-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Palestinians under attack
- Thread starter Matemkar
- Start date
jewscout
Religious Zionist
:clap:clap
xkatz
Well-Known Member
So are you actually Jewish or do you claim to be Jewish because of Jesus? Just to clarify.
Well...believing that cutting a piece of man's penis has some religious meaning,...well...it makes me laugh. No offense.
It sounds like phallocentrism
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
So you dont believe in everything in the Tanakh.
Was that so hard to admit?
You obviously have no clue about Judaism so you should probably stop.
Well, lots of Jews converted to Christianity after Jesus' death. Did they stop being Jewish? Did they disclaim the Tanakh? No, they didn't. They kept being Jewish. Jewish and Christians at the same time
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
In contrast to what many Jews expected in the Messiah, Jesus was definitely a huge disappointment. That is, without even mention of prophecies or things that needed to be fulfilled. Just his mere presence and lack of kingship.
It's not necessary to presume antisemitism or stereotypes here. Jews really didn't expect a carpenter riding a donkey and it would have most definitely made a difference if he came from a more well to do position.
I think that the fact the Jesus was crucified like any criminal is the cherry on the cake.
Maybe they expected a king like David. Well, Jesus came to teach us Universal Love.
I'd die today if it was useful to save a life. Even the life of my enemy.
Jesus said: Love thy enemies.
Phil25
Active Member
Where did they immigrate from? Go back to the countries they were residing in before they started handing passports to every jew who decided to return to Israel.
Come to Australia, we have plenty of room, and could use some Jewish capital
Why dont Australians go back to wherever you guys come from. Stealing land from Aboriginals.....
jewscout
Religious Zionist
maybe you need to read the Tanach, since you clearly never have.
Much worse: he hasn't a clue that he hasn't a clue.
Can you offer a single reason to believe that it would help?
jewscout
Religious Zionist
I missed you Jay :clap
xkatz
Well-Known Member
You are right.
I was wondering if you could respond to my response to your previous post BTW (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3842553-post125.html)
Last edited:
Matemkar
Active Member
Firstly, they were not DHIMMIS in the non-muslim countries that they were living (i.e. in Europe). And in the Muslim countries they were living, I think any person would agree that the ruling is as per the majority. There is nothing wrong with their being DHIMMIS/Minorities in those countries.
And your point there was? Their wanting to have a state of their own (which according to their religion is forbidden unless they accept Jesus or someone else as the Messiah), gave them the "right" to usurp a land killing and displacing the entire nation?
If they want a state of their own, they should form it in some place where they are welcomed to. Not in a land that they displace nations with the cost of massacring them. The Jews or any other nation should live by the standards and as per the rule-laws of the majority in their countries. If they don't, then they are a bunch of arrogants who think the majority should follow them. And this supposition, which Hay85 also described and opposed as (the "chosen" nation should rule) thingie is illogical.
Thanks.
And your point there was? Their wanting to have a state of their own (which according to their religion is forbidden unless they accept Jesus or someone else as the Messiah), gave them the "right" to usurp a land killing and displacing the entire nation?
If they want a state of their own, they should form it in some place where they are welcomed to. Not in a land that they displace nations with the cost of massacring them. The Jews or any other nation should live by the standards and as per the rule-laws of the majority in their countries. If they don't, then they are a bunch of arrogants who think the majority should follow them. And this supposition, which Hay85 also described and opposed as (the "chosen" nation should rule) thingie is illogical.
Thanks.
CMike
Well-Known Member
xkatz
Well-Known Member
There is nothing wrong with having less rights because you are minority? I understand that in most countries that majority rules, but that doesn't mean that minorities must be treated like second class citizens. Jews in Muslim countries, while sometimes faring better than those in parts of Europe, were not immune to persecution (look at Al-Farhud in Iraq or the many massacres that happened in the 1800s in the Ottoman Empire for instance).
A few points I would like to make:
1) The idea of having a Jewish state before the messiah is a disputed. Those who think that Israel shouldn't exist as a state are a small minority, who are free to live as they please. Judaism and Halacha is for Jews to understand.
2) Most of the 'usurped' land in Israel proper was actually bought from Arab landowners
3) The land that was not bought was taken in defensive wars. The main one being the war for independence (1948), when the Palestinians (and other Arabs), could've accepted a deal that was very generous to them (only land that was bought and inhabited by Jews would've been given to Israel); while most Israeli Jews accepted, the Arabs rejected such an offer and instead went to war.
In countries where Jews are not the majority, they don't think they should subjugate others. I know because I am one of them. I don't think of others as inferiors. However, I think that Jews should be free to practice their religion OPENLY as equals. No more no less. The whole reason for minority rights is to prevent democracy from simply becoming mob rule. This works fine in Western countries. However, this concept seems to be alien in many religious Muslim societies judging by what you're saying.
Phil25
Active Member
WikiIslam says about Dhimmis-
According to the Qur'an and hadith, Jizyah tax must be paid by the dhimmis as a sign of submission. This gives dhimmis some legal protection in return. As established by the Pact of Omar, dhimmis usually are not allowed to carry arms to protect themselves, serve in the army or government, display symbols of their faith, build or repair places of worship, they must wear distinctive clothing which includes the Zunar (a kind of belt) wherever they go, etc. Many of these laws are still enforced today in Muslim countries, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which enforce various aspects of Shari'ah. If the conquered do not wish to pay or convert, their fate may very well be slavery (under which, rape is permitted) or death. The pact also declares that dhimmis are forbidden to ride horses and camels, and may only ride donkeys, and only on packsaddles.
WikiIslam says about Dhimmis-
Dhimma (or dhimmitude) ... is one of the results of the jihad or holy war. ; Connected with the notion of jihad is the distinction between dar al-harb (territory or "house" of war) and dar al-islam (house of Islam). The latter includes all territories subject to Muslim authority. It is in a state of perpetual war with the dar al-harb. The inhabitants of the dar al-harb are harbis, who are not answerable to the Islamic authority and whose persons and goods are mubah, that is, at the mercy of Believers. However, when Muslims are in a subordinate state, they can negotiate a truce with the harbis lasting no more than ten years, which they are obliged to revoke unilaterally as soon as they regain the upper hand, following the example of the Prophet after Hudaibiyya The dhimmi, we might say, is a second-class citizen. If they [the ruling Muslims] tolerate him it is a calculated step, whether because they cherish the hope of converting him or for material reasons, because they force him to shoulder virtually the entire burden of taxation. They provide a place for him in the state, but not without reminding him continually of his inferior status. They prevent him from occupying high positions in society, and if by merit or intrigue he manages to climb to such places everything conspires to relegate him once again to obscurity. If the dhimmi acquires an independent legal status or privileges associated with his personal position, if he is permitted even his own courts, it is only because he cannot share with the Faithful the advantages of their own justice, which is essentially religious. In no case is the dhimmi the equal of a Muslim. He is condemned to social inequality and forms part of a despised caste: inequality so far as his personal rights are concerned, inequality in taxation, and inequality before the law, since his testimony is neither accepted by the Muslim courts of justice nor even, for the same minor crime, is the punishment the same ... No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis.[3]
Muslims of America and Europe want to be considered EQUAL to Americans and Europeans. But they themselves(at least their Sharia Law, which many want to enforce in their home countries and West) consider Minorites in Islamic countries not Equal to Muslims. I hope that majority of Muslims believe in Equality for all. I am really trying to not become an Islamophobe after reading some of the comments in this thread.
Here is the link to WikiIslam-Dhimmitude (definition) - WikiIslam
Last edited:
Matemkar
Active Member
Phil25, WikiIslam is an islamophobic website which takes its sources from sunnism and even misquote and interpret them falsely.
And do you think non-christians should study Christianity from anti-Christian websites? It would be illogical, don't you agree?
Secondly, you need to listen to all sides before you make a judgment.
And if you want to study any issue in Islam, I suggest Al-Islam.org and islamquest.net and ShiaChat.com for your queries.
Back to the Dhimmi issue: the understanding of people (muslims and nonmuslims, even muslims of different denominations) might vary on it. And even if there were people who believed in the concept, the same as wiki"islam" portrays, it does not mean that the people who use the same words-terms for things, necessarily mean the same concepts. Because their understanding and definition of these terms might not be the same.
What I mean here is, at least you need to study my understanding (shia islamic) of the issues before you discuss Islamic concepts with me. And I need to tell you that, even the websites on shia islam won't give you the real picture. As there is so much disinformation about shia islamic faith out there.
Anyway, both of you can search about the description of this concept on the abovementioned websites.
And to adress the other issue, -of buying the lands-, xkatz, it did not happen as you alleged. There were jewish gangs who drove them out of their lands first, forcing some to "sell" their lands. Just check the earlier Jewish terrorist groups. And only few Palestinians accepted it. The others did not. And, let's suppose they sold their lands, selling the part of land does not mean it is out of the state territories, it still is a part of the country that needs to be run by the country. Lastly, it is clear, noone here studied the history and today of Palestine. The invasion, occupation, settlements and even the wars nowadays. Just looking into the issues with colored glasses. "Jews went to the holy land peacefully and the natives offered their lands themselves! No massacre, killing and displacing happened! But, because it is a developed territory now, the Arabs want it back!" This really is a joke.
And do you think non-christians should study Christianity from anti-Christian websites? It would be illogical, don't you agree?
Secondly, you need to listen to all sides before you make a judgment.
And if you want to study any issue in Islam, I suggest Al-Islam.org and islamquest.net and ShiaChat.com for your queries.
Back to the Dhimmi issue: the understanding of people (muslims and nonmuslims, even muslims of different denominations) might vary on it. And even if there were people who believed in the concept, the same as wiki"islam" portrays, it does not mean that the people who use the same words-terms for things, necessarily mean the same concepts. Because their understanding and definition of these terms might not be the same.
What I mean here is, at least you need to study my understanding (shia islamic) of the issues before you discuss Islamic concepts with me. And I need to tell you that, even the websites on shia islam won't give you the real picture. As there is so much disinformation about shia islamic faith out there.
Anyway, both of you can search about the description of this concept on the abovementioned websites.
And to adress the other issue, -of buying the lands-, xkatz, it did not happen as you alleged. There were jewish gangs who drove them out of their lands first, forcing some to "sell" their lands. Just check the earlier Jewish terrorist groups. And only few Palestinians accepted it. The others did not. And, let's suppose they sold their lands, selling the part of land does not mean it is out of the state territories, it still is a part of the country that needs to be run by the country. Lastly, it is clear, noone here studied the history and today of Palestine. The invasion, occupation, settlements and even the wars nowadays. Just looking into the issues with colored glasses. "Jews went to the holy land peacefully and the natives offered their lands themselves! No massacre, killing and displacing happened! But, because it is a developed territory now, the Arabs want it back!" This really is a joke.