I've been circling around the issue of Palestine for years now and I've learned many things. I know what the Jewish ruling was, when the land used to belong to them (2500 years ago). I know that ruling was since broken. I know what the Christian rulings were and I know they've been broken.
Now I'm focusing on the Muslim ruling, and I know this is going to be a very hard read, but I have to sort it out so there is clearity on the issue. The argument goes like this ~ and please don't shoot the Messenger, ok?
Allah was very pleased with the Caliph Omar for his bravery, for his faith and for his selfless act. When he conquered Palestine, he did not declare the land for himself, nor did he declare the land for his kinsmen, but in an awesome act of faith and love, he declared the land to Allah.
But since those days there was no other like him, and the people of Palestine lost faith. They divided the land into portions and took for themselves what they did not rightfully own. There are many such documents these days, all bearing the names of men... but none bear the name of Allah.
For this, because they have taken a land that is not lawfully theirs and because this defies the word of the Caliph, they shall have neither.
Now, never mind who said this - it's too creepy. But, could this be right? I mean, it almost makes sense. The complaint from Palestinians is that "their" land was unlawfully taken from them, but if they unlawfully took it from Allah? I'm not sure how you'd see it, but I'd call it a near perfect Justice.
I don't know, maybe I should just shut up, but I had to ask.
The Ninth Scribe