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


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.

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.

freediver,

Quote:


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:


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:


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

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

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

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

You said
Quote:


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?

Lestat wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:22am:

Quote:


Wikipedia is your friend..

Wikipedia article on 5th. Column
Quote:

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 3:13am:


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.