Israel and Palestine

I was going to flame you again, but now I read your last post desert.

It is funny I got on, and at first was going to apologize to you for insulting you (Although I wasn't going to do so to Poodle), then I saw your response to the insult and was going to flame again, then I saw your last post and now I am sorry for calling you an idiot before posting.

However I think you are wrong about Wahhabism.

The atrocities of Ibn Abdul Wahhab himself during the sack of Mecca, and Medina, and many Shiite Towns, the preaching of high ranking Saudi Officials like Ibn Saud, Abdul Wahhab's own writing condemning interfaith Diologue, rejection by the Ulama based in Saudi Arabia of meeting with the Pope during his visit to the Middle East along with the fact that the Ulama to this day openly praises the Taliban shows that Wahhabism unlike every other sect of Islam is not a peace oriented religion, especially considering the are the only ones to have Jihad as a pillar of the faith.

No other Sunni or Shiite sect has Jihad as a pillar of the faith, but that is not what is bad about Wahhabism, wether Jihad is an essential pillar or not is their right and obligation to argue, acting on it however, and preaching infidels do not have the right to live the way the last senior Ulama official Bin Bazz did is as unacceptable as what the White Aryan Church does.

Sorry for probably spelling Ulama wrong, and I am not saying that Wahhabism can't change just that it's current message which is broadcast in Saudi Arabia is one of Hatred.

Sorry if you are a Wahhabi, but the mainstream view eminating from the Saudi Ulama is that infidels should be eleminated.

Also I have known many people in Isreal being part Isreali who have been killed by suicide bombers, and I know three of the 976 soldiers who disobeyed their orders to gaurd the Settlements and applied for Conscience Objector status in regard to doing it and got it.

I agree that freedom is needed for peace, but you are wrong in saying Isrealis don't already have freedom (Sorry if that isn't what you meant).

Isreal is a democracy, with a very powerful and liberal court system (Palestinians without citizenship have in the past sued the Isreali Government before), and the proof is in Ariel Sharon's election.

In 2000 Edhud Barak was leader of Isreal, and then when he failed to deliver what he promised (which I do not view as his fault in any way) Ariel Sharon was elected.

 

Ok, let me correct a number of things here.

First off, im NOT a Wahabe, im a sunni. Wahabisim is a sect of islam that may seem more radical than others, but if ur claiming that they are completey evil then thats not true. (sorry).

Anyways, let me explain something of vital importance:
Theology, (surprisingly even today) has a number of wrong readings about many relegions. I can and am able to argue only about islam. First off, i have had a number of Islamic history courses and 40 percent of

what they teach about the beliefs of Islam is incorrect. Therefiore, i have been lead to the belief that Islam is one of the most misunderstood relegions. This is incredible taking into account that Islam has been around for more than centuries and has come into contact with the western world for a long time. First thing that is misunderstood is the concept of jihad. Jihad is not merely a crusade using military power. Jihad is usually done through education, it is a war of words. It is only and i stress only an act of force if your country has been invaded and u cannot target civilians in a jihad. That is strictly prohibited. The reason why so many civilians have died in recent conflicts is through acts of desperation( ie revenge if ur father gets killed by a IDF bullet) or through the teachings of crazy nuts and zealots. This is only one example and there are numerous others as well.


I never stated that the Israelis do not enjoy freedom, rather they do. I only stated that some Israelis would rather take the path of peaceful reconcilliation (such as the IDF pilots who refused to bomb civilians) rather than through a hardline to crush the palestinean willpower.

GP: Im sorry but i didnt fully understand ur question, but in Islam, if u kill a person other than in Jihad (see above definition of jihad) or as punishment for an extremely evil crime(like genocide); then ur supposed to go directly to hell unless u truthfully repent what u have done and God forgives u.

If u have any other comments tat u want me to adress feel free to ask.

 

2nd legion, Ullama is usually spelled with a double l but Ulama also is used so u can state it as Ulama.

 

Trouble is - these are the guys most of us Westerners see on the news.
And in fact here in own home town we had a Muslim cleric who went about preaching for attacks to be made on England, and wasn't Osama a genius, etc etc.
Yes, most Muslims that I know (Luton is about 20% Muslim) would never have anything to do with that kind of view, theologically or just 'ordinarily'. However, they are not the ones splattered across the front page of our local newspaper. It is 'Muslim cleric calls for Islamic Terror Campaign' that we get to hear.
Christianity has (mostly) gone through its phase of crazy nuts and zealots, and is now being dragged back into line with the actual teachings of the Bible.
Islam now seems to be having its phase of crazy nuts and zealots.

 

Very true Ricky, but lets not forget that at all times of history there are nutcases in all relegions, even today ud find some christains advocating armagedon to be fought to destroy all pagans. As to the rise of zealots, it doesnt have to do much with relegion as much as relegion is a weapon used by zealots. What i mean is that whenever u go to an area that its population is greatly suffering, ud find some crazy nuts advocating some kind of vendetta.

And its not only relegious . Look at the IRA and ETA.
Violence is never a means to achieve a result of stabilizing peace. Sadly enough, all relegions currently and in history have zealots and nutcases who attempt to use relegion as a weapon.

 

Ehm, actually, war throughout history has been the #1 tool to restore order as much as to disrupt it. I'm not warmongering here at all but violence sometimes, in exceptional cases, really does serve the common good.

Yup. Just today our newspaper's front page had the heading "Imam would like to see Wilders dead within two years" (Wilders is a right-wing populist).

 

DesertWolf - I agree, all religions have their share of nutcases & militant zealots.
Most religions have areas in their history when these types somehow become the most noted exponants of their religion.
For Christianity this was between around the 9th Century (the beginnings) to around the 18th/19th Century, although they still pop up frequently.
Things like the Inquisition, The Crusades, (all of them, including those directed against the Slavs, the Cathars, the rival Pope, etc etc), burning of heretics, all that stuff which is entirely against what Jesus preached, but was persued anyway by nutcases who managed to justify their actions in religious terms.
For Islam, it seems that their nutcase area is beginning. I hope for the sake of Muslims everywhere (and the rest of the world) that it does not last as long or is as extreme as the 'Christian' one.

btw - the IRA have a religious element - it is very much split between Catholic (Eire) and Protestant (Northern Ireland) - this split escalated the savagry of the fighting in Cromwell's time, when most of the bad memories started.

 

Roel: Violence is not a means to achieve peace simply because any violence invites retaliation and revenge. Its called an eye for an eye.

Well Ricky, i cant say that Islam didnt have its nutcases in the past and i cant say either that christainity doesnt have its nutcases now. As long as relegion exists, there well be zealots. Actually, u gave me a good example urself . Namely the IRA.

 

That is basically what I meant. If you agree with the likes of Bin Laden that Isreal is the Great Saten, and the US is his bed partner then to wage war on them is Jihad. It is therefore ok to kill them and the people allied with them.

If you are a moderate Muslim and don't fully believe it to be true then to kill the people who help them is to be sent to hell.

So to cut a long story short the suicide bombers who kill the Muslim police in Iraq are killing the minions of saten and therefore go to heaven, to moderate Muslims this is murder and they go to hell.

 

Im impressed GP.

As u state, all relegions defer in how u view theml and in which angles.
Obviously, if an Iraqi sees a marine kill his father, then he would come to the conclusion that all americans are evil.

However, there is a problem here.

Civilians can never be killed in Jihad. So ben Laden is out of bounds.
In fact, prison itself is disallowed, and any prisoners of war have to be treated as ur own brothers until they give u ur word to never attack ur country again.

 

The point I am making is how does one distinguish between a civilian and a soldier, in most armies the uniform is one way, but can the actions of a person make them a soldier or non-civilian?

 

Easy enough:

If hes in ur country and carries a gun and shoots at u, then hes not a civilian.

 

So what about someone from your country who is working for some who is in your country, carrying a gun and shooting you?

 

Well GP,

All this is pretty much selfexplanatory, if someone is shooting at u, then no matter who he is, u have to defend urself. Selfdefence is something everyone is allowed to do in every relegion.

 

But the person who orders the gunman to shoot at you, if he does not wear a uniform, is he to be left alone?
(thinking of the earlier example of bin Laden here)

 

So are the suicide bombers right as they don't want US intervention. I don't necessarrily want your view but in Islamic law, could it be justified. I believe this to be left to the interpretaion of the religion of the individual.

 

Foolishly, I was about to say:
"of course it can - they are doing it and they are being encouraged by various Imams etc"

But frankly all that has to mean is that somebody with a political axe to grind has created their own unique slant on interpreting the Koran.
Look at the Crusades. Where is the justification for them in Bible? Where is the justification of burning heretics, and all the other distinctly non-Christian stuff done in the name of Christianity?

However, I would have hoped that Islam, where I think all are required to read & learn the Koran (stop me if I'm wrong), should be rather more proof against this kind of abuse.
In all fairness, the Christian plebs of the Middle Ages could not read, and those that could still could not read the Bible, as it was in Latin, and not exactly freely available (the sheer expense alone of a book that big...).
They had no choice but to believe that what their theologians told them was correct. The modern Christian (and Muslim, Jew, etc etc) has no such excuse, as books (and literacy) are now widespread.

 

What people dont seem to understand, is such problems are not occuring only in one relegion in the modern day. Impossibly cruel things are occuring right now in all relegions!

Gp: I cannot say that i understand ur point. Suicide bombers are never ever allowed to explode themselves on civilians. IM NOT GIVING MY VIEW HERE. It is written in the koran.

Also, people like ben laden, they use the koran as an excuse much like other relegions currently do to breed hate and discrimination. No matter how u read any kind of religeus work. It does not tell u to murder innocent civilians. Obviously, if a guy gets a gun and starts trying to blow ur brain out, then u got to kill him before he kills u. Wether hes wearing a uniform has absolutely no relevance.

What Ricky said is xtremely perseptive. In this age, when learning is widespread, ud expect people to know better. However, let us not forget that it is usually the very poor that are prone to such actions. Also, literacy is not as widespread as wed like to think. Sadly enough, ieven in a fast developing country like morocco, only 50 percent know how to read or write!!!

 

This last is, sadly, very much true in most Third World nations; in fact, it's usually worse than the figures Desert Wolf gives for Morocco. These countries are either too poor or too racked by war and internal unrest (or both) to develop a comprehensive education system for their people. And even where any schools are, there are usually few, if any, ways for the children to get to them, especially when you factor in the kinds of terrain they live in.

 

Oh, don't confine this to the third world alone. In the Netherlands, one of the most developed countries in the world, 10% of the population is still illiterate. Admittedly there appears to be much overlap with the 10-15% immigrants...

The largest share of these come from Morocco and Turkey, the former apparently containing the largest group of illiterates, naturally because (unlike the Turkish) they are used to a different script.