What's new

Israeli inquiry: Flotilla raid was legal

This land never was Palestinian. In fact Palestinian nation was invented in 1964. Before that no one heard of any "Palestinian people".

As for conflict. There always was some conflict here since donosaurs times.


Would Turkey capture half of Cyprus if war there never happened? Would Nil Armstrong became famous if there was not a moon? Would Cameron film Avatar if there was not 3D glasses? Why the sky is blue?

Cheers :wave:

P.S. By the way East Jerusalem was catured from Jordanians not from Palestinians.

WHAT!! Now it has come to this that you deny the very existence of palestine. Who was it who offered the keys of Jerusalem to Umar? The Quran mentions Palestine 1400yrs ago.Surely you are not dneying books revealed 1400 hundred yrs ago and use your own warped logic to prove your right to a land that you have captured and coerced from its people over decades of repression and even now continue to do so inspite of condemnation form all the world. Dont try and pull wool over the eyes of this old man with your warped logic and at least have the courtesy to represent the facts correctly.
Araz
 
WHAT!! Now it has come to this that you deny the very existence of palestine.
I deny existance of Palestinian people before 1964. Plz find me any pre 1964 mention o Palestinian people.

Palestine is geographical term. It is based on term from Jewish Hebrew Bible and does not have anything to do with the Arabs.

The Quran mentions Palestine 1400yrs ago.
No it does not. In fact Quran says that this land is assigned to Jews and that Jews should settle there. There is no any Palestinians or Palestine in Quran.
 
No I dont.


Spare me of that nonsense.


Nonsense. Military service was job of professionals in Middle Ages. Only tiny fraction of population was fighting wars. The overhwelming majority both Muslims and non Muslims did not do any military service in their life.


Zakat was much smaller, it was paid by rich and middle class only and returned to Muslim poors. Jizya was paid by everyone. Poor non Muslims payd it too.


Spare me of that nonsense. In same neighborhood same class people Muslim houses supposed to be always higher than non Muslim.


Thats fact. Thats like you cant ride good car today.

Here text of Umar pact:

Medieval Sourcebook: Pact of Umar, 7th Century

So spare me lame propaganda plz.

You really need try to understand more instead of trying to deliberately portray a totally negative image which is not consistent with historical accounts.
On one hand there were many countries and states where you could not even openly follow your religion, this was not done by Muslims.
We have examples of Spain, Egypt and Jerusalem where Arab Muslim rulers were very tolerant of minorities, that is one of the reasons why the Muslim state enjoyed so much prosperity and were the torchbearers of knowledge while most of the world and Europe was in turmoil.
Both from Arab and Muslim perspective, Jews were a well integrated part of the society.
This trait was also shared by the Ottoman empire and the Fatimid s.
Salahuddin's era also shows many documented examples of tolerance, freedom and fair-play.

My purpose is to highlight the true values which my Muslim brothers should emulate and also to let you know that as per our authentic sources we are supposed to be very mindful of the rights of the minorities, and surely many rulers were mostly consistent in being tolerant.

The link you gave me has a big big question mark at the end which implies that this document is not something of a historical fact and cannot be traced to authentic sources, which is indeed the case if you read the analysis of this pact by many historians.

Even this link mentions Syria and the Christians whereas the Pact of Omar was supposedly between all the people of Jerusalem including Jews who handed over the city to the Muslims after the defeat of the Romans from the Palestinian theater of war.
There is a difference between the Dhimmiyin and the Muhaidin.
The Dhimmiyin are a nation which goes to war with Muslims and is defeated.
The Jews were not Dhimmiyin but Muhaidin and in that they had a superior status.
Muhaidin are those non Muslims who form a voluntary pact with the Muslim state.
Since the Romans had run off, the Jews voluntarily entered into a pact with the Muslims and therefore had a high status.

The Caliph Omar's Pact was nothing like the one you claim, the link you have given refers to a document which is not proven to be authentic and even its clauses are so similar to what the Jews in Persia got under the so called tolerant Sassanid empire (more tolerant than Romans, much less than Muslims) that most historians consider it as a sham document which is not Islamic in its inspiration but mostly based on the Sassanid pacts with the Jews.
This so called pact which you are referring to is indeed strange, but it is not the pact of Omar because there is no mention of it in the authentic books of Islam which are our guideline.

Actually if it was such an authentic document the Muslims scholars would all agree since Omar was a great iconic Muslims Caliph and his legacy is well preserved.
However this so called document only came to light in the 11th century and has no original source and is subject of much criticism by many Muslim scholars as being fake and used by some rulers in the 11th century to enforce or justify things which were not Islamic.

The pact of Omar was simple and brief, all rights were given to the minorities in Jerusalem and nothing was taken from them, they were free to follow their religion.
Those who wished to leave could take all their belongings with them.
The Jizya was to be paid by the Dhimmiyin but unlike the view you hold, by Muslim law any person who is genuinely poor is not liable to pay tax whether Zakat or Jizya.
Actually the Jizya is only applicable on able bodied men who can go to war, children, women, handicapped etc. do not come in this category at all.
Purpose of Jizya is to make the Dhimmiyin (who were previously enemies of Muslims state) as citizens of the Muslim state to give them rights.
However if a people became part of the Muslim state by entering into a pact rather than fighting a war and losing it, then they are the Muhaidin and they can have additional rights as per their pact.
The difference between two is that the rights of a Dhimmi is decided by the Islamic government alone (in line with the guideline) whereas the Muhaidin can have additional privileges as per their pact.
Both are citizens but the Dhimmiyin have to pay Jizya to become a citizen, even then the physical condition and the financial situation has to be reviewed by the state in imposing Jizya.

This is very clear in both the authentic sources and the sayings of early Muslim Caliphs and the Prophet PBUH.

The Prophet (PBUH) is reported to have said:

Beware! I myself shall invoke the justice of the Almighty on the Day of Judgement against the person who oppresses and persecutes a Mu‘āhid, or reduces his rights, or burdens him [with responsibilities] he cannot bear, or takes something from him against his will. (Abū Dā’ūd: No. 3052)


And yes, it was required of able bodied Muslim men to serve in the Muslims armies which were initially all irregular forces and not standing armies composed of professional soldiers, you could not be more wrong in this regards.

The authentic books and documents compiled in the Muslim world do show us what Omar really felt about the Dhimmiyin.
The most authentic book for Muslims after Quran is Sahih Bukhari which is a compilation of authentic and verified sayings of the Prophet PBUH and narratives of his companions.
Here is what Omar said at his deathbed.
CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts
Volume 2, Book 23, Number 475:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi:
......
By this time a young man from Ansar came and said, "O chief of the believers! Be happy with Allah's glad tidings. The grade which you have in Islam is known to you, then you became the caliph and you ruled with justice and then you have been awarded martyrdom after all this." 'Umar replied, "O son of my brother! Would that all that privileges will counterbalance (my short comings), so that I neither lose nor gain anything. I recommend my successor to be good to the early emigrants and realize their rights and to protect their honor and sacred things. And I also recommend him to be good to the Ansar who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith. He should accept the good of the righteous among them and should excuse their wrongdoers. I recommend him to abide by the rules and regulations concerning the Dhimmis (protectees) of Allah and His Apostle, to fulfill their contracts completely and fight for them and not to tax (overburden) them beyond their capabilities."


Like i said there can be example of a bad ruler who would have squeezed both his Muslim and non Muslim populations by using various tactics including using a supposed "pact of omar" which only came into being in the 11th century.
However when we look at most of the history, majority of Muslim rulers held true to the original and authentic examples and were tolerant of their non Muslim subjects.
This was actually in contrast to what was practiced in most of the world.

The Romans feeding the Christians to the Lions, the Spanish Inquisition which did horrible things to Muslims and Jews and the Nazi Germany are few examples of such open religious persecution of minorities.
We have no such inspiration in authentic Islamic sources and those who deviate from such sources are transgressors

As said in the Quran
Keep (your) covenants because indeed on the Day of Judgement you will be held accountable for them. (17:34)
This is one of the guidelines which highlights the significance of pacts made with anyone.
 
Last edited:
We have examples of Spain, Egypt and Jerusalem where Arab Muslim rulers were very tolerant of minorities,
In 11th century all minorities were expelled from Muslim Spain.
 
In 11th century all minorities were expelled from Muslim Spain.

So the Spanish Inquisition forcibly brought Jews from all over the world and then expelled them again?
You are viewing bits and pieces of history and taking a whole view of Muslim world without realizing that overall there was a much better integration of Jews and Muslims than we believe.
It was not heaven but it was quite good and when averaged over the centuries of Muslim rule, remarkably better than what happened before or after.

In 11th Century the Muslim Spain was broken up into many petty states with different rulers and different rules.
The Muslim Arab rulers had all but lost their power.
The Christian reconquest had nearly shattered the Muslim Spain and help was sought from the Muslim States in North Africa.
The Almoravid dynasty came to the aid of the Muslim State of Spain and defeated the Christians.
The Almoravids were alarmed by the power given to Jews under the Arab Muslim rulers, especially since even Viziers and Grand Viziers were Jews in some states of Muslim Spain.
There was initial hardening of stance by the Almoravid rulers towards the Jews especially since it was a time of great peril for the Muslim Spain. This was only temporary however as the war raged on and the Muslim Spain was being consolidated.
The Almoravids were deeply influenced by the Traditions of the Andalusian society and took lesson from the Arab era, becoming much relaxed in their dealings with minorities.
This resulted in Jews serving in positions of influence till the advent of Almohads.

The Almohads defeated the Almoravids in the 12th century and were themselves defeated by the Christians in the 13th century.
The Almohads had some hardline ideas which were reactionary and their attitude towards minorities was not in line with Islam.
This caused many Jews to leave the area under the control of Almohads in the 12th century (not 11), however even during their short rule the Almohads softened up.
Under the ruler Al Mansur there was enlightenment and men of universal significance like Averroes carried on with works of such revolutionary and critical nature that it would have given nightmares to any narrow minded ruler.
Averroes is hailed by many as the spiritual father of modern day Europe, many even hail him as the most secular voice of his day.

By 13th Century Spain was dominated by the Christian empire and a miserable chapter it was for Muslims and Jews.
Muslims were the natural enemy but the Jews got nowhere near what heights they had achieved in the Muslim state.
For a few decades there was calm between Christians and Jews and then things like wearing a yellow badge to identify oneself as a Jew was made mandatory by the Christian rulers.
Within a span of few decades open and brutal persecution started which continued for centuries against Jews and Muslims.

The Golden age for Jews in Spain was certainly under Arab Muslims when there was stability and adherence to the original guideline of responsibility towards minorities by the Muslim rulers, this was the golden age of Muslim Spain and the Jewish Spain.
 
So the Spanish Inquisition forcibly brought Jews from all over the world and then expelled them again?
In 11th century Muslims expelled Christians and Jews to Christian part of Spain. In 15th century Christians conquered the entire Spain and expelled Musims and Jews.
 
I deny existance of Palestinian people before 1964. Plz find me any pre 1964 mention o Palestinian people.

Palestine is geographical term. It is based on term from Jewish Hebrew Bible and does not have anything to do with the Arabs.


No it does not. In fact Quran says that this land is assigned to Jews and that Jews should settle there. There is no any Palestinians or Palestine in Quran.

If there was a region what do you call its people.If Saudi Arabia did not exist as a country prior to 1923, are you going to deny its existance. By the same token I can deny the existance of Israel. Your logic is warped and ends up denying your own existance as a country. You can go on denying whatever you like , but the facts do not support your logic.
Palestine existed and indeed Jews Christians and muslims lived there. The point orf contention is not whether XYor Z lived there or not. The point in contention is that force has been used to evict people from their homes and they have been denied the right to return to their homes.
Please do not try and come back with some more of your warped logic. It really does not interest us to hear lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom