[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It isn't my view of abrogation that is inconsistent, it is the way abrogation is applied to the Quran itself- but again we've made progress: At first there was denial in this thread that abrogation even happened in the Quran, and I had to show that it did. Sometimes the verses abrogating are immediately following the verses they replace, sometimes they appear later.

Are you joking, the only thing you have shown is your lack of basic reading comprehension and logic (you seem not to understand that apes can't breed humans...). Abrogation, if it describes that what I understand under the word, namely that during the 23 years of revelations to Muhammad, God let him forget some verses and sent some of equal worth or better as replacement, then yes abrogation has taken place, but it's not visible anymore in the Quran, as the forgotten verses are really forgotten and not written in the Quran anymore.

All the verses you have cited that should prove your case, I have disproved by quoting "your" verses and showing to you how you obviously have misunderstood them (lack of reading comprehemsion and logic..)

That would be alright, since you are not a muslim and can't be expected to read the Quran with more care and pondering, but at least after being disproved, you could have admitted you were wrong about the Quran.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Salah tries to claim still that the Jews that were unbelievers were the ones he believes worshipped Ezra. We still have no source for this other than the Quran, and no basis for it in Jewish history or tradition. He says that it's true because the Jews didn't leave a record of challenging it at the time the Quran was written- I don't know that they would have bothered, and I don't know that any Muslims would have listened, given the preference to believe that the Quran is true for all times.

I don't think that the idea of Ezra being the son of God was ever part of true Judaism, it obviously was just the claim of the jewish tribes living in Medina at that time. Maybe it had something to do with christians claiming Jesus was the son of God, that made them claiming something similar out of jealousy, there are numerous possibilities.

Originally posted by vmarks:
What was interesting was that Salah cited a source saying that the Jews who supposedly worshipped Ezra and the Christians worshipping Jesus are much like the babble of the unbelievers of old and that Allah himself will retaliate them for their blasphemy. So the basic tenet of Christianity makes a Christian a blasphemer- an unbeliever, and we know what kind of respect THAT means..

I have already cited the verses in the Quran calling for respect for the people of the book, despite their wrong ideas, judgment is to be left for God in the after-life.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The upshot is this:

You ignore all the Sheikhs who disagree with your interpretation. I showed you them above.

Are they all wrong?

Isn't using the accusation as these Sheikhs did, that "Jews are treacherous, it's in the Quran, they are the brothers of monkeys and pigs!" disrespectful to people of the book?

If you agree that it is, why would so many Muslim religious authority figures say so, and why would they influence other Muslims to believe so?

Can you support your view in contradiction to theirs? Are there Sheikhs you can cite who support your view and show where theirs is incorrect?..

Those you cited and claimed that jews were sons of apes and swines are obviously all wrong, animals can't breed humans, and I cited the verses that clearly said that God punished a few (not all, not the majority, not even a sizeable minority, just a few among a tribe in ancient times) jewish people with the transformation to apes as punishment for their transgressions.

Maybe you are confused that I can claim things like that, while socalled sheiks are saying the opposite, but still I'm right and they're wrong, as I can cite the verses from the Quran and because logic is on my side.

In Islam there is no "church"-like organization with bishops or even a pope who decides ultimately how to interpret the Quran or what belief is the doctrin, every muslim can read the Quran and interpret it himself, that's why you find such divergent views, that go from moderate, rational to extremistic, even racistic as in the case with those sheiks that are overly engaged in the Palestine-Israel-conflict.

Eventhough there is no religious organization in sunni-Islam, there are though four important religious schools (universities) with slightly different views and interpretations that have formed in the centuries-long discussions, and I'm pretty sure that none of these four "schools" hold the view that jews are sons of apes.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

So that's it then: All the Sheikhs and Imams are incorrect, and you alone are right.

You've done nothing to disprove their claims. You've done nothing to disprove anything I said, other than to say "it just isn't so." without even giving a reason for your answer.

You didn't answer if the "brothers/sons of monkeys" line is disrespectful or not. It isn't that I don't understand that monkeys cannot give birth to humans- it's that the Sheikhs who continue to proclaim this offensive assault on Jews, whether they live in Saudi Arabia or Canada, believe this is possible, because of course in G-d, all things are possible, no?

And you didn't answer what Taqiyya and Kitman are.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So that's it then: All the Sheikhs and Imams are incorrect, and you alone are right.

You've done nothing to disprove their claims. You've done nothing to disprove anything I said, other than to say "it just isn't so." without even giving a reason for your answer.

You didn't answer if the "brothers/sons of monkeys" line is disrespectful or not. It isn't that I don't understand that monkeys cannot give birth to humans- it's that the Sheikhs who continue to proclaim this offensive assault on Jews, whether they live in Saudi Arabia or Canada, believe this is possible, because of course in God, all things are possible, no?

And you didn't answer what Taqiyya and Kitman are.

It's not me that is right, but the Quran is and I have disproved their claims and your claims in the last few postings of me in this thread by directly quoting the Quran. Go reread the posts, as you obviously haven't read them.

And off course calling someone a borther/son of apes is disrespectful, wasn't that a rhetorical question where the answer was already obvious? (Attention, this is also a rhetorical question!)

As to the breeding of humans by apes, logic speaks against it, not because it is impossible but because it goes right against the intentions of God: In the Quran, the transformation into apes is part of a long list of punishments against transgressers, that included devastating quakes, asteroid-crashings, floods, blizzards, all with the intent to stop evil people from further giving birth to new generations,that would follow their parents in the wrongdoing, either by killing them directly or by turning them into animals that can only breed animals.

You are pretty dishonest accusing me that I would just say "it isn't so", I have laid down the reasons, I have quoted directly Quran-verses saying otherwise and by all this completely disproving that the Quran is anti-jewish. If you don't want to accept that and admit that you were wrong, that's your problem.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

If you have believed that this is disrespectful, and you believe that these Sheikhs and Imams are in the wrong, why are they so prevalent?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
If you have believed that this is disrespectful, and you believe that these Sheikhs and Imams are in the wrong, why are they so prevalent?

Sheiks have nearly no religious authority, they are just the leader of a tribe, they are not religiously educated and mostly don't even know the Quran besides of a few suras. Here is something I found in english explaining what sheiks and what role they play. Note that with european colonialism the system of elected sheiks with checks and balances has been abolished so that sheiks got more power over the tribe and consequentially the european colonialists more control over the tribes:

What is a sheik?
In Arabic, sheik means leader, or simply a venerable male elder, and each level of tribal organization�tribe, clan, and house�generally has a sheik at its head, says Iraqi tribal expert Amatzia Baram, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington and a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Haifa in Israel. Because there are so many sheiks, finding one with a significant degree of authority can be a challenge for U.S. occupiers. Another problem: Saddam subverted the traditional tribal hierarchy and elevated many sheiks in return for their cooperation.

What is a sheik�s traditional role?
Sheiks are traditionally responsible for protecting their people from harm and guaranteeing them a basic level of economic well-being. They also act as mediators and judges, settle disputes, resolve property claims, and suggest marriages, among other roles. In exchange, they have their people�s allegiance, Baram says. For centuries, sheiks were appointed by a council of elders within a tribe, and a sheik�s authority was not unlimited. The British�who ruled Iraq between 1920 and 1932�eliminated some of these checks and balances to exercise stricter control over Iraq�s tribesmen. In essence, this turned tribal sheiks into the sole source of law and authority in wide stretches of Iraq�s countryside.

From this link: http://www.cfr.org/background/backgr...raq_tribes.php

Sure, it talks about the sheiks of Iraq, but it's similar in every arabic country.

Taliesin

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So that's it then: All the Sheikhs and Imams are incorrect, and you alone are right.

You've done nothing to disprove their claims. You've done nothing to disprove anything I said, other than to say "it just isn't so." without even giving a reason for your answer.

You didn't answer if the "brothers/sons of monkeys" line is disrespectful or not. It isn't that I don't understand that monkeys cannot give birth to humans- it's that the Sheikhs who continue to proclaim this offensive assault on Jews, whether they live in Saudi Arabia or Canada, believe this is possible, because of course in G-d, all things are possible, no?

And you didn't answer what Taqiyya and Kitman are.

I see you are getting desperate.

But for the Taqiyya and Kitman part.

It's what many of us call the Holy Hypocrisy. It's a predominantly Shia "trait". Taqiyya and Kitman is to hide or not officially "publicise" your faith. It's only applicable though if you are in fear of your own life, your families life or for what you own. It's a hotly debated topic with the Sunnis(which I'm a part of) not liking it and calling it the Holy Hypocrisy since it means you fear humans when the only thing you should fear is God. Shias on the other hand are on the other side of the debate and think that it can be applied in extreme cases as I mentioned above.

Now I've answered your question, so now you answer mine.

Why did you want to know this? You aren't trying to call me and Taliesin liars are you?

[Splinter]

Back on original topic... or close to it...

Police arrest Likud member and three others for trying to sell Palestinian land

[vmarks]

Meanwhile, Israel is releasing 500 convicted terrorist Palestinian murderers, and giving up control of Jericho, Tul Karem, and Kalkilye to PA "security forces".

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
I see you are getting desperate.

But for the Taqiyya and Kitman part.

It's what many of us call the Holy Hypocrisy. It's a predominantly Shia "trait". Taqiyya and Kitman is to hide or not officially "publicise" your faith. It's only applicable though if you are in fear of your own life, your families life or for what you own. It's a hotly debated topic with the Sunnis(which I'm a part of) not liking it and calling it the Holy Hypocrisy since it means you fear humans when the only thing you should fear is God. Shias on the other hand are on the other side of the debate and think that it can be applied in extreme cases as I mentioned above.

Now I've answered your question, so now you answer mine.

Why did you want to know this? You aren't trying to call me and Taliesin liars are you?

I am not desperate.

But you did fail to define the terms wholly truthfully.

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6b/1.html

The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

The above definition must be elaborated upon before any undertaking of this topic is to ensue. Although correct, the definition suffers from an apparent generalization, and lacks some fundamental details that should be construed:

First, the CONCEALMENT of one's beliefs does NOT necessitate an ABANDONMENT of these beliefs. The distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment" MUST be noted here.
----
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al- Ma'athoor," narrates Ibn Abbas', the MOST renowned and trusted narrator of tradition in the sight of the Sunnis, opinion regarding al-Taqiyya in the Quranic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers
unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....[3:28]" that Ibn Abbas said:

"al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been COERCED into saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his TRUE faith has NOT been shaken.), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will NOT harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (NOT the heart)."

NOTE: The two words "tat-taqooh" and "tooqatan," as mentioned in the Arabic Quran, are BOTH from the same root of "al-Taqiyya."

NOTE ALSO: The "heart" as referred to above and in later occurrences refers to the center of faith in an individual's existence. It is mentioned many times in the Quran.

Ibn Abbas also commented on the above verse, as narrated in Sunan al-
Bayhaqi and Mustadrak al-Hakim, by saying:

"al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is
comfortable with faith."

NOTE: The meaning is that the tongue is permitted to utter anything in a time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still
comfortable with faith.

It is narrated in al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, v3, p61, that:

After the conquest of the city of Khaybar by the Muslims, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) was approached by Hajaj Ibn `Aalat and told: "O Prophet of Allah: I have in Mecca some excess wealth and some relatives, and I would like to have them back; am I excused if I bad-mouth you (to escape persecution)?" The Prophet (PBUH&HF) excused him and said:"Say whatever you have to say."


Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in his book, "al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-Ma'athoor," v2, p176, narrates that:

Abd Ibn Hameed, on the authority of al-Hassan, said: "al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment."

-----

Taqiyya is deception. It is an outright lie like saying 'a criminal cannot be a Muslim', or suicide is forbiddin in Islam (nevermind that suicide "martyr" attacks are not) or it is misdirection, claims that concepts cannot be translated, and so forth.

You didn't even define Kitman. Kitman is telling a half-truth, concealment instead of the lie or dodge.

When a Muslim maintains that �jihad� really means �a spiritual struggle,� and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing �kitman.�

[Salah al-Din]

May God have mercy on you vmarks.

Lets compare what I said and then your post.

1. I said:

It's a predominantly Shia "trait"

you quote a from a site called al-islam.org. On it's about page they say:

Our objectives are to digitize and present on the Internet quality Islamic resources, related to the history, law, practice, and society of the Islamic religion and the Muslim peoples, with particular emphasis on Twelver Shia Islamic school of thought.

I was correct. 1-0 my advantage.

2. I said:

Taqiyya and Kitman is to hide or not officially "publicise" your faith.

your post says:

"Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies

Same thing.

2-0 my advantage.

3. I said:

It's only applicable though if you are in fear of your own life, your families life or for what you own.

your post said:

at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.

Same thing.

3-0 my advantage.

4. I said:

It's a hotly debated topic with the Sunnis(which I'm a part of) not liking it and calling it the Holy Hypocrisy since it means you fear humans when the only thing you should fear is God.

So this doesn't apply to me nor Taliesin(I believe he's a Sunni) so your attempts at claiming Muslims are tought to lie is wrong.

4-0 my advantage.



I sincerly hope you seek some professional help for your irrational fear and hatred(which follows fear) of Islam and Muslims. You have been proven wrong so many times in this thread and still you can't accept that you don't have the slightest clue about Islam. This last attempt came because you haven't been able to prove me nor Taliesin wrong so you attempt to label us liars.

Like I said. May God have mercy on your pitiful soul.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
May God have mercy on you vmarks.

Lets compare what I said and then your post.

1. I said:


you quote a from a site called al-islam.org. On it's about page they say:



I was correct. 1-0 my advantage.

Incorrect: they specifically look at sunni sources in the article I quoted. Do you deny the Sunni sources?

My advantage, not yours.

2. I said:


your post says:



Same thing.

2-0 my advantage.

Actually, you agreed with me- occasionally you come around. No score for you on that one.

3. I said:



your post said:



Same thing.

3-0 my advantage.

See above. Once in a rare while, you decide it's okay to agree with me. Bit by bit, you come around more and more.

4. I said:


So this doesn't apply to me nor Taliesin(I believe he's a Sunni) so your attempts at claiming Muslims are tought to lie is wrong.

4-0 my advantage.

Incorrect. Refer back to point 1 where I quoted Sunni sources. It DOES apply, and denying it is practicing the very taqiyya you claim cannot be.

I sincerly hope you seek some professional help for your irrational fear and hatred(which follows fear) of Islam and Muslims. You have been proven wrong so many times in this thread and still you can't accept that you don't have the slightest clue about Islam. This last attempt came because you haven't been able to prove me nor Taliesin wrong so you attempt to label us liars.

Like I said. May God have mercy on your pitiful soul.

I do not have an irrational fear of Islam and Mulims. I harbor no hatred towards them.

I simply am tired of being and seeing those close to me be the intended target of murder by Islam adherents and told by those terrorist's supporters that both I am "a legitimate target" and "Islam is a religion of peace towards People of the Book" are true.

As for G-d having mercy on me, I have had the great fortune to escape attacks by those you support. I consider my being in another location by a few minutes, unharmed, to be attributable to more than just luck. I never bring this up because I really do not wish to talk about it.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Incorrect: they specifically look at sunni sources in the article I quoted. Do you deny the Sunni sources?

My advantage, not yours.

They have a Sunni talking about it. That doesn't mean that Sunnis support that view. Today(and for much of history) Sunnis don't like Taqyyia and Kitman.

Actually, you agreed with me- occasionally you come around. No score for you on that one.

I agreed with you? Or did I show that what I originally said was true and your claims of me being a liar was false?

See above. Once in a rare while, you decide it's okay to agree with me. Bit by bit, you come around more and more.

I didn't agree with you! I showed that what I originally said was true. You on the other hand tried to label me a liar(something others have been banned for).

Incorrect. Refer back to point 1 where I quoted Sunni sources. It DOES apply, and denying it is practicing the very taqiyya you claim cannot be.

Don't be such a complete twat. This has been discussed within the Sunni community for centuries and the common concensus is that we(Sunnis) should not lie because we shouldn't fear anyone except God. And like your own fucking link shows it only applies when you fear for your well-being. Do you really think that I'm afraid of you?

I do not have an irrational fear of Islam and Mulims. I harbor no hatred towards them.

I simply am tired of being and seeing those close to me be the intended target of murder by Islam adherents and told by those terrorist's supporters that both I am "a legitimate target" and "Islam is a religion of peace towards People of the Book" are true.

As for G-d having mercy on me, I have had the great fortune to escape attacks by those you support. I consider my being in another location by a few minutes, unharmed, to be attributable to more than just luck. I never bring this up because I really do not wish to talk about it.

You being a legitimate target is wrong. Islam being a religion of peace towards the People of the Book is right. As both me and Taliesin have shown you again and again and again.

And what the fuck do you mean by those I support!? What the fuck do you base that on?

[vmarks]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...et#post2151075

Logic says "Nope. Soldiers are one thing, civilians another. Civilian for a civilian, soldier for a soldier."

Supports Hamas, HizbAllah, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade.

Taliesin says " So, basically if a nation attacks another country, occupies it and kills civilians there, and the people from that other country dare to retaliate in kind and in measure, it is not terrorism, but justified retaliation."

http://forums.macnn.com/report.php?s=&postid=2151979

Supports Hamas, HizbAllash, Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade.

http://forums.macnn.com/report.php?s=&postid=2079611

Shows Taliesin believes terrorists are simply soldiers and killing civilians is fine.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...et#post1939109

And again, Taliesin justifies the "resistance fighters" who would have killed me.

[Salah al-Din]

Do you want me to report posts?

If not could you perhaps give the link to the post instead of the reporting link. And I'm hoping those two that I can't access are my posts because if not you owe me an apology.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

Eventhough I already disproved similar ideas like you have in my reply to undotwa's flaming op-editorial

I'm sorry, what is a 'flaming op-editorial'?

[undotwa]

vmarks: One can argue that Christianity is anti-semitic based upon a few passages in the New Testament and a long history of anti-semitism within Christian Europe. This though doesn't make Christianity anti-semitic. Cultural attitudes are not necessary reflections of doctrinal statements in a religion. There is no doctrinally binding statement in the history of the Catholic Church which is anti-semitic. One must separate the 'faith', which remains unchanged as God is unchanged, for cultural tendencies.

The same should be said for Islam. I can demonstrate a history of anti-semitism in Islamic society by pointing to persecutions, racist laws similar to what happened in Europe. Though these laws and discriminations are cultural (of human origin) and have nothing to do with what the faith actually teaches.

You must not confuse dismissals of other faiths with racism, as Islam does see itself as the only Truth. Islam is not racist because alike Christianity it is transcultural and universialistic.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
May God have mercy on you vmarks.

Lets compare what I said and then your post.

1. I said:


you quote a from a site called al-islam.org. On it's about page they say:



I was correct. 1-0 my advantage.

2. I said:


your post says:



Same thing.

2-0 my advantage.

3. I said:



your post said:



Same thing.

3-0 my advantage.

4. I said:


So this doesn't apply to me nor Taliesin(I believe he's a Sunni) so your attempts at claiming Muslims are tought to lie is wrong.

4-0 my advantage.

Eh, yes I'm a sunni, though I don't think that the division between sunni and shia is very helpful to muslims, and I think both sunni-doctrines as well as shia-doctrines are faulty, but that would clearly go too far to discuss that.

Vmarks was clearly disproved with the help of the Quran. If he doesn't admit defeat, then he is obviously claiming that the Quran itself is lying.

Your post is worthy of a smackdown-award, where is Spliffdaddy, when he is needed? Ok, I will do it for him:

*smackdown*

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And again, Taliesin justifies the "resistance fighters" who would have killed me.

That's actually quite interesting, because the justification for resistance-fighters that kill civilians in retaliation for killed civilians among their own people is not only allowed in the Quran, though not prescripted, as the Quran also says it would be better to have trust in God and to forgive, but it's also allowed in the jewish scriptures: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

As you are a jew I'm quite surprised that you find something objectionable regarding retaliations.

And just to bring in some needed perspective: Since the first non-arabic jew arrived in Palestine over a hundred years ago up until today, about 24,000 Israelis/jews, civilians and soldiers, were killed by arabic riots, arabic wars, palestinian "terrorism"... and Israel was able to kill the same amount, namely 24,000 lebanese/palestinian civilians in just a few months during the Lebanon-war of 1982. Add to that all the other palestinian civilians that were killed by the 48-war, the 50's massacres by Sharon's Unit 101, the 67-war, the oppressive occupation, during the numerous other Lebanon-wars, during the first intifada and the second... and you will come to a much higher number.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I am not desperate.

But you did fail to define the terms wholly truthfully.

What does that have to do with this discussion? I have disproved your accusation that the Quran is anti-jewish, by directly quoting the Quran-verses, that you have suggested yourself, and which show clearly quite the opposite you have said.

Or do you want to suggest that the Quran itself is lying?



Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm sorry, what is a 'flaming op-editorial'?

LOL, was that a wrong expression?

Taliesin

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
vmarks: One can argue that Christianity is anti-semitic based upon a few passages in the New Testament and a long history of anti-semitism within Christian Europe. This though doesn't make Christianity anti-semitic. Cultural attitudes are not necessary reflections of doctrinal statements in a religion. There is no doctrinally binding statement in the history of the Catholic Church which is anti-semitic. One must separate the 'faith', which remains unchanged as God is unchanged, for cultural tendencies.

The same should be said for Islam. I can demonstrate a history of anti-semitism in Islamic society by pointing to persecutions, racist laws similar to what happened in Europe. Though these laws and discriminations are cultural (of human origin) and have nothing to do with what the faith actually teaches.

You must not confuse dismissals of other faiths with racism, as Islam does see itself as the only Truth. Islam is not racist because alike Christianity it is transcultural and universialistic.

I don�t see how anyone can think Christianity is anti Semitic... Jesus was Jewish the apostles were Jewish he said to take the word to the Jew first then the gentile.... It doesn�t get much more un-anti-Semitic then that... the son of our God being a Jew I mean common. Its not like you stop being Jewish if you are a Christian. A surprisingly widely accepted view that you do is what scares so many Jews in Israel about the Christians and "missionaries" (mind you I am not talking about the religion of Judaism I'm talking about Jews the descendants of the tribe of Judah... just because you accept a religion doesn�t change your nationality or your ancestry.)

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You must not confuse dismissals of other faiths with racism, as Islam does see itself as the only Truth.

Even that is contestable, since the Quran clearly and often puts itself into a long list of revelations and prophet Muhammad into a long list of prophets sent by God. While the Quran claims to be the only uncorrupted book of revelations, it nonetheless holds high the teachments and messages sent to Abraham, Noah, David, Moses and Jesus and numerous other prophets, and God promises in the Quran that followers of all three monotheistic religions, jews, christians and muslims will have the opportunity to come to paradise, if they believe in God, and only God, and commit good deeds.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
That's actually quite interesting, because the justification for resistance-fighters that kill civilians in retaliation for killed civilians among their own people is not only allowed in the Quran, though not prescripted, as the Quran also says it would be better to have trust in God and to forgive, but it's also allowed in the jewish scriptures: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

As you are a jew I'm quite surprised that you find something objectionable regarding retaliations.

That's rich. First you lecture me on the Quran, and then you lecture me on Torah.

Property rights and compensation for damages is not retaliation.

http://www.torah.org/learning/halach...chapter67.html

One who injures another must pay for any physical damage, as it says "[And if a man causes a physical defect in his friend it shall be done to him as he did...] an eye in place of an eye...".1 He must also compensate him for his pain, as it says ["And the man who lies with her shall pay...] because he oppressed her".2 He must pay for lost income and medical expenses, as it says "[And if men quarrel and a man hits his friend with a stone or fist and he does not die but becomes bedridden...] he shall pay for his idleness and shall heal".3 If the injury was intentional he must also pay for any embarrassment that was caused, as it says "[If men fight together... and the wife of one comes near to save her husband...] and stretches out her hand and grasps his shameful parts you shall cut off her hand...".4 It is forbidden to strike or injure anyone, as it says "He shall not continue... to strike him".5,a

One who damages another's property must compensate him, as it says "And one who strikes an animal must pay for it"6; he is responsible even for unintentional damage if he is in a place where he has no right to be.

And just to bring in some needed perspective: Since the first non-arabic jew arrived in Palestine over a hundred years ago up until today, about 24,000 Israelis/jews, civilians and soldiers, were killed by arabic riots, arabic wars, palestinian "terrorism"... and Israel was able to kill the same amount, namely 24,000 lebanese/palestinian civilians in just a few months during the Lebanon-war of 1982. Add to that all the other palestinian civilians that were killed by the 48-war, the 50's massacres by Sharon's Unit 101, the 67-war, the oppressive occupation, during the numerous other Lebanon-wars, during the first intifada and the second... and you will come to a much higher number.

Taliesin

And now we're back to you revising history for your own needs. You haven't disproved anything, you've just cited half the truth of a large number of events of the 19th and 20th century. Congratulations, you just whitewashed 200 years.

[Zimphire]

This vmarks smackdown was brought to you buy

JIF PEANUT BUTTER.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
I don�t see how anyone can think Christianity is anti Semitic... Jesus was Jewish the apostles were Jewish he said to take the word to the Jew first then the gentile.... It doesn�t get much more un-anti-Semitic then that... the son of our God being a Jew I mean common. Its not like you stop being Jewish if you are a Christian. A surprisingly widely accepted view that you do is what scares so many Jews in Israel about the Christians and "missionaries" (mind you I am not talking about the religion of Judaism I'm talking about Jews the descendants of the tribe of Judah... just because you accept a religion doesn�t change your nationality or your ancestry.)

Look - if you consider those things, then yes, I can't either see how someone could believe Christianity is anti-semitic. But many people do get confused between cultural attitudes and faith which are completly unrelated (as culture stems from humanity but faith from God). European culture is very anti-semitic and many confuse that with Christianity.

As a Catholic, I'm definately not anti-semitic. My grandfather is a Jew, and I consider all Christians to be 'spiritually Jewish' - in the words of the Holy Father.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
LOL, was that a wrong expression?

Taliesin

Your expression is not wrong, as expression is never wrong. I just want to know what you mean by that expression. Alas, we face the problems of communicating accross different cultures.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

And just to bring in some needed perspective: Since the first non-arabic jew arrived in Palestine over a hundred years ago up until today, about 24,000 Israelis/jews, civilians and soldiers, were killed by arabic riots, arabic wars, palestinian "terrorism"... and Israel was able to kill the same amount, namely 24,000 lebanese/palestinian civilians in just a few months during the Lebanon-war of 1982. Add to that all the other palestinian civilians that were killed by the 48-war, the 50's massacres by Sharon's Unit 101, the 67-war, the oppressive occupation, during the numerous other Lebanon-wars, during the first intifada and the second... and you will come to a much higher number.

Israel's response to Arabic terrorism (no quotation marks needed there mind you, it is terrorism) has often been quite heavy handed, that is granted. Nothing justifies unlawful brutal killings, but it is important to see what position Israel has been in - surrounded on all fronts by regimes which want blow you off the face of the earth. A heavy handed retaliation proved that Israel was a viable state and destroyed any hopes of the powers in the Orient that it could be easily destroyed.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That's rich. First you lecture me on the Quran, and then you lecture me on Torah.

Who sits in the glasshouse shouldn't throw with stones! Weren't you trying to lecture me about the Quran and incredibly failing at it?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Israel's response to Arabic terrorism (no quotation marks needed there mind you, it is terrorism) has often been quite heavy handed, that is granted. Nothing justifies unlawful brutal killings, but it is important to see what position Israel has been in - surrounded on all fronts by regimes which want blow you off the face of the earth. A heavy handed retaliation proved that Israel was a viable state and destroyed any hopes of the powers in the Orient that it could be easily destroyed.

There is no common ground between the two interpretations of what really happened in the last century:

Either you believe that european jews came to a palestine under british rule that was mostly deserted and the highly educated jews were able to develop the deserted and dry country and then (!!) arabs came there out of envy and wanted the land that was from then on fruitable and the european jews, that luckily escaped genocide in Europe faced the violence of envyful and greedy arabs, and therefore had to declare a souvereign nation of Israel in order to be better able to protect itself from the evil arabs...

or

you believe that Palestine belonged to arabs, and the european zionists used the british force to make room for european jews in a populated Palestine and when Britain had a change of heart used zionistic terrorism and secret US-help that culminated in the declaration of a souvereign Israel, and provoked the wars to further expand...

I for one believe the second interpretation and I have quite a few historical evidence to back it up. Not to say that arabs were always peaceful or made always the right decision, but they surely are the victims and playball of superior mights that had a higher capability of strategic thinking.

Afterall, why didn't the european jews immigrate all into the US for example and wasn't the US the symbol and home for religiously prosecuted people and was the US not called the "New Israel"?

Eventhough I see therefore Israel as an illegal state I still see the possibility for a compromise:

Israel would have to accept the boundaries of pre-67, it would have to accept that East-Jerusalem belongs to Palestine and tell its settlers in the Westbank that they would either have to keep on living in a palestinian state or if they don't want to they would have to go back to Israel, and that if they decide to live in Palestine, that they would have to accept that they would have not more rights to land, water, etc.. than palestinians and that roads are usable by everyone and that there is no israeli army in the Westbank anymore... basically the end of the apartheit-regime in the occupied areas that brought the settlers so many benifits on the cost of palestinians..

and Israel would have to give back the Golan-heights and the sheeba-farms back to Syria and Lebanon.

Palestine as well as the surrounding arabic countries would have to accept Israel as a souvereign state and neighbour and sign peace-agreements with Israel, and Palestine would have to give up the right of return to Israel.

That way everyone loses, Israel loses its dream of ancient Big Israel, and Palestine loses its dream of Big Palestine.

Oh, by the way, after all peace-agreements are signed and everything is settled and just fine, Israel would have to give up its nukes and nukes-programm and let in inspectors to ensure that.

Taliesin

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That's rich. First you lecture me on the Quran, and then you lecture me on Torah.

WTF have you been doing all this time???

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
There is no common ground between the two interpretations of what really happened in the last century:

Either you believe that european jews came to a palestine under british rule that was mostly deserted and the highly educated jews were able to develop the deserted and dry country and then (!!) arabs came there out of envy and wanted the land that was from then on fruitable and the european jews, that luckily escaped genocide in Europe faced the violence of envyful and greedy arabs, and therefore had to declare a souvereign nation of Israel in order to be better able to protect itself from the evil arabs...

I tend to follow that line of thought, but not entirely. While so much of Palestine was not inhabited, and so many towns in Palestine were founded by the Israelis in areas where very few lived, one cannot forget that many Palestinians were displaced, not directly as a result of this but because of so many of the wars fought between Israel and her Arab neighbours. Many of these Palestinians fled under their own accord, believing that they would return triumphant to remove the Jews from Palestine forever, though really becoming eternal refugees in Syria and Lebanon.

You could argue that the laws that Israel passed concerning absentee land owners exploitative, but then it ought to be remembered - hundreds of thousands of Jews at this time were exiled from Yemen and Iraq because of the wars with Egypt et al.. These Jews found unoccupied land, and they needed a place to go. The Jewish state was already flat out manufacturing housing for the European immigrants - they were stretched to the brink. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

you believe that Palestine belonged to arabs, and the european zionists used the british force to make room for european jews in a populated Palestine and when Britain had a change of heart used zionistic terrorism and secret US-help that culminated in the declaration of a souvereign Israel, and provoked the wars to further expand...

Palestine belongs to no particular race, but portions are owned by those entitled de jure of the state which is internationally recognised as sovereign of the territory. I will say it plainly, Britain was stupid during the first world war. The Arabs were very favourable to Britain after the Amir Hussein conference of 1915. Yet so quickly they betray their trust and sign the Skyes-Picot agreement and then the Balfour declaration. Promising a land to so many is bound to cause problems.

But what you are saying is completely unhistorical. Britain never sanctioned zionistic terrorism, and even after a while curbed Jewish immigration to halt - especially the second world war. There is litte evidence to suggest US governmental involvement with the creation of Israel, these are pipe dreams of yours. Britain created a mess and during the 30's they tried to solve the mess by not being favourable to either Jews or Arabs. but in the process they created a disaster. You make these assertions of US involvement, could you point me to some evidence?

I for one believe the second interpretation and I have quite a few historical evidence to back it up. Not to say that arabs were always peaceful or made always the right decision, but they surely are the victims and playball of superior mights that had a higher capability of strategic thinking.

There are more than two interpretations of the matter. There are as many interpretations and opinions as there are men on this planet.

I guess you could say that the Palestinians became the victims of this playball, but this victim mentality is not helpful. We need to look forward and see what we can do to mend the errors of our past. The Jews are doing something similar. I remember on the day of rememberence of the fall of Auschwitz-Birkenau Sharon spoke about how the West 'betrayed' the Jews by not bombing the rail tracks which led to Auschwitz. The point is, even if the West bombed these tracks, judging on the amount of resources the Nazis invested in exterminating the Jews, the tracks could be easily rebuilt within a day. Were the west to bomb the camp, many innocent Jews and others would die aswell. The rememberence day was also entirely dominated by the Jews, completely forgetting that 1.5 million Poles amongst thousands of Gypsies, homosexuals et al were sent to these camps. Sharon spoke as if Israel could trust no one, and played the same victim card as the Palestinians do.

Afterall, why didn't the european jews immigrate all into the US for example and wasn't the US the symbol and home for religiously prosecuted people and was the US not called the "New Israel"?

America was taking in quite a lot of Jews, so was Argentinia and other places. The point is, the Jews went to Palestine - and we have to live with that.

Eventhough I see therefore Israel as an illegal state I still see the possibility for a compromise:

That is so helpful! How could we make any progress if we are still stuck in that mentality. Even the Palestinian Authority has moved on from that.

Israel would have to accept the boundaries of pre-67, it would have to accept that East-Jerusalem belongs to Palestine and tell its settlers in the Westbank that they would either have to keep on living in a palestinian state or if they don't want to they would have to go back to Israel, and that if they decide to live in Palestine, that they would have to accept that they would have not more rights to land, water, etc.. than palestinians and that roads are usable by everyone and that there is no israeli army in the Westbank anymore... basically the end of the apartheit-regime in the occupied areas that brought the settlers so many benifits on the cost of palestinians..

and Israel would have to give back the Golan-heights and the sheeba-farms back to Syria and Lebanon.

Palestine as well as the surrounding arabic countries would have to accept Israel as a souvereign state and neighbour and sign peace-agreements with Israel, and Palestine would have to give up the right of return to Israel.

That would be nice, but these things come with time. Sharon has been making some good moves lately, even against the will of the likud party. But we speaking about resettlement of people, who have lived in lands for now over a generation, time is needed.

That way everyone loses, Israel loses its dream of ancient Big Israel, and Palestine loses its dream of Big Palestine.

Two negatives make a positive!

Oh, by the way, after all peace-agreements are signed and everything is settled and just fine, Israel would have to give up its nukes and nukes-programm and let in inspectors to ensure that.

I have similar dreams for a peaceful resolution, but things move slowly unfortunately. May God bless you.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by undotwa:

But what you are saying is completely unhistorical. Britain never sanctioned zionistic terrorism, and even after a while curbed Jewish immigration to halt - especially the second world war. There is litte evidence to suggest US governmental involvement with the creation of Israel, these are pipe dreams of yours. Britain created a mess and during the 30's they tried to solve the mess by not being favourable to either Jews or Arabs. but in the process they created a disaster. You make these assertions of US involvement, could you point me to some evidence?

You misread my notions about Britain or was it me who didn't write clear enough? Off course Britain didn't sanction zionistic terrorism, en contraire, that zionistic terrorism and the arabic riots led to Britain's change of heart, meaning to reduce jewish immigration. And then (!) the zionistic terrorists started on top of attacking arabs, to attack bristish interests in Palestine in order to drive them out. US-involvement was not official but on secret-service-level, and the interest of the US was to reduce Britain's influence in the region, Britain's empire was already crumbling, and to pave the way for US-control over the region. The establishment of Israel as a souvereign state was instrumental to US-interests in the region and also connected with the religious dreams of fudamentalisic christians in the US, that see in the recreation of Israel a step to prepare the arrival of their messias'.
I know you want hard evidence, but there are only hints from here and there and a lot of strategic analysis. When the day comes that the secret services open up their archives that protocolled their activities in the middle-east during the two worldwars and after ww2, then we may find evidence, until then you are free to call me a conspiracy-nut.

Originally posted by undotwa:
That would be nice, but these things come with time. Sharon has been making some good moves lately, even against the will of the likud party. But we speaking about resettlement of people, who have lived in lands for now over a generation, time is needed.

I'm not even for resettlement of israelis in the Westbank, they can stay, but they would have to accept that they live in a palestinian state with only same rights as palestinians on every level, also regarding land- and waterrights..

Originally posted by undotwa:
I have similar dreams for a peaceful resolution, but things move slowly unfortunately. May God bless you.

Thank you, may God bless you, too.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
until then you are free to call me a conspiracy-nut.

Thus I utilise my freedom: You are a conspiracy nut.