Why arethe Israelis allowed to get away with such injustice?

Post Reply New Topic

Why not?

Because they claim to have been given it by a being that does not exist.

I am not. It's just a hidden universal fact. Those who control your money control you. I've always been against anything to do with banking.



Yes, true, but as far as Muslims are concerned, we are right and you are all wrong. No point arguing here with one Muslim, try telling that to all of us, lol.

Do you think it's ok for Jews, who were refugees for over 1.5 millenia to return to Palestine, and it's not alright for Arabs who've been refugees for half a century to return?

I do agree with you though. They are used by these states in their geopolitical games against Israel, mainly the KSA and Kuwait.

Frankly, I don't think any people or nation has the right to supersede all other claims on that worthless little patch of desert. Like it or not, you're going to have share. I learned how to share in kindergarten. As grownups we should all be able to share.

That's why I said the Palestinians that lost property, or their heirs, deserve compensation - they were not squatters or invaders to be just evicted. Israel should have been founded only on land bought by the Zionists, or where native Jews were already a majority. However you cannot turn back the clock and change that, just like many other historical grievances around the world.

Yes, that's an acceptable compromise for the Palestinians (but not the Ummah altogether) until the re-establishment of the Caliphate.

Main important thing is, the Temple Mount complex must remain under the control of the Waqf board, and in Palestinian territory should the two-state solution become a reality. Personally, I support the one-state solution. Palestinians also support it, but not the Jews.



They can simply build new townships and facilities. The Israeli government is against any form of compensation. A Jew I know, from Ashkelon, says that most Israelis consider them as having "run away", and are cowards, thus deserving no compensation. Not even a handful of dirt. With this kind of attitude prevalent among them, is any kind of solution even possible?

Only if you consider violence and butchery as a solution in and of itself. IT should be obvious that all this killing isn't solving anything. But does anyone in the MIddle East really want a solution or just more of the same? All they want is war.

Most Palestinians want an end to discrimination. The refugees want their homes back. Public opinion differs everywhere. The Palestinians are divided between the secular PLO, the fundamentalist Hamas, and the Ultra Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad. 75% of Arab Israelis support Israel. The Arabs of East Jerusalem want to remain in Israel. The Palestinians in the west bank want East Jerusalem to be the capital of the future Palestinian state. The people of Gaza want to abolish the state of Israel. The people in the west bank support the two-state solution. Hezbollah wants to abolish the state of Israel. Jordan and Egypt love Israel.

All opinions are divided.

The majority of Muslims worldwide want the state of Israel abolished, and the Jews exiled back to Europe.

I personally think the one-state solution is perfect, modeled on the lines of the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is convenient to both, the Jews, as well as the Arabs. Unfortunately, the only scope of a one-state solution which has been discussed is that of a unitary state, which is impossible considering the fertility rate among Arabs and Jews. Arabs have a much higher fertility rate, and in the case of a unitary state, will never allow Jews to have political power.

You misunderstood my point, which was: Why should Iran give a rat's ass about Israel? It shouldn't. It's like the Satanic Verses crap. Bandwagon.

Why is Jerusalem the third holiest city for muslims?

Simple: They're also Muslims. There's no scope for nationalism in Islam. All Muslims are brothers and sisters, regardless of which sect they belong to, whether they're rich or poor, black or white, Persian or Chinese.

The dispute between the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kharjites was purely political initially. The dispute was centered around the succession to Muhammed (S), as you know. That doesn't change the fact that we're all Muslims, regardless of what hadith is accepted or rejected, whether one prostrates on a natural surface or not, whether one recites the Qunoot or not, whether one combines the two afternoon prayers and the two evening prayers or not, etc. The Muslim civil war, started by Aisha against Ali, was the first cause of the schism, the death of Husayn ibn Ali was the main cause. It happened around 13 centuries ago. When it comes to something like the Crusades or Zionism, the Ummah becomes united against the common enemy.

An example I would like to give is the Khilafat movement. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire by the Triple Entete angered Muslims worldwide. The Khilafat movement began in India, which seeked to have the Arab provinces returned to the Caliphate. The Shi'a believe that the Caliph must be a decendant of Ali. Yet, the Shi'a in South Asia participated in the Khilafat movement. The succession crisis is a purely internal dispute. When external factors attack any aspect of Islam, all Muslims unite, however slowly it might be.

Your question is similar to this. Why would Muslims in India and Pakistan care about some guy claiming to be the representative of their faith living in Istanbul? You have my answer. ^^



Jerusalem was the Qibla (point of direction of prayers) for Muslims till a little prior to the Battle of the Trench. Allah (SWT) sent a revelation through the angel Gabriel (as all revelations were sent to the prophet, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) changing the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca. Jerusalem continued to retain its holiness, as it was the former Qibla. For millenia, from the time of Moses (AHS), to Jesus (AHS), till the councils of Nicaea which altered the revelations sent to Jesus (AHS) iinto a pseudo-pagan religion, to Muhammed (S), Jerusalem was the Qibla. The reason for the change of the Qibla is simple - Mecca has been proven to be the centre of the world. In fact, Mecca was the first Qibla, established by Abraham (AHS), and was changed after the conquest of Moses's (AHS) army of the Levant, perhaps due to the Ka'aba being occupied by pagan idols, or perhaps due to convenience for the Jews. Allah (SWT) knows best.

In other previous revelations, there were other disputed Qiblas. For example, in Zoroastrianism, there is Zoroaster's Ka'aba. However, it's unknown if early Zoroastrians prayed towards this structure. During the Achaemenid dynasty, particularly during Darius's rule, Indo-Aryan religious elements, similar to Hinduism were introduced into the faith. The Qibla for Zoroastrians effectively became any source of fire. For the Yezedis of Kurdistan, the Sun is the Qibla. For early Buddhists, the Bodhi tree was the Qibla. When Buddhism reached Bactria, the first idol of Buddha was created, influenced by Greco-Bactrian art. Mahayana Buddhism, which changed Buddha's position from a wise teacher into a de facto God, was the end result.

Apart from Jerusalem, the Shi'a (10-15% of total Muslim population) consider Karbala and Najaf to be the 4th and 5th holiest cities.

How can you tell about movement of the Qibla's if Mecca was never mentioned in the bible, and Jerusalem was never mentioned in any suras?

Mecca is indeed mentioned in the Bible as "Paran".

"Then God opened her [Hagar] eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. At that time Abimelech and Phicol the commander of his forces said to Abraham, "God is with you in everything you do. (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 21:19-22)"

The Bible clearly says that Paran is south of Sinai in Egypt; "He said: 'The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.' (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)"

Kedar came from Ishmael; "These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa, Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah: These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. Kedar and Ancient Arabs (From the NIV Bible, Genesis 25:13)" The Arabian desert region was named after Kedar.

You can read the whole article here, if you wish: http://www.answering-christianity.com/paran.htm

As for the mention of Jerusalem in the noble Quran, http://islam.about.com/od/jerusalem/a/quds.htm

The specific verses mentioning change of the Qibla from Jerusalem are 2:142 to 2:144.

Looks to me like it said he came FROM the south, from Sinai, which would put Paran north of Sinai.

Plus, this came from the New International Version of the old testament, which is based upon the King James Version, which contains multitudes of errors, inconsistencies, and alterations...

The problem with studying the bible is that there are no originals, only inaccurate copies, so nobody really knows what is contained in those originals.

A religious person might say that the lord saw fit to separate mankind from those originals, and replace them with copies that do not agree with one another, so that no man could know the true word of god...

As a non-religious person, I say that there is no 'true word of god', only a series of shams and cons perpetrated by men to gain power over other men. Taken in this light, the scriptures make a lot more sense.

You may read the entire article for a proper view of that scholar who interpreted those Biblical verses.

The Qur'an absolutely forbids any kind of priesthood and clergical control over the masses. However, many Imams (Imams, except in Shi'a thought, are to be elected by the community based on their knowledge of the Quran and hadith) end up acting like priests, in gross violation of the Qur'an.

During the Caliphates, one could even take the Caliph to court if the Caliph was believed to have committed a crime. Islam does indeed forbid any kind of control over the masses by a man. Practicing a religion is purely between a man/woman and Allah (SWT).

and yet, here you are, telling us all what we should do and how we should interpret the word of god...

Take any holy book in the world, one that is called by its followers the true word of god, and present it to the entire population, and you will find that the vast majority of the world's population will reject that holy book as being not the true word of god... this is true for the koran, the torah, the new testament, old testament, the book of mormon, any holy book you can name... even the muslims disagree on which version of the koran is the true one.

So tell me, which of these books should I reject, and which of them is the true word of god? And how do you know this, other than to say that this is what you have been told?