//The Oxford, probably for PC reasons doesn't want to say that Islam is, first and foremost, a political system whose aim, was and is, conquest; by whatever means.//

Oh no, Oh He From Whose Anus the Sun Doth Shine Most Radiantly. Obviously, despite being the foremost lexicographers in the English speaking world, the learned greybeards at Oxford just got their definition wrong. For you have spoken, and what do a bunch of eggheads know about the definitions of English words compared IsyMindias, King of Kings? Look on his words, ye mighty lexicographers, and despair.

//they adapt with the passage of time.//

Catholics? Adapting with the passage of time? ROFLMAO.

Fun Catholic fact for the evening: as well as having the highest per-capita crime rate in Europe, the Vatican has the world's highest per-capita consumption of wine (well, I suppose they'd claim that it's Christ's blood by the time they get around to drinking it). Drunken sods.

We all have our various belief systems be they Christian,
Judaic, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or any other. Most of us are
usually born into a family that follows a specific belief system.
And the majority of us are content to follow that belief system.
But there are of course some who in adulthood choose to abandon
their familial beliefs and follow their own paths.

Therefore we should not assume that everyone within any given belief
system is identical in what they believe. there are individual
differences in what people choose to believe.

What each of us believes is a private matter - and should not be of
any concern to anyone else. Unless what we believe, and the way we
behave will harm anyone else or go against the laws that we are all
expected to abide by , people who break those laws will be
held to account. People are free to practice whatever belief system
they choose, providing that belief system does not break any of the
laws within our legal framework.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your well wishes.

I shan't be posting too often because I find it difficult being
right-handed and being only able to use the fingers of my left hand.
I hope that people will understand what I am trying to say.

Poirot - Correct but those lies are not used to get people to kill other people.

Phillip S "Poirot - Correct but those lies are not used to get people to kill other people."

Except if you were Protestant, British and living in Northern Ireland or England of course...then it was apparently ok for the Catholics to bomb and shoot them dead until very recently...and vice versa...

Seems that Toni and Suse don't like Catholics; silly really as they both have good Catholic ancestors.

The Regressive Left are trying to sidetrack and disrupt any criticism of Islam. A favourite tactic of apologists is focussing on other religions instead. By why? If there is good in Islam you'd think they would be wanting to show that with examples. So why the red herrings, barriers and subterfuge?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dave Rubin Discuss Her Life, Islam and the Regressive Left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw12EEamFBc

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has often said, there are fundamentals of Islam that are incompatible with democracy and our way of life and there are others that may not be. We should be having commonsense discussion with Muslims on the pros and cons of Islam. However, there are obviously some non-negotiables that cannot be contemplated, full stop.

If a migrant is prepared to (say) inflict serious harm upon a child by attempting to arrange child marriage or female genital mutilation, then that should result in automatic revocation of citizenship should be revoked. Carrying out the crime should result in several years gaol then goodbye.

Where is the affront in making a clear distinction between the elements of Islam that are at odds with with our western way of life, our European heritage (systems of government and law, and freedom of speech as instances) and those that are not?