Politics as usual: another bad sign for world peace; Obama cowers to pro-Israelis

[BuffedGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMByV...eature=channel

Obama is a coward. His policy in Iraq and towards Israel is same old, same old.

[Flagg]

Hrm.

I noticed during his Inaugeration that he didn't mention Gaza at all.

I guess Godfather and Murrilo are right. There is no difference between one President to the next, just lip service for the public.

[Prada]

Why is he a coward? Hes doing whats in his interest.

Anyways, listen to Obama yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

[thegodfather]

Hrm.

I noticed during his Inaugeration that he didn't mention Gaza at all.

I guess Godfather and Murrilo are right. There is no difference between one President to the next, just lip service for the public.

As we all know, when people on our side are fighting oppression they are 'freedom fighters.' When they are a differnt skin color, religion, or political ideology than our own, they are "terrorists."

[BuffedGuy]

Why is he a coward? Hes doing whats in his interest.

Anyways, listen to Obama yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

A leader should not be doing what is in his best interest. Rather, he should do what is best for his nation, and more importantly (I believe), for the world--for peace and harmony.

The link you gave is more cowardice, i.e. groveling before the powerful AIPAC lobby.

Obama has now said that troops will be left in Iraq even after 2011, and worse than this, he has affirmed the "enemy combatant" bull-crap, only changing the name of it and not the substance of it.

How exactly is any of this different than Bush's failed foreign policy?

We need someone brave like Ron Paul, not a selfish coward like Obama.

[Prada]

Yes by "his" I mean the nation's interest interpreted by him. Not his personal interest.

I agree with what you are saying except for calling him a coward. Listen AIPAC is a powerful lobby because they have powerful positions and money. This equates to power and control. Mean while the Arabs decided to throw rocks at tanks, good luck with that. They also decided to let themselves be suppressed by their respective leaders and blame the west perpetually. If they want to achieve success(however they want that to be defined) then they must first start with correcting themselves and to stop blaming and whining. See one decided to educate themselves get involved in law and politics, the other decided to do noting except complain, learn the physics of how much damage a pebble can incur on a tank and learn how to detonate a bomb. Any nation will align themselves with the powers that be so its an easy decision for Obama.

Its all semantics Obama and Bush, they're is no real change. Its just an illusion that they are worlds apart but its just minor details that differ.

[BuffedGuy]

Yes by "his" I mean the nation's interest interpreted by him. Not his personal interest.

Well, I disagree with that 100%. The nation's interest is to divest altogether from Israel, which would save us billions of dollars, and also placate the billion plus Muslims in the world. Such a move would do more to stop terrorism than anything. So no, I don't think it is in America's interest to spend more on each Israeli citizen than our government does on each American citizen. We give them billions of dollars per year, and looking at the way the economy is, we sure could use that money.

So no, it wasn't the nation's interest at all, but rather Obama's personal interest. Obama needed AIPAC's support to further his political career. Politics above policies.

I agree with what you are saying except for calling him a coward. Listen AIPAC is a powerful lobby because they have powerful positions and money. This equates to power and control. Mean while the Arabs decided to throw rocks at tanks, good luck with that. They also decided to let themselves be suppressed by their respective leaders and blame the west perpetually. If they want to achieve success(however they want that to be defined) then they must first start with correcting themselves and to stop blaming and whining. See one decided to educate themselves get involved in law and politics, the other decided to do noting except complain, learn the physics of how much damage a pebble can incur on a tank and learn how to detonate a bomb. Any nation will align themselves with the powers that be so its an easy decision for Obama.

Its all semantics Obama and Bush, they're is no real change. Its just an illusion that they are worlds apart but its just minor details that differ.

I agree with part of what you said, but I'm afraid that part of what you said is just incorrect oversimplification. It is just like when some whites tell blacks "you guys need to stop whining and get your act together."

The status quo of a society is a reflection of hundreds of years of events that have taken place which have shaped them in the way they are now. To cogitate that the Muslim world--or the Arabs--just let themselves "be suppressed" by their leaders, or that the Jews advanced simply because they chose to "be lawyers" as opposed to "doing nothing but whining" is, well, sophomoric.

Furthermore, contrary to what you think, there are millions of educated Muslim lawyers, engineers, and doctors...doctors galore! That is not going to change a thing.

[Prada]

Well, I disagree with that 100%. The nation's interest is to divest altogether from Israel, which would save us billions of dollars, and also placate the billion plus Muslims in the world. Such a move would do more to stop terrorism than anything. So no, I don't think it is in America's interest to spend more on each Israeli citizen than our government does on each American citizen. We give them billions of dollars per year, and looking at the way the economy is, we sure could use that money.

Unfortunately I don't think all Muslim radicals are pacifists, they aren't exactly angels in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Spain the Philippines, Uk, USA, Canada(yes there were synagogues bombed by Muslims) and I could go on and on. I dont see Hindus, Buddhists or Jews committing terrorism at a wide scale around the world. Or is there an explanation for that that Muslim terrorists use to justify their means? Muslims have to start by looking at themselves or they can keep their current vision and get no where. They can start by looking at their own corrupt governments and do something about that prior to blaming others. Or they can keep blaming others and remain status quo. Im not starting a diatribe towards Muslims but they need to change their own environment first. IMO the best thing is a bi-polar powers keeping themselves in check.

So no, it wasn't the nation's interest at all, but rather Obama's personal interest. Obama needed AIPAC's support to further his political career. Politics above policies.

AIPAC has a lot of political clout and weight. Yes we all know power and money rule the world. AIPAC has this within the USA the muslims not as much. If they did things would be the complete reciprocal.

I agree with part of what you said, but I'm afraid that part of what you said is just incorrect oversimplification. It is just like when some whites tell blacks "you guys need to stop whining and get your act together."

The status quo of a society is a reflection of hundreds of years of events that have taken place which have shaped them in the way they are now. To cogitate that the Muslim world--or the Arabs--just let themselves "be suppressed" by their leaders, or that the Jews advanced simply because they chose to "be lawyers" as opposed to "doing nothing but whining" is, well, sophomoric.

Furthermore, contrary to what you think, there are millions of educated Muslim lawyers, engineers, and doctors...doctors galore! That is not going to change a thing.

How do you know I think that? Did I state such a thing? They need to be higher up in politics, CEOs and have close links of trade with the Arabs AND need unity. What would arabs be without oil? Nomads and many are still uncivilized(please note I say this in its pure definition not as a derogatory remark). I can attest to that Ive lived there a few years.

I really wish Muslims with their wealth of oil would fund education, modernize their ideology and promote democracy. That is how they will be a force to reckon with. Perhaps they need more people, perhaps as yourself, to lead a new generation towards equity and success.
Its easy to blame others for their own misfortunes but it is those who challenge themselves from within that come out stronger. They could chose to remain the proverbial "lapdog" of others.

[BuffedGuy]

Unfortunately I don't think all Muslim radicals are pacifists, they aren't exactly angels in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Spain the Philippines, Uk, USA, Canada(yes there were synagogues bombed by Muslims) and I could go on and on.

I do not deny that Muslim terrorists exist.

Rather, my point was that the ranks of Al-Qaeda and company swell whenever America and Israel invade and occupy Muslim lands, meddle in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, etc.

I dont see Hindus, Buddhists or Jews committing terrorism at a wide scale around the world.

I do not know about Buddhists, but I know for a fact that there are many Hindu and Jewish terrorists. You would not know the scale of the Hindu terrorism if you do not live where it is prevalent, namely in South Asia. You would not be cognizant of the Jewish terrorism if you did not live where it is prevalent, namely in Israel/Palestine.

Are there more "Muslim terrorists" that attack America? Sure. Why? As a reaction to the foreign policy. Therefore, as Dr. Ron Paul points out, stop the foreign policy, and the terrorism will slowly die out and lose gas.

Or is there an explanation for that that Muslim terrorists use to justify their means?

Obviously they justify their actions, otherwise they wouldn't do them.

Muslims have to start by looking at themselves or they can keep their current vision and get no where. They can start by looking at their own corrupt governments and do something about that prior to blaming others. Or they can keep blaming others and remain status quo. Im not starting a diatribe towards Muslims but they need to change their own environment first.

I think you need to stop talking about something of which you have no knowledge. The fact of the matter is that Muslims--even and *especially* the radical extremists--complain more about their own corrupt and oppressive puppet governments than the West. If you study history, you will know that ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the West has ensured that the Muslim world be ruled by tyrants. The idea that the Muslim world has "done nothing" to change this matter is patently false, evidenced by the numerous attempted coups that were thwarted by the West or conversely executed by the West. Therefore, the two issues, i.e. the Western intervention and the leaders in the Muslim world, are linked.

Furthermore, the Muslims are not just "blaming others"; rather, we also evaluate our own behavior and think of ways on how to modify it. Almost every other sermon is about this topic. Just don't speak on this issue, since you haven't lived in the Muslim world, nor interacted with us, etc. It's patronizing.

Look, I understand your viewpoint, and I know you are not a bigot, but you sound a bit patronizing and condescending. It's like a white guy telling blacks on how they need to improve themselves and "stop blaming everyone else for everything." My response to you is that it is not either/or situation. The fact that the Muslims point out the causative agents, i.e. the Western intervention, does not mean that we cannot also improve on ourselves at the same time.

When I'm on a Non-Muslim forum and people complain about the situation of the Muslims, obviously I am going to point out that there are other factors at play. When I'm amongst my own Muslim people, then I talk about what our own faults are and what we can do to improve them.

Anyways, forget it.

[BuffedGuy]

Prada: Look bro, I understand where you are coming from and there is a lot of truth in what you said. I just disagree with some of what you said, and I disagreed with your approach. I didn't mean to come across as snippy.

If I could get a dime for every time a Muslim preacher gave the AIPAC example and how we Muslims should organize like that, I'd be a billionaire. These things are just easier said than done. We can barely afford to renovate our mosques in America, let alone create such a powerful lobby. I don't even think it's a realistic goal.

But again, I understand where you are coming from and I apologize for my snippy-ness.

Peace be unto you.

[*RAGE*]

I did not read all of this nor do I want to....

Obama suck, I HATE OBAMA

[*RAGE*]

As we all know, when people on our side are fighting oppression they are 'freedom fighters.' When they are a differnt skin color, religion, or political ideology than our own, they are "terrorists."

You have a right to say what you want but remember it goes both ways....I will leave it at that.......

[Prada]

BG, you said that I don't know what Im talking about. I do know what Im talking about. I'm just seeing your thought process. Your opinion, which I respect, doesn't equate to one being correct and the other being incorrect. You are capable of having a pacified debate or discussion? If so I will discuss with you if not then we shall stop right here since its pointless. Yet Im guessing you are open minded and not the reciprocal. I endure some of your accusations and assumptions because I think you sometimes respond out of frustration. I know its not easy to convince non-muslims your POV and that it is not easy contiously defending your POV when you are almost unique on this board. Again this is not a diatribe against Muslims, I actually wish they would be independent, progressive, democratic and free states.

For some reason Ive read lot about Mideast politics (not Muslims per se) Ive even visited the country that, I believe, you are from as well as the one that your people perform the sacred pilgrimage to. I was very young however.

I want to reiterate that I'm not anti-Muslim, I know the extremist are a minority and are not representative of the majority. I dont dislike the Jews either, I do think they have been unfair in the "dispute" Anyways Im not getting into that because it seems to be a hot issue which I dont feel like indulging myself in.

IMO, all Im saying is that Iran has to rid itself Ahmadinejad, Saudi Arabia has to eradicate the unfair, double standard, corrupt royal family. I think Pakistan has to stop voting for continuously corrupt leaders in Nawaz Sharif(PML) and Bhutto(PPP). The people of Egypt need to eradicate Hosni Mubarrack. Assad and Qhadafi have to go. Autocratic rule where self interest is in place has to be abolished. Israel doesn't have natural resources so the Arab world has to better them to be in a position of power. Yes you are right the US has many mid east countries as their lap dog. That is all I mean by Muslims first rectifying their situation beforehand. They have a lot of resource and potential to flourish but its to bad their leaders are corrupt and oppress their own people. Imagine the power of unity amongst the Arabs and political clout they would have. Yet I see them siphoning off resources from a finite resource, oil. Once oil is finished then they will return to the pre; Lawrence of Arabia era where they were nomads and lived in an uncivilzed world. BTW: In Saudi,uncivilized nomads and tribes exist until today. In contrast the royal family ride around in bullet proof, customized Mercedes, travel in private jets while their "slaves" hold their shopping bags while they shop till they drop on fifth avenue.
For me that is unacceptable.

[Prada]

If I could get a dime for every time a Muslim preacher gave the AIPAC example and how we Muslims should organize like that, I'd be a billionaire. These things are just easier said than done. We can barely afford to renovate our mosques in America, let alone create such a powerful lobby. I don't even think it's a realistic goal.

That is exactly it man. Nothing gets granted on a silver platter in life. It will take time and generations but it can be done with right leadership and stewardship. What has ~half a century gotten Palestine? Nothing, it will still not get them anything unless they await for the total collapse of the US but even then. Its all about priorities and long term planning. Easier said then done? I acknowledge that but sometimes, Ill quote a Muslim Chechen freedom fighter, "sometimes you sacrifice today for a better tomorrow". He sacrificed his life for a better tomorrow for his children.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Prada.

I stand corrected. This what you said here...

IMO, all Im saying is that Iran has to rid itself Ahmadinejad, Saudi Arabia has to eradicate the unfair, double standard, corrupt royal family. I think Pakistan has to stop voting for continuously corrupt leaders in Nawaz Sharif(PML) and Bhutto(PPP). The people of Egypt need to eradicate Hosni Mubarrack. Assad and Qhadafi have to go. Autocratic rule where self interest is in place has to be abolished. Israel doesn't have natural resources so the Arab world has to better them to be in a position of power. Yes you are right the US has many mid east countries as their lap dog. That is all I mean by Muslims first rectifying their situation beforehand. They have a lot of resource and potential to flourish but its to bad their leaders are corrupt and oppress their own people. Imagine the power of unity amongst the Arabs and political clout they would have. Yet I see them siphoning off resources from a finite resource, oil. Once oil is finished then they will return to the pre; Lawrence of Arabia era where they were nomads and lived in an uncivilzed world. BTW: In Saudi,uncivilized nomads and tribes exist until today. In contrast the royal family ride around in bullet proof, customized Mercedes, travel in private jets while their "slaves" hold their shopping bags while they shop till they drop on fifth avenue.
For me that is unacceptable.

...is spot on.

If you look in my "Ask a Muslim" thread, I mentioned almost all of the things you just said.

And I also agree with you here:

That is exactly it man. Nothing gets granted on a silver platter in life. It will take time and generations but it can be done with right leadership and stewardship. What has ~half a century gotten Palestine? Nothing, it will still not get them anything unless they await for the total collapse of the US but even then. Its all about priorities and long term planning. Easier said then done? I acknowledge that but sometimes, Ill quote a Muslim Chechen freedom fighter, "sometimes you sacrifice today for a better tomorrow". He sacrificed his life for a better tomorrow for his children.

I misunderstood your previous post and thought you were showing frustration that all this hasn't happened yet. Like you, I believe it will take many generations. All I can say is that there are Muslims working on improving themselves, and God-Willing our condition will improve a few generations down the line. But like you said, it will take a long time, dedication, sacrifice, consistency, and hard-work. It will not happen overnight, but the process must begin now.

I apologize for jumping on you. You have understood the situation spot-on.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Prada]

Its ok man. I think peace and equality is the goal for most. Yet there will always be those who want to hold their position of power as long as they can. Many empires rose and all of them eventually fell...as well as their cronies. Its just a question of time and those who were mistreated will take their revenge. This has been documented from a historical perspective.

What is disappointing is that Ive always believed that problems always get resolved by tackling the root. Its better to be humble, patient and wisely plan the future. That requires leadership and a plan. I guess that is what is lacking. Perhaps one day you could peacefully co-exist.

[BuffedGuy]

Its ok man. I think peace and equality is the goal for most. Yet there will always be those who want to hold their position of power as long as they can. Many empires rose and all of them eventually fell...as well as their cronies. Its just a question of time and those who were mistreated will take their revenge. This has been documented from a historical perspective.

What is disappointing is that Ive always believed that problems always get resolved by tackling the root. Its better to be humble, patient and wisely plan the future. That requires leadership and a plan. I guess that is what is lacking. Perhaps one day you could peacefully co-exist.

I agree with you. Good post.

The tyrants will fall, each and every one of them. They cling to their power as long as they can, thinking that their empires could last thousands of years or till the end of time. For example, the Saudi Arabian royals think that they will be in power forever, not knowing that their time is running out and soon will history judge them. They could do everything in their power to prevent it (and indeed the Saudi royals are trying!), but their fate is inevitable and sealed. History attests to it. Soon will they all be dethroned--each and every one of them.

[quarry206]

this comment will be off , but at the same on topic...

the other day i watched 'lord of war', and it ends with a little twist, which most probably have seen but i'll shortly explain.. the arms dealer they are chasing the whole movie they catch at the end.. only to let go, because though he is an illegal arms dealer, he supplies the people that fight the people america is fighting. so as he is released he says ' your enemies enemy is your friend'...

for some reason the american people have taken that to heart and support israel.. we are brain washed to think that just because the countries they dislike we have issues with so we should support them.... well this isn't a movie, sometimes when you support a group it turns around to bite you... i mean not like America has ever supported people and governments and then had a fight to the death with them later..**cough**Bin ladan, saddam**cough**

[Prada]

So what do you think about this video?

http://vodpod.com/watch/823031-eric-...ipelline-video

[BuffedGuy]

So what do you think about this video?

http://vodpod.com/watch/823031-eric-...ipelline-video

Just watched the whole thing while eating my dinner. I can't speak for the host of the show, but it's a good analysis by the guest Eric Margolis. Margolis showed a depth of understanding of the issues and of the history of Afghanistan that is quite simply lacking in politicians and policy-makers nowadays, perhaps because Margolis has covered the region for so long with an open mind.

What impressed me most about Margolis's analysis was how he mentioned the Communist infiltration of the teaching establishment...that really showed that he knew what he was talking about, as these are the sorts of details that a person *must* know before truly grasping what is going on. Furthermore, he did not show tunnel vision, but instead compared the US invasion of Afghanistan to the Soviet one.

One last point: I think it is difficult to say if it was all over a pipeline. I think that the causative factors were multi-factorial. It seems to me that financial reasons (i.e. a pipeline) were coupled with desires of expanding hegemony. I also think that the neo-conservatives have religious/cultural reasons to invade. I don't believe in the validity of the clash of cultures theory, but I do think that *they* believe in it (and so does the opposite side in the Muslim world), and so it then becomes a reality...a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. If both sides *think* there is a clash of cultures or civilizations, then there will necessarily *be* a clash of cultures or civilizations. Just having that sort of thinking causes it to come to fruition.

Lastly, I think that it will take many generations for Afghanistan to sort itself out, but it can only do that if all foreign intervention ceases. I believe that the US invasion is causing a resurgence of extremism in the region, and so what could have sorted itself out in a few generations (the extremism of the Taliban) will now take a lot longer. When a very conservative ruling party comes to power, the next generation is the one who corrects them and puts them in check. We see this process going on in Iran. But it takes a *long* time, and there is no instant soup like the Westerners want and demand. The Americans took hundreds of years to give equality to blacks, yet they expect the rest of the world to shape up instantaneously. It's just not possible.

[Prada]

Yeah Margolis is a well educated regional expert. He writes for Dawn(Pakistan), Toronto Sun(Canada), Gulf News(UAE) etc.

I agree with the so called fabrication of clash of cultures. I do believe there is a strategic benefit of having a foothold in Afghanistan. For the pipeline, for the Caspian sea as well as how historically all empires used Afghanistan as a gateway to India.The point being that Afghanistan as Iraq is strategically placed for US interests.

He has lots of input regarding the mideast and south asia. Some others include
-Eric Margolis: Egypt is a corrupt dictatorship that's afraid of Hamas
-Margolis on how to resolve Afghan conflict
-Eric Margolis: Israel has handed the Obama administration a ‘fait accompli’ + Aftermath of attacks + Israel shelling of a U.N. compound

[Kratos]

I've got a question for you Buff, why do Muslims have any claim to Israel?

I've been to Muslim countries and the best answer I got was that controling Israel is a show of power. Overall it is not an important city to the religion. When the Muslims did have control for 20 years (prior to losing the 1967 war), they never treated Jerusalem as either a holy city or as a capitol. There are some important mosques, but we aren't talking about an equivilent to Mecca or Medina.

Maybe you can tell me why Muslims have a claim to this land. Aside from the fact some were displaced to create the state of Israel. Many people have been displaced in history for many reasons.

There is no desire for peace, it's a show of force to kick the Jewish religion out of the Middle East.

I will concede the importance of Al-Aqsa, but can't you just let Israel go? From what I understan Mohammad never even went there but rather flew there in his sleep.

[Kratos]

Here are some examples of how Muslims have treated Jewish holy places:

Joseph's tomb, near Nablus, was repeatedly attacked, ransacked, then burned and totally destroyed, and a mosque built on the site.


Palestinians sacked and burned the Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue in Jericho.


Palestinian snipers have repeatedly attacked Rachel's Tomb between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The Muslim Waqf, zealous in defense against threats to mosques whether real or imagined, has treated Jewish antiquities with consistent disregard.

In 1996-97 the Waqf dug up the southeastern end of the Temple Mount and converted the Solomon's Stables and the Eastern Hulda Gate passageway, two ancient underground structures dating from the Second Temple, into a large mosque. Hundreds of truckloads of earth containing archaeological artifacts were removed and thrown into a garbage dump. Stones with inscriptions and decorations were recut, and their markings destroyed. Much was lost, but some items rescued from the dump are believed to come from King Solomon's Temple.


In 1997 the Western Hulda Gate passageway, another underground structure from the time of the Second Temple, was also converted into a mosque.


In 1999 Islamic clerics did further work on the mosque and dumped thousands of tons of rubble into the Kidron Valley. Israeli archaeologists had found this material to contain artifacts from as early as the First Temple. (Even if an artifact can be salvaged from displaced rubble, much valuable information is lost, such as datable strata and other inferences that can be drawn from the article's original position.)


In 2001, during work to extend further the mosque built on Solomon's Stables, bulldozers destroyed an ancient arched structure from the Temple Mount's eastern wall.


Islamic authorities also dug up 7,000 square yards of the Temple Mount's ancient surface, paved it, and declared it an open mosque. There was no archaeological supervision, and the director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority called it an "archaeological crime."


After barring the Israeli Antiquities Authority from the Temple Mount in 2000, the Waqf removed 13,000 tons of rubble from the Temple Mount, containing artifacts from the First and Second Temple periods, and deposited it in city garbage dumps.

[Kratos]

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible...heologists.htm

[Kratos]

durring Jordan rule from 1948 to 1967

Only limited numbers of Christians were grudgingly permitted to briefly visit the Old City and Bethlehem at Christmas and Easter.

In 1955 and 1964, Jordan passed laws imposing strict government control on Christian schools, including restrictions on the opening of new schools, state control over school finances and appointment of teachers and the requirements that the Koran be taught.

Jordan desecrated Jewish holy places
King Hussein permitted the construction of a road to the Intercontinental Hotel across the Mount of Olives cemetery. Hundreds of Jewish graves were destroyed by a highway that could have easily been built elsewhere. The gravestones, honoring the memory of rabbis and sages, were used by the engineer corps of the Jordanian Arab Legion as pavement and latrines in army camps (inscriptions on the stones were still visible when Israel liberated the city).

The ancient Jewish Quarter of the Old City was ravaged, 58 Jerusalem synagogues — some centuries old — were destroyed or ruined, others were turned into stables and chicken coops. Slum dwellings were built abutting the Western Wall.

[Kratos]

There was no reciprocal appreciation for other religions under Jordan rule. Muslims have a long history of destorying anything Jewish or Christian. The people who were displaced, were displaced 60 years ago...lets move on.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Kratos.

Excellent question, and thank you for asking.

I've got a question for you Buff, why do Muslims have any claim to Israel?

The land--on which the illegal colonial state of Israel exists upon--belongs to the Palestinians, who have lived on that land for hundreds of years. Therefore, according to international law and the doctrine of self-determination and popular sovereignty, the land belongs to the Palestinian people.

Overall it is not an important city to the religion.

This is not true. There are only three holy cities in Islam: Mecca, Madeenah, and Jerusalem. Indeed, the early Muslims faced Jerusalem to pray--not Mecca. The city--and the land surrounding it--is very important to Muslims from a religious perspective. In verse 5:21, the Quran itself calls Jerusalem--and that which surrounds it--as "the holy land."

I have given a more detailed response here:

http://forums.steroid.com/showpost.p...&postcount=418

When the Muslims did have control for 20 years (prior to losing the 1967 war), they never treated Jerusalem as either a holy city or as a capitol.

Jerusalem has been occupied since the creation of the colonial Zionist state in 1947-1948.

However, before the creation of the colonial state (both the Zionist and British occupation), the Muslims ruled Jerusalem not for 20 years, but *hundreds* of years.

Here is a brief history I wrote up about the history of Jerusalem:

The fact that we believe that Jerusalem is holy does not mean that we are justified in conquering it and dispossessing the inhabitants of it. Before Islam came on the scene, Jerusalem was ruled by the great Christian empire--the Byzantine Empire. They expelled Jews and banned them from entering Jerusalem:

The Byzantine Emperor Constantine, however, rebuilt Jerusalem as a Christian center of worship, building the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 335. Jews were still banned from the city, except during a brief period of Persian rule from 614-629 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...CE_-_638_CE.29

And from a Zionist website:

Byzantines

Constantine was the founder of the Byzantine empire and a devout Christian. He tried to make Jerusalem into a center of Christian worship by erecting many churches there, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and designating various areas as Christian holy sites....In 614 the Persians actually managed to capture Jerusalem...but this victory was short-lived and the Byzantines returned in 629 to again expel the Jews. They ruled Jerusalem until their defeat at the hands of the Muslim Arab caliph, Omar, in 638.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

(I am going to be quoting from this site repeatedly, so keep a note that it is the "Jewish Agency for Israel" website.)

After Prophet Muhammad [s] united Arabia under the banner of Islam, the Byzantine Empire declared war on the Muslims at the Battle of Tabuk. You see, at that time, the Arabs were backwater backwards people (much like today) and horribly disunited amongst warring tribes, each worshiping their own gods. The two great empires of the time--the Byzantines in the West and the Persians in the East--capitalized on this and fought each other over Arab land in Syria/Palestine and Iraq, and the Arabs were reduced to vassalage. The Byzantines and Persians were two great elephants, and the grass underneath (the Arabs) was trampled underfoot. Each set up its own vassal client states in Arab lands. In Syria/Palestine, the vassal state was known as the Ghassanids...and this includes Jerusalem.

Then Prophet Muhammad [s] united all of Arabia under the banner of Islam, all under one God. The Byzantines declared war on the Muslims, in what is called the Battle of Tabook. Thus began the Byzantine-Islamic wars. In the Battle of Yarmouk, the Ghassanids (who were Arabs living in Jerusalem and under Byzantine rule) defected and assisted the Muslims in overthrowing the Byzantines, and so Jerusalem was conquered:

The Ghassanids remained a Byzantine vassal state until its rulers were overthrown by the Muslims in the 7th century, following the Battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD. It was at this battle that some 12,000 Ghassanid Arabs defected to the Muslim side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassan..._Byzantine_era

The Prophet's disciple, the Second Caliph of the Muslims, went to Jerusalem himself to accept the pledge of allegiance from Jerusalem. He entered Jerusalem whilst his servant was riding the camel and he (the Caliph) was walking, so the people thought his servant was the Caliph of the Muslims. In any case, the Second Caliph (Umar ibn al-Khattab) reversed the 400 year Christian ban on Jews:

Umar ibn al-Khattab [the Second Caliph of the Muslims] also allowed the Jews back into the city and freedom to live and worship after four hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...CE_-_638_CE.29

And from the same pro-Israeli website:

The Byzantines returned in 629 to again expel the Jews. They ruled Jerusalem until their defeat at the hands of the Muslim Arab caliph, Omar, in 638...The majority of the population was still Christian, though the Jews were allowed to settle there. They developed two Jewish quarters: one southwest of the Temple area, and one north of it.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

Hundreds of years later, the Zionist Jews gave their thanks to the Muslims by expelling the Palestinians from their homes, creating the largest refugee population in the world.

But alas, I am going out of order. So Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem at the behest of the Ghassanids and allowed the Jews to return. For hundred of years, the matter was such, until the Crusaders invaded. They subsequently slaughtered the inhabitants and again expelled the Jews. From the same pro-Israeli website:

Crusaders

In 1099 the Crusaders besieged Jerusalem and, in one of history's strange ironies, the "City of Peace" was once again involved in war and bloodshed. The Christian soldiers, led by Godfrey of Bouillon, scaled the city walls and massacred the inhabitants -- Jews and Muslims alike. In order to repopulate the city, the Crusaders transferred Christian Arab tribes from Transjordan and settled them in the former Jewish quarter.

Jerusalem became the capital of the Crusader kingdom and thrived because of the concentration of all the government and church bodies there. Tens of thousands of Christian pilgrims visited the city every year, thus adding to its growth and prosperity. But the Jews were still for the most part banned, as during the previous Christian period.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

Then the prince of the believers, the shining knight, the exemplar, the standard bearer, the righteousness of the faith--SALADIN--came and liberated Jerusalem from the grips of the Crusaders. Unlike the Crusaders, he didn't slaughter the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Rather, he showed such restraint and mercy upon the Crusaders that his own secretaries complained and said that it was too much...Saladin allowed the Eastern Christians to stay if they so wished it, and he was merciful on the Crusaders as well, allowing them to leave for a pittance ransom, much of which he paid from his own coffers....many of the Crusaders left--escorted by Saladin's own guards who protected them--with chests full of gold (which had been stolen from Jerusalem):

They [the Crusaders] stripped the ornaments from their churches, carrying with them vases of gold and silver and silk- and gold-embroidered curtains as well as church treasures. The Patriarch Heraclius collected and carried away gold plating, gold and silver jewelry, and other arteacts from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

But Saladin turned a blind eye:

Heraclius was allowed to evacuate a number of church treasures and reliquaries, which scandalised the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1187)

Yet Saladin allowed them to do it, in order to keep his word not to bring any harm to them:

Imad al-Din was amazed at the amount of treasure that had been carried away by the departing Latins. He reports having told Salah al-Din that these treasures could be valued at 200,000 dinars. He reminded him that his agreement with the Latins was for safe conduct (arnan) for themselves and their own property, but not for that of the churches, and he counselled that such treasures should not be left in Latin hands. But Salah al-Din rejected his proposal:

"If we interpret the treaty [now] against their interest, they will accuse us of treachery...Let us deal with them according to the wording of the treaty so they may not accuse the believers of breaking the covenant. Instead, they will talk of the favours that we have bestowed upon them."

Certainly Salah al-Din's magnanimity towards the Latins contrasts sharply with the attitude of the victorious Crusaders in 1099.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

He not only let them leave in peace, but he escorted them to safety to Tyre:

Salah al-Din assigned each group fifty of his officers to ensure their safe arrival in territories held by the Christians. One chronicler gives Salah al-Din's officers credit for their humane treatment of thc refugees, noting that these officers,

" who could not endure the suffenng of the refugees, ordered their squires to dismount and set aged Christans upon their steeds. Some of them even carried Chnstian children in their arms."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

The Muslim chroniclers complained that the latter day Muslims had nobody but Saladin to thank for setting up the Crusader defense of Tyre! But this was Saladin! When his secretaries complained about his lenience in the conquest of Jerusalem, he said to them: we will allow it to be a victory that the world shall remember for all time. As a professor from McGill University said:

In contrast to the European conquest of Jerusalem, Saladin's capture of the city was far more civilized and less bloody.

http://history-world.org/saladin.htm

The Christians had destroyed and ransacked the mosques. Yet, Saladin (Salah al-Din) preserved and refurnished the churches...not only that but he allowed the Byzantine patriarch to directly rule them:

Salah al-Din allowed them to pray freely in their churches, and he handed over control of Christian affairs to the Byzantine patriarch...When the Byzantine emperor received the news of Salah al-Din's victory in Jerusalem, he asked him to restore the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the Greek Orthodox Christians, a request that Salah al-Din granted.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

From the pro-Israeli website:

Saladin

When the Muslims, under Saladin, recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, the Jews enjoyed a short period of resettlement in Jerusalem. But with Saladin's death, the city remained without any stable authority and was shuttled back and forth between Christians and Muslims.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

And lastly:

If the taking of Jerusalem were the only fact known about Salah al-Din, it would be sufficient to prove him the most chivalrous and great-hearted conqueror of his own, and perhaps of any, age.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

Then the Muslim Mamluks came...from the pro-Israeli website:

Mamluks

In 1250 a new Muslim force appeared on the scene, the Mamluks, who managed to establish themselves as rulers of Jerusalem for over 260 years. Jewish life in Jerusalem was somewhat freer under Mamluk rule than it had been with the Christians. The city remained poor but Jewish scholarship and learning thrived.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

And then the Ottomans came after them, and the Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in peace in the City of Peace, i.e. Jerusalem (again from pro-Israeli website):

Jerusalem came under the domination of the Ottoman Turks in 1517 when Sultan Selim I took it in a bloody battle with the Mamluks. His successor, Suleiman the Magnificent, left his mark on Jerusalem's history by building the present-day wall around the Old City. The construction of the wall, which took five years, made a great impression on the Jews of the time and it remains as one of the dominant architectural features of the city to this day...

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/places/jer.html

Then after World War I, the British colonized Jerusalem and Palestine. Then the Zionists pressured the British to give them Palestine, and organized illegal immigration to Palestine. They founded the Jewish Colonization Agency...You see, at that time, they didn't have to be sneaky like they are today. They openly declared themselves to be colonists, because colonialism was in vogue back then. It was not only tolerated, but it was encouraged and thought of as a good thing. It was one colonist (Zionists) to another (the British).

And so the Zionists colonized the Palestinians, and the rest is history.

WHENEVER the Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Christians, they always welcomed the Jews back; they granted the Jews the Right of Return, even though it was the Christians--not the Muslims--who expelled them from Jerusalem. Is it not interesting then that the Zionist Jews pay us back by expelling us Muslims from the holy land just like the Christians did to them! They deny us the Right of Return, even though throughout history we gave it to them.

GST, you said that all three religions find Jerusalem to be holy so how can they all live in the same place. Well, the only time that all three religions lived there in peace was when it was under Muslim rule.

As for the Jews, they've ruled Jerusalem twice, once in ancient times and today. Both times they ran the natives off of their land. As mentioned in numerous verses in the Old Testament, the Jews put the natives of Palestine to the sword, killing women, children, young and old, virgins, pregant women, infants, and even unborn fetuses...For example, let's see what they did to the people of Jericho...just for your reference:

Jericho is a city located near the Jordan River in the West Bank of the Palestinian territories. It is the capital of the Jericho Governorate, and has a population of over 20,000 Arabs.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

OK, so how did the Israelites deal with the natives back then when they ruled the land? Let's read from the Old Testament itself (which the Jews believe in):

Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

And there is much more on the behavior of the Israelites:

Deuteronomy 20:13

And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword....

Deuteronomy 20:16-17

...In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.

And we see how the Jews rule Palestine today...they started by expelling half a million Palestinians. They forbid the Muslims from praying in their mosques, including restricting access to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. (Remember how the Muslims allowed the Christian patriarch HIMSELF to rule over the great Christian church!)

What is interesting is that the Muslims are the ones who allowed Jews to return to Palestine (since the Byzantines had expelled them time and time again)...yet, each time the Muslims ruled Jerusalem/Palestine, they welcomed Jews back.

they never treated Jerusalem as either a holy city or as a capitol.

Throughout the hundreds of years of Islamic rule, Jerusalem has always been considered holy by the Muslims. When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, the famous Saladin united the entire Muslim world to liberate it, such was the importance of the land.

I've been to Muslim countries and the best answer I got was that controling Israel is a show of power.

It is usurped land.

There are some important mosques, but we aren't talking about an equivilent to Mecca or Medina.

There are three special mosques in Islam: one of them is located in Mecca, one in Madeenah, and one in Jerusalem. Prophet Muhammad [s] said:

“No (religious) journey should be made except to three mosques: al-Masjid al-Haraam [the Kaba'ah in Mecca], Masjid al-Rasool [the Prophet's Mosque in Madeenah] and Masjid al-Aqsa [in Jerusalem].” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Maybe you can tell me why Muslims have a claim to this land.

It should be understood that the religious importance of Jerusalem is not a legitimate grounds to claim a land. International law does not grant people the right to land simply based on religious belief. If some religion taught that their god promised the entire world it would not justify them in invading and occupying the entire globe.

The reason Palestinians have a right to the land is that they are the native inhabitants of said land. It is their land and Israel stole it, just like the Europeans stole Native American land. The only difference is that the Native Americans have been completely extinguished, whereas the Palestinians have not been. So the Palestinian people will fight tooth and nail for their land, just like the Native Americans fought the good fight to protect their ancestral land.

Aside from the fact some were displaced to create the state of Israel.

There is no other justification that is needed, according to international law.

There is no desire for peace, it's a show of force to kick the Jewish religion out of the Middle East.

If this was truly the case, then why is it that *whenever* Muslims ruled Jerusalem and Palestine, they would invite all the expelled Jews to come back?

I will concede the importance of Al-Aqsa, but can't you just let Israel go?

Imagine if--during the Cold War--the Soviet Union occupied the entire state of Florida. Do you think Americans would just "let it go"? They would fight tooth and nail for it back. It's not just the land; after all, Florida is a small land mass compared to the rest of America. However, Florida would then become a Soviet base right next door to America. As such, it has geo-political importance. Likewise, Israel is located in the heart of the Middle East, and as such, it has great geo-political importance. It's not like Israel is some peaceful neighbor. Rather, they are belligerent aggressors who continually invade and occupy neighbors. Israel has also nukes and refuses to rule out their use.

It took Saladin 200 years to reclaim Jerusalem from the Crusaders. Israel is some 60 years old. The Muslims trust in God, and know that the occupiers will be kicked out, just like the Crusaders were thrown out aforetime.

From what I understan Mohammad never even went there but rather flew there in his sleep.

We Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad [s] visited Jerusalem in what is known as the Night Journey; this was in reality, and not in his sleep. However, what should be kept in mind is that the Muslims revere many prophets, not just Prophet Muhammad [s]. We revere Prophet Moses [as], who traveled with his tribe to the land of Palestine. We revere Prophet Jesus [as] who was born in the holy land. And there were many other prophets who were sent to that blessed land. Therefore, even if Prophet Muhammad [s] never visited Jerusalem, it would not negate the importance of the city.

Hope that helps.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Kratos]

5:21
O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers.

Israil is never mentioned in the Koran to my knowledge. From what I understand Mohammad is quoting Moses? Surely it is not refering to Muslims at any rate.

[Kratos]

No it doesn't really help at all...you totally negated the facts I broght up about Muslim disrespect for Christianity and Jews.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Kratos.

With regards to Christians under Jordanian rule, you should know that Jordan follows the confessional system of governance, which gives tons of rights to the Christian church.

Here is what Selim Sayegh, the Auxiliary Bishop of Jordan, says about the overall condition of Christians:

The total population of Jordan today is over 5 million. Christians are over 200,000 (Two hundred thousand). A good collaboration exists between Christians and Moslems in the daily life, in all the fields: education, business, politics, soldiers in the army etc… Relations with the authorities, civil or religious, are good.

...We have freedom of worship, of building our churches, of having our education system in coordination of course with the Ministry of
Education...The Constitution declares the equality of all citizens without discrimination because of race of religion...

The government tries to make efforts in the direction of a complete equality: for example, the Christian presence in the political
life and responsibilities. Among the deputies there is a fixed number for Christians. Among the ministers one or two Christians are appointed.

Among the senators directly appointed by the king, there is as well an important Christian presence.

...Churches, equally tot the Mosques, are exempted from many kind of taxes

http://storage.paxchristi.net/ME16E06.pdf

This is not just some random dude saying it. He is the authority figure of the Christians there.

If you study history, you will know that the Orthodox (and Coptic) Christians--among other Christian groups--have had a pretty good relationship with Islam. The Ottoman Empire--that existed for hundreds of years--allowed the Church great control, giving it governmental power.

When Saladin liberated Jerusalem, did you know that the Orthodox Church actually contacted Saladin asking him to restore their churches to them and allow the Orthodox Church to rule them? (The Latin Christians had taken away the churches from the Orthodox Christians.) Saladin obliged.

So I think it is a bit unfair to paint the picture which you are painting, which is mostly based on bigoted ideas that people have. Academic scholars agree that the Islamic rule over Jews and Christians was very tolerant, especially in comparison to the Christian rule of those times, as well as the Jewish one during the Biblical times.

In 1955 and 1964, Jordan passed laws imposing strict government control on Christian schools, including restrictions on the opening of new schools, state control over school finances and appointment of teachers and the requirements that the Koran be taught.

This is what the Auxiliary Bishop of Jordan has to say about this:

Religious education

The [Jordanian] law says: religious education in all schools is obligatory, with three periods per week. In the government schools, Moslem religious education is obligatory for Moslem students, the state religion being Islam, the state must take care of Islamic education. For Christian students, it is the Church who is responsible and has the duty to afford Christian religious education to its faithful. In private schools, Christian or lay, religious education is obligatory for all students, each in his own religion, three periods per week.

A difficulty exists in this field: Moslem religious education is obligatory and is an obligatory matter for Moslems in official examinations, while Christian religious education is not. There were efforts and even an order that emanated from the Palace to give Christian religious education to Christian students in government schools. It did not work, for various complicated reasons or pretexts: the number of Christian students is too low; there is no common Christian education book… We are still following this question to find the best ways in order to procure to our Christian students their religious education in their own state schools

http://storage.paxchristi.net/ME16E06.pdf

So you are actually misrepresenting the issue. The law simply says that religious education is obligatory, and that a student can study his OWN religion. Yes, the Quran is obligatory for Muslim students. The government even issued a law that said that Christian religious education in STATE SCHOOLS was obligatory. (You did not mention this.) Again, you don't realize that Muslims have historically been great fans of the confessional system, which allows great power to the Christian church, allowing them to rule their own adherents as they see fit.

During Ottoman rule for example, the Christians were allowed their own Christian courts, their own Christian judges, etc.

Only limited numbers of Christians were grudgingly permitted to briefly visit the Old City and Bethlehem at Christmas and Easter.

Only a limited number of Muslims are allowed to visit Mecca.

More to come, God-Willing...

[Kratos]

I've visited Christian-Byzantine churches in Istanbul. Kinda cool how some of the most important ones have minurettes now.

[Kratos]

Muslims welcome Jews as long as they convert to Islam.
This is what your own profit does when they can't be converted...Muslims look at the exsistance of the Jewish relision as a slap in the face to allah.

According to “Sirat-a-Rasul” (page 464) by Ibn Ishaq the story goes as follows:

Gist: After the Battle of the Ditch, when the coalition force of Quraish left the battle field, Prophet Muhammad attacked the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they (Jews) surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe were killed and the women and children sold into slavery.

[Kratos]

A very good friend of mine is a Christian from Syria
I know how she was treated and why she is here now

Under Jordanian law, conversion from Islam to Christianity is not allowed in Muslim conservative Jordan and foreign missionary groups are banned from seeking converts.

One thing is for sure, Jews are not accepted in Jordan.

[Kratos]

Only a limited number of Muslims are allowed to visit Mecca.

More to come, God-Willing...

How is that anyone's fault but the Saudi's? If you aren't Muslim you can't even go there at all.

[BuffedGuy]

No it doesn't really help at all...you totally negated the facts I broght up about Muslim disrespect for Christianity and Jews.

Kratos, I am afraid that you do not understand the issues at all. Arab Christians are generally heavily pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist. This is something that is not really talked about in the Western media.

The Muslims did not place restrictions on Christian church attendance. Rather, Islamic rule in general (keep in mind that it was hundreds of years) gave them profound religious freedom. It is Israel which prevented them from their religious holy sites, and this because Zionists believe that it is *Jewish* holy land--and therefore the Christians have no reason to be there.

To prove this point to you, I will post an article from a Zionist website (which is well-respected amongst Zionists)...I will bold the important parts:

Introduction

Palestinian Christians have long been among Israel’s most vocal critics, using every opportunity to portray the Jewish state as a malevolent force in world politics... Because of their proximity to Christianity’s most holy sites, they have ready access to visiting Christian leaders in the West who are all too willing to accept a distorted and incomplete narrative about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

...According to the narrative offered by these Christian leaders, peace is solely contingent on Israeli concessions and efforts to reform the Jewish state. And while these leaders condemn Israel, they remain silent about the Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist...

When challenged with instances in which Israeli withdrawals and peace offers have been met with increased violence, these spokespersons portray the peace offers and withdrawals as insubstantial, dishonest attempts to fool people into thinking the Israelis want peace. For example, they have falsely described the Camp David peace plan put forth in 2000 as carving the West Bank into "bantustans," and dismissed the Gaza withdrawal as meaningless because it was a "unilateral" action and not the result of negotiations.

When violence flares up between Israel and its adversaries, these Christians use their access to churches in the West to broadcast such a distorted narrative about the causes and effects of violence in the Middle East.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1181

NOTE: Keep in mind that the above was written by a Zionist. It shows the disdain the Zionists have for Christians in Palestine/Israel.

The Christians in Palestine want PALESTINIAN unity against Israeli aggression. Read on:

Aside from urging internal Palestinian unity, the key points of the document [endorsed by Christians in Palestine] call for:

* establishment of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
* securing the so-called "right of return";

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1181

In fact, the Middle East Council of Churches BLASTED Israel and supports Palestinians:

Middle East Council of Churches

In a brief one-sided statement issued on June 29, the Middle East Council of Churches, made up of Christian churches located in Muslim-majority countries throughout the Middle East, condemns Israel’s military action in Gaza

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1181

Here is the conclusion of the Zionist writer:

Discussion

Sadly, this is not the first time Christians in the Middle East have worked to legitimize falsehoods that encourage hostility against Jews.

...Christians in the United States who rely on Arab and Palestinian Christians for information about the Arab-Israeli conflict have an obligation to scrutinize the information offered to them.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1181

The point is that while most Christians in America are on the side of Israel, Israel is persecuting the Christians in Palestine/Israel. The Christians in Palestine/Israel HATE Israel and have ALWAYS been pro-Palestinian. Unfortunately, this is lost upon Western audiences, because they are highly ignorant.

So Kratos, you really don't understand the issues to begin with. The Muslim rule of this area has historically been very tolerant, to both Jews *and* Christians. The fact is that the Jews had their Golden Age under Islamic rule. They used to flee from Europe to Muslim lands, which gave them refuge from persecution.

As for Christians, Muslims gave them freedom of religion and allowed their churches IMMENSE rule to govern. In fact, churches in the Ottoman Empire wielded way more power than the churches in America do today (due to separation of church and state).

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Kratos]

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/ira.../22/42852.html

[Kratos]

Peace be unto you, Kratos.


We Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad [s] visited Jerusalem in what is known as the Night Journey; this was in reality, and not in his sleep.
.

wow, it's real tough to complete an important pilgrimage when you can just say you did it in your sleep. Isn't the whole point being that it's hard to do?

[D7M]

As for Christians, Muslims gave them freedom of religion and allowed their churches IMMENSE rule to govern. In fact, churches in the Ottoman Empire wielded way more power than the churches in America do today (due to separation of church and state).

this is referring to where? and what time period?

[BuffedGuy]

Kratos, I am afraid that now you are just talking nonsense.

Muslims welcome Jews as long as they convert to Islam.

According to Islamic Law, Jews are honored as People of the Book. It is forbidden to force them to convert to Islam. They are allowed to live in peace and security, and in fact--according to Islamic Law--the Muslims must defend its Jewish citizens to the death.

This is what your own profit does when they can't be converted...Muslims look at the exsistance of the Jewish relision as a slap in the face to allah.

And yet, Prophet Muhammad [s] himself was allied with Jews. He signed a pact with them, whereby the Muslims promised to defend the Jews to the death, should they ever be attacked by anyone.

Like I detailed in my previous post above, the Muslims always welcomed Jews back to their homes whenever Muslims ruled. (The Byzantines would always expel the Jews, so when Muslims defeated the Byzantines, the Muslims would issue a call welcoming the Jews back.) The reason is that this is all a part of Islamic law.

According to “Sirat-a-Rasul” (page 464) by Ibn Ishaq the story goes as follows:

Gist: After the Battle of the Ditch, when the coalition force of Quraish left the battle field, Prophet Muhammad attacked the last of the large Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qurayza. After a 25 days siege, they (Jews) surrender unconditionally. In the end, all 600-700 males of the tribe were killed and the women and children sold into slavery.

The Bani Qurayza lived in Madeenah, along with the Muslims. They had a pact, whereby both sides agreed to defend the other in case of attack by a third party. The Confederate Forces attacked Madeenah, and the inhabitants of Madeenah were commanded to defend the city. The Bani Qurayza did NOT respond, and thereby they reneged on their pact.

But worse than that, the Bani Qurayza committed high treason by promising to help the Confederate Forces attack the Muslims from within the city. In other words, they collaborated with the enemy, promising to surround the Muslims. It was for this that the adult men who committed high treason were put to the sword. However, it should be noted that Prophet Muhammad [s] asked the Jews if they wanted to be punished according to Jewish or Islamic law. The Banu Qurayza chose Jewish Law. They (the Jews) appointed a man by the name of Sa'ad to issue their judgment, according to Jewish Law, and according to the judge appointed by the Jews--not Prophet Muhammad [s].

As is well-known, the Jewish Law dictates that in case of treason, the men are to be killed, and the women and children sold into slavery.

The key point here is that this was JEWISH LAW. Had they chosen Islamic law, they would have received lenience, since Islamic law encourages forgiveness of prisoners, as evidenced by Saladin, who had a very merciful pronouncement when he liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders.

Please stop twisting things, God-Willing.

In the Care of the Lord,
-Saladin.

[Kratos]

Kratos, I am afraid that you do not understand the issues at all. because they are highly ignorant.

So Kratos, you really don't understand the issues to begin with.
.

I know, it's so complex only you can figure it out

When there is no real history, there is a void, and myths flourish. Although tolerance existed, it was counterbalanced by a system of oppression that led to the open extermination of Christian populations and the disappearance of the Eastern Christian culture. Tolerance was given to Jews and Christians only on the condition that they would accept and submit to a system of persecution and total inferiority.