Criticism of Islam is not a hate crime, nor racist, nor enophobic

That does not translate to 100% of Muslims thinking pedophilia is OK. They actively acknowledge that it was a long time ago.

100% correct. Everyone has the right to make valid constructive criticism on any religion not just Islam. I as a theist support this very much.

It goes both ways, there are people who are constantly talking about how to be "tougher" on Muslims and make their lives harder then try to disguise this as "criticism of Islam".

There are also people who say that it's OK to hate Muslims on the basis of their beliefs (without knowing what beliefs each individual Muslim holds) and claim that this is not bigotry.

And does that make all of the Muslims who aren't pedophiles not true Muslims?

then are all of the non-pedo muslims not true muslims? im very confused by your assessment

1.6 billion Muslims worldwide evidently aren't pedophiles

Mohammed is the timeless 'perfect' human, in their eyes (according to you)

so why aren't they all mimicking his behaviour?

please tell me because I don't understand, all I'm hearing is "straw man"

A pointless reply, you are ignoring the fact that despite Mohammed being 'perfect', people do not follow his behaviour in this regard. So there is an obvious flaw in the criticism of Mohammed being a pedophile.

I have the decency to respect a constructive argument, even if it disagrees with me

Who (outside of far-right nutjobs) wants to make life harder for Muslims?

We know what Muslims (Islamists) believe. It is in the Quran (and the sunnah, to a lesser extent). Anyone who rejects any part of the Quran is, by definition, not a Muslim.
And how is saying "Muslims believe that a husband can beat his wife (under certain conditions). I have something against anyone who holds this view", bigoted?

It makes no sense to claim that you can't condemn someone because of their known views because you don't know what their views are! Are you suggesting that Muslims don't really know what they believe? I think you'll find that if you ask any Muslim the question "Are there any errors in the Quran", the answer will be a definite "NO!" So you cannot claim that Muslims do not believe what is in the Quran. It is entirely reasonable to assume that, if someone says "I believe in everything in the Quran, that they mean what they say. I, for one, will not accuse them of lying, or of not knowing what they are thinking.

Douglas Murray, for one.

Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that Douglas Murray "wants to make life harder for Muslims".

Douglas Murray, for one.

By putting "Islamists" in brackets after Muslims, is that suggesting that they are all Islamists. If you're talking about Muslims in general then just say so, ditto if you're talking about Islamists. The two are not mutually exclusive, by their definitions.

I can say that someone who does not believe in stoning Gays is not a Christian, and that someone who does not believe that gentiles should be the subservient to Jews is not a Jewish. Are you now going to use the "no true Muslim" fallacy? Considering how much mental gymnastics so many Muslims use to claim that verse 4:34 doesn't actually mean that a man can beat his wife (claims that it means "leave" instead of "beat", for an instance. Or claims that it's a symbolic tap on the shoulder) it is clear that quite a number do not believe in wife beating. Are you going to perform takfir on them?

Why not just say "I have a problem with Muslims" instead of rephrasing? It's the same thing.

And how many of those Muslims have actually read the Quran? I had no idea what Muhammad did to Safiyya and her tribe, as teachers and imams romanticised it and claimed that she loved him dearly and that Muhammad never hurt anyone unless he was in combat. Someone believing in a softened version of Islam taught to them by others and believing that the religion is perfect does not equate to someone who has learnt the uglier side of it but still accepts it all without question.

Please explain how you have come to the conclusion that Douglas Murray "wants to make life harder for Muslims".

I think you may have misunderstood the context of that soundbite.

The point here is that the whole deal under which Muslims live in our societies must change. At present we ask "why do they hate us", "what did we fail to give them", and suchlike. It is time the West woke up to the fact that the militants in our midst – however large a percentage of the Muslim population – will never like us. And we should not want to be liked by them - so we should stop flattering and playing up to them. Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs. There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one. Grievances become ever-more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to. So don't flatter them.

So, as you can clearly see, he was not referring to imposing physical hardship, but to not pandering to demands for special privilege.

I was assuming that you remembered the conversation we had recently. I stated that to avoid confusion, I would use "Islamist" to refer to anyone who considers the Quran the be the infallible and immutable word of god, and Muhammad the perfect example for all humanity, and Muslim for those who merely have a cultural or social connection with Islam and reject the bits that they don't like, and so obviously don't believe what the Quran actally says.

Which is why I make the distinction.
If someone has read all the Quran and still insists that it is all perfect and applicable, then yes I do have a problem with that person. And if you want to think that position is bigoted, then knock yourself out. I'm sure I'll get over it.

What I will say is that there is a reason why he backtracked those comments once his critics pointed them out and if even he could see why he needed to backtrack but you see nothing wrong with those comments, I have nothing more to say to you on this.

Religious people of any religion rarely reject unpleasant teachings. Or they may condemn certain practices such as child marriage but won't do so while admitting that these practices are allowed in their religion. When was the last time you heard of a Christian condemning the mass murder committed by their god? They will ignore these teachings and get uncomfortable when someone makes a reference to them. So why hold Muslims to a higher standard than other religious people and demand that they condemn certain parts of their religion before they can be deemed decent human beings. And then if they do, they are not "true Muslims" anyway.

Besides, an Islamist is someone who supports a Shariah state, so I'm not quite sure why you are redefining the term.

Someone who believes in a totalitarian system that will force everyone to live under Shariah cannot be compared to someone who believes that their religion is perfect, but believes that it is a peaceful religion based on what they have been told and is not incompatible with freedom of religion and a secular society.

That does not translate to 100% of Muslims thinking pedophilia is OK. They actively acknowledge that it was a long time ago.

I agree that it was an unwise choice of words, especially as it should have been obvious that they would be repeatedly quoted out of context by his detractors. I am not surprised that he felt obliged to mitigate the situation. However, on reading the entire passage it is quite clear that he meant not giving in to demands for special privilege, not making life physically hard and it is only people with an agenda of discrediting him by smear tactics who would insist on it. Ironic that many of those people are often crying "context".

Because most Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, don't claim that their stories are the perfect, unchangeable, universal guide for all humanity, and it is highly disingenuous to claim that they do. On top of which, have you not seen the news in the last 15 years? If not, today might be a good day to start catching up!

Surely a Muslim who believes in the infallible immutability of the Quran and the perfection of the example of Muhammad must support this, because it is enshrined in the Quran and sunnah. By definition they are Islamists. It seems that it is you that is trying to redefine terms.

Someone who rejects parts of Islam is obviously not an Islamist, by definition!

Someone who has a problem with him equating Islam with race and nationality, saying during that same speech that European Muslims who support violence against Western troops must be forcibly deported to their "countries of origin" is not simply attempting to smear him, they make valid points. He did not even specify what he meant by supporting violence against Western troops so one could take that to mean that any Muslim who is against any war being fought by any Western country should be deported. In other words, Muslims should not have the same rights to free speech as everyone else. Moreover, denying Muslims the special privileges that they don't get to begin with is not going to make conditions harder for them, and his motive was to make Europe less attractive to Muslims. So obviously people are going to call him out, because "context" didn't do a thing to change how wrong that phrase was.

Someone who believes that Muhammad was a perfect individual because he was kind, peaceful and loved his enemies (as they were taught to believe) is not going to be an Islamist, because such a person would believe in treating others the way that they want to be treated. Someone who is aware of and accepts Muhammad's war crimes yet still believes him to be perfect and that his example must be emulated is one. Again, you fail to make the distinction.