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

Panarab Abdullah II denounces Iran, Hizbullah

Rate this topic


waiting

Recommended Posts

Jordan's King Abdullah II launched a stinging attack against Iran, Syria and Lebanese-based militia Hezbollah as the main threats to Middle East stability, Israeli newspapers reported on Wednesday.

At talks with American Jewish leaders in Washington, the king said Syria and Hezbollah were encouraging Palestinian militants to wage attacks against Israel, the Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronoth newspapers reported.

Abdullah II accused Syria, Iran and Hezbollah of being "the greatest threats to stability in the Middle East," both dailies quoted him as saying.

The mass-selling Yedioth described Abdullah's comments as "an attack of rare severity," saying the monarch accused Damascus, Hezbollah and Tehran of trying to fan attacks to divert world attention from events in Lebanon.

On Monday, Jordan resumed top-level relations with Israel after its newly appointed ambassador presented his credentials after a four-year diplomatic hiatus between the two countries precipitated by the Palestinian uprising.

Abdullah warned Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to probe those responsible for plotting attacks on Israel, making it understood that the Hezbollah, not the Palestinians, was the real culprit, the newspapers said.

Amman had recently thwarted several Hezbollah attempts to infiltrate Israel via Jordan, the newspapers reported Abdullah as saying.

In Washington for key talks with investors, the Jordanian monarch also met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

On Tuesday, Arab leaders adopted a Jordanian-sponsored resolution seeking to reactivate an initiative for peace with Israel based on the return of all occupied Arab land and the creation of a Palestinian state.

The proposal was immediately spurned by Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I think the King of Jordan's position is most reasonable. I can't understand Israel spurning such a proposal. Isn't that the intended result of the current PA-Israeli negtiations. It is my understanding that occupied lands are those outside the pre 1967 borders.

Surely Israel must withdrawl to its 1967 borders for there to be peace in the region. Israel must understand this so why such a tough position?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This man showed his true colours the day he voiced concern over the rising shia influence in the Middle East.

At this moment of time the sunni arabs are going to have to make a choice between shia muslims or America, and looking at history it shouldn't be hard to guess which of the two they're going to choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Surely Israel must withdrawl to its 1967 borders for there to be peace in the region. Israel must understand this so why such a tough position?

the 1967 borders are no more legitimate than the current borders, Israel has no right to exist and thats it. The zionist invaders must leave and go back to Poland and Brooklyn where they all come from or they will be crucified

ya Ali Madad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the 1967 borders are no more legitimate than the current borders, Israel has no right to exist and thats it. The zionist invaders must leave and go back to Poland and Brooklyn where they all come from or they will be crucified

ya Ali Madad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely you must know that isn't going to happen. Because of people who think,oops think is an overstatement, feel like you many more people will die and there will never be peace.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i think he know more about liberty than the anti-indian barbaric hindutvadi bafoons in India. As far as i remember they were going round burning valentine cards and cinema theatres for screening lesbians films like 'girlfriend'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your attempt to answere my question by saying what others don't know was a failure.

I ask again what do you know about freedom?

Please tell me, in what Muslim nation can you give someone a St Valentines day card? And in what Muslim nation could that movie even have been made?

I don't know where you are from or live because you neglected to include it in your profoile. Do you live in India?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

yes i do live in india.tell me how does the hindutva brigade apply 'freedom of religious expression'. IMHO, they are a bunch of feces fascists who need to be eliminated fast, as they pose a threat to the integrity of india.

Edited by kaaju barfi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes i do live in india.tell me how does the hindutva brigade apply 'freedom of religious expression'. IMHO, they are a bunch of feces fascists who need to be eliminated fast, as they pose a threat to the integrity of india.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

India is not the subject of this thread or web site.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I can't see why this pathetic little dweeb should be concerned that the shi'ites are rising to power in the M/East...

Its his "friends" the yanks who "liberated" them in Iraq while Iran has been gathering millitary strenght to avoid any attacks... At the same time some of Irans biggest enemies have been eliminated, again by his "friends"... So he should go & thank the yanks for what they have done.....

P.S... furthermore, anyone can correct me if i'm wrong, but i've never read anywhere that the shi'ites(especially in the recent past) have actually been the instigators of any conflicts in the mid-east... its always been the sunnis!!!

Edited by Mi3raj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Please correct me if I am wrong but don't those states have secular gov'ts.

Thanks

Yes they do. Does that mean that they dont qualify as being Muslim states in your eyes? The tendency (from people, the media and governments) seems to be that a Muslim nation is any nation in which the majority of the population adhere to Islam, regardless of the type of government. Did you mean an Islamic nation in where the government also aheres to some Islamic model?

Let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhzokhar,

Thank you for such a quick reply.

I could have used better terminology. But I did mean a nation or nations with civil and criminal law based on Shariah.

Many people consider the US a Christian nation but I do not. We have no laws that respect or disfavor any faith even though the majority of citizens may be Christian. I am a citizen who is not a Christian and think of myself as equal as anyone else.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhzokhar,

I am not rying to confuse the issue but let me broaden you first question to include other religious law as well to include the law given to Hindus by Manu thousands of years ago.

I think anything that exceeds the basic mores that humans are hard wired with,yet choose to disobey, need to be looked at. I don't know of a society or culture on the planet that does not consider murder, rape, theft, adultary etc as wrongful acts. I don't think we need to look at the third or fourth definintions of those words to understand what I mean. To put it simply I think God (use the name you like) or the creator placed these inhibitions in our bring.

We are spiritual being living in a material world don't you think?

Again remember all I say are my beliefs. Different cultures developed varients on the mores because of environment and other effects in order to survive.

If a member of a religious group or a certain faith adheres to the laws of that group that is a personal choice. If they wish to live under those cannons so be it because it is a personal matter. To me spirituality is a personal matter not a group matter. When we reunite with God we will be doing it individually not as a group.

If a nation's law is based on any religion regardless of the rights it bestows on others it exercises some repression. The repression is implied because the minorities rights are not equal to the dominate religion or faith. If those right were equally respected they would not have to be legislated.

You mentioned Egypt but let's broaden that to any state that had separate courts. How can all citizens have equal rights under the law? Imagine you lived in a modern day nation with laws similar to the Spanish inquisition but with separate courts. Would you not feel intimidated to approach a Catholic court because you felt you suffered because of am illegal action by a Catholic. Better yet in the same scenario who would have ultimate authority of who appointed the judges of an Islamic court. It would not really be the Muslim population because they are only allowed to do it by the Catholic majority who could also disallow it.

I have to say I am staring to feel a little uncomfortable on a personal level with Bush and the attempts of the religious right to press their ideas on others. And I do feel I would be discriminated against, however I feel our Constitution will prevail. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution many years ago and have not forgotten that oath.

Does this help any?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are spiritual being living in a material world don't you think?

Yeh I would agree.

To me spirituality is a personal matter not a group matter.

So you dont believe in any type of religion based state?

If a nation's law is based on any religion regardless of the rights it bestows on others it exercises some repression. The repression is implied because the minorities rights are not equal to the dominate religion or faith. If those right were equally respected they would not have to be legislated.

I disagree with that. There will always be racism and prejudice. To have something legislated is to ensure that those ills of society do not impede the rights of others. I mean your rights are legislated in a fully secular state (as you percieve it to be). Does that mean you do face some form of repression in america? Legilsation is a safe guard of what could happen and a deterrence against it. I dont believe it is there to underline some consistent problem within a state.

How can all citizens have equal rights under the law? Imagine you lived in a modern day nation with laws similar to the Spanish inquisition but with separate courts. Would you not feel intimidated to approach a Catholic court because you felt you suffered because of am illegal action by a Catholic.

The whole point of courts for different religions is to further the notion of religious equality in an islamic state. The religious court can only pass judgement on an individual that adheres to the same faith and has chosen the court from his/her free will. Therefore if any intimidation is felt then it would be from the minority towards the Islamic court. Which is the whole reason to have religious based courts in the first place. To get rid of any percieved wrong doing and ensure the full rights of the minority. Do you not agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhzokhar,

I am going to try and make my responses very concise because the server might be overloaded and I don't want to lose a lot.

No I do not believe in a religion based state, nor do I believe in a caste system, or Hindutva.

I don't think everyones legislated but they are protected. Our rights are inalienable as are everyones. Legislation can combat institutional bias but individual bias has to be eradicated with education. What laws can stop a person from committing a violation. Laws provide punishment for violators and define violations. A person should not be arrested because he might commit a violation.

Here is where you could mention the Patriot Act which I consider unconstitutional, an abomination, and huge violation of our rights. Sooner or later a case involving the PAT ACT will brought to the US Supreme Court.

I do not agree with your opinion of religious courts. Separate courts are a division and supports the religious division in society. Equality under the law and equal protection means all, to include the leadership, are subject to the same law both for punishment and protection.

I have not looked to determine where you live so you may know that we have a criminal court system and a civil court system.

The criminal court's function is pretty self explanatory, it is for prosecution of violations of local, state, and federal law. This system covers things from speeding to murder and tax evasion.

The civil court hears cases between individuals. If a person feels that they suffered a loss from someone's negligence slander or liable and related matters.

A member of the UN Commision for Human Rights cited two countries adverse laws yesterday. First he cited France for denying students rights to wear religion related articles to school, he included scarves on Muslim students, crosses on Christians, and yamuckas on Jewish kids. Second he cited Iran and used denying the wearing of neck ties. How do you feel about this?

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with your opinion of religious courts. Separate courts are a division and supports the religious division in society.

Satyaban I'm sure you will agree that there are all types of divisions present within any country. Gender, race, religion, creed and personal beliefs and convictions are all forms of division present within any society. All Islam tries to do is honour and acknowledge those differences rather then ignore them. Now What you are saying is practiced in America and does have all types of problems. Let me try and use an example of where ignoring those differences has been a major mistake but one you can relate to. I'm sure you have heard of the Michael Jackson trial. I havent been following the case too closely so I dont know the technicalities. But I do know an outline of the case against him and, of course, who he is. Now there can you honestly believe Michael jackson isnt prone to the prejudices of the non-black person? The prejudices of those that arent as wealthy as him? Or the prejudices of the proactive mother that would readily believe the child over some grown man? Yet because such things are not really considered a jury could use such prejudices thus ensuring justice does not prevail in his case. Isnt that why there has been the option of the mis trial ready for him.

All Islam tries to do is lower the chances and make the justiuce system more fair by giving such an option.

A member of the UN Commision for Human Rights cited two countries adverse laws yesterday. First he cited France for denying students rights to wear religion related articles to school, he included scarves on Muslim students, crosses on Christians, and yamuckas on Jewish kids. Second he cited Iran and used denying the wearing of neck ties. How do you feel about this?

Obviously being a Muslim and adhering to some type of religion I would cite the case against the French as more relevent and more adverse then the case against Iran. Although I do think that it is quite absurd that the Ayatollah dictatorship doesnt allow neck ties to be warn. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhzokhar:

Would you suggest a separate court for each of the different types of people you mention?

In the US if it is a jury trial the jury is selected by the attorniess representing the gov't and the attornies representing the defendant. If the verdict is to be decided by a judge he under strict ethical standards to be blind to race, creed, social status and all the other distinguishing factors you mentioned.

If there were a better system we would use it.

Racial prejudice doesn't occur in our state or federal courts anymore. It may happen in some small town in the south but I doubt that also. In cases where there is a hint of such a thing an appellate can grant a retrial

In answer to your question about Michael Jackson the answer is no. In the US a defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. All twelve members of the jury will have to deem him guilty based on the evidence presented during the trial for him to be found guilty. If 11 members deem him guilty and 1 does not he can not be convicted.

I think you have some misunderstandings about our judicial system.

I suggest that you read the US Declaration of Independence, that would only take 5 minutes, it is elegant in its symplicity.

I also suggest you read selected section of the US Constitution.

If they are not available at your local library do an online search.

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you suggest a separate court for each of the different types of people you mention?

Not at all. I am just trying to reiterate to you that their are divisions within society and that they cannot be ignored. And that those differences take on many forms. All Islam tries to do is honour a number of those forms to make the judicial process more fair.

Racial prejudice doesn't occur in our state or federal courts anymore.

On the whole I do agree with you. But there are still cases of racsim that exist within the US courts:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/mcph-d12.shtml

http://www.quixote.org/ej/moratorium_now/broch_race.html

http://www.blackleadershipforum.org/articles/ronwhite.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/21/us.r...m.ap/index.html

If there were a better system we would use it.

Come on now Satyban dont be that naive. You know better then I I do that many legal battles cost thousands for both civil parties involved. For a court to be more case sensitive, as Islam tries to produce, those costs would only go up. I think your system so far tries to use the basis of your constitution and the united rule of law which is for every citizen. All I am saying is that I dont beileve that is realistic and it definatly wasnt in the Islamic societies of the past with the many numbers of religions and the need for religious autonomy. But then again the strong basis of citizenship wasnt present within the islamic countries as it is in America.

In cases where there is a hint of such a thing an appellate can grant a retrial

Correct me if i'm wrong but isnt it up to the judge to grant or deny a retrial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...