Do you actually believe in banning Muslims from entering the UK?

Interesting. So I am a Muslim and have just sent off my university application for Medicine having lived in the UK for my 16 years.

This test you speak of integrating, I can be quite shy in public especially around people I have not met before so would this mean I fail and get deported if I was coming to the UK as a foreign individual?

Curious to see exactly what you mean...?

Don't change the goalposts. You said women before that time couldn't own property, you mentioned nothing about their social class. The point is that plenty of women did own property and titles in their own right.

Your comment about class is really a non-point. Pretty much only people from rich families could own substantial amounts of land, property and titles and that went for both men and women. Therefore the majority of common men, just like common women, didn't own any substantial property.

And mentioning Elizabeth I only strengthens my point, the fact women could even be queen regnants dispels the myth that women could never attain positions of power and influence.

When did I agree with your points?

What I actually mentioned on my original post was about MARRIED women.

Yes, of course women owned things, but after marrying it usually went under possession of their husbands.

And how is the comment about the class a non-point?

I find that very valid point really, and if you believe otherwise, it is your own opinion.

And I provided examples of women who owned property in their own right even when they married, thus disproving your point!

It was a non-point and I clearly explained why. If you disagree then provide an explanation for it instead of blandly waving it away.

I disagreed when I said that those women were lucky to be noble and powerful enough so that they keep their possession.

But you clearly said the difference in class is not valid.

Thus, I have nothing else to say and I stand by my points.

The only problem with your post (and I see what you did there, very clever!) is that ideologically speaking, Islam has more in common with the authoritarian fascism that Niemoller was railing against, that it has with the oppressed minorities that he was accusing German intellectuals of failing to protect.
What "western intellectuals" are failing to protect now is the right for people to criticise, challenge, mock and ridicule the ridiculous claims of an unpleasant ideology.

Otherwise, well done.

First off, thank you for the compliments.

Now onto the content, again, your statement that "Islam has more in common with the authoritarian fascism that Niemoller was railing against," starts off on a point of generalisation about everything Islam. You are falling into the Trump trap (no pun intended) of lumping an entire religion into one definition.

And to me that is the problem.

No one with any sense thinks all Muslims are savages and terrorists.
However, anyone with any sense can also see that the ideology of Islam contains passages that can be used to justify killing, oppression and intolerance. And some Muslims do this.

Guys, it doesn't matter the slightest bit whether they have a religion which we are unfamiliar with an/or uncomfortable about - they are human beings, and therefore it seems wrong to ban them as a people from entering the UK. Perhaps, in exceptional cases, it might be unwise to grant entrance (as you get anyway, with or without bringing Muslims into the argument), but you can't judge someone just from their religion!
I'm not Muslim, I'm a Christian, but I still think that the idea of banning a whole religion from a country sounds a bit like the sort of stuff we're supposed to be avoiding and setting a good example to, as opposed to actually doing! I pray that I - that we - would see a time when the bias is removed, and Muslims are treated better, and also(Idk if it sounds slightly unrelated, but it stems off something similar) a time when refugees will be welcomed into the country with open arms, rather then shut off and dumped in Calais, with nobody wanting to show responsibility, etc. This is something quite close to my heart, so I apologise if I have offended anybody!

may you please justify me and proof me the ideologies u are mentioning i think you are reffering this ideologies to the quran but please let me telk you this i know the whole quran in arabic and english translation and by my knowledge i havent come across any ideology that states "harming or killing of the innocent" so if you have any doubt let me know

You say that you have read the whole Quran, and yet you also claim that you have not seen any passages that could be used to justify violence against those who oppose Islam?
Are you sure you understood it?

First, let's deal with the term "innocent". When you read the Quran plus hadith and tafsir, it is apparent that in an Islamic sense "innocent" merely means "one who has submitted to Islam" or "one who is under Allah's protection". You will notice that every mention of sparing those in battle, etc, depends on them first submitting to Islam.

So, what about 5:33, which states that the punishment for opposing Islam is death? (There are many others but we can just deal with this one first.)
I am not claiming that it commands all Muslims to kill all disbelievers, or that every Muslim interprets it the same way - only that there are established interpretations that use it as justification for violence against those who refuse to submit to Islam.

We both know that the Quran cannot be fully understood on its own (that was Allah's first mistake, don't you think?). It must be read in conjunction with an authoritative tafsir. Personally, I use Ibn Kathir because it is the most respected and widely used of all the classical tafsir (I'm assuming that you know what a tafsir is). In it he explains that 5:33 refers to people who "oppose, contradict and disbelieve" Islam. He also explains that "fasad" (mischief) includes disobeying god's laws or encouraging others to disobey them.

So, it is patently clear that a Muslim using Ibn Kathir to understand the Quran could quite easily assume that it permits killing (as well as crucufixion and dismemberment) as punishment for opposing Islam.

Of course, some apologists claim that many parts of the Quran only apply to 7th century Arabia, and are not relevant today. Well, the problems that causes claims of timeless and universal perfection aside, Ibn Kathir states that the ayah is general in application and applies to all those who commit the crimes listed in the verse. It is not referring to a particular historical event.

As I said, there are more passages, but I'll wait until we have dealt with your response to this one.

You say that you have read the whole Quran, and yet you also claim that you have not seen any passages that could be used to justify violence against those who oppose Islam?
Are you sure you understood it?

First, let's deal with the term "innocent". When you read the Quran plus hadith and tafsir, it is apparent that in an Islamic sense "innocent" merely means "one who has submitted to Islam" or "one who is under Allah's protection". You will notice that every mention of sparing those in battle, etc, depends on them first submitting to Islam.

So, what about 5:33, which states that the punishment for opposing Islam is death? (There are many others but we can just deal with this one first.)
I am not claiming that it commands all Muslims to kill all disbelievers, or that every Muslim interprets it the same way - only that there are established interpretations that use it as justification for violence against those who refuse to submit to Islam.

We both know that the Quran cannot be fully understood on its own (that was Allah's first mistake, don't you think?). It must be read in conjunction with an authoritative tafsir. Personally, I use Ibn Kathir because it is the most respected and widely used of all the classical tafsir (I'm assuming that you know what a tafsir is). In it he explains that 5:33 refers to people who "oppose, contradict and disbelieve" Islam. He also explains that "fasad" (mischief) includes disobeying god's laws or encouraging others to disobey them.

So, it is patently clear that a Muslim using Ibn Kathir to understand the Quran could quite easily assume that it permits killing (as well as crucufixion and dismemberment) as punishment for opposing Islam.

Of course, some apologists claim that many parts of the Quran only apply to 7th century Arabia, and are not relevant today. Well, the problems that causes claims of timeless and universal perfection aside, Ibn Kathir states that the ayah is general in application and applies to all those who commit the crimes listed in the verse. It is not referring to a particular historical event.

As I said, there are more passages, but I'll wait until we have dealt with your response to this one.

Apostasy, or denouncing one’s religion, is unfortunately taken as a punishable offense by many Islamic scholars, even though those who propound this view are unable to quote a single Quranic verse or Hadith to support it. The fact is that while recanting Islam is a sin, there is absolutely no worldly punishment prescribed by Islam for it.

The Prophet never ordered anyone to be killed for apostasy

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them,

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

All from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I'll give you the refs if you like. There are more.

this is a very interesting point you stated but please also look up this islam is divided into many branches and there are many islamic school and the best known is Sunni and Shia the hadith you have quoted is from Sahih Bukhari but put into mind i am a Shia meaning my beliefs are directly from the quran and sahih bukhari is a scholar so please quote me the real direct reference of you pointed out from the Quran i am not depating so please dont feel offended im taking your reply as curiousity thank you

Again this is not a debate but rather a discussion what does being a muslim mean it does not justify that you are innocent no but rather being submitting to Allah as he is our creator of the Earth and the universe the one who blessed with food shelter provided us with all this neccesities so firstly being a muslim does not justify innocence there you are wrong innocence has nothing to do with religion but personal traits.
This is indeed a great question that needs a response because the subject of apostasy is mentioned time and again in the media. The short answer to this question is an emphatic “no”. Let me explain further.
Apostasy, or denouncing one’s religion, is unfortunately taken as a punishable offense by many Islamic scholars, even though those who propound this view are unable to quote a single Quranic verse or Hadith to support it. The fact is that while recanting Islam is a sin, there is absolutely no worldly punishment prescribed by Islam for it. Islam places great stress on freedom of conscience, including the freedom to choose one’s religion, as one of the fundamental rights of all human beings. The Quran clearly states, “There should be no compulsion in religion” (2:257); and also “It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will believe and let him who will disbelieve” (18:30). These verses prove that man is free to choose the religion that makes him happy, and that rejecting Islam is not a crime.
Unfortunately, the punishment of apostasy has now become death, even though this menacing concept does not claim a single Quranic verse as evidence. In fact, although the subject of apostasy has been brought up several times in the Quran, no mention has ever been made of its punishment. In verse 3 chapter 145 God states “He who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit” – a clear indication that apostasy has no need for punishment. Similarly, Chapter 2 verse 109 states: “Whoever takes disbelief in exchange for belief has undoubtedly gone astray from the right path” – again no mention of a punishment. Nor is there evidence of such punishments in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad, the one to whom the Quran was revealed and who portrayed a perfect example of Islamic teachings. The Prophet never ordered anyone to be killed for apostasy; the few capital punishments that occurred during his time were a result of treason and colluding with the enemy in matters of the state.
The only punishment described in the Quran for denouncing Islam is that which rests with God Almighty: “Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor will He guide them to the right . IN SHORT yes it is a sin leaving islam because you claimed your faith to the Almighty you recited the tawheed i assume you know this which is the first pillar of islam then suddenly you turn your back to the one religion whom you placed your believe in , it is a sin questioned in the Hereafter plus times are changing and not all punishment stated can still be practiced upon it is better in my opinion to leave everything to Allah he will deal with creations as stated
"And fear a Day when you will be returned to Allah . Then every soul will be compensated for what it earned, and they will not be treated unjustly surah al baqarah verse 281 " Lastly i may not be a muslim qualified scholar im talking from what i have learnt Allah is the creator the wise and the forgiver God is the one who created you and me i dont know what religion you are but i believe you believe that there is a supreme power which created you and the knowledge you have aquired surely can you be more wise than the one who bestowed you knowledge

Most of our knowledge of Islam today comes to us through the reporting of acts of horror committed by Muslim terrorists, and by the declarations of its extremist and fanatical elements. But we in the West are frequently unaware that compassion and love are the essence of Islam as expressed in the Qur’an. Are there violent texts in the Qur’an? Yes, indeed there are, as there are in the scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Book of Joshua and some of the Psalms being fine examples of scriptural violence. It is the literal reading of these texts in all three of the Abrahamic traditions that is one of the principal causes of religious fundamentalism: corruptio optimae pessima, ‘ the corruption of the best becomes the worst of all.’

At the heart of Muslim belief is the principal of tawhid or oneness. This oneness, or unity, has been described as that which dominates the mind in Islam, while the heart is intrinsically linked to the concept of compassion. “My Mercy encompasses all things” (Qur’an 7:156). “My mercy takes precedence over my anger” (hadith qudsi, a saying in which God speaks through the Prophet). Islam sees the sentiments of love and compassion, ‘com passio’ - the ability to feel with the other, as expressions of the interconnected oneness of all human beings, reflecting the oneness and unity of God.

The Qur’an frequently speaks of God’s plan for diversity, and the goodness of difference as part of this plan. “O mankind, We have indeed created you as male and female, and made you as nations and tribes that you may come to know one another” (49:13); “And every community has its direction of which He lets them turn towards it. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Him”. (2:148) “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256); “Truly, those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians and Sabeans – whosoever believes in God and the Day of Judgement and act virtuously will receive their reward from their Lord; no fear of grief will befall them”. (2:62) and “Whoever saves the life of one human being, it shall be as if he had saved the whole of humankind” (5:32)

One thing is that the Quran is a wonder cannot be understood and why because it states thay
"Do they not attentively consider the Quran? If it had been from any besides Allah, they would certainly have found therein many contradictions." (Sura 4:82, translation by George Sale).

I end my discussion by saying i am not a muslim scholar merely a 16 year old muslim girl trying to show that there are a reason to everything in this world a reason as to why things act the way they do. a reason as to why islam us the way it is more knowledge mire information i havent aquired so if you feel there is something lacking or missing there a plent of scholars websites reseaches you can look up . Sorry for my long ramblings

To add on yes i have understood the quran learn it its a fact not a claim leave alone quran i know fikh hadith and ijtihad and have been raised and born in an islamic background so please before you leap into conclucions look first