Criticising Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry...

NO!!!!!

He is the truth for all eternity! You cannot look at it in historical context. That is the whole point of the Quran.

And going from the holiest of all holy prophet, almost equal to Allah himself, true and good for all eternity to "while not a perfect saint" and simply "the better alternative"...

Stop. You are simply embarrassing yourself. Because you don't seem like a ignorant fool blindly pounding out his or her agenda. You actually try to argue. But this is not it.

You seem rather confused. I'm not a Muslim; I never once implied or suggested in any form that Muhammad is "true and good for all eternity", whatever that means. I simply pointed out the absurdity of your comparison of Muhammad to Hitler; the Muslims to Nazis.

Ah, I think I have spotted another misunderstanding.
Not every passage in the Quran is a compulsory command. Just because 5:33 says that the punishment for fasad is death, crucifixion, dismemberment or exile, it does not mean that every Muslim must, or even can, kill, or whatever, every person guilty of fasad.
The law states that the speed limit on many UK roads is 60 mph, but that does not mean that every driver has to drive everywhere at 60, or he is a bad driver or disobeying the law if he doesn't. He drives at 60 only where conditions allow.

Many Muslims I talk to claim that all the things like slavery, sex slaves, executions, discrimination, etc, only apply in a true Islamic state run under proper sharia, not some hybrid democracy or whatever. And the punishments can only be applied by the rulers of such a state.

So, you can see that they are not being bad Muslims by not enacting these prescriptions, they are merely following the rules - as they see them.

Not if you are criticising Islamic ideology.
You really need to understand that there is a difference.
The incidence of domestic abuse in Muslim families is utterly irrelevant if the issue is whether or not Islam permits a husband to beat his disobedient wife (under certain conditions).
It does, demonstrably and undeniably. Scholars are in almost universal consensus that it is permitted.
You keep claiming that hardly any Muslims follow Islam properly, or that they don't believe the Quran is infallible or immutable (which they do BTW, almost unanimously), but that is not the point.

If the Tories proposed a law allowing husbands to beat their disobedient wives (under certain conditions) would you think it was an acceptable law, as long as most people didn't actually commit any beatings - or would you oppose it as barbaric and anachronistic, because the idea is fundamentally wrong?

You're doing it again. Islamic ideology and the behaviour of Muslims are two different things.
And nobody blames all Muslims for the actions of individuals (except apologists for Islam who need to play the Islamophobia card).

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Islamic ideology is a major factor in Islamist terrorism and Islamic sectarian conflict? I just don't get it.
It really is like arguing with a creationist who keeps asking for evidence for evolution, even though you have shown them several, separate, verifiable pieces of evidence.

According to whom? The Muslim historians of the caliphate?
Why would a culture welcome conquest by an aggressive and alien culture.

Remember that Hitler claimed to be liberating the sourrounding territories. Imagine, if Germany had won, what the history books written by Goebbels department would have said about the welcome from the Czechs, Poles, etc?

Then you don't know anything about Mo. That is what it means to be a Muslim. To accept that the Quran and Mo were the perfect example, eternally. That is what it actually means (and if you now know that, can you see why maybe we think that ideology is a bit daft? Imagine the Church not having moved one bit from 2000 years ago...). That is why I said no successful group of Muslims has ever created a spin off like the Protestants have. Because they can't.

And no, it is not absurd at all. It is a very fair comparison to compare two warlords. In fact, you tried to point out that he was somehow a more benevolent warlord because of a constitution he created to consolidate his empire.

And well maybe I was wrong trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to argue from reason and logic. You clearly have a bias. I am confused. My ass. I never once said you are a Muslim or even implied or insinuated it. Maybe you are the one who is confused.

1) I'm aware of the Islamic belief regarding the infallibility of the Qur'an and Muhammad, thank you very much. My confusion stems from the utter irrelevance thereof.

2) And that's precisely why it's an absurd comparison. Come back when you find a similar document from Nazi Germany.

3) What's my bias? That I have no interest in entertaining your rather pathetic invocation of Godwin's law?

Firstly, the passages from the sunnah, and classical tafsir like Ibn Kathir make no mention of "treason". It is a device constructed by modernist apologists as a public relations exercise.

Likewise, I'm sure that modern Nazis would come up with justifications for their anti-semitism. And I would suggest reading Mein Kampf. Hitler's justifications for his policies was not just "because they were Jews"!

But when you look at the "treason" argument, it just involves publicising anti-Islamic views. Even the most rabid, right-wing capital punishment supporter would advocate execution for people opposing the policies and ideology of the government.

And in all likelihood, if CP was reinstated in the UK, "treason" (how do you even define it accurately?) would not be included.

I, for one, would not be comfortable with someone who genuinely believes that people should be executed for their political views.

I don't see why normally unacceptable behaviour should become acceptable simply because someone claims it has a "spiritual" element.

If public condemnation of neo-Nazis is acceptable because of their unacceptable beliefs, why is the public condemnation of Muslims for their unacceptable beliefs not acceptable (assuming a comparable level of implementation of said beliefs)? Surely it cannot be simply because one group claims that their unacceptable beliefs were dictated by god?

Your previous arguments were all about how the Quran was the true word of God and should be obeyed without question.

Now you've refuted that yourself.

A vast amount of people blame muslims for the actions of terrorists.

You can pretend that the ideology and Muslim community are separately criticised - they aren't. Go onto any YouTube video about a terrorist attack, or on newspaper comment sections, heck even parts of this site - and you have people hating on Muslims and Islam together.

Sources on the history of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire.
Heraclius, a contemporary of Muhammad, is known for forcibly converting Jews into Christianity while the constitution of Medina allowed the Jews to practise their religion, albeit as dhimmis.

Given that shari'ah is a subset of Mosaic law, I don't think the Jews deemed the Muslim invaders' culture as aggressive and alien.

No they don't, but they do blame Islam.
This is your standard straw man, that "vast amounts" (care to give a percentage?) of people blame all Muslims for the acts of individuals.

I am not the one making the claim. It is up to you to supply examples of such behaviour. It is called the burden of proof. And remember that occasional examples are not sufficient as you claim that it is commonplace.

People are lashing out against muslims because they know the government isn't going to do anything about the Islam problem, so they've decided to do something about it themselves. Some people think the necessary action is to just be violent, and while I know why they're doing it, I still think they're wrong. The fact is that Islam is the main enemy of Western Civilisation, and they're banging on the gates. Regressive liberals and Islam apologists are trying to let them in. I've had many a muslim friend, but the fact is that if a muslim wants to integrate with countries like England and the USA, they simply can't follow their religion as it was originally intended to be: a belief system for conquering and waging war on all non-muslims.

Yes they do, go on any YouTube video relating to Islamic terrorism and you have people saying disgusting things in the comments like "Muslims must be deported from Europe. No more refugees!", "MUSLIMS need to go back to their ******** countries and they can take there filthy 7th century CULT with them."

These are two quotes on the first video I found, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHzD6QWnbAA

So don't lie and pretend people don't hate Muslims, Muslim hatred has never been higher. I feel so sorry for the poor Muslims who are suffering because of this.

What you are showing is racism and xenophobia, as demonstrated by the "Muslims go home" type comments. Those people are making the assumption (as you did) that Muslims are "brown foreigners". To them, the two concepts are synonymous. They would not be able to tell you a single thing about Islamic ideology or why it is incompatible with modern, liberal, secular democracy.

You are just repeating the same tired old fallacies. Stop wasting everyone's time.

I thought I can criticize anything and everything I wish in the UK

Now I remember why I put you on ignore, circular arguments

How am I using the conclusion as a premise?
Are you sure you mean "circular argument"?

Now I remember why I put you on ignore, circular arguments