Are you offended by Islam?

Sun rising from west? Which verse are you talking about mate?

Furthermore, What gives us a right to tell people what to believe?

We legally and socially condemn people who hold racist views, so how is that different? While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, we should openly condemn people, Muslim or otherwise, who hold hateful views against gay people, women and so on.

Because not all Muslims are like that? Condemn the religion if you must, because I do. I condemn religion as a whole. But I wouldn't ban religion. I wouldn't force people to stop believing. I would encourage racists to change their ways, but I can't force them, or kick someone out of the country for having those views if they choose not to act on them.

Also, the original argument was that Islam as a religion has no place in this society because of it's treatment of gays and women, yet the OP said that we should have a secular society based on christian values, which are very similar. It's just a little hypocritical. Why not have a secular society based on no religious values, since that's kind of the whole point of secularism (which is what the majority of British Muslims want anyway) and keep religion and politics separate? Then let Muslims, Christians etc get on with their lives and we get on with ours. What we don't want is a state completely run by sharia law, but that doesn't mean we should ban the religion completely.

You think the vast majority of British Muslims want a secular society based on no religious values?

You think they don't?

Considering the fact that a Guardian poll returned 40% as wanting to live under sharia law, I think it highly unlikely. That I consider a radical idea particularly captivating for younger Muslims seduced by political Islamism, and amongst the older generation of more conservative, reasonable and spiritual Muslims I should think that many would prefer that the non-Muslim population of Britain were more emphatically and publicly Christian rather than secular - you often hear older Muslims speaking along these lines.

Basically the radicals want sharia and the Islamic state to ultimately come about in Britain and many moderates want a Christian religious society sensitive and respectful to Islam.

40% is still a minority.

So how would you define a society that was respectful to islam and christianity?
Both believe stealing is wrong.
Both believe murder is wrong.
Neither believe in violence.
But these things aren't just wrong on religious grounds, they are wrong on moral grounds. I am not religious, but I would never do any of these things because I don't believe in causing harm to other people. So my point is, we don't have to live in a religious society in order to keep both religions happy.

Yes but 40% is not the number of people who reject a secular framework its how many want an explicitly Islamic legal system in Britain, that is a far more radical viewpoint, there are certainly at least another 11% who would reject sharia law but still not want a secular system. You have kind of missed the point of that figure.

Also it is not the case that you can essentialise the two religions to make a firm declaration that neither support violence. There are clearly strands of Christianity that support violence such as liberation theology, and plenty of violence has been done in the name of Christianity - notwithstanding the difficulty of carrying out violence in the name of a pacifist who said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'turn the other cheek'.

Murder is also problematic as it excludes legitimate killings, and what is legitimate in one system may be criminal in another or in simple moral terms.

Its much easier to find sanction for violence in the Islamic texts, and a significant number of Muslims around the world carry out violence in the name of Islam and in emulation of a Prophet who was a theocratic ruler and warlord who fought and killed his enemies. That there are peaceful spiritual Muslims who reject violence and believe it to be unislamic is without doubt, but so is the fact that there are also many Islamists of various schools and 'mainstream' Islamic jurists who sanction violence under a whole panoply of circumstances. So to say simply from the outside that Islam rejects violence is naive and ridiculous, and to say so as a Muslim is simply to embrace one particular interpretation which many other Muslims don't adhere to.

I've obviously been shown a very different set of statisitics.

I think you'll find that those committing violence in the name of Islam aren't very good muslims. And what you just said does kind of contradict your last post. So we should have a society based on christian values as opposed to a society based on none, yet violence is ok in some parts of christianity? So really you haven't shown me why a state based on one religion is better.
I also go back to my original argument that just because a few muslims are extremists, it is not a reason to ban islam from our society completely, like OP said.

The Guardian is a source which if anything would be biased against showing Muslim radicalism, but there are countless other polls which show alarming trends within the British Muslim population. I think that demands for the sharia or advocating the Caliphate are radical positions, and these are surprisingly prevalent.

To say that it is bad or immoral to advocate extra-legal violence is self evident, to say that it is unislamic is a theological position which ought to be encouraged within the Muslim community, but not put forward as a factual or empirical-analytical statement from the outside because unfortunately its not the case based upon current facts, history or the thrust of Islamic texts and jurisprudence.

There is no contradiction in my posts, I actually advocate a secular state, what I was disagreeing with was your statement that most British Muslims share this objective - the majority I am certain do not.

What I said was that violence has been sanctioned within Christian theology in various times and places, but given that Jesus was a pacifist and not a military-political leader who killed his enemies like Muhammad its harder to justify violence in Christianity than in Islam.

I have not said anywhere that we should 'ban' Islam, if we could we ought to ban Islamism - and groups that support violence, the Sharia or the creation of a Caliphate. We should support moderate Muslims, such as the Sufis against extremists, but its simply not the case that the problem stems from a few misguided extremists who have hijacked a peaceful religion - that is a dangerous fantasy that minimises the extent of the real problem we face.

The problem is that when taken literally Islamic texts express far more support for violence than the New Testament, and as there has been no major reformation in Islam towards transcending textual literalism and refuting the validity of those verses it is very easy for the Islamists to justify themselves and difficult for the moderates to condemn them in an honest manner. There exists a spectrum of beliefs within the British Muslim community, which includes many dangerous ideas that act as a conveyor belt towards extremism. The extent of radicalisation in Britain is truly terrifying, and we won't rectify the problem by pleasing statements which pretend that it doesn't exist or that its just a few bad eggs.