'Muslims will rule the world'

Well, sorry for being late in this discussion. It is very interesting.
I’m not trying to point fingers here, but sadly, having read the posts in this topic from the start, I couldn’t help but be amazed at the turn this discussion has taken. I personally think some Muslims (certainly not all Muslims) in this forum fit the categorisation I’ve had for most I’ve debated with. Personalising the debate has to be the most common attribute with a lot of my Muslim counterparts. Example:

Claim:

• Some of the social values held/practiced by some Muslims are incompatible with the modern worldview. (Could be wrong, could be or right)

Immediate response:

• Are you Jewish?
• You must be a Zionist.
• What religion do you believe in?
• Where do you work?

What do any of these things have to do with the claim? – Absolutely nothing. Again, I would like to repeat that I don’t think all Muslims share this attribute. Nevertheless, my personal experience has shown that finding a flaw in the argument by finding a flaw in the person who made it then relating it to the argument, and sometimes ganging up against the person just for the purpose of discrediting them and their convictions rather than their argument, was generally a common debating style with Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses. I hope this attitude changes, and I apologise if I’m coming off as too critical. I mean no disrespect, I hope moderators here are open enough to allow objective criticism, it’s never a shame to admit a few flaws – no one is perfect.
Don’t get me wrong, I have my disagreements with British Patriot, especially with his/her definition of culture, and confining it, religion wise, to a certain religion, while disregarding religious convictions or attitude (i.e. religious freedom, justice for all, tolerance...etc). I think he/she must have mistaken culture for tradition.
Back to our topic, there were a few points that I felt like exploring a little more:
Extremists and moderates:
I would have to disagree with the people who said that there were no extremists in Islam, only bad or good Muslims. A person who doesn’t pray is a bad Muslim. A person who doesn’t fast is a bad Muslims. Those bad Muslims do not turn into extremists; they are simply in bad terms with ‘Allah’/God. This means nothing to me or any part of any social environment. Extremists exist in all religions, whether we admit it or not. The term might be western (or foreign to Islam), but this doesn’t mean people who fit the term don’t exist in Islam. They do, and their victims are Muslims, as well as non-Muslims. They can be bad Muslims, but not every bad Muslim is an extremist. Usually, it is extremists (disregarding their religion) who don’t believe in there being extremists and moderates, because everyone who believes differently than them is indiscriminately ‘bad’. Only their way is simply just so ‘good’.

Hijab and women protection (from serial rapists):
Well, long story short, I think a gun would be more efficient against serial rapists. Yet, a gun could create more problems, just as hijab could. Any solution you come up with will not ‘eliminate’ the problem, otherwise, there should’ve been zero rape cases in countries like Saudi or Iran, but that’s definitely not the case. Let me put it in a way similar to your question: Assume you’re in a society where there’s 100% Burqa women, are you saying that rapists would seize to exist? Wouldn’t a rapist just lower down his standards and go for the Burqa women that look thinner than overweight Burqa women? How about a stripper with a gun in her hand, and an unarmed woman wearing Hijab? Who would the rapist pick when these are his options? Does that mean arming all women is the solution? There are just billions of possibilities and billions of potential solutions, but none are 100% effective, as the problem is with the existence of rapists, not with what they have in display. The same goes for the ‘contraception isn’t 100% guaranteed’ argument. Nothing is 100% guaranteed. Yet, the side effects of contraception are far less than sexual repression.
Islam and western civilisation:
This is a very tricky topic. I can’t think of any solution, but I think it is a very serious problem, that needs to be addressed and discussed by both Muslims and non-Muslims in western countries. Failure to do so is going to take western countries down some very slippery slopes, and would have some grave consequences on both Muslims and non-Muslims. I find it very troubling that Muslims will go as far as it takes them to deny this problem, or prove that it doesn’t exist. Accusing whoever raises such discussions of being a member of any political parties, or being a part of a grand underground conspiracy aimed at destroying Islam, won’t magically make the problem disappear, nor would it make the need to discuss it insignificant.
For instance, in western countries you are free to belong to any sexual orientation you choose to. What would happen if, say a Muslims mayor in a western country decided based on the Muslim majority in the state/province he or she governs, to ban gay clubs? I think this is a very justified concern for a westerner who believes homosexuals have the right to be whoever they want to be terms of sexual orientation. This is just an example, from many examples that I think British Patriot was aiming at when discussing being free to do what you want in a western country. Why would someone who holds such values dear want the rise of a faith that demonises them for believing in freedom to be absolutely whatever you want to be? Muslims tend to use this certain freedom (to be whatever you want to be—i.e. Muslim) in order to try to change it. In the name of being free to be Muslim, some Muslims think one should have freedom to do things that contradict with western values, including the exact freedom that gave them the right to be Muslim.
There are just many issues that need to be discussed, and Muslims tend to think they’re being attacked whenever these concerns are raised, while in reality, discussion of such differences is the only way to come to some common grounds.

format_quote Originally Posted by cyclone_aeon

Extremists and moderates:
I would have to disagree with the people who said that there were no extremists in Islam, only bad or good Muslims. A person who doesn’t pray is a bad Muslim. A person who doesn’t fast is a bad Muslims. Those bad Muslims do not turn into extremists; they are simply in bad terms with ‘Allah’/God. This means nothing to me or any part of any social environment. Extremists exist in all religions, whether we admit it or not. The term might be western (or foreign to Islam), but this doesn’t mean people who fit the term don’t exist in Islam. They do, and their victims are Muslims, as well as non-Muslims. They can be bad Muslims, but not every bad Muslim is an extremist. Usually, it is extremists (disregarding their religion) who don’t believe in there being extremists and moderates, because everyone who believes differently than them is indiscriminately ‘bad’. Only their way is simply just so ‘good’.

The people you think of as extremists are usually just misguided. Extreme would suggest they follow Islam above and beyond what is required, but usually its the case they do not follow it enough or mould certain beliefs to their objectives.

format_quote Originally Posted by cyclone_aeon

Hijab and women protection (from serial rapists):
Well, long story short, I think a gun would be more efficient against serial rapists. Yet, a gun could create more problems, just as hijab could. Any solution you come up with will not ‘eliminate’ the problem, otherwise, there should’ve been zero rape cases in countries like Saudi or Iran, but that’s definitely not the case. Let me put it in a way similar to your question: Assume you’re in a society where there’s 100% Burqa women, are you saying that rapists would seize to exist? Wouldn’t a rapist just lower down his standards and go for the Burqa women that look thinner than overweight Burqa women? How about a stripper with a gun in her hand, and an unarmed woman wearing Hijab? Who would the rapist pick when these are his options? Does that mean arming all women is the solution? There are just billions of possibilities and billions of potential solutions, but none are 100% effective, as the problem is with the existence of rapists, not with what they have in display. The same goes for the ‘contraception isn’t 100% guaranteed’ argument. Nothing is 100% guaranteed. Yet, the side effects of contraception are far less than sexual repression.

The only reason for hijab is not rape prevention; it is for general decency. It might not stop rape 100%, but thats not its objective. The rates for rape would be lower if hijab was worn than if everyone was a stripper.

format_quote Originally Posted by cyclone_aeon

Islam and western civilisation:
This is a very tricky topic. I can’t think of any solution, but I think it is a very serious problem, that needs to be addressed and discussed by both Muslims and non-Muslims in western countries. Failure to do so is going to take western countries down some very slippery slopes, and would have some grave consequences on both Muslims and non-Muslims. I find it very troubling that Muslims will go as far as it takes them to deny this problem, or prove that it doesn’t exist. Accusing whoever raises such discussions of being a member of any political parties, or being a part of a grand underground conspiracy aimed at destroying Islam, won’t magically make the problem disappear, nor would it make the need to discuss it insignificant.
For instance, in western countries you are free to belong to any sexual orientation you choose to. What would happen if, say a Muslims mayor in a western country decided based on the Muslim majority in the state/province he or she governs, to ban gay clubs? I think this is a very justified concern for a westerner who believes homosexuals have the right to be whoever they want to be terms of sexual orientation. This is just an example, from many examples that I think British Patriot was aiming at when discussing being free to do what you want in a western country. Why would someone who holds such values dear want the rise of a faith that demonises them for believing in freedom to be absolutely whatever you want to be? Muslims tend to use this certain freedom (to be whatever you want to be—i.e. Muslim) in order to try to change it. In the name of being free to be Muslim, some Muslims think one should have freedom to do things that contradict with western values, including the exact freedom that gave them the right to be Muslim.
There are just many issues that need to be discussed, and Muslims tend to think they’re being attacked whenever these concerns are raised, while in reality, discussion of such differences is the only way to come to some common grounds.

This is an odd argument for so many reasons. A mayor cannot change national law for one town. Even if you take it further and say it was the prime minister, it still wouldn't be accurate because they would do what is in the interests of the majority. If banning gay bars was what the majority wanted then thats what should happen. Isn't that what democracy is about?
Muslims follow the laws of the land, just because homosexuality is wrong in our religion it doesn't mean we're going to go out and attack every homosexual we see.

format_quote Originally Posted by S<Chowdhury

Also wanted add directed at the OP the British Culture also now prides it self on being Multi-cultural now

Exactly! It is time for the far right to adapt or face extinction; we are not a 100% white, Christian country any more- we are a multiracial, secular society with every single religion on the planet having devoted followers within our borders. And I would far rather be in out secular age of the NHS, freedoms, liberties, science, free education and mulitcultarism than boring 17th Century England.