/* */

PDA

View Full Version : A solution to Israel?



Skywalker
02-08-2007, 08:36 PM
:sl:

Well, the Fatah and the Hamas parties have agreed today in Mecca to form a unity government, to stop violence against each other, and to work hard to create a viable Palestinian state. After continuous disagreements, this event seems almost historic. While some people are skeptical that this agreement will hold, others find a new sense of optimism in the events that occured in Mecca.

Mahmoud Abbas is to meet with Ehud Olmert and Condoleeza Rice six days from now insha-Allah to discuss the situation between Israel and Palestine, and to continue with the "Roadmap to Peace" that they've been trying to make work.

A lot of people on this forum have ideas about how to solve the problem between Israel and Palestine, and some of them have a lot of merit. I've heard ideas about creating an Islamic Sharia state that will allow Jews and Christians to live within it and practice their religions the same as they are now. Although I like this idea a lot, I always wonder why such a thing wasn't proposed to the international community as a solution for the problem in the Middle East. Obviously just saying the word "Sharia" to the international community would probably spark outrage, but people really believed it could work, they would put their faith in Allah and present them with a solution that is both carefully thought out to give everyone their rights, and for each party to not feel like they are being opressed.

How would you guys like to discuss the possibility of creating such a state, pros and cons, the obstacles it would face, as well as going into some of the finer details of creating such a state?

:w:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
02-08-2007, 10:17 PM
What exactly are you suggesting? A Palestinian state with a Sharia form of government?, or are you suggesting the end of Israel and a takeover by Arabs who will form a Sharia state?
Reply

wilberhum
02-08-2007, 10:22 PM
What non-Muslim would put there faith in Allah? I guess if they put there faith in Allah they would be Muslim.
As for Sharia law, only Muslims believe it is gods’ law. I guess if any one thought it was god’s law, they would be Muslim.
There is no way you will ever get any substantial support for Sharia law from non-Muslims.
I created a poll “Who wants to live in a theocracy? - 09-19-2006”. Twelve non-Muslims voted. Every one of them picked “I want to live under a secular government”.
Maybe that will help explain why no one proposed your idea.
Reply

brenton
02-08-2007, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What exactly are you suggesting? A Palestinian state with a Sharia form of government?, or are you suggesting the end of Israel and a takeover by Arabs who will form a Sharia state?
Good question.

I am not a fan of parts of Sharia, but then again, I'm not Muslim.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Trumble
02-08-2007, 10:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
I've heard ideas about creating an Islamic Sharia state that will allow Jews and Christians to live within it and practice their religions the same as they are now. Although I like this idea a lot, I always wonder why such a thing wasn't proposed to the international community as a solution for the problem in the Middle East.
I rather suspect because the 'international community' doesn't live in fantasyland, although I'll grant on occasions thinking they do is an easy mistake to make.

How would you guys like to discuss the possibility of creating such a state, pros and cons, the obstacles it would face, as well as going into some of the finer details of creating such a state?
The biggest obstacle, of course, is that the Israelis would never agree to it, and such a 'solution' could only be implemented by military force. On the assumption that the US would not agree, and indeed would actively oppose, such enforcement it 'ain't going to happen anytime soon.

The only practical, peaceful, solution is a two-state one based on the pre 1967 borders. Like it or not, the State of Israel is there to stay. Suggestions like yours might have made sense within a decade of the foundation of that state (apart from the Sharia bit), but sixty years on they are pure nonsense. There is a fundamental misconception there as well; the conflict is and always has been primarily political not religious on both sides. For forty years those driving the Palestinian cause were secular socialists, not Islamic militants. It is not about freedom to practice the relevent religion of choice, it is about a home for the Jewish people. They will never give that up, and neither should they.

If you meant (and I don't think you did?) a two-state solution with the Palestinian element being a Sharia state wouldn't that be rather up to them once the state had been established in the first place?
Reply

Skywalker
02-08-2007, 11:49 PM
To clarify, here's my very abstract idea... I know this is gonna get a lot of laughs, but just bear with me:

Why not eliminate something called Israel and Palestine and create one government? To make it easy for the Israelis and the international community, it could be named "Israel". Within this government, the current occupants of both Israel and Palestine would have the right to keep their current homes, their places of worship, and to practice their religions the same as they do now. In addition, the Palestinians would be given free unoccupied land from the government as compensation for what was taken from them.

How does this help? Israel and the US have stated many times that they want everyone to explicitly accept Israel as a legitimate state. They would have this. Israelis want a land to call their own where they could practice their religion free of opression. They would have this.

Great, so what's the catch?

It would be an Islamic government with Islamic laws. But unlike any of the Islamic governments in present time, this one would have to stick to Sharia 100%, and be the same the governments created in that area by Omar Ibn El-Khattab (mAbpwh) and Salah El-Din El-Ayoubi. In other words, the same kind of government that Jews used to take refuge in during the time of their existance, and the same kind of government that has proven time and time again throughout history to be fair and opression-free.

Israel would never accept this, nor would the US. A Sharia state would never be accepted by the international community.

What if...it's not labelled as a Sharia or an Islamic state, but just an "experimental state"? I think a lot of the laws in Sharia are similar to those in the Jewish judical system (if there is such a thing) because the Qur'an and Torah are very similar on a lot of issues, therefore it might not be as hard as people think to come to an agreement about the formation of a mutually agreed-upon government.

To satisfy the Muslims, Muslims would pay zakat, non-Muslims would pay jizya, but again, it wouldn't be called that, but rather just "tax".

I'm not sure about this, but I think non-Muslims are allowed to be part of the shoura, therefore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all be part of the government, and the number of seats of each representing religion would be proportional to the percentage of the population that belongs to each religion.

These are very abstract ideas which may seem totally laughable and unrealistic, but the world is built on strange ideas.

Comments please...
Reply

wilberhum
02-09-2007, 12:11 AM
It would be an Islamic government with Islamic laws.
That's a deal breaker.
What if...it's not labelled as a Sharia or an Islamic state, but just an "experimental state"?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, call it what you will, it is still a duck.
Reply

Trumble
02-09-2007, 12:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Why not eliminate something called Israel and Palestine and create one government? To make it easy for the Israelis and the international community, it could be named "Israel". Within this government, the current occupants of both Israel and Palestine would have the right to keep their current homes, their places of worship, and to practice their religions the same as they do now.
OK so far.

In addition, the Palestinians would be given free unoccupied land from the government as compensation for what was taken from them.
Israel isn't the biggest of countries, even if you included Gaza and the West Bank with that. I very much doubt there is any "free unoccupied land", or at least any worth having.

How does this help? Israel and the US have stated many times that they want everyone to explicitly accept Israel as a legitimate state. They would have this. Israelis want a land to call their own where they could practice their religion free of opression. They would have this.
As I said before, it isn't freedom to practice their religion (although that is necessary, of course) that is the major issue. Many Israelis are (to all intents and purposes) secular, anyway.

Great, so what's the catch?

It would be an Islamic government with Islamic laws.
In which case it could never be a land Israelis could call their own.

But unlike any of the Islamic governments in present time, this one would have to stick to Sharia 100%
And how, exactly, would this be enforced?

... and be the same the governments created in that area by Omar Ibn El-Khattab (mAbpwh) and Salah El-Din El-Ayoubi. In other words, the same kind of government that Jews used to take refuge in during the time of their existance, and the same kind of government that has proven time and time again throughout history to be fair and opression-free.
They are tired of "taking refuge", and with good reason. They believe, obviously correctly, that the best way to remain "oppression free" is to be in control of your own destiny, not hope historical precedent will guide the actions of those who are.

Israel would never accept this, nor would the US. A Sharia state would never be accepted by the international community.

What if...it's not labelled as a Sharia or an Islamic state, but just an "experimental state"?
An elephant is still an elephant even if you paint it in stripes and stick a large label saying "giraffe" on its head.

I think a lot of the laws in Sharia are similar to those in the Jewish judical system (if there is such a thing) because the Qur'an and Torah are very similar on a lot of issues, therefore it might not be as hard as people think to come to an agreement about the formation of a mutually agreed-upon government.
Most laws in most judicial systems are similar as they serve much the same purpose. That doesn't mean people are inclined to accept anybody else's judicial system rather than their own, particularly when that system is religious in nature.

To satisfy the Muslims, Muslims would pay zakat, non-Muslims would pay jizya, but again, it wouldn't be called that, but rather just "tax".
See my previous comment on elephants and giraffes. People don't like paying taxes, either, unless they are their own religious taxes.

I'm not sure about this, but I think non-Muslims are allowed to be part of the shoura, therefore, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can all be part of the government, and the number of seats of each representing religion would be proportional to the percentage of the population that belongs to each religion.
Again, you are under a fundamental misconception in assuming that the whole thing is primarily a problem of religion. How many seats would be allocated to both Jews and muslims who really aren't that bothered about religion at all, but prefer politics to be based around political ideologies?

These are very abstract ideas which may seem totally laughable and unrealistic, but the world is built on strange ideas.
Laughable, no, but unrealistic, yes.
Reply

lavikor201
02-09-2007, 01:43 AM
A lot of people on this forum have ideas about how to solve the problem between Israel and Palestine, and some of them have a lot of merit. I've heard ideas about creating an Islamic Sharia state that will allow Jews and Christians to live within it and practice their religions the same as they are now. Although I like this idea a lot, I always wonder why such a thing wasn't proposed to the international community as a solution for the problem in the Middle East.
Because we do not want to! How would you like to live under strict halacha Torah law? Jews would be denied proper prayer rights at the western wall to.
Reply

Skywalker
02-09-2007, 08:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Israel isn't the biggest of countries, even if you included Gaza and the West Bank with that. I very much doubt there is any "free unoccupied land", or at least any worth having.
So find another way to compensate them. Use money to build them new homes in better places, whatever. I don't think Palestinians would easily agree to live in a place called Israel whether it was Sharia or not because of what they went through.

As I said before, it isn't freedom to practice their religion (although that is necessary, of course) that is the major issue. Many Israelis are (to all intents and purposes) secular, anyway.
Well they would also have the freedom to practice no religion. I don't see the problem yet...

In which case it could never be a land Israelis could call their own.
Why is that? It's their land, nobody can take it away from them. Any attempt by this new government to take it away unjustly would mean opression, and this is something that Sharia is made to destroy, not create. If the problem is that Israelis want Jewish law to prevail on their land, this could be feasable if they sat down to talk about it with the Muslims because they would undoubtedly find a lot of similarities in what they want. Is that what you mean?

And how, exactly, would this be enforced?
That's the thing, it would take many months of planning by Muslim scholars from all around the world to see what kind of government would be suitable over there. There isn't one country in the world that practices Sharia properly, therefore it would be a big challenge for them not only to decide which rules are valid, but which rules have to be applied and how given the situation. This would then be presented to the Israeli and Jewish representatives who would analyze it and discuss it with the people who presented it. Undoubtedly both sides would have to sacrifice a part of what they want if they want to reach a compromise, but it would be possible.

They are tired of "taking refuge", and with good reason. They believe, obviously correctly, that the best way to remain "oppression free" is to be in control of your own destiny, not hope historical precedent will guide the actions of those who are.
Up till now they haven't demonstrated that they could do it properly and responsibly. They pretty much invaded Palestinian land and forced them into occupation, and have thus far created a many decades long conflict in which many many people have died. It's obviously not working...so why not try something new?

An elephant is still an elephant even if you paint it in stripes and stick a large label saying "giraffe" on its head.
In these sensitive matters, it's better to be politically correct. Tell the Muslims that they will have a Sharia state, tell the Jews that they will have a Jewish state, it would all be true if a proper agreement was made.

Most laws in most judicial systems are similar as they serve much the same purpose. That doesn't mean people are inclined to accept anybody else's judicial system rather than their own, particularly when that system is religious in nature.
Both sides would have to feel like it's their own judicial system, or be a judicial system that they don't have any problems with. Muslims live under many different judicial systems all over the world. As long as they're not opressive, we have no problems in living in any of those places. Even those living in so-called Sharia countries and not living in "proper" Sharia countries, but the Muslims living there tolerate it because it's what they're used to. If you give people something that isn't far from what they're used to, or even better in some ways, they would be inclined to agree.

See my previous comment on elephants and giraffes. People don't like paying taxes, either, unless they are their own religious taxes.
Right now they're paying taxes whether they like it or not, and a LOT of taxes at that. I heard that Muslims in Israel pay up to a whopping 50%! Jizya is a very tiny amount compared to that, and would definetely be seen as mercy compared to what they have now. Either way, it's again best to be politically correct, to not make anyone feel like they're being opressed. Simply don't tell them that they're paying jizya, just tell them they they're having significant tax cuts. Would they disagree?

Again, you are under a fundamental misconception in assuming that the whole thing is primarily a problem of religion. How many seats would be allocated to both Jews and muslims who really aren't that bothered about religion at all, but prefer politics to be based around political ideologies?
Mine was just an example that they could form something that was fair. This could be taken further by having each religious party separate into individual political parties, which could then be taken yet another step further and have parties from different religions with similar interests merge. When there's a will there's a way.

Because we do not want to! How would you like to live under strict halacha Torah law? Jews would be denied proper prayer rights at the western wall to.
I really like your "Judaism" thread dude. Could you give us details as to what this kind of government would be like and how it would differ from a Sharia one. Also, is this the kind of government that Israel has now or is aiming for in the first place? Muslims live under different laws all the time, and as I said before, if it's not opressive, we're not complaining. Lastly, could you tell us more about why they would be denied prayer rights at the western wall?

Do you guys have other ideas as to how to go about a proper solition for the Israel and Palestine problem?
Reply

snakelegs
02-09-2007, 09:20 AM
an islamic state might be fine.....
for a country with a muslim population of 100%.
Reply

KAding
02-09-2007, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
:sl:

Well, the Fatah and the Hamas parties have agreed today in Mecca to form a unity government, to stop violence against each other, and to work hard to create a viable Palestinian state. After continuous disagreements, this event seems almost historic. While some people are skeptical that this agreement will hold, others find a new sense of optimism in the events that occured in Mecca.

Mahmoud Abbas is to meet with Ehud Olmert and Condoleeza Rice six days from now insha-Allah to discuss the situation between Israel and Palestine, and to continue with the "Roadmap to Peace" that they've been trying to make work.

A lot of people on this forum have ideas about how to solve the problem between Israel and Palestine, and some of them have a lot of merit. I've heard ideas about creating an Islamic Sharia state that will allow Jews and Christians to live within it and practice their religions the same as they are now. Although I like this idea a lot, I always wonder why such a thing wasn't proposed to the international community as a solution for the problem in the Middle East. Obviously just saying the word "Sharia" to the international community would probably spark outrage, but people really believed it could work, they would put their faith in Allah and present them with a solution that is both carefully thought out to give everyone their rights, and for each party to not feel like they are being opressed.

How would you guys like to discuss the possibility of creating such a state, pros and cons, the obstacles it would face, as well as going into some of the finer details of creating such a state?

:w:
Hello Skywalker,

The problem is that while Muslims generally think it would be great living under Islamic rule as a 'protected people' (Dhimmi), non-Muslims generally disagree. So as such it is not a solution to the conflict, because the other parties will not be willing to accept it.

You may think this is unreasonable, but in general non-Muslims do not relish the idea of living in a shariah state. I think a secular state without a state religion has a better chance of succeeding. In the end though, I think the ultimate solution is seperation. We must not insist on different religions or ethnic groups living in the same state, in general these multi-religious, multi-ethnic states are not particularly stable and prone to civil strife. Thats my opinion anyway.

In short, the only way I can see this happening is through force, that is a military defeat of Israel and the destruction of the state.
Reply

lavikor201
02-09-2007, 11:38 AM
really like your "Judaism" thread dude. Could you give us details as to what this kind of government would be like and how it would differ from a Sharia one.
It would basically be Torah law. Idolatry, pork work on the Sabbath "saturday" would be forbidden, but non-Jews are forbiden from keeping the Sabbath unless they convert so you would be able to do whatever you want for that.

Also, is this the kind of government that Israel has now or is aiming for in the first place? Muslims live under different laws all the time, and as I said before, if it's not opressive, we're not complaining.
No, full Torah law in the land of Israel would create a "Jewish state" which is forbiden before the Messiah comes. Right now Israel is not a "Jewish state" by a secular goverment run by a majority Jewish population.

Lastly, could you tell us more about why they would be denied prayer rights at the western wall?
Because I cannot recall a time since Salahadin year in the history of the Holy Land that Jews have had full acess to the wall when under Arab control.

The most recent would be Jordanian control which did not allow any prayers there, and demolitioned a huge portion of the Jewish quarter.
Reply

eagleye
02-09-2007, 03:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
How would you like to live under strict halacha Torah law?
A solution to Palestine:rolleyes:
Reply

eagleye
02-09-2007, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
No, full Torah law in the land of Israel would create a "Jewish state" which is forbiden before the Messiah comes. Right now Israel is not a "Jewish state" by a secular goverment run by a majority Jewish population.
where does it say
"Jewish state" forbiden before the Messiah comes
state is something the Torah cannot address as such term yet existed.
isn't messiah job to rebuild the temple? first time I read, he will be also a state founder. can you give me a reference?
Reply

asadmustafa
02-09-2007, 03:27 PM
we have an inter net mobile shop
www.mobco.co.uk
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
02-09-2007, 03:51 PM
Can I just point out Israel is a jewish only state, minorities are treated as second class citizens, Israel has adopted the Gestapo attitude towards non-jews especially muslims.
Not everything concerns Israel occupying extra land, their Nazi like tactics and no respect for muslim religious sensitivities is what causes an outrage by Palestinians. They dont want to accept being occupied and on top of that being terrorised and mistreated. Israel could have taken over peacefully, I guess they need a lesson in basic communication skills.
The solution is Israel must disarm itself and return all occupied land back, there ought to be a committee to regulate the peace deal so neither jews or muslims get mistreated. Only then Israel can be trusted and backed by the muslim world.
Reply

asadmustafa
02-09-2007, 03:57 PM
yes u are right
asadmustafa.com
Reply

Skywalker
02-09-2007, 05:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
The problem is that while Muslims generally think it would be great living under Islamic rule as a 'protected people' (Dhimmi), non-Muslims generally disagree. So as such it is not a solution to the conflict, because the other parties will not be willing to accept it.
Actually I think the real problem is that words like "Sharia", "Jihad", "madrassa", etc. have all these sinister meanings in people's minds thanks to the US government's lovely definitions. A madrassa means "school" for crying out loud! I think this plays a big part in allowing the people to even stomach the notion of a Sharia state being set up...anywhere in the world. It's come to a point that Muslims themselves would rather live in a secular society, while forgetting the kind of beautiful Sharia societies that existed hundreds of years ago and how they survived for many generations. At that time, Islamic countries were the high-standard that everyone wanted to be part of. Cities like Cordoba and Baghdad were the most beautiful and the most advanced cities in the world because Sharia allowed people to put aside their differences and work for the betterment of mankind. I don't know if anybody would be able to create such a society today with all the skepticism and opposition from ouside and even within the Muslim ummah, but I think it's worth a try. One thing is that it should never be implemented by force, but it should be held at such a high standard that the people themselves would actually WANT it. Don't know how that's ever gonna happen though...

In short, the only way I can see this happening is through force, that is a military defeat of Israel and the destruction of the state.
Very unlikely given who their "allies" are, but even if that happens...then what? Where are all those people gonna go? They've been living there for a long time, and yes they did force a whole population out of that land when they took it, but the innocent that live there now should not have to suffer for those actions. I think the only way to humanely deal with this situation is that the people learn to live with each other. Even if they separate, and Palestine is given back its 1967 borders and forms its own stable government, how long do you think it will take before something else happens to provoke either side? Israel is dead in the center of the Islamic and Arab world, not only that, but it's also there illegally by many standards. I don't think its existance as it is would ever allow for the establishment of lasting peace.

But instead of calling for it to get wiped off the map like certain presidents we know, I'm suggesting the creation of a new kind of government that will allow the Israelis to have their land and to practice their religion free of any interference, while at the same time taking the pebble out of the shoes of the Arab nations by creating a government that even they themselves would look up to.

What are the biggest concerns non-Muslims have regarding living in a Sharia government?

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
It would basically be Torah law. Idolatry, pork work on the Sabbath "saturday" would be forbidden, but non-Jews are forbiden from keeping the Sabbath unless they convert so you would be able to do whatever you want for that.
So far, I would have absolutely no problem living under Torah law, and neither would any other Muslim. Is there anything in your law that you think I would have a problem with?

No, full Torah law in the land of Israel would create a "Jewish state" which is forbiden before the Messiah comes. Right now Israel is not a "Jewish state" by a secular goverment run by a majority Jewish population.
Ok, so in other words, Israel is being occupied right now because they're waiting for the Messiah to come and establish a "Jewish state"? Did I understand you correctly?

Because I cannot recall a time since Salahadin year in the history of the Holy Land that Jews have had full acess to the wall when under Arab control.
That's why I'm suggesting a government identical to Salah El-Din's to rule the area, but of course in a modern context.
Reply

lavikor201
02-09-2007, 07:46 PM
Ok, so in other words, Israel is being occupied right now because they're waiting for the Messiah to come and establish a "Jewish state"? Did I understand you correctly?
The Moshiach will come and take the country and establish a Jewish state regardless. The coming of immigrants to the Holy Land was more about there lives being destroyed in Europe, and riots taking place in Arab countries towards the Arab Jews.

So far, I would have absolutely no problem living under Torah law, and neither would any other Muslim. Is there anything in your law that you think I would have a problem with?
Don't think so. Not positive though. Alchohol (wine in particular) is considered a must drink on Shabbat night, to be able to bless G-d for creating the wine. But in no way are you forced to drink it.
Reply

Fishman
02-09-2007, 08:40 PM
:sl:
I don't think it's possible to establish a Sharia state in Israel, since the country is mostly Jewish. There are a lot of Muslims, but not anywhere near a majority. What we should look for is a Sharia Palestine and a Jewish Israel. Despite the fact that Israel was once Islamic land, we must come to a compromise here if we want peace. Israel will soon be ruled by Muslims anyway, since when the Dajal is killed everybody will convert to Islam, and won't care about having an Israel anymore.
:w:
Reply

SATalha
02-09-2007, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
I don't think it's possible to establish a Sharia state in Israel, since the country is mostly Jewish. There are a lot of Muslims, but not anywhere near a majority. What we should look for is a Sharia Palestine and a Jewish Israel. Despite the fact that Israel was once Islamic land, we must come to a compromise here if we want peace. Israel will soon be ruled by Muslims anyway, since when the Dajal is killed everybody will convert to Islam, and won't care about having an Israel anymore.
:w:
Ameen bro i agree with you. I am just happy that the fighting parties have resolved their problems (so far) and no they can face the real enemy again.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-09-2007, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
:sl:

Well, the Fatah and the Hamas parties have agreed today in Mecca to form a unity government, to stop violence against each other, and to work hard to create a viable Palestinian state. After continuous disagreements, this event seems almost historic. While some people are skeptical that this agreement will hold, others find a new sense of optimism in the events that occured in Mecca.

Mahmoud Abbas is to meet with Ehud Olmert and Condoleeza Rice six days from now insha-Allah to discuss the situation between Israel and Palestine, and to continue with the "Roadmap to Peace" that they've been trying to make work.

A lot of people on this forum have ideas about how to solve the problem between Israel and Palestine, and some of them have a lot of merit. I've heard ideas about creating an Islamic Sharia state that will allow Jews and Christians to live within it and practice their religions the same as they are now. Although I like this idea a lot, I always wonder why such a thing wasn't proposed to the international community as a solution for the problem in the Middle East. Obviously just saying the word "Sharia" to the international community would probably spark outrage, but people really believed it could work, they would put their faith in Allah and present them with a solution that is both carefully thought out to give everyone their rights, and for each party to not feel like they are being opressed.

How would you guys like to discuss the possibility of creating such a state, pros and cons, the obstacles it would face, as well as going into some of the finer details of creating such a state?

:w:
I was delighted with King Abdullah for hosting the Council of Palestine at Mecca. They followed the ancient laws to the letter, and I have faith in these newly formed Councils.

Sharia Law doesn't seem to be the problem. The complaint, as I understand it, concerns sojourn laws... specifically, the lack of them. Sojourn laws protect the religious rights of guests in one's land, to worship as they choose, according to their own traditions. This is very important since one or another group can become alienated by religious oppression, which in turn leads to dissent within the kingdom. This happened in Iraq, in that the Shia were forbidden the right to celebrate Ashurah and the Yezidis were forced to convert, so it came as no surprize to me to see them cheer during the fall of Saddam Hussein. No rocket science needed to work that out.

The trick though, is to keep them all talking. Eventually, after viewing a certain issue from 359 different angels that no one agrees with, you find the 360th degree that allows everyone to see the issue the same way... or give in from pure exhaustion ;0

I've gotta admit, I'm very pleased with what I've seen taking shape. I thought the Councils would be decades away from forming, but everyone surpized me!

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-09-2007, 09:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
I don't think it's possible to establish a Sharia state in Israel, since the country is mostly Jewish.
:w:
The laws are almost identical and Torah Law is only manditory for Jews, so I can't see a legal problem. I have one or two "personal" issues, but nothing that can't be resolved in the correct time and place.

To me, the Judeans are the older of the generations and the Muslims are the younger... and while multi-generational households are never without friction, they are most certainly 'do-able' arrangements.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Skywalker
02-10-2007, 12:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
The Moshiach will come and take the country and establish a Jewish state regardless. The coming of immigrants to the Holy Land was more about there lives being destroyed in Europe, and riots taking place in Arab countries towards the Arab Jews.
So in other words, no matter who occupies that land now, it will be given to the Jews when the Messiah comes? So you could have a democratic government, a communist government, a Torah government, or a Sharia government, and it wouldn't make a difference to the Jews since they're getting what they want at the end anyways, right?

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Don't think so. Not positive though. Alchohol (wine in particular) is considered a must drink on Shabbat night, to be able to bless G-d for creating the wine. But in no way are you forced to drink it.
Dude, if a Torah government is what you say, then I'd be very happy if you set it up where I live, in Egypt. If I'm allowed to practice my faith the way I want, I would have no problem living under Jewish rule, heck I would even pay them their equivalent of jizya to be able to live peacefully among them.

The only reason I see that people have a problem with Sharia is that it's been shown in a bad light by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If there was one country in the world that practiced Sharia the way the Prophet (pbuh) wanted and the way it was practiced by people like Salah El-Din El-Ayoubi, I think everybody would respect it a lot more and look up to it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
I don't think it's possible to establish a Sharia state in Israel, since the country is mostly Jewish. There are a lot of Muslims, but not anywhere near a majority.
I was talking about joining Israel AND Palestine together to form a new state of Israel and eliminating any borders (and walls) between them. I think the two populations would be pretty equal then, besides, pardon the stupidness of this question, but do you need to have a Muslim majority in order to have Shaira law in a country?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
Despite the fact that Israel was once Islamic land, we must come to a compromise here if we want peace. Israel will soon be ruled by Muslims anyway, since when the Dajal is killed everybody will convert to Islam, and won't care about having an Israel anymore.
What I'm proposing here IS a compromise. I don't know why everybody thinks that Sharia needs to be imposed. That's NOT the way to do it, especially since the Muslim nation is currently in no position to be imposing anything on anybody. Secondly, we don't know when the Dijjal is coming or when any of those events will take place. They could already be happening, they could be tomorrow, or they could be in 50,000 years. We have to do our best to improve things in this world as if we're going to live here forever, but we also have to be pious and worship Allah like we're going to die tomorrow.

This is not something where you can say, oh the Dijjal is coming anytime now, so forget solving the problem. No, you have people, Muslim brothers and sisters living under occupation, getting killed, getting humiliated, living under opression, and it would be irresponsible to be able to do something about it and not do it because you feel the end of the world is coming anyway. It's like being sick and refusing to take medicine because of the faith that Allah will cure you. Muslims are not passive, therefore if we can do something to improve things there, we should. As they say in Lord of the Rings, "Even the smallest person can change to course of the future."

:w:
Reply

NiceGuy1987
02-10-2007, 12:57 PM
:sl:

Mashallah may allah reward you all for your inputs ameen. just basicly as i see it their will be no peace with israel or palastine the issue is greater then that. Palastine is not for the palastines them selves rather it is for all muslims 1.5billion of them, the 3rd holiest sight of islam is located their al aqsa, now if that goes under jewish rule im sure the 1.5billion muslims would not agree to this.

further more we know that the muslims and jews will remain fighting until Isa(Jesus) peace be upon him returns, wen he will kill the fake missah the jews r waiting for. then the jews will run behind the trees and rocks and we will destroy them

but this does not mean we give up on our brothers on palstine we keep trying out best to work on things.
Reply

Keltoi
02-10-2007, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by NiceGuy1987
:sl:

Mashallah may allah reward you all for your inputs ameen. just basicly as i see it their will be no peace with israel or palastine the issue is greater then that. Palastine is not for the palastines them selves rather it is for all muslims 1.5billion of them, the 3rd holiest sight of islam is located their al aqsa, now if that goes under jewish rule im sure the 1.5billion muslims would not agree to this.

further more we know that the muslims and jews will remain fighting until Isa(Jesus) peace be upon him returns, wen he will kill the fake missah the jews r waiting for. then the jews will run behind the trees and rocks and we will destroy them

but this does not mean we give up on our brothers on palstine we keep trying out best to work on things.
What a wonderful world view.
Reply

SilentObserver
02-10-2007, 06:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by NiceGuy1987
:sl:
further more we know that the muslims and jews will remain fighting until Isa(Jesus) peace be upon him returns, wen he will kill the fake missah the jews r waiting for. then the jews will run behind the trees and rocks and we will destroy them
Niceguy?

How will peace ever be achieved when people think like this? If I were a jew I would view this as a direct threat and be very suspicious of muslims that might be inclined to think this way.
I don't believe lasting peace will ever be possible. There will always be people with crazy ideas like these that won't allow a lasting peace.
Reply

IzakHalevas
02-10-2007, 08:08 PM
So in other words, no matter who occupies that land now, it will be given to the Jews when the Messiah comes? So you could have a democratic government, a communist government, a Torah government, or a Sharia government, and it wouldn't make a difference to the Jews since they're getting what they want at the end anyways, right?
Right. The Jews make no claim to the rest of the earth. When the Messiah comes he will lead every Jew to Israel (only half live there now) and rebuild the Temple. Until then we wait.
Reply

Skywalker
02-10-2007, 08:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
Right. The Jews make no claim to the rest of the earth. When the Messiah comes he will lead every Jew to Israel (only half live there now) and rebuild the Temple. Until then we wait.
That's good to know. So then why do Jews have the extreme motivation to rule Israel now? I'm just a curious learner...

format_quote Originally Posted by SilentObserver
How will peace ever be achieved when people think like this? If I were a jew I would view this as a direct threat and be very suspicious of muslims that might be inclined to think this way.
I think the wording of my brother there could have been a bit better...to say the least :muddlehea

He is referring to a prophecy in the Qur'an which states that the Dijjal (or Anti-Christ) will come and a lot of Jews will side with him. At that time, the Muslims will go to war with them AND the rest of the followers of the Dijjal (not just that group of Jews) and will fight then until they are led to victory by Imam Mahdi and Prophet Eisa (pbuh). So as it clearly says that only the Jews that side with the Anti-Christ are to be fought, there is no reason for Muslims and Jews to be fighting now. On the contrary, they should be trying hard to build bridges with each other so that when the dark days come and the Dijjal does start forming his army, a smaller number of people would actually join his ranks. That's my point of view anyway.

format_quote Originally Posted by NiceGuy
Palastine is not for the palastines them selves rather it is for all muslims 1.5billion of them, the 3rd holiest sight of islam is located their al aqsa, now if that goes under jewish rule im sure the 1.5billion muslims would not agree to this.
Well it's under Jewish rule already, not only that but a rather imposing one at that from what I understand. The Aqsa mosque and the Temple Mount is a very sensitive issue and should be thought out very carefully. We can't just say that it belongs to the Muslims and that's it. That's no way to achieve peace. That part of the world is important to Muslims, Jews, and Christians, and should be easily accessible by all three religions. I don't think anybody has the right (earthly right) to deny anyone else access to that, nor should anybody do any "renovating" over there without first discussing it with representatives of the other religions (which is one thing that Israel is NOT doing right now).

If it was under Sharia rule, anybody would have access to the holy places, just like in the days of Salah El-Din.

:w:
Reply

IzakHalevas
02-10-2007, 09:41 PM
That's good to know. So then why do Jews have the extreme motivation to rule Israel now? I'm just a curious learner...
Safety. Riots in the Arab world, Pogroms in the Christian world, there were few places Jews could live where they could practice there religion in complete freedom, in public, and without having to pay a tax. Although the Muslim world was a lot better then the Christian world about it, anti-semitism was still rampant. Iranian Jews who remained, (a majority left for Israel) tell stories of how Muslims would ask if they really had "horns".
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-10-2007, 09:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What a wonderful world view.
They're brothers. I get this same crap all the time in my household when my two boys go at it. Only with more expletives.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Skywalker
02-10-2007, 10:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHavelas
Safety. Riots in the Arab world, Pogroms in the Christian world, there were few places Jews could live where they could practice there religion in complete freedom, in public, and without having to pay a tax. Although the Muslim world was a lot better then the Christian world about it, anti-semitism was still rampant. Iranian Jews who remained, (a majority left for Israel) tell stories of how Muslims would ask if they really had "horns".
That's sad to hear. Humiliation is a form of opression, and this is one thing we're trying to destroy. It would be nice if we had just one pure Sharia society where this kind of treatment would not be tolerated.
As for not having to pay a tax...well that's not exactly true. Israel has one of the highest tax rates in the world, I heard that it even reaches 50%! Is this true, lavikor?

format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
They're brothers. I get this same crap all the time in my household when my two boys go at it. Only with more expletives.
When I said brother, I meant brother in Islam...not the brother that I share a room with. lol
That is what you meant, isn't it?
Reply

brenton
02-10-2007, 11:00 PM
Wow. Hide behind rocks and then beat Jews with them.
Maybe the media isn't the only reason people have problems with Muslims.
Reply

IzakHalevas
02-11-2007, 01:47 AM
As for not having to pay a tax...well that's not exactly true. Israel has one of the highest tax rates in the world, I heard that it even reaches 50%! Is this true, lavikor?
It is given to everyone equally though, not based on religion. In some societies Jews would have to pay normal taxes, taxes for being Jewish, taxes for being able to wear a Jewish religious item, tazes for prayers (3 daily) etc.
Reply

Skywalker
02-11-2007, 08:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by brenton
Wow. Hide behind rocks and then beat Jews with them.
Maybe the media isn't the only reason people have problems with Muslims.
Like I said, very poorly expressed.

format_quote Originally Posted by IzakHalevas
It is given to everyone equally though, not based on religion. In some societies Jews would have to pay normal taxes, taxes for being Jewish, taxes for being able to wear a Jewish religious item, tazes for prayers (3 daily) etc.
I heard that Muslims in Israel have to pay more than Jews, is this true? In Sharia, non-Muslims don't have to pay for every little thing like you mentioned. Instead, the head of every household who is above the age of adolescence pays a yearly percentage of their savings, which in a lot of cases is less than what the Muslims themselves used to pay. Also, they were under no obligation to join the military nor would anybody ever bother them about their religious practices. I don't think you can find a system more fair than that anywhere in the world.

Another thing that non-Muslims had to pay was when traders entered or left the Sharia country, they had to pay 10% of the value of their goods to the government, which is also very fair compared to today's standards.
Reply

IzakHalevas
02-11-2007, 08:07 PM
No untrue. Many Muslims do not even pay taxes.

I believe that people who do not join the military (it is required at 18) have to do something like community service or something on taxes to get out of it, but Orthodox Jews have to do the same when they want to study instead of go to thr Army after Yeshiva (school).
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
02-11-2007, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
When I said brother, I meant brother in Islam...not the brother that I share a room with. lol
That is what you meant, isn't it?
Nope. I meant 'brothers' in the form of... 'House of Abraham'.

Sorry guys, but you're all stuck with each other.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-06-2007, 08:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
Nope. I meant 'brothers' in the form of... 'House of Abraham'.

Sorry guys, but you're all stuck with each other.

Ninth Scribe

When children, brothers may behave as you have indicated. But when mature, I don't expect the same sort of behavior that I do of children. So are you saying that Palestinians and Israelies are behaving like children?
Reply

snakelegs
04-06-2007, 09:55 AM
israel was founded (rightly or wrongly) as a jewish state - specifically as a homeland for the jewish people.
there is no way they are going to agree to that state's demise.
there is also no way (due to the above) that they are going to grant the "right of return" as demanded by the palestinians.
no one is going to agree to live under shariah law except muslims.
i'm sorry to say it, but the israel-palestinian problem looks totally hopeless to me. they will just keep killing each other until.....? :cry:
i hope i am wrong.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-06-2007, 11:37 AM
Sharia or anything else, any kind of religious "state" is by definition anti-freedom, so it bothers me.
Reply

Skywalker
04-07-2007, 08:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i'm sorry to say it, but the israel-palestinian problem looks totally hopeless to me. they will just keep killing each other until.....?
i hope i am wrong.
Don't worry, you are. :)

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
israel was founded (rightly or wrongly) as a jewish state - specifically as a homeland for the jewish people.
Actually, it's a secular state, which expelled thousands of people in order to be created.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
there is no way they are going to agree to that state's demise.
Well, some people may be asking for it's demise, but I more interested in a restructuring.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
there is also no way (due to the above) that they are going to grant the "right of return" as demanded by the palestinians.
This is where the key to the situation lies. They expelled people from their homes and now they don't acknowledge their right to want to return. This is where, I feel, they are going to have to make a compromise if there is going to be peace. Either a compromise, or enormous foreign pressure, unlike what we've been seeing up till now.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
no one is going to agree to live under shariah law except muslims.
Secularists and atheists would have a problem, but like I said before, I'd be more than willing to live under Torah law, and I think the more religious Jews would also not have a problem living under Sharia law. I could be wrong though.

Or is there a rule about nobody but Jews living in a Jewish country?
Reply

E'jaazi
04-07-2007, 08:14 AM
You cannot allow kufr in an Islamic State. The Land belongs to the muslims and that is the only way it will ever be settled!
Reply

snakelegs
04-07-2007, 08:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Don't worry, you are. :)

Actually, it's a secular state, which expelled thousands of people in order to be created.
this is true. its founders were not religious, but the state was established as a jewish state - a homeland for jews. (never mind that it was in someone else's house!) it was felt that all the centuries of persecution came because the jewish people no longer had a state.
the europeans saw it as a handy way to establish a neo-colony in the mideast. personally, i think it was wrong and that the state was founded on a fallacy, but that's beside the point.


This is where the key to the situation lies. They expelled people from their homes and now they don't acknowledge their right to want to return. This is where, I feel, they are going to have to make a compromise if there is going to be peace. Either a compromise, or enormous foreign pressure, unlike what we've been seeing up till now.
israel will never grant the right of return to the people they displaced. this would alter the demographics of the country and it would no longer be a jewish state. they will never compromise on this issue. would the palestinians? would they settle for monetary compensation? (they might be more willing than the jews.)


Secularists and atheists would have a problem, but like I said before, I'd be more than willing to live under Torah law, and I think the more religious Jews would also not have a problem living under Sharia law. I could be wrong though.

Or is there a rule about nobody but Jews living in a Jewish country?
it is not that no one jewish can live there but the jews are not going to agree to become a minority. most israeli jews would have a problem with even a jewish theocracy!
i don't think that only secularists and atheists would have a problem - i think everyone would have a problem with accepting a shariah ruled country. don't forget there are also many palestinian christians. for that matter, i'm sure that there are plenty of palestinian muslims that would have no desire to live under shariah.
i think your idea is completely unrealistic. i don't see how you can think for one minute that this scenario is a possibility for a peaceful solution. it will never happen. no one but muslims (and not all muslims, at that) would voluntarily agree to live under shariah.
i don't know if there is a solution to this mess, but the one you propose is not it.
Reply

Trumble
04-07-2007, 11:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is true. its founders were not religious, but the state was established as a jewish state - a homeland for jews. (never mind that it was in someone else's house!) it was felt that all the centuries of persecution came because the jewish people no longer had a state.
As you imply it is essential to distinguish between the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. It is pointless talking about whether Israeli Jews would be as 'happy' to live under Sharia law as they would Torah law - the majority would find both totally unacceptable; just as unacceptable as citizens in the US or Europe would.


the europeans saw it as a handy way to establish a neo-colony in the mideast. personally, i think it was wrong and that the state was founded on a fallacy, but that's beside the point.
Do you have anything to support that? As far as I'm aware the European nations had no desire whatsoever for a 'neo-colony' in the Middle East, and Israel has certainly never behaved as one. That doesn't mean there wasn't (by no means universal) support for the establishment of the state of Israel but it shouldn't be forgotten that the boundaries seen as acceptable in 1948 were very different from those of 1967, and today. Most of the land that the Palestinians have any real case for 'returning' to was 'gifted' to Israel by the Arabs (as opposed to 'muslims') in the hopelessly misjudged 1948 war.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-07-2007, 02:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by E'jaazi
You cannot allow kufr in an Islamic State. The Land belongs to the muslims and that is the only way it will ever be settled!
It almost sounds like you would prefer war to anything less than getting exactly what you want in total. Is there nothing less than an Islamic state that you would be willing to accept?

Your profile does not say where you presently live. Is it an Islamic state under pure Sharia law? Or have you learned to live with something other than that after all?
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
04-07-2007, 03:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
When children, brothers may behave as you have indicated. But when mature, I don't expect the same sort of behavior that I do of children. So are you saying that Palestinians and Israelies are behaving like children?
The 'behavior' might be a direct result of men ingesting excessive amounts of (birth control) hormones which have turned up in the rivers there. I'm not positive (not my field of expertise), but I can't imagine this would have no effect on the men. My point is, yes... they are behaving like children wihout mothers. The fact that they are forwarded by so many generations, does not make them any less than family. It just means there are more branches of the family tree to deal with.

If I were to go off on one of my spiritual lectures, I'd say the land the Judeans have called Israel is cursed by an older Justice - but I'll spare everyone from that rant. I believe the House of Islam can unite themselves, despite all the sibling rivalry, and if they do... nuff said.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Skywalker
04-07-2007, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by E'jaazi
You cannot allow kufr in an Islamic State.
Says who? People are free to worship whatever they want if they pay the jizya and abide by the law.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
personally, i think it was wrong and that the state was founded on a fallacy, but that's beside the point.
I think most of us agree on that.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
israel will never grant the right of return to the people they displaced. this would alter the demographics of the country and it would no longer be a jewish state. they will never compromise on this issue.
What if they faced sanctions? Do you think they would compromise then?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
would the palestinians? would they settle for monetary compensation?
I think it's a possibility, but I feel it also depends on the way it's given to them. There are a lot of emotions involved there, so if they are presented the money in the form of, "Ha! We took your land and you couldn't do anything about it, but here's some money out of pity," I doubt anybody would accept that. It also depends on how much money they would receive as compensation.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
it is not that no one jewish can live there but the jews are not going to agree to become a minority.
This is a very important point.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i don't think that only secularists and atheists would have a problem - i think everyone would have a problem with accepting a shariah ruled country. don't forget there are also many palestinian christians. for that matter, i'm sure that there are plenty of palestinian muslims that would have no desire to live under shariah.
i think your idea is completely unrealistic. i don't see how you can think for one minute that this scenario is a possibility for a peaceful solution.
From what you say, it's like saying "at the end of the day, it's not about who's Jewish or who's Muslim, it's about who wants to live in a religious state and who wants to live in a secular one." I think that's true to an extent, but I also think that the majority of Palestinians would agree to live in one, but I don't know about Jews.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
it will never happen. no one but muslims (and not all muslims, at that) would voluntarily agree to live under shariah.
This is true, but I think people's lack of knowledge about Sharia law contributes to this greatly. People look at it as complete removal of freedom, a dictatorship, whatever, when in reality it's quite the opposite (if it's properly integrated that is). It takes all the things that are wrong with society, even things that people don't know are wrong, and makes them illegal. This might seem constraining, but it's really not once you get used to it. I remember when I first went to Canada, they were really strict with their laws over there. Seatbelts, red lights, speed limits,...a lot different than what I was used to. I didn't like it in the beginning and yes I did feel constrained, but after a while I got used to it and it became second nature. I overlooked the contraints because the country had something good to offer. Now I'm in Egypt and I'm the only one around who fastens his seatbelt. I still drive like a maniac though ;D

The point is, if a country makes itself stand out socially, economically, politically, as just, fair, happy, and peaceful, people will go for it even if they do have to give up public drinking.

Anyways, this was just a random idea. I wanna hear what other people think could be a solution to the problem.
Reply

snakelegs
04-08-2007, 04:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Do you have anything to support that? As far as I'm aware the European nations had no desire whatsoever for a 'neo-colony' in the Middle East, and Israel has certainly never behaved as one. That doesn't mean there wasn't (by no means universal) support for the establishment of the state of Israel but it shouldn't be forgotten that the boundaries seen as acceptable in 1948 were very different from those of 1967, and today. Most of the land that the Palestinians have any real case for 'returning' to was 'gifted' to Israel by the Arabs (as opposed to 'muslims') in the hopelessly misjudged 1948 war.
no, i don't have anything i can put my finger on to support that and it is an opinion - nothing i can prove. but israel was a foreign implantation of europeans in a non-european region. i don't believe the british mandate for palestine was caused by any great love of jews, but because they thought it would be good to have an outpost of people more like themselves that they could possibly count on, down the line. it was certainly an implant of a very foreign culture. so this is what i meant by my statement and yes, i could be way off. it's been known to happen. :D
Reply

snakelegs
04-08-2007, 04:55 AM
What if they faced sanctions? Do you think they would compromise then?[/QUOTE]

i am opposed to sanctions - anywhere, against any country because they punish the "little" people
they could be forced to compromise only by the u.s. (since they depend on massive amounts of u.s. aid). i would like to see this happen but it is very unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. but there are definite limits, i think, on what the israel would be willing to compromise and its identity as a jewish state is one of them.


From what you say, it's like saying "at the end of the day, it's not about who's Jewish or who's Muslim, it's about who wants to live in a religious state and who wants to live in a secular one." I think that's true to an extent, but I also think that the majority of Palestinians would agree to live in one, but I don't know about Jews.
the majority of israelis would never agree to living even under a jewish theocracy.


This is true, but I think people's lack of knowledge about Sharia law contributes to this greatly. People look at it as complete removal of freedom, a dictatorship, whatever, when in reality it's quite the opposite (if it's properly integrated that is). It takes all the things that are wrong with society, even things that people don't know are wrong, and makes them illegal. This might seem constraining, but it's really not once you get used to it. I remember when I first went to Canada, they were really strict with their laws over there. Seatbelts, red lights, speed limits,...a lot different than what I was used to. I didn't like it in the beginning and yes I did feel constrained, but after a while I got used to it and it became second nature. I overlooked the contraints because the country had something good to offer. Now I'm in Egypt and I'm the only one around who fastens his seatbelt. I still drive like a maniac though ;D

The point is, if a country makes itself stand out socially, economically, politically, as just, fair, happy, and peaceful, people will go for it even if they do have to give up public drinking.

Anyways, this was just a random idea. I wanna hear what other people think could be a solution to the problem.
obviously, i am a rabid supporter of a secular state. i would be opposed to any kind of theocracy.
maybe if an islamic state comes in to existence in a country that is 100% muslim and provides the world with a great model of society under shariah, people would have a much less negative view of it.
but it is pure fantasy to think that israel (or any other non-muslim majority country) would be willing to accept living under shariah.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-08-2007, 07:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
What if they faced sanctions? Do you think they would compromise then?
i am opposed to sanctions - anywhere, against any country because they punish the "little" people
they could be forced to compromise only by the u.s. (since they depend on massive amounts of u.s. aid). i would like to see this happen but it is very unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. but there are definite limits, i think, on what the israel would be willing to compromise and its identity as a jewish state is one of them.




the majority of israelis would never agree to living even under a jewish theocracy.




obviously, i am a rabid supporter of a secular state. i would be opposed to any kind of theocracy.
maybe if an islamic state comes in to existence in a country that is 100% muslim and provides the world with a great model of society under shariah, people would have a much less negative view of it.
but it is pure fantasy to think that israel (or any other non-muslim majority country) would be willing to accept living under shariah.
[/QUOTE]

You do not like sanctions against any people? Then you must take a history of the Taliban, i think they might of had the most since the first year they started.
Reply

Skywalker
04-08-2007, 08:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i am opposed to sanctions - anywhere, against any country because they punish the "little" people
they could be forced to compromise only by the u.s. (since they depend on massive amounts of u.s. aid). i would like to see this happen but it is very unlikely to happen in the forseeable future. but there are definite limits, i think, on what the israel would be willing to compromise and its identity as a jewish state is one of them.
Well, sactions are basically economic war on a country, and like all wars, they affect the people more than those in power. I think Israel for one could not last very long without US aid. They would be forced into a compromise. Did we just stumble onto a possible non-violent solution to the ME crisis?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the majority of israelis would never agree to living even under a jewish theocracy.
How can you be so sure of that?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
maybe if an islamic state comes in to existence in a country that is 100% muslim and provides the world with a great model of society under shariah, people would have a much less negative view of it.
That would be nice to see. We do however have proof from history of the amazing success of Sharia-based countries, but most people just excuse their negativity on "that was then and this is now."

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
but it is pure fantasy to think that israel (or any other non-muslim majority country) would be willing to accept living under shariah.
Perhaps, but this world is built on ideas that people regarded as pure fantasy.
Reply

E'jaazi
04-08-2007, 08:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It almost sounds like you would prefer war to anything less than getting exactly what you want in total. Is there nothing less than an Islamic state that you would be willing to accept?

Your profile does not say where you presently live. Is it an Islamic state under pure Sharia law? Or have you learned to live with something other than that after all?
No, I do not live in an Islamic State, but that is not by choice. I do hope to migrate to Medinah is Saudi Arabia one day, Insha Allah. I would accept nothing less because the whole thing is outrageous! That land does not belong to what is NOW called Israel, so why should anyone settle?
Reply

Trumble
04-08-2007, 09:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by E'jaazi
That land does not belong to what is NOW called Israel, so why should anyone settle?
Because, in any meaningful way, that's precisely who it now does belong to.
Reply

snakelegs
04-08-2007, 10:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Well, sactions are basically economic war on a country, and like all wars, they affect the people more than those in power. I think Israel for one could not last very long without US aid. They would be forced into a compromise. Did we just stumble onto a possible non-violent solution to the ME crisis?
this will not happen any time soon. and there would be a limit to how far israel would go to compromise. it will not go so far as to cease to exist - why would it?


How can you be so sure of that?
i think it is "general knowledge" that the majority of israelis have no desire whatsoever to live in a theocracy - not even a jewish one, let alone an islamic one.


That would be nice to see. We do however have proof from history of the amazing success of Sharia-based countries, but most people just excuse their negativity on "that was then and this is now."
again, if a country with 100% muslim population establishes a society based on shariah and if the world could see it as a model society - all the great stuff muslims claim for shariah, maybe attitudes would change and it would be respected. but you will find almost no non-muslims at all who would want to live in a shariah ruled country, no matter how great it might be for muslims. can't you see that? personally, i would not consent to live in any country ruled by any religion.


Perhaps, but this world is built on ideas that people regarded as pure fantasy.
quite true!
Reply

Skywalker
04-08-2007, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
this will not happen any time soon. and there would be a limit to how far israel would go to compromise. it will not go so far as to cease to exist - why would it?
LOL - "We are putting you under sanctions until you cease to exist."
I don't think anybody wants it to go that far, but what the Arab League and the Palestinians want (and a big part of the international community) is for Israel to pull back to the 1967 borders and to allow Palestinians the right to return. I don't think that that's asking too much, especially if Israel could set the number of Palestinians that they would allow back and compansate the rest through money. A compromise could be reached, and I hardly think economic sanctions should even be an issue. Israel is creating problems for no apparent reason.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i think it is "general knowledge" that the majority of israelis have no desire whatsoever to live in a theocracy - not even a jewish one, let alone an islamic one.
Is there any proof to support that knowledge? If so, then why would these "secular Jews" care so much about having a Jewish state if they could just as easity adapt to any secular society. Is it a nationalistic thing?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
again, if a country with 100% muslim population establishes a society based on shariah and if the world could see it as a model society - all the great stuff muslims claim for shariah, maybe attitudes would change and it would be respected.
I'd love to see that, but unfortunately, even if a country is a heaven on earth, those who don't like it and are in power can make it look like hell.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
but you will find almost no non-muslims at all who would want to live in a shariah ruled country, no matter how great it might be for muslims. can't you see that?
Not really, no. How come a lot of non-Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to work? And it's not even close to what a real Sharia country should be like.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i would not consent to live in any country ruled by any religion.
I think that's because you're just not used to the idea or haven't seen a proper example of it. What if a Sharia country presented itself with long sandy beaches, tall futuristic skyscapers, a booming economy with plenty of work opportunities, happy people, etc. and you saw this kind of ad on tv., would you still be as negative about it? I'm just using an exaggerated example by the way...
Reply

wilberhum
04-08-2007, 08:35 PM
Is there any proof to support that knowledge?
I did a pole a while back. Not one single non-Muslim wanted to live in any kind of theocracy. Only 1 Muslim said they would want to live in a non-Islamic theocracy.
How come a lot of non-Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to work? And it's not even close to what a real Sharia country should be like.
Money!
In response to "i would not consent to live in any country ruled by any religion." you said:
I think that's because you're just not used to the idea or haven't seen a proper example of it.
The fact that I have never seen a proper example of it is not the reason, it is the evidence. Evidence that it can't be done. Even if you find an example, I would rather live under Communism.
Reply

snakelegs
04-08-2007, 08:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
LOL - "We are putting you under sanctions until you cease to exist."
I don't think anybody wants it to go that far, but what the Arab League and the Palestinians want (and a big part of the international community) is for Israel to pull back to the 1967 borders and to allow Palestinians the right to return. I don't think that that's asking too much, especially if Israel could set the number of Palestinians that they would allow back and compansate the rest through money. A compromise could be reached, and I hardly think economic sanctions should even be an issue. Israel is creating problems for no apparent reason.
yes, i would like the settlements to be disbanded and israel to pull back to the '67 borders too ifisrael could be sure that it wasn't committing suicide by doing that. there is certainly room for compromise; i agree. it is just that your solution - one happy state under shariah - is totally ludicrous. the u.s. could (but won't anytime soon) play a very important role in this process because of all the $ it gives to israel. israel might agree to some of the palestinians coming back, but if so, the number would me miniscule. it does not want to change the demographics of itself as a jewish state.


Is there any proof to support that knowledge? If so, then why would these "secular Jews" care so much about having a Jewish state if they could just as easity adapt to any secular society. Is it a nationalistic thing?
zionism is a political movement that uses religion. so yes, it is a "nationalistic" thing - the jews, like the muslims, consider themselves to be a people ("am" - which is the hebrew equivalent of ummah).


I'd love to see that, but unfortunately, even if a country is a heaven on earth, those who don't like it and are in power can make it look like hell.
true.


Not really, no. How come a lot of non-Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia to work? And it's not even close to what a real Sharia country should be like.
mainly because of poverty and lack of work in their own countries. from what i hear, they are not treated very well, including the south asian muslims that live and work there.


I think that's because you're just not used to the idea or haven't seen a proper example of it. What if a Sharia country presented itself with long sandy beaches, tall futuristic skyscapers, a booming economy with plenty of work opportunities, happy people, etc. and you saw this kind of ad on tv., would you still be as negative about it? I'm just using an exaggerated example by the way...
lol - i could care less about skyscrapers, booming economy, beaches, etc. etc. and i haven't seen the ads cuz i don't have a tv. (i'm a shack-in-the-desert type of person.)
but i would like to see such a country as you described, living under shariah. if there was such a successful model of an islamic state i would think that was fine - as long as the state was 100% muslim before it adapted shariah and as long as that was the will of the people.
but it certainly isn't for me and i think you would find it impossible to sell the idea to israeli jews, as well as a significant number of palestinians.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-08-2007, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
yes, i would like the settlements to be disbanded and israel to pull back to the '67 borders too ifisrael could be sure that it wasn't committing suicide by doing that. there is certainly room for compromise; i agree. it is just that your solution - one happy state under shariah - is totally ludicrous. the u.s. could (but won't anytime soon) play a very important role in this process because of all the $ it gives to israel. israel might agree to some of the palestinians coming back, but if so, the number would me miniscule. it does not want to change the demographics of itself as a jewish state.




zionism is a political movement that uses religion. so yes, it is a "nationalistic" thing - the jews, like the muslims, consider themselves to be a people ("am" - which is the hebrew equivalent of ummah).




true.




mainly because of poverty and lack of work in their own countries. from what i hear, they are not treated very well, including the south asian muslims that live and work there.




lol - i could care less about skyscrapers, booming economy, beaches, etc. etc. and i haven't seen the ads cuz i don't have a tv. (i'm a shack-in-the-desert type of person.)
but i would like to see such a country as you described, living under shariah. if there was such a successful model of an islamic state i would think that was fine - as long as the state was 100% muslim before it adapted shariah and as long as that was the will of the people.
but it certainly isn't for me and i think you would find it impossible to sell the idea to israeli jews, as well as a significant number of palestinians.

bro ill hook u up with a tv
Reply

snakelegs
04-08-2007, 11:47 PM
lol no thanks! don't want one.
i meant that i was the live-in-the-desert type of person - as opposed to the description skywalker was making, which doesn't have any appeal to me at all.
Reply

noodles
04-08-2007, 11:57 PM
So, if I understand correctly, does this mean that Israel doesn't want to establish a Jewish state OR have a sharia in the country. There must be something that can be done to end the bloodshed. Surely a compromise is in order if you want to establish peaceful country.

In any case, "Greed" seems to be an important factor that we have to take into account. Though I shouldn't be the one talking as I'm not in that situation myself.
Reply

wilberhum
04-09-2007, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
So, if I understand correctly, does this mean that Israel doesn't want to establish a Jewish state OR have a sharia in the country. There must be something that can be done to end the bloodshed. Surely a compromise is in order if you want to establish peaceful country.

In any case, "Greed" seems to be an important factor that we have to take into account. Though I shouldn't be the one talking as I'm not in that situation myself.
Noodles you are so right.
Surely a compromise is in order if you want to establish peaceful country.
The problem is that both see a compromise as a loss and too many would rather kill or be killed than loose.
Reply

Skywalker
04-09-2007, 08:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Not one single non-Muslim wanted to live in any kind of theocracy. Only 1 Muslim said they would want to live in a non-Islamic theocracy.
Are you saying that no Muslim wanted to live under Sharia law, whereas one of them wanted to live under non-Muslim religious law?! Either your poll was inaccurate, or the people you questioned weren't Muslims :?

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
The fact that I have never seen a proper example of it is not the reason, it is the evidence. Evidence that it can't be done. Even if you find an example, I would rather live under Communism.
This "evidence" isn't very convincing for me because proper Sharia countries were established in the past and flourished but people don't want to accept that as evidence because, like I said before, they think that that was then and this is now. Today you will only find corrupted remnants of that what was once great, and people for some reason think that this is the way it always was. It wasn't. It was a lot better.

And yes, communism does have certain advantages that do make it appealing...from a certain point of view.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
yes, i would like the settlements to be disbanded and israel to pull back to the '67 borders too if israel could be sure that it wasn't committing suicide by doing that.
By suicide you mean Jews becoming the minority?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the u.s. could (but won't anytime soon) play a very important role in this process because of all the $ it gives to israel.
Some would argue that the US is the reason why things are so bad down here. They have the power to influence Israel to do pretty much anything, yet they don't. What do they gain from Israel's presence in the Middle East?

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
zionism is a political movement that uses religion. so yes, it is a "nationalistic" thing - the jews, like the muslims, consider themselves to be a people ("am" - which is the hebrew equivalent of ummah).
I think religion has been used by many in a very nationalistic way, which I see as wrong. Loyalty to the ummah means abiding by Islamic laws during times of peace and war, not just war, but a lot of people use their Islamic identity to create war from peace. This is wrong. And I think a similar situation is happening with Israeli Jews.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
mainly because of poverty and lack of work in their own countries. from what i hear, they are not treated very well, including the south asian muslims that live and work there.
Yes that is true. However, it's not just asians living in poverty that are going there for work, but also others, for example people in the petroleum industry. I think when a country has a particular resource or just any reason to make it attractive to an individual, many are willing to overlook the judicial system governing that country.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i'm a shack-in-the-desert type of person.
Dude, you have a computer! You're a traitor to all the shack-in-the-desert type of people :P
I had a friend who didn't have a TV or PC or anything; he was Amish. In this day in age, with all the "educational" stuff we're getting on TV, I can see how not having one can be an advantage.

format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
In any case, "Greed" seems to be an important factor that we have to take into account.
I think "nationalistic greed" would be more accurate.
Reply

snakelegs
04-09-2007, 09:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker

By suicide you mean Jews becoming the minority?
no, i meant literally - that before israel would agree to move all the way back to the pre-'67 border, it would have to have some guarantee that it would not be attacked again. it will not sacrifice its security - but obviously it does not have security now either.
but yes, jews becoming a minority would be the end of the jewish state and that would not be acceptable either.


Some would argue that the US is the reason why things are so bad down here. They have the power to influence Israel to do pretty much anything, yet they don't. What do they gain from Israel's presence in the Middle East?
the u.s. could certainly play an important role. what the gain is - a possible military ally - base/air space/refueling - in the region?

I think religion has been used by many in a very nationalistic way, which I see as wrong. Loyalty to the ummah means abiding by Islamic laws during times of peace and war, not just war, but a lot of people use their Islamic identity to create war from peace. This is wrong. And I think a similar situation is happening with Israeli Jews.
you have a point. personally, i see judaism and islam as religion - not a "people". both religions encompass a diverse group of people, races, cultures etc.

Yes that is true. However, it's not just asians living in poverty that are going there for work, but also others, for example people in the petroleum industry. I think when a country has a particular resource or just any reason to make it attractive to an individual, many are willing to overlook the judicial system governing that country.
can't really comment on this one because i don't know anything about that group. the people i know about are largely south asians who come to the gulf because of poverty and lack of employment in their own countries. they are often treated like scum by the arabs.

Dude, you have a computer! You're a traitor to all the shack-in-the-desert type of people :P
I had a friend who didn't have a TV or PC or anything; he was Amish. In this day in age, with all the "educational" stuff we're getting on TV, I can see how not having one can be an advantage.
it was just my way of saying that the attractions you mentioned don't attract me, let alone attract me enough to be willing to live under shariah! i would be happy with a shack in the desert - this doesn't mean poverty/starvation. i love the desert. i have nothing against technology and think the internet is one of the most wonderful inventions in my lifetime. i just plain don't like tv and never did.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
04-09-2007, 11:52 AM
What I do not think most people understand is how this world works. You see plenty of Muslims armies have conquered and it has become Muslim. The fact that Muslims are still crying over Israel is beyond me. It was Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim, the Christian, then Turkish, then British, then Jewish, I mean everyone has owned it at some point!

Get over it!

Your never going to establish Sharia law there, because 70% of Israel is secular and many very anti-religious. Every male and female (unless very religious or gets out of it) goes to train in the army for more then a year and the secular really take it seriously. So many of them have guns, to take over Israel you will either have to invade it and fight every single last Israeli with a mchine gun to death while watching your nation get destroyed by Nuclear bombs, or bomb it and in the process watch the entire Middle East get Nuked by Israel knowing it is going to be destroyed by some Nuke and then Arab life with cease to exist.

How about instead making peace and Israel pulls back to '67, you all share Jerusalem and the palestinians forget this myth of "right of return" when about a huge majority left when Israel urged them to stay, and the other half were lviing in Jordan anyway!

I'm sorry Muslims but get over yourselves, you conquered so much land during certain periods of history that I cannot do anything but laugh when I see these crazy Sheikhs crying about how they actually got conquered, and they need to end "occupation".

If so, go take over southern spain again to.
Reply

wilberhum
04-10-2007, 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Not one single non-Muslim wanted to live in any kind of theocracy. Only 1 Muslim said they would want
to live in a non-Islamic theocracy.
Originally Posted by Skywalker
Are you saying that no Muslim wanted to live under Sharia law, whereas one of them wanted to live under non-Muslim religious law?! Either your poll was inaccurate, or the people you questioned weren't Muslims
You obviously failed the “Reading Between the Lines” course. I didn’t say what I didn’t say because it is obvious to all. Well almost all. Most Muslims selected to live under a theocracy based on there religion. The poll was as valid as you can get on a forum like this. It is obvious that the inaccuracy exist only in your understanding.

Originally Posted by wilberhum
The fact that I have never seen a proper example of it is not the reason, it is the evidence. Evidence that
it can't be done. Even if you find an example, I would rather live under Communism.
Originally Posted by Skywalker
This "evidence" isn't very convincing for me because proper Sharia countries were established in the past and flourished but people don't want to accept that as evidence because, like I said before, they think that that was then and this is now. Today you will only find corrupted remnants of that what was once great, and people for some reason think that this is the way it always was. It wasn't. It was a lot better.
And yes, communism does have certain advantages that do make it appealing...from a certain point of view.
I fully realize that my "evidence" isn't very convincing for you. You are among those that look back at the time of war and expansion was a perfect time. Few governmental systems last for a thousand years but that is another issue, but on this one, Muslims of our time can’t even get Sharia law to work in a country that is 100% Muslim. How can you figure that you can get it to work where Muslims are a minority?

I don’t find any thing appealing about communism. It is just that I would rather live for the state than live for someone else’s version of god.
Reply

Skywalker
04-11-2007, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
it will not sacrifice its security - but obviously it does not have security now either.
That's precisely the point; currently it doesn't have security, nor a guarantee for continuing security, while at the same time neither do the Palestinians. If they pull back and agree to international demands, they could at least have that guarantee from the Arab League, and probably the rest of the international community.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the u.s. could certainly play an important role. what the gain is - a possible military ally - base/air space/refueling - in the region?
I doubt the US would go to all this effort and spend this much money on a refuelling post...something else is afoot.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i would be happy with a shack in the desert - this doesn't mean poverty/starvation. i love the desert. i have nothing against technology and think the internet is one of the most wonderful inventions in my lifetime. i just plain don't like tv and never did.
I got a thing for the desert too, although I see it a lot where I live. A lot of people don't appreciate it's beauty and want to see it "turned greed", but I'm not one of them.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
You obviously failed the “Reading Between the Lines” course. I didn’t say what I didn’t say because it is obvious to all. Well almost all. Most Muslims selected to live under a theocracy based on there religion. The poll was as valid as you can get on a forum like this. It is obvious that the inaccuracy exist only in your understanding.
...or in your explanation. Either way, I get it and yes, this makes more sense.

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I fully realize that my "evidence" isn't very convincing for you. You are among those that look back at the time of war and expansion was a perfect time. Few governmental systems last for a thousand years but that is another issue, but on this one, Muslims of our time can’t even get Sharia law to work in a country that is 100% Muslim. How can you figure that you can get it to work where Muslims are a minority?
When there's a will, there's a way. Everybody wants to see this problem solved. Most likely, any measure taken to solve it would be transparent to the international community. With transparency, you minimize potential corruption, and without corruption, with motivation, and under proper supervision, you can easity establish a Sharia state.
Reply

wilberhum
04-11-2007, 05:07 PM
under proper supervision, you can easity establish a Sharia state.
It's so easy a cave man can do it!
It is sooooooooooooo easy, that's why no one does it.

Most people in this would would take up arms against a theocracy. I would.
You will do much better if you try to create Utopia.
Reply

wilberhum
04-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Skywalker,
It seams that no one wants a religious state except Muslims.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6EFA32A146.htm
Thai debate rages over religion
A proposal to make Buddhism Thailand's official religion in a new national constitution has a sparked fierce debate in the country.
………………………….
"Once we nationalise the status of Buddhism it becomes aggressive," he says.

"Every time when Buddhism is married with nationalism, the offspring is always a demon."
[PIE]the offspring is always a demon.[/PIE]
This is not a problem with Buddhism and government,
it is a problem with religion and government.
Reply

SATalha
04-11-2007, 08:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
It's so easy a cave man can do it!
It is sooooooooooooo easy, that's why no one does it.

Most people in this would would take up arms against a theocracy. I would.
You will do much better if you try to create Utopia.
Utopia...nah. Shariah.....yeah :D
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-11-2007, 08:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SATalha
Utopia...nah. Shariah.....yeah :D
Utopia is an imaginary island, depicted as a perfect social, legal, and political system. I would have expected you to say they are the same, but obviously you chose the correct answer that they are far different.
Reply

SATalha
04-11-2007, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
Utopia is an imaginary island, depicted as a perfect social, legal, and political system. I would have expected you to say they are the same, but obviously you chose the correct answer that they are far different.
whatever Utopia is in my opinion the law of Allah is far from perfect for humanity. imagine Allah's very own words alongside with the greatest phrophets utterances. The only combination needed for success....as Muslims showed in previous years!

Are you suggesting that Shariah is the opposite to utopia?
Reply

wilberhum
04-11-2007, 08:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SATalha
whatever Utopia is in my opinion the law of Allah is far from perfect for humanity. imagine Allah's very own words alongside with the greatest phrophets utterances. The only combination needed for success....as Muslims showed in previous years!

Are you suggesting that Shariah is the opposite to utopia?
Ya all keep forgetting that men enforce your "So Called" law of Allah, arn't perfect. :skeleton:
As far as "in previous years", we need to remember history is written by the victors. :-[
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-11-2007, 08:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SATalha
whatever Utopia is in my opinion the law of Allah is far from perfect for humanity. imagine Allah's very own words alongside with the greatest phrophets utterances. The only combination needed for success....as Muslims showed in previous years!

Are you suggesting that Shariah is the opposite to utopia?
I'm suggesting that the perfect situation and laws for humanity and Shariah are seperate. I thought you may say that utopia which is a perfect law and society was the same as Sharia which of course I disagree with.
Reply

Skywalker
04-11-2007, 08:30 PM
I believe I said:

format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
without corruption, with motivation, and under proper supervision, you can easily establish a Sharia state.
You only took the last part and tried to prove a point. The reason why they can't make one now is because there's too much corruption. You could say my list in a kind of priority order. But under proper supervision that would be created if the process is transparent, you would eliminate the barriers that have existed for centuries in creating a proper Sharia state. It's almost impossible to imagine that if they were to go ahead with that kind of venture that the eyes of the whole world will not be watching.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Jazeera
"Every time when Buddhism is married with nationalism, the offspring is always a demon."
Actually "every time anything is married with nationalism, or even when nationalism exists alone, the offspring is always a demon" would be a lot more accurate. "Nationalism is the scourge of modern civilization" as Albert Einstein puts it, and it's easy to see why.
Reply

Skywalker
04-11-2007, 08:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I thought you may say that utopia which is a perfect law and society was the same as Sharia which of course I disagree with.
Do you also disagree that a country under Torah law is utopia?
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-11-2007, 08:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Do you also disagree that a country under Torah law is utopia?
It is Utopia for a Jew who loves G-d. It may not be for a Jew who does not love G-d. Of course, gentiles are not aloud to follow the Torah unless they convert, because the laws are only for the people of Israel because that is who the covenant was to.

The next time Torah law is instated in Israel the Moshiach will come and world peace will be here etc. So it will be a utopia.
Reply

Skywalker
04-11-2007, 10:10 PM
In that case, as far as I know, Torah law is quite similar to Sharia law, except of course that it allows others to live under it while practicing their own religions, therefore I'd say that you either don't see that the two are very similar or you don't think that a country ruled by Torah law could be a utopia.
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-11-2007, 10:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
In that case, as far as I know, Torah law is quite similar to Sharia law, except of course that it allows others to live under it while practicing their own religions, therefore I'd say that you either don't see that the two are very similar or you don't think that a country ruled by Torah law could be a utopia.
I don't see Sharia law and Torah law as being similar. At least from the idea I get about Sharia law. However, I really do not see Judaism and Islam being similar. I think Islam is closer to Sikhism, and I think that Judaism should not be compared to any other religions, because all the other religions are much different from Judaism.

From the closest examples I see of Shariah law today, I see not much of a resemblence. The death penalty used in Sharia law is an example. Since Mohammad did not have the Oral Torah, only the written to view, he only sees half of what the Torah says about capital punishment is. The part about the punishments and witnesses more specifically.

Judaism teaches that to carry out any capital punishment the person must be:
  • Caught in the act by two witnesses.
  • Warned while in the process of commiting the crime that it is a death penalty crime.
  • Then the person must acknowledge they heard the witnesses warning.
  • Then if they continue after the warning they will be put to death.
Yes, prison or exile was more common. The Death penalty is not very Jewish unless your 100% the crime happend and the person knew it was against Torah and would get killed and still did it.

I have seen enough of Shariah law to know that Mohammad obviously did not know about our Oral Torah which is the backbone of Jewish Law witht he written Torah when he tried to make his and the bibles capital punishment similar.

A society which:
  • Whips women for being raped sometimes
  • Punisheshed women for being out of the house without a male family escort.
  • Carries out capital punishment so frequently.
Is not one like Torah law.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-11-2007, 11:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I don't see Sharia law and Torah law as being similar. At least from the idea I get about Sharia law. However, I really do not see Judaism and Islam being similar. I think Islam is closer to Sikhism, and I think that Judaism should not be compared to any other religions, because all the other religions are much different from Judaism.

From the closest examples I see of Shariah law today, I see not much of a resemblence. The death penalty used in Sharia law is an example. Since Mohammad did not have the Oral Torah, only the written to view, he only sees half of what the Torah says about capital punishment is. The part about the punishments and witnesses more specifically.

Judaism teaches that to carry out any capital punishment the person must be:
  • Caught in the act by two witnesses.
  • Warned while in the process of commiting the crime that it is a death penalty crime.
  • Then the person must acknowledge they heard the witnesses warning.
  • Then if they continue after the warning they will be put to death.
Yes, prison or exile was more common. The Death penalty is not very Jewish unless your 100% the crime happend and the person knew it was against Torah and would get killed and still did it.

I have seen enough of Shariah law to know that Mohammad obviously did not know about our Oral Torah which is the backbone of Jewish Law witht he written Torah when he tried to make his and the bibles capital punishment similar.

A society which:
  • Whips women for being raped sometimes
  • Punisheshed women for being out of the house without a male family escort.
  • Carries out capital punishment so frequently.
Is not one like Torah law.
In which society were women punished for being outside with a male escort? Whipped for being raped? Carrying capital punishment? Name me one Sharia Legitament that has done it. According to the Majority of Scholars, the Taliban was the only true Established Islamic State based on Sharia After the fall of the Ottoman.
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-12-2007, 12:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
In which society were women punished for being outside with a male escort? Whipped for being raped? Carrying capital punishment? Name me one Sharia Legitament that has done it. According to the Majority of Scholars, the Taliban was the only true Established Islamic State based on Sharia After the fall of the Ottoman.
I'm not sure what countries "actually" follow Sharia, but here we go (I have a video of executions of a women under the Taliban but it is graphic so I will not post it.


<B>
Women in Saudi Arabia who walk unaccompanied, or are in the company of a man who is neither their husband nor a close relative, are at risk of arrest on suspicion of prostitution or other "moral" offences.
Nieves, a Filipina who was working as a maid in Riyadh in 1992, was invited by a married couple to celebrate the wife's birthday at a restaurant. She and a female friend decided to go. At the restaurant they were joined by a male friend of the couple. A group of mutawa'een (religious police) entered the restaurant, saw the group and arrested them. They suspected Nieves of being there for an introduction to the male friend of the couple. Nieves denied the accusation, but was deceived into signing a confession written in Arabic which she understood was a release order. That confession was the sole basis of her conviction and sentence - 25 days' imprisonment and 60 lashes which were carried out.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/...riefing/4.html
<H3>Saudi court sentences rape 'victim' to 90 lashes

News – A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.
http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/...-to-90-lashes/
</H3>
In October 1996 a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish.
Michael Griffin (2001). Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban movement in Afghanistan. London: Pluto Press, pp6-11/159-165.
  • In December 1996 Radio Shari’a announced that 225 Kabul women had been seized and punished for violating the sharia code of dress. The sentence was handed down by tribunal and the women were lashed on their legs and backs for their misdemeanor.[11]
  • In March 1997 a married woman, from Laghman Province was caught attempting to flee the district with another man. The Islamic tribunal found her guilty of adultery and condemned both her and her lover to death by stoning.[12]
  • In May 1997, 5 female CARE International employees with authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior to conduct research for an emergency feeding programme were forced from their vehicle by members of the religious police. The guards used a public address system to insult and harass the women before striking them with a metal and leather whip over 1.5 meters in length. Nancy Hatch Dupree. 'Afghan Women under the Taliban' in William Maley (2001). Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. London: Hurst and Company, pp145-166.
  • In 1999, a mother of five, was executed in front of 30,000 spectators in Kabul’s Olympic stadium for the murder of her abusive husband. She was imprisoned for 3 years and extensively tortured prior to the execution, yet she refused to plead her innocence in a bid to protect her daughter, reportedly the actual culprit.[13]
  1. When a Taliban raid discovered a woman running an informal school in her apartment they beat the children, threw her down a flight of stairs causing her to break her leg, and then imprisoned her. They threatened to publicly stone her family if she didn't sign a declaration of loyalty to the Taliban and its laws. Latifa (2002). My forbidden face: Growing up under the Taliban. UK: Virago Press pp29-107.
    • Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). "Some of the restrictions imposed by Taliban on women in Afghanistan". Retrieved on 2007 April 2.
</B>
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-12-2007, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I'm not sure what countries "actually" follow Sharia, but here we go (I have a video of executions of a women under the Taliban but it is graphic so I will not post it.


<B>
[B]</H3>
In October 1996 a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish.
Michael Griffin (2001). Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban movement in Afghanistan. London: Pluto Press, pp6-11/159-165.
  • In December 1996 Radio Shari’a announced that 225 Kabul women had been seized and punished for violating the sharia code of dress. The sentence was handed down by tribunal and the women were lashed on their legs and backs for their misdemeanor.[11]
  • In March 1997 a married woman, from Laghman Province was caught attempting to flee the district with another man. The Islamic tribunal found her guilty of adultery and condemned both her and her lover to death by stoning.[12]
  • In May 1997, 5 female CARE International employees with authorisation from the Ministry of the Interior to conduct research for an emergency feeding programme were forced from their vehicle by members of the religious police. The guards used a public address system to insult and harass the women before striking them with a metal and leather whip over 1.5 meters in length. Nancy Hatch Dupree. 'Afghan Women under the Taliban' in William Maley (2001). Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. London: Hurst and Company, pp145-166.
  • In 1999, a mother of five, was executed in front of 30,000 spectators in Kabul’s Olympic stadium for the murder of her abusive husband. She was imprisoned for 3 years and extensively tortured prior to the execution, yet she refused to plead her innocence in a bid to protect her daughter, reportedly the actual culprit.[13]
  1. When a Taliban raid discovered a woman running an informal school in her apartment they beat the children, threw her down a flight of stairs causing her to break her leg, and then imprisoned her. They threatened to publicly stone her family if she didn't sign a declaration of loyalty to the Taliban and its laws. Latifa (2002). My forbidden face: Growing up under the Taliban. UK: Virago Press pp29-107.
    • Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA). "Some of the restrictions imposed by Taliban on women in Afghanistan". Retrieved on 2007 April 2.
</B>
Hmmm

RAWA? The communist backed Womens Media?

The video execution of the female, you seem to not put the full story. She killed her husband rather than divorcing, then slept with one of her children.

Michael Griffin? Lol you have to be kidding me.

The women fleeing Laghman, was caught in the sexual act, then was running with her husband rather than facing Punishment.

And those Care International was also responsible for spreading messages of Christianity which is why they were taken out. They struck them for spreading Christianity when they were caught, the religious police went looking for them.

Also, you seem to forget to mention the impact of the Liberated Afghanistan under Democracy.

http://www.rawa.org/gulsha.htm

(Northern Alliance commanders responsible for the kidnap and rape of Afghan women in Liberated Afghanistan)

http://www.rawa.org/rostaq.htm

(Warlord Killing a 7 year old boy after Liberated Afghanistan)

There are Thousands of cases compared to your few cases of abuses(You view them as abuses, but we view them as punishments)

Why hide these?

Were you even in Kabul before the Taliban arrived?

Women were climbing stories to commit suicide because of the anarchy, but no you fail to mention the truth.

The Taliban, Education and Health Policy Toward Girls. (untold Truth)



"According to a survey by the Swedish Comittie for Afghanistan (SCA), 80% of girls schools were located in rural afghanistan and under the Taliban were operating in full swing. Ms Pia Karlsson, education advisor at the SCA, said 85% of girls were stil in schools. In Kunduz Province, under the Taliban, 122 girls schools were operating, with 390 registered female teachers!"

The Taliban were the prime target in an Anti-Islamic drive in the media, to prepare the public for war against them.
All the women who shrill at the burqa, were silent when 2 million afghans died from Russian bombs, they were silent went 500'000 afghans were maimed by mines, and were silent about thousands of women who were raped before the Taliban came to power.
General Hamid who lived under the Taliban for several years.
There has been no campaign aimed at beating women in public, and there has been no ban on education for women. Only a restriction on co-education.
There are many lies on "respected websites about the "suffering" of Afghan women, yet there are no dates, names, places or anything other form of verification. Hamid gul says he found women almost always-outnumbered men in the streets and market places.
The Afghan women protesting in the west come from the Khalq and parcham factions of Afghan communists. They represent a tiny fraction of the population.
The Taliban were extra strict on these communist women to ensure they didn’t cause friction and trouble and stir up trouble. The women only had to wear the Burqa in the streets, at home; they were free to dress as they pleased. According to a female nurse, women in hospitals rarely wore the burqa or even hijab as there were no men present.
According to a survey by the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA), 80% of girl’s schools were located in rural Afghanistan and under the Taliban were operating in full swing. Ms Pia Karlsson, education advisor at the SCA, said 85% of girls were still in schools. In Kunduz Province, under the Taliban, 122 girls schools were operating, with 390 registered female teachers!
Prior to Taliban rule, there were 350 beds in Kabul for women. In august 2001, there were 950 beds for women in women only hospitals in Kabul. Some women only hospitals include Rabia Balkhi Hospital, Malali Hospital, Khair Khana Hospital, Indira Gandhi Health Hospital, Atta Turk Hospital, Kuwait Red Crescent health Centre and a Contagios Disease Health Clinic! There were also 32 Mother and Child clinics.
In addition, the women received treatment at the ICRC and Sanday Gal Orthopaedic Centres. In All these hospitals and centres, only women doctors and nurses worked providing health care.
Yet the Sun, Dailey express, New York Times, and all these tabloid press agencies never reported any of this, neither did the BBC, CNN, Fox news etc. It was part of a campaign of lies and deception to turn the public against the Taliban.
You were told women couldn’t work, women could not go out the house, that women could not go to school, or even go to hospitals, well the facts are proving otherwise.

American Journalists set the Story Straight on Afghanistan

Taken from official Taleban Web-Site http://www.taleban.com/News_american...et_the_sto.htm

In a break with the status quo, a number of American journalists have begun to speak about Afghanistan in an open and unbiased manner. The journalists, most of whom have made extended visits to the country, are refuting the misinformation that is regularly spread by the international media. They include Mike Hoover, a producer for the CBS television network, and Cindy Law, a freelance female reporter who recently took a month-long trip to Afghanistan. Both are working on documentary films and gave interviews to the Voice of America's Pashto language service.

Hoover has been fascinated with Afghanistan for years and made frequent visits there during the Jihad against the Soviets, described his dismay when the factional fighting began in Kabul after the collapse of the Communist regime. Then, when the Taliban took power and peace was restored, the Western press quickly turned against Afghanistan and the smear campaign against the Taliban started. Hoover started to find out more, but, as he said:

"I could never find anything where the Taliban tell us what their thoughts are and what they are really doing. It was just other people talking about them without them ever speaking out. After talking to a couple of people who were over there and had exactly the opposite opinion of the Taliban, it seemed to me that it might be good for CBS to go over there to see for itself, to hear from Taliban about who they are and what they are trying to do, and to observe whether their goals are implemented or are just political talk."

The journalists says that before going to Afghanistan, he half-suspected that the reports that permeate the Western media might be true. But those suspicions were forgotten upon his arrival on Afghan soil. The first thing that he noticed and was surprised by was that there were no weapons and no armed men.

Hoover spent a month in the country, traveling from Kandahar to Kabul. He refuted the Western image of the Taliban as being ignorant. He saw them as being fully aware of both Afghan and world politics.

"When you speak to them on any subject, you realize how bright these guys are. It was surprising….you would learn that the guy you were talking to was only 26 years old when you thought you were talking to someone with the wisdom of a fifty year-old. I was very impressed." Hoover added.

He said that all those that he met there during his trip, whether young or old, were extremely happy about the security situation.

"People were happy that there was security, that there was no rocketing, that there was safety, that you didn't have any worries about crime as you did before."

When asked about the Taliban's harshness, he said, "On certain things, the Taliban are very strict…..I think it is fair. If you commit a crime, you will be punished for it. The punishment is, in my view, fair and swift."

Hoover was surprised by the fact that there is no formality, no red tape in Afghanistan-any one can see the ministers to hand in his petition or idea, and it will be acted upon swiftly. He said that the ministers that he saw didn't even look like ministers. They were dressed in the same way as the average person, and some even wore old clothes and well-worn shoes.

One thing that Hoover saw everywhere and was bothered by was the poverty and hardship, which has been compounded by UN sanctions. He deplored the twisted logic of the sanctions, saying:

"They destroyed their own country fighting the Soviets. They fought bravely. And now, instead of helping them or at least leaving them alone to rebuild, the world is imposing sanctions on them."

Hoover said that he hopes that other journalists and officials travel to Afghanistan with open minds to see the reality and analyze the situation themselves. People must not let themselves be deceived by biased second-hand information, he stated. If the truth was revealed, he said, then he is certain that the sanctions will be dropped and that, instead of confrontation with the Taliban, the world would help them. Hoover's comments are echoed by Law, who said that she had heard all sorts of things about Afghanistan, especially about the Taliban's treatment of women, so she decided go to the country to see for herself. Law spent more than a week in Kandahar and three weeks in Kabul, speaking to women from all walks of life, including female doctors and nurses. She said that while they had many concerns, the burqa (veil) was not one of them.

"Their major concerns, I would have to say, were the sanctions and war. All Afghans pleaded for the United States and the United Nations to end the sanctions and help rebuild their country. They also asked for medical, food, and financial aid."

Afghan women told Law that their first need, after economic assistance, is education for their children. In regards to female education, Law said that she saw some school for girls in homes, especially in Kandahar, and girls studying in mosques. "Taliban officials assured Law that once the war is over, they would turn their attention to the many issues facing the nation, including women's education and employment. She said that she saw work already beginning on some girl's schools in Kandahar."

Scoffing at the misconception held by many that Afghan women are prisoners in their homes, Law stated, "There are many women working in the hospitals and health care, and they comprise most of the women that I talked to. And I saw women walking around in the markets."

Law said that the world must realize that Afghanistan has been devastated by two decades of war, and that its infrastructure has been destroyed. She added that the international concern about the plight of Afghan women is to be appreciated, but "I think the best way to help the women of Afghanistan is to encourage the removal of sanctions. They are hurting the Afghan people, especially the women. And more humanitarian aid should be provided- medical, economic, etc."

Other American media outlets are also challenging the propaganda campaign that is being waged against the Islamic Emirate. The San Jose (California) Mercury, a daily newspaper, published comments made by a female Muslim student leader, Sara Azad, who said:

"The fact is, women in Afghanistan are now protected and their rights are guaranteed. Because no right comes before the right to life, and today they have that right."

Azad added that she receives letters from her grandmother in Afghanistan, who writes that Afghan women have never felt safer than they do now.
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 02:00 AM
I think we are seeing why there is not "A solution to Israel".
Reply

rebelishaulman
04-12-2007, 02:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think we are seeing why there is not "A solution to Israel".
lol, lets get a solution to Afghanistan first. :exhausted
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 04:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
lol, lets get a solution to Afghanistan first. :exhausted
See it seams like no Jew nor any Muslim wants a solution. It is very difficult to find what you arn't looking for.
Reply

Skywalker
04-12-2007, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
I don't see Sharia law and Torah law as being similar. At least from the idea I get about Sharia law. However, I really do not see Judaism and Islam being similar.
This is where we greatly differ in opinion. I for one see Judaism the closest religion to Islam, even moreso than Christianity. As for your view on Sharia, given your examples I can tell you don't know much about it other than the typical propaganda, which tends to use examples of the worst kinds of people doing bad things in the name of Sharia law, whereas it couldn't be further from the reality of what it is.

The fact that Judaism accepts the death penalty as a valid form of criminal punishment in some cases goes a long way in creating just one similarity between the two judicial systems. However:

format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
-Caught in the act by two witnesses.
-Warned while in the process of commiting the crime that it is a death penalty crime.
-Then the person must acknowledge they heard the witnesses warning.
-Then if they continue after the warning they will be put to death
With all due respect to your religion, I fail to see the logic of what you said. Islam also calls for witnesses in some cases, but definetely not asking telling someone that they're doing something wrong while they're in the process of doing their crime. You expect a rapist to stop raping if you just tell him that it's wrong? I think he knows that before he does it...

As for the "myths" that you mentioned:

Whips women for being raped sometimes
No sir. This doesn't even make sense. If a man is found guilty of rape he is sentenced to death and obviously nothing happens to the woman, BUT if evidence of that case turns it into one of aduletery or fornication, then both are punished accordingly. Either way, capital punishment cases are very carefully examined, usually going on for many months and even years before a verdict is reached.

Punisheshed women for being out of the house without a male family escort.
I know that a woman should go to places with an escort, but I've never heard of them being punished for not going with one. Can anyone confirm that there is an actual penalty for this in Islam?

Carries out capital punishment so frequently.
The frequency depends on the number of cases of a specific crime. Murder, rape, aduletry, child molestation, these are all punishable by death in Sharia, but it doesn't mean that people do them frequently. In fact, because the punishments are so severe, very few people even think about committing any of those crimes.

As for the stories that you posted: I've read a lot of them and I tell you now that you're:

a) not getting or are not presenting the whole story in each case
b) unaware that torture, abuse, and all those things mentioned are totally 100% AGAINST Shariah

There was one case that seems justified from the look of it, and that is the one with the couple committing adultery and getting put to death for it.

I suggest you read up a little more on what "real Sharia" is before jumping to conclusions based on the actions of those who claim to practice it while not practicing it at all...

format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
See it seams like no Jew nor any Muslim wants a solution. It is very difficult to find what you arn't looking for.
To be honest, I think it's only the people occupying Israel that don't want a solution. The whole rest of the world wants one.
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 08:54 PM
To be honest, I think it's only the people occupying Israel that don't want a solution. The whole rest of the world wants one.
Standard! It is all the other guys falt.
Reply

sudais1
04-12-2007, 09:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What exactly are you suggesting? A Palestinian state with a Sharia form of government?, or are you suggesting the end of Israel and a takeover by Arabs who will form a Sharia state?
Not really a takeover but to get back "stolen" lands.
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by sudais1
Not really a takeover but to get back "stolen" lands.
Again, not looking for a solution, just wanting a one sided victory. :?
Reply

lavikor201
04-12-2007, 09:36 PM
but definetely not asking telling someone that they're doing something wrong while they're in the process of doing their crime. You expect a rapist to stop raping if you just tell him that it's wrong? I think he knows that before he does it...
It isn't that they will stop, it is a matter of wat punishment one gets. Capital punishment is rarely used in Jewish law, although there are punishments for all crimes, but they are not used unless the witnesses warn the person that they are violating the law. If that does not happen, then prison or exile is the proper punishment. Not death.

Islam would practice complete capital punishment which makes it respond to violent crimes with heavy violence which differs from the way the Torah teaches us to handle life, since G-d will judge all in the end.

Not really a takeover but to get back "stolen" lands.
Will you give back the "stolen" lands Muslims conquered from pagans?
Reply

Skywalker
04-12-2007, 09:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Standard! It is all the other guys falt.
Well let's look at the facts: they forced people off their land and out of their homes, they've disregarded almost every single agreement made with the international community including the ceasation of the expansion of settlements, they make regular incursions into the West Bank and Gaza (and let's not forget Lebanon) killing civilians in the process, and are totally closed-minded about accepting any kind of deal that the whole world sees as fair, like the latest one presented by the Arab League. So you still want to tell me that it's the rest of the world that doesn't want peace?
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Well let's look at the facts: they forced people off their land and out of their homes, they've disregarded almost every single agreement made with the international community including the ceasation of the expansion of settlements, they make regular incursions into the West Bank and Gaza (and let's not forget Lebanon) killing civilians in the process, and are totally closed-minded about accepting any kind of deal that the whole world sees as fair, like the latest one presented by the Arab League. So you still want to tell me that it's the rest of the world that doesn't want peace?
Thanks for confirming what I stated.
Reply

Skywalker
04-12-2007, 10:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Thanks for confirming what I stated.
I presented you with the truth of the situation; if you think it's purely objective and only Muslims see it that way, well I can't say I agree with that.

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor
It isn't that they will stop, it is a matter of wat punishment one gets. Capital punishment is rarely used in Jewish law, although there are punishments for all crimes, but they are not used unless the witnesses warn the person that they are violating the law. If that does not happen, then prison or exile is the proper punishment. Not death.
Just out of curiosity, what if there is indesputable evidence that a criminal committed a crime worthy of a death penalty, but no witnesses? Would he still be executed? Secondly, Islam calls for certain "qualifications" I guess you can say for the witnesses. They have to be known as honest, pious members of the community, otherwise they could just as easily lie in court since they don't fear the hereafter either way. Is there a similar requirement in Judaism?

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor
Islam would practice complete capital punishment which makes it respond to violent crimes with heavy violence
I don't know if it's really "heavy violence". I personally see beheading as a lot more humane than electrocution or lethal injections, both of which have had cases of people surviving and having to go through process twice. Yuck.
Reply

wilberhum
04-12-2007, 10:09 PM
I presented you with the truth of the situation; if you think it's purely objective and only Muslims see it that way, well I can't say I agree with that.
The problem is not that you didn't present the truth. The problem is you did not present ALL of the truth. You only present facts that support your point of view. Totally one sided.
The truth is that both have done some horrable things and both block efforts for peace.
Reply

lavikor201
04-13-2007, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skywalker
Well let's look at the facts: they forced people off their land and out of their homes, they've disregarded almost every single agreement made with the international community including the ceasation of the expansion of settlements, they make regular incursions into the West Bank and Gaza (and let's not forget Lebanon) killing civilians in the process, and are totally closed-minded about accepting any kind of deal that the whole world sees as fair, like the latest one presented by the Arab League. So you still want to tell me that it's the rest of the world that doesn't want peace?
I complelty disagree. Most of the land was purchased by Jews, and the land that was stolen should be returned of course, just like the land that Arabs atacked Jews and stole as well.
What did the Zionists do to build a country during the Mandate Period?

Inspired by the Zionist ideal, supported by Zionist funds, operating under conditions made possible by Zionist political effort, thousands of Jews migrated from Europe to Palestine and there set about incarnating the ancient dream of return to Israel. They were not encouraged by fellow Jews or anyone else. The were assured that Palestine was an arid, backward country where Jews could not survive, let alone be creative; and that in any case it could absorb no more than a handful of settlers. Discouraged from all sides, grappling with heartbreaking difficulties, these Jews accomplished the impossible.

In one generation Zionists purchased underdeveloped, underutilized land and built a community of almost 600,000 persons, free and self-reliant. European Jews who had lost all rapport with soil and workshop came to Palestine to become farmers, mechanics, sailors, and fishermen. They caused the desert to blossom and turned villages into cities. They introduced modernity and democracy into the slumbering Near East.
In February 1919, the Zionist Organization presented a "Statement on Palestine" to the Paris Peace Conference. It included material showing the substantial Zionist investment in Palestine and the dramatic progress to date, for example:
  • Jewish activities, particularly during the last thirty years, have been directed to Palestine within the measure that the Turkish administrative system allowed. Some millions of pounds sterling have been spent in the country, particularly in the foundation of agricultural settlements. These settlements have been, for the most part, highly successful. With enterprise and skill the Jews have adopted modern scientific methods and have shown themselves to be capable agriculturalists. Hebrew has been revived as a living language; it is the medium of instruction in the schools and the tongue is in daily use among the rising generation. The foundations of a Jewish University have been laid at Jerusalem and considerable funds have been contributed for the creation of its building and for its endowment. Since the British occupation the Zionist Organization has expended in Palestine approximately BP50,000 a month upon relief, education and sanitation. To promote the future development of the country, great sums will be needed for drainage, irrigation, roads, railways, harbors and public works of all kinds, as well as for land settlement and house building.
Winston Churchill was British Colonial Secretary when he visited the Middle East in the winter of 1920-1921. Anti-Semitic elements in the British government tried to assert that the Jews were not needed to develop Palestine. Churchill replied:
  • "Left to themselves, the Arabs of Palestine would not in a thousand years have taken effective steps towards the irrigation and electrification of Palestine. They would have been quite content to dwell—a handful of philosophic people—in wasted sun-drenched plains, letting the waters of the Jordan flow unbridled and unharnessed into the Dead Sea."
Additional material on the impact of the Zionists on the land of Palestine is available here.

Development of education at all levels was a priority for the Zionists. Three of the seven institutions of higher learning were founded before the State of Israel: the Technion in Haifa (founded in 1924), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (1925), and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot (1934). Today, there are about one million Jewish children in thousands of schools, with close to 100,000 teachers, in Israel. The state education system has a general stream (non-religious) with about 70% of the children, a religious stream (23%), and schools run by the ultra-religious (including a few in Yiddish). There are now seven institutions of higher learning including the above and Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan (1955), Tel Aviv University (1956), Haifa University (1963), and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva (1969). There is also an open university and more than 200 yeshivot.

In expressions of culture, the Zionists were active as well. In the 1920's Tel Aviv had only about two-thousand inhabitants, but in January 1922 the "Hebrew Opera in Eretz Israel" performed in the city with soloists and a choir, and only a few months later, the opera Faust was performed, completely staged, though only accompanied by piano. The Palestine Orchestra, now the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, was founded in 1936.

And the Zionists developed the organizational infrastructure of a country that prepared for a modern state to come into being in 1948. Political parties, labor organizations, and national institutions long pre-dated the State of Israel. To this day, the modern Labor party is an extension of the Histadrut, founded by Ben-Gurion in the 1920s, whereas the modern Likud party is an extension of the Revisionists, formed by Jabotinsky in the same time frame. By 1939 the Jewish authorities in Palestine governed their own people. In contrast, the Arab leaders never considered nation-building. Their entire program was negative: to prevent the Jews from establishing themselves in Palestine under any circumstances.

Were the Zionists the same as colonialists?

Michael Anbar Ph.D.
Edited by palestinefacts.org
It is often claimed that the settlement of Jews in the Land of Israel is actually colonialism. This is heard from Arab sources, from European socialists, from some American academicians, and even from some "liberal" Jewish circles in the US and academic "neo-historians" in Israel.
The term "Colonialism" has a strong negative connotation, e.g., British colonialism in India and South Africa, French colonialism in North and West Africa; these followed Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese and Spanish colonialism all over the globe. Colonialism has been disgracefully associated with brutal oppression and exploitation of native populations. The recent economic globalization, spearheaded by the USA has been defined by some liberals as "neocolonialism", to make it despicable. But there is nothing in common between historic colonialism or even "neocolonialism" and the resettlement of the Land of Israel by Jews following the Zionist ideology.
The Britannica defines colonialism as follows:
  • A political-economic phenomenon beginning about the year 1500 whereby various European nations discovered, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas of the world. ["Colonialism," Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition]
This definition excludes ancient Phoenician and Greek colonialism, which aimed to establish bridgeheads for commerce, and Roman classical colonialism that set up strategic defensive outposts by settlements of military veterans.
There are five characteristic elements in European colonialism:
  1. All colonial powers were motivated and driven by material profits to the mother country. Material gain could be achieved either by plundering the local treasures or by exploitation of local natural resources (including labor) and transferring them to the mother country, or by opening captive markets for products of the colonizing country.
  2. Conquest of colonies by military force; this was typical of traditional European colonialism ("gunboat diplomacy").
  3. Maintaining the rule of the colonizing power over the local population by garrisons (i.e., revolving military units) generally under the command of colonial military governors.
  4. Imposing the culture of the colonizing power (i.e., language, religion, legal system, etc.) on the local native population, generally by force.
  5. Export of surplus or undesirable populations of the colonizing power to certain colonial territories (e.g., Libya, Algeria, Australia).
The Zionist ideology advocates the return of Jews to the land of their ancestors from which they were exiled by brutal military conquests. There were two such major exiles in Jewish history - in 586 BCE and six hundred fifty-eight years later, in 72 AD. Both exiles were associated with the total destruction of Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital, and the demolition of its temple. The eastern hill of Jerusalem where the citadel captured by King David once stood, south of the Temple Mound, has been called Mount Zion. This name became synonymous with Jerusalem; hence Zionism.
Quoting the Britannica again:
  • Although Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient and deep-felt nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to Palestine, the promised land where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion. This attachment to Zion continued to inspire the Jews throughout the Middle Ages and found its expression in many important parts of their liturgy. ["Zionism," Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition]
Zionism has emerged even earlier than cited in the Britannica. Psalm 137:
  • Besides the streams of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion … Jerusalem, if I forget you, may my right hand wither, may I never speak again, if I forget you!
The Psalm is a twenty-five hundred years old Zionist expression. Nehemiah, who came to Jerusalem about 440 BCE, giving up a high position in the Persian court, was a Zionist and so was Hillel who emigrated from Mesopotamia four hundred years later. So was Judah Halevi, the philosopher poet who wrote:
  • Better a day in the land of God than a thousand on foreign soil, the ruins on the Holy mount than coronation halls...
Halevi immigrated to Israel in 1141. So were hundreds of Jewish Rabbis who immigrated to Israel in 1211, followed by Nahmanides is 1267. And so were hundreds of other Jewish spiritual leaders and scholars and thousands of their followers who came to the Land of Israel over hundreds of years, way before the modern political Zionist movement was even born.

As a result of the perpetual yearning of the Jewish people for the Land of Israel, Jewish communities existed there continuously since the destruction of the Second Temple to date, notwithstanding its destroyed or occupied capital. Obviously, there were Jewish communities in that land since the emergence of the Judaic nation with its unique culture, about thirteen hundred years earlier. The presence of Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Christian Crusaders and Muslim Ottomans in their homeland, did not prevent Jews from maintaining their presence there. It definitely did not reduce the aspiration to regain possession of their land and to rebuild their ancient capital.
In the twentieth Century, those aspirations evolved from spiritual to political. The immigration of thousands of individual Jews, who followed the modern Zionist ideology, to the Land of Israel since the eighties of the 19th Century, led to the establishment of a politically independent Jewish state in 1948 and to the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967.

Now where is the analogy with colonialism? The Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel over the millennia never represented an alien colonizing power. French Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel did not do this for the sake of France, Russian Jews did not represent the colonial ambitions of Russia, German Jews did not have the economic welfare of Germany in mind, and so on. The only remote analogy of the establishment of peaceful settlements in another country by a persecuted minority is that of the Pilgrims in 1620; but even they had no historical claims to the land they made their new home.
Moreover, Jewish immigrants throughout the centuries did not grab land by force; they purchased it. Only the brutal War of Survival of 1948, which was initiated by the Arabs, changed this trend forcing the Israelis to confiscate Arab land to maintain their survival in a hostile region. Jews obviously did not plunder their own land for the benefit of any foreign colonial power. They did not impose Judaism on the local Arab population. The current practice of the Hebrew language by many Arabs is a matter of convenience for those who wish to maintain ties with the technologically advanced Israeli economy. Even in terms of globalization, the State of Israel is not a domineering force, definitely not when it comes to the local Arabs.

So where in the world did Israeli Jews practice colonialism in any sense? This is a myth disseminated by the same Palestinian Arabs who claim that the existence of the Jewish temple in their ancient capital is a Zionist myth. My only remaining question is why do some Americans and even some Jews buy these incredible Arab claims?
Reply

lavikor201
04-13-2007, 01:13 AM
Why was almost 80% of the Mandate territory of Palestine given to Arab Jordan?

The British underwent a change of heart about the establishment of the Palestine Mandate. The reasons were related to political developments that had taken place in the region between 1920 and 1922. The result was that Abdullah, an Arab from the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia), was abruptly installed as the Emir of Transjordan by the British. In a British memorandum presented to the League of Nations on 16 September 1922, it was declared that the provisions of the Mandate document calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home were not applicable to the territory known as Transjordan (today called Jordan), thereby severing almost 80% of the Mandate land from any possible Jewish Homeland.

The world seems to have plunged into historical amnesia about this. Most people somehow forgot that Arab claims towards Palestine were already satisfied once. It is the Jews and not the Arabs who suffered from the "game" that was played between the Great Powers after World War I. International lawyer David Fromkin described these events in his book A Peace To End All Peace. Fromkin wrote:
  • Britain feared that if Arabs from the territory of British Palestine were to attack the French in Syria, France would retaliate by invading British Palestine.
Thus, Winston Churchill opted for a "Hashemite solution." He decided to "buy off [Prince] Abdullah: to offer him a position in Transjordan." Churchill brought a memorandum to the March, 1921 Cairo Conference, which envisaged:
  • ... establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine west of the Jordan and a separate Arab entity in Palestine east of the Jordan. Abdullah, if installed in authority in Transjordan, could preside over the creation of such an Arab entity.
Churchill disregarded important objections that "since Transjordan had been included by the League of Nations in the territory of [mandated] Palestine, it was not open to Britain unilaterally to separate it from the rest of Palestine." In order to silence Churchill's opponents, Britain accepted a "compromise concept of Transjordan: while preserving the Arab character of area and administration to treat it as an Arab province or adjunct of Palestine."
It is important to indicate that the British Colonial Office regarded "the administrative separation of Transjordan as a merely provisional measure. It [was] decided not to allow Zionism in Transjordan for the present but also not to bar the door against it for all time." As it often happens, the temporary arrangement "hardened into an enduring political reality and the Arabian prince became a permanent factor of the Palestine Mandatory regime."

Therefore, 76% of the country was given "to an Arab dynasty that was not Palestinian. The newly created province of Transjordan, later to become the independent state of Jordan, gradually drifted into existence as an entity separate from the rest of Palestine; indeed, today it is often forgotten that Jordan was ever part of Palestine."

From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations. Britain continued in its role as Mandatory over the whole of the area of the Mandate from 1922, but Jewish hopes of reconstituting the Jewish National Home were thereafter to be limited within the 23% of Palestine west of the Jordan River, an area that includes what is today called the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

The League of Nations was dissolved after the conclusion of World War II with the terms of the Mandate still uncompleted, and a new body, the United Nations,was founded on June 26, 1945. Article 80 was specifically placed in the UN Charter to cover Mandates for places like Palestine where the purposes of those Mandates still remained uncompleted at the time of the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 made it clear that the rights created by the Mandate and the terms of the Mandate were not to be affected.

Palestine continued to be administered by Great Britain under the Mandate until 1946 when Transjordan was granted independence. In one fell swoop, sovereignty in 77% of Palestine had been awarded to the Arabs. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations recommended that both a Jewish State and an Arab State be created in the remainder of the Mandated territory west of the Jordan River, and that Jerusalem be internationalised. Even though this was dramatically favorable to the Arabs and punative to the Zionist Jews, the Jews accepted the proposal. The Arabs rejected it.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
04-13-2007, 05:38 AM
All i can say is Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahood Jaeshoo Muhammad sofa Yaood
Reply

Skywalker
04-15-2007, 05:24 PM
Anybody catch the Doha Debates on BBC yesterday?
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-16-2007, 09:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
What I do not think most people understand is how this world works. You see plenty of Muslims armies have conquered and it has become Muslim. The fact that Muslims are still crying over Israel is beyond me. It was Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim, the Christian, then Turkish, then British, then Jewish, I mean everyone has owned it at some point!

Get over it!

Let's just give it back to the Canaanites and Philistines (that's according to the Bible) or to whoever the Qu'ran says lived there before Ibrahim moved there with his family. None of those people around today? Then declare it a no-man's land and everybody moves out. Don't like those options, then fight it out and the biggest bully wins -- that's pretty much what is happening today. But whoever gets it, had better keep looking over the shoulder, because there will always be someone else ready to make or take their own claim.

There is one other option, one it seems no one is willing to consider, learn to live in peace with one another. That means nobody gets their own way, everybody has to give a little and everybody gets to get a little. But such mature ways of thinking appear to be beyond the scope of those who are involved in this dispute. Even when the idea is broached it begins with people saying "Fine, but my side has already done that; they're the ones who need to give up on such and such, because we've given all we are willing to give."

Makes me think of the line from Shakespeare: "A pox on all their houses."
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 08:37 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 05:12 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 05:57 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 06:17 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!