Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Israel & UAE, Bahrain peace agreement

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators

Reader comment in the FT, makes some concise points about the UAE:

Quote

It is disappointing that the aggression of the UAE are not mentioned. 

What reason would there be to kill fisherman fishing. Even if they crossed into UAE waters, there is no reason to kill them and then hold their bodies. Is clear it is a attempt to provoke Iran, now that the UAE has Israel behind it. 
 
The UAE is the aggressor in that region. It is the UAE while pretending to be fighting in Yemen on behalf of the government there, [UAE] has taken over the largest Yemeni island there for its own benefit. Socotra. This is against the wishes of the UAE, Saudi backed  Yemeni government. 
 
 
The UAE tried to overthrow the Tunisan government
 
 
UAE has targeted Morroco, due to its policies of not getting involved in the Gulf.
 
 
UAE financed a military coup in Turkey.
 
 
This is what I know myself, but there is endless list of crimes committed by the UAE. They also pour massive sums to PR agencies in the US and Europe to insure we never read anything negative about them.
 

https://www.ft.com/content/1902e3da-ebe2-474d-aefb-aad2b89ec7a8

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hate the UAE, but peace agreements and normalization with the State of Israel is a good thing. My own country (Pakistan) should follow suit.

I think we should start discussing a UAE boycott. Any Arab or Muslim country who makes formal relations with Israel is a traitor to Islam and to their own people. Anyone, or any group who forcibly exp

Prime Minister Netanyahu already visited Oman in 2018, and they already have de facto relations with Israel. I believe, in general, this is a good trend and more Muslim countries should recognize

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Palestinians in Gaza slam UAE-Israel normalization deal

https://en.abna24.com/news//palestinians-in-gaza-slam-uae-israel-normalization-deal_1064160.html

Palestinian president blasts UAE-Israel agreement as 'nonsense'

Quote

"We are not concerned about the nonsense that is going on here or there, particularly in the last days when a tripartite agreement was announced between the UAE, Israel and America, which is based on the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE," Abbas said at an official meeting in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah on Tuesday.

In his first public remarks since the US-sponsored deal was announced last week, Abbas also accused Abu Dhabi of turning its back on Palestinians who have long been living under occupation in the West Bank and an Israeli-led blockade in the Gaza Strip.

"They (the UAE) have turned their backs on everything: the rights of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian state, the two-state solution, and the holy city of Jerusalem [al-Quds]," Abbas added.

https://en.abna24.com/news//palestinian-president-blasts-uae-israel-agreement-as-nonsense_1063899.html

Thousands rally in Yemen against UAE-Israel normalization deal

https://en.abna24.com/news//thousands-rally-in-yemen-against-uae-israel-normalization-deal_1064430.html

Analysis: Turkey condemns UAE-Israeli regime agreement

Quote

Bahrain, Egypt, Oman and the European Union welcomed and supported this agreement, but on the other hand, most Islamic countries have strongly stated their opposition to Abu Dhabi. Meantime, one of the main opponents that expressed deep concerns over the normalization of relations between the UAE and the Israeli regime was Turkey. At the outset, Ibrahim Kalin, the president's spokesman and adviser on foreign policy and national security, took a stand, condemning the UAE for a deceitful betrayal of the oppressed Palestinians. Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, tweeted on Friday, “History will not forget those who betray the Palestinian people and sell out the Palestinian cause,” adding “Turkey will continue to stand by the Palestinian people.” Leader of the Justice and Development Party, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday (14 August 2020) that Turkey could suspend diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates after a landmark deal between the Israeli regime and the UAE. “I gave an order to the foreign minister. I said we could suspend diplomatic relations with the Abu Dhabi administration or withdraw our ambassador,” Erdogan told reporters.

This was not the end of Turkey’s concerns. In a joint effort, the media and politicians of the country have magnified the threat of the Abu Dhabi-Tel Aviv agreement. For example, the Turkish media is portraying this agreement as a serious threat to Tehran and also a severe security threat for the region. All this propaganda is in the context that Turkey, as an Islamic country, has had the highest level of relations with the Israeli regime during the past decades, and there have been extensive relations between the two sides.

Political and Geopolitical Rivalries

Many possibilities could be the cause of Turkey's bid to magnify the threat of an agreement between the UAE and Israel, the most important of which can be evaluated in the equations of power in the Mediterranean Sea. Over the past year in a special effort Erdogan and Fayez al-Sarraj, prime minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya, agreed on the extraction of oil and gas energy resources in the Mediterranean Sea. Subsequently, by Libya setting field equations for the Turkish military to enter, it resulted in a strong disagreement of two sides opposing each other in the Mediterranean.

 the UAE, the military forces affiliated with Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, Greece, Cyprus and European countries, especially Russia and France. Erdogan's ambitious goals such as controlling Mediterranean energy resources, and the presence of Turkey in Libya, have led to the formation of an Arab-Western coalition against his country. 

 Turkey fears that the normalization of relations between the UAE and the Israeli regime will pave the path for a greater co-operation between Ankara's opposition in the Mediterranean and Libya. Ankara is clearly aware that in the new geopolitical rivalry, Europe and the US will increasingly defend the positions of the UAE and Saudi Arabia against Turkey........https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-turkey-condemns-uae-israeli-regime-agreement_1063887.html

https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-turkey-condemns-uae-israeli-regime-agreement_1063887.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Pompeo to visit Israel, UAE to discuss 'peace', Iran, China

Quote

AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly intends to visit the Israeli-occupied Palestine on Monday before traveling to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to discuss the despotic Arab kingdom’s normalization deal with the Tel Aviv regime.

The agenda of the hawkish top US diplomat will also include discussions with officials of the two regimes perceived “security challenges” posed by Iran and China in the region, Reuters reported Saturday citing two sources “briefed” on Pompeo’s itinerary “who declined to be identified by name or nationality.”

The development came shortly after the chief of Israel’s infamous Mossad spy agency, Yossi Cohen, traveled to the UAE in the first high-profile visit by a senior Israeli official for what was described as “security talks.”

During the visit, Cohen discussed cooperation “in the fields of security” with the UAE's National Security Advisor Sheikh Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi, according to the country’s official WAM news agency.

https://en.abna24.com/news//pompeo-to-visit-israel-uae-to-discuss-peace-iran-china_1064690.html

Analysis: Israeli-Emirati Relations: From Oil Embargo To Normalization

Quote

Relations before Oslo agreements 

Generally, the Israeli-Emirati relations should be divided into before and after the Oslo agreements between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). 

Relations after Oslo agreements 

Since the agreements signed between the PLO and the Israeli regime in Oslo in 1993 and then 1995, which came less than two decades after the Camp David Israeli-Egyptian agreement of 1978, the taboo surrounding Arab relations with the Israelis was gradually broken. 

Normalization of relationship  

There are two points regarding normalization. First, the ground for this move is the goals and interests the two sides seek behind the thaw. Second, the implications and impacts normalizing the ties will have. 

UAE drivers behind normalization 

Security-political goals 

Since its foundation and due to existence in a milieu in which two powerful regional players predominantly have conflicting ideas on regional cases, the UAE tried to play a role as a balancing factor between Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

Economic objectives behind the thaw 

Aside from the security and political goals as drivers behind the normalization, the UAE has economic objectives that make it move close to Tel Aviv with more enthusiasm. Generally, the Emirati economic goals can be marked in three categories: https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-israeli-emirati-relations-from-oil-embargo-to-normalization_1064158.html

Israeli expectations from the normalization

Despite the peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, the Israeli regime remains isolated as it is restricted in the Muslim and Arab atmosphere. Tel Aviv holds an agenda to move out of this isolation and normalization with the UAE is a long step towards this aim. The thaw with the UAE comes as the two were not at war just unlike the deal with Egypt and Jordan. In addition to pulling it out of regional isolation, the deal can grant the occupying Israeli regime a kind of legitimacy. That is why the Israelis strongly welcomed the normalization decision. 

The US role in the normalization 

https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-israeli-emirati-relations-from-oil-embargo-to-normalization_1064158.html

Influences on the Palestinian cause and Arab-Israeli relations 

https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-israeli-emirati-relations-from-oil-embargo-to-normalization_1064158.html

Impacts on Iranian interests and security environment 

https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-israeli-emirati-relations-from-oil-embargo-to-normalization_1064158.html

Analysis: Three Theories why Saudi still silent on Israeli-Emirati normalization deal

Quote

Bin Salman’s conservatism ahead of assuming the crown 

Weighing up the conditions and developments 

Riyadh checkmated 

https://en.abna24.com/news//analysis-three-theories-why-saudi-still-silent-on-israeli-emirati-normalization-deal_1063891.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

There are two main issues with the creation of "Israel".

1) The establishment of a nation based on "race", which by definition means that the Jewish race is the special race in "Israel", and that the State must protect its "Jewishness". 

2) The fact that it caused a mass exodus of people whose ancestors have been living there for centuries. If a Native American or an Aboriginal Australian decided to kick some random white guy out of his home that he currently lives in for decades because this is their "homeland", they would rightly be prosecuted and found guilty of crimes for that action. This whole "homeland" argument is a farce. It doesn't matter whose homeland it is, you deal with facts on the ground based on who already lives there.

The solution from the beginning should have been establishing one State in the Land of Palestine based on the people already living there in 1948, and the State should have been neither Jewish or Arab or whatever, rather just another nation-state among many. Now this is impossible, sadly.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 6:23 AM, Sumerian said:

There are two main issues with the creation of "Israel".

1) The establishment of a nation based on "race", which by definition means that the Jewish race is the special race in "Israel", and that the State must protect its "Jewishness". 

Israel is home to Jews of a variety of racial background, from black Ethiopians to pale skin Russians. Racially, both Israel and the global Jewish diaspora is very racially and ethnically diverse. It's absurd to characterize the State of Israel as a "racial state". On the other hand, most of the other nation states of the world tend to be racially homogeneous

Quote

2) The fact that it caused a mass exodus of people whose ancestors have been living there for centuries. If a Native American or an Aboriginal Australian decided to kick some random white guy out of his home that he currently lives in for decades because this is their "homeland", they would rightly be prosecuted and found guilty of crimes for that action. This whole "homeland" argument is a farce. It doesn't matter whose homeland it is, you deal with facts on the ground based on who already lives there.

The solution from the beginning should have been establishing one State in the Land of Palestine based on the people already living there in 1948, and the State should have been neither Jewish or Arab or whatever, rather just another nation-state among many. Now this is impossible, sadly.

This is plain revisionism of history, history that is modern at that! The mass exodus, as you describe it, was entirely voluntary, and even called for by the Arabs during the 1948 war.

The UN presented its partition plan of Palestine, which the Arabs arrogantly rejected. That was among their greatest blunders. The UN partition plan was a very fair plan too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Israel is home to Jews of a variety of racial background, from black Ethiopians to pale skin Russians. Racially, both Israel and the global Jewish diaspora is very racially and ethnically diverse. It's absurd to characterize the State of Israel as a "racial state". On the other hand, most of the other nation states of the world tend to be racially homogeneous.

The land of Palestine (or Israel as you describe it) is home to many different ethnicities including Jews. The notion that the State that should be in charge of that land should be " a Jewish State" is absurd, because that immediately means that by definition, that non-Jews are guests to the land, even if they were people whose families and forefathers have lived there for centuries.

And by the way, I would say the exact same thing had the State been an "Arab State", the belief that countries should be established on basis of ethnicity (I won't use race just for you) does not belong in the 21st Century. One nation state that is blind to ethnicity is the only way forward, for all nations. 

I am consistent in this belief, in fact, I extend it to my country, Iraq, whom I believe should stop calling itself an "Arab Republic" because we have a variety of ethnicities who live in it and have lived in it. This isn't just an "Israel-Palestine" thing for me.

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

This is plain revisionism of history, history that is modern at that! The mass exodus, as you describe it, was entirely voluntary, and even called for by the Arabs during the 1948 war.

The UN presented its partition plan of Palestine, which the Arabs arrogantly rejected. That was among their greatest blunders. The UN partition plan was a very fair plan too.

Not revisionist at all, there was a civil war in the land of Palestine before the declaration by the UN was even announced. Both Zionists and Palestinian nationalists were killing each other, and this contributed to people fleeing their home from both sides, and the attacks by the Zionist militias in particular was one of the contributing factors for Arabs fleeing the area.

The 1948 war happened after habibi, people were fleeing even before it happened.

The plan, had the Arabs accepted it, would be a blessing seeing as the Palestinians have virtually no territory now. But my belief is a State with no claim to any ethnicity should have been established, just as a modern nation-state should be. None of this claim to the land nonsense based on ancient history, which like I said if we were to uphold such a standard, the first who will fall victim to it are countries like America and Australia, because then the land "should be returned to the natives", which is rubbish.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sumerian said:

The land of Palestine (or Israel as you describe it) is home to many different ethnicities including Jews. The notion that the State that should be in charge of that land should be " a Jewish State" is absurd, because that immediately means that by definition, that non-Jews are guests to the land, even if they were people whose families and forefathers have lived there for centuries.

And by the way, I would say the exact same thing had the State been an "Arab State", the belief that countries should be established on basis of ethnicity (I won't use race just for you) does not belong in the 21st Century. One nation state that is blind to ethnicity is the only way forward, for all nations. 

I am consistent in this belief, in fact, I extend it to my country, Iraq, whom I believe should stop calling itself an "Arab Republic" because we have a variety of ethnicities who live in it and have lived in it. This isn't just an "Israel-Palestine" thing for me.

Not revisionist at all, there was a civil war in the land of Palestine before the declaration by the UN was even announced. Both Zionists and Palestinian nationalists were killing each other, and this contributed to people fleeing their home from both sides, and the attacks by the Zionist militias in particular was one of the contributing factors for Arabs fleeing the area.

The 1948 war happened after habibi, people were fleeing even before it happened.

The plan, had the Arabs accepted it, would be a blessing seeing as the Palestinians have virtually no territory now. But my belief is a State with no claim to any ethnicity should have been established, just as a modern nation-state should be. None of this claim to the land nonsense based on ancient history, which like I said if we were to uphold such a standard, the first who will fall victim to it are countries like America and Australia, because then the land "should be returned to the natives", which is rubbish.

Most states in the world today are ethnic nation states. Just consider Europe as an example, the very names of countries indicate which ethnic group is belongs to: Portugal (Portuguese), Spain (Spanish), Italy (Italian), Ireland (Irish), Germany (German), Denmark (Dane), Norway (Norwegian), Sweden (Swede), Finland (Finn), Poland (Pole), Russia (Russian), Croatia (Croat), Serbia (Serb), Greece (Greek), etc.

Israel being a Jewish state simply means it is the homeland for the Jewish people, what is unique about it is the right of return. I'll give you a scenario to help you understand. Suppose Ireland was conquered and dispossessed of 90% of its people. They were scattered to various parts of the world. Then after a long time, an Irish militia was able to liberate the island and they declared Ireland an Irish state. This new Irish state also declares that all of the people who were originally scattered and their descendants are citizens of that state, or they are entitled to citizenship should they wish to return to the island. Would you say such a law is discrimination, because an Irish-American is entitled to become citizen of Ireland, but not a German-American or an Italian-American? The German or Italian, if they want to move to Ireland and become its citizens, have to go through a long process of immigration, whereas the Irish person is automatically a citizen even if he wasn't born in Ireland. That makes perfect sense to me. It is simply a method of restoring the original citizenry of a country who were forcefully dispossessed from their country. And this applies to any country. If their core population was one day forced to flee, then generations later the original state is re-established, wouldn't it make sense to entitle citizenship to those who can prove descent from the original generation of that country who were dispossessed and forced to flee? That's because those descendants would have been born in that country had the illegal conquest and dispossession not taken place.

So you claim to be consistent, but you say there is an issue with the creation of Israel, then that means there is an issue with the creation of Iraq and Syria ("Arab" republics), and an issue with the creation of Pakistan, which was created specifically as a Muslim state for Indian Muslims. Likewise an issue with the creation of Bangladesh as a Bengali state, and so on and so forth.

Israel is also different from America and Australia case, because the Jews practically established it through force of arms, not simply through a claim. If indigenous people of America or Australia established a homeland for their people in those respective territories, who could argue they don't have the right? The present states in America and Australia were also established as forced, through forceful colonization, and in America's case, through armed revolution and war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who say the transformation of Hagia Sophia into a Mosque was a historical wrong committed by the Ottomans (and now again under Erdogan), what do they say about the construction of the structures on the Temple Mount. The octagonal structure known as the Dome of the Rock was constructed by commission of the Umayyad ruler Abd al-Malik. Historical records also show that the structure of what we call Masjid al-Aqsa on the southern end of the Temple Mount occurred under Abd al-Malik as well, though there is some debate whether sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه built a small, quadrangular structure where Masjid al-Aqsa now stands.

From an Islamic perspective, it seems evident that the construction of these two structures was never required at the very least. It can be argued that their construction was illegal too, but it first has to be admitted in principle that their construction was never mandated or required by Islam. The Quran refers to the site of the Temple Mount as Masjid al-Aqsa before there were these two structures upon it, during the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم Isra.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Most states in the world today are ethnic nation states. Just consider Europe as an example, the very names of countries indicate which ethnic group is belongs to: Portugal (Portuguese), Spain (Spanish), Italy (Italian), Ireland (Irish), Germany (German), Denmark (Dane), Norway (Norwegian), Sweden (Swede), Finland (Finn), Poland (Pole), Russia (Russian), Croatia (Croat), Serbia (Serb), Greece (Greek), etc.

These are names, not policy. Israel openly claims that it works to advance the "interests of the Jewish peoples", despite the land it governs containing more than one ethnicity.

Imagine if the United Kingdom released a policy that it works to "advance the interests of the Anglo-Saxon people", that would be rightly condemned, because the meaning of "British" nowadays has expanded and includes any and all ethnicities. Gone are the faulty ideologies of the past that gave ethnicity importance, they don't belong in the 21st Century.

And to show how extreme this ethno-nationalism has gotten, this is a text from a law passed in the Knesset last year:

“the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”

This is by definition exclusionary to the Arab minority (citzenry) that lives there and not just the Palestinians it occupies.

Again, imagine if the UK passed a law with the exact same wording but replaced Israel with "United Kingdom" and "Jewish people" to "Anglo-Saxon people".

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Israel being a Jewish state simply means it is the homeland for the Jewish people, what is unique about it is the right of return. I'll give you a scenario to help you understand. Suppose Ireland was conquered and dispossessed of 90% of its people. They were scattered to various parts of the world. Then after a long time, an Irish militia was able to liberate the island and they declared Ireland an Irish state. This new Irish state also declares that all of the people who were originally scattered and their descendants are citizens of that state, or they are entitled to citizenship should they wish to return to the island. Would you say such a law is discrimination, because an Irish-American is entitled to become citizen of Ireland, but not a German-American or an Italian-American? The German or Italian, if they want to move to Ireland and become its citizens, have to go through a long process of immigration, whereas the Irish person is automatically a citizen even if he wasn't born in Ireland. That makes perfect sense to me. It is simply a method of restoring the original citizenry of a country who were forcefully dispossessed from their country. And this applies to any country. If their core population was one day forced to flee, then generations later the original state is re-established, wouldn't it make sense to entitle citizenship to those who can prove descent from the original generation of that country who were dispossessed and forced to flee? That's because those descendants would have been born in that country had the illegal conquest and dispossession not taken place.

First of all, by liberate, do you mean people who have been living in that land for centuries have to leave, or do you simply mean reestablishing political control of the land? Because just so you understand, I am not against Jewish migration to Palestine, nor am I against any migration of any one or any peoples to anywhere, I am against living on someone's property that another person and their family used to live in.

And "right to return" makes zero sense to me, because like I said I do not put value into ethnicity. Ever since the dawn of time land has been conquered and reconquered and people have migrated for thousands of years, and as long as you have direct relations to the land, (through relatives, as is common in citzenship applications), then your citzenship is as good as anybody else's. What happened 1,000 years ago is meaningless to you.

Finally, the scenario you painted is irrelevant even to this context. The Arabs living in Palestine before the creation of Israel did not "force" the Jews out and conquer the land, only for Jews to reconquer it. Jews were leaving that area for centuries, before even the Middle Ages. What do the Arabs living there have to do with it? 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

So you claim to be consistent, but you say there is an issue with the creation of Israel, then that means there is an issue with the creation of Iraq and Syria ("Arab" republics), and an issue with the creation of Pakistan, which was created specifically as a Muslim state for Indian Muslims. Likewise an issue with the creation of Bangladesh as a Bengali state, and so on and so forth.

Yes I do. Which is why I personally don't want my country, Iraq, to have the word "Arab Republic" in its name for the sake of showing we are a nation of multiple ethnicites and peoples.

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Israel is also different from America and Australia case, because the Jews practically established it through force of arms, not simply through a claim. If indigenous people of America or Australia established a homeland for their people in those respective territories, who could argue they don't have the right? The present states in America and Australia were also established as forced, through forceful colonization, and in America's case, through armed revolution and war.

If Native Americans took up arms and established their "former territories" by force, I would say they are criminals and are breaking US laws.

My view is: the UN should have established one nation in the Land of Palestine (call it whatever) with equal rights for Jews and Arabs.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Ever since the dawn of time land has been conquered and reconquered and people have migrated for thousands of years, and as long as you have direct relations to the land, (through relatives, as is common in citzenship applications), then your citzenship is as good as anybody else's. What happened 1,000 years ago is meaningless to you.

Since that is your attitude, then simply consider the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state an example of the ongoing phenomenon of conquest and reconquest. According to your logic, the very concrete existence of the State of Israel is its legitimacy, then all other legal and historical arguments are secondary. If according to you historical wrongs should not be corrected, then simply consider this another "historical wrong" which cannot be corrected in favor of the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees and lost their homes.

Quote

If Native Americans took up arms and established their "former territories" by force, I would say they are criminals and are breaking US laws.

Of course they would be breaking the law. The American revolutionaries were breaking British law when they revolted in the late 18th century. But let's say the "Native Americans" actually succeed in their revolution and establish a state, with power, and such a state becomes a reality, regardless of whether it is recognized by its immediate neighbors or even the broader international community. What would you say about such a State, does it have the right to exist? From a moral and legal perspective? They would argue it does, they would actually consider it a partial redress of a grave historical injustice against their ancestors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Since that is your attitude, then simply consider the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state an example of the ongoing phenomenon of conquest and reconquest. According to your logic, the very concrete existence of the State of Israel is its legitimacy, then all other legal and historical arguments are secondary. If according to you historical wrongs should not be corrected, then simply consider this another "historical wrong" which cannot be corrected in favor of the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees and lost their homes.

Because we live in the 21st Century where there are international treaties, laws and bodies that oversee international security and borders. We don't live in the past world where you had Empires going to war to expand their territory, or atleast we should keep those ideologies in the past. The "phenomenon" of conquest should be thrown into the garbage bin of history.

Israel as a government and military is a fact on the ground whether people like it or not, but that doesn't mean I cannot criticise its establishment or its legitimacy.

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

 

Of course they would be breaking the law. The American revolutionaries were breaking British law when they revolted in the late 18th century. But let's say the "Native Americans" actually succeed in their revolution and establish a state, with power, and such a state becomes a reality, regardless of whether it is recognized by its immediate neighbors or even the broader international community. What would you say about such a State, does it have the right to exist? From a moral and legal perspective? They would argue it does, they would actually consider it a partial redress of a grave historical injustice against their ancestors.

See the way you think is; power = reality, it must be accepted. I don't believe in that, like I said, such ideologies belong in the past.

Edited by Sumerian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

The UAE Israel Peace deal is The End of an Era 

Eng subs Shahid Mutahhari on Palestine 

 

Shaheed Ayatollah Mutahhri on Palestine 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2020 at 7:10 PM, Cherub786 said:

Since that is your attitude, then simply consider the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state an example of the ongoing phenomenon of conquest and reconquest. According to your logic, the very concrete existence of the State of Israel is its legitimacy, then all other legal and historical arguments are secondary. If according to you historical wrongs should not be corrected, then simply consider this another "historical wrong" which cannot be corrected in favor of the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees and lost their homes.

Of course they would be breaking the law. The American revolutionaries were breaking British law when they revolted in the late 18th century. But let's say the "Native Americans" actually succeed in their revolution and establish a state, with power, and such a state becomes a reality, regardless of whether it is recognized by its immediate neighbors or even the broader international community. What would you say about such a State, does it have the right to exist? From a moral and legal perspective? They would argue it does, they would actually consider it a partial redress of a grave historical injustice against their ancestors.

Your analogy is flawed in several ways. 

First, the concept of 'Native American' is a concept that was invented by the Europeans who stole land from various tribes which were present in North America in the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. What was here at that time was various areas controlled by various groups, called tribes, which inhabited certain areas. There were the Apache, the Shawnee, the Arapaho, the Navajo, the Crow, the Ute, etc, etc. There were hundreds of different tribes which lived separately but cooperated with each other in certain areas. They had a leadership structure but the idea of one Cheif for all the Tribes and one government that controlled all the land of North America, from the East Coast to the West Coast was an idea that never existed amoung the Native American tribes. So to create an 'Native American' state similar to the US, as a Nation State as we understand it today would be a modern invention, and would have to rely on establishment of a government structure that never existed amoung the Native Americans, so this 'State' would be an artificial creation and I would say most likely you would never get all the Native Americans to agree on one leader and one form of government, since, even now, each tribe has their own leader or leaders and their own forms of government. Movements that happened in the US, amoung the Native Americans in the 19th Century, such as the movement of Black Elk and others were a response to the slaughter, genocide, and wholesale land theft carried out by the White European settlers. This type of slaughter, on a wide scale leading to genocide, and theft of land where whole tribes were displaced didn't happen before the White settlers came. Tribes had wars and disputes in the past, but these wars and disputes were on a much smaller scale than what happened after the White Settlers came and did not result in genocide or the displacement of whole tribal societies. This is North America. South America is a different story and similar things happened in Mexico and Peru with the rise of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca which were colonizing empires similar to the Spanish which came afterward. This is why the history of Native Americans of South America is much different vs. North America. 

The main problem that the Native American tribes of North America had with the European Settlers was the breaking of treaties that were signed and broken and subsequent land theft, and the slaughters of Native American people and genocidal policies of the US Government that destroyed 90% of the Pre Colombian Native American population. These policies and the subsequent harms that resulted to the Native Americans of North America have never, to this day been addressed or even fully acknowledged by the US Government. The same government that did all these crimes is the same government that rules the US today. That is the main problem. I don't see it going away any time soon. 

The establishment of Israel is another story, in one way, but the same in another. First, as muslims, we are all one 'tribe'. I'm sure you understand the concept of One Ummah, so I won't go over the explanation for this. In Islam, as you stated in another post, 'the lives, land, and property of the muslims is sacred'. So if a non muslim comes along and steals the land of the muslim and expels them, we have a duty to fight against those people. The Holy Quran says, 'fight against those who expel you from your land'. The 'you' means muslims. So if you are expelled from your land, I have a duty to fight with you, in whatever way I am able until you regain your rights. So if we are One Ummah, and muslims have gotten their land taken by non muslims and they are expelled from their land, it is out duty to fight against those who did this until the 'Haqq' is restored, i.e. until those who had their rights taken away regain their rights. This is a duty of all muslims, not just some. Not only did all of this happen, but Masjid Al Aqsa, the third Holiest place in Islam (The Holy Kaaba being the first, and Masjid An Nabawwi in Medina being the second, just in case you thought Shias don't have this concept) was stolen from Muslim and is now under the total control of non muslims (Kuffar). If you are fine with muslim land being stolen, muslims being oppressed and made stateless, and Masjid Al Aqsa being stolen from the Muslim, then as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is my witness I am not fine with it, I will never accept it. There are billions of muslims who feel the same way. This has nothing to do with the issue of Shia and Sunni and this issue is constantly bantered about by the Kuffar in order to divide us so that they may continue to steal from and oppress all muslims, not just Shia. 

So when UAE makes a formal peace deal with Israel, what they are saying is not that Israel exists, we already know that Israel exists. We are not dumb. But when the accept this deal what they are saying is that we no longer care that muslim land is stolen and the Haqq has never been restored and that we no longer care that Masjid Al Aqsa is controlled by the Kuffar and we no longer care that our brothers and sisters in Islam are forced to live as prisoners in an Apartheid State with no hope of their rights ever being restored. The government of UAE did this for money, we all know that, they sold their deen for some pittance in the dunya. If the people of the UAE accept this position of their government, then they will take the consequences of this. That is why I am not 'fine' with muslims countries establishing formal relations with Israel until the Haqq is restored. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

This is why the history of Native Americans of South America is much different vs. North America. 

My friend there was no need to write such a lengthy essay on the Native Americans, they are not my concern. I was merely responding to the point that if Jews can have a state in Palestine because it was their historic homeland than what about the Native Americans. Now you have pointed out that the Native Americans are not actually a single nation but a bunch of tribes and bands with varying cultures, languages, political structures, and habitations. All I said was that if the Native Americans want to have a state in their historic homeland and they one day achieve that, I have no particular problem with it. But you have correctly pointed out that Native American is an artificial construct, they are disparate tribes and bands and are not a monolith. Fine, but how does that invalidate my argument that Jews have a right to a state in their historic homeland of Palestine?

Quote

The establishment of Israel is another story, in one way, but the same in another. First, as muslims, we are all one 'tribe'. I'm sure you understand the concept of One Ummah, so I won't go over the explanation for this. In Islam, as you stated in another post, 'the lives, land, and property of the muslims is sacred'. So if a non muslim comes along and steals the land of the muslim and expels them, we have a duty to fight against those people.

Muslims are not a tribe. Yes, we are an Ummah, but Ummah is not a political unit or entity. Ummah is a religious community composed of various tribes, ethnic groups, languages, races, and nations.

You also quoted the Hadith incorrectly, it says the "blood, wealth and honor of the Muslim is sacred". It is speaking of Muslims in their individual capacity, listing their fundamental individual right of the inviolability of their blood, wealth and honor.

The Jewish State of Israel did not steal "Muslim land" (there is no such concept as Muslim land), nor did it expel anyone from their homes. Arabs themselves left their homes voluntarily in 1948. There is no such concept as the inviolability of entire countries from being conquered either in Islam. The inviolability applies only to private property.

Quote

This is a duty of all muslims, not just some.

I disagree, it is Fard Kifayah not Fard Ayn

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

The Holy Quran says, 'fight against those who expel you from your land'. The 'you' means muslims.

Incorrect, you refers only to those who have been expelled from their land. It is not the duty of all Muslims around the world to materially come to their aid. Neither is that practical nor mandated. It is certainly mustahhab for Muslims to participate in the Jihad of self-defense of other Muslims who are being oppressed, but I find nothing that will indicate it being wajib.

And if you don't mind me asking, if it is a Fard Ayn (upon every able bodied, Muslim adult male) to fight the Zionists until Palestine is restored, what are you doing in Dearborn, Michigan?

Quote

Not only did all of this happen, but Masjid Al Aqsa, the third Holiest place in Islam (The Holy Kaaba being the first, and Masjid An Nabawwi in Medina being the second, just in case you thought Shias don't have this concept) was stolen from Muslim and is now under the total control of non muslims (Kuffar).

Incorrect. Masjid al-Aqsa is under the control and custody of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf. Even if it was under the custody and control of the State of Israel, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as they continue to grant Muslims access to the Mosque

Quote

 That is why I am not 'fine' with muslims countries establishing formal relations with Israel

Establishing formal relations with Israel does not mean Muslims are sacrificing the Palestinians, or that they are assenting to the violation of their fundamental rights. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم established formal relations with the pagans of Makkah through the Treaty of Hudaibiyah despite the fact that Muslims left behind in Makkah were still being persecuted, nor were they permitted to seek refuge in Madinah under the terms of the treaty.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I disagree, it is Fard Kifayah not Fard Ayn

Salam do you don't  know basic laws or you are trying to ignore it because  "Fard Kifayah " is about personal  duty about muslim  community for giving public service  to Muslims like Butchery or cleaning &burying  dead bodies but in war we don't  have "Fard Kifayah " in war with Zionists or anything  that is a treat toward whole muslims but you play with words to justify  your retreat from war with enemies of Islam. 

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Fine, but how does that invalidate my argument that Jews have a right to a state in their historic homeland of Palestine?

The situation of real Jews is completely similar to  Native Americans  situation  also Jews believe that they only can enter to promised land under command of coming Messiah that any attempt like actions of Israel & zionists is against  any Jewish law even a some of traditionalist Jewish residents in current Israel don't  approve  actions of Zionists .

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Establishing formal relations with Israel does not mean Muslims are sacrificing the Palestinians, or that they are assenting to the violation of their fundamental rights. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم established formal relations with the pagans of Makkah through the Treaty of Hudaibiyah despite the fact that Muslims left behind in Makkah were still being persecuted, nor were they permitted to seek refuge in Madinah under the terms of the treaty.

at First prophet  Muhammad  (pbu)  made peace  treaty when he & Muslims had upper hand status toward pagans of Makkah which Muslims were united Ummah so they were able to conquer  Makkah even without making peace deal that because of making peace deal Umar criticized  prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) because  he believed that they must take Makkah by brutal force but prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) had another  idea under divine  guidance of Allah that is clearly  recorded  in all sunni sources.

in Secondit seems that you don't  read the peace treaty because the peace treaty was clearly was allowing Muslims to visit Makkah for pilgrimage  & spreading  of Islam anywhere without fear that they were free to travel to any city that they were in total safety due content of peace treaty that in opposition of your words the treaty caused high level of pressure   on Pagans even in Makkah  that leads to breaking of peace treaty by pagans lesser than six years before ending years of peace treaty but it seems that you read peace treaty in reverse then you mistook pagans with Muslims.:book:

Quote

Conditional Points of the Treaty[edit]

Having a long discussion Both Parties agreed with some conditional poins, they are like-

  1. The  Messenger  of Allah  will have  to  return to  Medina  instead of  having entranced Mecca that year. The Muslim shall perform their pilgrimage on upcoming year and  they  would stay  in  peace at  Mecca  for three  days  with no  arms  except sheathed swords.
  2. There  will  be a  truce  between both  parties  for ten  years,  whereby during  this period all the people may enjoy safety and harmony.
  3. Whoever wish to enter into a covenant with the Prophet will be allowed to do so, and whoever wish to enter into a covenant with the Quraysh will be allowed to do so. Whoever enter into anyone of the parties, will be considered as a part of that party.   Likewise,  any   sort   of  exaggeration   on   them  will   be   considered  as exaggeration against that party.
  4.  Whoever come  to  Muhammad  from  Mecca fleeing  away  without having permission from his/her guardians, will be sent back to the Quraysh, but whoever come to the Quraysh from the Muslims will not be sent back to the Muslims. And the Writer of the treaty was Ali Ibn Abu Taleb.[6]

Umar's opposition[edit]

After the treaty was signed, most of the pilgrims objected to Muhammad giving in on most points to the Quraysh, use the name of Allah and call himself the Messenger of God. That led to Umar questioning about Muhammad's resolve.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] after that he used to regret that he used to talk to the Prophet in the manner that he had never use to talk before.[11] This has even been recorded in Sahih Muslim.[14][original research?]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

https://www.britannica.com/event/Pact-of-Al-Hudaybiyah

https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/treaty-hudaybiyya

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam do you don't  know basic laws or you are trying to ignore it because  "Fard Kifayah " is about personal  duty about muslim  community for giving public service  to Muslims like Butchery or cleaning &burying  dead bodies but in war we don't  have "Fard Kifayah " in war with Zionists or anything  that is a treat toward whole muslims but you play with words to justify  your retreat from war with enemies of Islam. 

If we don't have Fard Kifayah in war, and in war with Zionists as you claim, then may I ask why are you on the internet and not going to Palestine to fight the Zionists?

Quote

The situation of real Jews is completely similar to  Native Americans

You need to hash it out with @Abu Hadi who said: "Your analogy [with Jews and Native Americans] is flawed in several ways"

Quote

also Jews believe that they only can enter to promised land under command of coming Messiah that any attempt like actions of Israel & zionists is against  any Jewish law even a some of traditionalist Jewish residents in current Israel don't  approve  actions of Zionists .

Not all Jews believe that they can enter the Promised Land only after the coming of the Messiah. Even the anti-Zionist Jews don't believe dwelling in the Promised Land is forbidden for Jews, they only say establishing a State in the Promised Land is forbidden until the Messiah comes. Either way, it is an internal dispute among the Jews, as far as we Muslims are concerned, the Messiah عليه السلام has already come and gone.

I accept the validity of Zionism and see nothing wrong with it as a Muslim. It makes no sense for you to cite anti-Zionist Jews as an argument, for that is an appeal to an authority I do not consider binding on me.

Quote

at First prophet  Muhammad  (pbu)  made peace  treaty when he & Muslims had upper hand status

The point is the action of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is a Shari proof that it is allowed to make peace treaties with the enemy. Whether one has the upper hand or not is irrelevant, it is a matter of discretion or wisdom, but as far as the legal aspect, or the Shari'ah is concerned, it is definitely allowed for Muslim states (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Albania, UAE) to recognize the State of Israel.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
16 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

If we don't have Fard Kifayah in war, and in war with Zionists as you claim, then may I ask why are you on the internet and not going to Palestine to fight the Zionists?

Because  public Jihad not yet announced  by our Marjas  also our  current war with Zionists is in fields of politics & social media even Hizbullah is in defensive  state as the frontliner of resistance  but Sunni groups  like Hamas are in state of offensive Jihad so according to your post you must go to  Palestine to fight with Zionists  but at least I'm a keyboard warrior against  zionist instead of being a Zionist sympathizer like you.

24 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

it is definitely allowed for Muslim states (Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Bosnia, Albania, UAE) to recognize the State of Israel.

none of them leader of Muslim Ummah also none of them have authority  over Shia muslims so any action by them for recognizing State of Israel is void for any Shia Muslim  that even  Sunni muslims don't  accept this treason from them which even in UAE some groups of Sunnis rejected action of their government .  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Because  public Jihad not yet announced  by our Marjas  also our  current war with Zionists is in fields of politics & social media even Hizbullah is in defensive  state as the frontliner of resistance

First you claim it is Fard Ayn, and now your making excuses and changing your story.

Quote

 Sunni groups  like Hamas are in state of offensive Jihad so according to your post you must go to  Palestine to fight with Zionists

Hamas are a bunch of terrorists. They aren't orthodox Sunnis, they are Ikhwanis

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

 

Incorrect, you refers only to those who have been expelled from their land. It is not the duty of all Muslims around the world to materially come to their aid. Neither is that practical nor mandated. It is certainly mustahhab for Muslims to participate in the Jihad of self-defense of other Muslims who are being oppressed, but I find nothing that will indicate it being wajib.

And if you don't mind me asking, if it is a Fard Ayn (upon every able bodied, Muslim adult male) to fight the Zionists until Palestine is restored, what are you doing in Dearborn, Michigan?

 

I'm not going to discuss Fiqh with you because you listed your mathab as 'Salafi'. Obviously, you being a follower of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab and Ibn Taymiyya, you consider us to be Kafir. So I think a Fiqhi discussion based on those premises would be fruitless.

Quote

Incorrect. Masjid al-Aqsa is under the control and custody of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf. Even if it was under the custody and control of the State of Israel, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as they continue to grant Muslims access to the Mosque

You want to split hairs here ok. I'll ask you a simple quesiton. If you are a muslim, Palestinian living in Palestine, anywhere (Jerusalem, Bayt Lahem, Gaza, etc) can you just pick up your things and go to the Masjid Al Aqsa for Salat ? If you can't, why can't you ? If you need a permit from the "Islamic Waqif" or whatever organization to go, then this is not part of Islam. In the Quran, it states, 'The masjids belong to Allah(s.w.a)'. So noone, no Islamic Waqif, has the right to prevent someone from going. If this 'Waqif' is preventing people from going then it is Islamic in name only and not in reality. This is not a muslim organization, it is a Zionist organization with a 'Islamic' title. 

Quote

Establishing formal relations with Israel does not mean Muslims are sacrificing the Palestinians, or that they are assenting to the violation of their fundamental rights. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم established formal relations with the pagans of Makkah through the Treaty of Hudaibiyah despite the fact that Muslims left behind in Makkah were still being persecuted, nor were they permitted to seek refuge in Madinah under the terms of the treaty.

As the brother pointed out above, the treaty of Hudaibiyya was not an unconditional, forever treaty. It was strategic and conditional, and only lasted for a few years. If the UAE would make a treaty with Israel, similar to Hudaibiyya, limited in its scope and time, and conditional, meaning that in order for the treaty to be in effect, Israel must fufill certain conditions, relating to Haqq for Palestine, I would agree with it. The treaty of Hudaibiyya is Sunnah, and we cannot go against Sunnah. But the agreement between UAE and Israel is not Hudaibiyya at all. 

The other thing I would say on this is that you cannot make treaties with those who constantly break them. Israel agreed to lots of things in Oslo (you can look up the List yourself if you are interested) when Rabin and Clinton made that deal in the 90s. Did they fulfill any of it. No. Israel agreed to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza after they invaded in 1967. Did they do that. No. In fact, they expanded into it like never before. So put religion on the side, to make a deal with those who constantly break their deals is not wise or prudent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

you listed your mathab as 'Salafi'

Proof?

Quote

 you consider us to be Kafir

Proof?

Quote

If this 'Waqif' is preventing people from going then it is Islamic in name only and not in reality.

Blame the Waqf, not Israel

Quote

This is not a muslim organization, it is a Zionist organization with a 'Islamic' title.

Proof?

Quote

I would agree with it.

The issue is not whether recognition of Israel is strategic or unwise. The issue is, from a purely legal perspective of the Shari'ah, is it permissible or not? If it is not permissible, what is the proof of hurmah?

Quote

 So put religion on the side

Why? I'm discussing the issue from a religious perspective. I have no interest in whether it is politically prudent

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

First you claim it is Fard Ayn, and now your making excuses and changing your story.

Hamas are a bunch of terrorists. They aren't orthodox Sunnis, they are Ikhwanis

I still believe that is Fard Ayn but until now the public Fatwa for Jihad by gun  not issued by my marja Imam  Khamenei which he says our current Jihad is in politics & cyber warfare & resistance like Hizbullah .

I don't like Hamas too but they are example of sunni front liners in war  Israel anyway I don't care that they aren't orthodox sunni or Ikhwani as you don't recognize shias as orthodox muslims too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Proof?

Proof?

Blame the Waqf, not Israel

Proof?

The issue is not whether recognition of Israel is strategic or unwise. The issue is, from a purely legal perspective of the Shari'ah, is it permissible or not? If it is not permissible, what is the proof of hurmah?

Why? I'm discussing the issue from a religious perspective. I have no interest in whether it is politically prudent

I had reports from several users that you listed your mathab as Salafi. If you are of that Mathab, it doesn't mean we will ban you from the site, as long as you don't violate site rules (which you haven't so far from what I have seen). There have been many past and current users who claimed this mathab. My point was that if you are this mathab, then there is no point in discussing fiqh with you, since Salafis don't even consider Shia to be Musim. If you would like the relevant quotes, I can bring them, but since it seems that you are not claiming this sect, then those quotes would be irrelevant to the discussion. 

If you are interested in this issue from the fiqh perspective, and if you don't already know, we as individual Shia cannot make our own decision whether an issue of injustice and oppression rises to the level where a Jihad(military jihad) is necessary. That decision is made by our Masoom Imam or Rasoul. In the absence of a Masoom Imam or Rasoul, it is made by the marjaa that we follow. A military jihad has not been called for this issue, not yet, in an general sense. It has been called for in a local sense, such as when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. A military jihad was called for by marjaa' for those brothers living in Lebanon, but not those outside Lebanon. This calling for Jihad and issuing of Fatawa led to the creation of Hezbollah, as you are probably already aware of this. A similar fatwa was given by Sayyid Sistani(ha), a local Jihad for the brothers in Iraq only, which led to the creation of Hajje Shaabi, who expelled ISIS from Iraq. Again, you are probably aware of this also, so no need to 'beat a dead horse'. 

The vast majority of Palestinian brothers do not follow Shia fiqh. So there is no point in calling for a local Jihad within Palestine. A credible Shia marjaa would never do this, as it has virtually no chance of being followed and getting a result (i.e. that the oppression and injustice is stopped). At the same time, we are required to do 'Amr Bil Maroof wa Nahiyya Al Munkhar' (Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil) which includes speaking out and acting out as much as possible to bring issues of Injustice and Oppression of our fellow brothers and sisters to the attention of the wider community. This is a continuing obligation and separate from the issue of a military jihad, in our fiqh. 

I think there is general and wide agreement amoung Sunni and Shia (with a few notable exceptions) on this issue. When I attend demonstrations, such as the Quds Day Demonstration, or participate in activities related to the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), I see more Sunni brothers and Sisters participating than I do Shia, which is sad in a way, because I live in Dearborn, where the general muslim population here is more Shia than Sunni. Our Fiqhi obligation at this point is to bring this issue to the attention of the media and the world, as we do with other issues involving Haqq and rights being taken, such as the Saudi War against the people of Yemen. This war is an issue where both sides are muslim, but it is still an issue of injustice and oppression happening which must be addressed. Again, it is a fiqhi obligation which, unfortunately, most Shia do not do. That is sad, but there is not much I as an individual can do. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I had reports from several users that you listed your mathab as Salafi

Whoever those users are, they plainly lied upon me. I've stated several times already that I am Hanafi by madhhab, like the majority of Muslims in the world today.

Quote

 A military jihad has not been called for this issue, not yet, in an general sense. It has been called for in a local sense, such as when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. A military jihad was called for by marjaa' for those brothers living in Lebanon, but not those outside Lebanon. This calling for Jihad and issuing of Fatawa led to the creation of Hezbollah, as you are probably already aware of this. A similar fatwa was given by Sayyid Sistani(ha), a local Jihad for the brothers in Iraq only, which led to the creation of Hajje Shaabi, who expelled ISIS from Iraq. Again, you are probably aware of this also, so no need to 'beat a dead horse'. 

The vast majority of Palestinian brothers do not follow Shia fiqh. So there is no point in calling for a local Jihad within Palestine. A credible Shia marjaa would never do this, as it has virtually no chance of being followed and getting a result (i.e. that the oppression and injustice is stopped).

Quote

This is a duty of all muslims, not just some.

So why were you and Ash debating with me when I denied Jihad is Fard Ayn. You contradicted your earlier statement "This is a duty of all muslims, not just some". Make up your mind

Quote

Our Fiqhi obligation at this point is to bring this issue to the attention of the media and the world

Fiqhi obligation to bring an issue to the attention of the media? How bizarre. On what basis?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2020 at 1:24 AM, Shiawarrior313 said:

Greater Israel is not a conspiracy theory, it's a reality that the zionists have been working toward in a very overt manner since the last century. White washing it will not help your cause, not will your simplistic understanding of Iran's role in the region. The plans for greater israel is religious in nature (Nile to Euphrates), and were planned out by Zionists leaders all the way back to early 20th century. Are we going to pretend 2006 expansionist attempt by israel didn't occur? where they were stopped by Hezbollah. 

I was just reading this article today in Dawn which quotes the Likud Party manifesto:

The manifesto of the Likud party lays such a claim to Jordanian territory stating that “The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

No mention of the Euphrates as the eastern border, the most hardline Zionists want the Jordan as their eastern border. This “Greater Israel” conspiracy theory is nothing but internet propaganda

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I was just reading this article today in Dawn which quotes the Likud Party manifesto:

The manifesto of the Likud party lays such a claim to Jordanian territory stating that “The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

No mention of the Euphrates as the eastern border, the most hardline Zionists want the Jordan as their eastern border. This “Greater Israel” conspiracy theory is nothing but internet propaganda

Ofcourse, the Zionist are not going to make their plans public, it would create too much backlash. They will not make their plans public until its already within grasp or already achieved. We do however know, from their zionism founding fathers what their overall agenda is. 

Quote

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

This has religious bases, as the promise made to Prophet Abraham to his children

Quote

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates

https://biblehub.com/genesis/15-18.htm

This promise belong to muslims which do occupy such land, but Israelites believe it referring to them.

The Zionist regime attempted such expansion back in 2006 with invasion of Lebanon, but was stopped by Hezbollah. The war on terror, started back in 2001 after the false flag attacks of September 11 was to set the stage for the US to get rid of Israel's rivals in middle east as part of a domino effect and new middle east initiative ( taking 5-6 years ), and then Israel would sweep in and establish its greater Israel (2006). Obviously, none of that worked, as US got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel was stopped at Lebanon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shiawarrior313 said:

Ofcourse, the Zionist are not going to make their plans public, it would create too much backlash. They will not make their plans public until its already within grasp or already achieved. We do however know, from their zionism founding fathers what their overall agenda is.

If their plans aren’t public then how can you be sure what they are? Can you read their minds? I suggest you leave behind this conspiratorial thinking, it’s not healthy.

Someone who is deluded will always find an excuse to run away from the facts. You claimed the Zionists are conspiring to make the Euphrates their eastern border, I show you the manifesto of the most hardline Zionists saying they consider the Jordan their permanent eastern border, but you discount what is actually stated in favor of a conspiracy theory you have no evidence for?

Quote

According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”  According to Rabbi Fischmann,  “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

Herzl died way before the State of Israel came into existence (1948). He is merely credited with spearheading the Zionist cause in the early 20th century. To refer to him as the ultimate authority on the State’s present foreign policy is ludicrous. It would be like saying America’s present policies in the 21st century are going strictly by what her Founding Fathers wrote in the late 18th century.

It is true the Bible describes the promised land of Abraham as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, but the modern State of Israel is not a religious state, nor has any historic Jewish state ever encompassed this range of territory. It's quite strange you are using the Bible as the basis for your conspiracy theory regarding the policy of a modern State in the 21st century.

Quote

The Zionist regime attempted such expansion back in 2006 with invasion of Lebanon, but was stopped by Hezbollah

Israel’s aim in the 2006 conflict was to recover their abducted soldiers and to retaliate against Hizbullah’s terrorism. They never intended to annex Lebanon, to claim such a thing is ludicrous.

Quote

 the false flag attacks of September 11 was to set the stage for the US to get rid of Israel's rivals in middle east as part of a domino effect and new middle east initiative ( taking 5-6 years ), and then Israel would sweep in and establish its greater Israel (2006). Obviously, none of that worked, as US got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel was stopped at Lebanon. 

If 9/11 was a false flag attack to secure a pretext to fight wars on behalf of Israel, why wasn’t it initially blamed on Israel’s actual enemies and national security threats, rather than al-Qaeda based in faraway Afghanistan? Your conspiracy theories are internally incoherent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

If their plans aren’t public then how can you be sure what they are? Can you read their minds? I suggest you leave behind this conspiratorial thinking, it’s not healthy.

Someone who is deluded will always find an excuse to run away from the facts. You claimed the Zionists are conspiring to make the Euphrates their eastern border, I show you the manifesto of the most hardline Zionists saying they consider the Jordan their permanent eastern border, but you discount what is actually stated in favor of a conspiracy theory you have no evidence for?

Someone who's deluded will always find ways to white wash history until it's too late to act. It was their manifesto in creation of the Zionist state and as we have seen in their actions since then, everything has been to set the stage for that expansion. This is why Israel's border's to this day are not defined, and Israel is directly and indirectly involved in every Fitnah going on in the middle east, from attacking Syria directly to supporting ISIS and wahabi Jihadists indirectly. Mosad's motto has been "By way of deception thou shalt do war". One needs to look at what they've done and doing to see which agenda is active ( Greater Israel ) and which is not. Deception is how Israel conducts it self, as evident by the event of USS Liberty, where they attacked a US ship to draw them in to war against their neighbours.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/uss-liberty-revisited/5680251

Shias, however, are not simple minded, and invoked an Islamic revolution to stop Israel's ambitions. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-a-cancerous-tumor-that-must-be-eradicated/

https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/by-way-of-deception-thou-shalt-do-war/

Quote

Israel’s aim in the 2006 conflict was to recover their abducted soldiers and to retaliate against Hizbullah’s terrorism. They never intended to annex Lebanon, to claim such a thing is ludicrous.

 To say their attempt in 2006 was to simply retrieve their soldier demonstrates your dishonest and agenda based defence of Israel, calling Hezbollah as "Terrorist". Israel's agenda was defeating Hizbollah and removing them as a threat. Their attack was years in making and preparation and Hezbollah striking was an excuse they needed. Creating a scenario for Syria's leaving Lebanon before was the means to set the stage. Their assumption was that the war would end in a few days as Hezbollah fighters were cut off from the main forces, but as Hezbollah resisted, they were forced to retreat and retract on their goals until they called for ceasefire after 34 days, once they realized they couldn't achieve their goals. 

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-2006-lebanon-war-a-short-history

The tactic of using a small event to justify a greater war has been used extensively in history, as well as trying to create the cause directly through false flag. One example is Israel's attack on USS Liberty. 

Quote

It is true the Bible describes the promised land of Abraham as stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, but the modern State of Israel is not a religious state, nor has any historic Jewish state ever encompassed this range of territory. It's quite strange you are using the Bible as the basis for your conspiracy theory regarding the policy of a modern State in the 21st century.

Greater Israel has religious connotations as such religious aspects are used to gain support from millions/billions of Christians. By fulfilling christian prophecies, they will gain the support of 2 billion christians who occupy the most powerful empires in the world. When they achieve the greater israel, billions of christians will accept their supremacy as fulfilment of the prophecies and so there will be no resistance to them. Only muslims, particularly Shias are standing in their way.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1043186/End-of-the-world-prophecy-Jerusalem-third-temple-Bible-apocalypse

Quote

If 9/11 was a false flag attack to secure a pretext to fight wars on behalf of Israel, why wasn’t it initially blamed on Israel’s actual enemies and national security threats, rather than al-Qaeda based in faraway Afghanistan? Your conspiracy theories are internally incoherent.

You have demonstrated an incapability to deduct proper research as something as close and shut case of September 11 false flag attacks, where 3 buildings were magically demolished free fall style in their footprint area, with 2 planes hitting them and molten steel being found at the base, burning 3 month after the event. When you can't even do basic research of event 19 years ago ( due to your bias, lack of intelligence, colonized/westernized mentality), what makes you think you can even properly deduce what it takes for the Zionists to achieve their goals? Your politcal understanding is that of a child. Even a child would understand you can't take down 3 buildings with 2 planes. If you're incapable of taking a coherent stance on September 11, there is no point in continuing a discussion on events where the starting point are the September 11 attacks. 

Regardless, for other viewers, the agenda was to start a new middle east war, taking over 7 countries in 5 years or so, setting the stage for Israel's take over in 2006. Blaming Afghanistan was the simple foot in the door strategy, as the Wahabi's were setup to take the blame for the attacks. Once in Afghanistan, it was a simple matter to expand from there, surrounding Iran though Iraq and taking out Iran as their final victory. There were stopped obviously and due to that, the 2006 Israel attack met with far more resistance than they anticipated. 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166  

Now they're trying different tactic, as part of "Deal of the century", attempting to normalize relations with the Arab nations, disarm the Palestinian resistance through carrot and stick approach and removing the reason for existence of the Shia resistance movement.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/shameful-deal-century/5681780

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
Quote

President Donald Trump has been nominated for the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, just weeks after helping to broker peace between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. He was nominated by Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of the Norwegian Parliament, who praised Trump for his efforts towards resolving conflicts worldwide. 'For his merit, I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other Peace Prize nominees,' Tybring-Gjedde said to Fox News.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8713415/Donald-Trump-nominated-2021-Nobel-Peace-Prize.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)

Lol, Bahrain and Israel made a peace agreement as well. I’m sad seeing how these countries are trying to whip Palestinian from the map. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Haji 2003 changed the title to Israel & UAE, Bahrain peace agreement

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...