Quote:


It has enough meaning. Can you give a context in which what you describe can justifiably be called political freedom? In what context are you "free" to criticise the government and pursue political change, if you can only promote Sunni Islam and only criticise the government from a basis of Sunni Islam? Also, how does this context differ from the context above where you openly rejected freedom and democracy in the name of Islam?

Or, if you want to do analogies, can you tell me what is wrong with this analogy?

I have a red car. Abu has a blue one:

FD: Look at my red car.

Abu: I also have a red car.

FD: Looks blue to me. This is what a red car looks like.

Abu: FOOL! You are working on the assumption that your car is 100% red. But your tyres are black. Therefor we both have red cars. We only differ in the extent to which our cars are red.

FD: Would you like a red car Abu?

Abu: Hell no! I hate red cars. I would only ever get a blue one.

FD: So that's why your car is blue.

Abu: I already explained that it is red. My concept of red merely differs from yours.

FD: Can you explain how your concept differs to the point that your blue car is red?

Abu: The term "red" is meaningless without context. Therefor I can use it to describe my car without misleading anyone.

Quote:


In Australia? Merely for criticising the government's foreign policy? Can you give examples?

Quote:


They did not merely think about committing terrorism. They actually started preparing an attack. None of this has anything to do with what you are allowed to say about the government.

Here we go, a fine example of the West's "political freedom" when it comes to Muslims:

---

London 2012: Two Muslim converts arrested over Olympic terror plot

Two Muslim converts were arrested in East London yesterday on suspicion of plotting an attack against the London Olympic canoeing venue.

Sources said the arrests were based on a tip-off after men were seen behaving suspiciously close to the venue in Waltham Abbey, Hertfordshire on Monday.

Hertfordshire police officers began combing the banks after three men were seen in a dinghy on the River Lea.

The two men, aged 18 and 32, were arrested at separate residential addresses in east London, by officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command, at 7am on Thursday morning.

They were detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and held at a central London police station.

A friend of the arrested men named the 18-year-old as Jamal ud-Din and said the older man was someone he knew only as "Zakariya."

Mizanur Rahman, 29, said the arrests "might have had something to do with the fact that they recently went canoeing" on the River Lea, a branch of which runs through the Olympic site in east London.

“It's just people trying to get into the Olympic spirit," he said, but he believed the authorities would try "painting it as jihad training."

Source: Telegraph

Quote:


Are you suggesting that parties are not allowed to run for office unless they 'espouse the democratic ideology'?

Quote:


Quote:


Can you give an example of one from Australia? Do you realise that the example you gave is not from Australia and did not involve a conviction?

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:10am:


That's right, if a party stands on a platform of opposing the democratic ideology (of human legislation) and seeks to change this system to one of legislation by the laws of the almighty creator alone, then they would not be permitted to attain power in Australia, just as a party seeking to do the opposite would have no means to do so according to the Islamic system.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 9:10am:


I did not state it was from Australia. Learn to read more carefully. Why are you asking me to produce something, when I've asked you several posts ago now, to produce a case of Muslims who have been convicted here for actually being engaged in any act to commit harm to Australians. Clearly you cannot, hence your attempt to turn the questions around, without answering them (modus operandi for you isn't it?)

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:



In practical terms, who exactly decides what the almighty wants? Do your Islamic scholars have access to the mind of Allah?

So instead of elected, accountable men making the laws for the people they govern, you want uneleceted, unaccountable  men to make laws. And to Muslim minds that is a forward step.

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:


In the last decade there have been no stonings in the state of Israel.
However Islamic mobs have stoned to death many young girls in the Arab world and Islamic Africa.

Disgusting.

Please also remember there is not one Israeli in Gaza and in 80% of the west bank if the Jordan.

We are only on our own homeland, where we belong. Where I was born and my father was too born.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:


None of it is your homeland, it's all land you stole from Palestinians since the early 1900's.