GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
What is the differance between a Sunni and a Shia?
Ask a Muslim
- Thread starter incantrix
- Start date
- Status
useless
Social Justice Rogue
what's your view on jews?
kulade
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2003
- Messages
- 4,545
No thank you I actually managed to find a text of this on the internet.
More questions, sorry:
How did/do you fell about Saddam Huissen?
Also, do you believe in the reestablishment of a Caliphate or a unification of Islamic states?
EDIT: Seriously sorry, your getting swamped with questions, take your time.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
What is your views on Christians?
I've never understood why Muslims insist on using the term "Crusaders" when referring to Israel. It makes absolutely no sense, seeing as the Jews of Palestine fought alongside the Muslims against the Crusaders. In any case, allow me to get to the point: What makes this land Muslim?
I will not accuse you of a deliberate distortion of history, but you are definitely distorting the truth here. Before the Holocaust ever happened the British had decided to create a homeland for the Jews in the British Mandate of Palestine. The reason for this was not to wage war on Muslims, but simply bceause the Jews have an undeniable connection to that land. Your own Qu'ran mentions how God gave them the land.
Those are our extremists. May they enjoy their lives in exile, while I live in the land of my ancestors.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Whatever happened in Abu Ghraib was definitely occuring in secret. It was a secret which was revealed. Therefore, it was most definitely a secret prison.
And the CIA has many secret prisons all over the world.
In any case, wether or not it is secret does not matter. The fact is that they exist and that thousands of Muslims are in jail without charge and without trial. This includes the nefarious Gitmo. What do you call the rounding up of thousands of people of the same religion other than a religious pogrom?
You said that the perpetrators were punished. Let me ask you something: if I raped your sister and killed her, what do you think a proper punishment would be for me? Do you think that justice would be served if my only punishment was to be demoted in rank or fired from my job???? Can you imagine any murderer getting such a sentence? This is nothing more than a slap on the wrist. This is what the so-called perpetrators got.
True justice would be served when these people would be charged with murder and get the same punishments that murderers get. But I guess murdering a Muslim is not that bad.
Not only this, but those higher up in the chain of command should be punished for their part in it. They should be tried for war crimes.
Abu Ghraib is but one example, and simply the tip of the iceberg. I only mention it because this is the only incident most of you would be familiar with.
In Islam, Jihad is considered Fard Kaffayyah. What this means is that it is a communal obligation. If a group of Muslims is being oppressed, then it is obligatory on a group of Muslims to fight the oppressors. As long as this group defends the innocent, then the rest of the Muslims are not obliged to fight Jihad. Jihad is Fard Al Ayn or obligatory and binding on only those who are in the country being occupied and oppressed.
Therefore, to answer your question, the Jihad is obligatory for the Palestinians, not on the rest of the Muslims. However, if Israel ceases its oppression and reaches a fair agreement ...if Israel leans towards peace, then the Muslims of Palestine should also lean towards peace.
Allah says in the Quran:
"Allah does not forbid that you do good and make justice for those who do not fight you in the religion or drive you out from your homes. Indeed, Allah loves those who do justice. Allah only forbids your friendship with those who fight you in the religion and drive you out from your homes and back those who drive you out. And who befriends them, such are wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Mumtahana verses 8-9)
"Fight in the path of Allah those who fight you, but do not aggress. Surely Allah does not love the aggressors. And fight them where you come upon them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is a worse thing than fighting...Then if they cease, so Allah is All-Forgiving, Gentle. And fight them until there is no more persecution and the religion is for Allah. But if they cease, so let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers." - (Quran, Surah al-Baqarat verses 190-193)
"And if they incline to peace, so you must incline to it." - (Quran, Surah al-Anfal verse 61)
"Therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way to war against them." - (Quran, Surah an-Nisa verse 90)
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
I would guess that both CHRISTAINS and JEWS were considered people of the book during saladins time. True they were treated as second class citizens but they were no forced conversions. (at least not yet)
Saladin of course was also a poltical creature especially being a kurd sunni a minority race at that time. So it paid for both himself and richard to exaggerate and glorify themselves and there enemies
----
questions:
why no more phophets ?
do you to have the acropolypitic phophetcies in the koran?
why is man chained to the earth?
are banks not allowed to charge interest ?
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
And welcome to OT
Thank you! I'm not a Muslim fanatic, but rather a Civ fanatic!
There are many differences. The Shia are to the Sunni Muslims what the Mormons are to the Christians. Like the Mormons are a small fraction of the Christians, they are a very small fraction of the Muslims. People mistakenly claim they are 15% of the Muslims, when in reality they are only around 8%. Like the Mormons, the Shia believe in "latter day" Saints, which the Sunni Muslims do not.
They are not considered true Muslims by the majority of the Sunni scholars just like most Christians do not accept Mormons as true Christians. They are considered heretics, and the relationship between the Sunnis and Shia has always been tense.
Jews are considered Ahle Kitab which means People of the Book , or People of the Scripture. This is a title of respect given to them by the Quran. Muslims are OK with Jews and consider them just like any other people. However, we do not like Zionists.
In fact, I support many Jews, such as the Jews for Justice and orthodox Jews who shun the state of Israel. I am also a BIG fan of Noam Chomsky, who is a professor at MIT and one of the most outspoken critics of Israel.
People mistakenly confuse being anti-Zionist with being anti-Semitic. This is a deception by the Zionists in order to make rebuking them impossible by stamping everyone as anti-Semitic.
I have Jewish friends. Muslims do not believe in hating groups of people but only individuals who do wrong. Therefore, like any other group of people, if the Jews are good people, then we like them. If they are bad people, then we don't like them. Same is the case with every other group of people, including fellow Muslims.
Saddam Hussain was a tyrant, and he was brought to power by none other than the United States. As the joke goes in Washington: "We know he had WMDs; we still have the receipts!" Saddam Hussain was a Baathist, or Arab secularist (i.e. non-religious). He persecuted Muslims, closed down mosques, killed Muslim scholars, etc. Therefore, to answer your question, I do not feel any sadness that he is gone.
Having said that, it is unfortunate that the people who removed him are themselves oppressors and have set up an oppressive regime in Iraq that is engaging in genocide. This is a long topic, so I'm going to move on.
Definitely! This is my dream. I consider myself a fervent Pan-Islamist.
Yeah!! lol I'm trying to keep up!
Same as I stated for Jews above.
The land of Palestine has been owned by Muslims since the rise of Islam and the second Caliph. It was stolen by the Crusaders who established a Franj Crusader state in the region. Salah Al-Din (Saladin) was the one who liberated it from them. The people who would re-conquer it and give it to the Zionists would be none other than the same Franj (i.e. the French) and their British friends.
It was only until the First World War when the Crusaders successfully reconquered the Holy Land and colonialized Palestine. In July of 1920, the French General Henri Gouraud visited Salah Al-Din's tomb next to the Grand Mosque, kicked it, and declared:
"Awake Saladin! We have returned! My presence here consecrates the victory of the Cross over the Crescent. It is now that the crusades have come to an end!"
This is why we refer to Israel as a Crusader state.
Let's say you own a car. What if I came upto you and said "well, my religion says that this car is mine!" Would you accept this logic? No. Therefore, this silly logic that Israel belongs to the Jews because it says so in their religious books...well, it is ridicolous. I could easily say that Allah says in the Quran that the whole world is His, so does this mean that the world belongs to the Muslims only?
Arabs lived in the land of Palestine for thousands of years. There were almost no Jews there. These Arabs were conquered by the Byzantine Empire, but then liberated by their fellow Arabs, and ever since then, it has been an Arab land for Arabs. It was in the 1900s only that the Jews decided to colonialize Palestine for themselves based on the crazy idea that God meant it to be! They formed the JCA, which stood for the Jewish Colonization Association. Haha, few people know that it was even called that! (Colonialism was in back then!)
So the Jews planned on colonializing Palestine, and they used the help of the British and French to do that.
A land that is colonialized never belongs to the colonial power. One day or the other, the city will flip, just like in civ.
An undeniable connection? Because their religious book says so? Did you know that the JCA would give a VISA to a South American if they converted to Judaism? Tell me: what right does a South American have to the land of Palestine? Ninety-nine percent of the Jews who went to Israel were European, Russian, etc....they were not Arab at all.
So if a guy converts to Islam, then the whole world belongs to him right? Based on his religious book?
You read a silly article written taking the Quran completely out of context. If anything, the Quran repeatedly condemns the Children of Israel, and therefore, it is ridicolous to say that the Quran advocates Israel.
My bet is that you are white, and that your skin burns in the sun, evidence that your people are not native to the land of Palestine. Why is it that a South American who converts to Judaism has a right to Palestine but the Arabs who lived on the land for thousands of years don't???
In the 1900s, the JCA began pumping as many Jews as they could in the land of Palestine....and yet, by 1950, a measly 6% of the land was owned by Jews. Even after all that work of shipping thousands of illegal immigrant Jews into Palestine! Now all of a sudden, Israel owns all the land, and literally the names of the Arab towns have been replaced by Jewish names....it is very much like what happened to the Native Americans by the British/Americans. Of course they also claimed divine right in what they did. The historical parallels are amazing.
The Jews and Christians are still considered as People of the Book.
Islam teaches us that race means nothing.
Anyways, look guys, I don't think this thread was designed to engage in a debate. I think it was just designed to know how Muslims think, nothing else. So why don't we ask other questions and not let this develop into a debate thread on Palestine/Israel, because you can go to many other forums for that.
And in fact, I do not want to hurt the feelings of my Jewish cousins on this site...I know they hold Israel dear to their heart and nothing good can come of such a discussion. So let us agree to disagree.
Take care, and forgive me if I said anything offensive.
Mathilda
Queen
Moderator Action: Threads merged.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Allah sent a messenger/prophet to every nation and every group of people in the world. Finally, Allah sent the final messenger who was for all of humankind. Allah sent the Message in steps because humanity was not ready for the Message all at once. Instead, they had to be prepared for it in stages. The Shariah (Religious Law) had to be different for the People of Moses (as) than it was for the People of Jesus (as) and that of Prophet Muhammad (s). We believe that humanity matured and so Allah would adjust the law accordingly. If you will allow me a Civ analogy, we believe that the earlier Shariah (Religious Laws) of past prophets were for settlers, cheiftain, warlord, prince, noble, etc.....and finally when humanity had developed to the state of diety, then Islam was revealed since now humanity was ready for it.
If you look at history, Islam is the last major religion to come into existence. Even look at Civ 4...Islam is the last major religion!
We believe that Allah sent the last messenger because humanity had matured to this point...if you look at history, written history had already begun by the time of Prophet Muhammad (s). Therefore, we believe that the mechanism for global spread of a single faith had now come into existence. Furthermore, with globalization and the modern day we live in now, the elements necessary to found a major religion are no longer present.
If you will, we believe that the Tech for a Universal Faith was discovered finally.
And the faith itself made new religions Obsolete. Forgive the Civ talk. Couldn't help it. Can you please rephrase the question. Your grammar is off, making it difficult to interpret what you mean. If you are asking about prophecies, yes they are present in the Quran.
I don't know what you mean by "chained" to the earth. If you mean to ask why Allah sent us humans to earth, we believe that this life is a test. It is quite literally an exam. If you pass it, you get eternal Paradise. If you fail it and do evil, then you will get Hell-Fire as a punishment. The judgment will be on the Day of Judgment.
Prophet Muhammad (s) told us that this world (called "dunya" in Arabic) would be represented by an old withering lady on the Day of Judgment. What is meant by this is that this world (i.e. this life) is nothing compared to the beauties and treasures of the Next Life in the Hereafter.
There is a very complex answer to this question. Interest (or "riba" in Arabic) is considered Haram (forbidden). However, the question revolves around the definition of the word "interest." Historically, interest has been interchangeable with the word "usery"--at least in the Arab world. It is usery which is forbidden, because we believe it is exploitation of poor people by rich people.
Indeed, the Muslim world started taking loans from the Western world a few hundred years ago, and it was the start of the fall of the Muslims (perhaps Allah's punishment?). The Muslims got more and more in debt to the West, especially thanks to the exploitive policies of the latter. Taking interest is one of the main reasons that the Muslims would become subjugated by the West.
So yes, interest/usery is a big deal in Islam, and it is considered Haram (forbidden). Islam advocates a heavy social welfare program, and demands a tax on the rich to feed the needs of the poor. It is a religious obligation on Muslims to do this.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Awwwww....you killed my thread.
My thread was conquered by the other thread.
I knew I should never leave my threads undefended!
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Thank you! I'm not a Muslim fanatic, but rather a Civ fanatic!
The land of Palestine has been owned by Muslims since the rise of Islam and the second Caliph. It was stolen by the Crusaders who established a Franj Crusader state in the region. Salah Al-Din (Saladin) was the one who liberated it from them. The people who would re-conquer it and give it to the Zionists would be none other than the same Franj (i.e. the French) and their British friends..
several points. there were in effect three caliphs all vying for power
jerusalm wasnt really considered to be a holy site at least not until saladin capture it and began to glorify hes victory.
Like wise with christanity whom considered it important but not holy until the whole pilgram trade started.
Ironicly it was the muslims whom interrupted the christain pilgram trade which kicked off the crusades and it was the christains whom interrupted the mulsim pilgram trade which triggered the jihad.
---
Well it was the middle ages. Saladin survived no less then five serious attempts on hes life by hes own side and those seeking power. While it caliphat was one of the most "liberal" and "tolerant" of the time especialy when compared with certain western powers. Both sides benefited from the crusades, trade especially.
If you have a problem with the French and the British, then take it up with them. What do you want me to do about this? What does this have to do with the Jews who came to live in their homeland, and why does this make them Crusaders?
I agree. Unfortunately for the members of this board who have knowledge of history, your blatant distortions of truth are painful to watch. Zionism was a secular ideology which was not based at ALL on God's promise to the Jews. Indeed, it cited the Torah as a historical document, and not a religious one. The Jews PURCHASED large amounts of land from the original Arab inhabitants. In the late 1920's and throughout the 1930's, Arabs intiated completely unprovoked riots against the Jewish population of Palestine. Tensions between the two groups grew and, logically, since there were two opposing nationalist movements, there was a proposal to create two nations.
Again you show your ignorance in claiming that Zionists immigrated to Israel for religious reasons...
There has been an untinterrupted Jewish presence in the land of Israel since thousands of years before the birth of Jesus.
So the Jews planned on colonializing Palestine, and they used the help of the British and French to do that.
A land that is colonialized never belongs to the colonial power. One day or the other, the city will flip, just like in civ.
*Yawn*
So many foolish statements in a single paragraph!
Let's take it one at a time.
This is a new low, I'm afraid. Amazing - someone who wishes to deny a Jewish connection to Israel - and I thought I would only see this day when pigs fly. No my friend, an undeniable connection because of the history of our people, supported by the Torah and archaeological excavations. Your claim is so ridiculous that nobody, on this forum or anywhere else, with even the most elemntary knowledge of the history of Judaism will take it seriously.
And what right does an Arab, who also took the land by force, have to it? The world belongs to humanity.
I mean no disrespect, but the Qu'ran means nothing to me.
Wrong. Twice over. Israel's Jewish population is split at almost the 50-50 mark between Jews who came from the Muslim world and Jews who came from Europe. Secondly, Israelites were not Arabs - you are again demonstrating you lack of foundational knowledge. Unless I am mistaken, the Qu'ran too acknowledges that Jews came from Jacob, and Arabs from Ishmael?
And finally, you remove the veil and show your true colours. I am not white, and if I were, it would make no difference.
I am a Persian Jew. My family lived under your loving Islamic rule for over a thousand years as second class Dhimmi filth. We were chased from the Muslim world by your kinsmen, who decided to express their respect to the people of the book in the form of pogroms and state-endorsed persecution.My father and his whole family fled to Uzbekistan on horseback, leaving behind many of their posessions. In Uzbekistan, we were greated by more love and kindness by your Muslim brothers, at which time my family was forced to flee on horseback to Israel. In short, I would rather eat my own hand and pierce every inch of my body than go back to living under your Muslim rule.
Secondly, your criteria for who should and shouldn't live in Israel are puzzling. What does the colour of ones skin have to do with where he may live? Sounds an awful lot like the apartheid that you guys are whining about to me.
Lastly, just an FYI, the Ashkenazi (European) Jews are genetically more closely related to Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs than any European nation. Out the window goes your belief that origin can be determined by skin colour.
I may as well just gouge my eyes out instead of being forced to read this rubbish.
I don't agree. But let us assume for a moment that you are right - for I pray that the parallels continue and Jews retain the land of Israel for generations to come.
EDIT: I've just read the end of your post.
I also meant no offense, though I likely did cause it. If I have then I apologize - I hope you understand that there are reasons, both personal and religious, that I am very passionate about Israel.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
thanks for your detailed answers
The christain faith "closed" the bible for the same reason. Thou great things have occured since some of which are truely uh "biblical" in nature
I like the idea's that mankind has been truely given freewill. Something which echos with the very first ideals. That lucifer because of hes love made give mankind kowledge to be free. And God consented because he knows that mankind would ultimatiley choose the correct path
The templars whom conqoured brough back what was considered hertic ideals. Beleived the ultimate goal of god was mankinds search for knowledge / science.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
One last question from me... I think.
Hehe, and this is my last post before I go to sleep. Then I'll answer any following questions tomorrow, Allah Willing.
The basic principle is that anyone with even a grain or iota of Iman (faith) in his heart will get Paradise. And we have also been told that no human being can judge any other human being because we cannot see what is inside the hearts.
Therefore, it just might be that YOU have more Iman (faith) in your heart than I do. You see, on the Day of Judgment, your tongue will be connected to your heart, not your mind. The Angels will ask what your faith is, and you will respond what your heart says. Hence, Muslims who claim to be Muslim verbally but who are hypocrites and don't really have faith...well, they won't respond that they are Muslim.
On the other hand, a person who verbally said he was Jewish or Christian (or even Hindu/Bhuddist/etc) might on that day say that he is a Muslim.
Actually, Muslim is just the Arabic word for "submittor", referring to "one who submits to God."
The point is that Paradise is only for Muslims, but that being a Muslim simply means submitting to the Will of Allah.
Furthermore--and this is a point I cannot stress enough--we are not allowed to judge others and say he/she is going to hell or not. Only Allah knows, and only Allah is the Judge. We should be more worried about our ownselves than the fate of others.
In Islam, we believe that "kaffirs" will go to hell. It is usually translated as "infidel" but actually it translates to "rejector." It is someone who hears the Message and then rejects it. Therefore, there may be people who simply never heard of Islam (or never seriously studied it), and therefore they will not be classified as rejectors (i.e. kaffirs).
I don't see your point. The people were Arabs and Muslim. Yes, there were power struggles for power, just like any country has. The various Caliphates of the Muslims are a very complex phenomenon. Many a times you will have two Caliphates fighting each other even though technically one is a vassal of the other. In the end, the Muslims always considered their various Caliphates to be the same Ummah, or nation.
This is not true at all. It was the Prophet Muhammad (s) who declared it to be the third holy site of Islam. In fact, Jerusalem was the direction the early Muslims used to face to pray BEFORE they changed direction to Mecca. Prophet Muhammad (s) was said to have ascended to the heavens in an incident called "Isra-Meraj" and this took place from the city of Jerusalem.
The Prophetic sayings--which are part of the Islamic canon--extol the importance of Jerusalem. And in fact, it was the Second Caliph who liberated the Arabs there, and this was done with much religious flavor and connotation. It was there that Masjid Al-Aqsa (the third holiest mosque) was created, as well as Umar's Mosque. Therefore, Jerusalem has always been a religious site of grave importance for the Muslims.
I don't know about the first part, but yes definitely the Muslims were enticed to Jihad (Holy War) after seeing the Franj Crusaders engaging in Holy War. Salah Al-Din (Saladin) complained to his people that at least the Franj had religious fervor, whereas the Muslims lacked it at that time. It was the Crusades and the occupation of Muslim lands that rekindled the spirit of Jihad in the Muslims.
I enjoy your posts, as you attempt to be fair and balanced. Thank you for this. Take care.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Hi, SSRT. Let's agree to disagree. I don't want this thread to be derailed by a Palestine/Israel cage match to the death.
Because they are allied with the Crusaders. It was the Crusaders who enabled them to take over our land.
You can define it any way you like. I find it amusing how Jews will try to say that "Jew" is a race. Jew is not a race. It is a religion. Therefore, an ideology which says that all people of a certain religion have a right to a certain land...this is definitely a religious ideology, not a secular one. I'm sure only people living in a bubble can accept your idea that Judaism is a race/ethnicity as opposed to a religion.
Wait, so you are now admitting that the Jews had to purchase land? Why did they have to purchase land if it was already theirs? Or are you admitting that it wasn't theirs? And hence they had to buy it?
I cannot think of any historical parallel in which people "bought" a land. In any case, this is the same argument used by the British/American colonialists who claim that they BOUGHT land from the Native Americans.
The truth is that the British and French occupied and conquered the Muslim land, and then they began the colonialization...using a pretense that they "bought" the land. You have YOUR puppet regime in Palestine, and then you claim that you bought the land rightfully from the people?
You cannot buy land from a people. The land belongs to the people. In any case, this is a myth with no basis whatsoever. But even if we accept it, even still it is self-evident that this is a colonial justication for conquering another land.
You still have not explained the JCA or the Jewish Colonial Association. I'm sure it doesn't sit well with you that they named it that.
People who are being occupied by another people usually tend to react and revolt. It is called self-determination.
"Jews have a right to Israel." This is a religious idea, not a secular one. Jews are not a race or an ethnicity.
You were the one who brought it up as an evidence.
OK, so basically you are contending that the Jews came from Europe and other parts of Persia and other such places, meaning non-Palestinian areas? I think you are shooting yourself in the foot.
I'm afraid that you don't know that Arabs are considered Semites.
What veil? My true colors? I don't understand what you mean by this? If white people conquer Africa, it is clear that they don't belong there. If black people conquer Europe, they don't belong there.
Why must you try construing everyone who criticizes you to be racist? If you knew my religious beliefs, you would know that I am 100% against racism ("Assabiyyah") and in fact believe it is strictly Haram (forbidden). And yet, to diminish the opposition, you will resort to ad-hominem attacks such as calling anyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel to be anti-semitic or what not.
Historically, the Jews of Europe would flee to Muslim lands to escape the oppression in Christian lands. The Muslims gave the Jews safe-haven in Jerusalem when they were being oppressed in Europe. This is a historical fact.
Anyways, very funny story about going horseback from Uzbekistan to Israel, lol. So realistic.
But let us even accept your premise: let's say that you are right and that there has been religious persecution of Jews in Persia. Why punish the Palestinians for the supposed crimes of the Persians? Or for what the Uzbeks did??? You *do* realize that the Uzbeks are not even Arab, let alone Palestinian! The Persians aren't Arab either. These are three different races altogether! In fact, the Uzbeks were only very recently converted to Islam; otherwise, they were not even Muslim and definitely not Arab...so what connection could they have with the Israel-Palestinian issue? It seems like you are trying to use rhetoric to make your point, just like the Zionists use rhetoric of the Holocaust to confuse people about the Israel issue. (I mean, if the Germans did something wrong, then THEY should pay the consequence, not the poor Palestinians!)
Once again, you fail to differentiate between religion and nationality. Popular sovereignity revolves around nationality and not religion. This is a very strange idea you are proposing. To give you a parallel of your logic, let us say that the Argentinians persecuted Jews. The Argentinians are Christian. Therefore, according to you, the French--who are also Christian--should pay for the sins of the Argentinians? Does this make sense to you?
The Muslims of Palestine have always protected the Jews, and in fact, the Jews of Europe fled to Jerusalem for save haven from the Christians. Historical fact. Therefore, it is nonsensical to punish the Palestinians. Your logic is horribly flawed and once again you are mixing religion and nationality.
My racist belief? Typical of Zionists. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of racism. Stamp them.
Look, you can call me a racist all you want, but the fact is that the Jews for Justice and the orthodox Jews agree with me. So are they anti-Jew in your opinion?
But then you wouldn't be able to play Civ.
History has a way of correcting itself. All oppressive nations and empires come to a fall, and then they are remembered in history for what they really were.
OK, my friend, I think we should cease this discussion. You will not be convinced, neither will I change my mind. So there is no point in this discussion, and I would rather not ruin my relation with you, since you are my brother in humanity. Lastly, I would kindly ask you to refrain from calling me a racist, which goes against every grain of my faith. You cannot misconstrue my words to make me seem like that which I am not.
In any case, let's talk about something else. How about them Mets?
Take care, bro. No hard feelings.
Because they are allied with the Crusaders. It was the Crusaders who enabled them to take over our land.
You can define it any way you like. I find it amusing how Jews will try to say that "Jew" is a race. Jew is not a race. It is a religion. Therefore, an ideology which says that all people of a certain religion have a right to a certain land...this is definitely a religious ideology, not a secular one. I'm sure only people living in a bubble can accept your idea that Judaism is a race/ethnicity as opposed to a religion.
Wait, so you are now admitting that the Jews had to purchase land? Why did they have to purchase land if it was already theirs? Or are you admitting that it wasn't theirs? And hence they had to buy it?
I cannot think of any historical parallel in which people "bought" a land. In any case, this is the same argument used by the British/American colonialists who claim that they BOUGHT land from the Native Americans.
The truth is that the British and French occupied and conquered the Muslim land, and then they began the colonialization...using a pretense that they "bought" the land. You have YOUR puppet regime in Palestine, and then you claim that you bought the land rightfully from the people?
You cannot buy land from a people. The land belongs to the people. In any case, this is a myth with no basis whatsoever. But even if we accept it, even still it is self-evident that this is a colonial justication for conquering another land.
You still have not explained the JCA or the Jewish Colonial Association.
I'm sure it doesn't sit well with you that they named it that.People who are being occupied by another people usually tend to react and revolt. It is called self-determination.
"Jews have a right to Israel." This is a religious idea, not a secular one. Jews are not a race or an ethnicity.
You were the one who brought it up as an evidence.
OK, so basically you are contending that the Jews came from Europe and other parts of Persia and other such places, meaning non-Palestinian areas? I think you are shooting yourself in the foot.
I'm afraid that you don't know that Arabs are considered Semites.
What veil? My true colors? I don't understand what you mean by this? If white people conquer Africa, it is clear that they don't belong there. If black people conquer Europe, they don't belong there.
Why must you try construing everyone who criticizes you to be racist? If you knew my religious beliefs, you would know that I am 100% against racism ("Assabiyyah") and in fact believe it is strictly Haram (forbidden). And yet, to diminish the opposition, you will resort to ad-hominem attacks such as calling anyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel to be anti-semitic or what not.
Historically, the Jews of Europe would flee to Muslim lands to escape the oppression in Christian lands. The Muslims gave the Jews safe-haven in Jerusalem when they were being oppressed in Europe. This is a historical fact.
Anyways, very funny story about going horseback from Uzbekistan to Israel, lol. So realistic.
But let us even accept your premise: let's say that you are right and that there has been religious persecution of Jews in Persia. Why punish the Palestinians for the supposed crimes of the Persians? Or for what the Uzbeks did??? You *do* realize that the Uzbeks are not even Arab, let alone Palestinian! The Persians aren't Arab either. These are three different races altogether! In fact, the Uzbeks were only very recently converted to Islam; otherwise, they were not even Muslim and definitely not Arab...so what connection could they have with the Israel-Palestinian issue? It seems like you are trying to use rhetoric to make your point, just like the Zionists use rhetoric of the Holocaust to confuse people about the Israel issue. (I mean, if the Germans did something wrong, then THEY should pay the consequence, not the poor Palestinians!)
Once again, you fail to differentiate between religion and nationality. Popular sovereignity revolves around nationality and not religion. This is a very strange idea you are proposing. To give you a parallel of your logic, let us say that the Argentinians persecuted Jews. The Argentinians are Christian. Therefore, according to you, the French--who are also Christian--should pay for the sins of the Argentinians? Does this make sense to you?
The Muslims of Palestine have always protected the Jews, and in fact, the Jews of Europe fled to Jerusalem for save haven from the Christians. Historical fact. Therefore, it is nonsensical to punish the Palestinians. Your logic is horribly flawed and once again you are mixing religion and nationality.
No, my friend. Try using logic. I am trying to prove that the people do not belong in that land and they are invaders/occupiers/colonialists. I do not think you can ignore that accusation, since the organization itself was called JCA (Jewish Colonial Agency), and yet you continually evade this point, perhaps due to embarassment? Your entire argument is lost when we remind you of this.
Lastly, just an FYI, the Ashkenazi (European) Jews are genetically more closely related to Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs than any European nation. Out the window goes your racist belief.
My racist belief? Typical of Zionists. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of racism. Stamp them.
Look, you can call me a racist all you want, but the fact is that the Jews for Justice and the orthodox Jews agree with me.
So are they anti-Jew in your opinion?But then you wouldn't be able to play Civ.
History has a way of correcting itself. All oppressive nations and empires come to a fall, and then they are remembered in history for what they really were.
OK, my friend, I think we should cease this discussion. You will not be convinced, neither will I change my mind. So there is no point in this discussion, and I would rather not ruin my relation with you, since you are my brother in humanity. Lastly, I would kindly ask you to refrain from calling me a racist, which goes against every grain of my faith. You cannot misconstrue my words to make me seem like that which I am not.
In any case, let's talk about something else.
How about them Mets? Take care, bro. No hard feelings.
What do Muslims think of the sahih (sound) hadith regarding Ethiopia, where Muhammad said: "Utruk al-Habasha ma tarkukum" (leave the Habeshas [Abyssinians=Ethiopia] alone so long as they do not attack you)?
What about instances where there have been wars between Ethiopians and Muslims (e.g. attack on Adulis in 640 by `Umar) when Ethiopians were not the agressor - how are they justified or are they just not even considered?
What about instances where there have been wars between Ethiopians and Muslims (e.g. attack on Adulis in 640 by `Umar) when Ethiopians were not the agressor - how are they justified or are they just not even considered?
Anyways, very funny story about going horseback from Uzbekistan to Israel, lol. So realistic.
I was about to start replying to you when I spotted this.
The fact that your brothers in faith robbed my family of 5 years of their lives and all of their posessions is no laughing matter. THe fact that you could eve DREAM of me making something so horrid up disgusts me. You quite clearly do not know what this constant persecution and humiliation throughout history feels like, for if you did, you would not have the nerve, you would not DARE, to mock it.
I had better stop typing, because I'm currently more enraged than I have been in a long time, and I don't wish to be banned from this forum for speaking my mind.
Let me just say that the little respect I had for you is gone.
Mathilda
Queen
Could you please explain the reason behind using Arabic(?) words when refering to Muslim beliefs.
It seems common, and to me somehow unnecessary, so there must be a reason for it.
- Status
Similar threads
