the human rights of Muslims when I doubt they would give a damn about your rights if the English became a minority in their own country.
If we allowed a group of Nazis into the country under the guise of 'multiculturalism' would you defend their right to act in a bigoted manner and jeopardise the internal security of this country in the long term, or would you send them packing so they could go and live with other Nazis in a fascist country where they would feel at home?
Politically it's incredibly difficult to turn the clock back of course, but if we have entire communities that want to want to live an Arabic lifestyle by following the prophet's example I suggest they return to their spiritual homeland in the Middle East rather than live out their Islamic fantasies over here.
No, I would use this attack as an example of an individual who has exercised violence in the name of Islam. This would invalidate the statement that "no Muslim exercises violence in the name of Islam", but doesn't validate the statement that "all Muslims exercise violence in the name of Islam".
Ok, but you give the impression that such an attack would represent an aberration when it's far more common than liberals like to admit. If the attack was an isolated incident it would be fair to say the problem rests with the individual and isn't indicative of the community as a whole, but when an uniquivocal pattern emerges as it has with Islam it seems prudent to join the dots to help us understand where the violence is coming from.
If a member of the BNP attacked an immigrant it would make front page news and there's no way on this earth that bleedin' heart leftists would defend the BNP the same vigour as they do Muslims (i.e most BNP members are peaceful, law abiding citizens etc etc). They would want the book thrown at them. So why do they rush to the defence of Muslims? You say it's about facts and logic but how can that be true when the left go incandescent with rage at the BBC for letting Nick Griffin on QT but when an Islamist lops a soldier's head off in broad daylight we don't hear a peep out of them, and to top it off Cameron comes out telling us how peaceful Islam is!
I don't see how anyone with half a brain can support this rubbish.
There are approximately 2.7 million Muslims in the UK...
Why do you insist on using this word "all"? I have never claimed that 'all' Muslims do this or 'all' Muslims do that, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying to make your own position look more reasonable. It's an underhand tactic that's so obvious to spot.
Aren't you the type of person to harp on about 'lefties' clamping down on any speech that isn't 'PC'? How hypocritical of you.
Should they be punished for their opinions?
But there difference is that we havn't imported millions of bigoted leftists to help 'enrich' our culture.
I don't want them punished because that doesn't address the underlying problem: a clash of civilisations. I want an amicable divorce so both peoples can freely live according to their own values. again
That would be assault, which is a criminal offence. And yes, it would be an anecdote. What do the other ~2.7 million Muslims have to do with this event and why should I impute this individual's behaviour to them?
Exactly, a Muslim attacks someone because he believes it's Allah will and you use this attack as an example of the peaceful nature of all other Muslims. I think this is called Pavlovian conditioning.
Try to keep up, dear. I'm asking whether or not all self-identified Jews hold illiberal values and are threats to this country because the Torah is illiberal, in the same way that you are declaring all self-identified Muslims hold illiberal values and are threats to this country because the Quran is illiberal.
Not a single Jew has committed an act of religiously motivated violence and not a single Muslim supports human rights. Okay.
Try to keep up? Sorry this debate isn't about you and your 4 bullets points, it's about the illiberal nature of Islam which is evidenced by every single Islamic country in existence. Try to keep up, dear.
How is a video clip of a parade of Muslims chanting "British police burn in hell" an "anecdote"? Its called evidence. These Muslims are probably devout, law abiding people of the sort you lionise on a daily basis but they still want this country torn apart because it doesn't conform to the teachings contained in the Qu'ran. I expect if a law abiding Muslim slapped you around the face with his Holy Book you'd still call it an 'anecdote' and use it as a springboard to wax lyrical about the peaceful nature of most Muslims.
One can only conclude that we should deny self-identified Jews access to this country and deport any that are here because all Jews will stone anyone...
A silly example because the Jews don't back their beliefs up violence. Just compare Israel and Palestine for example, its like comparing heaven with hell because the Jews have managed to integrate their religion into a modern, Western liberal-democratic framework. This is something the Islamic world has failed at abysmally because Muslims elevate the sanctity of the prophet over any man-made notion of individual rights.
Lets add Jews to the mix. I'm sure you believe the Torah is an illiberal book like the Quran and the Bible. Do you believe all Jews are necessarily illiberal and incompatible
You're living in a fantasy land where all religions should be judged on the content of their scriptures. The scriptures are important yes, but if the people following Christianity generally abide by the peaceful teachings whereas Muslims don't one the latter represents much more of a threat than the former.
Some Christians may believe homosexuality is a sin for example, but they don't go around stabbing homosexuals for being homosexual unlike some Muslim youths.
At what point does the real world feature in your understanding of Islam?
"Nobody is bound by anything other than what they choose to adopt."
Except is Islam aspostasy is punishable. By death. Not much room for choice there, eh?
"The Bible hasn't changed recently so nothing has 'reformed'. Despite the Bible being a book that contains teachings that you consider to be illiberal, followers do actually have the capacity to not adopt every aspect of the scripture or interpret it in a specific way! Imagine that!"
The Bible hasn't changed Christians have. They've modernised and tried to remain relevent in an ever changing world. Islam however is still a desert religion stuck in the 7th century and Muslims are bound by their holy book not to deviate from their archaic teachings. Stop projecting onto Islam because it will never be you want it to be, it is what it is and it will never change.
However many bullets points and caveats you introduce doesn't alter the fact that Islam is incompatible with the West.
I particularly like this clip because not only does it demonstrate the bigotry that is rife throughout Islam but it also exposes the hopelessly naive, liberal Western mindset that you're mimicking admirably. At around 1.40 the presenter tells a female Muslim clad in a Burka that "no real Muslim" believes the British police should burn in hell, Anjam Choudary corrects her later on by quoting from the Qu'ran.
"Why do you not believe all Christians are illiberal (and therefore undesirable)? I'm sure you believe the Bible contains immoral teachings. Is it because you accept the fact that people can interpret the same text differently and/or adopt teachings selectively?"
No, it's because Christians aren't bound by their religion to take the Bible literally whereas Muslims are. Indeed, I met a Mormon the other day who openly stated that the bible wasn't meant to be taken in it's literal form, Mormans are free to use passages as metaphors to help them cope with their daily problems.
Christianity has reformed and mellowed whereas Islam is still a backward desert religion. It's actually impossible for Islam to reform because as soon as the Qu'ran's authenticity is questioned the whole thing falls apart so the Islamic community don't allow it.
"If we replaced Muslim/Islam/Quran/etc. with Christian/Christianity/Bible/etc., would you argue the same thing?"
Depends what denomination. Would i want to live in the American Bible Belt? Probably not, although it would still be preferable to the Arabian Peninsula. Would I want to live among Anglicans? Sure, why not? They're reasonable people in my experience, although I disagree with the notion they can contact God through prayer and singing hymns etc.