Should Muslims acknowledge the Jews sovereignty over Israel?

[Aamer]

Dude, I don't know about your tanakh, but no where in the Qur'an are verses to absolve oppressors of their evils.

Qur'an talks of being tested but nothing of what you're talking about.

Whats uneducated? Thinking your own god worked through Hitler to murder 6 million of your own people. Talk about blaming the victim.

If you want to understand the Quran, I suggest reading the Tanakh. Skipping it is like watching the sequel without watching the original.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What your point here ??

See below ...

Now before someone try to use the Anti-jew card . Don't even try it . I'm not Anti-Anyone / Religion . With a little ReSearch one can see / know who the land of Palestine belong to .

Turkey?

What part of my post do you disagree with and why ?

Where did I indicate disagreement? You wrote:

​

The first wave of Zionist immigration dates to the late 19th and early 20th century. I'm curious to read to whom you believe Palestine belonged at that time.

It's best I don't get into this Anti-game I just got here . Anyway I smell set-up , cover up /coming . Any- way your answer is wrong .

Again: The first wave of Zionist immigration dates to the late 19th and early 20th century. To whom you believe Palestine belonged at that time.

And yet again: The first wave of Zionist immigration dates to the late 19th and early 20th century. To whom you believe Palestine belonged at that time? You seem to be having trouble with the question.

You:

• insist that, with a little research, one can determine who owned pre-48 Palestine,
• assume a disagreement when no disagreement was expressed,
• insinuate a "set-up, cover up,"
• all the while running from the question.

I do not understand why you so fear the question. It is impossible to intelligently discuss 1948 without some awareness of the Transjordan and Cisjordan of 1898, and you clearly imply that you have done the research necessary to have an informed opinion. So, yet again:

To whom did Palestine belong in the late 19th and early 20th century?​

 

[Shermana]

Dude, I don't know about your tanakh, but no where in the Qur'an are verses to absolve oppressors of their evils.

Qur'an talks of being tested but nothing of what you're talking about.

Whats uneducated? Thinking your own god worked through Hitler to murder 6 million of your own people. Talk about blaming the victim.

So it's okay to believe that the Assyrians and Babylonians and Romans were the Rods of God Anger, which the text explicitly says, but not Hitler? Hitler didn't even kill the same proportion of Jews as the Romans and Babylonians did, just bigger numbers altogether, and the methods (arguably) more systematic and deceptive. Barely a few tens of thousands even went into exile under the Babylonians, with even fewer escaping. That would be like over a 90% destruction rate. The Romans butchered the entire countryside leaving barely a few tens of thousands in their wake. There's simply no reason theologically, as a Jew even, to believe Hitler was any different. It's just simply unpalatable to people who believe that the Tanakh can't possibly be consistent in modern times. Holocaust Theology is a hotly debated topic, and numerous Orthodox Jews hold the same position as I do. "Blaming the victim" is EXACTLY what the Tanakh does in multiple places, in fact, in pretty much EVERY instance (which kind of goes against what people interpret what Job is saying) is it implied that people's sufferings are due to some kind of sin. "Crude Theology" or not. Personally I think the Book of Job was written by a dissenter to counter this view (which IMO presents an even worse view in the end that God is simply an unfair meanie who tests people in the most horrid ways), even though those who question Job's canonicity are far and few in between.

This warrants a new thread topic. Let's see the possibilities of how to interpret Hitler from a Jewish perspective.

A) One big giant Job-ian theology that has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 28 where God arbitrarily causes the Jews to suffer, as they are completely innocent, just to test everyone's faith.

B) No different than any other situation in history in the Tanakh where it explicitly says that they are punished severely as such.

C) God just doesn't care or can't do anything about it.

Now with that said, we're talking about what the Quran says about how Muslims view victory and defeat in war.

Let's look at verse 5:33.

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom

Sounds like it says that those who fight against those on the side of Allah in this world will be killed or crucified or mutilated, or....EXPELLED. I guess it just takes a really long time in the case of Israel, huh?

Next, 8:59-8:60:

And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them.

They cannot escape. Well so far, Israel's been escaping for over 60 years. Guess it's just a matter of time or something?

8:65

Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence

Sounds just like our "One of you shall overcome a thousand", but at 1% the ratio, except this hasn't even happened in your case. Just a matter of time, right? Or have none of you been that steadfast?

Now this verse isn't relevant but I find it very interesting. Apparently the Gospels originally contained a reference to physical war? Or was it referring to Revelation?

9:111

Believers ... shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an.

As you can see though, the Quran seems to be clear that victory in battle goes to those on Allah's side. Perhaps he's just been testing you like he tested Job for the last 65 years?

 

[Shermana]

If you want to understand the Quran, I suggest reading the Tanakh. Skipping it is like watching the sequel without watching the original.

I completely agree. And the Tanakh is explicitly clear that victory in Battle for the Israelites has to do with God's (earned) favor. Though this may be arguable in some cases like when Ahab wins but there's reasons to believe Ahab was simply the less of the evils against Ben-Hadad.

 

[Assad91]

SMH. I don't know if I should laugh or feel sympathetic.

Have a nice day dude

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

See below ...

You:

• insist that, with a little research, one can determine who owned pre-48 Palestine,
• assume a disagreement when no disagreement was expressed,
• insinuate a "set-up, cover up,"
• all the while running from the question.

I do not understand why you so fear the question. It is impossible to intelligently discuss 1948 without some awareness of the Transjordan and Cisjordan of 1898, and you clearly imply that you have done the research necessary to have an informed opinion. So, yet again:

To whom did Palestine belong in the late 19th and early 20th century?
​

You feel beeter now !!

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Salaam Alaikum MusaaEl-Haadi, what brings you to an interfaith forum ? Are you here in peace ? Are you here to learn from those of other faiths, and teach about your own faith ? The manner in which you present yourself tells us your goals. Shalom.

Stop assumeing thing about people / me when you have no knowldge of what I know or don't know . Faith have nothing to do with taking some one land , that doesn't belong to them from the door .

Araaka Fiy Maa Ba'd In Shaa A Allah

 

[Avi1001]

Stop assumeing thing about people / me when you have no knowldge of what I know or don't know . Faith have nothing to do with taking some one land , that doesn't belong to them from the door .

Araaka Fiy Maa Ba'd In Shaa A Allah

Hello Musa,

So far your posts remind me of Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 27-28):
"Told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing".

When you are ready to start having interfaith dialogue, be sure to let us know !

 

[Aamer]

Another question... Who are the children of Israel?

Does a Russian whose family converted centuries ago qualify?

 

[Avi1001]

Hello Aamer, there might be more than one answer to your questions, but I will try to give what I think are logical answers:

Another question... Who are the children of Israel?

Anyone who considers themselves Jewish.

Does a Russian whose family converted centuries ago qualify?

Of course, why not ?

 

[Shermana]

Hello Aamer, there might be more than one answer to your questions, but I will try to give what I think are logical answers:




Anyone who considers themselves Jewish.




Of course, why not ?

So do you believe if 20 million Arabs decided they wanted to be considered Jewish that they should be allowed to emigrate to Israel with full citizenship?

 

[Shermana]

Another question... Who are the children of Israel?

Does a Russian whose family converted centuries ago qualify?

Personally I don't think the concept of converts being considered full members of the Jewish community was always the case, and that they may have been called "Righteous strangers" until later on when this policy was changed. We certainly know for example that in Orthodox Judaism, the children of converts are not eligible to marry a High Priest's daughter, so there goes the "100% the same argument" off the bat. Widespread conversion to the Jewish religion I believe is a very recent concept.

However, the number of Russians who may have converted would be practically nil. Even with the Turkish Khazars, very few actually converted, most of them retained their Shamanism, only the ruling Elite did. Even movement like the Sabbatarians in the 15th century Ukraine weren't formally converting to Judaism.

There's also the issue of whether it's actually Maternal or Paternal lineage. The Rabbis themselves I believe admit that they changed the policy of Paternal to Maternal later on, so even many Jews who are only Maternally ethnically Jewish would not be considered "Jewish" in terms of biology by the ancient Israelites. Which opens up another can of worms.

Perhaps the issue should be, who gets to decide who is of the Children of Israel? The Rabbis? The Government of Israel?

 

[Avi1001]

So do you believe if 20 million Arabs decided they wanted to be considered Jewish that they should be allowed to emigrate to Israel with full citizenship?

Hi Shermana, I do not believe 20 million Arabs will want to be considered Jewish. So that is a pretty easy hypothetical to deal with.

By the way, what does your religion, "Old-Israelite Nazarene" mean ?

 

[Shermana]

Hi Shermana, I do not believe 20 million Arabs will want to be considered Jewish. So that is a pretty easy hypothetical to deal with.

By the way, what does your religion, "Old-Israelite Nazarene" mean ?

The question was yes or no, not whether you think it would happen. If I were Palestinian, I'd thinks such a tactic would be a way to settle the issue within 1 year if that's how easy it was. If I were King Saud I'd pay 5 million Arabs to claim to be Jews and move on in.

I believe my beliefs correspond to what the earliest Nazarene ("Christian") Israelites believed, at least as far as I believe they believed.

 

[Avi1001]

The question was yes or no, not whether you think it would happen. If I were Palestinian, I'd thinks such a tactic would be a way to settle the issue within 1 year if that's how easy it was. If I were King Saud I'd pay 5 million Arabs to claim to be Jews and move on in.

Shermana, only inexperienced debaters accept yes or no questions, so don't even try that with me. And now you are proposing two more hypotheticals that are even less likely than the first one you popped out. With the real world problems being as complex and nearly intractable, lets not go too far beyond those, and have some meaningful debate.

I believe my beliefs correspond to what the earliest Nazarene ("Christian") Israelites believed, at least as far as I believe they believed.

Cool ! I look forward to hearing your thoughts ! A Rabbi of mine once said, the most interesting period of history to have lived in would have been the one you refer to.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, only inexperienced debaters accept yes or no questions, so don't even try that with me.

Who wrote that rule?

And now you are proposing two more hypotheticals that are even less likely than the first one you popped out.

Many debate questions are based on hypotheticals because they apply to a point. I'm making a point.

With the real world problems being as complex and nearly intractable, lets not go too far beyond those, and have some meaningful debate.

I don't see why my question is not meaningful, even if its a hypothetical. It's very much related to how our enemies regard our Jewishness in the first place.

Cool ! I look forward to hearing your thoughts ! A Rabbi of mine once said, the most interesting period of history to have lived in would have been the one you refer to.

I agree with that Rabbi.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See below ...

​

You:

• insist that, with a little research, one can determine who owned pre-48 Palestine,
• assume a disagreement when no disagreement was expressed,
• insinuate a "set-up, cover up,"
• all the while running from the question.

I do not understand why you so fear the question. It is impossible to intelligently discuss 1948 without some awareness of the Transjordan and Cisjordan of 1898, and you clearly imply that you have done the research necessary to have an informed opinion. So, yet again:

To whom did Palestine belong in the late 19th and early 20th century?​

You feel beeter now !!

Still running?

 

[Walkntune]

There is neither Jew or gentile.

 

[MusaaEl-Haadi]

Hello Musa,

So far your posts remind me of Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5, lines 27-28):
"Told by an idiot, Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing".

When you are ready to start having interfaith dialogue, be sure to let us know !

Attacks and Insult are A Sign of weakness and it to be expect being that the Judaism can't make up it mind about which doctrine they should be following , Because their always new one to Correct the old one .

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Yes.

Not only the Muslims, but the entire world needs to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.