Libertarian Muslim

They didn't own it at all. What the Jews owned at the time was the following: That is 8% of the land.. The Arabs owned the rest of the 92% Then the 1947 UN Partition Plan came about where 33 countries voted in favor of giving the following land to the Zionists, without the permission of the land's owners: That is 56% of the land.. This land is also the most fertile. The 1947 UN partition gave the Arabs 46% of the lands in Palestine, The Arabs at that time were 69% of the population and owned 92% of the land. The UN also gave the Zionists, 56% of the land when they were 31% of the population and owned less than 8% of the land and it gave the Zionists the best and most fertile land. How is that just at all? The Zionists were attacked because they were trying create a state within Palestine of their own rather than living in the current state and the Palestinians didn't like it. If a group of Indian or Chinese migrants to the USA decided that they wanted to create a state of their own in the country how do you think the US population would feel? Let us also not forget that they also started launching terrorist attacks on the British after the 1939 British Whitepaper and continued until the British handed the issue to the UN. That's not true at all. That again is not true at all. Really? Which Jewish law is that? Could you please point it out to me? That simply isn't true. Again, you didn't address my point. If that were indeed the case, why would Hamas' charter call for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live in an 'Islamic State' together? You mean like protests? Yes, that's been done, even non-violent protesters get gassed, beaten, jailed and sometimes shot by Israeli soldiers. Maybe you mean by calling out to the international community and asking for help while not attacking the Israelis? Well they did that during the 2007 truce with Israel, while Israel maintained a siege on Gaza not allowing food, medicine or money to come in Hamas was asking for help and intercession from the world and didn't attack Israel during that time. Children were getting malnutrition and the economy of Gaza collapsed. Yet no one came to their aid and helped them no matter how much they asked. During this truce Hamas did not attack the Israelis.. Yet Israel did attack Hamas towards the end of the year. What non-violence did the Zionists use against the British? They used terrorism and the Stern gang, a Zionist Terrorist group even went to Hitler and offered to help the Nazis fight the British. And what did Ghandi say when asked what the most acceptable solution to the problems in Palestine? "The abandonment wholly by the Jews of terrorism and other forms of violence." From The Bombay Chronicle (June 2, 1947)

Robert, again. To be honest, after the Prophet pbuh was martyred everything went bad and almost every single leader that the Islamic world has had, has been a tyrant that didn't behave Islamically so telling me about Arabs being involved in the slave trade isn't really proving a point. Also, regarding slavery in the Qur'an, have you looked? "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing." (Qur'an 2:177) "The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise." (Qur'an 9:60) "We verily have created man in an atmosphere: Thinketh he that none hath power over him ? And he saith: I have destroyed vast wealth: Thinketh he that none beholdeth him ? Did We not assign unto him two eyes And a tongue and two lips, And guide him to the parting of the mountain ways ? But he hath not attempted the Ascent - Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is! - (It is) to free a slave, And to feed in the day of hunger. An orphan near of kin, Or some poor wretch in misery, And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and exhort one another to pity." (Qur'an 90:4-17) "It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise." (Qur'an 4:92) "And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful." (Qur'an 24:33) Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.721, Narrated Al Marur bin Suwaid I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me, 'Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?' He added, 'Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)'

Adonis, I will. I sense you are truly interested in my thoughts. I sense there will be interaction, not canned questions or canned answers. I was worried you might only be interested in pushing a party line. (I know you are not that way about Islam, but your discourse changes tone when we discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue.) After all the yelling and mocking that surrounds these things, I feel pleasure at the prospect of this level of discussion on such a heated topic. Even if, at the worst, we continue disagreeing, I sense both will be the better for the discussion. Things will be learned. Also, I am behind, but I have not forgotten the documentary. I will not only finish it before too long, I also intend to watch the YouTube videos you posted on Islam and libertarianism. (I suspect links to all this material will be included in my timeline site.) Michael It's okay Michael, I know you're quite busy. You are right, I am truly interested in your thoughts because I know it's easy for us to say this group should do this and this group shouldn't do that etc, but I think we need to study it more and then see what we would do differently. I think that is far more helpful. I have no interest in pushing a particular party line, nor mocking or yelling, I will condemn all actions I see wrong and I would say, that I am one of the biggest critics of today's Muslim world. I am all for discussion on the issue because there can be no harm. I just don't like when people feel the need to insult.

Tony, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there.. Let's backtrack to the first sentence and my response will show you how the rest is inconsequential, if it was a loosely held Jewish state and the whole world decided to just 'give' that land to the Arabs and make an Arab homeland there without the Jewish people's consent to create a state, and forced the Jews to give up those lands and give them to the Arabs then not only would I be against it. I'd speak out against it, not only would I speak out against it but I'd openly defend the right of the Jews to resist the occupation of their country. Who are the rest of the world (which at this stage was mostly White people of European background) to decide to give away someone elses land? If they wanted to create an Arab state let them give away pieces of their own countries to form an Arab state. I have no problem with bringing in the Jews into Palestine, they're always welcome because they are people of the book and were persecuted in Europe. They are our brothers. But creating another state there and giving other people's homes and lands to the Israeli's is not right. I would have been happy if they brought all of the Jews from Europe made a Libertarian state there and allowed Jews, Christians and Muslims to practice their religions there under their own laws but were one nation I'd have been happy. I don't agree with making it a 'Jewish' state with a distinct Jewish identity, a Jewish flag etc, just as I don't agree with making it a distinctive Muslim or Christian Identity. It has to be inclusive of all.

So you believe the only way to have a low crime rate is through having a police state? I lived in Syria from April-December 2009. Yes, I'm quite aware of what goes on behind the scenes, I learnt things you could only have learnt by living there. I never have supported the political situation there and had to leave because I couldn't cope with not speaking out there. So you're saying that a woman must do what her husband says, providing that he is not asking her to do something forbidden in Islam? Yes, I've read the link. Sure, many 'scholars' say many things, but I don't agree with such interpretations and neither do any of the scholars that I've ever followed. I also will point out once again that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never raised a finger to his wives, even when they were rebellious. The only thing he did, was separate himself from them for a period of time which is the actual meaning of this word. Depends on the circumstances of the crime. If there was a man who: - Had a wife that did everything for him and loved him very much, trying to keep him happy. - He didn't divorce her Yet he was so selfish and inconsiderate, caring so little about her love for him that in return he not only cheated on her which would be bad enough, but had the audacity and arrogance to do so by having sex in full view of the public thus humiliating her in addition to cheating on her when it would have been more than easy to have divorced her. If he could provide no other reason for his scandalous actions like marriage problems etc and could be declared sane by psychiatrists (which I doubt many who do such things would be found mentally fit), then yes I would support it. Those are the actions of someone who tries to intentionally hurt another person, and not just any other person, but someone who cares deeply for him and loves him, if not then he would have gotten divorced from her or at least done his actions in private away from the view of the public. He clearly felt no compassion or empathy for his wife in ripping her heart out and publicly humiliating her by having sex with someone else in plain view of others, so why should I have compassion or empathy for him? In any other case, I wouldn't really support the punishment because there are usually always other factors that come into play such as marital problems etc. You want me to worship man? To submit to man? Yes, all crimes are also God's Will. But it is you that is falling into traps here, not me. You believe that simply because God allows something to happen, thus it being His Will. That he wants mankind to do it? No, God gave us free will to be able to do as we please in this life providing that we would take responsibility for our actions in this life and be held accountable for them in the next. Well simply encountering Islam isn't enough Robert. What if the Muslims they come across are terrible examples of Islam? Who could blame them for not wanting to be Muslim when seeing the actions of those people? It wouldn't be merciful for Him to punish such people when they had such a terrible example around them. And what about those who search for truth their whole lives and never hear about Islam? How could God punish them? What about those who stick to their religions like Christians and Jews, not harming others and seeking to please God and follow His commands to the best of their ability? Would God punish them? No.. Of course not.. God isn't a being that takes pleasure out of punishment. Just like how a parent hopefully wouldn't take pleasure out of smacking their children when they really need such actions to get them in line. And if we're talking about burning for eternity as you are, that is a big deal. We're talking about a certain group of people here and none of the above would fit into that. A Kafir is not just a non-Muslim as many would have you believe, it's not even inclusive of people who don't believe in God because they have no proof of His existence. The meaning of Kafir, is one who conceals the truth. That means, if they KNOW that God exists and see clear proofs and evidences like those people who were alive at the time and saw the miracles of the Prophets, peace be upon them, yet still refuse to follow and not only refuse to follow, but refuse to tell other people it's true when asked. I'm not sure that anyone alive today could be considered as such. Here is a short explanation on slavery in Islam for you that I found online [by Shehzad Saleem], it's quite good and explains a lot. Regarding the 3 questions I can say all of the answers are the Prophet Islam,the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and the Muslims at that time. If you have more questions please let me know. Adonis, I held back from responding to your post on slavery for several days. In part, this was because I wanted to get some sense of where Shehzad Saleem (whose articles appear on a site out of Lahore, Pakistan) was coming from. I see from other short articles on that site that Saleem also tries to circumscribe Islamic law so that there is, at present, no death penalty for blasphemy. And he insists that any death penalty for apostasy or renouncing Islam applied only during the unusual circumstances of Muhammad's personal mission, expiring on his death in 632. In a rough way, these kinds of explications resemble Christian attempts to identify the more extreme proclamations attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels (e.g., exhorting his followers to give away all their worldly goods) as an "interim ethic" that would hold during the brief period before the world ended and the Kingdom of God was ushered in (assuming, of course, that Jesus was really preaching an imminent apocalypse). All I can say to Saleem, and others of similar persuasion, is good luck. But the best that can be said about the treatise on slavery to which you directed me is that it is woefully uninformed historically. And I rather doubt that Saleem just fell off the Pakistani equivalent of a turnip truck, so I have to wonder whether he is being entirely sincere. If Muhammad and his closest followers were actually seeking to eliminate slavery, they could have said so. Well, the Qur'an never says so. There is a breathtakingly wide array of attitudes and actions for which the Qur'an proclaims either the certitude or the high probability of endless punishment in the blazing Fire. Nowhere in the Qur'an is owning slaves said to put the owner in danger of hellfire. Nowhere is buying and selling slaves said to put the trader in danger of hellfire. Nowhere is forcing female slaves (even those who are already married) to have sex with their male owner said to put the man doing the forcing in danger of hellfire. Nowhere is there even a tempered condemnation of slavery, like the condemnation of divorce attributed to Jesus, with the qualifier that not everyone may be ready to "receive this teaching." As for the historical issues, I still have to ask, before proceeding any further, whether you have any idea who John Henry Newton was. Who William Wilberforce was. Who William Lloyd Garrison was. Who Frederick Douglass was. And who Harriet Beecher Stowe was. Do you have the slightest idea what any of them actually did? To my knowledge, what brought an end to slavery in the Islamic world (well, where it was successfully brought to an end—not even now in Sudan or Mauritania) was external pressure from the non-Muslim world. In the 1800s, the pre-eminent external pressure was the guns mounted on British naval vessels. In the 1900s, the external pressures were those of diplomacy and public opinion, from the entire Western world. And besides the holdouts in Sudan and Mauritania, there is the spectacle of some imams in other parts of the Islamic world still defending slavery as a divinely ordained institution during the past century, even today. What Muhammad and his companions did about slavery during his lifetime would never have led to its abolition. And you have yet to identify any indigenous Islamic antislavery movement in operation between 632 and 2010. Could that be because there never were any? Robert Campbell Well I'm not going to discuss anything after the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him because that is not Islam's fault, rather these are the practices of people who followed leaders who were not suited to leading. During the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him's life slavery was an institution that was rampant, like any other terrible practice it was forbidden in stages. Alcohol followed a similar path, it wasn't forbidden just like that, rather the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol was passed down through several revelations.. To ban something straight away won't work, it has to be in stages because otherwise society wouldn't be able to handle it. Let's look at slavery. 1. Slaves were then given rights that they didn't have before, the rights to eat what their master ate, sleep as their master slept and dress as their master dressed, they also could not be abused, beaten, raped etc. This meant that owning slaves became a whole lot more expensive for owners and in fact, too expensive for most to own and therefore, many were freed. This also changed the status of slaves from slaves that would be similar to the barbaric slavery that occurred in the USA to something more like servitude with rights. 2. Slavery was spoken out against and people were encouraged to free slaves as an act of charity and devotion to God and many slaves were released. From my understanding, selling slaves except for this express purpose was then forbidden. 3. Making free people into slaves was forbidden, except as a means of welfare to support those whose nations had to be taken over to get them to cease their military attacks against the Islamic State, thus losing all of their possessions as reparations for the immense toll in lives and wealth that such a campaign would cost the Islamic State. 4. Slave owners were then ordered, in the Qur'an to free all of their slaves and give them some wealth to begin their lives again. For those slave owners who could not afford it, they had to come to a reasonable agreement with their slaves as to an acceptable time period of servitude where the master could then afford to release them and give them some wealth to start their lives off.

That is correct, the tactic had been used before. But for a period of time there had been a truce declared between the Israeli government and Hamas which was largely abided by. I know you're quite busy but once you do get the chance to read about it I'd like to know your thoughts regarding the situation and your opinions as to what you would have done differently.

No Michael, I'm referring to the series of rockets that were launched from the Gaza strip in late 2008 before Operation Cast Lead. Are you aware of the series of events that led to it? And if so, what would you have done differently if you were in their shoes?

I don't believe that the line is a thin one at all Michael. I think that there is a very big difference between deliberately targeting a school and just launching a rocket and hoping to hit something. Hamas' military technology at this stage isn't advanced enough that they can use guidance systems in their weapons and is even in very accurate comparison to other weapons systems like the Katushka rockets that Hezbollah uses which is also unguided. The question is however, should Hamas cease fighting simply because it doesn't have guided weapons systems? If so, which other pretext could we find for this type of decision in the world? Yes, this is correct. If only the Palestinians had similar structures to flee to when the Israeli military bombs them. Yes, unfortunately this does happen. Not often but it does. It has to do with finding free space to launch the rockets from which I'm sure you can imagine requires a great deal of space and in a place like Gaza City which is one of the densely populated cities in the world, any area big enough to launch a rocket from gets used. That is a good idea I think going slow is a great idea Michael, hatred is a hard thing to deal with and once we're surrounded by it, it becomes hard to escape it. I have another question for you though Michael. What do you understand are the reasons that Hamas started firing rockets on the Israeli cities like that of Serdot in Israel from Gaza??

Now whilst I don't agree with Hamas, I don't think you're being very honest. Hamas' charter calls for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live together under an 'Islamic State' because it is the only religious system that provides for the beliefs of all groups. Neither the political system Judaism nor Christianity (if there really is one) provides such considerations for adherents of other faiths. I agree with that, but my definition of an Islamic State differs greatly to that of Hamas' because I believe the Islamic State should be more like it was during the time of Muhammad peace be upon him, rather than of the Caliphs that took power after he died. EDIT: To clarify this so I'm not misunderstood, I don't believe that it could be exactly the same as during the life of Muhammad because he was the Prophet of God and we could not elect a man that would have been like him and so, to protect the people from tyrannical rulers and dictators there must be a separation of powers and accountable government in addition to leadership through the elections by the majority of citizens of the state. Whenever Hamas or any other organization do mention Jews in their cartoons or other speeches and rhetoric, they are specifically talking about Zionists that are occupying their homeland and not Jews as a whole. Their word usage is appalling but at the same time I don't believe they are referring to all Jews at all because if they were, there would be no provision in their charter for Jews to live in Palestine under an 'Islamic State'. If this were not the case, why would they have the support of Orthodox Jewish organizations like the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta?

Hold on a second, are you saying that the very fact that you can't prove that a person is not a civilian, is justification enough for their killing? Are you sure you want to go there? At the very least there were, according to Amnesty International more than 300 children, 115 women and 85 men aged over 50 that were killed by Israeli's. If you now want to rule out adult males under 50 just to be sure that they weren't militants then the same standard could be applied to any Israeli male aged above 18 and under 50.. Is that where you want to go? I certainly hope not.. My religion and morals forbid me from defending the murder of any person who is an unarmed, regardless their age, race, sex or religion. So, who broke the truce then that led to the war at the beginning of 2009? How long was the truce? Did Hamas abide by it? What were the conditions on the ground there for Palestinians? Also, I have some questions for you that I'd really like you to answer, what Israel should Hamas recognize? Israel pre-1967? Israel 1948? Etc.. Recognition must come with specific borders if they are to recognize the state does it not? Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist?

Michael, are you suggesting that Hamas is intentionally targeting schools with their rockets? Sorry I'd just like to make sure about this before I respond.. Thanks, Adonis

Targeting unarmed people is never okay in a war. Sure, I can to an extent understand Israel's assassination programs, it's about eliminating the threat from militant groups. But deliberately attacking unarmed civilians who aren't in any way combatants is wrong. I wouldn't approve of them either way because I don't like the tactic of suicide bombing. If they drop that and got more libertarian in their ideas I'd happily support them. Would you care to elaborate for everyone how Hamas was helped by Israeli intelligence? Preposterous, they don't have the military technology that the Israelis have so they use primitive rockets that are unguided, yet Israel with all of its advanced technology still manages to kill a majority of civilians including by using weapons that are illegal. Oh please, the Israelis always use this excuse, how come the people who do die then are civilians and Hamas is rarely amongst the wounded? Why is it that the Israelis bomb the mosques during prayer time when there are a lot of people there rather than when they know it is vacant to destroy the 'command centres' and 'weapons caches' Hamas is wanting to live in peace with the Israelis and wants a political solution, that's precisely why they're negotiating and have abided by previous truces when it was the Israeli's that broke them. They adhered to the truces even when they were under attack by the Israelis which was so clearly demonstrated by the Gaza conflict last year.

Michael, I don't like Hamas. But then again, why would I? They were created by Israeli intelligence. I do however support the Palestinian people's right to resist the occupation of their land whether it is Hamas or any other organization doing it. All I say is that the attacks should not be targeted at non-combatants. I don't think that Hamas' rockets are sophisticated enough that they could aim them specifically at schools either. Most are so unguided, primitive and full of fuel which burns out that burns out on the way to the target, that they barely have any bang to them. Their rockets are, in my opinion, more of a psychological weapon which is reflected in the lack of casualties on the Israeli side. Israel however targets Palestinian schools, mosques, hospitals, water treatment and sewerage facilities, power facilities etc, all whilst having perhaps the most advanced targeting systems in the world. The Israeli military was also found to have directly targeted civilians who even had white flags waving in the air. Israel also used white phosphorous munitions on civilian areas, an act against the rules of war and also seems to have used Tungsten coated Dense Inert Metal Explosive or DIME munitions in the conflict which explodes into incredibly small pieces and tears the target into shreds. DIME weapons are still experimental and in all cases that these types of shrapnel were tested by the US military, it was found to cause cancer in 100% of those wounded by it.

You see, that's where you're wrong. I think this is a typical attitude of aggressors who are guilty of crimes similar to that of the Zionists and European Colonialists, to believe that their victims have such a deep and seething hate that they would never be able to live peacefully with or near the people who once harmed them and so fear granting those rights. People feared emancipating African Americans for this reason and yes, we saw the same thing in South Africa, where all of the Europeans who oppressed the Africans during Apartheid thought that if the Africans ever got into power, that they'd exact vengeance on the Europeans and massacre them all. Perhaps you would do that if you were in that situation Tony, but thankfully, not all people are like you. The Arabs, contrary to what you believe are not like that. Rather they just want to get on with their own lives, they're tired and just want it resolved, that is precisely why they've offered the Arab Peace Initiative. It's a huge compromise and very reasonable. Plus, Israel has its 200+ Nuclear weapons as guarantee of that doesn't it? Again, I think you reflect on the capacity of hate that you have inside yourself and believe that all people are capable of this. Perhaps if the Palestinians had the chance to enjoy their lives in their own state, to build their nation up and who's inalienable rights to liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness were given to them they focus on the good things like Israelis get the chance to do, they would do the same. But no one gives them that.. They've been a people without a state for now over 60 years and their only way to gain justice for them is through trying to get it for themselves because we sure as hell know that the US, Israel and the UN isn't going to grant it to them. The Palestinians have no state, and so for them, pride is all they have left.. Unfortunately however for many Palestinians, seeing their family, and in particular their fathers beaten in front of them, imprisoned or shot by Israeli soldiers, they even feel like they lose their dignity, and when a man loses his dignity, he loses the will to live and thanks to that and the extremist movements, their lack of education and desperation let them fall into these movements hands and this is when suicide bombings happen. It's not because of some ridiculous idea of virgins in paradise, it's simply about them, not wanting to live on in those inhumane conditions and them being exploited by extremists with their own perverted ideas. But let them have a state, negotiate peace with them and you'll see that they'll be the best of neighbors. Perhaps if you didn't see Arabs with bias you would see that in fact, they aren't as you believe. - Legal according to whom? The UN who at that time was mostly colonialist states? If you say that it was approved by the UN and therefore justly created, you better then also then recognize the authority that the UN has in saying that Israel should adhere to the countless resolutions by the UN calling them to allow the resolutions to return of refugees, to go back to pre-67 borders etc. If not then as far as I'm concerned you're picking and choosing what suits Israel best just to justify Zionism. Benevolent victor? Are you serious? Plus, If by being the victor in all of the wars you mean having killed a huge percentage of non-combatants then sure, Israel has won them all. But if however you mean actually going about and achieving the goals that it had set out to do, then I'm afraid that Israel hasn't done this for a while.. Take for example the 2006 war against Hezbollah that failed miserably in, despite bombing much of Southern Lebanon and South Beirut flat it neither wiped out Hezbollah nor stop the rocket threat. It even failed miserably in liberating the soldiers that Hezbollah captured and ultimately had to engage in negotiations to trade prisoners with Hezbollah, which was Hezbollah's goal in the first place. Oh please, when does the mandate for victimhood in justifying the horrendous crimes against another people end? Stop using the Holocaust as an excuse for such disgusting behavior, it's trampling on the memory of the terrible events that happened there. The victims of such genocide and those who died trying to save them don't deserve to have their names sullied with such outrageous justifications. I resent the fact that you'd exploit the sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand soldiers who died fighting to stop the Nazis to justify yet more ethnic cleansing and low intensity genocide on another innocent people. The Arabs didn't kill 6 million Jews in Europe, in fact many Arabs and Muslims risked their lives to try and help the Jews that were being made the victims of European persecution. Muslim families in France risked their lives by sneaking Jewish children to safety away from the clutches of the Nazis. So why take the Arab's land and punish them for Europe's crimes? The only reason why Israel hasn't agreed to anything now and keeps dragging its feet is because it has the power to do so with its military and US backing. If Israel doesn't want to live side by side with the Palestinians in a two state solution then so be it, but ultimately one day, the tables will turn. Then what will Israel do? Although I don't like him much, I have to say... Ahmedinejad was 100% right about one thing. When he stated that like the USSR, due to Israel's policies both domestic and foreign Israel would simply collapse. It is an occupation that can't be kept on forever without the acceptance of its neighbors and its neighbors are reaching out with peace. 60 years of war is long enough, Israel won't last another 60 years due to its domestic policies and the Palestinians shouldn't have to wait another 60 years. You mean like the Oslo Accords which Israel refused to abide by, building more and more settlements? Yes, that's been tried. Of course Hamas want peace. Do you think they are so subhuman that they don't want peace for their children so that their children can grow up in a world without bombings, shootings, sieges and starvation? They don't want safety and security and prefer to live in those horrible conditions?

I wish :-P If that happened and the US actually stuck to the constitution in terms of how it was run, I'd support that in a heart beat, heck I'd move there tomorrow. In my opinion, the US as created and intended by the Founding Fathers in my opinion is the closest thing to an 'Islamic' State in the world.

Michael, I do agree.. I'd be more than happy with a two state solution that stayed as two states if the relationship between Israel and the Arab states got to the stage that an Israeli could happily shop in Damascus and a Syrian could shop in Haifa..

I'm sorry, but Israel is in no way a home for Jews and Arabs, I mean the racial and religious identity of the state, regardless of what the declaration states at that point are clearly Jewish and I mean how would you feel being made to sing a national anthem of how great it is being Arab or Muslim or Christian? Your flag a giant crescent or cross? It doesn't sound very inclusive to me. And it isn't very inclusive, Arabs are treated like second class citizens in Israel. One example you can look at is the fact that Arab-Israelis are legally forbidden from purchasing much of the majority for sale because they are not Jewish, and you call that equal? It has always been my position to support a one state solution there. An identity of the state not based on religious or ethnic lines, rather based on the identity of all citizens being human beings, equal in rights and free to practice their religions as they pleased (or didn't please). If someone wants to live under and be accountable to Islamic or Jewish law, then so be it, if however they choose to live under regular civil law, then that's fine too. Unfortunately however, due to the last 60 years of hostility the above is impractical. Therefore, for the foreseeable future I do support a two state solution that allows both nations that are obviously quite suspicious of each other to build their nations up in peace, taking care of their people's primary needs first and over time, build their relationship up to be so strong that they don't need walls to separate each other, nor watch towers etc and can freely mix amongst each other.. And God Willing, when such a day does come that Palestinians and Israelis see each others as brothers once more, and vote through referendum to reunify as one nation, then I'll be happy.. But these things take time and require it to be done in stages. Also, I'm sorry but comparing Israel to other Arab nations for the purposes of demonstrating freedom isn't really a good standard. I'm the first to call these places police states and dictatorships.

Actually, it's not the intention of Hamas to kill as many Jews as possible, also if it were, why would there be a need to 'force the remainder into second class citizenship'? I've read the charter, I've watched and listened to the broadcasts. I'm not saying I like Hamas nor do I want them to govern the Palestinians. But what alternative are you giving the Palestinians? The corrupt PLO? The only way groups like Hamas can have any influence, is by having an outside enemy like Israel or the US. The Palestinians want justice. Give them a state and some justice and you'll see. Groups like Hamas will be out of the picture quicker than you could have ever imagined. Hamas want peace and have backed the idea of a two state solution. So why would they bother? No, Arabs in Israel are treated like second class citizens. No, that's not the reason why it's crime free at all. Are you saying that the only way to stay that crime free is to have a police state watching over the people constantly? The Arabs are willing to negotiate regarding the refugees returning home so as to not take the Jewish identity away from Israel. Please refer to the part of the agreement where it states: For the first time, the Arab world commits itself to an AGREED solution to the refugee problem, thus addressing Israel’s concern that the demographic character of the Jewish state not be threatened. To be sure, the initiative calls for achieving a just solution of the problem in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, but it points out that the implementation of that resolution has to be agreed. The key point here is that Arabs understand well that the implementation has to be both fair and realistic, and certainly agreed upon. In other words, there is no possibility of a solution that will lead to the changing of the character of the Jewish state." The goal is to provide a fair solution, not to overwhelm the Israeli Jews with more Arabs. The exact number of Arabs returning to Israel isn't a number that you or I could give, the number must be agreed upon through negotiation between the Arabs and Israelis themselves. Now regarding security? Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons and maintains one of the most advanced militaries in the world. There is no real threat to Israel in the region at all. However, in the interest of creating a lasting peace, no one would blame Israel for taking the peace initiative in steps, the Palestinians would also do the same. Israel could keep giant walls surrounding itself and the peace could be reached over a number of years in stages through a comprehensive truce over a period of months or years and then a proper peace agreed upon. All it requires though is the Israelis to accept that.

If that were the case, we would have wiped them off of the face of the earth instead of protecting them from the Europeans when they were being persecuted there. We're obligated in Islam to protect the People of the Book which includes the Jews.

Belligerence? Oh please.. Their land is occupied.. They have a right to resist.. Hamas has backed a two state solution with Israel. It's Israel that doesn't want it. The Arab Peace Initiative which has the backing of the Arab league entails that the Arabs will: I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region. II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace. In return for: I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon. II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194. III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. This agreement has been offered to Israel for 7 years now. Why don't they take it? It's not unreasonable at all. As soon as Hamas was elected it was put under sanctions by the US government who along with the Israeli government then tried to organize the Fatah militias of the PLO to launch attacks, including hundreds of Fatah militants from Isreali jails and arming them to the teeth, then sending them into the Gaza strip to launch attacks. They also put a siege on the Gaza strip so that the Palestinians could barely get any food into it and children were and continue to be suffering from malnutrition and other problems as a result. And why? Because the Palestinians decided that they wanted to elect a government in that they preferred. And yet you wonder why the Palestinians are fighting back. No, there still are Zionists.. There are many non-Zionist Jews and many non-Jewish Zionists, they aren't the same thing. Stop trying to make this about Jews when it simply isn't about that. They've been offered peace many times, like the Arab Peace initiative.. They refuse to accept it.. In fact even when the Palestinians that they'd make a unilateral declaration of their statehood and ask the UN to back it recently they were threatened with war by the Israelis. So what are they to do? They have a good offer of peace for the Israeli government and the Israelis are not accepting it.. What do you suggest to fix the problem?

Yes, sure.. We do believe in taking responsibility for our actions, that is why when people believe that they will be held accountable for their bad deeds in the next life, even if they escape accountability in this life it causes those who are mindful of such a punishment to reconsider their decisions. I went and lived in Syria and saw the results of that. Whilst I don't agree with everything that I saw there, I did see an amazingly beautiful and spiritual people, both Muslims and Christians who wouldn't harm another soul and aside from taxi drivers trying to cheat you, crime is basically non existent there. Yes, it regulates it in the sense where it puts the majority of the burden on men and basically none on the women. It sets a family structure. But it doesn't allow a man to physically 'control' his rebellious wife nor does it allow him to be a tyrant over her. Are you saying that Islam says that a woman must listen to her husband, no matter what he says? I also don't think you understand the meaning of God's will.. EVERYTHING that happens is God's Will. If people have the intent and lust for blood they'll use any excuse they can find.. Even objectivism and if y My Arabic is limited yes, but it's certainly good enough to read in Arabic. My English is also good enough to find where scholars have talked about this. ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّلِحَتُ قَنِتَتٌ حَفِظَتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا ‎ Now let's look at the word in question: قَنِتَتٌ The root of this word is ﻕ-ن-ﺕ This means, and has only ever meant a type of devout obedience.. That which is to God. Nowhere in the Qur'an has it ever been used other than in the sense of devout obedience to God and His Blessed Prophets, peace be upon them. I mean it's pretty obvious by the verse what it's talking about. Let's finish the actual sentence off, it says: ...Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. .. It's referring to a woman being devoutly obedient to God by guarding what God would have her guard when her husband is away.

Here's a great interview with Dr. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad of the Minaret of Freedom Institute in the US regarding Islam, Muhammad, Libertarianism, Economics etc. I think you might like this if you're trying to understand some of the points that I'm getting across regarding Islam's link to these subjects. I really like this Dr Imad ad-Dean Ahmad. He seems quite educated regarding Islam and I'd love to get the chance to help him in his mission to change the Muslim world. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceeI6p_fRw8&feature=related Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_yi8bSpQBo&feature=related Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kUci_iEBC4&feature=related Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-BueB6Do-8

Nothing justifies separating the land based on ethnic or religious grounds. But I'm not the one who wanted it in the first place, it was the Zionists who wanted to create their state based on those lines. That is WHY it is Racism and Apartheid. You proved my point. There is no difference between them other than citizenship. I don't want to submit the Palestinian people to the PLO. Also, Hamas isn't Wahhabi. In fact they don't like Wahhabis at all. Let's not forget the Palestinians themselves voted Hamas in as their government.

I am the biggest critic of the way the Mid East is after having lived there and seen it for myself. It's completely unislamic. Don't attribute that to me nor my beliefs.

I see.. So you prefer mankind fears absolutely no consequences at all for their actions? Xray, again. There IS a need to ask, please stop looking at a translation of a verse and thinking that you understand its meaning. Your assumptions make you look uneducated. The word used has the root: ﻕ-ن-ﺕ This means, devoutly obedient to God. Not to her husband. Nowhere in the Qur'an is it used in the context that this type of obedience could be attributed to anything but God and His Messenger. Well I'm sorry to hear that women in your country don't get as many rights as they should.