You said "look back".

But I could refer you to the recent illegal invasion of Iraq and consequent 100,000 deaths.

Many Muslims are not fluent in Arabic and it is the translations that they read and are presented with. I am not making a specific comparison I am quizzing why someone should state that they are peaceful when the evidence that they are is only that they say they are and the evidence of what they themselves say they follow points to a different path than peace.

Who are you referring to, re they and peaceful?

The reason the UK government has repeatedly threatened and considered proscribing the group is because the ideology the group espouses is abhorrent and detrimental to the UK.

It seems to be a case of when the Caliphate rules then we will have death to apostates, the destruction of Israel, Sharia law imposed, etc. It is like a group of communists who only use peaceful means themselves proclaiming come the revolution the capitalists will be shot. Its not what they are currently actively doing or espousing people actively do now which is peaceful its what they fantasize about doing come the Caliphate that is the problem. Fortunately its a problem that will never be realized in the UK as they lack popular support, and do not even vote in general elections as they are opposed to democracy.

When the UK government has considered banning the group they have decided not to based on evidence. The UK police and intelligence services have told the UK government the group is a peaceful organization not involved in violence or terrorism. And based on legal advice the group does not meet the criteria to be proscribed, they do not for example glorify or encourage terrorism.

That supporters and members have committed crimes I expect fails for two reasons. The inks I can find are either to things like death threats made by people in other countries alleged to be members or crimes committed by former members, who appear to have joined groups that actually espouse committing violence and terrorism.

The thing is though that the teachings of Christ do not encourage or excuse those acts. The teachings in Islam are a little different.
Christianity does not define a Christian society in any political sense whereas Islam clearly defines an Islamic society and clearly states how non Muslims should be treated.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir.

Well spotted that man, I meant the SDLP.

The Quran does not define how an Islamic society comes about it only defines how Muslims should behave within that society. It also defines how non_Muslims should be treated. You seem to be saying that if a group states that they wish a specific society to come about peacefully then irrespective of what that society is we should be tolerant of the wish to see it come about. I am not asking for proscription just an understanding that in their own words they contradict their own peaceful declarations.
The group is pan Islamic and funds and is funded internationally.

They do according to those committing the acts in the name of Christianity.

At least according to you and Muslim fundamentalist terrorists. But not according to most Muslims living their lives peacefully in accordance to what they believe are the teachings of Islam.

The Bible is 63 documents combined and does define what a Christian society should be and how non Christians should be treated. The 27 documents that make up the new testament is a continuation of the 39 documents that make up the old testament teachings not a wipe the slate clean and start over ignoring everything written before. The new testament is also more than picking the bits of the four gospels you like and ignoring the bits you don't agree with its 27 documents and also defines society. The Bible is also subject to different interpretations of what its teachings mean.

Christian fundamentalist terrorists and Christians committing barbaric practices in the name of Christianity are in their opinion correctly following the teachings of the Bible and can quote the relevant sections to justify their actions.

While Christian cults are often either end of days cults that believe the end of the world is near as foretold in the Bible or are following not just the Bible but also the teachings of their leaders who they believe are as determined by the Bible prophets of God or the second coming of Christ.

You think members of the SDLP were in the IRA? Are you posting from an alternative universe?

Tolerant as in find them repugnant and ignore them. But don't arrest them unless they break the law. The UK unlike some other nations does not have laws prohibiting the dissemination of what it deems dangerous ideologies. The UK has laws on protecting people from being harmed for example we have laws against glorifying terrorism, encouraging terrorism, incitement to racial or religious hatred, incitement to commit a crime, or speech that .causes others harm through causing alarm distress fear of violence, etc.

The teachings of Christ and the bible may in many ways be contradictory but then that is the point that the teachings of Christ are not necessarily in accord with the complete Bible. It is a contradictory document. How society is structured is not defined as a political concept in the teachings of Christ
The Quran is the perfect book as stated by all who believe. It defines the political structure of society in particular the relationship between those non-Muslims (but of the book) and Muslims. It is not clear as regards the polytheists, Idolators and Atheists. Some scholars believe death irrespective.

Incitement to religious hatred is spread all through the Quran yet the publishing and distribution of it is never prosecuted and if the law is consistent it should be.
The whole point was that they, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, state they are peaceful yet their ideology is drawn directly from the Quran and that is neither peaceful nor in any way free form criminal incitement to religious hatred.

You don't think any member of the IRA wasn't a member of the SDLP too?

No I don't. I find that accusation extraordinary, have you anything to back it up with?

As far as I can remember, the IRA were not after global domination for all their unpleasant sins. Seems odd and a little unsettling how they are often lumped in with Al Qaeda and ISIS on here - or indeed any reference to terrorist Islam.

The problem with them is as vile as they are, they haven't been linked indirectly to the murder of a British MP.

Christ's teachings are a continuation of the teachings of God in the Old Testament and books in the New Testament set out how Christian society should be organized to be in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

The Bible according to some Christians is the word of God.

The Quran to the casual reader has lots of contradictory verses but claims to have none, for with deep understanding the verses apparently are all in accordance with each other and not contradictory at all. Even so the result is Muslims are often reliant on religious scholars to interpret what on earth the Quran teachings mean, and Muslims are free to choose which scholars interpretations they agree with, unless they live in a theocracy where there is only one true interpretation as defined by a particular scholar or group of scholars. There are also lots of documents in addition to the Quran that contain accounts of the actions and words of the Prophet and lots of different commentaries on how to apply what the Prophet said and did, what the Prophet meant. With different Muslim groups picking and choose which additional documents and which interpretations are reliable and which are not. Islam is not a religion unified by the teachings of the Quran its a religion with lots of different factions with different interpretations. This lack of a unity includes what should be done towards polytheists, Idolators and atheists with interpretations ranging from peaceful coexistence to killing them.

While Al Qaeda and ISIS are global Jihadist terrorist organizations who want to conquer the world many terrorist Islamic groups are nationalist wanting only to turn their own nation into a Islamic state with no ambitions of world conquest, and others have ambitions only stretching as far as unifying majority Muslim countries into a Islamic Caliphate with no ambitions of conquering the non Muslim world..

Then you would ban the Bible as well.

Many of these Islamists constantly change groups (see the jihadists in Syria, Libya, Iraq etc) and travel across borders to fight for Islam. So again.. the constant IRA comparison is just really mind-blowing on here.

If one so feels the need to play the regressive relativist card when discussing Islamic terrorism, surely a better comparison would be the medieval crusaders marching into the 'Holy Land.'

The IRA had pacts with, travelled to and cooperated with training, resources and in terrorist attacks with ETA in Spain, the PLO in Beirut, FARC in Columbia, etc. And also had links to foreign regimes like Libya. IRA terrorists were part of a global network of terrorists.

Well as odious and obnoxious as their views are, they haven't been linked to the death of an MP.

But we're not discussing Islamic terrorism, we're discussing an organisation that want a united caliphate by peaceful means in the same way many Irish people want a united Ireland by peaceful means.

So this group is not in solidarity with the rebels in Syria? Must be talking about a different demonstration then. Which one were you referring to?