But you have not demonstrated that it does.

You said it does. If a new Caliphate arose and Australia was at war with it, where would your loyalties lie?

All I said was, that if a Caliphate were established, then Muslims should migrate to it

Is that all? What about taking up arms on it's behalf? Isn't military service compulsory?

and this is no different to the Jews making Aliyah to Israel

As far as I know they aren't committing treason.

They were your words, not mine...

Those words do not imply that I have anything to feel guilty about. You seem very keen to latch onto any ambiguity that can be interpretted as negatively as possible. A bit of common sense wouldn't go astray here. I hope I don't have to explain it for you.

This has seen a regression to a widely accepted fundamentalist movement, which cites the least evolved, and least acceptable traits of Islam,

Mozz do you have any evidence that a more progressive interpretation of Islam dominated prior to the destruction of the Ottoman empire? From what I can gather, it was interference from the west that for example ridded most of the middle east of slavery. Furthermore many historians attribute religious conservatism as one of the ultimate causes of it's decline.

Did you copy and paste that from somewhere?

My point is that if the Islamic culture had not been interrupted by colonial conquest, then Islam would have evolved into a more modern, secular society

What makes you think that? You say that Islam changed, but in fact, Islam was the change. Once that change occurred, there was very little further change.

mozza,

Quote:


The Mughal and Ottoman empires both implemented Shari'ah law, both fought against "infidels", and both believed in the concept of Caliphate and that Islam must govern all aspects of Muslim's lives. I don't know how you can attempt to claim that's any different than what I've spoken about.

All Islamic Caliphates from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) until the end of the Ottoman period encouraged learning and arts and "adapted with the times".

Actually it's strange that you mention learning and the arts and progress when identifying these empires, as they're considered to be the times when learning, arts and progress had pretty much stagnated in the Islamic world. Perhaps you need to revise your history books?

Quote:


Actually the "Golden age" of Islam is not considered to have occured under any of the empires you mentioned. It is considered to have occured in the Middle East under the Abbasids and in Andalus under the Umayyads, both of which were strict implementers of the Shari'ah and who were much closer to the exact teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) than the later empires you mentioned.

The Ottomans and Mughals were considered to exist in the time of decline and stagnance, not the rise of the golden age.

Quote:


Considering you didn't even get it right, it's not much to boast about

Quote:


They didn't implement Shari'ah because it was culturally accepted, they implemented it because it was commanded by God. The funny thing is, they'd make the Talibaan look like moderates

Quote:


This is nothing but conjecture. The same conditions simply didn't exist in the Islamic world that drove Europeans to rise up against their religion. That's why the Colonial powers instigated a "renaissance" of their own in the Muslim lands, because they got sick of waiting for it to happen, and for them to be able to spread their secularist ideas to the Islamic lands.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 31^st, 2008 at 11:24pm:



Lots of words for sure but there is nothing about existence of a Palestinian state or denial of existence of ancient Israel.

Well if you had an understanding of the 20th century you wouldn't look like such an idiot implementing sarcasm.

You know some people actually interact with our Islamic friends, if you did, you may not have a different view to what you have.

I am a Muslim, and the Islamic Caliphate has ruled over the land of ash-Shem for the past 1300 years, it is our land and has been for much longer than it was theirs. either way, when they called for a Jewish state there, they were less than 2%, would you accept Muslims, who are more than 2% in Australia calling for an Islamic state here? And herding non-Muslim Australians into refugee camps?

abu_rashid wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2008 at 6:14pm:



Thank you for your honesty. It is interesting and terrifying insight of what can happen to Australia because Moslems are allowed to settle here and later when their numbers are up some of your co-religionists from around the world will claim Australia as their own on the basis that Moslems lived here before.

tallowood,

Quote:


Why would I be dishonest?

Quote:


How is it an inisght into that? The story is about Jews, who'd been out of the land for over 1800 years, coming back and claiming it's still theres, and expelling the native inhabitants by force... About the only resemblance this has to the Australian situation is that Europeans did pretty much the same thing to the Aboriginals when they arrived, came in and attempted to exterminate the people living there.

How strongly do you feel about Australia? How strongly do you think your descendants will feel about Australia in about 1000 years time? If you can imagine that, then convert that into empathy for the Arabs of ash-Shem.

I think that under Islamic law, if Israel didn't agree to a peace agreement on the Muslim's terms, they would invade, take all the property as their posessions (I think this includes the women), then give the Israelis a choice of fleeing with nothing, remaining with nothing, or becoming slaves.