| Jerusalem is ours, warns Likud |
|
|
| Thursday, 18 October 2007 | |
|
Zalman Shoval, head of the foreign affairs department of Likud, said yesterday that the issue of Jerusalem should "not be on the table in any way" at the planned international conference in Annapolis, Maryland later in the year —the basis of which he sharply criticized. Mr Shoval was speaking after a report in Haaretz that the party was pressing two right wing parties Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu to leave the governing coalition in response to Wednesday's remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - interpreted as implying the city could be divided in any final deal with the Palestinians. In sharp contrast Yossi Beilin, leader of the left wing Meretz said last night: "Mr Olmert knows very well that at the end of the day, and that is not too far away—the division of Jerusalem is a must. You will not have peace without a division and I think he's well aware of it." Mr Olmert's questioning of whether certain Palestinian neighbourhoods needed to remain in what Israel officially sees as its undivided capital followed earlier – much more sweeping - suggestions by his Cabinet ally Haim Ramon that Jerusalem could be split into capitals—Israeli and Palestinian - along the lines proposed by the then President Bill Clinton at the Camp David talks in 2000. That has long been acknowledged to be an absolute requirement of the Palestinians in any negotiations. Mr Shoval, who was Israeli ambassador to the US at the time of the Madrid Middle East conference in 1991, said he had negotiated at the time an assurance from the then President George Bush senior that Jerusalem would not be on the conference's agenda. The same should apply to what he yesterday described to foreign reporters as the "Annapolis charade." Mr Shoval—who quoted a Military Intelligence report claiming that the Palestinians would fail to carry out their commitments at the conference said that on Jerusalem Israeli sovereignty –including over the Temple Mount—known to Muslims as Haram al Sharif - were "non negotiable." He said that could be achieved without Israel "taking charge" of Muslim holy sites. But he added: "Our approach today is that Jerusalem should not be on the table in Annapolis and that therefore we don’t want to go into details." By contrast Mr Beilin wrote in Ynet earlier this week: "Continued declarations of a "united Jerusalem" are just empty slogans in a de facto divided Jerusalem. It's time to remove the mask and to act according to real Israeli interests: Namely, to reach a final status agreement that would allow the Palestinians to found a state alongside Israel with its capital in East Jerusalem." Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice, the US Secretary of State, who is pressing the two sides to reach an outline accord ahead of Annapolis, seemed to have secured the support of a previously skeptical Egypt for going ahead with the conference as planned. The Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said after meeting Ms rice in Cairo that she "has helped us to understand the American objective. We feel encouraged regarding what we heard from Secretary Rice and promised her that we would help." Source: The Independent           Readers have left 49 comments.
DaveZ:
Quote
Jerusalem was the ancient capital of Israel before the Al Aqsa Mosque was built, surely?
How can you say "It's ours?" Could someone state a brief history to demonstrate Muslim ownership of Jerusalem?
(3)
2007-10-19 08:09:11
RSD:
Quote
For the the two thousand years before the late 19th C Jerusalem was a study in humiliation where the ruling empire humiliated those it had subjugated. Only from Tanzimat and the imposition of the Millet system did things begin to improve. From 1948 until 1967 Jews were forbidden entry. Since 1967 all three faiths have had legal equality within the security constraints.
According to UN, Jerusalem is supposed to be a city under international stewardship to prevent any group dominating it. From 1856 when the first censuses were undertaken Jews have been the largest single group 1856 38% Jews, 37% Christian, 25% Muslim) by 1900 Jews were an absolute majority at 70%. The proposed internationalisation in 1947 seems therefore to be a mechanism to prevent Jews from exercising their democratic majority and dominating the city. Despite all this ownership over the last 2000 years seems to belong to whichever nation / empire has the biggest and most effective army, and from that draw your own conclusions.
(4)
2007-10-19 08:32:14
bigman:
Quote
yes jerusalems yours mr netanyahu the men in white coats are coming to get you and the rest of the loonys like you
(5)
2007-10-19 09:25:15
George:
Quote
Bigman and Soldiers of Allah:
There's no substitute for reasoned argument. Or is there in your world? "Next year in Jerusalem."
(6)
2007-10-19 12:31:01
DaveZ:
Quote
Thanks to RSD it seems clear to me who owns Jerusalem.
Also, history suggests that it is only when Jerusalem is under teh control of Israel that Muslims and Christians are free to use their holy sites in Jerusalem. I see no problem. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, so I don't see them giving it up. I remember that Arafat "The Egyptian" wanted to be buried in Jerusalem. Strange for an Egyptian.
(7)
2007-10-19 14:47:10
George:
Quote
Does anyone actually 'own' Jerusalem? It's a predominantly Jewish city, focal point of longing in the diaspora and after '47. Others have tried (and failed) to hijack it as part of a futile attempt to usurp Judaism.
(8)
2007-10-19 15:24:55
truth:
Quote
Im afraid the arguments are of the WMD nauture. All fantasies. To discuss Jerusalam you have to understand its location and the recent history. The Jews have not done themselves any favours by their treatment of the palestinians and arab neighbours. Israel is a cancer state founded on opression and murder and situated in the middle of muslim nations and aggrieved people.
The only way that Israel will continue to exist is by force and the murder and subjugation of the muslims and that will not continue for much longer. 50, 100, 1000 years! we can wait. Palestine belongs to the muslims and no gun, tank, bulldozer,f16,apache,assasination or nuclear weapon will prevent it from being returned. The thieves who are now negotiating have no right to negotiate palestine. They will be gone one day.
(9)
2007-10-19 16:09:43
muzzylogic:
Quote
I think it's fair to say that all of the Abrahamic religions hold Jerusalem sacred. It's no good any one of them trying to lay sole claim to it and therefore in all their interests to reach a mutual agreement over it.
@DaveZ Also, history suggests that it is only when Jerusalem is under teh control of Israel that Muslims and Christians are free to use their holy sites in Jerusalem. — DaveZGiven that the Israel you are referring to has only existed less than a century, during which time most of the local muslims have had their rights of free movement seriously curtailed, I fail to see how you can arive at that conclusion.
(10)
2007-10-20 00:39:22
Joe Smith:
Quote
Palestine belongs to the Peace and Freedom loving people of Palestine! Just ask these Peace and Freedom loving from people from " Jews United Against Zionism!"
So we the civilised people should not Allow Zionist Extremist Terrorist to tell us otherwise!
(11)
2007-10-20 02:59:54
DaveZ:
Quote
fuzzylogic, I suggest you read Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel to discover that Israel existed in Old Testament times.
You would also discover that the city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 100 times in the Old Testament. The idea that Israel has existed for less than a century is clearly a falsely held belief.
(12)
2007-10-20 09:33:34
muzzylogic:
Quote
@DaveZ
I'm perfectly familiar with the Old Testament, thank you. With respect, I said the Israel *you* are referring to. The one that allegedly gives Christians and Muslims free access to their places of worship. Since there were no Christians or Muslims described in the Old Testament, it's pretty clear that you are not talking about the land of Israel described in the Old Testament. The only state Israel that has existed concurrently with Christian and Muslim communities is the one that was forged after WW2. This particular state of Israel does not have a history that could be described as permitting free access to sites sacred to Islam or Christianity, especially to the nearest adherents of said faiths. It may surprise you to learn that there are many Christian Palestinians. Like their Muslim counterparts, they do not have free access to their holy sites, like all Palestinians their movements are subject to serious restriction. In short, you are talking about two different entities called Israel that are separated by a wide period of history in which the region has been ruled and populaced by different people. Of this pair, the first never had any major rival religious groups with spiritual claims to Jerusalem to consider. The second does have rival religious groups but is not what one could call tolerant in its attitude towards their claim.
(13)
2007-10-20 13:45:45
DaveZ:
Quote
@DaveZ — muzzylogicI'm perfectly familiar with the Old Testament, thank you. With respect, I said the Israel *you* are referring to. The one that allegedly gives Christians and Muslims free access to their places of worship. Since there were no Christians or Muslims described in the Old Testament, it's pretty clear that you are not talking about the land of Israel described in the Old Testament. The only state Israel that has existed concurrently with Christian and Muslim communities is the one that was forged after WW2. This particular state of Israel does not have a history that could be described as permitting free access to sites sacred to Islam or Christianity, especially to the nearest adherents of said faiths. It may surprise you to learn that there are many Christian Palestinians. Like their Muslim counterparts, they do not have free access to their holy sites, like all Palestinians their movements are subject to serious restriction. In short, you are talking about two different entities called Israel that are separated by a wide period of history in which the region has been ruled and populaced by different people. Of this pair, the first never had any major rival religious groups with spiritual claims to Jerusalem to consider. The second does have rival religious groups but is not what one could call tolerant in its attitude towards their claim. I am amazed at how you have to create an artificial boundary around an argument in order to try and win it. Let me quote:- "After the war, Israel abolished all the discriminatory laws promulgated by Jordan and adopted its own tough standard for safeguarding access to religious shrines. "Whoever does anything that is likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the various religions to the places sacred to them," Israeli law stipulates, is "liable to imprisonment for a term of five years." Israel also entrusted administration of the holy places to their respective religious authorities. Muslim rights on the Temple Mount, the site of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa Mosque, have not been infringed, and the holy places are under the supervision of the Muslim Waqf. Although it is the holiest site in Judaism, Israel has left the Temple Mount under the control of Muslim religious authorities. Since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians — many from Arab countries that remain in a state of war with Israel — have come to Jerusalem to see their holy places. Arab leaders are free to visit Jerusalem to pray if they wish to, just as Egyptian President Anwar Sadat did at the El-Aksa mosque. Along with religious freedom, Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem have unprecedented political rights. Arab residents were given the choice of whether to become Israeli citizens. Most chose to retain their Jordanian citizenship. Moreover, regardless of whether they are citizens, Jerusalem Arabs are permitted to vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city" (jewishvirtuallibrary.org) This freedom is enshrined in Israel's constitution. Yes it IS true that Israel has restricted access to Al Aqsa at times for security reasons. But it is ALSO true that Muslims are able to pray in Al Aqsa every day. Under Jordanian (Muslim rule) until 1967, not only were Jews denied access to holy sites but they also destroyed some and desecrated religious artifacts. In the moder era Jerusalem is open to all faiths. Even when fully recognised as the capital city of Israel it will still remain open.
(14)
2007-10-20 14:54:09
muzzylogic:
Quote
"I am amazed at how you have to create an artificial boundary around an argument in order to try and win it"
Moi? I am not the person who sought to infer the current state of Israel as being the same political/cultural entity that existed millenia ago in Old Testament descriptions. You are now asserting that it is the modern state of Israel that enshrines these rights so why did you feel the need to suggest I examine biblical descriptions of the region when I stated that this entity has existed for less than a century?
(15)
2007-10-20 15:15:54
muzzylogic:
Quote
Further to this I would add that Jerusalem has had centuries of Muslim rule in which the same rights of access and worship were granted to Christian and Jews. The modern Jordanian period you are referring to amounts to a small proportion of this time span.
History therefore supports that free access to Christian/Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem has been the norm during Muslim rule. Your original assertion that history demonstrates that it is only under (modern) Israeli rule that these rights exist is therefore demonstrably incorrect.
(16)
2007-10-20 15:23:56
DaveZ:
Quote
"I am amazed at how you have to create an artificial boundary around an argument in order to try and win it" — muzzylogicMoi? I am not the person who sought to infer the current state of Israel as being the same political/cultural entity that existed millenia ago in Old Testament descriptions. You are now asserting that it is the modern state of Israel that enshrines these rights so why did you feel the need to suggest I examine biblical descriptions of the region when I stated that this entity has existed for less than a century? Because "this entity" has existed since biblical times. If you insist that Israel only existed in the 20th Century then explain the word "Yisroel" found in the Old Testament and the 100 or so references to Jerusalem. I believe that the phrase is also "Eretz Yisroel" meaning "Land of Israel", so we can be sure they don't mean someone called Israel. I just don't see where you have any valid point.
(17)
2007-10-20 15:46:30
DaveZ:
Quote
Further to this I would add that Jerusalem has had centuries of Muslim rule in which the same rights of access and worship were granted to Christian and Jews. The modern Jordanian period you are referring to amounts to a small proportion of this time span. — muzzylogicHistory therefore supports that free access to Christian/Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem has been the norm during Muslim rule. Your original assertion that history demonstrates that it is only under (modern) Israeli rule that these rights exist is therefore demonstrably incorrect. I am OK about acknowledging that at various times Muslims and Arabs had the upper hand in controlling Jerusalem - as did the Christians after the Crusades. The history of Jerusalem by Dore Gold clearly shows, however, that Christians and Muslims/Arabs ALSO had periods of restriction against other religions as well as pogroms.
(18)
2007-10-20 15:48:47
muzzylogic:
Quote
@DaveZ
"I just don't see where you have any valid point." I am not contesting that the physical region we call Israel has existed since biblical times nor am I contesting that it has been called that. Quite how you infer that from my posts is frankly beyond me. I'm asserting that the State we call Israel today is an entity that does not have the same historical continuity: "On May 14, 1948, the last British forces withdrew from Palestine, and the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, declared the creation of the State of Israel, in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan." If Israel has existed since biblical times, what then, was this entity they created?
(19)
2007-10-20 15:58:12
muzzylogic:
Quote
@DaveZ
The history of Jerusalem by Dore Gold clearly shows, however, that Christians and Muslims/Arabs ALSO had periods of restriction against other religions as well as pogroms. — DaveZAnd looking at the larger picture for a moment, what would you call the subjugation and forced expulsion of Palestinians from their land during periods of Israeli expansion?
(20)
2007-10-20 16:18:03
DaveZ:
Quote
@DaveZ — muzzylogic"I just don't see where you have any valid point." I am not contesting that the physical region we call Israel has existed since biblical times nor am I contesting that it has been called that. Quite how you infer that from my posts is frankly beyond me. I'm asserting that the State we call Israel today is an entity that does not have the same historical continuity: "On May 14, 1948, the last British forces withdrew from Palestine, and the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, declared the creation of the State of Israel, in accordance with the 1947 UN Partition Plan." If Israel has existed since biblical times, what then, was this entity they created? Yes, it was based on the UN Partition plan which arose from the original Mandate For Palestine by the League of Nations. The Mandate stated that the Jewish National Home would be between the West of the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. The practical reality of what could be sustained as a Jewish State was defined by Jewish areas of population dominance, hence it was a smaller area than the original Mandate. In addition Trans-Jordan actually stole land and incorporated it as Jordan and the British allowed them to get away with it (BTW I am British). You can say that the State of Israel is a construct based on the original historical Israel but less than the original Mandate and less than the Israel that the Jews had influence over and occupied in Biblical times. That is why you point is skewed because it suggest Israel is a completely false concept based on stolen lands when its a completely relevant construct, based on historical Israel - but less. That is why the nutter settlers claim ALL the region, just as Hamas and the PA do. In a biblical sense the settlers are correct but in a moral and practical sense they are wrong.
(21)
2007-10-20 19:22:22
Zainub:
Quote
fuzzylogic, I suggest you read Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel to discover that Israel existed in Old Testament times. — DaveZYou would also discover that the city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 100 times in the Old Testament. The idea that Israel has existed for less than a century is clearly a falsely held belief. How about sharing the city? All people having equal access to the holy sites? Surely, this is the only way out of the gridlock we have been at for the past 60 years.
(22)
2007-10-22 12:17:15
shamsur:
Quote
Lets get things staright. The Israeli's are occupying lillegal land.
Lets per say they were (in 1948) given the state of Texas. I beleive the Americans would not be very happy with this arrangement, and AIPAC and all these stupid organisations just would not exist. The power of Israel is in the hands of ther American government and they are continuously pre4ssurised by AIPAC. In the words of Richard Perle, who ever refuses to support the state of Israel will have their political careers distroyed with help from the largest evangelical movemnt in the US which supports Israel. The US fears Israel (by the way Hilary and Barack have already attended AIPAC parties) When the USA lets go of their best Friend (worst nightmare) we will be taking back all of what they call Israel and what we call Palestine. PS. Zionists can relocate in LA
(23)
2007-10-22 14:12:09
George:
Quote
Shamsu:
You said: "...We will be taking back all of what they call Israel and what we call Palestine. PS Zionists can re-locate in LA." Why can't you be honest? YOU MEAN THE JEWS CAN RELOCATE TO LA - DON'T YOU?
(24)
2007-10-22 14:45:53
shamsur:
Quote
George:
I don't mean Jews, you guys always bring the word Jews and anti-semite into any logical debate. Jews have lived in peace in muslim lands for centuries. who said anything about Jews. What im talking about is the state of Israel and its right to placed in Palestine. Why not anywhere else? why were they chucked out of europe why were they not given a state in Europe when thats where the majority of them used to live. Even today people settling in Israel are going from Europe. My argument is that its all very good to place the state of Israel in the middle of Islams second holiest country, but consider this.... if they were relocated to USA or Europe than i do not think the world would revolve around them as it does now.
(25)
2007-10-22 16:52:35
shan:
Quote
no george the zionists can relocate to L.A or wherever they want,jews lived in palestine before the zionist state of israel and they shall live after it has come to its natural end.
all states built upon oppression and slaughter will be destroyed by the evil of their own actions. humans will never accept oppression and slaughter this is a in built human natural condtion.
(26)
2007-10-22 17:02:40
DaveZ:
Quote
fuzzylogic, I suggest you read Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel to discover that Israel existed in Old Testament times. — ZainubYou would also discover that the city of Jerusalem is mentioned over 100 times in the Old Testament. The idea that Israel has existed for less than a century is clearly a falsely held belief. How about sharing the city? All people having equal access to the holy sites? Surely, this is the only way out of the gridlock we have been at for the past 60 years. What a good idea. Since all religions worship freely in Jerusalem (as well as across Israel) then that problem has been solved.
(27)
2007-10-22 19:22:17
DaveZ:
Quote
Lets get things staright. The Israeli's are occupying lillegal land. — shamsurLets per say they were (in 1948) given the state of Texas. I beleive the Americans would not be very happy with this arrangement, and AIPAC and all these stupid organisations just would not exist. The power of Israel is in the hands of ther American government and they are continuously pre4ssurised by AIPAC. In the words of Richard Perle, who ever refuses to support the state of Israel will have their political careers distroyed with help from the largest evangelical movemnt in the US which supports Israel. The US fears Israel (by the way Hilary and Barack have already attended AIPAC parties) When the USA lets go of their best Friend (worst nightmare) we will be taking back all of what they call Israel and what we call Palestine. PS. Zionists can relocate in LA Let's suppose the Arabs had accepted the partition plan in 1948 - instead of trying to steal land from the Jews. Suppose the Arabas hadn't waged a war against Israel in 1967 - and lost. Then the 'Palestinians' would have remained Jordanians and Egyptians and problem solved. Why don't they ask to be re-united with Jordan and Egypt instead of trying to steal land garnted to The Jews under the original mandate? I am absolutely certain that Israel would be happy to see the Palestinians with an Independent state living in peace.
(28)
2007-10-22 19:26:00
DaveZ:
Quote
George: — shamsurI don't mean Jews, you guys always bring the word Jews and anti-semite into any logical debate. Jews have lived in peace in muslim lands for centuries. who said anything about Jews. What im talking about is the state of Israel and its right to placed in Palestine. Why not anywhere else? why were they chucked out of europe why were they not given a state in Europe when thats where the majority of them used to live. Even today people settling in Israel are going from Europe. My argument is that its all very good to place the state of Israel in the middle of Islams second holiest country, but consider this.... if they were relocated to USA or Europe than i do not think the world would revolve around them as it does now. OF COURSE YOU MEANT JEWS! There is no context in which "Zionists should relocate to LA" exceptthe meaning that the Jews of Israel should relocate to LA. Got news for you. 100 million Zionists have reloated to the USA. Most were born there. Judaism (hence Jews) pre-date Islam by several thousand years so why does Islam have a claim over the capital city of Israel and the Jewish Nation, Jerusalem? Why doesn't Saudi Arabia allow non-Muslims to visist Mecca and Medina when these were tradiotional homes for Jews of the Bani tribe? Why were they killed in pogroms to make Mecca and Medine "Jewish Free" (or Judenrein is the word used during the Nazi era)
(29)
2007-10-22 19:30:31
shamsur:
Quote
DaveZ
It would be different if the Jews of that era had been kicked out. But they or their decendants are Muslim and would not dream of being anything else. So everything you say about that era is just irrelevant.
(30)
2007-10-23 10:28:57
DaveZ:
Quote
DaveZ — shamsurIt would be different if the Jews of that era had been kicked out. But they or their decendants are Muslim and would not dream of being anything else. So everything you say about that era is just irrelevant. Let us be clear. Descendants of Jews are Jews, NOT Muslims. Perhaps Christians are Muslims in disguise!
(31)
2007-10-23 13:29:17
shamsur:
Quote
DaveZ
You make me laugh, the region in question does not have any christians or jews for more than a thousand years as they did convert. Your comment about Chritians being Muslims in disguise is also laughable as you have swayed away from the main debate and gone comical. Let me point out something to you. A Chritian can never be a Muslim, for one main reason, the Man we call profit Jesus is their lord God, what ludicris nonsense. (just some education for you)
(32)
2007-10-23 17:09:39
DaveZ:
Quote
DaveZ — shamsurYou make me laugh, the region in question does not have any christians or jews for more than a thousand years as they did convert. Your comment about Chritians being Muslims in disguise is also laughable as you have swayed away from the main debate and gone comical. Let me point out something to you. A Chritian can never be a Muslim, for one main reason, the Man we call profit Jesus is their lord God, what ludicris nonsense. (just some education for you) There has been a Jewish presence in the area called Israel, renamed Palestine (so we can be clearer about the geography and historical sequence) since biblical times, well before Islam was created. You have to just hold the concept that Jews are a race of people from The Land of Israel in the Old Testament, and Christians and Muslims are not. They are a race because their lineage of being Jewish passes from the mother. Christianity is a break-away religion from Judaism based on whether Jesus was a Messiah or not. I seem to rermeber an MPAC article stating that ALL people are born Muslim but not all come to that conclusion. So, do you dispute that? If I need education I shan't come looking to you to provide history, geography, spelling and grammar lessons.
(33)
2007-10-24 07:30:39
shamsur:
Quote
Indeed all are born Muslim but choose to beleive according to their own decisions.
About Christianity being a breakaway religion; i don't actually care. You don't have to take education lessons from me. All you need to do is your own research into all three religions and you will automatically come to only one conclusion, only if ignorance does not prevail. About Israel, it does not exist and we refuse to recognise it. That is Palestine. In the past the Christians had conquered it for 100 years, you guys have only had it for roughly 60, don't worry plenty of time yet.
(34)
2007-10-24 11:05:29
George:
Quote
"All you need to do is your own research into all three religions and you will automatically come to only one conclusion..."
What would that be? That Islam is the truth and everything else is a pack of lies? "...don't worry plenty of time yet?" Are you impotent?
(35)
2007-10-24 11:56:21
shamsur:
Quote
George
your humour is like DaveZ's...... Im just asking DaveZ to do his own research and not take my word or anyone elses for it. Than he or anyoner else can argue if indeed Islam is the truth or is Chritianity or Judaism. One things for sure all three cannot be the truth.
(37)
2007-10-24 14:30:41
George:
Quote
The truth about the three religions?
The beauty of religions is that they can neither be proved nor disproved. All religious beliefs are right - because they can't be proven wrong. The danger comes when someone starts cursing another of a different faith for being of a different faith. Don't you agree?
(38)
2007-10-24 15:51:35
shamsur:
Quote
George
All three religions are connected. Thats what can be proved. The Qur'an states that when the Torah was revealed to Moses it stated that Jesus and Mohammed will come after him. Likewise in the Bible it stated that Mohammed will come after Jesus. These scriptures are non existent in the versions of the Bible and Torah in the world today. This means to find the greater truth one must investigate the Qur'an to understand what happened. I agree cursing anothers religion is wrong, but to describe error and misjugement is intellectually accepted.
(39)
2007-10-24 15:59:01
George:
Quote
So references to Mohammed were removed from the Bible? I've not heard that before.
You say that one must investigate the Qur'an to find out what actually happened. But that means that one has to accept what the Qur'an says as The Truth - every word of it. True? I'm glad you agree that cursing other religions is wrong, but claiming that another religion as full of errors and misjudgement is NOT an intellectual exercise and therefore unacceptable. Religion and the intellect are two very different things. Religion depends on suspending one's use of the intellect to accept a set of ideas blindly. The intellect requires the use of empirical knowledge and experience. Sorry.
(40)
2007-10-25 10:57:47
shamsur:
Quote
But the religion of Islam is a complete way of life. There is no topic is left out in the Qur'an.
Only by reading the Qur'an can you see be the judge of accepting it as the truth or not.
(41)
2007-10-25 11:16:29
shan:
Quote
shamsur brother you are wasting your time with these zionists.
there job is to turn every debate into a slanging match,you can debate and win by your logical responses,but they wil come back using new names to carry on doing the same. do not waste your time and energy responding to them,Rob has throughly shown them up on previous blogs as nothing but trained time wasters.
(43)
2007-10-25 15:44:01
George:
Quote
The only thing Rob has shown up is his inability to spell.
Just off for my training session in world domination.
(44)
2007-10-25 15:55:27
shamsur:
Quote
The surah "Kuliya ayuhal kafiroon" comes to mind.
If only the zionist B.O.D website had a debate going like this.
(45)
2007-10-25 15:57:09
Rob:
Quote
so george the ever changing chameleon zionist,i did say to you then as i do know,when we enter into a spelling competition then we shall see.
until then decide who you are,with so many names changes,people would be forgiven for thinking you had something to hide.
(47)
2007-10-26 10:25:36
George:
Quote
No Rob, Nothing to hide. I'm not the only one to comment on your poor grasp of the English language.
Enjoy wallowing in your own vitriol and bile (look the words up in a dictionary). I've wasted enough time on freaks like you. There's no point trying to reason with hatred. You Sir, are a scoundrel.
(48)
2007-10-26 12:49:18
Rob:
Quote
who is full of hate can be seen from the comments you have just made.
who has something to hide can be seen from the fact that you turn every blog into a slanging match by going of topic. your hatred of truth is extreme to the point you call others freaks and scoundrels for daring to speak the truth. if you have nothing to hide why keep changing names.
(49)
2007-10-26 13:15:54
|
The right wing Israeli opposition party Likud led by Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday warned the government against compromising on the status of Jerusalem in current talks with Palestinian negotiators.
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
