Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

{sniff} Are You A Zionist?

Recommended Posts

This is one of innocent Arab babies and children who had received the so-called 'israeli/Zionist gifts' :

victim_of_Zionist_genocide.jpg

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Salaams peeps,

 

...Err but the UN principles and goals are in line with that 1000 year old book.

 

So does UN law recognise that Islam is the only true religion which will overcome all others?

 

Why not? I don't think the concept or idea of UN and its laws are in conflict with Islam.

 

The laws of the UN if followed would stop jihaad fi-si-bilillah. Therefore it is in conflict with Islam.

 

Well, do you think the Prophet would disagree with UN laws should he still lives now? Basically, when Muslim countries join the UN, they are following the example of Rasullulah SAW where he was making peace treaties and working together in keeping peace and settling conflicts. So, when those Muslim countries joined, they are required by the UN rules that they have signed that they have to participate in keeping peace in the world, upholding justice and etc. That's their obligations. What do you think?

 

This is taught by Islam anyway so what's the point of recognisisng a redundant constitution? Tell me about jihaad. Would a Muslim member state be allowed to invade a neighbouring nation in the cause of Allah without breaking UN laws?

 

Because they are not. The motivation are different. Look at the Andalusians, and compare it to the Palestinians today. Perhaps if the conditions of Palestinians are the same as the conditions of Jews when the Jews were under the rule of Muslim caliphate, Muslims wouldn't complain too much.

 

Completely irrelevant. A conquering army is a conquering army, regardless of their motivation.

 

Well, it's the motivation that makes them different ... robbers would always act like robbers. While Muslims may come as conquerors first, but later on they are known as liberators even by those who were conquered (this is even admitted by the locals and their non-Muslim historians). Can we say the same thing bout British and Zionists? What benefits have they given to Palestinians during their occupation?

 

Can you not see that that is completely subjective? The British and the Jews will claim their respective armies are angels and the Palestinians are causing their own problems through terrorism. We've heard it all before. Motivation is not important. I'm talking about the ownership of a state after a military operation. After the Muslims do it, you term it conquered, but when the kuffar do it, it is robbed.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

You say that you recognize israel meaning that you recognize Zionist cause. The Zionists have clearly robbed Palestinian people of their land so Zionists are the brutal and barbaric robbers. Let me help you to define the word 'robber':

 

When did I say I recognise the Zionist cause? I said I recognise that Jews have conquered that land and now have ownership.

 

A robber is a person who takes property from (a person) illegally by using or threatening to use violence or force; commit robbery upon.

 

So explain to me how the British or Zionists are robbers? The land belonged to the Muslims but was captured from them using military force. This is how the Muslims took it off the Christians.

 

 

Muslim armies fought when non-Muslim armies such as the Byzantine and Crusader forces attacked Muslim countries. And Muslims managed to defeat them and conquer the non-Muslim countries to stop the aggression.

 

Do some research ###### and do not speak where you have no knowledge. You are implying that the soldiers of Allah swt never participated in offensive jihaad.

 

British and Zionists are robbers for robbing Palestinian people of their land and their rights.

 

They captured the land from the Muslims and are therefore conquerers, not robbers.

 

When a Muslim army conquers a land as a retaliation of the non-Muslim aggression, the people of the land revert to Islam when they see the beauty of Islam so the land becomes Muslim land.

 

You're doing it again. You're saying the Muslims never fought without being attacked first. Stop and do some research.

 

Why don't you study history before making any allegations?

 

Why don't you?

 

Thank you for the info but you have failed to answer my question. Was Umar ra a robber for conquering Jerusalem? You have attempted to show it was an act of self-defense or liberation but you continually miss my point. Once the army conquered the land, who did that state belong to? The Muslims. Were they robbers? So when the British conquered the land they cannot be termed as robbers.

 

 

Why don't you read history books before you make allegation that insult your own mind? Have you forgotten how the Christians of Spain forced Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity after the fall of Muslim Spain. The Christians also terrorized and massacred Muslims and Jews when they refused to convert to Christianity. The rest of Muslims and Jews were forced to leave Spain for Muslim countries. And all of Muslim Masjids were seized by Christians and converted to churches. So who are playing double standard here?

 

Why don't you answer my question? Do you acknowledge that there is a Christian ruled country in Europe called Spain?

 

I am not saying that you are a kaafir. The fact that you have recognized israel and you claim that Palestine belongs to Zionist thus you support the Zionist genocide of Muslims and you ignore the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine.

 

Please show me where I have supported Zionist genocide or ignored the sufferings of our brothers and sisters?

 

In other word, you defy Allah:

 

"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged - truly God has the power to come to their support - those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is God'… "(Surat al-Hajj: 39-40)

 

I hope you would read the following verses of the Holy Quran so you would know who you are:

 

1) O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. The Holy Quran 5:51

 

2) ...God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you over religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just. God merely forbids you from taking as friends those who have fought you over religion and driven you from your homes and who supported your expulsion... (Surat al-Mumtahana: 8-9 )

 

Show me where I have contradicted the above verses of Qur'an.

 

I have shown you the verses of the Holy Quran in the past post.

 

So? You have not shown me where I have contradicted Qur'an.

 

This is what I want you to acknowledge:

 

The British/Zionists conquered Palestine and now have ownership over it. I want you to show me clearly without giving me irrelevant examples of why when a Muslim army invades a land it is deemed conquered but when the kuffar do it, it is deemed robbed. Please do not talk about prior and post events of an invasion, just the definition of why one is conquered and why one is robbed.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams peeps,

So does UN law recognise that Islam is the only true religion which will overcome all others?

I guess not. But your point?

 

The laws of the UN if followed would stop jihaad fi-si-bilillah. Therefore it is in conflict with Islam.

So, it's safe for me to conclude that you agree with:

1. The thesis which advocates a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West (that Islam is a religion that advocates perpetual warfare)

2. Robert Spencer who unequivocally states that jihaad aims to increase the size of the dar al-Islam at the expense of the dar al-harb.

3. Daniel Pipes who said that Jihad means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

 

This is taught by Islam anyway so what's the point of recognisisng a redundant constitution? Tell me about jihaad. Would a Muslim member state be allowed to invade a neighbouring nation in the cause of Allah without breaking UN laws?

If it is the case then why did the Prophet have to make peace treaties with non-Muslims and why was he so committed with the peace treaties he had made which eventually prevented him from doing jihad fisabilillah?

 

Completely irrelevant. A conquering army is a conquering army, regardless of their motivation.

You are right. But when did Spain become one of the great centers of civilization of the Middle Ages and reach its peak of glory?

 

We've heard it all before. Motivation is not important. I'm talking about the ownership of a state after a military operation.

Okay, motivation is not important then. What about the stability, safety, freedom and advancement that follows after the change of the ownership?

 

After the Muslims do it, you term it conquered, but when the kuffar do it, it is robbed.

The word rob has negative connotation linked to economic exploitation, oppression, poverty etc.

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When did I say I recognise the Zionist cause? I said I recognise that Jews have conquered that land and now have ownership.

 

Have you forgotten your own word? You said "I am a Muslim but I recognise the state of israel." And you have confirmed it by your statement above. When you said that you recognize israel, you accept officially the authority and national status of israel as a new government. Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish People in the Land of israel. Therefore you have recognized the Zionist cause.

 

So explain to me how the British or Zionists are robbers? The land belonged to the Muslims but was captured from them using military force. This is how the Muslims took it off the Christians.

 

Robbery, in law, felonious taking of property from a person against his will by threatening or committing force or violence. The injury or threat may be directed against the person robbed, his property, or the person or property of his relative or of anyone in his presence at the time of the robbery. There is no robbery unless force or fear is used to overcome resistance. (Source: Columbia Encyclopedia).

 

British and Zionists have taken the land from Palestinian people against their will by threatening or committing force or violence. Therefore British and Zionists are robbers! History tells us how the British invaded Muslim countries all over the world and plundered the richess and natural resources of Muslim countries so the British were international robbers. Even American people despised the British that led to the US War of Independence.

 

Muslims did not take it off the Christians. The Muslims were the Christians who had reverted to Islam so the land belongs to Muslims. That's why the Christians become the minority in the Middle East.

 

Do some research ###### and do not speak where you have no knowledge.

 

I have done my research in the past on the same subject. It is you who seem to have no knowledge.

 

You are implying that the soldiers of Allah swt never participated in offensive jihaad.

 

The soldiers of Allah had participated in offensive jihad to defend Islam. For example: The Battle of Yamama was fought in December 632 AD in the plain of Aqraba in the region of Yamama between the forces of Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr and Musailima, a self-proclaimed fake prophet.

 

They captured the land from the Muslims and are therefore conquerers, not robbers.

 

I have answered this question.

 

You're doing it again. You're saying the Muslims never fought without being attacked first. Stop and do some research.

 

I have answered this question.

 

Why don't you?

 

A pathetic question.

 

Thank you for the info but you have failed to answer my question.

 

I have answered this question.

 

Was Umar ra a robber for conquering Jerusalem? You have attempted to show it was an act of self-defense or liberation but you continually miss my point. Once the army conquered the land, who did that state belong to? The Muslims. Were they robbers?

 

Your arrogance causes you to deny truth and you would be a loser.

 

Jews, Christians, pagans etc welcome Umar ra and soldiers of Allah as their liberators.

 

Here is a proof:

 

In the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the time, Umar's ® capture of Jerusalem was seen as an act of redemption from the Byzantines. It is worthwhile mentioning here (as has also been recognized by Jewish historian Moshe Gil) that it was not until 638 CE that a Jewish quarter would be assigned in the city - since the days of the second Jewish Revolt some five hundred years ago - when Muslims invited Jewish families to reside there. (Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpalestine-pmc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/details.asp?cat=3&id=806)"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpalestine-pmc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/details.asp?cat=3&id=806)[/url]

 

 

Michael the Elder (Great) as Quoted in 'Michael the Elder, Chronique de Michael Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’ Antioche,' J.B. Chabot, Editor, Vol. II, Paris, 1901.

 

"This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He will, giving it to whomsoever He will, and uplifting the humble beholding the wickedness of the Romans who throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans. And if in truth we have suffered some loss, because the Catholic churches, that had been taken away from us and given to the Chalcedonians, remained in their possession; for when the cities submitted to the Arabs, they assigned to each denomination the churches which they found it to be in possession of (and at that time the great churches of Emessa and that of Harran had been taken away from us); nevertheless it was no slight advantage for us to be delivered from the cruelty of the Romans, their wickedness, their wrath and cruel zeal against us, and to find ourselves at people." (Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch wrote this text in the latter part of the twelfth century, after five centuries of Muslim rule in that region.)

 

Note:

In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. This charter of privileges has been honored and faithfully applied by Muslims throughout the centuries in all lands they ruled.

 

So when the British conquered the land they cannot be termed as robbers.

 

Palestinian people did not welcome the British as their liberators.

 

With the defeat of the Turkish Army during the World War I (1914-18), British General Edmund Allenby took control over Jerusalem. Upon entering the city on 11 December, 1917, he declared, "Now the Crusades come to an end." As a matter of fact, it was the beginning of the end, i.e., marshalling of a neo-crusade against Muslims by using israel as a ‘rampart’ in the Muslim heartland.

 

In 1917, Britain issued the infamous Balfour Declaration promising the Zionists establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The Declaration was criminal to the core as historian Arthur Koestler so aptly described: “One nation solemnly promised to give to a second nation the country of a third nation.”[30] With that goal in mind, during the devious British Mandate (1917-47), Jews were pumped into Palestine from all over Europe. In spite of such Jewish influx, according to a census taken by the British on 31 December 1922, there were altogether 83,000 Jews in Palestine out of a total population of 757,000 of which 663,000 were Muslims.[31] That is, the Jewish population was only 11%.

 

In 1935, when the Palestinian Arabs rose in revolt against further Jewish immigration, there were 370,000 Jews out of a total population of 1,366,670, i.e., 3 out of 4 were Arabs.[32] During partition, the Jewish population owned less than 6% of the total land in Palestine.[33] Yet when on November 29, 1947, the UN voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem in an international zone, 56% of the total area was allotted to the Jewish state. As was expected, Arabs (with the exception of King Abdullah of Transjordan) rejected the plan and a fight for territories broke out in which armed Jewish terrorist gangs massacred unarmed Palestinians in several villages.[34] At that time, in Old (East) Jerusalem Jews owned less than 1% of land. Their ownership of properties in the New (West) city was 26%.[35]

 

(Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpalestine-pmc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/details.asp?cat=3&id=806"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetpalestine-pmc(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/details.asp?cat=3&id=806[/url] )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued.....

 

Why don't you answer my question? Do you acknowledge that there is a Christian ruled country in Europe called Spain?

 

In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Khalifas, Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the Schools and universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels at the cost of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian conquerors held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate enough to escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish empire, where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still speak among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was a refuge for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.

 

Please show me where I have supported Zionist genocide or ignored the sufferings of our brothers and sisters?

 

You recognize israel so you support Zionist genocide of Muslims or ignore the sufferings of our Muslim brothers and sisters. If you are so clever, why don't you carry out a research on how the Zionist establish israel.

 

Show me where I have contradicted the above verses of Qur'an.

So? You have not shown me where I have contradicted Qur'an.

 

You recognize israel. By recognizing israel, you recognize the israeli regime terror and accept the israeli oppression and genocide of Muslims.

 

This is what I want you to acknowledge:

 

I have answered your question.

 

Special note: I will not respond to you anymore for I will never recognize israel. [using large font size is not allowed]

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Language skills cause another spat. ######, 'recognize' does not mean 'approve of', 'agree with', 'support' or anything like that.

 

O woman....please use a dictionary to define the word 'recognize'!

 

When you say that you recognize israel, you accept officially the authority and national status of israel as a new government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State

By OREN BEN-DOR

 

We must see that the uncritically accepted recognition of israel right to exist is, as Joseph Massad so well puts it in Al-Ahram, to accept israel claim to have the right to be racist or, to develop Massad's brilliant formulation, israel's claim to have the right to occupy to dispossess and to discriminate. What is it, I wonder, that prevent israelis and so many of world Jews to respond to the egalitarian challenge? What is it, I wonder, that oppresses the whole world to sing the song of a "peace process" that is destined to legitimise racism in Palestine?

 

To claim such a right to be racist must come from a being whose victim's face must hide very dark primordial aggression and hatred of all others.How can we find a connective tissue to that mentality that claims the legitimate right to harm other human beings? How can this aggression that is embedded in victim mentality be perturbed?

 

The Annapolis meeting is a con. As an egalitarian argument we should say loud and clear that israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Oren Ben-Dor grew up in israel. He teaches Legal and Political Philosophy at the School of Law, University of Southampton, UK. He can be reached at: okbendor[at]...

 

The full story in

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcounterpunch(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bendor11202007.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetcounterpunch(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bendor11202007.html[/url]

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be better to use the example of Spain, as Josh has attempted to do. Do you agree that a country called Spain exists, which has a mainly Christian population?

 

(######, you might find it insulting to be called a woman - I don't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might be better to use the example of Spain, as Josh has attempted to do. Do you agree that a country called Spain exists, which has a mainly Christian population?

 

(######, you might find it insulting to be called a woman - I don't.)

 

In 710, a battle for succession to the Visigothic throne erupted in Spain following the death of King Witiza. A dynastic conflict prevented the succession of Witiza’s son, and Roderick, duke of Baetica, claimed the throne. In an effort to oust Roderick, Witiza’s family appealed to Muslims in North Africa for help. The Muslims quickly agreed. In 711 a Muslim army under the command of Berber general Tariq ibn-Ziyad crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and invaded Spain. After defeating Roderick’s army at the Battle of Guadalete in southern Spain, Muslim forces advanced swiftly into the rest of Spain. Many Christians reverted to Islam and Spain become Muslim Spain that tolerated Muslims and non-Muslims until the day Muslim Spain fell into Christian hands. Then Christian extremists terrorize Muslims and Jews and force them to convert to Christianity and those who refused were tortured and murdered in the name of the infamous Spanish Inquisition or forced to leave Spain for Muslim countries.

 

Palestinian people do not appeal to Zionists to invade and occupy Palestine. Zionist terrorists rob Palestinian people of their land, destroy their farms, villages, towns etc and massacre or force Palestinian people to leave Palestine for other Arab countries so that Zionist terrorists can establish israel. Therefore israel is an illegal country. Statistics have clearly shown that before the establishment of israel, there were so many Muslims and very few Jews and Christians living in Palestine. According to democracy, the majority should rule Palestine but Zionists did not respect democracy by hijacking Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's reality that matters. What is the textbook definition of democracy? What is the textbook definition of the UN? And what does the reality tell you?

 

Yasnov, this is all I am trying to say:

Everything should be defined by it's principles, not how it is practiced. The same way we define religions by their holy doctrine and not by their adherents, Zionism should only be defined by the definition given by the originators of the theory.

 

Ask him, he may have a different definition and interpretation of the word zionism.

 

The only valid definition of zionism is that given by Theodore Herzl and the other original thinkers.

 

I trust Robert Fisk and New Statesman more than I trust CAMERA.

 

I didn't even give my source. Very good.

 

I trust camera because everywhere I have seen this quote, the word Palestinians has been in parentheses. That means that the author believed this to be implied. That is subject to interpretation. On another note I have not been able to find the original article, have you? the New Statesman archives only go back to 1998.

 

It could only mean that this Zionist leader know for sure that they have treated the Palestinian so worst to the extent that he even understands the desperate reaction from the Palestinians, whether or not he agrees with it. Is that because you are an American that it is that difficult for you to read between the line, Russ?

 

that is basically what I said. And I refuse be patronized just because you think Americans are stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yasnov, this is all I am trying to say:

Everything should be defined by it's principles, not how it is practiced. The same way we define religions by their holy doctrine and not by their adherents, Zionism should only be defined by the definition given by the originators of the theory.

The definition doesn't make sense.

 

I trust camera because everywhere I have seen this quote, the word Palestinians has been in parentheses. That means that the author believed this to be implied. That is subject to interpretation. On another note I have not been able to find the original article, have you? the New Statesman archives only go back to 1998.

It was quoted in Ammon Kapeliouk "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982. While we're at it, you may also want to clarify the statements made by Rabbi Yaacov Perin (published in New York Daily News) or Rafael Eitan (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetunhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/d96d50d790ad4a47c1256b760047dac7?Opendocument"]here[/url]?

 

that is basically what I said. And I refuse be patronized just because you think Americans are stupid.

I didn't patronize you. Sorry, my question should have read "is that because you are an American that it is that difficult for you to read between the line when it comes to israel/Zionists issue?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, anyway, ###### - do you recognise the country called Spain? If not, you're a it silly. If you do, then you'll agree that eventually Muslims will recognise israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, anyway, ###### - do you recognise the country called Spain? If not, you're a it silly. If you do, then you'll agree that eventually Muslims will recognise israel.

Yes, I recognise the country called Spain. But what is the question?

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how many names there are for different people outside the muslim faith. Myself I am offended by the name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am offended too by your accusations, RacingAce

 

Wassalam,

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am offended too by your accusations, RacingAce

 

Wassalam,

Y

 

please explain how i offended such a "tolerant" man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To call a spade a spade is name calling?

 

Wassalam

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I recognise the country called Spain. But what is the question?

 

The question was for ######, actually. He refuses to recognize israel and I was wondering if he recognised Spain, and if so what makes the difference? Is it because so much time has passed since Spain was taken from the Mulsims? Will israel be recognised when that much time has passed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its amazing how many names there are for different people outside the muslim faith. Myself I am offended by the name calling.

 

I am offended when Christians insult and slander the prophet Muhammad so many times. Christian hypocrisy is crystal clear when Christians ask Muslims to respect religious freedom while Christians are insulting, degrading and slandering the prophet Muhammad. Muslims tolerate non-Muslims in Muslim countries and respect their right to practise their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its amazing how many names there are for different people outside the muslim faith. Myself I am offended by the name calling.

 

I am offended by Christians, Zionists etc who insult and slander the prophet Muhammad so many times. Christian hypocrisy is crystal clear when Christians, Zionists ask Muslims to respect religious freedom while Christians, Zionists etc are insulting, degrading and slandering the prophet Muhammad. Christians, Zionists etc claim falsely that they want peace while supporting the israeli regime of terror to terrorize innocent Palestinian and Lebanese people and other Arab countries. Muslims tolerate non-Muslims in Muslim countries and respect their right to practise their beliefs. On the contrary, Zionists terrorize and force innocent Palestinian people who are Muslims and Christians to leave Palestine.

Edited by wiseguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×