Would You Ever Accept A Muslim UK Prime Minister?

My bad I didn't know that in a country where homosexuality is illegal, women had so much freedom.

Yes and the ones that live in Islamic societies, a lot of them also have a choice. Until you go to an Islamic society, for example Tunisia where NO ONE wears hijab, the country that is 99% Muslim, don't make claims about people "forcing" hijab because it's just ignorance. Until you speak to a muslim woman and she tells you directly to your face that she feels forced and you find out that this is the majority, then don't because there are many that say they have chosen to do it. Even in the Islamic countries. I am not denying some people are forced, but it is not in the islamic religion to force women to do anything. It is in the culture of some muslims but it is not in Islam. Don't conflate the two.

How is that even related? You claim that women are forced into wearing hijab and then you just decide to throw in "hey homosexuality is banned". That is a completely different matter and have nothing to do with women at all. and the curious look was more meant to be "wth".

Sexuality and the freedom of women are two completely different matters?
<---Maybe this one is more appropriate.

Why is that?

Surely, someone that was religious would be much better, if they were properly religious, they would have certain morals that they feel they have to keep and thus would be a better PM surely. They wouldn't lie, or cheat people, they would aim to sort out all the poverty and what not, they wouldn't start wars with other countries nor invade them for oil...etc. They would be honest and just...surely. So why not a religious person? an atheist won't have the fear of God and can actually just do whatever they like..ofc not every atheist is corrupt, but some are and they have their own subjective morality where as religion gives the fear of God and thus an objective morality which says not to do these things.

Why is atheist PM better? Out of curiosity

I can always rely on tsr to be consistent in its obsession with Muslims.

It wouldn't happen suddenly; there would be a long build-up, first they would stand for election as party leader, then a long period in opposition (presumably), then a general election - so everyone would get used to them, their views and policies would be thoroughly explored and so would their faith. Against that background, it's implausible they would be elected unless they were pretty widely accepted and considered acceptable, so the issue of their religion would also by that time have been accepted.

I say all this because the simple way OP puts the question makes it sound totally hypothetical but it also opens the door to simplistic, abusive posts denigrating Islam, which presumably was OPs intention all along, as we've seen from his many similar posts.

That is why i said "properly religious", if someone was properly religious then yes this would come into the argument as they would uphold to these morals as they would be God fearing people. Not everyone is properly religious. I am talking about those who are.

Why are all of the prime ministers religious to some degree? Can't we have rational people running the country?

Because Islam is a fundamentalist religion, whereas the vast majority of Christians in Britain are Baptist, Lutheran, Anglican etc which are reasonably progressive parts of Christianity, and even a lot of the Catholics are reasonably progressive.

Islam is not a fundamentalist religion. Islamic fundamentalism exists, however that is a completely separate issue. And if you are choosing to recognise different branches within Christianity, why are you lumping all Muslims into one category? There is diversity within Islam too, from various Sunni sects to Ismailis.

Islam is not a fundamentalist religion. Islamic fundamentalism exists, however that is a completely separate issue. And if you are choosing to recognise different branches within Christianity, why are you lumping all Muslims into one category? There is diversity within Islam too, from various Sunni sects to Ismailis.

Islam has not undergone an enlightenment, the vast majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni, and the vast majority of them are fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to doctrine. In the Western world, the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalist.

Islam, by and large, is still a fundamentalist religion. This does not mean all Muslims are fundamentalist, but the majority are.

How many branches of Islam fully support secularism though? I'm only going off what I've read of Orhan Pamuk and Khaled Hosseini but I am under the impression that Islam and secularism do not work that well together. I'd appreciate your take on it.

That is a hugely generalised and outdated statement that does not fairly represent modern Islam today. Islamic fundamentalists follow the Quran strictly and literally, without much consideration for 21st century developments. However Modernists, more prominent in today's society, are able to recognise change and adapt their beliefs accordingly, just as various Christian groups have been able to. As for the "vast majority of Muslims" being Sunni: as I said, not all "Sunnis" share the same beliefs. There is about as much diversity within the Sunni group as there is within Catholicism.