The latest round of violence which has occurred in the Middle East has prompted much discussion on the origins of the tensions. There is a great deal of disinformation regarding both the contemporary problems, as well as their origins, deliberate and outright evil attempts to control the narrative, to brainwash the next generation of human beings to be in favor of a system that is inherently unjust.
One of the theories that is often cited, especially in the last two weeks, is that the "Middle East conflict" is simply an extension of an old family feud, a feud between two brothers, themselves, while having different mothers, bear the same father. Indeed, Islam itself is claimed by those who hold that view to be a creation born from that feud!
Abraham
According to the scriptures, Abraham ("father of many nations") was blessed by God to received guidance, delivery from idol-worship, and was given a covenant. Broadly speaking, this is agreed upon by the adherents of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Indeed, these faiths are referred to as the Abrahamic religions, as they see themselves as having their roots in Abraham's experiences.
The Bible (Gen. 16:1-9) asserts that a wife of Abraham, by the name of Sarai (also known as Sarah) unable to give birth on her own, encouraged him to have a relationship with her "maidservant" (known as Hagar), conceive with her, so that the family line would go on. However, problems developed between the two women, causing the latter to leave.(#1)
The two sons from the Bible
Hagar gives birth to Ishmael, who is seen as the progenitor of the Arabs, whereas years later, Sarai gives birth to Isaac, viewed as the progenitor of the Hebrew group.
The problems between their mothers were visited upon the sons, as the story goes. The Bible, while acknowledging that Hagar has not done anything wrong, nonetheless asserts that Hagar was told that her son, who is the progenitor of the Arabs, would be "a wild donkey of a man".(Gen.16:12).
Isaac, although younger, is said to embody the covenant. Ishmael is disinherited from that. It is interesting that throughout the Bible, expressions such as "The Lord God of the house of Israel" and "The Lord God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob" are common.
The two sons from the Qur'an
The Qur'an does not entertain any problems between the two sons. They are both mentioned with respect (Q 6:84, 14:39-41, 2:136 and other places), and it is common practice to say "peace be upon him" when referencing both.
There is never a disrespectful passage in the Qur'an about Issac, even though he is viewed as the progenitor of the Jews. Indeed, Isaac is viewed as a recipient of Divine guidance.
It is important here to note that the Qur'an contrasts from the Biblical style in that it NEVER uses racist or nationalistic language. It refers to God as the "Caretaker of the universe" (Q 1:2), and never as being restricted or exclusively connected to Arabs.
Religious rhetoric has certainly been exploited throughout the "Middle East conflict". Arabs are routinely portrayed as savages, and antisemitism is a charge regularly made by the supporters of the state of Israel, as a means to disarm criticism. Indeed, the ghosts of the holocaust are routinely resurrected to accomplish this, even though the Arabs and Muslim world had no relation to the Nazi-led holocaust that occurred (in Christian Europe) during the days of the second world war.
Evangelical figure John Hagee, in almost all of his speeches and writing, has exemplified this pattern, as well as stated in no uncertain terms that he expects a time in the near future when "Israel will own an control all of present-day Israel, including Jerusalem, Lebanon, The West Bank of Jordan, and most of Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia".(#2)
Such rhetoric cannot be ignored, especially when it is backed by financial and political drive. One need only conduct a google search to see the reach this figure and this trend has.
If there ever was conflict between Isaac and Ishmael, or between Hagar and Sarah, that conflict is no excuse to perpetuate oppression. Moreover, in the spiritual realm, it is Islam, which has been conveyed via the Qur'an to Muhammad, which has stated clearly that blood ties has no bearing on one's ties to God. It is Islam which has clearly stated that respect and love be had not only for one son of Abraham, but the other one as well.
This post has only been some brief thoughts, meant to convey that the Islamic position is actually very reasonable, for any who use reason, when it comes to issues surrounding the descendants of Abraham(#3).In conclusion, we pray "Glorified is Your Lord, the Lord of honor and glory, he is above what is wrongly attributed to him, peace be upon the messengers, and praise belongs to God, the caretaker of the universe." ( Q 37:180-182).
Endnotes
(1) Robert Alter, in his Torah translation THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES ( New York, Norton& Company Limited, 2004) pg.78 uses the word "harassed" to describe Sarah's attitude towards Hagar.
(2) This quotation is taken from John Hagee's book CAN AMERICA SURVIVE? 10 PROPHETIC SIGNS THAT WE ARE THE TERMINAL GENERATION ( New York, Howard Books, 2010) pg.109.
(3) The following article has a thorough explanation of the Muslim understanding of issue such as the covenant, sacrifice, etc.. associated with Abraham. http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/nice201.htm
74 comments:
Waheed, I think you need to study the period preceding the establishment of the State of Israel. You must not downplay the hatred of the Jews that existed during that time and how it shaped both the creation of Israel and the resistance to its creation. Had the Arabs treated the Jews as brothers, as you claim that they do, there would never have been these tensions.
The following is an official German record of the meeting between Adolf Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, on November 28, 1941, at the Reich Chancellory in Berlin. (Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964.)
GRAND MUFTI:
The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.
The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion.
The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Muslim nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany’s victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.
‘The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews’
Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFREE SIGN UP
In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.
The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.
A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti’s work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order from Berlin.
With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.
The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq and Palestine.
France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because it had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.
In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.
HITLER:
The Fuhrer replied that Germany’s fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.
Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England’s capitalism and Soviet Russia’s communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England’s power for their ends.
‘Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well’
The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.
The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be.
Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle’s influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer’s declaration as an intention to break up France’s colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east.
The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:
1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.
3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.
Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.
He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.
The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.
GRAND MUFTI:
The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.
HITLER:
The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.
GRAND MUFTI:
The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause.
N-B.
I know that history pretty well, and it is the hatred of the Jews which occurred in Christian Europe that has plagued the Jewish people for much of its history.
The article was not necessarily focused on what the Nazis did, but rather on one of the specific arguments advanced by the supporters of the state of Israel, within American Christianity, which places this as some extension of an alleged family feud in the Bible.
Your attempt to associate the Arabs with the Holocaust, based off of a meeting with the Jerusalem Grand mufti, is shameful, but not surprising. THIS meeting -complete with photos, is often cited in that way. It is shameful because you know, without a doubt, that the holocaust took place in Europe, that it was led by the Nazis. The Arabs had nothing to do with that, the Muslims had nothing to do with that. Unfortunately, that is your way of attempting to change the subject.
With regards to your assertion that the Arabs had not been treating the Jews as brothers, this is historically unsound. Jews themselves admit that they fared better under Muslim rule, because the latter did not have the same views that the Europeans had by and large (seeing them as "Christ killers") etc.. A simply Google search would reveal this information, in case you didn't encounter it before (although I am almost positive you know this already)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule
Sure, there were exceptions, because of various unique situations in those lands, but as a general rule. It is only in the years after (and in some cases before, arguably) that the Jews had problems in the Arab world.
Of possible interest to you would be Iran. Obviously a foe to Israel (and the former has always conveyed that they oppose Zionism, rather than Judaism or Jews as a group), this video (from PBS) shows Iranian Jewish representatives expressing that they have good life there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHV1QUs-BA4
Also of contrasting interest, the struggles (including discrimination) experienced by the Non European Jews (in this case Iranian Jews) in Israel.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOS37bTjvbA
Although I have recently stated that I feel that it is a waste of time trying to persuade you of anything, Waheed, I still hope that a few of your readers are more open.
I don't know what it is that you are claiming that I have done that is "shameful". I have posted an account of a meeting that took place. If you could show me that the account is a fabrication, then, indeed, it would have been wrong for me to post it. However, you have not in any way challenged the authenticity of the account, something I'm sure you would have done if there was doubt.
I have drawn this account to the attention of your readers because this man, Shaikh Haj Amin al-Husseini, was highly influential amongst the Palestinians during the time of the British Mandate. His actions very much shaped the events during that time and during the early decades of the State of Israel. He was not some fringe character with little influence.
I do not make blanket statements about Muslim antisemitism. Of the thousands of Muslim leaders over 14 centuries, some may have been bitterly antisemitic while others may have been friendly to the Jews. The existence of the former does not negate the existence of the latter, nor vice versa. You cannot draw an inference from the climate in one place and time and assume that the same climate existed in a different place and time.
"Charity" means helping those people who are in need. You have repeatedly claimed that "charity" is a priority for Muslims, however, at this particular time when an entire people, the Jewish population of Europe, was in the most dire of needs, the leading Muslim in Palestine actively opposed helping them. The designs of this particular INFLUENTIAL Palestinian, Shaikh Haj Amin al-Husseini, went far beyond being uncharitable.
What brought me to my interest in Islam was the plight of the Syrian refugees. Our charitable nature (charity wasn't invented by the Muslims) demands that we help these refugees. However, there were prominent politicians opposing resettlement of Syrians into the West because, in their words, "Islam hates us". This posed two questions for me. First, is it true that "Islam hates us"? Second, does it matter if it is true, since our obligation to provide relief is universal? and one more question, easily answered: "Does it matter that a century ago the ancestors of these people refused charity to people with a similar need?"
I strongly believe that charity is the foundation for peaceful relationships between people. I strongly believe that lack of charity is at the root of most, perhaps all, conflicts in the world. This is certainly the case between Israelis and Arabs.
Please do not confuse charity with an obligation to pay a wealth tax to the state. It is about empathy and recognising the needs of others. It is about understanding that all people are fundamentally the same and want the same things.
Hi N-B,
As always, there is so much to unpack in your post. It is obviously a red herring, thrown out there to distract from the point of this very brief article, so I will take a moment or two to address some of your comments.
(1) You seem to think that the Palestinians were obligated to allow themselves to be kicked out of their homes to allow others to come into them. Palestine itself, and Palestinians, had no choice or consultation in this matter. It was almost totally an European project, one which gained strength after WWII because of the Nazi-led holocaust. That event had no Palestinian or Arab involvement, so what was shameful was your attempt to falsely associate them with that.
(2) Perhaps you genuinely don't know this, but the initial Zionist thrust into Palestine did not come from what we can call Semitic Jews. That thrust came from the European countries, from USA in particular, and to a great extent the Russian sphere as well. Certainly Semitic Jews moved to Israel later, for a variety of reasons, and the latter has always faced discrimination. Not simply discrimination, but even horrible crimes. The Falashas, for example, Ethiopian Jews, were tricked into "birth control shots". The following Israeli newspaper link shows this, it reminds me of the Tuskegee airmen experiments. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-ethiopians-fooled-into-birth-control-1.5226424
(3) You chose not to reply to the links in the comments I posted earlier in this discussion, but they undercut your argument that somehow Islam/Muslims has to naturally have enmity towards Jews. Bringing up the Mufti's meeting with Adolph Hitler as a means to prove your point displays a bit of desperation, or perhaps emotionalism, on your part. Politicians meet with religious leaders on a regular basis, each have their particular sets of interests. I have met personally (and not online, and have had discussions with, Islamophobes, followers of cultish movements, even with a White Supremacist, but it would be ridiculous to assert that I am teamed up with those types.
(4) I am unsure of what you mean by charitable thinking, especially in the environment between the world wars. Most of the Arab world was under colonial occupation, so how can they be in some sort of position to just give away their own homes? Have you had the opportunities to meet any Palestinians? I have seen them all over the world, why are they so spread out? Because the Zionist enterprise came, killed them and drove them out. I truly hope that you could meet a Palestinian one day, even if online, to hear their stories. The stories are not just historical, but are still taking place.
(5) It appears you are referencing, towards the end of your last comment, Zakat as a "wealth tax to the state", denying its charitable nature. Although that had no relation to this article (or any of the subsequent discussion) at all, I will share that traditionally, Zakat was a higher obligation, that Muslims had to pay. Non Muslims were exempt from paying Zakat! The Qur'an (Q 2:177 and 9:60) has the general outline for the recipients. Indeed, in today's world, especially in the West, there
s an argument advanced that Mosques are not to receive Zakat funds, because they are not in the Quranic lists of recipients. The point being is that Charity, as a religious obligation, is taken so seriously (and the technical details are irrelevant to this discussion) that many mosques make sure not to mix the funds. Meaning, if a donor wants to pay Zakat, we have to give it to the needy etc, and not mosque bills.
(6) No one ever argued that Muslims invented charity, so your comment there is moot.
Thanks.
I leave it to your readers to unpack these posts.
I merely wished to point out that the current tensions did not begin either in the time of Ishmael (a red herring) nor in 1991 when the Israeli government began authorising Jewish settlements in the lands occupied by Israel during the war in 1967.
Zionism was founded in Europe in the 1890s and was never some covert or nefarious plot as so many try to portray it today. It was a largely secular movement to establish a state where Jews could live together, govern themselves, and, most importantly, be secure from hate. Its supporters have never supported the illegal acquisition of land nor the commission of the sorts of crimes that some now allege. The need to escape from Europe was recognised long before the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. The spiritual roots of these Jews were in Judea and it was natural for some of them to migrate there. Others chose America and it was these settlers who developed into what we commonly think of as American-Jewish culture.
The main point that I'm trying to make is that migrations like this are not at all uncommon. Currently, there are around 80 MILLION forcibly displaced people looking for a secure place to live. https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2019/ We ALL have an obligation to help these people. NONE OF US has the right to say "not on our land". I encourage readers to learn about charity from a Christian perspective. See for yourselves how different it is from what is said in the Qur'an. I am not, myself, a Christian, however, I find much inspiration from my Christian friends.
It is important to understand what these Jewish settlers faced from the leader of the Palestinian Arabs from 1921 onwards, Amin al-Husseini. You can decide for yourselves if the meeting with Hitler was just a casual meeting between a religious leader and a politician, as some would have you think. Never mind that the account of the meeting says "Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power." Never mind that this Muslim, this Arab wrote in 1941 "Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy." But this Muslim, this Arab had "nothing to do with the holocaust".
Waheed writes: "There is a great deal of disinformation regarding both the contemporary problems, as well as their origins, deliberate and outright evil attempts to control the narrative, to brainwash the next generation of human beings to be in favor of a system that is inherently unjust."
Is Waheed attempting to brainwash the next generation that there was never a design on the part of the Arabs for "the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere"? Do we not find such rhetoric amongst the Arabs still today?
While I feel much sympathy for the Arabs living under Israeli occupation, they are victims of their own leaders, not of the Israelis who want exactly the same things ... security and self-government. These Arabs have been lied to and it is easy to see that Waheed also believes these lies. "Zionist killers"? Do these Zionists drink the blood of Arab children, too?
Your readers might not know what I am referring to when I ask "Do we not find such rhetoric amongst the Arabs still today?" You tell me how Israelis should deal with their neighbours who are so determined to murder them.
No one should be sympathetic to Palestinians who adhere to such hatred, advocate such violence against their neighbours, and commit such egregious slander through their conspiracy theories as we find in https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
DO NOT TRAFFIC IN PALESTINIAN CONSPIRACY THEORIES.
The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:
"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."
The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.
Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.
"..and we have put enmity and hatred between them, until the day of resurrection. So often as they shall kindle a fire of war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).
Palestine is an Islamic land which has the first of the two kiblahs (direction to which Moslems turn in praying), the third of the holy (Islamic) sanctuaries, and the point of departure for Mohamed's midnight journey to the seven heavens (i.e. Jerusalem).
"Praise be unto him who transported his servant by night, from the sacred temple of Mecca to the farther temple of Jerusalem, the circuit of which we have blessed, that we might show him some of our signs; for Allah is he who heareth, and seeth." (The Night-Journey - verse 1).
Since this is the case, liberation of Palestine is then an individual duty for very Moslem wherever he may be. On this basis, the problem should be viewed. This should be realised by every Moslem.
The day the problem is dealt with on this basis, when the three circles mobilize their capabilities, the present state of affairs will change and the day of liberation will come nearer.
"Verily ye are stronger than they, by reason of the terror cast into their breasts from Allah. This, because they are not people of prudence." (The Emigration - verse 13).
They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, try through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only. Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle, through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. They are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements and to bring them outside the circle of struggle.
The Islamic Resistance Movement calls on Arab and Islamic nations to take up the line of serious and persevering action to prevent the success of this horrendous plan, to warn the people of the danger eminating from leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism. Today it is Palestine, tomorrow it will be one country or another. The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.
AND SO ON.
I could quote the entirety of this evil document.
YOU SHOULD READ IT.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Hello NB,
To be honest, you never cease to amaze me. While I think at core you are probably a nice guy, you present yourself as someone filled with hatred of anything to do with Islam and Muslims, to the extent that you will violate your own self-proclaimed values of standing for the rights of the oppressed. It seems your values only apply to Non Muslims, unless you come out and say that you have been playing devil's advocate!
It appears you want to derail the entire point of the article by talking about other things that are largely irrelevant to the point.
(1) Zionism: While there are some elements of truth to your summary, it is nonetheless not the benign force you are presenting it out to be. Indeed, Zionism is -in my judgement atleast, a sister philosophy to Apartheid. Both systems did (and still does, in the case of Israel) precisely the same things to those outside of their group. Both are colonial in nature, racist in nature. This would explain very well the cozy relationship that Israel and Apartheid South Africa had. I will go into the details of Zionism at another time.
(2) Mufti Amin Al-Hussaini meeting with Hitler: You want to continue to harp on this point. It's understandable, in that Islamophobes, especially supporters of the Israeli enterprise, do this on a regular basis. I saw it many times at Campus events.
You shamefully want to link Muslims (and by extension, the religion itself) to the Nazi fueled holucaust by repeated references to this meeting. So what would you say if I told you that there are records of Zionist encounters with Nazis? Or that Hitler had some Jewish support?
Well, guess what? The above is actually recorded in historical references! In "Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography by John Toland ( New York, 1976) we read " Hitler even had some Jewish support: The Jewish National Union not only advocated the Fuhrer's ban on entry of Eastern "peddler Jews", but supported his new government." (pg.304).
The same source continues to share a rather terrible piece of information, one, if true, shows the pressure Jewish leaders were under. We read : "Perhaps the most diabolical innovation of the Final Solution was the establishment of Jewish councils to administer their own deportation and destruction. This organization, comprising those leaders of the community who believed that co-operation with the Germans was the best policy, discouraged resistance. "I will not be afraid to sacrifice 50,000 of our community" reasoned a typical leader, Moses Merin, "in order to save the other 50,000." (pg.712).
The two quotations are obviously different in scope, but the point I was making is that by your standards, you would have to extend your moral indignation to those in Jewish community who met with and even worked with the Nazis as well.
Indeed, there is a book I have called Jews for sale, Nazi-Jewish Negotiations 1933-1945. It is a collection of essays of various meetings, as well as, overall, working to pay off Hitler to allow them to leave, something which obviously didn't happen.
I would encourage you to rethink your positions on these matters.
(3) Hamas document:
Do you know that it is widely reported that it is actually the Israeli Mossad which had a hand in creating Hamas in the first place, as a counterbalance to Yasser Arafat's PLO? Secondly, in terms of the document, what would you expect? The Palestinians have been oppressed, killed off, their land and often their very houses, seized by the "settlers". Would you expect a love note, complete with chocolates?
I have the feeling you have never met a Palestinian, never spoken to one. That is your loss, but in any case, all of them have stories. Stories of struggle, of trying to keep land, of survival, of exile, and so forth.
Moreover, these are not limited to historical wrongs. These things are still taking place. https://www.facebook.com/629097450488980/videos/644009622698457
https://www.facebook.com/629097450488980/videos/415589392549163
THIS particular video shows a repentant Israeli soldier revealing the thinking and actions, deliberate violent harassment, that is policy. https://www.facebook.com/1477092539/videos/10226831684926316/
Well, Waheed, once again I feel hopelessness in trying to discuss any matter with you, and I will frame my comments in the hope that there are readers who are more willing to listen to me.
Waheed wonders if I have ever met a Palestinian. I wonder if he has ever met a "Zionist". I have, and I'll start there ...
I grew up in a neighbourhood which was nearly 50% Jewish. Many of my high school friends were Jewish. For the most part, their grandparents had fled from Russia or a neighbouring state about 60 or 70 years before. I could say that I grew up in one of these "Jewish colonies" that Waheed seems to hate so much. There were similar colonies all over the US and Canada. The largest was in New York City and there were large Jewish colonies in Canadian cities like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver.
These now-elderly grandparents did not have an easy time when they came to America. They arrived with what they could carry. They were not wealthy people who somehow controlled the world's economy. They could not speak English. They did not have full rights and, because they were Jewish, not even the same rights as immigrants coming from other countries. They worked hard; they supported each other through charity; they raised money to bring family members over to join them. They stuck together and supported each other not because they were "racist" but out of necessity.
These Jewish friends of mine did indeed stick together. They attended Jewish classes outside of the public school and many attended Jewish summer camps organised by Zionist organisations. Even before the establishment of the State of Israel, their parents, many well-educated and successful people, raised money for social developments in Israel like hospitals and universities.
The same immigration process happened in Palestine. The same sorts of Jews arrived; they set up the same sorts of close-knit communities and they worked together to improve their lives. Yet, their experience was very different from what the Jews in America experienced.
WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE?
It is pretty obvious, isn't it?
I'll come back to this, but first a few words about Waheed's bizarre denials, false equivalents, and ad hominem attacks on me...
"A drowning man will clutch at straws"
Waheed has accused me of attempting to derail the point of this article. The topic of this thread, as I understood it, was an examination of the origins of the tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. I think that Waheed presented a very misleading opinion about this topic and I felt it necessary to respond. I have, thus far, kept to this topic. However, first, I need to say something about bigotry and hatred....
One of the tactics of bigots is to blame everything that is wrong in the world on some other group of people. They create a label and they attach everything that is wrong to that label. Then, they attach the people that they hate to the label that they have created. That's how bigotry becomes hate.
In this particular case, the label is "Zionist". Any time a Palestinian is the victim of some injustice, real or perceived, it is the fault of the "Zionists". Some of my closest, life-long friends are Zionist and it is shameful that people blame them for actions which have nothing to do with them. Worse is that it dishonours their parents whose worst crime was that they provided CHARITY to Israel and that it dishonours their grandparents who were forced to make the SACRIFICE of leaving their homeland and starting a new life in a foreign land.
I'm not saying that ALL Zionists have lived perfect lives. Not at all. There have been incidents, tragic incidents, that were caused by Zionists and I'm willing to acknowledge these. However, in no case, can you take such incidents and extend the blame onto an entire population with total condemnation. Oddly, Waheed has done exactly that and then he has gone so far as to project his fault onto me!
Obviously, not the Arabs, nor the Muslims, nor their religion were responsible for the Holocaust in Europe and I never implied anything of the sort. However, that does not excuse Mufti Amin Al-Hussaini for his dealings with Hitler and his intention of extending the Holocaust into Palestine. By the time of that meeting, the Holocaust had already been extended into all of the Balkans and Greece with the cooperation of the leaders in all of those countries. What a bizarre dismissal of this meeting it is to say "other leaders, even Jews, met with Hitler, too" How does that change anything? Even more bizarre is to dismiss the meeting because it has been mentioned many times before ... by "Islamophobes" and by "Zionists".
SERIOUSLY, WAHEED ... do you take us to be idiots?
The meeting is relevant to this article because it shows the genocidal intention of Al-Hussaini. Because of the way that the war progressed, he was unable to carry out the genocide with German help. He never abandoned his plan and he put it into motion after the UN Resolution of 1947. He failed.
SO HERE IS THE MORAL QUESTION:
Your neighbours have announced their intention to destroy you. When they raise arms against you, is it "oppression" to defend yourself, to force them out of your neighbourhoods, and to surround them with fencing so that you are secure from them? Of course such "oppression" is justified.
The wrongdoers are those who chose not to live in peace with their neighbours. They lost their right to freedom from oppression when they tried to take that freedom away from others.
DON'T TRY TO EQUATE THIS SITUATION TO APARTHEID. That is just a red herring.
So tell me this, Waheed: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE SOLUTION IS?
What is revealed by the words:
"in terms of the document, what would you expect? ... Would you expect a love note, complete with chocolates?"
Is that the Islamic approach to resolving disputes?
Isn't it obvious that such an approach can never resolve anything? All it can do is escalate the injustices.
And, just WOW ... the ZIONISTS had a hand in creating Hamas in the first place. INCREDIBLE!
Hi NB,
I have no idea of your age, but I have been keeping up with these issues for a very long time. Longer than perhaps you imagine. I will reply to your points as time allows. Frankly I don't want you to get away with sharing misleading or incorrect assertions on the blog. I am amazed at the hatred you have. One day you should share with us why that is the case.I would genuinely like to know.
For now, it has been widely reported, since the time of its inception, how Hamas was given its kick-start as a means to combat the PLO, which was at the time a threat. Here's one short article on it. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2302309/how-and-why-israel-helped-create-hamas
Such tactics are well known throughout history, almost every major power has done such things, domestically and as a foreign policy tool.
You ask if I have ever met Zionists in person, i.e. people who wholeheartedly give support to Israel, and the answer is Yes. I am not limited to anonymous internet discussions. I have, in person, met with such people. If you don't believe that, I can't help that.
You laugh off my assertion about Israel and Apartheid as practiced inSouth Africa. Again, that is well known, and has been well known for a very long time. It was not a secret. Here's an article on it. https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-apartheid-long-making-news
I think you see Zionist as synonymous with Jewish. I don't see it that way. There are Jews who have denounced Zionism, both religious and secular. I think you are aware of that.
As for "Neighbors trying to destroy you" analogy, it is extremely flawed, and I think you know that as well as I do. THE "You" in this scenario, invaded someone's house, with the help of people from another neighborhood (the latter having their own interests), and is rumored to have bigger aspirations than that. The "you" created expulsions, refugees, death and destruction in order to achieve "Your" aspirations.
So, the neighborhood responded. Yes, they are not perfect either. They have serious problems in politics, leadership and society, but the point being is that they cannot be blamed for seeing this "you" as a danger.
I hope that a Palestinian reader (we do have some) would take a moment or two to reply to you, as I am hopeful (even if its a small hope) that hearing first hand these issues from those who experience them, would help you to open your eyes a bit. As stated earlier, you are probably a nice guy in person, just unfortunately a bit blind on issues relating to Islam, and especially on this.
As for a possible solution, that is actually the only rational query you have raised so far. In my opinion, the solution would be of the South Africa kind. I have believed this for a long time. However there is neither a Nelson Mandela nor a Declerk figure among the Palestinians and Israelis respectively at this time, nor will there be for the foreseeable future.
I think you didn't read the article properly. It argued that contrary to some of the narratives, both in media and the religious realm, this conflict did NOT start with Ishmael and Isaac, upon them both be peace. One of your comments suggested that you thought I was saying otherwise.
Waheed, if you describe it, I would be happy to explain whatever this "hatred" is. I do not hate people. I DO hate selfish ideologies and the Qur'an is one of the worst books that I have ever opened. I am not the first to feel this way about the Qur'an. Muslims need to be more understanding of why so many non-Muslims find the book so problematic. You cannot communicate with us until you acknowledge the legitimacy of our viewpoint.
I don't "hate" Muslims. However, it should be observed that wherever Muslims are in contact with non-Muslims there is a far greater tension than between other pairs of groups. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, atheists, you name it ... such a diverse set of worldviews ... so many don't want Muslims for neighbours. Why is that? If I was the only one in the world who felt the way I do then maybe "self-reflection" would be called for. I have arrived at a pretty good idea what the problem is, and I have tried to share it with you, if only you would respect me enough to listen to me. You say that you would genuinely like to know, but would you?
Stop attacking ME. Mine is merely a representative of a view which is VERY widespread in the world. You can pummel me all day with your false arguments and whataboutisms, your deflections and diversions, your twisting of words and so on, but none of that will gain you anything.
Yes, there are some aspects of "Apartheid" in Israel, but the basis is VERY, VERY different. Even the article that you link (the PLO/Hamas one) admits "Formed in 1964, PLO had a clause, in its charter, calling for the destruction of Israel." The Arabs have sought the destruction of Israel continuously from before there was a State of Israel. You have no trouble defending the expulsions in the Sirah when it was Muslims doing the expelling and there were merely allegations of threats, yet you object to them when it is Muslims being expelled and the threats are explicit and existential. It's a double standard.
Another double standard relates to immigration. These immigrants were refugees. They didn't "invade" anyone's house any more than Muslims are now "invading" the West. You, too, have bigger aspirations than merely settling here.
I know what I mean by "Zionists". I don't think the people you call "Zionists" would be recognised by Theodor Herzl as "Zionists". The word has been co-opted by the Palestinians and is being used as a pejorative.
But the bottom line is that you have no insight towards a solution. There is no Nelson Mandela and I don't think there can be one.
It is clear to me that I have a better understanding than you do of what steps need to be taken. The first step is to simply recognise what the situation on the ground is. Israel has been there for over 70 years. The vast majority of the Jews were born there and therefore Israel is their native land. They aren't going anywhere. If there are Palestinians who are unwilling to live next to these Jews, then they are now the ones who must be the migrants.
Test
I am a Palestinian person, with birth certificate that reads born in Palestine, issued by government of Palestine. In tel Aviv airport they claimed I was born in Israel. They told me not to come back. They are oppressive. Please don't diminish my experience. I had senator Harry Reid write a letter for assistance, but still was disenfranchised. Please don't diminish me. You don't know what the Palestinians suffer.
Hello Anonymous.
I don't know what I've said that you feel diminishes your experience. If you would be specific, then I could respond.
The main point of my long post was that the situation that we see today was, in my opinion, a direct consequence of the actions of a man, Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, who was active in Palestine from 1919 until 1974. Waheed avoided talking about these actions and attempted to deflect the conversation away from further discussions of this man.
What do you know about Mohammed Amin al-Husseini and what do you think about his impact on the history of Palestine?
I also asked what are the steps to a solution to the current crisis. Waheed's answer was that we must wait for a "Nelson Mandela figure" to appear on the scene. Is that your view, too? A Chinese proverb says: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step". What do you say the first step is?
Hello N-B
Thank you for answering the query as to why you hate Islam and Muslims. Unfortunately, even though you attempted to sound reasonable, you failed.
No one is asking you to necessarily accept Islam or to be convinced of the Qur'an, but if it is indeed one of the worst books you have ever read, why do you spend so much time talking about it? If the Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, is a madman, as you have implied (if not outright said it) in your posts, why spend so much time talking about him? To the point of even arguing with Muslims about him?
With regards to the central issues of your last post ( 6/2/21), it seems that you view the Israeli enterprise with rose tinted glasses, and the Palestinians (who are majority Muslim) as bitter people. This is an amazing, really strange way of looking at it. You often have spoken of being a person who stands for justice, of being against ideologies that are oppressive, yet stand with Zionism. i will reply more later.
Hi N-B,
Regarding one of your comments that the Zionists didn't invade anyone's house, that is precisely what happened, not only then, but continues to this very day.
In case you didn't view it, here's a video of a Palestinian family's house being taken, and the "settler" giving his justification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9q9PDBsDe8
Now I have to laugh, Waheed. Back when I first approached you, I presumed that you had some authority for the subjects that you were writing about. When you wrote something like "the most important being that when examined in context, in a thorough and systematic fashion, we find ..." that there was an honest understanding behind your statement. Now I see such assertions as a smoke screen to cover up what you do not understand.
What truly surprises me, though, is that you make no attempt to understand and, worse still, you deliberately twist my words in the hope that others will misunderstand what I am saying.
However, I am undeterred. I am just as determined to understand these subjects with or without your help. I have learned a lot from seeing what you are unable to say; the unspoken truths that you know would contradict your position. What you won't say tells me more than what you do say.
I hope that there are readers who will take the time to go back and see what the issues that I have raised are and to think about why Waheed is unable to respond to them directly.
First step is to stop the killing. I believe in God and the ten commandments. (No man is true believer unless he wishes for his fellow man that which he desire for himself)
Hello Anonymous.
Yes, that is a good place to start.
Here's what I think the problem is: For much of the killing, the killers will tell you that they were "justified" in the killing. Of course those on the side of the victims will want to avenge the killings and this leads to further "justified" killings. This leads to an endless cycle of killings.
What can we do to break these cycles?
Test.
Why is it so hard to post here?
Salaam everyone,
I have received many complaints from readers unable to post comments.
I apologize for that, as well as being unable to address it till now.
These are my suggestions.
(1) Try to type from a computer or tablet, rather than a smartphone. With phones, it is harder to type and follow the verification procedure.
(2) Make your comment short, and divide into different comments, in order to get your point across.
(3) You can post under your Google name, a nickname, or as anonymous. If using a phone, I suggest using anonymous (and-if you want- simply putting initials or a nickname at the bottom of your comment, so as to distinguish from other posters).
(4) The verification process is , after hitting the "publish" key, to hit "I'm not a robot" box, and to check photos correctly.
I pray this brief comment helps.
Thanks for posting. We look forward to your comments.
wassalaam
S Waheed
Hi N-B,
It has been a very long time since I have been able to reply to your comments. After all these years, it is amazing that your worldview is so negative. You mention people not wanting Muslims as neighbors, but it has been the experience of most people that Muslims are actually good neighbors, even in the West. The Prophet described the rights of the neighbors so much (according to Divine guidance) that there was an assumption that the neighbor would have to be included into the wills.
So far, you have not refuted my latest post, you simply made a "I'm laughing" comment. No credibility in such a reply.
For other aspects of your posts, I will reply when I have a chance.
Hello NB.
You wrote: " Stop attacking ME. Mine is merely a representative of a view which is VERY widespread in the world. You can pummel me all day with your false arguments and whataboutisms, your deflections and diversions, your twisting of words and so on, but none of that will gain you anything"
Now this was a laughable assertion. I am not on your blog, you are commenting on my blog, under a screenname. The twisting and the like is what you have been doing. TBH I don't know if you do it on a conscious level or not.
" Another double standard relates to immigration. These immigrants were refugees. They didn't "invade" anyone's house any more than Muslims are now "invading" the West. You, too, have bigger aspirations than merely settling here." (NB quote)
There's a really false assumption about me that you have stated here, but for the moment I will let it slide. In any case, how you have described the Zionist "settlement", it is precisely an invasion that happened. I am hopeful Palestinians will get an opportunity to describe, for your benefit, what they have experienced directly. However, the posts I have made previously, I shared videos of the victims of this invasion. I am genuinely shocked you can't see that!
" . You have no trouble defending the expulsions in the Sirah when it was Muslims doing the expelling and there were merely allegations of threats, yet you object to them when it is Muslims being expelled and the threats are explicit and existential. It's a double standard." (N-B quote)
Dealing with those who have conspired against you is a very different thing from going to a country, kicking out the inhabitants, killing them, razing their villages and literally taking their houses. Moreover, it's not something from the past, it is still happening. In one of the links I shared, now famous, it shows a Palestinian lady arguing (in English) with a "settler" and the latter replies "If I didn't steal your house, someone else would."
Waheed, I haven't commented on that video because it is off the topic of this thread. The subject of this thread is the origin of the conflict. Looking at a single current event issue provides no insight into what led up to this event.
I don't think anyone should use the word "Zionist" without understanding what the Zionist movement was; how it came to be founded and what its objective were. There is an historical context that is very much relevant to this subject.
I also think that it is important to understand the nature of migration. There have been small-scale and large-scale migrations throughout human history. Considering the fact that so many of the world's migrants today are Muslims and that many of those in your Islamic community are immigrants, I would think that you would have a deep interest in understanding the nature and issues related to migration. I would think that you would be interested in understanding anti-immigrant sentiments, how they arise and how they can be mollified.
You don't want to talk about the events leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel and I think it is pretty obvious why. Nevertheless, whether you choose to discuss them or not, those events are very much at the root of the problems that exist today.
The video precisely is on topic, in the sense that the practical application of Zionism (which is the origin of the current situation) has brought great devastation to the Middle East in particular, and arguably globally in general.
Your attempt to frame it as migration problems is simply off the mark. That land was given away, essentially, by colonizers, to another set of colonizers.
Indeed, David B.Gurion, the first Israeli Prime minister, had this to say:
" ” If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122."
He had enough self-understanding to see the bitter reality better than you have expressed in your comments on this subject.
The link below has many other quotes from the heroes of Zionism (as well as other figures) https://al-awda.org/learn-more/famous-quotes/
But, Waheed, "That land was given away, essentially, by colonizers, to another set of colonizers." applies to you and to me, too! We both live on land that was "stolen" from others.
In my case, I am a descendent of migrants. I was born in Canada and my parents were born in Canada, even some of my grandparents were born in Canada. There is no other place that I can call "my homeland". There is no other land that I can "return to" with any sort of legitimate land claim, regardless of how the land that my ancestors came from was disposed of after they left.
The same is true for most Israelis. There is no place on Earth that they can "return to".
It is precisely this issue that brought Islam to my attention. There is unprecedented migrations of Muslims into "our" lands. Just as you have described the Zionists, "we" call this an "invasion". "We" have been calling for a "Muslim ban".
To be clear, I do not share these views. I am one of those liberals who is being accused of "being for open borders". I do not believe that national borders, nor prior possession, give us the right to deny immigrants basic rights including the right to flee from persecution.
I do not see the immigrants as the problem. They are leaving their homes for good reasons. The problem is with those who do not accept immigrants into "their" communities.
By posting the link to https://al-awda.org/learn-more/famous-quotes/ you have followed my suggestion of looking at the period leading up to the establishment of the State of Israel. Unfortunately, the article does not link to the original sources, takes the words out of context, and inserts some rather biased commentary.
People should read what Jabotinsky actually wrote in "The Iron Wall" and see for themselves that he was not a "terrorist".
http://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf
As Jabotinsky says "But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism." These words are just as true today as they were when they were written nearly 100 years ago.
This has been my point and is also my point about how Muslims will be accepted into the West. Peaceful integration of immigrants is only possible if the native population is willing to accept them.
Hi N-B
I delayed in replying due to having no time, but also I was hoping more Palestinians would get a chance to post. I have received a few messages, as your rather unbalanced treatment has gotten attention, but most have had problems navigating the comment section.
Actually it seems we are getting somewhere , when you acknowledge above that the land, even the houses, of the Palestinians, are stolen.
There is one main difference between N/S American colonization and the Israeli colonization, and that is is that it still happening for the latter. For the former (and admittedly this is a longer discussion, and can be argued either way), this has stopped, stopped mostly with the genocide of the native populations, whereas the Israelis are still at it.
You are putting the blame on the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, this is victim-blaming, something which is totally unacceptable.
I will reply more when I have time.
No, Waheed, I never said that anything was "stolen".
The only genocide in Palestine during the 20th Century was the failed attempt by the Arabs to wipe out the Jewish population.
People can become the victims of their own actions. We do not absolve them of their responsibility when their actions backfire against themselves. I will not be cowed by an accusation of "victim blaming".
Only when the Arabs accept their share of the blame for the situation can there be the compromises necessary to bring peace to the region. Oh... but you say that Muslims aren't "pacifists" and we shouldn't expect them to choose a path to peace if it involves giving up something.
N.B.
In your comment, you said: "But, Waheed, "That land was given away, essentially, by colonizers, to another set of colonizers." applies to you and to me, too! We both live on land that was "stolen" from others"
I don't know what to say to this retreat from your own words. I was actually thinking we are finally getting somewhere in this conversation. I'm still hopeful that any of our Palestinian readers will get a chance to engage you on this issue, because I think it would do you a world of good.
No, Muslims are not taught to be passive, but at the same time, Muslims are taught not to be agressors. Your victim-blaming is plain and obvious for all to see, more so than I have come to expect in light of previous conversations.
Whatever choices that are made in that region, don't get on a high-horse of fake morality by talking about "a path to peace". It doesn't change the fact that Israel is a colonizing entity, that it is racist in nature, that it is oppressive in nature, and that it has used political cover at various bodies (such as the UN) to limit scrutiny and criticism.
Indeed, this is why-it seems- you chose not to reply to the actual video evidence of things posted in the comment section above, such as a Palestinian family home actually stolen, literally, by a "settler", and the subsequent argument the parties had. It wasn't 100 years ago, or even ten years ago, it was just a couple of months ago.
Well, Waheed, it seems like you read into my words whatever it is that suits you.
I hope that some Palestinians do add their comments. I hope that Waheed does not represent your views and hearing you would do him a world of good. I'm pretty sure that Palestinians would choose peace over a perpetual war and I've never, ever before been mocked for thinking that people seek peace.
Waheed is just seething with hatred. I hope that a large majority of Palestinians do not share this hatred or there really is no hope for a resolution.
A reminder about the topic, something Waheed has avoided talking about: "The latest round of violence which has occurred in the Middle East has prompted much discussion on the origins of the tensions. There is a great deal of disinformation regarding both the contemporary problems, as well as their origins, deliberate and outright evil attempts to control the narrative to brainwash the next generation of human beings to be in favor of a system that is inherently unjust."
I am "seething with hatred" against those who are acting upon oppression, cruelty, racism and the like. I sincerely hope those who engage in such things, regardless of their religious label, would cease their activities.
It is very shameful that you have spent so much time in defending what is clearly oppression.
NB
I applaud your unique ability to divert attention from the more obvious issues at play in the Palestinian situation. Lets put on our big boy pants and put away the gas lighting and meaningless rhetoric that really doesn't contribute any substance or provide a route towards any real solutions.
"Well, Waheed, it seems like you read into my words whatever it is that suits you"
- that is gas lighting , lets cut that out shall we
"I hope that some Palestinians do add their comments. I hope that Waheed does not represent your views and hearing you would do him a world of good. I'm pretty sure that Palestinians would choose peace over a perpetual war and I've never, ever before been mocked for thinking that people seek peace."
- I am Palestinian , born in Jerusalem , I live in America now but still have brothers and sisters in Palestine, lets be quite clear , we do prefer peace period, essentially the palestinians are incapable of anything other than peace , we have no military, no guns, no tanks, no airplanes, we dont even have a state.
"Waheed is just seething with hatred. I hope that a large majority of Palestinians do not share this hatred or there really is no hope for a resolution."
- Im gonna let this gas lighting slide, but I will say again, you seen like a very smart person, you absolutely do not believe Waheed is full of hatred , frustration probably, but hatred come on man really? what you've done is counter productive with that statement, your arguments don't contain the kind of immaturity that's rampant in other blogs yet you've decided to dismiss the kind of person that's absolutely demonstrated moderate and empathetic views throughout his statements. no atrocities in history have ever been resolved except that all the parties come to the table and come to a resolution, without the kind of rhetoric that your using, you cant dismiss a person that's engaged you in conversation and demonstrated empathy and a willingness to communicate, as far as I can see what you've done is the equivalent of getting up and walking away from the table, how can that be a commitment to a resolution?
"A reminder about the topic, something Waheed has avoided talking about: "The latest round of violence which has occurred in the Middle East has prompted much discussion on the origins of the tensions. There is a great deal of disinformation regarding both the contemporary problems, as well as their origins, deliberate and outright evil attempts to control the narrative to brainwash the next generation of human beings to be in favor of a system that is inherently unjust."
- now you've hit the nail on the head, bravo, your absolutly correct in this statement, but I want you to zoom out a little bit , and entertain this thought, could you also be a victim of these "evil attempts to control the narrative to brainwash the next generationof human beings to be in favor of a system that is inherently unjust" ???
stop and think for a moment , who is controlling this narrative, this entire blog is about who? Issac and Ishmael right, essentially were brotha's from anotha mutha NB!
we have been pitted against one another because as long as the "jews" and "palestinians" are fighting in isreal.....
WE CANT BE CUZINS, FAMILY, RUNNING THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BRIGHTEST TALENT, THE MOST RESILIENT PEOPLE, THE MOST COMPASSION AND THE HIGHEST FORTITUDE ON THE FACE OF THE ENTIRE PLANET!
the world wants us to believe we mortal enemys , until the end of time, but thats the narrative we've fallen for NB, we are both victims but not of each other.
the atrocities the jews have faced are second to none,
the resiliency of the jewish people, unparelled,
the kindness , the strength and the heart, ive witnessed with my own eyes
NB you dont know me and I dont know you, but brother , I know you and you know me!
Hello Mohammad. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I sincerely hope that we can have a productive conversation.
I don't want our conversation to be about Waheed, but let me say this much. My conversation with Waheed has been going on for about 4 years. I don't take the time in every single post to delve into details that we have already discussed or that will divert us away from the main topic of conversation. If you find that my comments lack context, then please give me the benefit of the doubt. Ask me to explain and I'll be happy to fill in the missing substance. I am not "gaslighting".
I said: No, Waheed, I never said that anything was "stolen". I had hoped that Waheed would go back and read the entire post and realize that he had misunderstood what I was getting at. That didn't happen. You are willing to accept that Waheed might be feeling frustration. Will you allow me to feel frustration, too?
So, about the topic:
While the original post was primarily about a theory relating the Middle East conflict to a Bible story, that is not what caught my attention. I found the theory so ridiculous that I wasn't willing to waste even one word on it. What caught my attention was the opening paragraph. There are a lot of "loaded" words in that paragraph that I could not resist responding to.
There IS a propaganda war going on, but it works both ways. We have to dig deep to find out what the facts are. In my posts in this thread, I have expressed my extreme distress in how "Zionism" is now being portrayed. It is a false narrative which completely ignores the historical realities of the Zionist movement. This narrative is being pushed specifically to incite conflict. As I've pointed out earlier, I grew up amongst Zionists and some of my closest friends, and particularly their parents, were Zionists. They raised money for projects in Israel like building hospitals and universities, planting trees and so on; projects that, I far as I know, benefited all Israelis: Jewish, Arab, and otherwise. We cannot allow the word “Zionists” to be used as cover for the underlying hatred by the people who are pushing this narrative.
I have also pointed out that my interest in Islam was initially sparked by two conflicting viewpoints within our political landscape. Back in 2016, here in Canada, the federal government was responding to the humanitarian crisis in Syria by allocating funding to assist Syrian refugees to relocate to Canada. Meanwhile, across the border in the USA, an election campaign was underway in which a leading candidate was calling for a “Muslim ban”. This led me to want to learn about Islam and, more relevant to this thread, it caused me to think about our attitudes towards refugees and, more generally, towards immigrants. The “origins of the tensions”, in my view, was the immigration of Jews into Palestine. This is where I have been trying to direct this conversation.
Hello Mohammed and NB,
Welcome to the blog, and I appreciate your post above. I think this was your first time posting on the blog, and it maybe necessary to share some more thoughts, as a result of your discussion with N-B.
* N-B and I have not, to my memory, discussed the issue of Palestinians vis a vis Israelis ever, in all of the years he has posted here, until this particular article. Our discussions have been on issues mostly related to Islam as a faith, and the character of the Prophet Muhammad, Sall Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam. Thus, you can look at just about any of the articles posted in the last two years atleast, you can find his comments, and my replies (and occasionally the replies of others).
* N.B posts that he found the initial text surrounding this article to be ridiculous, however the text, i.e. the story of the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael ('Alayhima as salaam), found in the Bible, is a foundational text for understanding the conflict, atleast in the minds of many Americans, both religious and secular. If N.B. has not encountered that, we can't do anything about that. Indeed, the endnotes actually quoted an important Evangelical figure, whose views (such as that the "Biblical Israel" will encompass the entire Middle East) certainly would bring endless wars and proves the danger of Zionism. If he didn't see that, he can look at it again as he wishes.
* I hope you (MOhammed) will get the time to share in the comments, with any of the readers, some examples of how the Zionist enterprise has directly impacted you and your family. Some people, perhaps even N.B. himself, views Israel with rose-colored classes, and needs to realize that this issue is beyond some theoretical argument.
* I genuinely hope for peace, but also for justice. Dr.Martin Luther KING Jr. famously stated that "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere". Israel should not get a pass just because it's primary victims are Arab Muslims.
I continue to hope that Palestinians will engage in conversation here. I especially hope that any who don't see it the way Waheed does will have the courage to speak up and say so.
Unless, you have been reading our posts for a period of time, you won't know how strongly Waheed has defended the injustices of Muhammad's Islamic State. He has defended expulsions of entire tribes, the slaughter of the male members of tribes, plunder, torture and the abduction of women into Muslim marriages. Now Waheed wants to portray himself up as the opponent of injustice anywhere. I have not given Israel "a pass", but can Waheed say the same about his defence of Muhammad?
Now, it may seem like a diversion to talk about incidents that occurred in Arabia 1400 years ago. However, it is relevant to this conversion. Most of the victims of Muhammad's injustices were Jews. So, more than simply defending Muhammad, Waheed has also been defending injustices committed against Jews, and if such injustices were permitted under Muhammad, then why would Muslims not feel permitted to commit similar injustices today?
What I asked about in my first posts in this thread was the origin of the animosity towards the Jewish immigrants prior to the establishment of the State of Israel. Can you defend the intentions and plans of men like Amin al-Husseini? Isn't antisemitism at the very heart of the anti-Zionist terrorism that was practised even before 1947?
Recently, Waheed thought I might be interested in the thoughts of a "Shaikh" named Imran Hosein. I was curious so I watched http://imranhosein.org/n/major-signs-of-the-last-days-dabbatul-ardh-beast-of-the-earth/ (I haven't quite reached the end, yet) In this video, Hosein uses "logic" and "thinking" and references to the Qur’an to LITERALLY, and I do mean literally, demonise the British, the Americans, and the Israelis. There is no logic in his arguments. He repeatedly claims that everyone else has forgotten how to think and therefore, we should learn to think as he thinks. He even claims that no one but himself is using logic anymore. He is explicitly and shamelessly using the Qur’an and distorting its words for political purposes. I mention this video because of the overt antisemitism in it, a religious position, and how he twists it into anti-Zionism, a political position.
Do I think that all Muslims or that all Arabs are antisemitic? No, of course not, but I am now firmly convinced that the religion of Islam is strongly antisemitic and that anyone teaching Islam is invariably teaching antisemitism. I expect that Waheed will counter this as he usually does, with some anecdotes and a handful of verses from the Qur’an which were recited before Muhammad’s antisemitism was fully developed.
We have discussed the reports surrounding the battles and issues in the Prophet's biography, I don't think there's a need to go through that again. Similarly, we have discussed Mufti Husseini, but you have basically ignored that, so I'm not going to return to that at the moment.
When referencing Shaikh Imran Hosein, or any writer/speaker/source, that does not mean I agree 1oo% with all the content they distribute. In other words, a recommendation does not mean blanket endorsement. I study a number of writers and subjects, and if I come across an insight, I always try to provide the correct attribution to that source publically.
Although not relevant to this article, here's why I think having a look at IH on the subject of Ribaa would be interesting for you to take a look at. (1) He sees it as not only an injustice, but an indicator of the coming of the end of the world. (2) Therefore, he proposes, based on his own interpretation of Islamic texts, a number of solutions, which include (a) Living more humble lives, particularly by creating small communities of Muslims and Non Muslims alike, which would have local control of food, resources, essentially off the grid, with little to no interactions with Ribaa. (b) That Gold be reinstated as currency.
There's more that he proposes, and it's mostly irrelevant to this particular thread, but the above, I thought, would interest you. Look up his talks on Ribaa /Interest, or even his books. He's also a bit radical in his understanding of Islam,and seeks in particular to develop strong relations with Orthodox Christianity.
So again...not a blanket endorsement, I simply thought it would benefit you to have a look at his analysis of Ribaa, in connection to the world economic system.
August 1, 2021 at 3:22 PM
Well, Waheed, I don't think we have the same definition of "discussed".
Perhaps you would like to summarise for your readers what you have said about the atrocities against the Jews that are described in the prophet's biographies. Perhaps you would like to assure them that I'm am not at all mistaken about what is described in these histories and that they can pick up just about any biography and read these accounts for themselves. Perhaps you would like to admit that modern day Muslims make reference to these examples to further incite violence against Jews.
Perhaps you would like to summarise for your readers what you have said about Mufti Husseini that is relevant to my point that antisemitism like his was a significant source of the conflict between Jews and Palestinians.
Perhaps you would like to comment on Imran Hosein's video that I have linked and particularly you might comment on my allegation that he is distorting the words of the Qur'an in order to incite violence against particular non-Muslim countries, including the country where you live and Israel.
You ought to have, in the other thread, posted a link to the actual video of Hosein that you wanted me to watch. It is too late for that now. Now that I see him as a dangerous fraud, I'm not likely to be open to his economic ideas.
"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." John Stuart Mill, 1867
Hello N-B,
* To summarize, I have stated in the past that the reports you mention, in your view to attempt to prove the Prophet committed "atrocities" were either misreading on your part, false (because of contradictions to other more reliable sources) or a zooming in on some aspects, ignoring others. Indeed, if an armed group, in your midst, stages attacks, assassination and colluding with the enemy, we should not expect you to give them candy and flowers.
* As for the Mufti Al-Husseini, you have attempted (seemingly out of utter distaste for Islam) to connect him to some Nazi conspiracy, and of making anti Semitic moves (BTW, Arabs are Semitic as well), but you ignore, once again, that the Zionist thrust into Palestine was not at the permission of the locals, rather, it was something imposed on it by outside forces. Isn't that much worse than a meeting or a speech ?
* As for Shaikh Imran Hosein, here's a link to a talk on Ribaa. On this subject, I would kindly suggest taking that discussion to the article on Ribaa. The link is below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRAcU48y04k
OK, Waheed, so we should better rely on these "other more reliable sources" that you are unable to produce.
I have not attempted to prove anything. I have merely pointing out the horrors of Muhammad's tyrannical rule in Medina that are described in the books that Islamic scholars have used for centuries as the backdrop for understanding the Qur'an.
When you write about "an armed group, in your midst", should I be thinking that you could be referring to the various Arab groups operating in Palestine that are actually carrying out the violent acts that you allege, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Medinan Jews carried out? Should today’s Palestinians be treated in the same way that Muhammad treated the Arabian Jews?
Once again, you dodge the antisemitism issue and its relationship to the tensions in Israel. Al-Husseini didn't merely attend a meeting; Imran Hosein's diatribe is truly shocking. Is it true that Muslims are prohibited from being critical of other Muslims? If so, then it is no wonder that I have been so totally frustrated by your lack of candour. Evil needs to be confronted or it will triumph.
But here's the main point:
You say that I ignore "that the Zionist thrust into Palestine was not at the permission of the locals, rather, it was something imposed on it by outside forces." I definitely haven't ignored this position and I have said much about it. However, it is so different from what you think, you are unable to fathom my ideas.
There are a lot of things that are wrong about your statement, and I wish that you'd go back and read what I have said. Perhaps if you think about something that Mahatma Gandhi said after it was clear that the State of Israel was going to be established:
"The Jews are a persecuted people worthy of world sympathy and India sympathises with them. They are energetic, intelligent and progressive. The Arabs are a great people with a great history and therefore if they provide refuge for the Jews without the mediation of any nation, it will be in their tradition of generosity." (May 1, 1947)
Please think about the implications of the phrase "not at the permission of the locals". Do locals have the right to deny refuge to those who are fleeing for their lives? As I have pointed out several time, Muslims are now a major proportion of those who are fleeing. Would you have it that the world deny them "the permission of the locals"?
Hello N-B:
* We have discussed already the events that are reported from sources on the battles and such in the Prophet's time. Frankly I don't have time to keep going over that with you, especially since that has already taken place in other threads. In short, some of the accounts are exaggerations, misrepresentations (on half-information) or simply false.
* You now seem to suggest that there's no evidence that there were Jewish groups who staged treasonous activities in Madinah during the Prophet's time. If that is what you are saying, what sort of evidence do you want? It seems you are playing Devil's advocate.
* Thank you for quoting Mahatma Gandhi. I have great respect for him. Here's another quote, relevant to this subject:
One of Gandhi’s earliest statements on Palestine is of 16 March 1921. To London’s Daily Herald, he said: ‘No canon…of ethics or war can possibly justify the gift by the Allies of Palestine to Jews"
Here's another:
“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home”
It seems that he saw the situation very well.
Waheed, you seem to be simply stating your own personal opinion about what the historical facts are. I know that it is currently fashionable in the USA to invent your own truth. However, most rational people require evidence and critical thinking to establish the truth.
And, as I've previously said, what Muslim SAY happened is as important as what actually did happen. Even if you had good grounds for doubting these stories, that doesn't change the fact that Muslims follow the prophetic example and these stories are part of that example. Unless Muslims find a way to separate these stories from the prophetic example, they remain part of the prophetic example.
It simply is not enough for you to opine that some of these accounts are not true. I cannot take your denials seriously unless you are able to state in the most unequivocal way that the specific acts that I've mentioned would be serious criminal acts, if they happened as described.
Once again, you dismiss my point about Jewish "treasonous activities" with "Devil's advocate", implying that I couldn't possibly truly believe what I'm saying.
The only instance I have found of Jews raising an army against Madinah was when the Banu Nadir returned to Madinah with some allies in an attempt to regain what was stolen from them by the Muslims. Otherwise, they never raised an army. The history is clear that the Muslims were the first to raise an army against Madinan citizens, specifically the Jews.
I have not seen any incident where a Jew was arrested for assassinating or attempting to assassinate a Muslim. However, there are stories that are the other way around.
The "treachery" of the Madinan Jews was to mock Muhammad when he said: "O you who have believed, remember the favor of Allah upon you when armies came to [attack] you and We sent upon them a wind and armies [of angels] you did not see. And ever is Allah, of what you do, Seeing." (Q 33:9)
It was this denial that pushed Muhammad over the edge. It was after this, that he began to expel Jews. It was after this that he literally turned his back on Jerusalem and faced Mecca. We should not expect the Jews "to give them candy and flowers" once Muhammad turned on them and unlawfully expelled some of them.
Remember ... in this case, the Jews were the native people and the Muslims were the intruders. It was the immigrant Muslims who usurped the lands of the native Jews.
It astounds me that you are able to maintain such a blatant double standard.
As for Gandhi, I greatly admire him. However, I don't have to agree with everything he said and there are times when we have the benefit of hindsight and can see when he was mistaken.
One thing that I believe about Gandhi is that he was a very pragmatic person. It isn't surprising to see that his perspective in 1947 was different from in 1921. He did not, and could not, anticipate the brutality that the Jews would face in Europe. Nor could he anticipate the realities of a 21st Century when England no longer belongs to "the English" and France to "the French". The world is no longer divided into nations with clear ethnic boundaries. Gandhi could not have imagined a time when so many would identify with a nationality which is so foreign to their ancestry.
At least you have established that there can be no criticism of Westerners who call for a Muslim ban. You have affirmed that it is their right to refuse permission to Muslims to enter their countries. You won't even acknowledge that we all have a humanitarian obligation to accept refugees seeking asylum.
no one can be believed because no one was actually there , whats important is how we move forward , the litmus test for any historical stories should be this , whats the goal behind this teaching , for example tho shalt not kill , does anyone have an issue with that ? great moving on, what are these stories except warnings and examples of either how something was done right or how it went horribly wrong , what the hell does the past have to do with the current situation ?
NB is your goal to create policy here or simply to argue for absolutely no reason at all ?
i honestly thought there was some intelligence to your argument but as i continue to watch these arguments i cant help but think to myself , why are you stalling legitimate progress
@ N-B.
*It's not me "inventing my own truth". It's just that these are issues that I have studied in an academic sense, and largely I will take from my teachers and trusted sources in general. I think that your reading of Islam in general, but particularly regarding the Prophet Muhammad, is that of a negative foundation. In other words, your utter distaste of Islam leads you to assume the worst about anything involving Muslims. It leads us to wonder precisely why, or atleast, if there's more to it than you have shared (as I asked you this question before)..
* You have cited Q 33:9, saying that the Prophet was enraged when the Jews "mocked" him, leading to him "committing atrocities". Your reading of the sources again is defective. There had been ongoing campaigns against the Prophet and the Muslims in general, and at one point, Madinah was under siege. The books of Quranic commentary (Tafseer) do not speak in the way you have stated, but there is a general agreement that specific Jewish tribes made common cause with the Makkans, functioning as a fifth column, so to speak.
*Karen Armstrong has a brief summary of how these particular forces functioned in the Prophet's time: " Three of Medina's Jewish tribes- The Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayzah, were determined to destroy Muhammad, because he had undermined their political ascendancy in the oasis. They had sizable armies and preexisting alliances with Mecca so they were a security risk. When the Qaynuqa and Nadir staged revolts and threatened to assassinate him, Muhammad expelled them from Medina. But the Nadir had joined the nearby Jewish settlement of Khaybar and drummed up support for Mecca among the local Bedouin." ( Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, 2014, New york, Anchor Books, page 183).
My point in sharing this is to share that the early Muslim's relationship with Arabian Jewish groups was not the same, by any means, of Christian Europe towards the Jews. Indeed, persecution of the Jews, viewed as "Christ-killers", was common among the Europeans. Indeed, much of the history has shown Jews faired well in Muslim lands, and thus Muslims should not be viewed as somehow supporting the holocaust in later times.
And as stated before, many of the accounts, we dismiss, for a number of reasons. I shared Safi Kaskas article on one of these issues you have brought up, and indeed, he had every intention of sharing his views on this website, however time constraints, as well as difficulty navigating the blog, prevented him from doing so.
* Perhaps it is prudent to address some of the issues you have raised which I didn't answer before. I didn't before because, frankly, I saw them as simply red herrings you were throwing out there, but to answer, yes, of course, humans have a moral, religious, and humanitarian obligation to help refugees, in whatever way they can. Regardless of their ethnic or religious label. Helping refugees is not the same thing as giving cover to stealing property, which the Zionists did not only in a figurative sense, but literally as well. It didn't happen simply yesterday, but continues to happen. Indeed, earlier in the thread we saw videos showing this very happening.
* I think you should study a little bit regarding the concept of Nationalism. You view Gandhi as basically making mistakes in his reading (after you had initially cited him) of the Palestinian situation, but basically Nationalism, the nation-state, is a relatively new concept, which in itself has proved to be destructive in many ways. I am reminded of the Prophet's teaching "There is no Arab over a Non Arab, nor a white over a black, nor black over a white". The Prophet, peace be upon him, was blunt in his stand against racism, tribalism, and to a certain extent what we call "nationalism "
* How have I affirmed a Muslim ban? That was simply a red herring on your part. I had simply ignored it before, as it seemed to be pointless to reply.
* Also, you have stated the Muslims were intruders in Palestine. This is patently false. It's not entirely your fault, because there is confusion in today's world on this point. The Zionists, in particular the leaders up to now, are not semitic. They are descendants of European Jews, Ashkenazis If I remember correctly, who had converted to Judaism in the middle ages. They have no ethnic ties to the semites. Moreover, and this goes to Nationalism as discussed above, it is said that "Palestinians" are "Jews" who converted to Islam early on, and adopted Arabic as their language and culture. In most societies until relatively recently, with the rise of nationalism, identity was determined by culture. language and (to a degree ) religion. Thus, the Sudanese, in the middle of East Africa, are considered Arabs, because Arabic is their mother tongue. The Moroccans, likewise, are considered Arabs (with the exception of groups in both countries whose language is not Arabic). These are "Arabs", even if DNA tests link them to European or African stock. They are Arabs because of language and culture.
@Getmoe.
Welcome to the blog. I like your comment, and would hope that NB would reply, to seriously consider, what you have stated here.
Similarly, I hope that you would continue to share thoughts. We have plenty of readers, alhamdulillaah, but very few consistent folks who share comments, besides NB.
I agree with you, we need to get pass arguments over historical oddities and concentrate on that which would benefit us in the hear and now. Be it on the issue of Palestine, on Usury, racism, economic justice, the environment, and so forth.
Hi getmoe. Thank you for posting. We need some fresh points of view in this blog.
I have been saying exactly what you have just said: "whats the goal behind this teaching?" Whether or not these historical stories are at all accurate doesn't matter so much as the fact that these same stories have been taught by Muslims for many, many centuries. What do these stories teach you?
I find it hard to believe that many modern Muslims would not find some of these stories repugnant. They portray the prophet, by modern standards, in a very unfavourable light. I have no problem accepting, as an explanation, that that is how things were done in his day. Only recently have words like "genocide" been coined and only recently has torture been deemed morally reprehensible and only recently has it become viewed as a serious human rights abuse to force a captured woman into marriage. What I have persistently hoped for is for Waheed and any other readers to admit that the prophet's conduct, as described in these stories, would be considered atrocious by today's standards.
Putting the question simply: Why do Muslims continue to tell stories of Muhammad carrying out these horrible acts? They are examples, as you say, of "how it went horribly wrong". Can't we all agree on that?
The problem is how do you explain the existence of these stories if they aren't true? So, what some Muslims, including Waheed, have attempted to do is to suppose that there is an untold backstory that would justify these incidents. By so doing, they are defending these actions. In my view, this only makes matters worse.
There are some considerable moral questions behind my arguments related to how we treat other people. Can we accuse people of “treachery” or of being “a security risk” as justification for displacing them from their homes and forcing them into the desert where there would be no refuge? Is this how Muslims see political problems being solved in the 21st Century? If not, then why are teachers like Waheed teaching lessons like this? Worse is the fact that far worse treatment than this has been justified in this blog.
I am not arguing for no reason. I am trying to show the few Muslims who might be reading here that their traditional teachings may not always be appropriate for their current situation. I don’t really know how you can change these teaching and, honestly, that would be a far more interesting topic. However, we can’t get there until we agree that the teachings need to change. Until then, I believe that immense harm is being done to Muslim society by the teaching of these lessons. Continued violent conflict is inevitable unless it changes.
I think that this is an argument worth having.
Waheed, I think that my comments to getmoe respond to much of what you have said. There is one "red herring" that you raise that needs to be put to rest:
The word "antisemitism" was coined in Europe and referred to European Jews. The people who coined and popularised this word openly practised their hatred of Jews. It is unfortunate particular for people who are actually Semitic that this is the word that was coined. Nevertheless, the word is used the way it is, regardless of its faulty etymology. Likewise, we are plagued by the word "Islamophobia" which implies an irrational fear of Islam. My criticism of Islam has nothing to do with fear, yet I find myself labelled with this word. Words mean what people intend them to mean and sometimes we have to be careful in examining the context in which words are being used to correctly ascertain their intended meaning.
And, you seemed to have misconstrued which Muslim "intruders" I was referring to. The Muhajirun were a foreign element in Madinah who usurped power from the native Madinan population. Somehow, these people are "given a pass" for their aggressive takeover of Madinah and somehow the natives who passively resisted this aggression like 'Abdullaah bin Ubayy are described as the villains. There are some direct parallels between this intrusion and the Zionist intrusion into Palestine. However there is one important difference: in the case of Madinah, there aren't recorded incidents of the natives using violence and terrorism against the Muhajirun; in fact, we find the opposite is the case and that the Muhajirun were offered refuge and support. However, there are plenty of accounts of the Arabs using violence and terrorism against the Zionists and there are few accounts of the Zionists being supported by the native population.
And with that, I've succeeded in bring this conversation back to the original topic.
@ N-B.
There are a great many issues you have raised in your comments that should be addressed, but for the moment, I am curious, because you have zoomed in on how Muslims teach the faith, what do you mean by those assertions? Are you saying we should not teach about Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace? Clarify what you mean in these regards.
Since you ask, I'll elaborate on this point now. I had intended to wait and give your readers a chance to comment. This is an excellent example of something we have discussed before but I didn't want to distract from the main topic by repeating here.
In the thread http://shamsuddinwaheed.blogspot.com/2020/12/lessons-from-sacred-history-some.html I linked the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xNdpvCWT2Ag. At the time you said "I don't understand your opposition to the video you shared, unless it is simply the content ( summarizing the history) that you feel children should not be exposed to?"
Since I've been trying to elicit some comments from you and your readers about your views of the events in Palestine during the 1940s, let me frame this video in those terms:
Suppose Israelis, as part of their teaching of the founding of the State of Israel, told of an incident that took place during the 1940s, real or imaginary, in which the Zionists organised a surprise raid on a Palestinian village in which they murdered the men and captured the women, while suffering no losses themselves and taking all of the property of the Palestinians. Suppose they said that they brought the women into Israel and distributed them to the fighters as prizes. Suppose a leading woman from amongst these captives offered herself as a "quid pro quo" to the Zionist leader to be his wife in exchange for the freeing of the other women. Suppose there was a Palestinian living amongst the Zionists in Israel who spoke out against this action of the Zionists. What would you say? What would you say about patronising videos directed to Israeli children which praise this sort of assault on human beings? What would that be teaching those children?
Again, Gentleman...
How do we move forward , lets put aside everything else NB and lets make actual suggestions , how do we move forward , what is the plan?
to sit here and argue who's the worst group is absolutely pointless and i think has been the only argument for the last 2 thousand years, how do we move forward?
Getmoe, we can't move forward with a solution unless we understand what it is we are trying to solve. I have stated my ideas about what I think the problem is, however, I've never lived in the Middle East. Neither you nor Waheed seem to want to comment on my ideas. You could comment on Waheed's ideas or you could present some ideas of your own.
What is it that people want and what sort of leadership is there in that direction? What are the real obstacles?
@ N-B.
You seem to want to ignore that there are indeed details, information, that is often omitted or ignored. Indeed, I shared above a basic description of the danger the tribes presented by Karen Armstrong ( a Non Muslim religious scholar), but you dismiss even that citation as a sort of immoral justification.
The danger was not in theory, rather, it was based in real life situations.
* You mention the need for us (or perhaps more accurately, Getmoe and myself) to comment on your ideas. I am unsure of what ideas you want to be commented on.
* Somehow you seem to think I am in the business of glorifying violence in a sunday school session. That is something I seriously challenge. A passing remark, as an answer to a question, to be characterized by you (N-B) as "patronizing" is a bit odd, to say the least. Are you saying that historical information is unnecessary and dangerous?
* It was the people of Madinah, atleast its leading elements, which invited the Prophet and the Muhaajiroon there. Viewing them as "intruders" is incorrect.
I am trying to keep this on the topic of the origins of the tensions in Palestine.
You can't simply suppose that there are details in the Sirah that were omitted. Of course, it is true that the Sirah is incomplete and not necessarily accurate in every detail. However, there has to be some sort of logical argument to insert or to reject specific details.
One aspect of the Sirah in which I have high confidence is the enumeration of the Muslims who were killed in the service of Islam. This is based on my own experience with my own culture which is meticulous in remembering those who die in battle. You can visit even the smallest communities in Canada and find in every one a plaque which lists the names of those who died during the World Wars.
I don't know where Karen Armstrong gets her ideas from, however, the assertion that the Jewish tribes were "determined to destroy Muhammad" and "had staged revolts and threatened to assassinate him [Muhammad]" requires evidence. There would have to have been actual combat and there would have been some men killed. The names of the infamous rebel leaders would be well-known. It is inconceivable to me that such incidents and the names to those involved would have been unknown to ibn Ishaq and other biographers.
Now, taking this back to the 1940s, suppose I translate Armstrong's words into the Palestinian context:
"Palestine's tribes were determined to destroy the Zionists, because they had undermined their political ascendancy. They had sizable armies and preexisting alliances with the Arab states so they were a security risk. When they staged revolts and threatened to destroy Israel, the Zionists expelled them from Israel. But the Palestinians had joined with the nearby Arab states of Jordan, Syria and Egypt."
Can you admit that you have a double standard? The biggest difference between this Palestinian context and Medina is that there is AMPLE evidence of the Arab threat to Israel. In fact, there are many Arabs even today who see nothing wrong with such a threat.
THIS is what I'm hoping that your Palestinian readers will comment on.
I'm not accusing YOU, Waheed, of being patronising. The VIDEO is patronising towards its very young audience. The VIDEO is glorifying violence and the subjugation of women into unwanted marriages. The VIDEO is portraying the opposition to these atrocious acts as "hypocrisy". You seem so unwilling to find common ground with me. I'm not blaming you for this video. Can't you at least agree with me that it is TRULY, TRULY AWFUL to teach children in this way?
We don't teach history as a collection of useless facts. We teach it for a reason. If the reason is to glorify atrocities, then, yes, absolutely, it is dangerous.
I don’t want to divert too much to address Muhammad’s “invitation” into Madinah. There is plenty of evidence from which to challenge this narrative of Muhammad being invited as some sort of peacemaker and that he and his people were widely welcomed. It is pretty obvious that there was an important segment of the population who wanted nothing to do with Muhammad and certainly viewed him as I’ve described in my earlier post.
Now, is there anyone who wants to discuss the origins of the tensions in Palestine?
Im actually glad to see you recognize the issue, in your fist sentence you premise your reply by saying the same thing im implying we move past! The origins of the tension!
precisely what im saying we avoid to move forward and actually have tangible results , that ultimately we both enjoy living peacefully with this air of vengeance in the air!
Hi getmoe. I think you and I are much closer in view than Waheed is to either of us. Waheed seems to think that if I heard your voice, I would be persuaded to move towards his position. However, I think the opposite is the case.
Please read what Waheed has said and tell me if you are willing to let him speak for you. If you read our posts, you'll see that I am the one who is saying that Palestinians need to move forward without vengenance and that it is Waheed who is advocating a pathway of continued conflict.
What I have been trying to get at by continually going back to the 1940s is that this is when the choice was first made to pursue a course of conflict rather than one of moving forward peacefully. I think that it is worthwhile examining this time in order to understand the forces that led to conflict in the first place. Then, it will be easier today to resist those same forces.
NB please don't ever infer that any man can speak for me, we may share views but we definitely have a different approach than whats been suggested , whats being suggested is that we agree the treaties and dealings of the past have nothing to do with us not by their unintended consequences nor their legislation , which frankly they didn't care how we got on afterwards they just figured that we would have enough common sense to say that we don't need anymore history classes or blame being put here or there , were do we go from here , with the pretext everything else is mute!
It's very interesting that I am being presented by you, our dear N-B, as "advocating a pathway of continued violence".
In essence, what I am actually doing is simply stating that there are misconceptions surrounding the genesis of the problem, that Palestine was indeed occupied, and that the ideology that created it (i.e. Zionism) is a very oppressive, even racist, worldview.
In 1917, the sole Jewish member of the British Cabinet, Sir Edwin Montagu, opposed the Balfour Declaration (the mandate which essentially gave Palestine to the Zionists). He saw it as "The mischievous political creed" . He even saw the declaration as anti Semitic!
Point being simple, rather than making silly attempts to portray me as advocating violence, you should rather take a look at the other side of things, that the victims of Zionism (or any oppression for that matter) should not be expected to hand flowers to their oppressors. That is simply unrealistic and untenable. It is Zionism which has led to the lack of peace in the region, that is simply the reality!
Hi getmoe. I'm kinda glad that Waheed interjected his comment before I had a chance to respond to yours.
I have Zionist friends who are very close to me. I feel compelled to speak up for my close friends and challenge Waheed's assertions that their ideology is "oppressive" and that they are "even racist". It is despicable that Waheed would post such bigoted comments here. Spewing hatred like that can lead to violence and I feel entirely justified in asserting that Waheed's path is one of continued violence. Comments like his do nothing to advance what you are hoping for.
I am not the one you need to challenge. Palestinians have long been the pawns in a game. You need to challenge those who are playing this game, especially those who are claiming to be playing this game in YOUR interests.
You, yourself, just said "we don't need anymore history classes or blame being put here or there ", yet that is EXACTLY what Waheed has just done in his response. You need to understand why people like Waheed are playing this blame game and you need to confront them, and I hope, change their way. Theirs is not the way you want to go.
NB,
honestly , I completely see exactly what the two of you are doing , its noble and definitely comes from a heart felt place , that being said, you eluded in your statement that the people using the Palestinians as pawns need to be addressed, my friend , you've hit the nail on the head, the Zionist movement uses them, the radical Muslim minority use them and whoever else has a stake in the area uses them , now that its been addressed , how do we move forward, how do we end the terror and torment of the many good Jewish people and the many good Palestinian people, how do we move forward now ?
"And fight in the way of Allah the ones who fight you, but do not transgress; surely Allah does not love the transgressors.
Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except towards aggressors."
[Q 190-193]
Anonymous comment,
its amazing how a verse taken out of context is used as a defensive argument, the verse itself is clear , fight those who fight you ,, not fight everybody till everybody dies , this is such a worn out tired argument, again what we should be discussing is how to move forward
Post a Comment