Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's just human nature. I asked the same question once and someone who had lived in the Middle East for most of her childhood responded that although we might see them as one "Group" of Muslims/Arabs, they don't.
An example might be people from Spanish-speaking Central America and Caribbean countries. Americans tend to lump them together as Latinos or Hispanics, but THEY don't think of themselves that way. They are Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans and Dominicans in their own minds, separate groups of people. If non-Spanish-speaking people trash them, however, they will join together.
Think of our own Civil War. Some people strongly wanted slavery to end--the slaves were people, not property, and they made speeches and writings and fought a war to free them, but those same people sure as hell didn't want the freed slaves to live in their neighborhoods afterward.
Hell, look at City-Data. People band together against one another by state, by religion, by childfree and parent, etc., etc., etc., but when we are attacked by outsiders, we are suddenly all Americans. If Martians attacked our planet, we'd band together as Earthlings to fight them off.
And just like everybody else on the planet, Muslims might band together on this issue, but they certainly don't get along amongst themselves, either. Think of Osama Bin Laden telling the Saudi King when he was thrown out of that country that Afghanistan is the only true Muslim nation on earth. Very few of us non-Muslims would think of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as not being a true Muslim country, would we.
Very good and sensible points.
The notion of all the "Arab" countries joining together under one state, empire or caliphate is a hopeless chimera that will never come to fruition. To say that all these countries will unite under Islam is to ignore the historical, political and cultural record.
Allegiance to clans within tribes is a very old, deeply rooted tradition in Arab society. The British knew this and shamelessly and successfully exploited it to divide and conquer the region. It wasn't that hard to do.
Egyptians, for example, are very, very proud of their pre-Islamic civilization. They are Egyptians before they're "Arabs". I dare say they consider themselves superior to other Arab countries. I remember reading somewhere that when the subject of the Saudis came up, Anwar Sadat said that "the Saudis were nothing but bedouins until we (the Egyptians) cleaned them up and educated them." How do you think that went over in Riyadh?
The Saudis deeply resent Jordan's rulers because of their Hashemite lineage.
Old conflicts to control and expand power, resentment, envy, jealousy, and boundless pride (in the bad sense of the word) are all impediments to "Arab unity". The list goes on and on.
If you think about it, the Islamic tradition it's in the way of Arab unity too. Islam lacks an affinity for forgiveness, dialogue, tolerance, accommodation, negotiation and compromise. These are all faculties needed to bridge the deep divide. But, they don't have them in their idiosyncratic fabric.
Now, back to the OP.
I do believe the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs are cousins. They are both Semitic people who speak Semitic languages. The DNA is there and it doesn't lie. The history and the archeology are there too.
To understand the current Arab-Israeli conflict it's necessary to go way back. The roots of the the Arab-Israeli conflict date back to antiquity. It is a history of tribal allegiances, feuds, fights over lands, fights to control and dominate and expand power. The Arabs have been fighting amongst themselves for centuries. I have always believed that if you leave them alone long enough, they will decimate themselves.
All the solutions that make sense to Westerners are anathema to the Palestinians. To them it's all or nothing. Compromise? That's a completely unacceptable and alien concept to them.
Owen, your analogy with Churchill forgetting past bad deeds does not work here since the Arab world's support for Islamic terror in South Asia/Africa/probably Chechnya is ongoing. The OIC group also always supports Islamic terror and criticizes non-Islamic nations at every opportunity, and Saudi Arabia's oil money is widely used to built mosques around the world that are basically a meeting place for suicide bombers. I think you don't know enough about the working of the Islamic world and the OIC and Saudi oil money, but have some kind of hatred for Israel that will never dissipate.
Firstly, I'm sorry but you'll have to remind me what analogy you're referring to as regards Churchill, I cannot recall the analogy you're referring to, nor its context, and I'm therefore unable to answer your point unless directed otherwise.
Secondly, I feel that you are mis-characterising me as some sort of irrational belligerent. I am not. I am a sensible and well-meaning person and I have argued my case using facts and citing my sources where applicable. If you take issue with my position then state your objection and substantiate it, do not accuse me of holding a "hatred of Israel that will never dissipate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by usernametaken
Owen, so why do East Indians not want Bangladesh and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan destroyed using the same logic? Why do you not see East Indian suicide bombers? Both Pak and Bangladesh were founded as one country along immoral lines (home for Muslims, and an excuse to basically destroy all signs of non-Muslim heritage in the case of Pakistan). And why do Sudanese not want to destroy some Arab country in Palestinain-like revenge?
Do you seriously think that if Israel was given up to Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs, the large fraction of Muslims who are extremists would not find 100 other causes to be mad about?
I do not wish to be side-tracked into an ill-founded analogy between Israel/Palestine, and Bangladesh and Pakistan's relationship through partition with India. The circumstances are so massively dis-similar I'm bewildered how you can think it worthy of an analogy.
Secondly, you ask if Israel was not conceded to the Palestinians, would "Muslims who are extremists" not be mad about something else. On that note I have to question your application of logic. If somebody is an extremist, then some set of circumstances has driven that person to the extremes. I put it to you that there will be fewer people driven to extremism, and more people will renounce extreme views, when justice prevails. Your whole attitude appears to presume that Muslims (or "extremist Muslims") are in some way itching for a fight over whatever issue they can dredge up.
From my earlier post/analogy about Muslim terror in South Asia and Arabian/Persian/Turkish participation and support for it for 100s of years, it may have seemed like I was a Hindu, which I am not. Neither am I right wing fundamentalist Einstein's Ghost.
I support any country that fights Islamic terror, which is a cancer on earth.
Your claims and what you demonstrate are inconsistent. The last sentence in your post is proof of your right wing fundamentalism. When it comes to such attitude, you could insert any religion, or swap one for the other.
Quote:
In South Asia, Hindus have run away or been killed en masse in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Kashmir. In Thailand Buddhists are running away and being killed in the South...
And Hindus are killing/persecuting Christians in India, and have killed Muslims, are engaged actively in killing Buddhists (Sinhalese in Sri Lanka) while the Sinhalese Buddhists are killing Hindus. I can sense why you would want to stick to only one side of the story.
Quote:
so why do East Indians not want Bangladesh and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan destroyed using the same logic? Why do you not see East Indian suicide bombers?
How prevalent is suicide bombing inside Bangladesh? An Indian prime minister was killed by a suicide bomber, wasn't he? What was the religion of the suicide bomber? (Hint: Not a Muslim) For that matter, I don't think suicide bombs were a Islamic idea, there are some proud people in the western world who claim the genius.
Quote:
Both Pak and Bangladesh were founded as one country along immoral lines (home for Muslims, and an excuse to basically destroy all signs of non-Muslim heritage in the case of Pakistan). And why do Sudanese not want to destroy some Arab country in Palestinain-like revenge?
Good point. Pakistan is perfect example of a country that was created using the right wing religion based ideology, coincidentally around the same time Israel was.
Quote:
Do you seriously think that if Israel was given up to Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs, the large fraction of Muslims who are extremists would not find 100 other causes to be mad about?
You keep inventing reasons to be mad about Muslims/Palestinians/Arabs. I will give you credit for recognizing a fact though, perhaps involuntary, you didn't assume all Palestinians/Arabs were Muslims. It is not that a Christian Arab would ever have a reason to hate Israel. Right?
Isn't there enough room for the followers of Islam in the Arab countries? Why is the total destruction of Israel necessary when Muslims well out number Christians in the Middle East? Is the destruction of the heart of Christianity in Israel the only way that Muslims can be secure in their religion?
Please stay on topic without anti-semetic/Zionist comments. Let's keep this discussion civil please.
The Palistinians do not want to "destroy the heart of Christianity." They don't even want to destroy Judaism. They are reacting to what they see as the illegal invasion and occupation of their ancestrial home.
Jews, Muslims, Christians, and a dozen other religions co-existed, for the most part peacably, in Palistine/Trans-Jordan for thousands of years. They respected each other's holy sites. It was only with the Zionist movement, to re-take ancient Israel, and make it a Jewish political state, in 1890's to 1948, that the real trouble started. The new Israelites, fleeing murder and oppression around the world, fled to Palistine in ever-growing numbers. They defied all efforts by the British, who were legally in charge of the region, to place legal controls on their immigration. They were encouraged and supported by US and British Evangelicals (including British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour), eager to see the biblical prophicies regarding the rise of a new Jerusalem be realized, to hasten the end times.
Finally, the Jews established a de facto state, then fought a civil war, against both the Palistinians AND the British. In the course of this war, they brutally expelled, or forced to flee, a great number of the native population. In 1948, Israel was recognized by the UN. The decision was highly controversial at the time. It was by no means certain that the US would approve, but Truman was in favor (Roosevelt was dead-set against the idea). Even so, it has only been since the late-sixties, after the war of '67, that the US has given Israel total, practically unconditional support.
So modern Israel was born. "A land without a people, for a People without a land" Except Palistine was NEVER A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE. Israel was born on a conceit. It has had to fight for its existance ever sense.
Put yourslf in the Palistinian's shows for a minute. How would you like it if, say, the Roms (gypsies) suddenly decided Missouri was their ancestral home. They begin trickling in, then the trickle becomes a flood, then they begin to crowd and expell Missourians from their homes. Then, the UN declares 3/4 of Missouri (the nice parts) as a homeland for the Roms, and hey left the native Missoos a patch of swamp land.
I bet you wouldn't take it laying down either.
BTW, I'm not anti-semetic. I support the right of Israel to exist. I do believe, however, that unless the Jews come to grips with their own history, and form a just peace with the Palistinians they displaced, they ae destined to a state of permanent war. And so are we, since we are backing their play.
The Palistinians do not want to "destroy the heart of Christianity." They don't even want to destroy Judaism. They are reacting to what they see as the illegal invasion and occupation of their ancestrial home.
BTW, I'm not anti-semetic. I support the right of Israel to exist. I do believe, however, that unless the Jews come to grips with their own history, and form a just peace with the Palistinians they displaced, they ae destined to a state of permanent war. And so are we, since we are backing their play.
Excellent Post. I could not have said this better! I also support the right of Israel to exist, but only if they are willing to fairly share the land with Palestinians and end the humanitarian crisis that has plagued the region since the 1940's. Palestinian Christians and Muslims simply do not hate Judaism, but they rightfully despise the country that displaced them with the help of a colonial power (Great Britain)
What a complete load of garbage. Who started the '48 war in the first place? Wasn't the israeli jews. And trying to send israeli jews, most of whom were born in israel, out of the country would be a Crime Against Humanity and is not going to happen. BTW, Morris has written extensively more recently to recant earlier comments, and that the arabs fled for the most part due to the war - not an organized plan by the israelis to ethnically cleanse them.
Who started the '48 war? Not the Israeli Jews? My friend you amaze me. Did Britain (the constituted authority) not strictly limit Jewish immigration to Palestine because of the ethnic strife this migration was causing? Did the "Israeli Jews" not continue to emigrate illegally and en masse to Palestine in spite of the law? Did the "Israeli Jews" not wage a terrorist campaign against the British with the expressed intent of forcing the British to leave, so that they could form their own country? Did Britain not withdraw from Palestine because of that terrorist campaign and escalating ethnic violence caused by the continuing illegal Jewish migration? Was the UN decision to allow a Jewish state within the 1948 borders accepted by the people whose land was being appropriated to others? Do you think that you are a remotely sophisticated human being if you can answer the above questions and still construct a question so ludicrous as, "What a complete load of garbage. Who started the '48 war in the first place? Wasn't the israeli jews."
You say that Morris has "written to recant earlier statements", if you want to make a statement like that then please say preciselywhat, when and where Morris has recanted anything which I have quoted from his work.
Quote:
Israel has screwed some things up for sure over the 63 years - but that pales in comparison to the sheer volume of obscene arab muslim crimes and terrorism.
You seem to revel in the non-sequiteur. How are the crimes of "obscene arab muslims" at all relevant to whether the Palestinians ought to be permitted to return to their land? Or are you a collective punishment sort of guy? Maybe you think that because somebody happens to be an Arab that they are responsible for 9/11 and suicide bombing school buses. Maybe your general level of incompetence renders you incapable of distinguishing between a Palestinian family evicted from their home in 1948 or 1967, and the Government of Saudi Arabia or Osama Bin Laden. Either way it's a sore reflection on you, not my argument.
Quote:
On "wikipedia" she says, just hilarious. Strike one for the internet teens.
The issue with an internet forum such as this, is that when I reference a source, I want the person I am addressing to be able to cross reference what I am saying so that they know I have not made up facts on the spot. While Wikipedia can be erroneous due to the nature of the operation, as a source of information it is a lot better than people making things up on the spot. Now speaking of people making things up on the spot, your next sentence was a howler!
Quote:
Honey, I've been to Cambridge University in the Mapping section to see them FIRSTHAND, and the ottoman census taken from 1840 forward show that there were nomadic arabs moving through most of the Levant, only is jerusalem was there a more stable population, and there was NOT hundreds of thousands of arab muslims living there.
No "Honey", you haven't been to Cambridge University to the Mapping section to see the Ottoman Census "FIRSTHAND". The main reason that I know this is that I had the gall (imagine that) to go onto the University of Cambridge catalogue search and guess what? They don't have a copy of the Ottoman Census of 1840. Why don't you look yourself here:University of Cambridge - Library Search
Now excusing for the moment the fact that you're pathetic enough to lie on an internet forum about having visited a prestigious university to read a document that they don't have, but you literally have me in stitches with the notion that you have such exceptional command of Turkish and/or Arabic in order to read anything which was actually written in the census!
Quote:
Hilarious how internet teens armed with non-academic sources like wikipedia or lesser academics try to compete with real research. Forget it kid, who ever is paying you come up with this tripe - or if this is how you get your jollies on the web - it is not going to fly.
I'll leave you to your rather strange and pathetic delusions.
The Palistinians do not want to "destroy the heart of Christianity." They don't even want to destroy Judaism. They are reacting to what they see as the illegal invasion and occupation of their ancestrial home.
Jews, Muslims, Christians, and a dozen other religions co-existed, for the most part peacably, in Palistine/Trans-Jordan for thousands of years. They respected each other's holy sites. It was only with the Zionist movement, to re-take ancient Israel, and make it a Jewish political state, in 1890's to 1948, that the real trouble started. The new Israelites, fleeing murder and oppression around the world, fled to Palistine in ever-growing numbers. They defied all efforts by the British, who were legally in charge of the region, to place legal controls on their immigration. They were encouraged and supported by US and British Evangelicals (including British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour), eager to see the biblical prophicies regarding the rise of a new Jerusalem be realized, to hasten the end times.
Finally, the Jews established a de facto state, then fought a civil war, against both the Palistinians AND the British. In the course of this war, they brutally expelled, or forced to flee, a great number of the native population. In 1948, Israel was recognized by the UN. The decision was highly controversial at the time. It was by no means certain that the US would approve, but Truman was in favor (Roosevelt was dead-set against the idea). Even so, it has only been since the late-sixties, after the war of '67, that the US has given Israel total, practically unconditional support.
So modern Israel was born. "A land without a people, for a People without a land" Except Palistine was NEVER A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE. Israel was born on a conceit. It has had to fight for its existance ever sense.
Put yourslf in the Palistinian's shows for a minute. How would you like it if, say, the Roms (gypsies) suddenly decided Missouri was their ancestral home. They begin trickling in, then the trickle becomes a flood, then they begin to crowd and expell Missourians from their homes. Then, the UN declares 3/4 of Missouri (the nice parts) as a homeland for the Roms, and hey left the native Missoos a patch of swamp land.
I bet you wouldn't take it laying down either.
BTW, I'm not anti-semetic. I support the right of Israel to exist. I do believe, however, that unless the Jews come to grips with their own history, and form a just peace with the Palistinians they displaced, they ae destined to a state of permanent war. And so are we, since we are backing their play.
It would seem you need to study up on your history as what you learned is that of the revisionists.
Actually, the peace between Arabs and Jews/Christians in the Middle East began to fall apart in the 1920's before the UN establishment of the state of Israel. Radical Islam allied itself with the Nazis pre-WWII and there was a radical Imam of the time that promoted the hatred and destruction of Israel we continue see today.
Where Israel sits today is not the ancestrial land of the Palestinians. Again, do your homework and go back centuries.
The Palistinians do not want to "destroy the heart of Christianity." They don't even want to destroy Judaism. They are reacting to what they see as the illegal invasion and occupation of their ancestrial home.
Jews, Muslims, Christians, and a dozen other religions co-existed, for the most part peacably, in Palistine/Trans-Jordan for thousands of years. They respected each other's holy sites. It was only with the Zionist movement, to re-take ancient Israel, and make it a Jewish political state, in 1890's to 1948, that the real trouble started.
I'm not sure which reality you live in but there are a few corrections to be made here.
1. If you have read any history about the area you would know that "co-existed" and "peacably" are not two words that would together describe the relationship between its inhabitants. Few regions around the world have had a more tumultuous history than this one.
2. Muslims do not respect other religions' holy sites. Just look to what the Dome of the Rock was built on for a great example. Also, what do you think happened to Jewish holy sites during Arab occupation of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967?
3. If you think the real trouble started only when Jews started migrating back to Israel, again, take a look at the area's history, which consists of wave after wave of invasion and conquest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie
Put yourslf in the Palistinian's shows for a minute. How would you like it if, say, the Roms (gypsies) suddenly decided Missouri was their ancestral home. They begin trickling in, then the trickle becomes a flood, then they begin to crowd and expell Missourians from their homes. Then, the UN declares 3/4 of Missouri (the nice parts) as a homeland for the Roms, and hey left the native Missoos a patch of swamp land.
The problem here is that prior to the early twentieth century Palestine was already a desolate swampland that was not as populated as modern Arabs would have you believe. Many current day Palestinians are the descendants of Arab immigrants from other areas looking for work provided by new Jewish immigrants. You cannot compare this to Missouri.
The smartest thing the Palestinian Arabs ever did was name themselves as a people after a territory which existed two thousand years ago. The conglomeration of Arab peoples who happened to live in the Turkish territory of Palestine have little in common apart from language and a hatred of Israel. Their whole reason for existence as a unified "nation" is Israel.
I'm not sure which reality you live in but there are a few corrections to be made here.
1. If you have read any history about the area you would know that "co-existed" and "peacably" are not two words that would together describe the relationship between its inhabitants. Few regions around the world have had a more tumultuous history than this one.
2. Muslims do not respect other religions' holy sites. Just look to what the Dome of the Rock was built on for a great example. Also, what do you think happened to Jewish holy sites during Arab occupation of Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967?
3. If you think the real trouble started only when Jews started migrating back to Israel, again, take a look at the area's history, which consists of wave after wave of invasion and conquest.
1. Why is it that Israel's defenders on this forum like making assertions and not stating a source for their factual claims? Gorby has told you that Jews and Muslims lived as peacefully as you like prior to the Zionist movements appearance. You've effectively said, "No they didn't". Well I'm afraid that they did. The Ottoman Empire controlled the region from 1517 to 1917, and there is no record of any significant turmoil until the Zionist movement showed up. If you want to argue that there was violence between Jews and Muslims during this period, it is not sufficient for you to claim that your opponent is ignorant. You must present evidence to support your position, and please don't be like your predecessor sterpetron who likes to "invent" facts. If you want to discuss the crusades, or the Arab invasion, or the Roman conquest, then sure - there has been violence in that region for parts of ancient and medieval history. However the violence had ended for hundreds of years by the time that the Zionist movement began to arrive. If you want to claim otherwise, then it is your duty as the claimant to provide evidence.
2. "Muslims do not respect others Holy Sites?" Do they not? Which of the 1.3 billion Muslims are you talking about here? All of them? A majority? Just the Taliban? Just a few members of the Taliban? The Spanish Christians took over the Mosque of Cordoba and turned it into the Cathedral of Cordoba, and to this day Muslims are forbidden to pray in it. By your logic is this fact evidence that the worlds 3 billion odd Christians "do not respect others Holy Sites?" According to the bible, Moses destroyed the Golden Calf which was worshipped by hundreds of the Israelites, he alledgedly ground it into fine powder and forced the worshippers to drink it. Does this mean that millions of Jews worldwide "do not respect others Holy Sites"? Or is it only in the case of Muslims that you like to pick and choose elements of history and make generalisations about billions of people?
3. Nobody has claimed that trouble in Palestine has only ever happened when the Zionists showed up. You've creating a strawman argument. The Romans, then the Arabs, then the Crusaders and then the Arabs conquered the region, and on each occasion there was no doubt turmoil for the residents. What you have to explain is how this fact is relevant to the discussion we're having here, as all of the above incidents were ancient history by the time of the Ottoman Empire and the Zionist movement.
Quote:
The problem here is that prior to the early twentieth century Palestine was already a desolate swampland that was not as populated as modern Arabs would have you believe. Many current day Palestinians are the descendants of Arab immigrants from other areas looking for work provided by new Jewish immigrants. You cannot compare this to Missouri.
Justify what you say with facts, if you claim that Palestine was a desolate swampland then you must corroborate that fact. As it happens you are wrong. The Zionist author Ahad Ha'am wrote in 1891:
"From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth it is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled; only sandy fields or stony hills, suitable at best for planting trees or vines and, even that, after considerable work and expense in clearing and preparing them--only these remain unworked."
Clearly your assertion that Palestine was a 'desolate swampland' seems to be at odds with Ahad Ha'ams experience, and he was the founder of cultural Zionism. But then again, what would he know compared to your bountiful knowledge of 19th Century middle eastern history?
Likewise, the question of 'Late Arab Immigration' is a total fabrication which no serious author takes seriously. Read the following quote from article which was written by Yehoshua Porath, the Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The context of the article is that Professor Porath is responding to a pro-Zionist book by Joan Peters which proposes that Arab population increase in the late 19th Century were due to them emigrating into Palestine from other Arab regions.
"Much of Mrs. Peters’s book argues that at the same time that Jewish immigration to Palestine was rising, Arab immigration to the parts of Palestine where Jews had settled also increased. Therefore, in her view, the Arab claim that an indigenous Arab population was displaced by Jewish immigrants must be false, since many Arabs only arrived with the Jews. The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives. It is true that in the middle of the nineteenth century there was neither a “Palestinian nation” nor a “Palestinian identity.” But about four hundred thousand Arabs—the great majority of whom were Muslims—lived in Palestine, which was divided by the Ottomans into three districts. Some of these people were the descendants of the pre-Islamic population that had adopted Islam and the Arabic language; others were members of Bedouin tribes, although the penetration of Bedouins was drastically curtailed after the mid-nineteenth century, when the Ottoman authorities became stronger and more efficient.As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no “natural” increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemics—typhoid, cholera, bubonic plague—decimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow."
The smartest thing the Palestinian Arabs ever did was name themselves as a people after a territory which existed two thousand years ago. The conglomeration of Arab peoples who happened to live in the Turkish territory of Palestine have little in common apart from language and a hatred of Israel. Their whole reason for existence as a unified "nation" is Israel.
You appear determined to embarrass yourself so fair enough, I'll provide you the opportunity.
What title (in English) do you think is appropriate to describe the nationality of a person who was born in what (in English) is called Palestine, whose parents were born in what (in English) is called Palestine, whose grandparents were born in Palestine, whose great grandparents were born in Palestine, whose great great grandparents were born in Palestine, whose great great great grandparents were born in Palestine, whose great great great great grandparents were born in Palestine, whose great great great great great grandparents were born in Palestine and whose whose great great great great great great grandparents were born in Palestine?
Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q. 2:191), to murder them and treat them harshly (Q. 9:123), slay them (Q. 9:5), fight with them, (Q. 8: 65 ) even if they are Christians and Jews, humiliate them and impose on them a penalty tax (Q. 9: 29). Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tell clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q. 3: 85). It relegates those who disbelieve in Quran to hell (Q. 5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q. 9: 28). It orders its followers to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q. 2: 193). It says that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q. 14: 17).
While Israel exists, muslims cannot rule the World, that's why they want it destroyed.
It is written, "Jerusalem is the city of the Great King." Jesus Christ is that Great King
The Devil has always wanted the worship of man [self deceived by pride but limited in power] from the beginning and to overthrow Gods rule in Israel and especially in Jerusalem. The fight over Mt. Zion where Jerusalem dwells, will be the cause of world war 3, also known as Armageddon.
REV 16:14 "For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
REV 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
REV 16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."
The Devil uses Islam as one of his religions to try and accomplish the task of himself being worshiped while knowing all along that he has but a short time before he will go the the lake of fire. He will be glad to take as many with him as is possible because he is a traitor of man and God, all that is good and so wants to destroy all that he can. God only allows him place in the world because the world at large listens to the Devil and follows his ways. The testing of free will. There is no vacuum in the spiritual world. Jesus said, "He that is not with Me is against Me."
Mankind has abdicated its right to rule in righteousness to the devil by following his ways. Their just reward will be too suffer his fate unless they turn to Jesus Christ for mercy, righteousness and as Jesus said, "power over all the power of the enemy."
REV 12:12 "Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to theinhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time."14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
IS 14:13 For you have said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [the old Jerusalem is on the sides of the north of Mt. Zion]
IS 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
IS 14:15 Yet you shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
IS 14:16 They that see you shall narrowly look upon you, and consider you, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
IS 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you think that went over in Riyadh?
