Gaybriel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 1:52am:



MOTHER!!!!??

locutius,

Quote:


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:


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:


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.

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


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

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


in my opinion- yes it does

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


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:


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:


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.

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.