On Dawuds suggestion I started a new thread on this, since we wouldn't want to derail a thread on Israel, now would we? :D.
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
Why a truce and not a peace settlement? Well in Islam we cannot hand over one hand span of Muslim land, to do so would be ruling by other than God and his final messenger have revealed and could even be judged an act of apostasy therefore.
This is an interesting position with far-reaching consequences. Obviously the land that is now Israel is not the only land Muslims ever lost. To give a few examples of much more massive land loss:
1. Much of the Balkans was ones under Muslims (Ottoman) rule. Up to the gates of Vienna.
2. Much of what is now Russia was Islamic until at least the 18th century
3. The Mughal Empire streched deep into what is now Hindu India. Lets not forget that after the Indian independence many Muslims were uprooted and moved to what is now Pakistan.
4. Spain was Muslim land for centuries
5. Sicily was Muslim for quite a while during the Middle Ages
Is the above ruling applies to Israel. Then logically, it also applies to all these cases. So I assume the solution you extend to the Jews in Israel also extends to the Spaniards, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, Hungarians, Serbians, Indians, Russians, Ukranians, Italians, etc? In that they must accept the authority of the Islamic state. If I am wrong, why? What makes these cases different from Israel? Time? Circumstances? If so, Dawud must be wrong?
So, my question. Do other Muslims agree with Dawud on the impossibility of giving away land that was ones under Muslim rule. If you do disagree with him, who would then have the authority to make such a call?