66 replies to this topic

[cogito]

So the hardline zionists eh, who is more hardline and extreme than them? Oh yeah, the hardline Muslims. I predict that over time as Muslim countries become exposed to democracy and western culture they will incorporate it into their own and over time mellow and become less angry and confrontational.

We will see, either you are right and the world of conspiracy theories is actually all true. The Western Media are all hiding the truth, because they wouldn't want to print something controvertial in order to boost circulation...
Or I am right and the world is as it appears to be.

[Ozymandias]

We'll see. Although as a rule of thumb...nothing is EVER how it seems to be. Besides, how are we supposed to imbibe democracy, when the so-called champion of democracy supports dictators? Ever get tired of contradicting yourself bro?

[cogito]

Ever read a thing I've said?

The US can't stand alone and refuse to deal with dictators or every government it disagrees with. Some countries have resources they need, or are tactical allies in other areas. The US isn't some Messiah type country, they can't alienate themselves from every other nation on Earth and hope to spread their ideas of freedom and democracy!

Maybe if the UN took a stand on the worst human rights offenders and dictatorships then maybe we could get somewhere, but as yet there is too much power in too many corrupt places to boycott them all.

However within the borders of the US there is freedom and democracy and rule of law and human rights. These are all admirable, if the rest of the world were under the same system of democracy then there would be no legitimate reason for conflicts.

[arawelo16]

That is wrong. Just so incorrect, israel accepted the partition plan. The Arab nations as a whole rejected it and set about trying to destroy the fledgling state rather than establish a Palestinian state.

if ur refering to me than i was talking about when israel did'nt exist

[Abubakar]

There were Jews and Arabs in Palestine who wanted a state, so a partition was proposed. It seems so simple doesn't it, accept the partition, and build a successful nation. Unfortunately some people didn't accept the partition. With hindsight would they have, I think not because the destruction of israel is still a pipe dream for many.

Who proposed the partition?

Who drew it up and who agreed to it?

[Muhsinmuttaqi]

Assalamu Alaykum/Peace

The land of Ash-Sham or the Land of Shem belongs to Ibraheem/Abraham, alayhi salam, his family. Now, Jerusalam was given and founded by Ibraheem. This is the spot where Abraham settled with his wife Sara and this is the place where his children Isaac, Yaqoob Isra'eel, and Yousuf and the rest of the children of Yaqoob dwelled. This means that Jerusalem belongs to the family of Abraham who were righteous. Remember, that the generation of the exodus from Egypt to the Holy Land died in the wilderness including the prophets Musa and Haroon, alayhi salam. When Yusha bin Noon was prophet then the Holy Land was taken back from the people who lived there. Under the leadership of the prophet Shammil, alayhi salam, and the king Taluut (Saul) the holy city Jerusalem was taken back by the Children of Isra'eel when Dawood, alayhi salam, killed Jaluut (Goliath). The Golden Era of the Muslim nation of the Children of Isra'eel began with the Kingship of David, alayhi salam, and ended with the Death of Solomon/Sulayman, alayhi salam. From that time on, the children of Isra'eel started killing the prophets of God Almighty and they started worshipping the Baal and Ashera, and that is why they were kidnapped by Babylonia and returned to the old (Egyptian style) slavery. However, the Children of Isra'eel received many chances, but because they refused to believe in John the Baptist and Jesus, alayhi salam, in general, they lost the descendancy to Ibraheem and they lost the Holy Land. There were many who believed and followed the true way of the Messenger of Allah, Isa ben Maryam and Yahya, alayhi salam, but the leaders of the Pharisees and Sadduzees and the followers of Herod and those weak spirits who just accepted the oppression of Rome did not believe and they threw away the torch of truth forevermore.

Because, Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is the leader of mankind and a prophet sent to mankind, the holy land belongs to mankind to those who carry the torch of truth.

Remember, that in the end of time Jesus, alayhi salam, the True Messiah will rule from Jerusalem after defeating the False Messiah.

Muhammad saw in a dream that Qur'an was taken away from Hijaz, now the area of Saudi Arabia where Makkah and Madinah are located and this Qur'an was placed in the place of hijrah of Abraham which is Jerusalam. In the end of time, the best of the human beings will be in Jerusalam. The worst of people and other will be gathered to Ash-Sham, the land of Shem, but they cannot enter Jarusalem, because it is reserved for the Righteous until a wind takes the souls of the believers.

Some scholars believe that the land of Shem (which is now Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Holy Land with Jerusalam as the center) is going to be the land where the people are going to be assembled for the Day of Judgment/Day of Resurrection. Some others believe that this place is a place of assembly for the end of time, but there is another assembly on the Day of Judgment in a different place.

Remember, that Yaqoob, alayhi salam, build the first house of worship in that spot which we call today: "Masjid-Al-Aqsa" is was a place of prostration, a Masjid.

Edited by muhsinmuttaqi, 08 June 2006 - 02:29 PM.

[Liberté]

Because, Muhammad, salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is the leader of mankind and a prophet sent to mankind, the holy land belongs to mankind to those who carry the torch of truth.

Isn't that a bit arrogant. A christian might say that the earth belongs to the children of god who accept Jesus and hence all lands fall under an empire of christianity, but you wouldn't accept that because you are not a christian. Just as all non-muslims will refute the claim that any land belongs to Muslims, simply because of their faith and religion.

This kind of religious argument over land disputes is futile because generally those who you are disputing with have a different religion to yours. You have to be more pragmatic and accept that israel exists and work around that for a real world solution.

[icontact]

Palestine should consist of most of the West Bank and the Gaza strip. Any Palestinian who cannot accept that, has to accept that their demands will never be accepted by israel.

israel doesn't want a Palestinian state, even if it's in the West Bank or Gaza. USrael thwarts economic deveopment, well-digging, trade, and most positive things attempted by the Palestinians.

The tragedy is that many people are stuck in the past and caught up in their hatred and this is a road block on the road map to peace.

Try living in a refugee camp for 3 and 4 generations with the deed and keys to the house that was stolen from you.

It might change your attitude a little.

[freedslave]

Look, no one is going to convince anyone else here...the mindsets are too entrenched. Let me just say that 'right' has nothing to do with anything. Every inch on land on this earth was originally inhabited by someone else. Land belongs to those with the strength and the will to take it. This is how it has always been and always shall be. The only thing that annoys me is when people camoflague this fact with mealy-mouthed claims of human rights and fair play and what not. We live in a jungle people...sharpen your claws.

/ Peace

You make sense here bro...I agree with you. If the Palestinian Arabs were to get back their land stolen from them...they would have to do so by force. Whatever the UN resolutions, geneva constitutions, human rights organizations and other rules of war or the right of return says, have done little or no favours to the Palestinians. We, Muslims will one day have to face this challenge. This responsibility rests squarely on the arab governments and leaders, who are currently inept at their posts.

Edited by freedslave, 03 August 2006 - 09:56 AM.

[freedslave]

Zionism is a secular idea that completely ignores the spirituality of Judaism. It states the right of return of Jewish peoples from around the Earth to israel. They do not have any religous side to their argument, even though that is what is being portrayed. Here is what an Orthodox Jew (there are a few others like him), say about the State of israel.

Rabbi Yisroel Weiss: Jews were sent into exile; this is clearly accepted in the books of the prophets, Jeremiah and so forth, that God gave the land to the Children of israel, gave them the land of israel, and he said, ‘Listen, this is a Holy Land, this is my land, and I’m giving it to you with the stipulation that you must serve me properly and be a holy nation, and if you sin I will send you into exile’. And then it’s clearly stated in the Talmud, that the Jews were told by God that ‘I will take you back’ - God himself will take the Jewish people back - ‘and until that time, do not try to leave exile, do not try to fight the nations, you have to be a loyal citizen in every country and be a fine Jew, an example of a proper human being.’

Zionism and the belief of state of israel is a political ideology, that came into form in the late 1800s, and finally came into reality in 1948. The Holocaust, encouraged this idea that Jews should have their own state. However, the point I want to make is, it has no religous backing.

/ Peace

Edited by freedslave, 03 August 2006 - 09:58 AM.

[Liberté]

However, the point I want to make is, it has no religous backing.

/ Peace [/i]

That is a positive as far as I am concerned. Generally plans based on religion end up in diasaster. The Crusades, the muslim hatred of israel, the conflict in northern Ireland, Pakistan vs India, American religious extremists, the Spanish Inquisition. Religion spawns a lot of conflict and idiocy.

[Midnight]

israel's actions have invited the displeasure of rational minds, you're mistaken to accuse Muslims to be the sole "haters" of israel.

[Liberté]

I didn't say only muslims hated israel.

I also didn't bother to mention that I don't own a cat. Should I have included that too?

[freedslave]

That is a positive as far as I am concerned.

Then you agree that the religous argument for the existence of israel that Jews and some Christians use, that "God promised them the land", has no backing?

[vdtwo]

I wrote a holy book, there it says God promised the Earth for you, thus your land is mine now...

[Liberté]

Then you agree that the religous argument for the existence of israel that Jews and some Christians use, that "God promised them the land", has no backing?

I am not religious so I don't see how any argument based on a belief can win in a logical debate. Just like when people start telling me about the Qu'ran says this, the Bible says that. I just don't care, I turn off because I could then just say that Fyodor Doestoevsky says it is ok to kill an old woman. I think muslims are probably the most guilty nowadays of using religous arguments to justify their poilitics and aggression.

Secular is the way to go, with tolerance for all beliefs.

The point is that that there never was a Palestine and at the time when borders in the area were being drawn up there was a large jewish zionist population and a large jewish population flooding toawrds israel. The sensible thing to do was to recognise the arab right and the jewish right to self determination in the "holy" land.

[Bellum]

But, you have to remember that original "Jews" were Muslims, so if we are going to go by that, then the land is ours.

However, I do find the idea of going back 3000 years a little crazy. We could go back to the beginning of time, and say that Adam was a Muslim, and the whole earth was his, so we have the right to the whole world today.

Different lands have always stayed the same, while the people changed, and that's how it's always going to be. Going back a certain amount of time is laughable to me.

Isn't one of the Pillars of Islam the Shahada? So to be a Muslim you have to except the Shahada. "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger". Therefore, how could Adam or Abraham etc., have been a Muslim, because unless I'm crazy, Muhammad wasn't alive during the life of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brethren, Moses, Joshua and so on.

So, that means either it is NOT necessary to except Muhammad as a messenger of Islam to be Muslim, because Adam and Abraham etc. could not have said the Shahada. Or, Islam basically begun with Muhammad and therefore it is ABSURD to call anyone before Muhammad a Muslim! I think the second one sounds a bit more plausible!

[foreverlight]

no he's absolutely mistaken. israel cum PALESTINE cum canaan was first inhabited by canaanites and they're not jews or israelis or arabs etc. then jews came along and defeated canaanites. then romans came along and defeated jews. at the end of the day PALESTINE is owned by PALESTINIANS following turks' defeat by british and arabs. (i'll get the dates later). then un came along and divided PALESTINE so that israel can exist

btw in which thread did mr 3DSHOCKER write his masterpiece?

Peace

I would like to clear something i noticed that need to be addressed.

See some people like in this case Zionists Jews choose there words very carefully, like criminal lawyers., and i like to clear up that when we mean jews we actually mean the Children of israel, i have not found anyone to prove that the Children of israel had Jews until Moses (PBUH) was witness to the making of the 12 tribes Of israel, which one tribe Judah known as Jews existed.

So i am not sure if King David (PBUH) presented the Jews or all of israel.

To be careful with words i can say that the Children of israel defeated the canaanites, later the Imperialism of Judah kicked internally like a revolution which spelled the Kingdom of Judah (not israel).

Please do correct me if i am wrong on this too incase i mistaken.

Peace

[foreverlight]

Isn't one of the Pillars of Islam the Shahada? So to be a Muslim you have to except the Shahada. "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger". Therefore, how could Adam or Abraham etc., have been a Muslim, because unless I'm crazy, Muhammad wasn't alive during the life of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his brethren, Moses, Joshua and so on.

So, that means either it is NOT necessary to except Muhammad as a messenger of Islam to be Muslim, because Adam and Abraham etc. could not have said the Shahada. Or, Islam basically begun with Muhammad and therefore it is ABSURD to call anyone before Muhammad a Muslim! I think the second one sounds a bit more plausible!

Peace

Excuse me for jumping in on this post as well, the Qur'an tells us that everything is Muslim, Muslim means doing Allah's will (Gods will).

You may see it as the commandments, yet you read about the religion of Abraham (PBUH) been Islam in the Qur'an., and the planets and everything come together willingly or un willingly equals Muslim., point is everything was created Muslim and what disagrees finds self deception and desease or as we all learned about SIN and this is the core of values between good and evil, you accept yoru creater or fight your creater, you accept nature or fight it., clearly what we see every day.

[2.130] And who forsakes the religion of Ibrahim but he who makes himself a fool, and most certainly We chose him in this world, and in the hereafter he is most surely among the righteous.
[2.131] When his Lord said to him, Be a Muslim, he said: I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.
[2.132] And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims.

[3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.


You need to understand the verb and living it become one

Peace

[freedslave]

/ Peace to All

I am not religious so I don't see how any argument based on a belief can win in a logical debate. Just like when people start telling me about the Qu'ran says this, the Bible says that. I just don't care, I turn off because I could then just say that Fyodor Doestoevsky says it is ok to kill an old woman. I think muslims are probably the most guilty nowadays of using religous arguments to justify their poilitics and aggression.

Secular is the way to go, with tolerance for all beliefs.

Yes I understand this secularist perspective. In fact, Zionism is an atheist ideology that did not exist in any of the Jewish religous scriptures and only surfaced slightly over 100 years ago. The problem is when people mistake this ideology as religion.

The reality is, although the situation can be dealt without discussing religion, many people from the American Christian right, as well as the Zionists Jews, advocate that they have a historical and biblical right to israel. Other than the political reasons they had in establishing israel in the 1940s (i.e. persecution, Jewish refugee problem after WW2), they also state their historical and religous reasons (i.e. they were there first, God promised them the land and views Jews as the "chosen people"). We cannot avoid this perspective, because it is one of the driving factors of the conflict.

I guess the title of this thread can be answered by both the religous view and the political one. I'll leave it up to the readers of this thread if they want to start a religous debate. As for Liberte, a political one alone would do just fine for now, since you claim you discard religous arguments (which I said, are actually unavoidable in this topic).

The point is that that there never was a Palestine and at the time when borders in the area were being drawn up there was a large jewish zionist population and a large jewish population flooding toawrds israel. The sensible thing to do was to recognise the arab right and the jewish right to self determination in the "holy" land.

The idea of statehood was a western concept. There was no Palestine, and there was also no Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, etc. By your argument would it have made sense for the western colonial powers to divide other parts of their empire and give them to foreign immigrants, who had no justifiaction whatsoever to the land? This was essentially what was done to Palestine.

The Jews in Palestine only owned about 7% of the land (bought by Jewish businesses) before the UN resolution of 1947 gave birth to the state of israel, giving them land which they had no justification over.

Had the British, French, Portugese or Dutch powers gave their colonialised lands to immigrants, there would have been a lot of resistance from the indigeneous people as well. This is something some western minds cannot begin to comprehend, because they fail to see through the eyes of those being "ruled and oppressed".

/Peace

Edited by freedslave, 16 August 2006 - 03:02 AM.