I agree it is absurd, but how else can you interpret Leon’s statement to which I was referring? Namely,

This doesn’t mean the individuals deserve attack or abuse but it does mean that rational and humane intellectual discourse, critical or otherwise, must be tolerated if the religion is to be also.

Apparently, Islam’s currently being “tolerated”.

This is an absurd straw-man. Islam is not at threat from ‘white extremism’ (I don’t know how you define that because no one is planning to or claiming to wipe out 1 billion Muslims or forcibly convert Muslims.

On the other hand there are a few Muslim ‘leaders’ who want to destroy Israel or want to turn Britain into an Islamic state. They don’t have the capability to, of course. But if there was going to be a global ‘clash of civisation’ I’d bet my house that they’d be the first to start it if they get hold of some serious weaponry.

So, going by rhetoric… who should be scared again?

Other muslims keep on attacking white extremists, as well as the government and the UK in general, rather than the muslims supporting the bombings. You must admit you can see how it could lead to a bit of a monolithic impression?

When the white extremists start to outnumber the counter demonstrators, you’ll see the taskforces.

*if the very existence of Islam is at risk from white extremism unless Muslims confront the Islamic extremists in their midst, if they’re being intimidated on such a scale, then why isn’t the potential threat to Muslims receiving any coverage at all, and why isn’t it drawing widespread condemnation from white leaders, where are the taskforces?

Like, huh?

Do you even read the Guardian?

Quite right, British Muslims should “never be browbeaten by bullies. That’s what it means to be British.”

You want us to feel outraged if Al-Ghuraaba were faced with violence?
I’m happy to say that at the next protest they organise the police should handle them very strictly and demand any placards inciting violence get taken down. And if refuse and start threatening violence then I’d be happy to see them getting thwacked by some riot police people.
Is that ‘progressive’ enough for you?
Yes this is (vaguely) a democracy but do not forget that the rules constantly change in a democracy and if the majority have a justification in feeling threatened by a small minority then its the right of the police to take action.
It is still not a facist or totalitarian state, it is still enough of a free country that the majority should not be able to impose its will upon a minority community simply by intimidation (using the police), by dint of its status as majority just as no minority should be able change the policies of a country through the use of terror tactics. How can you persuade the Muslims of the benefits of free secular democracies when you’re still unclear of what they entail?

On the one hand you say the ‘Muslim community’ (too broad a term but lets stick with it) is likely to behave in certain ways because its only human.

But you don’t seem to understand that the 98% of non-Muslims in the UK are also likely to behave as ordinary (and frightened) humans when faced with a bunch of massacre demanding protestors.

You want us to feel outraged if Al-Ghuraaba were faced with violence?

I’m happy to say that at the next protest they organise the police should handle them very strictly and demand any placards inciting violence get taken down. And if refuse and start threatening violence then I’d be happy to see them getting thwacked by some riot police people.

Is that ‘progressive’ enough for you?

Yes this is (vaguely) a democracy but do not forget that the rules constantly change in a democracy and if the majority have a justification in feeling threatened by a small minority then its the right of the police to take action.

I wasn’t threatening anyone, simply pointing out the likely consequences of intolerance.

Regarding you referring to our society as a free democratic one? I think that’s really open to debate…

I mean, most people accept that the placard waving extremists, who seem to be the darlings of the media — prolly because they place to the prejudices and irrational fears of white (and non-Muslim) audiences — represent only a minority of Muslims, and are not an accurate reflection of the wider Muslim community. But here, with this sentence you’re effectively placing as a condition of the ‘toleration’ of a religion, the acceptance within the community of “rational and humane intellectual discourse, critical or otherwise” — an implied threat to all Muslims that if you don’t sufficiently reign in the excesses of a voiciferous unrepresentative minority then you won’t be allowed to practice your religion. That’s quite a dangerous statement to make in a free democratic society, and is wrong in all manner of ways. I accept that the Muslim community needs to foster far more debate than it already has within the community, and it’s happening to an extent; though I’m pretty sure all mainstream Muslims leaders do actually condemn terrorism. But don’t you think threatening Muslims with the ban of their religion is extraordinarily counterproductive?

I apologise if I’ve misread you, but I’m amazed no one else’s picked it up (actually I’m not really), and I think your article might have benefited from another draft.

Another thing, how come none of the usual PP ‘progressives’ (apart from Arif) had nothing to say about Bert’s advocation of violence against Al-Guraaba:

I would say violence against Al Ghurabaa would be protecting people from imminent if not immediate violence
I thought this wasn’t how we did things in democratic societies, I thought this was what we were trying to drum into the heads of Muslims?

Have a good look at yourself, Leon.

I think that the following shows that, in fact, I already do.

Shamefully I’m finding it harder and harder to disagree let alone counter the views with anything remotely intelligent.

well the two things ain’t disconnected: perceived injustice fuels the growth of islamic extremism and damages the moral authority of the west, which makes potential moderates less inclined to boisterously defend the supremacy of western democracy

Leon has identified a real problem – with great care and sensitivity – which needs deserves proper debate without acrimony.

i apologise if i come across as uncivil, just i feel strongly bout this stuff