freediver,

I was looking over your wiki entry about Islam and I just wanted to challenge  a certain them that recurs a few times there:


Quote:

Islam differs from what most Australians typically think of as religion in that it doubles as a system of government. Muslims are commanded to live by the local laws if they are living in a non-Muslim state, but the mechanism for turning a non-Muslim state into a Muslim one is ambiguous. Hostility towards Islam is considered justification for conquest. Such hostility seems inevitable if a large group of people try to undermine our values and system of government.

Quote:

If Australia was at war with the Caliphate, Australian Muslims would be required to take up arms against Australia. There is no clear guideline for identifying when this should occur.

Are you aware of the history of Abyssinia? And it's relationship to  Islam..

In the earliest days of Islam, much like we are again today, Muslims were a weak and oppressed people, stateless and seeking to establish themselves, a small group of the close family/companions of Muhammad (pbuh) were given permission to migrate to Abyssinia, to seek refuge there from the persecution they were suffering in Makkah. Muhammad (pbuh) advised them that the King of Abyssinia was a just and pious man, and that they would be safe there. There was a famous encounter that occured when the Makkans sent a delegation to seek the repatriation of the Muslims. The cousin of Muhammad (pbuh) Ja'far (May God be pleased with him), presented the case of the Muslims to the King of Abyssinia, and he agreed to let the Muslims stay and live in safety.

Due to this kind and noble treatment of the Abyssinians towards the Muslims, the Islamic Caliphate for centuries never dared to attack the Christian Kingdom of Abyssinia, even though all the lands around it became Muslim, and it remained that way pretty much until the 1500's with the arrival of the Europeans, who sought to use the Christian Kingdom to their advantage against the Muslims.

This example indicates quite clearly that Muslims are quite capable of having peaceful relations with people who wish to remain Christian, especially if they'd shown kindness and mercy to the Muslims when they were in need. However, I can only imagine how a re-established Caliphate would look back from the future on a nation that vilified it's Muslim minority and sought to demonise them as an evil presence that should be opposed, fought and expelled.

Just some food for thought :)

OK, I guess I better stop criticising then.

I didn't say that. If you were to stop, then you'd have nothing to do :)

But at least try and be a little more even handed when you write that kind of stuff, and really I think the vast majority of the confrontational atmosphere that is developing between Muslims and non-Muslims is based on this kind of one-sided view of the relationship. And I admit it happens from both sides, but I think you'll find a lot more Muslims are willing to turn things around, if you are.

Wat exactly are they willing to turn around?

The hostile atmosphere that sentiments like your wiki entry create.

Why does the wiki entry create hostility? I tried to limit the list to things that Muslims agree with. You yourself acknowledge that Islam disagrees with many aspects of western culture.

I don't agree with refraining from statments of fact because people react with hostility to them. The wiki entry is not vilification.

Obviously the parts quoted in my initial post.

It's a starting point anyway.

It's not so much about what's there, it's the manner in which it's written. It's not just objectively highlighting differences it's inferring that Muslims cannot live in Australia peacefully and should be expelled.

I think it actually states that Muslims are obligued to live by the local laws, so it hardly infers they cannot live peacefully. The only potential 'solution' brought up is reform within Islam. Other than that, there is nothing about it that points towards expulsion of Muslims.

How exactly does it differ from objectively highlighting differences? What is it about the manner in which it is written? It just seems like a very nebulous criticism.

think fifth column...

I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Anyway it's up to you, if you're happy with the way it is, leave it.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2008 at 12:34pm:

think fifth column... I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Anyway it's up to you, if you're happy with the way it is, leave it.

Haven't you and Malik inferred that anyway? A Muslim can currently be a resident but are obliged to migrate to Caliphate. If a Caliphate is at war with the host country, Muslims must take up arms against the host country? "I am a Muslim first, an Australian second" etc? Sounds much like a Fifth Column to me. They're your words.

I have no idea what you are talking about Abu.

You are welcome to have a go at modifying it yourself. That's the whole point of making it a wiki.

Freediver posting a wiki entry about Islam and muslim values is like Hitler posting a wiki entry about Jewish value's in Germany in the 1930's.

Wasn't it Islam and Aussie values?

Yes it was, but don't let little details like that get in the way of an ad hominem.

Does Abyssinia have anything to do with Lebanon?

I'd appreciate the newcomer's (Phillip, Daniel and Emily) feedback on the wiki:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 15^th, 2008 at 12:41pm:

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15th, 2008 at 12:34pm: think fifth column... I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Anyway it's up to you, if you're happy with the way it is, leave it. Haven't you and Malik inferred that anyway? A Muslim can currently be a resident but are obliged to migrate to Caliphate. If a Caliphate is at war with the host country, Muslims must take up arms against the host country? "I am a Muslim first, an Australian second" etc? Sounds much like a Fifth Column to me. They're your words.

This really cuts to the crux of this particular issue. There are other elements of doctrine related to this issue that deserve further intelligent discussion.

I actually understand that for someone to say they are a "Muslim first and a Australian second' is completely logical and consistant with a belief in God.

Let's be realistic here folks. Most, if not all people have a heirachy of alliegences. To our country, to our state, to our football team, to our families, to our ideologies. IF you are one of those that believe that in a supreme being, one that is emotionally and even physically involved in your life and and all the workings of the universe it would be stupid, inconsistant and illogical (ignoring problems of logic & belief) to have a higher alliegance than God.

I also actually respect that position with qualification.

I assume that the Caliphate has a similar position to that enjoyed by the Pope now and during the zenith of Christendom's power.

People of that position of obedience (to a Caliphate) must also accept that that position puts them in conflict with a society that exercises its freewill and is largely secular and non-believing in the supernatural. That is also logical and consistant.

I am a believer in Democracy of the people. And freedom of people to behave in any way they choose as long as it does not harm others or it is between consenting adults. I am an Australian. But if Australia turned away from these things and became a totalitarian police state then THAT Australia would be my enemy.

I view the Pope of old and the potential Caliphate as dangerous totalitarian figures. Powerful, mortal, fallable and dangerous to all peoples and freedoms not of their faiths. I think history shows the noble action mentioned by Abu above are not the rule. And a Muslim may be my friend right up until a Caliphate decides that the arbitrary purging of all non-believers and their ethical and legal systems is the ONLY way to herald in peace on earth and brotherhood of man. So how can I really know this friend/neighbour of mine. He may turn on me at any whim of another who has no clue as to the value of our kinship.

Are you surprised at the questions trying to establish this ultimate position. We have common ground during time of peace but we want to know at what point those paths are likely to separate. I've said it before that I am not a follower of the 'peace at any price philosophy'.

It actually amazes me that people think the era of the magnetic global personality/conqueror is behind us.

It is behind us. People realised a long time ago that you get much further via trade than via the military. This knowledge has spread and now there are too many vested interests in maintaining peace.

I know what you are saying FD, and agree that there are many barriers to its potential. Universial suffeage and good standards of living amonsts the most powerful.

But remember most cities ie. millions of people are only a few days or weeks from starvation. And ultimately our potential for primative or enlightened behaviour hasn't changed much in many many thousands of years.

But a Caliphate with a billion + unquestioning followers could fit that bill.

Abu, this appears to contradict your opening argument about Abyssinia:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226639588/0#0

freediver,


Quote:

Abu, this appears to contradict your opening argument about Abyssinia:

It does contradict my opening argument, because my opening argument is based on fact, whilst Yadda's rant, as per usual, is based on nonsense.

Just consider this 'fact':


Quote:

.......632 AD - Invasion of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) but the invading Islamic  army  was  repelled  by  the  orthodox  church backed  by  the Portugese.

Did the Portuguese even know where/what Abyssinia was in the year 632??? In fact Portugal diidn't even exist as an independant entity in 632... Surely that must've rung some alarm bells?? Anyone who's studied a little history would know that Abyssinia had no contact with the Portuguese until about the 16th. or 17th. century, when they became a dominant colonial power that eventually moved around to that region of the world, on their way to the spice islands and India.


Quote:

This was a particularly disgraceful event, because just seventeen years earlier,

So let's re-adjust that from 17 to about 1000 years shall we??

Quote:

Does Abyssinia have anything to do with Lebanon?

You really have a long way to go with your questioning don't you fd.

Does Chile have anything to do with Iceland???

I'm sure there's some relationships between any two countries in the world, were you thinking of something in particular? Cos my powers of extra-sensory perception just aren't revealing to me exactly what you're asking by this question.

locutius wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 2:04pm:

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 15th, 2008 at 12:41pm: abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15th, 2008 at 12:34pm: think fifth column... I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Anyway it's up to you, if you're happy with the way it is, leave it. Haven't you and Malik inferred that anyway? A Muslim can currently be a resident but are obliged to migrate to Caliphate. If a Caliphate is at war with the host country, Muslims must take up arms against the host country? "I am a Muslim first, an Australian second" etc? Sounds much like a Fifth Column to me. They're your words. This really cuts to the crux of this particular issue. There are other elements of doctrine related to this issue that deserve further intelligent discussion. I actually understand that for someone to say they are a "Muslim first and a Australian second' is completely logical and consistant with a belief in God. Let's be realistic here folks. Most, if not all people have a heirachy of alliegences. To our country, to our state, to our football team, to our families, to our ideologies. IF you are one of those that believe that in a supreme being, one that is emotionally and even physically involved in your life and and all the workings of the universe it would be stupid, inconsistant and illogical (ignoring problems of logic & belief) to have a higher alliegance than God. I also actually respect that position with qualification. I assume that the Caliphate has a similar position to that enjoyed by the Pope now and during the zenith of Christendom's power. People of that position of obedience (to a Caliphate) must also accept that that position puts them in conflict with a society that exercises its freewill and is largely secular and non-believing in the supernatural. That is also logical and consistant. I am a believer in Democracy of the people. And freedom of people to behave in any way they choose as long as it does not harm others or it is between consenting adults. I am an Australian. But if Australia turned away from these things and became a totalitarian police state then THAT Australia would be my enemy. I view the Pope of old and the potential Caliphate as dangerous totalitarian figures. Powerful, mortal, fallable and dangerous to all peoples and freedoms not of their faiths. I think history shows the noble action mentioned by Abu above are not the rule. And a Muslim may be my friend right up until a Caliphate decides that the arbitrary purging of all non-believers and their ethical and legal systems is the ONLY way to herald in peace on earth and brotherhood of man. So how can I really know this friend/neighbour of mine. He may turn on me at any whim of another who has no clue as to the value of our kinship. Are you surprised at the questions trying to establish this ultimate position. We have common ground during time of peace but we want to know at what point those paths are likely to separate. I've said it before that I am not a follower of the 'peace at any price philosophy'. It actually amazes me that people think the era of the magnetic global personality/conqueror is behind us.

Generally speaking we have to follow the laws of the land. So no we can't act in a 5th column type of way.

What's this '5th column' stuff all about?

Phillip, I hope you and some of the other new members will hang around to participate.

You said

Quote:

Generally speaking we have to follow the laws of the land. So no we can't act in a 5th column type of way.

As Fd asked, can you please expand on the term 5th column.

And while I understand the protocol of "following the laws of the land." That obligation only extends until a Caliphe instruct otherwise, doesn't it? In the heirachy of alliegence would not the Caliphe come before your secular obligations?

Do you guys honestly not know what '5th column' means. Like seriously...you've never come across the term?

None of you ever seen 'V - The movie'?

Not sure, personally I thought the term was well known...I guess I was wrong.

I suggest you google it. :)

Lestat wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 6:22pm:

Do you guys honestly not know what '5th column' means. Like seriously...you've never come across the term? None of you ever seen 'V - The movie'? Not sure, personally I thought the term was well known...I guess I was wrong. I suggest you google it. :)

Lestat- please do not belittle other posters like this. If you do not have anything constructive to add I suggest you do not add anything at all.

There is nothing wrong with people asking questions about things they a) do not know about or b) wish to clarify

there is no shame in asking a question in regards to something about which you are ignorant. not asking is shameful.

There are no stupid questions. Only stupid answers.

Quote:

What's this '5th column' stuff all about?

Wikipedia is your friend..

Wikipedia article on 5th. Column

Quote:

A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation. The term also refers to a subpopulation, such as an ethnic minority, which is assumed to have loyalties to countries other than the one in which they reside, or who support some other nation in war efforts against the country they live in, the result of dual loyalty.

Quote:

And a Muslim may be my friend right up until a Caliphate decides that the arbitrary purging of all non-believers and their ethical and legal systems is the ONLY way to herald in peace on earth and brotherhood of man. So how can I really know this friend/neighbour of mine. He may turn on me at any whim of another who has no clue as to the value of our kinship.

Ahh, you mean like what happened in Yugoslavia? When Christian Serbs and Croats went around rounding up their Muslim neighbours, herded them into camps, then eradicated them? If anyone has to fear this, it is the Muslims.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 9:13pm:

Quote: And a Muslim may be my friend right up until a Caliphate decides that the arbitrary purging of all non-believers and their ethical and legal systems is the ONLY way to herald in peace on earth and brotherhood of man. So how can I really know this friend/neighbour of mine. He may turn on me at any whim of another who has no clue as to the value of our kinship. Ahh, you mean like what happened in Yugoslavia? When Christian Serbs and Croats went around rounding up their Muslim neighbours, herded them into camps, then eradicated them? If anyone has to fear this, it is the Muslims.

Good grief . Another deflection.. Still no answer to the question then.

The individuals that committed these crimes deserve nothing more than mass unmarked graves preferably beneath a public toilet. The UN should not operate as paper tigers. If you are seen with a weapon and you aren't a member of the blue beret club you should be shot on sight.

And no I did not mean like Yugoslavia. I mean like the way the question has been asked.

Gaybriel wrote on Nov 17^th, 2008 at 7:52pm:

Lestat- please do not belittle other posters like this. If you do not have anything constructive to add I suggest you do not add anything at all. There is nothing wrong with people asking questions about things they a) do not know about or b) wish to clarify there is no shame in asking a question in regards to something about which you are ignorant. not asking is shameful.

MOTHER!!!!??

freediver wrote on Nov 14^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:

It is behind us.

But is it behind them, the magnetic global personality/conqueror ?




(I speak of the non-specific oriental Other, you understand, Gaybriel, in the Edward Saidian sense)

locutius,


Quote:

The individuals that committed these crimes deserve nothing more than mass unmarked graves preferably beneath a public toilet. The UN should not operate as paper tigers. If you are seen with a weapon and you aren't a member of the blue beret club you should be shot on sight.

Reading stuff like this, one has to wonder who is the 'violent extremist' here. You advocate too much of it, really. This is no good for your soul.


Quote:

And no I did not mean like Yugoslavia. I mean like the way the question has been asked.

Well that's the only example that springs to mind. I need to understand exactly what you mean, and this is the only precedent I see that's been set. Obviously something caused you to come up with such a macabre scenario, and I'd guess that was probably it.

As I said, we're the only ones who need to be worried here. Non-Muslims are the ones constantly trying to demonise Muslims, and painting us as a fifth column etc. Some prominent Jewish thinkers have actually pointed out that the Western attitude towards Muslims mimics almost exactly the European attitude prior to the great pogoroms and the holocaust....


Quote:

Another deflection.. Still no answer to the question then.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in taking part in an interrogation. If that's what you're looking for, I'd suggest moving along.

I answer what I choose to answer, if and when I see fit, and reserve the right to ask as many questions in return as I feel like. If you don't accept my terms, then as I say, move along.

You imagine yourself (delusionally of course) to be the interrogator here, and that Muslims participate at your whim, to answer any charge/slander/rumour you deem fit to ask... I don't mind entertaining you in your folly, so long as you're willing to go along for the ride and also answer any questions posed back at you, even if they are asked when you're expecting (read: demanding) an answer.

If our participation is mutually consentual, then I agree to discuss with you, if however you just want to hurl ridiculous accusations (ones that in fact are more suited to be hurled at Westerners/Christians), demand an answer, and then cry deflection/avoidance if you don't get it, then please don't waste my time and yours.

Quote:

As I said, we're the only ones who need to be worried here. Non-Muslims are the ones constantly trying to demonise Muslims

So it never happens the other way round?

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 12:20pm:

Quote: As I said, we're the only ones who need to be worried here. Non-Muslims are the ones constantly trying to demonise Muslims So it never happens the other way round?

Has it? Abu provided an example where it happened to muslims. Could you provide an example where it 'happened the other way round'?

I thought I should give Abu a chance to retract his statement first.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2008 at 12:20pm:

Quote: As I said, we're the only ones who need to be worried here. Non-Muslims are the ones constantly trying to demonise Muslims So it never happens the other way round?

in my opinion- yes it does

Frequently
(even here)

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:

ocutius, Quote: The individuals that committed these crimes deserve nothing more than mass unmarked graves preferably beneath a public toilet. The UN should not operate as paper tigers. If you are seen with a weapon and you aren't a member of the blue beret club you should be shot on sight. Reading stuff like this, one has to wonder who is the 'violent extremist' here. You advocate too much of it, really. This is no good for your soul.

Really? What do I advocate too much of specifically? I am happy to respond to the accusation.

Here I've condoned a level of action against genocidal murderers that fits the crime, but voiced my disapproval at condoning the killing of adulterers and those that want to renounce their faith.

It is surely an extreme solution in its finality, but if that turned out to be the fate of those you mentioned I would find that satisfactory and unmoving. They won't be slaying anymore innocents. I accept that violence is capable of beneficial applications.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:

Quote: And no I did not mean like Yugoslavia. I mean like the way the question has been asked. Well that's the only example that springs to mind. I need to understand exactly what you mean, and this is the only precedent I see that's been set. Obviously something caused you to come up with such a macabre scenario, and I'd guess that was probably it. As I said, we're the only ones who need to be worried here. Non-Muslims are the ones constantly trying to demonise Muslims, and painting us as a fifth column etc. Some prominent Jewish thinkers have actually pointed out that the Western attitude towards Muslims mimics almost exactly the European attitude prior to the great pogoroms and the holocaust....

So the individuals/group in Yugoslavia match the decription as relevant to the question? Is calling it "the 5th column conspiracy" just another smoke and mirrors diversion? Not sure of the tie in.

Macabre scenario?? No just a straight forward question? Qualified with previous discussion about heirarchies of alliance. I did not assume that Muslims in Australia are a secret society, they are a public body of people who believe particular things and have expressed a willingness to follow doctrine, often without question. It's not about 5th colomn stuff it's about clarifying a position.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 18^th, 2008 at 9:55pm:

Quote: Another deflection.. Still no answer to the question then. I'm sorry, I'm not interested in taking part in an interrogation. If that's what you're looking for, I'd suggest moving along. I answer what I choose to answer, if and when I see fit, and reserve the right to ask as many questions in return as I feel like. If you don't accept my terms, then as I say, move along. You imagine yourself (delusionally of course) to be the interrogator here, and that Muslims participate at your whim, to answer any charge/slander/rumour you deem fit to ask... I don't mind entertaining you in your folly, so long as you're willing to go along for the ride and also answer any questions posed back at you, even if they are asked when you're expecting (read: demanding) an answer. If our participation is mutually consentual, then I agree to discuss with you, if however you just want to hurl ridiculous accusations (ones that in fact are more suited to be hurled at Westerners/Christians), demand an answer, and then cry deflection/avoidance if you don't get it, then please don't waste my time and yours.

Yes you often suggest moving along whenever it is inconvenient. I'm bemused at the accusation of interrogator when all I have done is ask questions. So I am trying to force you into answering questions. How so? If you decide to answer, I am expecting (read:expecting) an honest answer. I do not badger to answer anything.

My folly is simply to expect you to answer questions OR not. Your folly is to pretend to answer questions and then become indignant when you are caught out, and then asked the question again. I am happy to answer any questions on anything but the most personal and private issues.

Here is the question again...

And while I understand the protocol of "following the laws of the land." That obligation only extends until a Caliphe instruct otherwise, doesn't it??????? In the heirachy of alliegence would not the Caliphe come before your secular obligations???????

To me it is pretty straight forward. Tell my why it is not straight forward. I've also said that I understand the consistancy of chosing your God over your country. Of course an atheist secularist society may not take to this well. Is this the reason for avoidance maybe.

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 15^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:

Obviously the parts quoted in my initial post. It's a starting point anyway. It's not so much about what's there, it's the manner in which it's written. It's not just objectively highlighting differences it's inferring that Muslims cannot live in Australia peacefully and should be expelled.

I think that muslims can live peacefully in Australia, as long as there are not too many of them. As soon as there is a large islamic population, wherever it is, in the world, inside an infidel government and alongside infidel people - there are the calls to jihad and war. It has ever been thus. There has never been a place where Muslims have been able to live in a significant proportion of the population without bloodshed.

And why is this? Because of the doctrine of jihad. Wherever there are sufficient numbers of muslims located to challenge the state or the other people around them, there are riots, attacks, hostility. Always. Name a country and I'll detail the history for you.

So Muslims need to agree that they are prepared to live under infidel rule indefinitely, understand that they are guests in a great country that was built by people other than themselves. That many other islamic states have failed their people, where this country has not, so perhaps this country has somethind different and good to offer. And agree, always, that they accept living under infidel government, the doctrine of separation of religion and state and the right of infidels to practise their religion in peace - always and forever.

That's a pretty big ask. Abu for example seems to forsee Islam taking over in Australia, though he will not suggest the actual mechanism for overthrowing the government, or what percentage of the population need become Muslim before this happens. He seems to think that past rule by violent minorities justifies it's return.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 8:18pm:

That's a pretty big ask. Abu for example seems to forsee Islam taking over in Australia, though he will not suggest the actual mechanism for overthrowing the government, or what percentage of the population need become Muslim before this happens. He seems to think that past rule by violent minorities justifies it's return.

It is a big ask for a number of reasons.

The first is, Australians (and Westerners generally) have no frigging idea what Islam is. They believe it to be roughly approximate to them attending church on Sundays. They have then rote learn mantras from politicians and the left about what Islam is, all good and tolerant things, and will not be swayed otherwise as to the disturbing doctrine as a matter of fact (look at any Islamic regime) it is for freedom and democracy.

The second is, that if people belive that they are to rule by divine right - that is a hard enemy to fight against. However, many people have underestimated Australians. The Empire of Japan thought we were a joke. How wrong they were.

We do however need to keep a lid on Islamic immigration, big time. If the population mass of Muslims gets too large, then watch out. Civil war.  One other way to approach immigration would be to have an interview panel and interview people to ask them their views as to democracy, separation of church and state, the obligation of jihad.

But we couldnt do that of course..that would be racist. Never mind that Islam is not a race.