Let's talk about Israel

[Orangeduck]

Hello everyone :)

I want to make something very clear...I do not want to talk about Arab-Israeli violence towards each other. I do not want to talk about who is blame for violence or "who started it". That conversation can go on indefinitely.

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

Something I was taught as a kid was, "any land that was conquered by Muslims, must always remain in muslim hands." I was never taught to hate Israel, but I was taught that Israel must be destroied because the land used to belong unde Islamic jurisdiction.

However, something I was never taught was that Spain must be returned to Muslim hands. I was never taught Greece, Austria or Hungary must return to Muslim hands.

Why is it that I hear of hatred towards Israel and how it must become Islamic again, but I need hear the same towards the other countries I mentioned?

Again, let's not turn this into a Arab-Israeli blame debate :)

[aadil77]

Greetings,

What does 'Israel must be destroied' mean? What is 'hatred towards Israel'? If you want to discuss this topic avoid spouting typical zionist lies

Israel is not a person, we hate the Zionist Government not its people.

What your parents forgot to teach you is not our problem, yes all lands conquered by muslims must and will return to us including the ones you mentioned. The religion of God will prevail in every part of the world - this is part of our creed.

The palestine issue has become to much of a nationalistic one which is why its always in the media spotlight, muslims have forgotten about other muslim lands.

[dqsunday]

The more I read and learn about Islam..the more I realize I have forgotten about 90% of my history lessons in high school. In other words, I really do want to research middle-eastern history from the time of the prophets to the current century. I never did like hating anybody unless I know the full story. Even then I really don't like hating anything, what I do like is understanding as much as I can, what all the issues are. Then decide.

[TrueStranger]

And I guess the "kid Muslim you" was never told about the importance of Jerusalem?

Oh LAwd....!!!:exhausted

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Orangeduck]

And I guess the "kid Muslim you" was never told about the importance of Jerusalem?

Oh LAwd....!!!:exhausted

We can talk about Jerusalem if you want :)

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Islamic kingdom or empire. It was never a cultural center. Muhammad never saw the city. Islam, other than making a claim about the city's importance, really has no connection to the city.

The dome of the rock, the landmark usually associated with Muhammad's night journey, has nothing to do with Muhammad. Anyone who has ever seen the DOTR will notice that there is nothing to associate the building with the night journey (none of the inscriptions on the dome refer to the night journey...they are all anti-trinity quotes.)

While most of Islamic history, Muslims did allow freedom of religion in the city...it was only in the past 60 years that Jordan barred Jewish presence in their part of the city.

[GodIsOne]

These "Jews" are nothing more than deceivers. Abusing Allah's name and trying to justify the colonization and oppression of others is blasphemous to Allah. Their racism and intolerance is unacceptable to any Muslim.

It's about protecting the rights of Islamic lands against western colonialism which Zionism is a manifestation of.

[TrueStranger]

We can talk about Jerusalem if you want :)

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Islamic kingdom or empire. It was never a cultural center. Muhammad never saw the city. Islam, other than making a claim about the city's importance, really has no connection to the city.

The dome of the rock, the landmark usually associated with Muhammad's night journey, has nothing to do with Muhammad. Anyone who has ever seen the DOTR will notice that there is nothing to associate the building with the night journey (none of the inscriptions on the dome refer to the night journey...they are all anti-trinity quotes.)

While most of Islamic history, Muslims did allow freedom of religion in the city...it was only in the past 60 years that Jordan barred Jewish presence in their part of the city.

Just because you deny the Mi'raj does not mean that Islam or Muslims have no connection to Jerusalem. The 2nd Caliph, Omar took over Jerusalem without any fight in 637. But as an "Ex-Muslim", you know all about that, don't you? ^o)

I will not bother arguing with you about matters pertaining to the Qu'ran, just your knowledge about basic History 101.

What kind of a history/Current buff are you? In the past 60 years Jordan had no authority over Jerusalem. The West Bank and East Jerusalem are still under Israeli Occupation, and it has been about 63 years now.

Oh, Lawd :skeleton:!!! Do a little bit more research before pretending to know something.

[Orangeduck]

Just because you deny the Mi'raj does not mean that Islam or Muslims have no connection to Jerusalem. The 2nd Caliph, Omar took over Jerusalem without any fight in 637. But as an "Ex-Muslim", you know all about that, don't you? ^o)

I will not bother arguing with you about matters pertaining to the Qu'ran, just your knowledge about basic History 101.

What kind of a history/Current buff are you? In the past 60 years Jordan had no authority over Jerusalem. The West Bank and East Jerusalem are still under Israeli Occupation, and it has been about 63 years now.

Oh, Lawd :skeleton:!!! Do a little bit more research before pretending to know something.

You might want to do some research before you make fun of others.

Jordan controlled East Jerusalem from 1949 - 1967. In June of 1967, Israel gained control of the entire city.

Since then, Israel has given everyone complete freedom of worship.

Can you please give me a historical reason as to islam's connection to the city? Muslims conquered the city, but that doesn't give them a connection to the city. If it did, that would mean Jews have a connection to Iran. Christians have a connection to Algeria...and so many other examples like that.

Give me a reason as to why Jerusalem is important to Islam (remember, there is no evidence at all to connect the Dome of the rock to the night journey)

[TrueStranger]

You might want to do some research before you make fun of others.

Jordan controlled East Jerusalem from 1949 - 1967. In June of 1967, Israel gained control of the entire city.

Since then, Israel has given everyone complete freedom of worship.

Can you please give me a historical reason as to islam's connection to the city? Muslims conquered the city, but that doesn't give them a connection to the city. If it did, that would mean Jews have a connection to Iran. Christians have a connection to Algeria...and so many other examples like that.

Give me a reason as to why Jerusalem is important to Islam (remember, there is no evidence at all to connect the Dome of the rock to the night journey)

You're pretty easy to make fun of. You said, and I quote

"it was only in the past 60 years that Jordan barred Jewish presence in their part of the city."

Jordan had no control over Jerusalem for the past 60 years, Israel did. 1949 till 1967 is not 60 years. Basic Facts you refuse to acknowledge. Another basic fact is that "the West Bank Is Currently an Occupied Territory". And Israel does not allow Muslim men under the age of 40 to enter the Old City to Pray at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Again, if you are denying the Mi'raj, there is no point in having any discussions about Islam's connection with Jerusalem.

Now tell me more about Jordon barring Jewish presence in Jerusalem for the past 60 years...... please

P.S. Do you think that East Jerusalem is under Occupation?

[Orangeduck]

1949 till 1967 is not 60 years

I didn't say "Jordan controlled the city for 60 years". I said "it was only in the past 60", which means I was correct :) Granted, I could have worded what I said a bit better.


Again, if you are denying the Mi'raj, there is no point in having any discussions about Islam's connection with Jerusalem.


Ok then, tell me, if the night journed did in fact happen, then why is there no mention of it insribed on the DOTR? There is anti-trinity comments inscribed on the DORT, but nothing about the night journey. Why is that? I can tell you what historians think of the question, but I am actually interested in your thoughts. I'm not trying to argue, but this is a question I have asked muslims for years and never got an answer.

As for Jordan preventing Jews from entering East Jerusalem, prehaps you are not familiar with the barbed wire barriors that divided the city for almost 20 years. The Wailing Wall is located in EJ, and all you have to do is read reports from prior to the 6 day war and you will see just how badly Jordan hated the Jews. it's not a secrete.

As for EJ...that gets highly complex.

UN resolution 478 declaires Israeli Jerusalem Law as void. However, the UN also knows and has stated that no country can tell any other country where they can or can not place their capital. For example, if the USA wanted to move the capital to Chicago, the UN can declair it "void", but it wouldn't matter. The capital would still be Chicago reguardless if the UN recognized it or not.

[aadil77]

We can talk about Jerusalem if you want :)

That's a lot of big statements there and you were alive at the time were you?

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Islamic kingdom or empire.

We've never claimed it was, it was the centre where prayers would be directed to by followers of previous prophets.

It was never a cultural center.

Jews, Christians and Muslims living in one city not a cultural centre then I don't what is

Muhammad never saw the city.

Proof?

Islam, other than making a claim about the city's importance, really has no connection to the city.

Proof?

The dome of the rock, the landmark usually associated with Muhammad's night journey, has nothing to do with Muhammad.

Proof?

Anyone who has ever seen the DOTR will notice that there is nothing to associate the building with the night journey (none of the inscriptions on the dome refer to the night journey...they are all anti-trinity quotes.)

Yes because the dome was not instantly erected after the night journey by the prophet himself. Later rulers did what they wanted with the dome.

If some of them decided it was better to use the dome to guide christians who blindly worship a mangod then I fully support that decision

[aadil77]

(remember, there is no evidence at all to connect the Dome of the rock to the night journey)

Give me evidence that prophet Adam was the first man on earth

Give me evidence that prophet Moses split up the sea when escaping from the pharoah

Give me evidence that Mary was a virgin

Give me this evidence then I'll give you your evidence

I want historical evidence

[TrueStranger]

1949 till 1967 is not 60 years

I didn't say "Jordan controlled the city for 60 years". I said "it was only in the past 60", which means I was correct :) Granted, I could have worded what I said a bit better.

You said Jordan barred Jews from the city in the "past 60 years". We all know who controlled the city for the "past 60 years". Don't blame your ignorance on how you worded your sentence.

Again, if you are denying the Mi'raj, there is no point in having any discussions about Islam's connection with Jerusalem.


Ok then, tell me, if the night journed did in fact happen, then why is there no mention of it insribed on the DOTR? There is anti-trinity comments inscribed on the DORT, but nothing about the night journey. Why is that? I can tell you what historians think of the question, but I am actually interested in your thoughts. I'm not trying to argue, but this is a question I have asked muslims for years and never got an answer.

LOL! My LAWD!!! I'm sorry, but the Dome of the Rock is NOT Al-AQSA Mosque! The Qu'ran talks about Al-Aqsa Mosque, not the Dome of the Rock that was built by Caliph Abdi Malik. Again, how many years were you raised as a Muslim?

As for EJ...that gets highly complex.

UN resolution 478 declaires Israeli Jerusalem Law as void. However, the UN also knows and has stated that no country can tell any other country where they can or can not place their capital. For example, if the USA wanted to move the capital to Chicago, the UN can declair it "void", but it wouldn't matter. The capital would still be Chicago reguardless if the UN recognized it or not.

You think that East Jerusalem is Israel's Capital? This is interesting. For your information, Israel as a country does not have the authority to place East Jerusalem as it capital, because East Jerusalem is not "Part of Israel Sovereignty". East Jerusalem is the Occupied Capital of the Palestinian State. It has been agreed upon already. Occupying the City does not directly translate to being the legitimate rulers of the city. It's VOID for a good reason.

Your example is completely irrelevant and insignificant, America does not occupy Chicago. Israel occupies East Jerusalem. :exhausted

[TrueStranger]

Brother Aadil, the man is confusing the Dome of Rock with Al-Aqsa Mosque. :hiding::heated:

[Orangeduck]

You said Jordan barred Jews from the city in the "past 60 years".

If you want to talk semantics, then what I said was correct. 1949 was 63 years ago...so math agrees with me :)

LOL! My LAWD!!! I'm sorry, but the Dome of the Rock is NOT Al-AQSA Mosque!

This is the first correct thing you have said. I am talking about the DOTR...not Al Aqsa. I never meant Al Aqsa, and i wasn't refering to it.

The Qu'ran talks about Al-Aqsa Mosque

Please look up as to when Al Aqsa was built. It was built AFTER the date that traditional muslim claim the quran was finished. Therefore, it would be impossible for the quran to mention Al Aqsa...unless you are trying to say that the quran was written later than the typical muslim date. If you don't see the problem with your claim, then I am really not sure what to say.

You think that East Jerusalem is Israel's Capital

Did I say that? I don't think I did. Please read everything I say before replying :) I was speaking from a legeal point of view. No country can say where Israel can or can not place their capital. If you read what a capital is, there are 2 requirements:

1) It must be declaired by law
2) It must serve all the functions of a capital.

Is Jerusalem declaired by Israeli law to be the Capital? Yes
Does it serve as the Capital? Yes. The Prime Minister's residence is located there. Same with the High Courts and all branchs of the goverments are located there.

You will also notice that international recognition is a requirement. As of this moment, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Maybe one day it wont be, but that day is not today. From a legeal standpoint, Jerusalem is the Capital, and no ammount of spin can change that. This is not my opinion. This is purely the law.

East Jerusalem is the Occupied Capital of the Palestinian State. It has been agreed upon already

1) Is palestine a country or a state? No
2) Can a non-existant country / state declair a capital? No
3) However, Palestine has done so (but it is not legeally binding)
4) Does the city serve as the Captial of the non-existant country / state? No

Pray tell, how is it the Capital of palestine?

And no, it has not been agreed upon. The UN more pro-palestinian now than it has ever been, and it still vetos all palestinian claims to statehood.

[TrueStranger]

You said Jordan barred Jews from the city in the "past 60 years".

If you want to talk semantics, then what I said was correct. 1949 was 63 years ago...so math agrees with me :)

Do you even know what the "past 60 years" means? You did not say "60 years ago Jordan did X". But whatever.

LOL! My LAWD!!! I'm sorry, but the Dome of the Rock is NOT Al-AQSA Mosque!

This is the first correct thing you have said. I am talking about the DOTR...not Al Aqsa. I never meant Al Aqsa, and i wasn't refering to it.

And why are you talking about the Dome of the Rock? What does it has to do with the Qu'ran? You haven't stated anything correct so far.

The Qu'ran talks about Al-Aqsa Mosque

Please look up as to when Al Aqsa was built. It was built AFTER the date that traditional muslim claim the quran was finished. Therefore, it would be impossible for the quran to mention Al Aqsa...unless you are trying to say that the quran was written later than the typical muslim date. If you don't see the problem with your claim, then I am really not sure what to say.

You're ignorance is more revealing by the second. The Qu'ran says al-Masjidu l Aqsa referring to the Farthest Mosque. Omar built the structure of the mosque on the site to which the Qu'ran refers to as the "Farthest Mosque". The current structure of the Mosque was reconstructed over several times. And you supposedly read the Qu'ran often?

You think that East Jerusalem is Israel's Capital

Did I say that? I don't think I did. Please read everything I say before replying :) I was speaking from a legeal point of view. No country can say where Israel can or can not place their capital. If you read what a capital is, there are 2 requirements:

1) It must be declaired by law
2) It must serve all the functions of a capital.

If I remember correctly, there was a question mark at the end of my sentence. You purposefully excluded the question mark when you quoted me. Anyways, you seem you know nothing about the law.

Is Jerusalem declaired by Israeli law to be the Capital? Yes
Does it serve as the Capital? Yes. The Prime Minister's residence is located there. Same with the High Courts and all branchs of the goverments are located there.

Again, East Jerusalem is Occupied by Israel, whether the Prime Minister's residence is located there or not is completely irrelevant. Can a nation declare its capital to be on land that is occupied? NO! What is Israel doing residing it's Prime Minister at an occupied territory? He is nothing more than a dirty occupier.

East Jerusalem is an occupied territory, and Israel, the occupying Power, is fully bound by the provisions of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49 of the Convention stipulates that: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. Settlement expansion and transfer of Israeli citizens to settlements, as well as forced-transfer of Palestinian residents out of the City, constitute unquestionable violations of Article 49 of the Convention. The international community must act against the persisting violation of international law, or will risk undermining the credibility of this important international legal framework, on which other conflict situations in the world depend.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/...2576EB0077BD4C

You will also notice that international recognition is a requirement. As of this moment, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Maybe one day it wont be, but that day is not today. From a legeal standpoint, Jerusalem is the Capital, and no ammount of spin can change that. This is not my opinion. This is purely the law.

East Jerusalem is the Occupied Capital of the Palestinian State. It has been agreed upon already

1) Is palestine a country or a state? No
2) Can a non-existant country / state declair a capital? No
3) However, Palestine has done so (but it is not legeally binding)
4) Does the city serve as the Captial of the non-existant country / state? No

Pray tell, how is it the Capital of palestine?

And no, it has not been agreed upon. The UN more pro-palestinian now than it has ever been, and it still vetos all palestinian claims to statehood.

When it comes to the "Two-State Solution" East Jerusalem is the future capital of the Palestinian State and the current occupied territory of the Palestinians.

Ha, purely the law? Your logic only works if you believe that East Jerusalem is not occupied. Again, do you think that East Jerusalem is part of Occupied West Bank? Or do you think that it's part of the Israel nation? Do look at a map of Israel and tell me if East Jerusalem and the West Bank is part of Israeli's border.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Orangeduck;

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

The Jews have the military and political power to govern Israel, so how does their scripture say they should treat foreigners living in their land. Although I say the land belongs to the Jews at the moment, their scriptures say that the land belongs to God, their scriptures are also our Old Testament.

Ezekiel 47
21 “You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe a foreigner resides, there you are to give them their inheritance,” declares the Sovereign LORD.

Leviticus 24
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 12:49
The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you."

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

Now we look at Israel and wonder how they live by their scriptures towards the aliens living in their land.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[Hulk]

[Scimitar]

These "Jews" are nothing more than deceivers. Abusing Allah's name and trying to justify the colonization and oppression of others is blasphemous to Allah. Their racism and intolerance is unacceptable to any Muslim.

It's about protecting the rights of Islamic lands against western colonialism which Zionism is a manifestation of.

I think a distinction should be made between real Jews and those Zionist scum.

NEUTREI KARTA INTERNATIONAL
JEWS AGAINST ZIONISM

We are a group of orthodox jews who refused (and still refuse) to recognize the existence and authority of the "so called" state of Israel and made (and still make) a point of publicly demonstrating our position, the position of the Torah and authentic unadulterated Judaism. Nutrei Karta opposes the so-called "state of Israel" not because it operates secularly, but because the entire concept of a sovereign Jewish state is contrary to jewish law.


One of the basics of judaism is that we are a people in exile due to divine decree. Accordingly, we are opposed to the ideology of Zionism, a recent "innovation", which seeks to force the end of the exile. Our banishment from the holy land will end miraculously at a time when all mankind will unite in the brotherly service of the Creator. In addition to condemning the central heresy of Zionism, we also reject its policy of aggression against all peoples. Today this cruelty manifests itself primarily in the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people. We proclaim that this inhuman policy is in violation of the Torah.


The true Jews are against the dispossessing of the Arabs of their land and homes. According to the Torah, the land should be returned to them. NKI (Nutrie Karta International) seeks peace and reconciliation with all peoples and nations. This is especially needed in our relations with the Islamic world, where Zionism has done so much to ruin Jewish - Muslim understanding. We welcome the assistance of all men of good will and stand by ready to all whose agenda coincides with ours.


Nutrei Karta International in New York.
PO Box 1316, Monsey N.Y 10952 // http://www.nkusa.org

Also, Imam Musa was on Pro-Zionist TV network in 2009 and he owned the presenter. Imam Musa even mentions that he isn't against Jews, but Zionists. He also recounted his meeting with the Rabbi of the Nutrei Karta organisation in NY. And he had good things to say about him.

He (Imam Abdul Ali Musa) also had good things to say about Hezbollah and Hamas... The man is fearless, masha-Allah.

here is the video:



Scimi

[Orangeduck]

And why are you talking about the Dome of the Rock? What does it has to do with the Qu'ran?

I dont generally like wikipedia, but here is the quote from it "According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. After Muhammad's return, he called all who would believe him to join with him and be Muslim."

So as you can see, when I said DOTR, I actually meant it. I did not mean Al Aqsa. The DOTR is, according to later islamic tradition, was built to commemorate the night journey.


The Qu'ran says al-Masjidu l Aqsa referring to the Farthest Mosque. Omar built the structure of the mosque on the site to which the Qu'ran refers to as the "Farthest Mosque". The current structure of the Mosque was reconstructed over several times.

THe quran does refer to a furthest mosque, but that location, if you use logic, can't be Jerusalem. The quran does NOT say where the furthest mosque is located. Some english translations add "Jerusalem", but that is not in the arabic.

The idea that the furthest mosque is located in Jerusalem comes from Ibn Ishaq. He was writting about 100 years after muhammad died. I have often asked muslims how Ibn Ishaq had access to that information...and I have never received an answer. The rest of the details comes from Bukhari, who was compiling about 250 years after muhammad died. I asked the same question to muslims about Bukhari, and again, recieved no answer.

Anyways, you seem you know nothing about the law.



I love it when people claim "you don't know anything about X", yet give no examples to refute the claim. I clearly presented the law in an easy manor, and you couldn't give a single example to refute anything I said. It makes me laugh when you then say I dont know the law when you couldn't give a single reason or example to refute me :)

Again, East Jerusalem is Occupied by Israel, whether the Prime Minister's residence is located there or not is completely irrelevant. Can a nation declare its capital to be on land that is occupied? NO! What is Israel doing residing it's Prime Minister at an occupied territory? He is nothing more than a dirty occupier.

EJ is considered "occupied", but that doesn't matter in the least bit for placing your capital. The defination of a Capital doesn't qualify or consider occupation. All that is required is 1) It's declaired by law 2) it is the seat of government.

That is why encyclopoedias all agree with me. They all say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and there is no qualifiers.

Encyclopedia britannica says Jerusalem is the Capital but says it's not recognized. It does not say EJ is occupied and not the Capital.
CIA worldbook says Jerusalem is the Capital.

So, you asked can a nation declair a city to be a capital if its occupied. The answer is "yes". As long as it fulfills both requirements, and in the case of Jerusalem, it does. That is why Barak Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law, has said that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Obama, like the guy or not, is not stupid. He knows international law, and a statement like that would piss off the UN if it weren't true.

Ha, purely the law? Your logic only works if you believe that East Jerusalem is not occupied.

Nope, my example works from a legeal standpoint. Nothing I said has been my opinion. In fact, I haven't given my opinion on the subject (and I probably wont since opinions are meaningless on a subject like this).

I'm hoping you starting asking like an adult and admit you were wrong. Your last reply didn't add anything of worth to the conversation, and only proved your ignorance on the matter.

[Futuwwa]

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

I don't have any purely theological reason to oppose Israel's existence. If Israel recognizes the rights and legitimate grievances of the Palestinians and offers them a peace on equal terms (as in, terms that do not presuppose any superior Jewish right to the land), I will accept Israel and bear it no ill will.

Until then, fire and blood.

[M.I.A.]

is it true that palestinians willingly sold land to isrealis before there was ever an isreal? for a lot of money.

..if so you cant entirely blame the west and the jews for the state of the place today..

..today is a different day though, nothing of what happens today is any more than despair.


as for any other once muslim country being "retaken" i guess you have to ask what you have to offer them.

maybe a super great religion that the masses can get behind.

or a welcome influx of cash to boost there economies.

either way a change in strategy, approach, outlook and mentality is needed.. above all some sincerity in intent and action.. away from bloodlust.. its not the foundation of anything stable.

[Orangeduck]

is it true that palestinians willingly sold land to isrealis before there was ever an isreal? for a lot of money.

..if so you cant entirely blame the west and the jews for the state of the place today..

..today is a different day though, nothing of what happens today is any more than despair.


as for any other once muslim country being "retaken" i guess you have to ask what you have to offer them.

maybe a super great religion that the masses can get behind.

or a welcome influx of cash to boost there economies.

It would be correct to say that Jew bought *SOME* of the land in palestine. It would not be correct to say they bought all the land.

The fact is, the British Empire ruled the region. You can agree or disagree with this next statement, but the British could do whatever they wanted to the land. People might disagre, but back then, durring the age of Imperialism (even though the Age was about to end), that was the standard operating proceedure. An empire owned the land, and they did as they wanted with it.

The Biritish tried to set up a Jewish and Arab State. The Jews accepted the British partition...the Arabs rejected it...and here we are today (a Jewish state and no Arab state).

[TrueStranger]

And why are you talking about the Dome of the Rock? What does it has to do with the Qu'ran?

I dont generally like wikipedia, but here is the quote from it "According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. After Muhammad's return, he called all who would believe him to join with him and be Muslim."

So as you can see, when I said DOTR, I actually meant it. I did not mean Al Aqsa. The DOTR is, according to later islamic tradition, was built to commemorate the night journey.


The Qu'ran says al-Masjidu l Aqsa referring to the Farthest Mosque. Omar built the structure of the mosque on the site to which the Qu'ran refers to as the "Farthest Mosque". The current structure of the Mosque was reconstructed over several times.

THe quran does refer to a furthest mosque, but that location, if you use logic, can't be Jerusalem. The quran does NOT say where the furthest mosque is located. Some english translations add "Jerusalem", but that is not in the arabic.

No, the current location of Al-Aqsa Mosque is wildly believed to be site which Mohammed (PBUH) ascended to Heaven. Since you quote wikipedia, I will quote it as well. Jerusalem was the first qibla, I don't have much hope in our flawed logic.

In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" is not restricted to the mosque only, but to the entire Noble Sanctuary.[54] The mosque is believed to be the second house of prayer constructed after the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.Post-Rashidun-era Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Qur'anic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey").

The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque. This specific verse in the Qur'an cemented the significant religious importance of al-Aqsa in Islam. Initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some arguing it was actually located near Mecca. Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.[55]

So, you asked can a nation declair a city to be a capital if its occupied. The answer is "yes". As long as it fulfills both requirements, and in the case of Jerusalem, it does. That is why Barak Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law, has said that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Obama, like the guy or not, is not stupid. He knows international law, and a statement like that would piss off the UN if it weren't true.

Obama stated what almost every American president Democrat or Republican has uttered in the past. The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

In 2008, Obama addressed the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued, and the next day Obama — then a presidential hopeful — “clarified” his remarks, saying Jerusalem’s final status will have to be determined in peace negotiations.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-...raels-capital/

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Israel has no intention of creating a diplomatic fuss about the US State Department’s refusal to consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday. Earlier that day, a State Department spokesperson resolutely rebuffed questions as to what Israel’s capital is, merely stating that the issue of Jerusalem has to be resolved through negotiations.

Department of State, June 28, 1967, in response to the Israeli decision to apply Israeli law to expanded East Jerusalem (de facto annexation): "The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as determining the future of the holy places or the status of Jerusalem in relation to them. The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of the states in the area as governing the international status of Jerusalem..."

March 23, 1976, statement by U.S. Representative to the United Nations William Scranton: "I emphasize, as did Ambassador Goldberg, that as far as the United States is concerned such unilateral measures, including expropriation of land or other administrative action taken by the Government of Israel, cannot be considered other than interim and provisional and cannot affect the present international status nor prejudge the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. The U.S. position could not be clearer. Since 1967 we have restated here, in other fora, and to the Government of Israel that the future of Jerusalem will be determined only through the instruments and processes of negotiation, agreement, and accommodation. Unilateral attempts to predetermine that future have no standing..."

September 1, 1982, President Ronald Reagan: "...we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations."

March 5, 1990, Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on President Bush's Telephone Conversation with Seymour Reich of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations: "...The President also reiterated that U.S. policy toward Jerusalem is unchanged. The United States supports a united Jerusalem whose final status is determined by negotiations."

http://peacenow.org/entries/us_non-r...1948_-_present

The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, stating that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. As a result of the Embassy Act, official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy;[48] they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.

All Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territory is void and null. Keep on crying, Jerusalem is merely the Capital of Israel in their little imaginary world. Now go bother someone else with your fallacious statements "Mr. Ex-Muslim". You're no longer entertaining.

[GuestFellow]

Hello everyone :)

I want to make something very clear...I do not want to talk about Arab-Israeli violence towards each other. I do not want to talk about who is blame for violence or "who started it". That conversation can go on indefinitely.

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

Something I was taught as a kid was, "any land that was conquered by Muslims, must always remain in muslim hands." I was never taught to hate Israel, but I was taught that Israel must be destroied because the land used to belong unde Islamic jurisdiction.

However, something I was never taught was that Spain must be returned to Muslim hands. I was never taught Greece, Austria or Hungary must return to Muslim hands.

Why is it that I hear of hatred towards Israel and how it must become Islamic again, but I need hear the same towards the other countries I mentioned?

Again, let's not turn this into a Arab-Israeli blame debate :)

Salaam,

Ah I'm personally do not go crazy over conquering land. I do believe people have the right to defend themselves, and war should only be considered as a last resort. I just want Israel to stop taking more land and want America to stop shoving it's gigantic backside into this conflict.

[Abz2000]

THe quran does refer to a furthest mosque, but that location, if you use logic, can't be Jerusalem. The quran does NOT say where the furthest mosque is located. Some english translations add "Jerusalem", but that is not in the arabic.

lololol stop talking rubbish mate,
did you just read a few verses or something and decided to spew that?
maybe ur unaware of all the descriptions of what happened on that night journey because u haven't bothered to learn about Islam, but have decided to come and dispute by means of vanities.

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,
and the hadith clearly state that the prophet pbuh came and told the pagans he had gone there and Abu Jahl had come to visit him and was quite happy,
"whats the news?"
"this night i have been to Jerusalem"
"JERUSALEM???"
"yes"
"if i gather the people together, will you tell them as you have told me?"
"yes"
so abu jahl the pagan went away soooo happy that he could now call him a lunatic, and he called the notables together, hear hear
then the Prophet pbuh described the journey, and when they asked him details he became a little flustered as he hadn't taken in so much detail, but then God opened up the vision of it as if it was in front of his eyes and he was able to describe it to the minutest detail, at which witnesses who had been there before were able to confirm.
and these are not just "made up Mozlem stories", most of those who opposed him at the beginning later accepted Islam, and stories like that wouldn't survive if they were lies, as some of the stories involved the previous enemies.

do some research, if you know not, ask of those who do.
and also ask ur bossom buddies what they say of Jesus (pbuh) and the sick things they say about Mary (ra).
and whether they believe these "heretics who follow an impostor" have a right to the holy land.

and finally, the zionist government is the antithesis of the rule of God on earth, even orthodox jews have realized that it's been put there by satanists for a totally different purpose than is claimed.
and also research isreal gay pride and prostitution law israel.
according to the bible, they don't belong there.

[Futuwwa]

It would be correct to say that Jew bought *SOME* of the land in palestine. It would not be correct to say they bought all the land.

The fact is, the British Empire ruled the region. You can agree or disagree with this next statement, but the British could do whatever they wanted to the land. People might disagre, but back then, durring the age of Imperialism (even though the Age was about to end), that was the standard operating proceedure. An empire owned the land, and they did as they wanted with it.

Actually no. Palestine was a mandate under the sovereignty of League of Nations. Britain was appointed custodian of it, to rule it subject to the Charter of the Mandate.

The Biritish tried to set up a Jewish and Arab State. The Jews accepted the British partition...the Arabs rejected it...and here we are today (a Jewish state and no Arab state).

Actually no, the British deferred the question of final status to the UN, which by then had succeeded the League. Britain abstained in the vote on the Partition Plan. A resolution apologists for Israel uphold as basis for its legitimacy, while ignoring all the obligations the same resolution imposes on Israel with regards to the non-Jewish population of the area.

[Futuwwa]

So, you asked can a nation declair a city to be a capital if its occupied. The answer is "yes". As long as it fulfills both requirements, and in the case of Jerusalem, it does. That is why Barak Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law, has said that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Obama, like the guy or not, is not stupid. He knows international law, and a statement like that would piss off the UN if it weren't true.

He made a statement of fact, not legality. A statement of fact analogous to "A bank robber who has not been caught is still in possession of the money".

Nope, my example works from a legeal standpoint. Nothing I said has been my opinion. In fact, I haven't given my opinion on the subject (and I probably wont since opinions are meaningless on a subject like this).

It is legally impossible to have your capital on land that is not your sovereign territory to begin with. That's international law, not opinion. That it's legal under Israel's domestic law is irrelevant. The capital is there, as a matter of fact. Facts don't make law, for if they did, everything would be legal.

[Orangeduck]

I cant post links for some reason. Go to you tube and type "Obama Jerusalem Undivided" (without the "") Here is Obama himself saying that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama said publically that the city is the Capital of Israel. Unless you think that you tube video has been edited :)


The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama does recognize Jerusalem..and the video proves it (not sure why I cant post a link). The location of an embassy has no beaing on a Capital. It never has and it never will. By that logic, New York is the Capital of America since most countries have an embassy there instead of Washington DC.

You are way out of your league if you want to argue law or history with me.

[Futuwwa]

He said that while he was a candidate for president (i.e. not president yet, not making an official statement in his capacity as president), and he said so to a political lobby group which very much wants to hear that from him. A politician telling a target audience what it wants to hear, say it isn't so! What's next, water is wet? :omg:

[TrueStranger]

I cant post links for some reason. Go to you tube and type "Obama Jerusalem Undivided" (without the "") Here is Obama himself saying that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama said publically that the city is the Capital of Israel. Unless you think that you tube video has been edited :)


The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama does recognize Jerusalem..and the video proves it (not sure why I cant post a link). The location of an embassy has no beaing on a Capital. It never has and it never will. By that logic, New York is the Capital of America since most countries have an embassy there instead of Washington DC.

You are way out of your league if you want to argue law or history with me.

Stop making me laugh. Obama refuses to implement Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995, it has been more than a decade and three presidents in a row refused to implement it. D.C. and New York are legitimate cities of the United States of America. East Jerusalem, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are not Israeli territories. America does not have it's capital in Baghdad or Kabul. Your arrogance magnifies your ignorance. Forget about history and try gaining some knowledge about current events.

"In 2008, Obama addressed the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued, and the next day Obama — then a presidential hopeful — “clarified” his remarks, saying Jerusalem’s final status will have to be determined in peace negotiations.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-...raels-capital/

You don't have to post links, just click on the link which is already provided for you. You're really a horrible faker.

[Orangeduck]

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,

The quran also doesn't say it was the lost city of Atlantis, so I guess we can assume the quran was stating that is where the furthest mosque is. Dont you see the problem. Its a poor arguement to say "X doesn't say it"

and the hadith clearly state...

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that. If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all. You can not pick and choose which ones you want to accept. The hadith also records"

Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524-
"Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an"

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqU43-ekZ_U

^ The Obama Administration is not clear about this issue of Jerusalem.

[M.I.A.]

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,

The quran also doesn't say it was the lost city of Atlantis, so I guess we can assume the quran was stating that is where the furthest mosque is. Dont you see the problem. Its a poor arguement to say "X doesn't say it"

and the hadith clearly state...

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that. If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all. You can not pick and choose which ones you want to accept. The hadith also records"

Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524-
"Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an"

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

with regards to hadith, if i can reconcile them with what i know then i guess i can accept them.
or if they are of sound moral or logical integrity then i can accept them.

it is an individual choice.. there is no compulsion in religion. maybe a want to better understand but i guess that is why we are here.

the quran says that nothing was with-held from the people.
the quran also says that the religion was perfected.

but gods knowledge is infinite.

i dont even know in context if the prophet pbuh was talking about himself or the hearers.

i guess with everything there is a middle path.. always be ready to be wrong..

everything has been debated and brought into question a million times before.. how on earth do you stop walking around in circles?

[Hulk]

If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all.

No one with a decent level of knowledge of Islam would ever say that as they would know about the science of hadith.

It is apparent to me that what you are really after is fuel for your ego. You are googling your arguments as you go along. I might be wrong as I can't see people's intentions, but I can evaluate their outward actions and that is what I have observed.

The very fact that you mentioned "debate" shows how you think of yourself as someone "qualified".

[Orangeduck]

Salaam,

The Obama Administration is not clear about this issue of Jerusalem.

That is a good video and it gives a lot of details.

1) Obama did say that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and has said it more than once due to the fact that it fits all the requirements.
2) Obama has no authority to say a city can or can not be a capital since he is not in charge of any other country. He can make a factual statement, but he can not dictate laws outside of the US.
3) Therefore, while Obama stated the FACT that Jerusalem is the capital, he can not tell Israel what to do with the city from a legeal stand point and thus, the problem is between Israel and the palestinians. Obama can do nothing more than tell both parties to negotiate their problems.
4) The fact is, right now the city is the Capital of Israel (maybe not forever...but today it is). It's the seat of government and declaired by law
5) The palestinians want at least part of the city for their future state.
6) Obama can't give the city to Israel, nor can he deny it to the palestinians
7) Therefore, Obama's position is clear from a factual stand point, but legeally he has no say and must tell both parties to negotiate and compromise

[Scimitar]

I don't hate Israel, it is a name given to a land - that is all.

I don't hate Jews, the real Jews...

I hate zionist scumbags who claim to be Jews. Period. They can follow their racist ideology in the Talmud all they want, but Allah is the best accountant. And when HE accounts, it will leave no room for their sad and tired excuses. Their punishment will be total.

Scimi

[Insaanah]

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that.

Unfortunately for you, the red flag is because of your own ignorance on the matter.

The ahadeeth actually began to be written down during the lifetime of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr said: “I used to write everything which I heard from the Messenger of Allaah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with the intention of memorizing it. However, some of the Quraysh forbade me from doing so saying, ‘Do you write everything that you hear from him, while the Messenger of Allaah is a human being who speaks in anger and pleasure?’ So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He pointed with his finger to his mouth and said: ‘Write! By Him in whose hand is my soul, only truth comes out from it.’
(Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, p. 1035, no. 3639)

Abu Hurayrah said: When Makkah was conquered, the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stood up and gave a sermon [Abu Hurayrah then mentioned the sermon]. A man from Yemen, called Abu Shaah got up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah! Write it down for me.” The Messenger of Allaah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied, “Write it for Abu Shaah.”
Al-Waleed asked Abu ‘Amr, “What are they writing?” He replied, “The sermon which he heard that day.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, no. 3641 and 3642)

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

Nobody considers those hadeeth you mentioned to be problematic, even though you personally might like to think so.

Links to translations of the hadeeth you mention are here: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahi...umber-509.html

and here: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahi...umber-510.html

I just re-wrote my post from the paper I had it on, onto Word. Does that mean I changed it? No. To re-write does not equate to change.

I notice you wrote in a post in the other thread that you used to fast the Islamic holidays.

I believed everything I was told by my parents, such as:

5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Why did you do that? Fasting on Islamic festivals (the two Eids) is forbidden - only satan fasts those days.

Peace.

[Orangeduck]

I don't hate Israel, it is a name given to a land - that is all.

I don't hate Jews, the real Jews...

I hate zionist scumbags who claim to be Jews. Period. They can follow their racist ideology in the Talmud all they want, but Allah is the best accountant. And when HE accounts, it will leave no room for their sad and tired excuses. Their punishment will be total.

Scimi

I have to say that I like you :) It's nice that we can disagree without reducing ourselves to hostilities.

There are some extremist zionists that are just plain terrible people.

Fortunately, the State of Israel is not connected to the ancient Kingdom of Israel. The modern State of Israel is secular and the extremists have virtually no say in government matters and decisions. The extremists zionists do seem to want a pure superior Jewish race. The government, thankfully, doesn't support them :)

[aadil77]

I have to say that I like you :) It's nice that we can disagree without reducing ourselves to hostilities.

Avoid posts like this and hopefully we can all bwe fwend's :statisfie

We can talk about Jerusalem if you want :)

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Islamic kingdom or empire. It was never a cultural center. Muhammad never saw the city. Islam, other than making a claim about the city's importance, really has no connection to the city.

The dome of the rock, the landmark usually associated with Muhammad's night journey, has nothing to do with Muhammad. Anyone who has ever seen the DOTR will notice that there is nothing to associate the building with the night journey (none of the inscriptions on the dome refer to the night journey...they are all anti-trinity quotes.)

[Zafran]

[MOUSE][/MOUSE]Salaam

The problem isn't a theological one it's pretty much one sided affair. According to international law Palestine is east Jerusalem, west bank and gaza. Isreal has zero rights on that land and is violating international law building on west bank when isn't part of isreal.

East Jerusalem isn't isreal so i don't know why even claim it's there land. The real question is why isn't isreal letting Palestine exist?

[GuestFellow]

7) Therefore, Obama's position is clear from a factual stand point, but legeally he has no say and must tell both parties to negotiate and compromise

I'll accept.

[Futuwwa]

Salaam

The problem isn't a theological one it's pretty much one sided affair. According to international law Palestine is east Jerusalem, west bank and gaza.

Actually, by international law, Palestine is more than that - the entire territory allotted to it in the Partition Plan. Which, apart from the West Bank and Gaza include about the same amount of land inside Israel's pre-1967 borders. East Jerusalem isn't, though, it was decreed to be an international city whose final status was to be determined later by referendum.

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

I personally do not care about international law. It does not make sense to tell other countries what to do...for example:

UN speaker: Iran, you can't build nuclear weapons, in accordance with section bla bla bal of the bla bla bla.

Iran: ahhh shut up.

UN speaker: Israel, stop killing Palestinians.

Israel: we will never listen to anti-semitic, racist holocaust deniers!

See what I mean?

[Futuwwa]

International law is a body of law that exists because of international agreements that have established common codes of conduct. It has little to do with the UN.

[GuestFellow]

International law is a body of law that exists because of international agreements that have established common codes of conduct. It has little to do with the UN.

Just an example of how pointless they are. It's not practicable. Of course, I'm not aiming here to be factually accurate.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Orangeduck;

Nope, my example works from a legeal standpoint. Nothing I said has been my opinion.

God gave Israel many laws, so how does their scripture say they should treat foreigners living in their land. Although I say the land belongs to the Jews at the moment, their scriptures say that the land belongs to God, their scriptures are also our Old Testament.

Ezekiel 47
21 “You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe a foreigner resides, there you are to give them their inheritance,” declares the Sovereign LORD.

Leviticus 24
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 19
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 12:49
The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you."

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

Now we look at Israel and wonder how they live by their scriptures towards the aliens living in their land.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

[truthseeker63]

Israel has no right to exist.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you truthseeker63; it seems to have been a long journey; but I see you now have Islam as your Religion, I pray your journey in faith will lead you to salvation.

Israel has no right to exist.

Israel has the right to live in peace with its neighbours, but they must also do this with justice and fairness.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people, every blessing.

Eric

[Novice]

is it true that palestinians willingly sold land to isrealis before there was ever an isreal? for a lot of money.

..if so you cant entirely blame the west and the jews for the state of the place today..

First, it is true that the Arabs willignly sold land to the immigrant Jews. However, one cannot disregard the fact that the Jews only owned 6-7 percent of Palestine by the time of the partition plan. Also, one must take into account the many Jews who had illegaly immigrated to Palestine.

[IslamicRevival]

Whats there to talk about? Israel, alongside its masters USA are the worlds number one terrorists, a bunch of land grabbing, mass murderering thugs. The illegal zionist immigrants who live in PALESTINE toay should pack their bags and swan off to whatever gutter they crawled out from, Its as simple as that.

[truthseeker63]

From my point of view so called Israel has no moral right to exist. I think the World would be better off if Israel did'nt exist. I do not blame Jews for everything bad that goes on in the world but Jews did start Communism.

[جوري]

Myths and Realities about Israel

Myth No. 1: About UN Partition Resolution
The UN voted in 1947 to create the State of Israel in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Israel accepted the compromise while the Arabs rejected it.

REALITY: The 1947 UN resolution is a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council resolution. The UN General Assembly can only make recommendations. Recommendations have no obligatory character. Member states are free to accept or reject them.
Israel’s apologists are quick to say that Israel accepted this compromise. The Partition Plan granted 52% of Palestine to the Jews who were 30% of the population and owned no more than 6% of the land. This is a net gain on the part of Israel, not a compromise.
Israel’s apologists are quick to claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Ben-Gurion himself in Rebirth and Destiny of Israel wrote: “Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad” (p. 530). Israel’s military activity started well before any attack by the Arab armies.
Israel’s apologists are quick to accuse Jordan of occupying and annexing what is now called the West Bank. While not a single Arab soldier entered the area allotted to Israel in the UN resolution, Israel occupied and annexed areas in excess of what was allotted to it in the UN Partition Plan. These areas include, among other areas, the Arab cities of Nazareth, Jaffa, Acre, Lydda and Ramleh. Thus Israel expanded from 52% to 78%.
Moreover, according to the UN Partition Plan, 49% of the population of the Jewish state was supposed to be Arabs. Through a war of ethnic cleansing this percentage was reduced to 12%. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the result of a deliberate master plan, code named Plan Dalet.
In light of all the above, it is ludicrous to pretend that Israel accepted UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947.



Myth No. 2: About Annexation
The military occupation of Palestinian territories has never been converted by Israel into an annexation.

REALITY: Immediately after the 1967 war, the Israeli government issued an order declaring that an area comprising the Old City of Jerusalem and some adjacent territory should be subject to the law, jurisdiction and administration of Israel. Thus Israel expanded municipal East Jerusalem from 6 km2 to 73 km2 of the West Bank. Furthermore, Jewish colonization of East Jerusalem went beyond the extended municipal boundaries to include what Israel calls Greater and Metropolitan Jerusalem comprising 330 km2 and 665 km2, respectively.
The Annexation of the Old City of Jerusalem was carried out under the Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No. 11 of June 27, 1967). Not only did Israel annex East Jerusalem but it also feverishly worked toward the judaization of its population by expropriating Arab land to build Jewish settlements.
As for the rest of the occupied territories, the real reason for not annexing them is the racist nature of the Zionist state. The only way for Israel to annex the occupied territories is by cleansing them of their indigenous inhabitants, following the pattern of 1948 (see Myth No. 1 above).
Furthermore, on December 14, 1981, Israel officialy annexed the Golan Heights. The legislation, extending Israeli law to the area of the Golan Heights was adopted by the Knesset by a majority of 63 against 21.



Myth No. 3: Jordan attacked first
Israel in 1967 notified Jordan that it wished to maintain non-belligerent policy between the two states and that Jordan nevertheless attacked Israel.

REALITY: “The pretence that Israel would not attack Jordan is belied by the secret decision adopted by the Israeli cabinet on June 4, 1967 (which was made public on June 4, 1972) to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan on the following day” (Henry Cattan, Jerusalem, p.69).
Also, Israel was well aware that Jordan signed on May 30, 1967 a defense pact with Egypt, allowing Egyptians to take command of the Jordanian army.



Myth No. 4: Recognizing and making peace with Israel
When Egypt recognized and made peace with Israel in 1979 the entire Sinai was returned to Egypt.

REALITY: The purpose of such a statement is to give the impression that Israel is willing to withdraw from the land it occupied in exchange for peace. The return of the entire Sinai would be a proof of that. In this context, the name of Anwar Sadat is mentioned.
Jimmy Carter’s memoirs: Keeping the Faith: Memoirs of a President shatters this impression. Menachem Begin did not want to withdraw from the entire Sinai. For Israel to come to it senses, it necessitated the pressures that only an American President could have applied.
For Israel’s apologists to say that when the Palestinian Authority agreed to recognize and negotiate with Israel, Israel began to “transfer control of West Bank lands” is further evidence that Israel’s goal is not to achieve with the Palestinians a peace resembling the peace with Egypt, (the withdrawal from the entire occupied territories, similar to its withdrawal from the entire Sinai), but to establish another form of occupation.
Israel's defenders claim that by mid-2000 more than 90% of the Arab population of the West Bank and more than 25% of its land were under complete Palestinian control. This only demonstrates what Israel is really after: an indigenous authority controlling its indigenous population, while Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in the remaining 75% of Palestinian land. The result of such policy is the establishment of numerous disconnected Palestinian enclaves (bantustans) in a sea of settlements rendering the free movement of the Palestinians difficult, if not impossible.



Myth No. 5: Barak’s “unprecedented offer”
Israel made an “unprecedented offer” consisting of giving back 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Jerusalem itself would be partitioned into Israeli and Palestinians sectors.

REALITY: The Jerusalem that is being referred to here is just the Old City of Jerusalem, not the entire East and West Jerusalems. Not only will Israel keep West Jerusalem but it also wants to partition East Jerusalem. The Palestinians, by the way, accepted to give Israel sovereignty over the Jewish holy places, something that the Israelis refused to give to the Palestinians. They rather talked about “religious sovereignty” over Haram al-Sahrif, and “autonomy” over the Christians and Muslims quarters.
The 95% of the West Bank referred to is in fact 95% minus the expanded municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, that Israel has already annexed (see Myth No. 2 above), which makes Barak’s offer more like 85% of all the West Bank.
Furthermore, the so-called Palestinian state that would have been created according to the “unprecedented offer” would have control neither over its natural resources nor over it air space (For more details see: Camp David mythology)



Myth No. 6: Israel never target civilians
Israel does not deliberately target civilians.

REALITY: How else can we qualify dropping a 2,000 pound bomb on an apartment building in a civilian neighborhood supposedly to kill one “terrorist leader”?
Also, a Jan. 3, 2003 editorial in The Washington Post had this to say: “Israeli paramilitary forces have reportedly been operating something they call ‘the lottery,’ in which they detain Palestinians and order them to choose from pieces of paper labeled with punishments such as ‘broken leg’ and ‘smashed head.’ The practice was reported by an Israeli newspaper on Dec. 22, more than a week before Amran Abu Hamediye was beaten to death.” This is what a self-censorship press revealed. What is not being reported must be even worse.



Myth No. 7: The “only democracy”
Israel is the “only democracy” in the Middle East.

REALITY: How many times have Israel’s apologists repeated this slogan? In fact, Israel is not a democracy by Western standards. Not a single Western democracy occupies another people’s land, rules another people and subjects them to all kinds of humiliations, torture and mistreatment. Israel indeed is a democracy, but a democracy by Zionist standards, just as South Africa, under the White minority rule, was a democracy by apartheid standards. It is true that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have the right to vote in Israel. So are all the citizens of the Arab countries. This however doesn’t make them democracies. In Israel, there is no equality between Jews and non-Jews. In a Jewish state, Jews are more equal than non-Jews. It has always been that way and unless Israel becomes the country of all its citizens, it will lack the characteristics of a Western democracy.

http://www.mideastwatch.com/

Medhat Creedi is a friend and a christian Arab .. I post it of course to showcase that there's solidarity between middle easterners on exactly what Israel is, that if this resident troll is not what he appears!

[جوري]

Chronological Table of Middle East History with emphasis on Iraq from 1908 to the present
Impressions from Iraq
Letter from Baghdad - Thoughts on the Palestine Question
The Palestine Question, the Oslo Agreement put in context
The Khazars
Letters to the Editor
Exchanges
Correspondence with White Plains Public Library
Correspondence with Greenburgh Public Library
Criticize Israel at your own peril
Physical threat came my way
Camp David Mithology
Crash Course in the Real Facts about the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Myths and Realities about Israel NEW

Iraq war would advance Israel's aims

Links








To adequately understand the underpinnings of the Arab Israeli conflict, it is imperative to know the history of the region. That is why the first item on the site deals with history. The Chronological Table that follows does not pretend to give an exhaustive review of the history of the region. It gives, however, enough information, in a table format, to help the reader situate the different events in their historical context. Hopefully this will arouse the reader's curiosity enough to pursue the matter further. The emphasis on Iraq is due to the fact that, since the Gulf War, this country has been very much in the news and some background information on it can be enlightening.
Chronological Table of Middle East History with emphasis on Iraq
from 1908 to the present

top

* * *
After spending 6 months in Iraq from May to November 1995 as an interpreter/translator with UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission in charge of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction), I came away with these Impressions that I would like to share with the readers.
Impressions from Iraq

top

* * *

This is an attempt to answer the questions posed by an American university professor concerning the Palestine Question. It is being emphasized here that the solution of this complicated problem must be based on justice if what we really want to achieve is a durable solution, even if this creates a dilemma, especially to those in Isarel who look at this problem from a moral point of view.
Letter from Baghdad - Thoughts on the Palestine Question

top

* * *

A look back at the origin of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a review of the present situation in the context of a flawed Oslo Agreement.
The Palestine Question, the Oslo Agreement put in context
Also in Arabic translation

top

* * *

The story of the Khazars and their kingdom Khazaria is kept a dark secret because it will destroy the Zionist claim to Palestine. The refrain that Zionists keep singing in the media that "the Jewish people are returning to the Jewish people's homeland after almost 2,000 years in exile" (see letter 32) will be meaningless, if it becomes widely known that the majority of the Jews today are, in fact, descendants of the Khazars, a non-Semitic people. The "historic connection" upon which Zionists base their claim to Palestine will turn out to be a hoax.
The Khazars

top

* * *










Initially, I named my site Letters to the Editor because it only had letters that I had written and submitted to the editors of a handful of newspapers. The puropse of these letters to the editor is to provide the average American reader of these newspapers with the factual information he needs to form his or her own opinion. Another goal is to refute, rebut and reply to letters written by Israel's apologists and worshipers who distort the facts and mislead the readers. In a sense, it is "a new way of cross-examining Israel."
List of the Letters to the Editor
In the course of writing those letters to the editor of the local newspaper in Westchester, a kind of debate took place with Israel's supporters in the county on very specific issues. Letters dealing with the same issue are grouped together for easy access.
List of the issues debated
Many more issues were debated and discussed. To facilitate searching for these issues a Subject Index is being provided.
Subject Index of all the Letters to the Editor

top

* * *
This is a series of Exchanges I had with different people through a mutual friend whose name is Richard. All the exchanges deal with the Middle East and all turned out to be fruitless. What I mean by "fruitless" is that they didn't last long for a variety of reasons that I will try to present when I introduce each one of these exchanges.
One must keep in mind that the issue of the Middle East is a tricky one for two reasons. One is that it involves Israel. While Americans have no problem criticizing their own government they are reluctant to criticize Israel for fear of being labeled anti-Semite.
The other is the mainstream media which gives a biased view of the Middle East in favor of Israel. Since the overwhelming majority of the Americans rely on the mainstream media that deliver them well packaged information they are either shocked or incredulous when they hear the other side of the story.
Exchanges

top

* * *
I am presenting here the Correspondence I had with White Plains Public Library concerning my gift to the Library of a subscription to the Washington Report of Middle East Affairs. The Library rejected my gift.
Correspondence with White Plains Public Library

top

* * *
I am presenting here the Correspondence I had with Greenburgh Public Library concerning my gift to the Library of a subscription to the Washington Report of Middle East Affairs. Initially, the Library accepted my subscription gift then canceled it altogether.
Correspondence with Greenburgh Public Library

top

* * *
L i n k s
Organizations
UN Information System on the Question of Palestine: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF?OpenDatabase
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: http://www.washington-report.org
American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee: http://www.adc.org
Americans for Middle East Understanding: http://members.aol.com/ameulink/index.html
Council for National Interst: http://www.cnionline.org
Arab American Roman Catholic Community: http://www.albushra.org
Mid-East Realities: http://www.MiddleEast.org
Bat Shalom of the Jerusalem Link: http://www.batshalom.org
The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: http://www.btselem.org
Middle East Research and Information Project: http://www.merip.org
USS Liberty: http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
Individuals
The Edward Said Archive: http://www.leb.net/tesa
The Chomsky Archive: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm
Norman Finkelstein: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com
Truth, Justice and Human Right in the the Middle East: http://www.mideastfacts.com
Ali Abunimah: uncovering media myths about the Middle East: http://www.abunimah.org/

[جوري]

First, it is true that the Arabs willignly sold land to the immigrant Jews. However, one cannot disregard the fact that the Jews only owned 6-7 percent of Palestine by the time of the partition plan. Also, one must take into account the many Jews who had illegaly immigrated to Palestine.

It is poetic how it was just a matter of time before they showed their true colors:

The African refugee problem in perspective

By SUSAN HATTIS ROLEF
05/28/2012 22:02
There is a saying in Hebrew to the effect that “a shared problem is half a consolation.”

Photo: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin publicly expressed his disapproval of the words of incitement uttered by several Members of the Knesset against the tens of thousands of Africans who have infiltrated Israel in search of employment and/or refuge, against the background of last week’s anti-African violence in Tel-Aviv.

Though Rivlin admits that there is a growing problem resulting from the presence of such a large body of persons, whose status in Israel is undefined and whose living conditions are unbearable, he emphasized that incitement is not the answer.

“When the public is angry, leaders must restrain the anger, and find solutions, instead of kindling it,” he said, referring especially to MK Miri Regev’s reference to the Sudanese as “a cancer in our body.”

True, many Israelis, especially those living in the towns and neighborhoods where the African infiltrators are concentrated, have reason to be angry, and one cannot deny that the unhealthy situation has resulted in a growing number of cases of theft and sexual attacks on women committed by Africans.

Chief of Police Yohanan Danino has suggested that the way to contend with the problem is to legalize the employment of the Africans, most of whom are idle and unable to make ends meet. But while this might solve part of the problem, it will also result in a growing number of Africans seeking to reach Israel.

In the meantime, the anger among certain Israeli population groups is increasingly accompanied by blind hatred against the Africans, of the sort that Jews have been subjected to throughout the ages. Anyone who watched Interior Minister Eli Yishai on TV last week speaking to African infiltrators being interviewed in detention facilities could not help being impressed with the fact that the contempt and total lack of empathy for these people are not limited just to anonymous crowds.

There is no denying that Israel confronts a real problem, which it has been slow to address. The government was slow to start effectively closing the border with Egypt against all types of infiltrators – traffickers in drugs and women, potential terrorists, and Africans. It has also failed to adopt a clear policy regarding the African infiltrators once they have managed to enter Israel.

Yishai proposes that they simply be concentrated in camps along Israel’s southern border and then deported, though how this can be done both effectively and humanely, given that we are speaking of at least 60,000 human beings, is not clear. He seems to believe that if the Africans cannot be sent back to their countries of origin, third countries will be found that will be willing to receive them.

But this is not realistic, and the thought of long-term concentration camps popping up along Israel’s southern border is disturbing. Though we are not speaking, of course, of concentration camps such as those constructed by Nazi Germany, we are speaking of camps where hapless individuals coming from a continent where starvation, genocidal civil wars, corrupt governments, anarchy and every imaginable (and unimaginable) social malady, are rife, will simply be left to rot.

It should be noted that it is not only Israel that is forced to contend with the problem of African refugees. The current number of African refugees is estimated at around three million. Most of these refugees remain in Africa itself, but growing numbers are trying to escape the African continent northwards.

Most of the refugees who have reached Israel through the Sinai Peninsula are Sudanese and Eritreans, while Europe is facing a flood of refugees from North Africa, though many of them are not of North African origin, and reached North Africa when it still enjoyed relative stability. The violence of the “Arab Spring” in countries like Libya and Tunisia once again shook the ground under these refugees’ feet.

Italy is the first destination of most of the Africans seeking refuge in Europe, and they attempt to reach it by sea. Of those who make it to Italy, most try to cross the border to countries further north. The Europeans are reacting in a similar manner to us – trying to block borders, despite the open borders policy of the EU.

The Europeans don’t want this mass of humanity anymore than Israel does. They also don’t seem to have much of a clue what to do about the problem, beyond closing borders, so consulting them on possible solutions is a futile exercise. The UN Refugee Agency, and all the other international agencies engaged in various aspects of the African quagmire also seem to be at a loss for effective solutions.

There is a saying in Hebrew to the effect that “a shared problem is half a consolation.” I don’t think that this saying applies to the current situation. To paraphrase another Hebrew saying: we are going to have to find a creative solution on our own, and the sooner the better.

The writer teaches at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College and was a Knesset employee for many years.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columni...aspx?id=271749

:haha: guess it isn't the sort of news you see in your local channel and of course how mildly written.. There they were inviting anybody to come to Israel as if it were theirs and making its indigenous refugees anywhere at all. Of course given their natural hatred and racism they were hoping they'd be the first to be sacrificed in case a war breaks out with Israel. They could be a sort of front line infantry and now they've just multiplied and taken room from the true 'chosen ones'

Israel was started on terrorism Haganah, irgun and stern gang type of terrorism but ducks and friends possess a couple of brain cells held together by a spirochete so what do we expect anyway? God forbid a word of truth..

[Novice]

:haha: guess it isn't the sort of news you see in your local channel and of course how mildly written.. There they were inviting anybody to come to Israel as if it were theirs and making its indigenous refugees anywhere at all. Of course given their natural hatred and racism they were hoping they'd be the first to be sacrificed in case a war breaks out with Israel. They could be a sort of front line infantry and now they've just multiplied and taken room from the true 'chosen ones'

Indeed, there is much concerning Israel that's not mentioned in the mainstream media. Take the recent 60 minutes episode that showed Christians in Palestine blaming Israel for their woes, rather than the 'intolerant Muslims.'

It's really telling that the Israeli ambassador criticized the segment, despite not having watched it!:

"Nothing's been confirmed by the interview, Mr. Ambassador, because you don't know what's going to be put on air," Simon shot back.


"True," Oren said.

(I can't provide links yet, so you can google it yourself! :D)