Discussion:
WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD ?
(too old to reply)
Olrik
2013-08-12 04:27:27 UTC
Permalink
WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?
Yes. And lies, of course.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-12 04:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Not Peace But a Sword:
The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam [Hardcover]
Robert Spencer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Peace-But-Sword-Christianity/dp/1938983289

Book Description

Islam...Is it a religion of peace?...Are Muslims an easy ally in the fight against global secularization and the culture of death?...Are their beliefs really so different than our own? New York Times best-selling author, Robert Spencer, of more than a dozen books dealing with Islam and the West, warns Christians against the danger of thinking that Islam is an easy ally and shines the light of truth on areas where Christians and Muslims don t just quibble over small details but fundamentally disagree. Many Christian groups, including the Catholic Church, do recognize whatever is good and true in Islam, and their leaders rightly pursue peaceful accord and common ground with all religions. Spencer argues, however, that real peace can come only from truth. Where there is falsehood in Islamic doctrine, morals, and practice, papering over the truth actually hurts the cause of peace. He demonstrates how these differences are not academic but real-world. They are critical and drive Muslim behavior toward Christians and others. If we fail to open our eyes to these differences, we do so at our peril.

Editorial Reviews
Review
Robert Spencer is a careful observer of Islam and a courageous voice on behalf of Christians. In Not Peace But a Sword he shows us how to take Islam seriously without falling into alarmism, hatred, or bigotry, and provides a needed corrective to media disinformation. --Scott Hahn --Fr. Scanlan Chair of Biblical Theology --Franciscan University of Steubenville

A great many Catholics know only a Disney-fied version of Islam, and still cling to the dangerous illusion that Muslims and Christians share much in common. But as Robert Spencer ably demonstrates, beneath the surface similarities lies a deep and possibly unbridgeable gulf. This is must reading not only for Catholics but for all Christians. --William Kilpatrick -- author of Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West

Robert Spencer carefully examines the challenge posed to Christianity by an increasingly militant Islam. His case is calm, lucid, accurate, and uncompromising in its presentation of the facts of history. He provides an honest and unflinching account of the roots of Christian/Muslim tensions, a robust defense of Jesus Christ and Christianity in response to Muslim claims, and a sobering wake-up call to all Christians. --Patrick Madrid ---author of Envoy for Christ: 25 Years as a Catholic Apologist and host of the Right Here, Right Now radio show
About the Author
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch , a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth about Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer, a Melkite Greek Catholic, has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.
trueman
2013-08-13 16:39:06 UTC
Permalink
One of the most talked about quotations from the biblical scriptures can be found in Matthew 10:34, where Jesus addresses his disciples:
“Think not that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I came not to bring peace but a sword.”

Crusaders used this passage as an excuse to spread the Christian doctrine with ferocity and the sword. Such a philosophy of aggression and subjugation, however, stands in stark contrast with the Christian image of Jesus as the Prince of Peace and his doctrine of: “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt 22:39), “love thy enemies” (Matt 5:44), and “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39). The inconsistency is absent in the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ 10:44) where Jmmanuel says: “Truly, I have not come to bring peace but the sword of knowledge about the power of the spirit, which dwells within the human being.”

Knowledge is portrayed here as a powerful tool, a sword that allows us to discern the truth by cutting away all untruths. Applying the sword of knowledge as a tool in our learning process on our road of spiritual evolution, knowledge of the truth is turned into new insights and wisdom that allows us to “live the truth.” I consider this the definition of wisdom.

The concept of the sword of knowledge separating the chaff from the wheat is analogous to “Ockham’s razor,” a valuable principle in the quest for truth named after William of Ockham, a 14th century English scholar. His principle states that among a set of competing theories, the simplest one, requiring the least number of suppositions, is most likely closest to the truth. Similarly, the sword of knowledge gives us the power to discern, to use that knowledge for making wise distinctions and choices.

But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal occupation of other people's land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it dnies them the opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose followers are the majority in the land they occupy.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-14 01:56:41 UTC
Permalink
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
Robert Spencer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131

Book Description

Islam expert Robert Spencer reveals Islam's ongoing, unshakable quest for global conquest and why the West today faces the same threat as the Crusaders did--and what we can learn from their experience.

A clarion call for the defense of the West before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author

"A much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce Thornton, historian

"An enormous amount of well-researched material. Throws the ball back into the camp of Arabist historians." -- Walid Phares, terror analyst

"Assails, with much erudition, the taboos imposed by the Politically Correct League." -- Bat Ye’or, historian

"The courageous Robert Spencer busts myths and tells truths about jihadists that no one else will tell." -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author and columnist

Editorial Reviews
Review
"A clarion call for the defense of the West before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author

"A much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce Thornton, historian

"An enormous amount of well-researched material. Throws the ball back into the camp of Arabist historians." -- Walid Phares, terror analyst

"Assails, with much erudition, the taboos imposed by the Politically Correct League." -- Bat Ye’or, historian

"The courageous Robert Spencer busts myths and tells truths about jihadists that no one else will tell." -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author and columnist
From the Back Cover
Everything (well, almost everything) you know about Islam and the Crusades is wrong because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their contemporary political agendas with contrived historical "facts." But fear not: Robert Spencer (author of the bestseller Islam Unveiled) refutes the popular myths in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer reveals facts that you won't be taught in school and will never hear on the evening news, supplies a revealing list of "Books You Must Not Read" (as far as the PC left is concerned), and takes you on a fast-paced politically incorrect tour of Islamic teaching and Crusades history that will give you all the information you need to understand the true nature of the global conflict America faces today.
Jihad Johnny
2013-08-14 04:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
One of the most talked about quotations from the biblical scriptures can be
“Think not that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I came not to bring
peace but a sword.”
Crusaders used this passage as an excuse to spread the Christian doctrine
with ferocity and the sword. Such a philosophy of aggression and
subjugation, however, stands in stark contrast with the Christian >image of
Jesus as the Prince of Peace and his doctrine of: “love thy neighbor as
thyself” (Matt 22:39), “love thy enemies” (Matt 5:44), and “turn the other
cheek” (Matt 5:39). The inconsistency is absent in >the Talmud of Jmmanuel
(TJ 10:44) where Jmmanuel says: “Truly, I have not come to bring peace but
the sword of knowledge about the power of the spirit, which dwells within
the human being.”
Knowledge is portrayed here as a powerful tool, a sword that allows us to
discern the truth by cutting away all untruths. Applying the sword of
knowledge as a tool in our learning process on our road of >spiritual
evolution, knowledge of the truth is turned into new insights and wisdom
that allows us to “live the truth.” I consider this the definition of
wisdom.
The concept of the sword of knowledge separating the chaff from the wheat
is analogous to “Ockham’s razor,” a valuable principle in the quest for
truth named after William of Ockham, a 14th century >English scholar. His
principle states that among a set of competing theories, the simplest one,
requiring the least number of suppositions, is most likely closest to the
truth. Similarly, the sword of >knowledge gives us the power to discern, to
use that knowledge for making wise distinctions and choices.
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not
relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not
fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal >occupation of
other people's land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it
dnies them the opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose
followers are the majority in the land they >occupy.
The biggest difference of course (assuming trueman is correct, which is not
likely), is Christians no longer follow the bible literally word for word.
Muslims, on the other hand, still follow the koran and all it's violent
passages to this very day. They have yet to come out of the stone-age into
the 21st century. In fact, if muslims have their way, we will all be living
back in stone-age times.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-15 00:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jihad Johnny
Post by trueman
One of the most talked about quotations from the biblical scriptures can be
“Think not that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I came not to bring
peace but a sword.”
Crusaders used this passage as an excuse to spread the Christian doctrine
with ferocity and the sword. Such a philosophy of aggression and
subjugation, however, stands in stark contrast with the Christian >image of
Jesus as the Prince of Peace and his doctrine of: “love thy neighbor as
thyself” (Matt 22:39), “love thy enemies” (Matt 5:44), and “turn the other
cheek” (Matt 5:39). The inconsistency is absent in >the Talmud of Jmmanuel
(TJ 10:44) where Jmmanuel says: “Truly, I have not come to bring peace but
the sword of knowledge about the power of the spirit, which dwells within
the human being.”
Knowledge is portrayed here as a powerful tool, a sword that allows us to
discern the truth by cutting away all untruths. Applying the sword of
knowledge as a tool in our learning process on our road of >spiritual
evolution, knowledge of the truth is turned into new insights and wisdom
that allows us to “live the truth.” I consider this the definition of
wisdom.
The concept of the sword of knowledge separating the chaff from the wheat
is analogous to “Ockham’s razor,” a valuable principle in the quest for
truth named after William of Ockham, a 14th century >English scholar. His
principle states that among a set of competing theories, the simplest one,
requiring the least number of suppositions, is most likely closest to the
truth. Similarly, the sword of >knowledge gives us the power to discern, to
use that knowledge for making wise distinctions and choices.
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not
relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not
fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal >occupation of
other people's land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it
dnies them the opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose
followers are the majority in the land they >occupy.
The biggest difference of course (assuming trueman is correct, which is not
likely), is Christians no longer follow the bible literally word for word.
Muslims, on the other hand, still follow the koran and all it's violent
passages to this very day. They have yet to come out of the stone-age into
the 21st century. In fact, if muslims have their way, we will all be living
back in stone-age times.
Don't you know Islam is a riot.
In fact,it is de bomb.
trueman
2013-08-15 14:09:49 UTC
Permalink
- show quoted text -
<< Don't you know Islam is a riot. >>
<< In fact,it is de bomb. >>

The sheer depth and complexity of human brain sets us apart from the rest of animal world and creates a need to study this complex intelligence known as psychology.
Going by the basic rules of Psychology one can only assume that your above statements appear to be the root cause of your constant expression of hatred against
the believers in divine messages delivered to mankind by Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-15 14:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
- show quoted text -
<< Don't you know Islam is a riot. >>
<< In fact,it is de bomb. >>
The sheer depth and complexity of human brain sets us apart from the rest of animal world and creates a need to study this complex intelligence known as psychology.
Going by the basic rules of Psychology one can only assume that your above statements appear to be the root cause of your constant expression of hatred against
the believers in divine messages delivered to mankind by Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed.
Khomeini’s evaluation of Islam

By Dallas M. Roark, Ph.D.
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/roark/khomeini.html

Ayatollah Khomeini is reported to have said:

“Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. ...” (Political thought and legacy of Khomeini, Wikipedia, 20 November 2010)1

Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine:
but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

Psalms 126:2
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
and our tongue with singing:
then said they among the heathen,
The LORD hath done great things for them.
staten
2013-08-17 03:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
- show quoted text -
<< Don't you know Islam is a riot. >>
<< In fact,it is de bomb. >>
Going by the basic rules of Psychology one can only assume that your above statements appear to be the root cause of your constant expression of hatred against
the believers in divine messages delivered to mankind by Moses, Jesus and finally Mohammed.
Do you think when Muhammad raped 9 year old child, raided caravans , married wife of his adopted son and brutally murdered his critics , he was guided by "the divine messages"? To us infidels, such crude behavior is similar to Satan's.
trueman
2013-08-17 14:41:15 UTC
Permalink
<<Do you think when Muhammad raped 9 year old child, raided caravans , married wife of his adopted son and brutally murdered his critics , he was guided by "the divine messages"?>>

When you come down to this level one can see that you are running out of gas. Stay off these debates sonny, you're not ready yet.

To us infidels, such crude behavior is similar to Satan's.

Infidels?? Satan?? I thought Satan was quintessentially a concept believed by the 'people of the book'.

You are an oxymoron and a blockheaded clown.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-17 18:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
<<Do you think when Muhammad raped 9 year old child, raided caravans , married wife of his adopted son and brutally murdered his critics , he was guided by "the divine messages"?>>
When you come down to this level one can see that you are running out of gas. Stay off these debates sonny, you're not ready yet.
To us infidels, such crude behavior is similar to Satan's.
Infidels?? Satan?? I thought Satan was quintessentially a concept believed by the 'people of the book'.
You are an oxymoron and a blockheaded clown.
The Historical Muhammad:
The Good, the Bad, and the Downright Ugly
By David Wood
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953043

With a superb script, unparalleled directing, and flawless acting, Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is the greatest “spaghetti western” of all time. I have only one problem with the film. While I understand why the sociopathic mercenary Angel Eyes is called “the Bad,” and why the underhanded bandit Tuco is called “the Ugly,” I’ve never been able to figure out why the bounty hunter Blondie is called “the Good.” In the film, Blondie’s money-making scheme is to capture criminals, turn them in to collect the reward, free them before they are executed, and split the money with them. He then turns the criminals in at the next town, collects the reward, and so on. When a criminal’s bounty is no longer increasing, Blondie takes him deep into the desert to die of heat exhaustion. Why, then, is he good? The only answer I’ve ever been able to come up with is this: Blondie is played by Clint Eastwood, so he must be good—regardless of what he does.

We find a similarly puzzling bit of reasoning when we turn to Islam. Muslims confidently proclaim that Muhammad was history’s greatest moral example, a man whom all people would do well to emulate (see Qur’an 33:21). What happens, then, when we turn to history and meet a shockingly different figure? The unstated Muslim response seems to be: “Muhammad was God’s greatest prophet, so he must be good—regardless of what he did.”

In this article, we will examine the life of the Historical Muhammad, that is, the Muhammad we learn about through careful historical investigation, rather than the Muhammad of faith. As we shall see, there is a massive difference between the two.

I. SOURCES

Before we discuss Muhammad’ history, a brief analysis of sources is in order. While the primary source of Islamic doctrine is the Qur’an, the Qur’an is not biographical in nature, and it tells us practically nothing about Muhammad. To learn about Muhammad, we must turn to other sources—the Hadith and the Sira literature.

The Hadith are collections of sayings and deeds of Muhammad, usually arranged topically. The goal of the writers was to describe what Muslims should do in a given situation, based on the example set by their prophet. The Sira literature was quite different. Sira writers often attempted to write complete accounts of the life of Muhammad, and these writings are therefore quite similar to modern biographies. The two genres of historical writing employed slightly different methodologies, and Muslims today favor Hadith over Sira.

Here we encounter a significant problem for our historical investigation. The primary Hadith collections were written more than two centuries after Muhammad’s death, and even the earliest extant Sira work (Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah) comes from more than a century after the life of Muhammad (and Muslims themselves typically reject this source). We therefore have no detailed historical source written within a century of the prophet of Islam, and no source trusted by the majority of Muslims within two centuries. Such a time gap calls much of Muhammad’s life into question, and some scholars hold that we can know virtually nothing about him (or even that he existed). In this study, we won’t be quite this skeptical. What follows is a survey of some of the major events that can reasonably be ascribed to the life of Muhammad.

II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUHAMMAD

A. Prior to the Call

Muhammad was born in Mecca around 570 AD. His father died before he was born, and his mother died when he was about six years old. We don’t know much about Muhammad prior to the time he started receiving his revelations. Muslim tradition tells us that he was known as al-ameen, “the trustworthy,” so he may have had a reputation for honesty in his dealings with others. Apparently, he was handsome as well. One day a rich widow named Khadija (Muhammad’s employer) asked him to marry her, and Muhammad accepted. Khadija was around fifteen years older than Muhammad, who was twenty-five at the time, but by all accounts, it was a happy marriage.

B. The Meccan Period

In the year 610, Muhammad was in a cave on a religious retreat, and something interesting happened.

When it was the night on which God honoured him with his mission and showed mercy on His servants thereby, Gabriel brought him the command of God. “He came to me,” said the apostle of God, “while I was asleep, with a coverlet of brocade whereon was some writing, and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it the third time so that I thought it was death and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What then shall I read?’—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should do the same to me again. He said:

‘Read in the name of thy Lord who created,

Who created man of blood coagulated.

Read! Thy Lord is the most beneficent,

Who taught by the pen,

Taught that which they knew not unto men.’

So I read it, and he departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart.”i

Muhammad was terrified by what happened to him. He believed that he had encountered a demon, and he became suicidal. His wife Khadija and her cousin Waraqah, however, convinced him that he was a prophet of God, and that he had met the angel Gabriel in the cave.

Muhammad spent the next twelve years preaching in Mecca, first only in private, then in public. During these early years, Muhammad preached a peaceful message. He called for religious tolerance,[ii] but he told people that they needed to turn to Allah. In general, the polytheistic Meccans hated him. The persecution eventually got so bad that Muhammad accepted an invitation to move to another city.

C. The Medinan Period

In 622, Muhammad and most of his followers moved nearly 300 miles north to what is now Medina. It’s difficult to overestimate the importance of the move of the Muslims from Mecca to Medina. It was in Medina that the Muslim community became a political entity, which is central to Islam.

From his base in Medina, Muhammad began a series of raids against the Meccan caravans. While the first six raids failed, the seventh raid—the “Nakhla raid”—was a success. The problem was that the Muslims attacked during a holy month in which everyone had agreed not to fight. An innocent man was even killed during the raid. This eventually led to war between the Muslims and Mecca.

Understandably, the people of Mecca sent around 1000 guards to protect their next caravan. The Muslims attacked with a much smaller force, and they won what came to be known as the Battle of Badr. For the next ten years until Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, the Muslims never stopped fighting. Muhammad fought several more key battles against Mecca (the Battle of Uhud and the Battle of the Trench), finally taking the city in 630.

Muhammad attacked other groups as well. In 629, Muslims attacked a Jewish settlement in the oasis of Khaybar in Northwestern Arabia. Shortly after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad received Surah 9:29, which ordered Muslims to fight non-Muslims (including Christians and Jews) until they submit to Islam:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.iii

Obeying this command to fight, Muhammad marched an army against the Byzantine Empire, though the Byzantines chose not to fight. Muhammad became sick and died shortly thereafter.

III. MUHAMMAD: THE GOOD

Now that we have an outline of Muhammad’s life, it might be helpful to zoom in on some specific issues to help us form an accurate picture of the prophet of Islam. While it is an error to maintain, as Muslims do, that Muhammad was history’s greatest moral example, some critics are equally mistaken when they go to the opposite extreme and portray Muhammad as history’s worst moral example. Indeed, Muhammad had many positive characteristics. We know that he was courageous, both because he patiently endured several years of persecution in Mecca and because he fought in numerous raids and battles. Throughout his life, Muhammad placed an emphasis on helping orphans and widows. There were times when he showed great mercy. He was an ardent monotheist, and despised idolatry. He told his followers to heed God’s prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. These are areas where even non-Muslims would agree that Muhammad exhibited positive traits.

IV. MUHAMMAD: THE BAD

Yet Muslims tend to focus solely on the good characteristics of their prophet, and to completely ignore less admirable qualities. We have already seen that Muhammad began robbing caravans after leaving Mecca. As a result,greed soon became one of the primary factors in people’s rapid conversion to Islam. Indeed, Muhammad deliberately used the spoils of war to lure people to Islam. When he was criticized for the way he distributed his newfound wealth, he replied, “Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam?”iv

Although Muhammad patiently endured persecution in Mecca, his attitude quickly changed when his numbers grew in Medina. Soon he would tolerate no criticism whatsoever. According to our earliest biographical source, a man named Abu Afak—who was more than a hundred years old—wrote a poem criticizing people for converting to Islam. Muhammad demanded he be killed, and Abu Afak was murdered in his sleep. When a woman named Asma heard that Muslims had killed such an elderly man, she wrote a poem calling for people to take a stand against Islam.Ibn Ishaq relates what happened next:

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her,” so Umayr went back to his people.v

Muhammad’s violence was directed towards groups as well. Muhammad once said to his followers, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.”viThe Jews of Qurayza resisted Muhammad and attempted to form an alliance against him. When the alliance faltered, Muhammad acted quickly. His armies surrounded them and “besieged them for twenty-five nights until they were sore pressed and God cast terror into their hearts.”

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina. . . . Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.vii

Every male who had reached puberty was killed. Muhammad divided the women, children, and property among his men (taking a fifth of the spoils for himself).

V. MUHAMMAD: THE UGLY

But things get worse.As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from Allah to guide them in their treatment of their female captives. It wasn’t long before Muhammad received a revelation allowing the soldiers to sleep with the women:

Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).viii

This verse of the Qur’an (4:24), along with others (23:1-6; 33:50; 70:22-30), granted Muslims the right to have sex with their female captives and slave girls, even those who were still married or who were going to be sold or traded.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that Muslims could have sex with girls who hadn’t even reached puberty. The opening verses of Chapter 65 of the Qur’an present Islamic rules for divorce. According to 65:4, if a Muslim divorces a girl who hasn’t yet reached puberty, he must wait three months to make sure she isn’t pregnant.

Muhammad himself had sex with a prepubescent girl. His courtship of Aisha began when she was only six years old.ix Muhammad had a dream about her, which led him to believe that God wanted him to marry the young girl.x Fortunately, Muhammad waited three years before having sex with her; nevertheless, Muslim sources report that Aisha still hadn’t reached puberty.xi Since Muhammad is the moral exemplar in Islam, his actions are still affecting young girls today.

VI. ASSESSMENT

At the end of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Blondie famously says, “You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend—those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.” Similarly, we may say that there are two types of beliefs in this world—those that are based on evidence, and those that aren’t. Muslims believe that Muhammad was morally perfect, and that an examination of his life will prove that he was a prophet. The evidence, however, shows that Muhammad was far from morally perfect, and that there’s no good reason to believe that he was sent by God. There is a world of difference, then, between the Muhammad of history and the Muhammad of faith.

We may contrast this with the Historical Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was a miracle worker, who claimed to be divine, died on the cross, and rose from the dead. A careful historical investigation confirms all of these beliefs. Thus, while Christians have absolutely nothing to fear from an examination of early historical sources, history is a huge problem for Islam.






iIbn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of Muhammad), A. Guillaume, tr. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 106.

ii See, e.g., Qur’an 109.

iii M. H. Shakir Translation.

iv Ibn Ishaq, p. 596.

v Ibid., p. 676.

vi Sahih Muslim 4366.

vii Ibn Ishaq, p. 464.

viii Sahih Muslim 3432.

ix Sahih Al-Bukhari 3894.

x Ibid., Number 3895.

xi See Sahih al-Bukhari 5236 and 6130.
staten
2013-08-18 11:58:46 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:41:15 AM UTC-4, trueman wrote:



<<Do you think when Muhammad raped 9 year old child, raided caravans , married wife of his adopted son and brutally murdered his critics , he was guided by "the divine messages"?>>
When you come down to this level one can see that you are running out of gas. Stay off these debates sonny, >you're not ready yet.
I am not running out of gas. All this is true. Mohammad “married” a nine years old child when she still was playing with her dolls. This is a statutory rape where force or threat need not be present because a minor is legally incapable of giving consent to the act. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child sexual abuse". Your prophet was a proven child molester.

Mohammad carried out raids on caravans to fund the movement he began. But in the Arab culture even before Muhammad’s time, robbing others was a compulsive trait of the Arab national character considered more an act of honor and manliness than immorality.

Mohammad practiced aggressive violence and terrorism against his critics and opponents. His record:

1) The killing of Abu Afak.
2) The killing of Asma Marwan.
3) Attack upon the Banu Qaynuqa Jews.
4) The killing of Kab Ashraf.
5) The killing of Ibn Sunayna.
6) Attack against the Banu Nadir Jews.
7) The killing of the Shepherd.
8) Massacre of the Qurayza Jews.
9) The torture killing of Kinana.
10) The killing of a slave Wife and Mother.
11) The slaying of an old woman from Fazara.
12) The killing of Abdullah Khatal and his Daughter.


So, that's not me but you are not ready for these debates, Muslim, because you want to conceal your embarrassment that your prophet was a child molester, a highway robber and a terrorist but you are out of ammunition to defend his actions.
 To us infidels, such crude  behavior is similar to Satan's.
Infidels?? Satan?? I thought Satan was quintessentially a concept believed by the 'people of the book'.
OK, if you are not happy with Satan , change it for Shaitan. Happy now?
You are an oxymoron and a blockheaded clown.
Oxymoron? Do you know what meaning of this word is? Oxymoron - conjoining contradictory terms like dark light, living dead, Guest host etc.... Do think your remark makes sense? I don't. You are just a moron.
staten
2013-08-14 21:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
“Think not that I have come to bring peace on Earth; I came not to bring peace but a sword.”
Crusaders used this passage as an excuse to spread the Christian doctrine with ferocity and the sword. Such a philosophy of aggression and subjugation, >however, stands in stark contrast with the Christian image of Jesus as the >Prince of Peace and his doctrine of: “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt 22:39), “love thy enemies” (Matt 5:44), and “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:39).
Trueman is full of self-righteous, obfuscating crap again . He cut the verse (Matt 10:34) out of the context, wrapped it in his own interpretation and here we go – we got Jesus as an aggressor whose words allegedly influenced Crusaders to spread Christianity by the sword.


Let's read now the verse in the context where it belongs to. This is a passage where Jesus calls disciples and sends them out to preach the Gospel.

Matthew 10:
1 He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority
to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is
called Peter) and his brother Andrew; ...

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ...

16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as
shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17 Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the
local councils and flog you in their synagogues.
18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings
as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or
how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say,
20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father
speaking through you.
21 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the
end will be saved.

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me
is not worthy of me;
38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me
is not worthy of me.
39 Whoever finds his life will lose it,
and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

The sword of violence, force and war has no place in Jesus' his message. Jesus is not a prophet of the sword as trueman trying to depict him. It is the sword of division that God's word brings. It is the division of truth from error, and the reaction of the darkness against the light. The sword that Jesus brings, is the sword that his followers have to suffer, a sword that is applied to them, not a sword that they wield against others. It is a spiritual sword . History demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone. By contrast, when Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest in order to protect his Lord, Jesus told him to stop.

Matthew 26:52-53 :
52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing the sword against others in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. A true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will , not a physical sword, to sever away all opposition. Yes, Jesus divides the world into two camps, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. That's a key point of the Jesus' message.

As to the Crusaders, they didn't spread Christianity by the sword. It was a belated response by the European Christians to stop Islam from devouring Europe when half of the Christendom had already been lost to Islam in the Mid East and North Africa.
staten
2013-08-14 23:20:23 UTC
Permalink
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal occupation of other people's >land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it dnies them the >opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose followers are the majority in the land they occupy.
Now take a look at the land where Muslims still are in minority:

Armed Muslim mob of 20,000 attacks Hindus, burns Hindu shops and homes in India

Jammu and Kashmir: Armed Muslim mob of 20,000 attacks Hindus, burns Hindu shops and homes Jihadwatch
The attacks began right after Eid prayers. The police came late, and did little or nothing to rein in the mob. Here is a press release from VHP International Working President Dr Pravin Togadia, "J&K Kishtwad Hindus Must get Justice, 1990 will not be allowed to repeat: Says VHP," slightly edited for clarity, from Sanghmarg, August 9

New Delhi, August 9, 2013: After today’s Eid Namaz, an armed mob of 20,000 Muslims marched toward Hindus & attacked them. Many Hindus were severely injured & some are critical. While this was happening, a big mob attacked & burnt shops & houses owned by Hindus. Serious arson, looting & murders went on for a long time, until the morning Namaz. Until the afternoon there was no help from the Government. Then came police, but they were of no use. Many Hindu youth are in hospitals with bullet injuries in their arms & abdomen. In the afternoon, the Government sent the Army there, but with no orders to shoot the killers on sight. The mob went on a rampage. The Army kept on doing a flag march & the info from there is that the 20,000-strong mob even looted army weapons.

VHP International Working President Dr Pravin Togadia said, “VHP demands immediate action on all 20,000 in the mob that attacked minority Hindus there. It also should be found out who really led such a big mob when there should have been security in the valley after Pakistan’s attacks on the LOC. Such big violence against Hindus continued all day long & how is it that nobody intervened to really protect the Hindus?”

VHP also demands resignation of the J&K Home Minister for his role in the Kishtwad attacks on Hindus. Those who are injured should immediately get adequate compensation. Those whose houses were burnt should be given compensation a the market rate of the house & all materials to rebuild their houses. Hindus whose shops were burnt should be compensated for the losses of their goods & shop establishments, as well as for the loss of probable business.

In 1990, similar violent tactics were followed by the Kashmiri Separatists to kill & chase away Hindus from Kashmir. Now they have advanced, & on the border of Jammu in Kishtwad, Rajauri, such attacks have been taking place. It is the sole responsibility of the state & the Union Govt to protect each Hindu in J&K, failing which the Hon. Supreme Court should take suo motto note & order the army to shoot at sight on those who attack Hindus there.

VHP & Hindu Human Rights Commission Team assisted by a retired police officer, an eminent lawyer, other Hindu organizations & a social worker will visit Kishtwad soon as soon as the curfew is lifted. The team should be given all cooperation as Minority Commission is supposed to get. The report will be made public.

VHP, Bajrang Dal in Jammu have protested today & demanded immediate action to protect Hindus & punish the attackers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine what happens to the land when Muslims will become majority?
trueman
2013-08-15 13:59:14 UTC
Permalink
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal occupation of other people's >land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it dnies them the >opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose followers are the majority in the land they occupy.
Staten replied:
<<Now take a look at the land where Muslims still are in minority: >>

A rather clumsy attempt to deviate from the raised point. All your statements appear to be symptomatic of an actute condition otherwise known as uncontrollable hatred against one particular section of human beings. By putting forward the arguments that you have you are simply admitting that the Palestinian land is being occupied by an illegal minority.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-15 14:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal occupation of other people's >land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it dnies them the >opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose followers are the majority in the land they occupy.
<<Now take a look at the land where Muslims still are in minority: >>
A rather clumsy attempt to deviate from the raised point. All your statements appear to be symptomatic of an actute condition otherwise known as uncontrollable hatred against one particular section of human beings. By putting forward the arguments that you have you are simply admitting that the Palestinian land is being occupied by an illegal minority.
The Illegal-Settlements Myth
David M. Phillips
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

The conviction that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal is now so commonly accepted, it hardly seems as though the matter is even open for discussion. But it is. Decades of argument about the issue have obscured the complex nature of the specific legal question about which a supposedly overwhelming verdict of guilty has been rendered against settlement policy. There can be no doubt that this avalanche of negative opinion has been deeply influenced by the settlements’ unpopularity around the world and even within Israel itself. Yet, while one may debate the wisdom of Israeli settlements, the idea that they are imprudent is quite different from branding them as illegal. Indeed, the analysis underlying the conclusion that the settlements violate international law depends entirely on an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative that the West Bank is “Arab” land. Followed to its logical conclusion—as some have done—this narrative precludes the legitimacy of Israel itself.

These arguments date back to the aftermath of the Six-Day War. When Israel went into battle in June 1967, its objective was clear: to remove the Arab military threat to its existence. Following its victory, the Jewish state faced a new challenge: what to do with the territorial fruits of that triumph. While many Israelis assumed that the overwhelming nature of their victory would shock the Arab world into coming to terms with their legitimacy and making peace, they would soon be disabused of this belief. At the end of August 1967, the heads of eight countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan (all of which lost land as the result of their failed policy of confrontation with Israel), met at a summit in Khartoum, Sudan, and agreed to the three principles that were to guide the Arab world’s postwar stands: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel. Though many Israelis hoped to trade most if not all the conquered lands for peace, they would have no takers. This set the stage for decades of their nation’s control of these territories.

The attachment of Israelis to the newly unified city of Jerusalem led to its quick annexation, and Jewish neighborhoods were planted on its flanks in the hope that this would render unification irrevocable. A similar motivation for returning Jewish life to the West Bank, the place where Jewish history began—albeit one that did not reflect the same strong consensus as that which underpinned the drive to hold on to Jerusalem—led to the fitful process that, over the course of the next several decades, produced numerous Jewish settlements throughout this area for a variety of reasons, including strategic, historical and/or religious considerations. In contrast, settlements created by Israel in the Egyptian Sinai or the Syrian Golan were primarily based initially on the strategic value of the terrain.

Over the course of the years to come, there was little dispute about Egypt’s sovereign right to the Sinai, and it was eventually returned after Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat broke the Arab consensus and made peace with Israel. Though the rulers of Syria have, to date, preferred the continuance of belligerency to a similar decision to end the conflict, the question of their right to the return of the Golan in the event of peace seems to hinge more on the nature of the regime in Damascus than any dispute about the provenance of Syria’s title to the land.

The question of the legal status of the West Bank, as well as Jerusalem, is not so easily resolved. To understand why this is the case, we must first revisit the history of the region in the 20th century.

Though routinely referred to nowadays as “Palestinian” land, at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. For several hundred years leading up to World War I, all of Israel, the Kingdom of Jordan, and the putative state of Palestine were merely provinces of the Ottoman Empire. After British-led Allied troops routed the Turks from the country in 1917-18, the League of Nations blessed Britain’s occupation with a document that gave the British conditional control granted under a mandate. It empowered Britain to facilitate the creation of a “Jewish National Home” while respecting the rights of the native Arab population. British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill later partitioned the mandate in 1922 and gave the East Bank of the Jordan to his country’s Hashemite Arab allies, who created the Kingdom of Jordan there under British tutelage.

Following World War II, the League of Nations’ successor, the United Nations, voted in November 1947 to partition the remaining portion of the land into Arab and Jewish states. While the Jews accepted partition, the Arabs did not, and after the British decamped in May 1948, Jordan joined with four other Arab countries to invade the fledgling Jewish state on the first day of its existence. Though Israel survived the onslaught, the fighting left the Jordanians in control of what would come to be known as the West Bank as well as approximately half of Jerusalem, including the Old City. Those Jewish communities in the West Bank that had existed prior to the Arab invasion were demolished, as was the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

After the cease-fire that ended Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, Jordan annexed both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But, as was the case when Israel annexed those same parts of the ancient city that it would win back 19 years later, the world largely ignored this attempt to legitimize Jordan’s presence. Only Jordan’s allies Britain and Pakistan recognized its claims of sovereignty. After King Hussein’s disastrous decision to ally himself with Egypt’s Nasser during the prelude to June 1967, Jordan was evicted from the lands it had won in 1948.

This left open the question of the sovereign authority over the West Bank. The legal vacuum in which Israel operated in the West Bank after 1967 was exacerbated by Jordan’s subsequent stubborn refusal to engage in talks about the future of these territories. King Hussein was initially deterred from dealing with the issue by the three “no’s” of Khartoum. Soon enough, he was taught a real-world lesson by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which fomented a bloody civil war against him and his regime in 1970. With the open support of Israel, Hussein survived that threat to his throne, but his desire to reduce rather than enlarge the Palestinian population in his kingdom ultimately led him to disavow any further claim to the lands he had lost in 1967. Eventually, this stance was formalized on July 31, 1988.

Thus, if the charge that Israel’s hold on the territories is illegal is based on the charge of theft from its previous owners, Jordan’s own illegitimacy on matters of legal title and its subsequent withdrawal from the fray makes that legal case a losing one. Well before Jordan’s renunciation, Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School and undersecretary of state for political affairs in 1967 during the Six-Day War, argued that the West Bank should be considered “unallocated territory,” once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply “a belligerent occupant,” had the status of a “claimant to the territory.”

To Rostow, “Jews have a right to settle in it under the Mandate,” a right he declared to be “unchallengeable as a matter of law.” In accord with these views, Israel has historically characterized the West Bank as “disputed territory” (although some senior government officials have more recently begun to use the term “occupied territory”).

Because neither Great Britain, as the former trustee under the League of Nations mandate, nor the since deceased Ottoman Empire—the former sovereigns prior to the Jordanians—is desirous or capable of standing up as the injured party to put Israel in the dock, we must therefore ask: On what points of law does the case against Israel stand?

_____________

International-law arguments against the settlements have rested primarily upon two sources. First are the 1907 Hague Regulations, whose provisions are primarily designed to protect the interests of a temporarily ousted sovereign in the context of a short-term occupation. Second is the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, the first international agreement designed specifically to protect civilians during wartime.

While Israel was not and is not a party to the Hague Regulations, the Israeli Supreme Court has generally regarded its provisions as part of customary international law (that is, law generally observed by nations even if they have not signed an international agreement to that effect) and hence applicable to Israel. The regulations are transparently geared toward short-term occupations during which a peace treaty is negotiated between the victorious and defeated nations. The “no’s” of Khartoum signaled that there would be no quick negotiations.

Nonetheless, Israel established and maintains a military administration overseeing the West Bank in accordance with the Hague Regulations, probably the only military power since World War II other than the United States (in Iraq) that has done so. For example, consistent with Article 43 of the Regulations, which calls on the occupant to “respect,?.?.?.?unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country,” Israel has for the most part continued to follow Jordanian law in the West Bank, despite its position that Jordan itself had illegally occupied it. Israel’s stance has been criticized as contradictory, but general continuance of Jordanian law can be justified on grounds of legal stability and long-term reliance reflected in most legal systems, including international law.

Article 46 of the Hague Regulations bars an occupying power from confiscating private property. And it is on this point that the loudest cries against the settlements have been based. Israel did requisition land from private Arab owners to establish some early settlements, but requisitioning differs from confiscation (compensation is paid for use of the land), and the establishment of these settlements was based on military necessity. In a 1979 case, Ayyub v. Minister of Defense, the Israeli Supreme Court considered whether military authorities could requisition private property for a civilian settlement, Beth El, on proof of military necessity. The theoretical and, in that specific case, actual answers were affirmative. But in another seminal decision the same year, Dwaikat v. Israel, known as the Elon Moreh case, the court more deeply explored the definition of military necessity and rejected the tendered evidence in that case because the military had only later acquiesced in the establishment of the Elon Moreh settlement by its inhabitants. The court’s decision effectively precluded further requisitioning of Palestinian privately held land for civilian settlements.

After the Elon Moreh case, all Israeli settlements legally authorized by the Israeli Military Administration (a category that, by definition, excludes “illegal outposts” constructed without prior authorization or subsequent acceptance) have been constructed either on lands that Israel characterizes as state-owned or “public” or, in a small minority of cases, on land purchased by Jews from Arabs after 1967. The term “public land” includes uncultivated rural land not registered in anyone’s name and land owned by absentee owners, both categories of public land under Jordanian and Ottoman law. Inversely, the term excludes land registered in the name of someone other than an absentee owner (regardless of whether the land is presently cultivated), land to which a title deed exists (even if the deed is unregistered), and land held by prescriptive use. The last stipulation requires continuous use of the land for a period of 10 years.

Israel’s characterization of certain lands as “state” or “public” has provoked considerable controversy. In one of the most detailed and cited critiques, B’Tselem, the Israeli human-rights group, concedes that 90 percent of the settlements have been established on what is nominally “state” land but argues that approximately 40 percent of the West Bank now falls within that category. That would represent a vast expansion of the 16 percent of the West Bank that had been considered public under Jordanian control.

As B’Tselem acknowledges, however, the vast majority of this land is in the Jordan Valley, which, with the primary exception of the city of Jericho, was barely populated by Palestinian Arabs prior to 1967 (which explains why such land was both unregistered and uncultivated). The percentage may also be on the high side because of the inclusion of certain Jerusalem neighborhoods in B’Tselem’s calculations. Regardless of the gross percentage, according to B’Tselem’s own statistics, only approximately 5 percent of the West Bank is within settlement “municipal boundaries,” and a much, much smaller percentage of land, 1.7 percent, is developed.

One of B’Tselem’s most frequently cited publications argues that Ma’aleh Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement on the West Bank, several kilometers to the east of Jerusalem, sits on territory taken from five Palestinian Arab villages and therefore amounts to an expropriation. But because the villagers lack registered title or even unregistered deeds, B’Tselem argues that the nomadic Jahalin Bedouin, who intermittently camp and graze their livestock on land to the east of Jerusalem going down to the Dead Sea, have effectively earned the right of title to the land because of their prescriptive use.

Perhaps. But it is far from clear how a Bedouin right to the land has anything to do with the legal claim of Palestinian villagers 60 years earlier. B’Tselem offers this rather astonishing argument: “They grazed on village land in accordance with lease agreements (at times symbolic) with the landowners—including landowners from the villages of Abu Dis and al’Izariyyeh.” At times symbolic!

In other words, only Palestinian Arab villages may be constructed and expanded on the land because Bedouin have occasionally grazed their flocks thereon pursuant to the implied consent of Palestinian villagers. But those villagers only have a right to the land because of its use by the Bedouin!

The sophistry here masks a deeper issue. Aside from its circularity, B’Tselem’s argument equates whatever rights Bedouin may have with the rights of sedentary Arab villages on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The only reason for such an equation is that both are Arabs and not Jews. B’Tselem’s assertion that the land belongs to these villages collapses into the contention that only Arabs, not Jews, have the right to own and use these lands.

_____________

Settlement opponents more frequently cite the Fourth Geneva Convention these days for their legal arguments. They specifically charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”

Frequently, this sentence is cited as if its meaning is transparent and its application to the establishment of Israeli settlements beyond dispute. Neither is the case.

To settlement opponents, the word “transfer” in Article 49(6) connotes that any transfer of the occupying power’s civilian population, voluntary or involuntary, is prohibited. However, the first paragraph of Article 49 complicates that case. It reads: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” Unquestionably, any forcible transfer of populations is illegal. But what about voluntary movements with the antecedent permission or subsequent acquiescence by the occupant?

Even settlement opponents concede that many settlements closest to Palestinian population areas, on the central mountain range of the West Bank, were built without government permission and often contrary to governmental policy; their continued existence forced the government to recognize the settlement as an existing fact. Given this history, it is questionable to claim that Israel “transferred” those settlers.

The response of settlement critics is that certain tax subsidies and other benefits conferred by the Israeli government or the World Zionist Organization that may have encouraged Jews to settle in the West Bank constructively amounts to a “transfer.” This interpretation would have greater traction under a l977 protocol to the Geneva Convention or under the Treaty of Rome, which established the International Criminal Court, but Israel is a signatory to neither (both covenants were heavily influenced by anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations and the PLO).

To the extent that a violation of Article 49(6) depends upon the distinction between the voluntary and involuntary movement of people, the inclusion of “forcible” in Article 49(1) but not in 49(6) makes a different interpretation not only plausible but more credible. It’s a matter of simple grammar that when similar language is used in several different paragraphs of the same provision, modifying language is omitted in later paragraphs because the modifier is understood. To Julius Stone, an international-law scholar, “the word ‘transfer’ [in 49(6)] in itself implies that the movement is not voluntary on the part of the persons concerned, but a magisterial act of the state concerned.”

To understand the phraseology used in Article 49(1), “individual or mass forcible transfers,” as well as one plausible origin of Article 49(6), some background is necessary.

According to Stone, discussions at the 1949 Geneva Diplomatic Conference “were dominated?.?.?.?by a common horror of the evils caused by the recent World War and a determination to lessen the sufferings of war victims.” The various nations’ delegates considered a draft of the convention produced at a conference of the Red Cross Societies held in Stockholm during August 1948. Final Article 49 was the renumbered and revised successor to Article 45 of the Stockholm Draft.

At a legal subcommittee meeting at Stockholm seemingly attended by fewer than 10 active participants, a Danish Jew named Georg Cohn proposed the sentence, albeit with a wider scope, that became Article 49(6). Cohn’s initial sentence, in French, would have prohibited an occupying power from deporting or transferring a “part of its own inhabitants or the inhabitants of another territory which it occupies” into the occupied territory.

According to Cohn’s own report to the Danish foreign ministry, his language was directed at an event the aspects of which were little known outside Scandinavia. In the waning days of World War II, as the Russian military advanced westward through the Baltic states and the Germans retreated, the Germans rightly feared that the Russians would take retribution on all German citizens and ethnic Germans who had collaborated with the Nazis. The Germans evacuated more than 2 million people into boats, hoping to land them in northern Germany.

Many of the ports had been bombed, however, and the Germans began unloading the people wherever they could, including several hundred thousand people into Copenhagen. In the spring of 1945, German children comprised a majority of the pupils in Copenhagen’s schools. The Danes despised them and placed them in concentration camps after the war, waiting to deport them to Germany as fast as possible. That goal had still not been accomplished in August 1948, at the time of the Stockholm conference.

_____________
Cohn may also have been motivated to propose the language that later became Article 49(6) in light of his own strong Jewish identity. The original language on deportations presented to the Stockholm conference would not have prevented Germany from deporting its own Jews to slave and extermination camps in Poland and other occupied countries, nor would it have prevented the Germans from sending Danish Jews found in Germany to concentration camps in occupied territories, sending either Hungarian or Italian Jews to Auschwitz, and/or from transplanting Germans to portions of Poland and other occupied countries. Cohn’s original language would have criminalized all these practices.

Other participants in Stockholm, led by Albert J. Clattenburg Jr. of the United States, thought Cohn’s provision too broad. The phrase “or the inhabitants of another territory which it occupies” was deleted, and “civil” was inserted before “inhabitants.”

At the Geneva Conference itself, both the Final Report of the Committee charged with drafting the text of the 4th Convention for consideration by the delegates as well as comments by delegates generally differentiated between transfers that were voluntary and therefore permitted and those that were involuntary and therefore prohibited. As the Final Report to the delegates stated while explaining the differences between various articles dealing with the right of an occupying power to evacuate an area, primarily in the interest of the security of the civilian population’s security: “Although there was general unanimity in condemning such deportations as took place during the recent war, the phrase at the beginning of Article 45 caused some trouble.?.?.?.?In the end the Committee had decided on a wording that prohibits individual or mass forcible removals as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to any other country, but which permits voluntary transfers.”

That is a key reason why Julius Stone termed the anti-settlement interpretation “an irony bordering on the absurd” and commented: “Ignoring the overall purpose of Article 49, which would inter alia protect the population of the State of Israel from being removed against their will into the occupied territory, it is now sought to be interpreted so as to impose on the Israel government a duty to prevent any Jewish individual from voluntarily taking up residence in that area.”

There is simply no comparison between the establishment and population of Israeli settlements and the Nazi atrocities that led to the Geneva Convention. The settlements are also a far cry from policies implemented by the Soviet Union in the late 1940s and early 1950s to alter the ethnic makeup of the Baltic states by initially deporting hundreds of thousands of people and encouraging Russian immigration.

Nor can they be compared to the efforts by China to alter the ethnic makeup of Tibet by forcibly scattering its native population and moving Chinese into Tibetan territory. Israel’s settlement policies are also not comparable to the campaign by Morocco to alter the ethnic makeup of the Western Sahara by transferring Moroccan Arabs to displace the native Saharans, who now huddle in refugee camps in Algeria, or to the variety of population displacements that occurred in the various parts of the former Yugoslavia.

All these would seem to fit the offense described in Article 49(6) precisely. Yet finding references to the application of Article 49(6) to nations other than Israel is like looking for a needle in a haystack. What distinguishes a system of “law” from arbitrary systems of control is that similar situations are handled alike. A system where legal principles are applied only when it suits the political tastes of anti-Israel elites is one that has lost all credibility. The loose use of international law, disproportionately applied to Israel, undermines the notion that this is “law” entitled to authoritative weight in the first place.

Julius Stone referred to the absurdity of considering the establishment of Israeli settlements as violating Article 49(6):

We would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that?.?.?.?the West Bank?.?.?.?must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context exclude so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6).

Stone’s pointed critique of what has since become “accepted” wisdom invites a hypothetical: Suppose a group of Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel requested permission to establish a community on the West Bank. Further, assume that Israel facilitated the community’s establishment, without the loss of their citizenship, on land purchased from other Palestinian Arabs (not citizens of Israel) or on state land. Would establishment of this settlement violate Article 49(6)? If not, how can one distinguish the hypothetical Arab settlements from Jewish settlements?

Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful.

The idea that the creation of new settlements or that the expansion of ones already in place is an act of bad faith on the part of various Israeli governments may seem without question to those who believe those settlements constitute an obstacle to the ever elusive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whether this argument is well-founded or not, the willingness of Israel’s critics to assert that these communities are not merely wrong-headed but a violation of international law escalates the debate over their existence from a dispute about policy into one in which the Jewish state itself can be labeled as an international outlaw. The ultimate end of the illicit effort to use international law to delegitimize the settlements is clear—it is the same argument used by Israel’s enemies to delegitimize the Jewish state entirely. Those who consider themselves friends of Israel but opponents of the settlement policy should carefully consider whether, in advancing these illegitimate and specious arguments, they will eventually be unable to resist the logic of the argument that says—falsely and without a shred of supporting evidence from international law itself—that Israel is illegitimate.
staten
2013-08-16 00:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
But this concept put forward to today's bigots and hate pedlars is not relevant to Islam therefore, to them it does not wash at all as it does not fit into their hateful ways. Their politics and illegal occupation of other people's >land prohibit them to subscribe to such a philosophy as it dnies them the >opportunity of defaming and belittling a religion whose followers are the majority in the land they occupy.
<<Now take a look at the land where Muslims still are in minority: >>
A rather clumsy attempt to deviate from the raised point.
And what do you think is your "raised point"? You tried to defame Jesus but your Muslim lies were conclusively busted . I see no deviation here. You better learn how to face truth about Islam and Muslims no matter how bitter it might be.
Post by trueman
All your statements appear to be symptomatic of an actute condition otherwise >known as uncontrollable hatred against one particular section of human beings.
In your beloved Muslimdom and in today's the liberal West ,that helps to make Islam bigger and stronger, telling the truth about Islam is called " a hate speech" and people are subject to persecution for telling the truth. The only difference between them is that in your Muslimdom you chop people's heads for "blaspheming" Islam but in the liberals West you may end up behind bars.
Post by trueman
By putting forward the arguments that you have you are simply admitting that >the Palestinian land is being occupied by an illegal minority.
And who in your view is "legal minority"? "Palestinian people " who were invented in 1970s? You cannot sell this crap any longer. Your crap was busted by me and the other posters. If you want to say something new , try to do your home work harder
trueman
2013-08-16 15:50:06 UTC
Permalink
<<And who in your view is "legal minority"? "Palestinian people " who were invented in 1970s? You cannot sell this crap any longer. Your crap was busted by me and the other posters. If you want to say something new , try to do your home work harder >>

Indigenous people = legal majority

Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-16 18:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
<<And who in your view is "legal minority"? "Palestinian people " who were invented in 1970s? You cannot sell this crap any longer. Your crap was busted by me and the other posters. If you want to say something new , try to do your home work harder >>
Indigenous people = legal majority
Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries
Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees from the aftermath of the 1948 Israeli War of Independence and the 1967 Six Day War, little is said about the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to flee from Arab states before and after the creation of Israel. In fact, these refugees were largely forgotten because they were assimilated into their new homes, most in Israel, and neither the United Nations nor any other international agency took up their cause or demanded restitution for the property and money taken from them.

Yemenite Jews
Yemenite Jews flee during Operation Magic Carpet
In 1945, roughly 1 million Jews lived peacefully in the various Arab states of the Middle East, many of them in communities that had existed for thousands of years. After the Arabs rejected the United Nations decision to partition Palestine and create a Jewish state, however, the Jews of the Arab lands became targets of their own governments’ anti-Zionist fervor. As Egypt’s delegate to the UN in 1947 chillingly told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries will be jeopardized by partition.” The dire warning quickly became the brutal reality.

Throughout 1947 and 1948, Jews in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, and Yemen (Aden) were persecuted, their property and belongings were confiscated, and they were subjected to severe anti-Jewish riots instigated by the governments. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. In Syria, anti-Jewish pogroms erupted in Aleppo and the government froze all Jewish bank accounts. In Egypt, bombs were detonated in the Jewish quarter, killing dozens. In Algeria, anti-Jewish decrees were swiftly instituted and in Yemen, bloody pogroms led to the death of nearly 100 Jews.

In January 1948, the president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine ... Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity." In May 1948, the New York Times echoed Wise's appeal, and ran an article headlined, "Jews in Grave Danger in all Muslim Lands: Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia face wrath of their foes."

With their lives in danger and the situation growing ever more perilous, the Jews of the Arab World fled their homes as refugees.

Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, more than 200,000 found refuge in Europe and North America while 586,000 were resettled in Israel - at great expense to the Israeli government, and without any compensation from the Arab governments who had confiscated their possessions. The majority of the Jewish refugees left their homes penniless and destitute and with nothing more than the shirts on their backs. These Jews, however, had no desire to be repatriated in the Arab World and little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long.

In Israel, a newly independent country that was still facing existential threats to its survival, the influx of immigrants nearly doubled the population and a put a great strain on an economy struggling to just meet the needs of its existing population. The Jewish State, however, never considered turning away the refugees and, over the years, worked to absorb them into society.

Iraqi Jews
Iraqi Jews flee as refugees to Israel
Overall, the number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel’s independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. The contrast between the Jewish refugees and the Palestinian refugees grows even starker considering the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation - most of the Jewish refugees traveled hundreds or thousands of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language and lived with a vastly different culture. Most Palestinian refugees traveled but a few miles to the other side of the 1949 armistice lines while remaining inside a linguistically, culturally and ethnically similar society.

Moreover, the value of Jewish property left behind and confiscated by the Arab governments is estimated to be at least 50 percent higher than the total value of assets lost by the Palestinian refugees. In the 1950's, John Measham Berncastle, under the aegis of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, estimated that total assets lost by Palestinian refugees from 1948 - including land, buildings, movable property, and frozen bank accounts - amounted to roughly $350 million ($650 per refugee). Adding in an additional $100 million for assets lost by Palestinian refugees as a result of the Six Day War, an approximate total is $450 million - $4.4 billion in 2012 prices. By contrast, the value of assets lost by the Jewish refugees - compiled by a similar methodology - is estimated at $700 million - roughly $6.7 billion today.
To date, more than 100 UN resolutions have been passed referring explicitly to the fate of the Palestinian refugees. Not one has specifically addressed Jewish refugees. Additionally, the United Nations created a organization, UNRWA, to solely handle Palestinian refugees while all other refugees are handled collectively by UNHRC. The UN even defines Palestinian refugees differently than every other refugee population, setting distinctions that have allowed their numbers to grow exponentially so that nearly 5 million are now considered refugees despite the fact that the number estimated to have fled their homes is only approximately 400-700,000.

Today, nearly half of Israel's native population descends from the Jewish refugees of the Arab world and their rights must be recognized alongside any discussion of the rights for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. In Israel, the issue of the Jewish refugees has been of preeminent importance during all peace negotiations with the Palestinians, including the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David summit. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, Israel is now calling on United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to hold a summit specifically the issue of the Jewish refugees.

In the United States, led by Congressman Jerrold Nadler, efforts are also being made to ensure the world recognizes the plight of these Jewish refugees. In July 2012, Nadler led a bipartisan group of six congressmen in sponsoring H.R. 6242, legislation that would require the President to submit a regular report to Congress on actions taken relating to the resolution of the Jewish refugee issue. Nadler's latest effort comes more than four years after he successfully passed H.R. 185, a non-binding resolution asking the President to ensure that explicit reference is made to the Jewish refugees in any international forum discussing Middle East or Palestinian refugees.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/jew_refugees.html
staten
2013-08-16 21:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
<<And who in your view is "legal minority"? "Palestinian people " who were invented in 1970s? You cannot sell this crap any longer. Your crap was busted by me and the other posters. If you want to say something new , try to do your home work harder >>
Indigenous people = legal majority
So, "palestinian people " didn't work for you and now you have invented an another term - "indigenous people". But this is not the answer , dude. It sounds like abstract words "truth", "justice" , "people". They existing only in your mind . They are separated from embodiment unless you give a name of these people , why you think they are "indigenous " to the land and where they came from to settle there in the first place.

You failed your home work again, muslim. Try harder. And be specific next time.
Post by trueman
Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there. But if you mean Jews, they are not "settlers". They have lived in this land for more than 3000 years. Why the heck they should give up their historical home to some ghost people invented in 1970s?
trueman
2013-08-16 22:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
<<There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there. But if you mean Jews, they are not "settlers". They have lived in this land for more than 3000 years. Why the heck they should give up their historical home to some ghost people invented in 1970s? >>

Oh! That's a new one , I thought holders of German, French, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian passports were indeed The nationals of those countries and I can not deny them of their true nationalities even if they were of Jewish faith. If I agree with your argument then I would also be agreeing with Hitler , sorry , I can not and will not do that.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-17 00:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
Post by trueman
Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
<<There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there. But if you mean Jews, they are not "settlers". They have lived in this land for more than 3000 years. Why the heck they should give up their historical home to some ghost people invented in 1970s? >>
Oh! That's a new one , I thought holders of German, French, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian passports were indeed The nationals of those countries and I can not deny them of their true nationalities even if they were of Jewish faith. If I agree with your argument then I would also be agreeing with Hitler , sorry , I can not and will not do that.
ADOLF HITLER AND THE GRAND MUFTI OF JERUSALEM
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF MEETING

NOVEMBER 28, 1941 BERLIN, GERMANY
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Total/hitler.mufti.htm

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was probably the most famous and most popular leader in the Arab world in his time. His enthusiastic and continued support for Hitler would have huge implications for the future of the Middle East. Yasir Arafat began his career working for the Mufti after the war and would continue to praise him as late as 2002.

Arafat's connection to the Mufti and the Mufti's high prestige in the Arab world would create major concerns in the world's Jewish community about the sincerity of the commitment to peace of Arafat and other Arab leaders.

There is only one known photo the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti, and it is barely legible. However, this picture and the actions of the Mufti haunt Arab-Jewish relations to this day.

The official transcript follows:

Reich Chancellory, Berlin November 28, 1941 meeting of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseiniin the Presence of the Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba

Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, pp.881 ff.

GRAND MUFTI:


The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.

A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order form Berlin.

With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.

The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Palestine.

France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.

In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.

HITLER:

The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.

The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.

The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be.

Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east.

The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.
2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.
3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.

He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.

The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.

GRAND MUFTI:

The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.

HITLER:

The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.

GRAND MUFTI:

The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause.
staten
2013-08-17 02:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
Post by trueman
Settlers from Europe = illegal minority
<<There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there. But if you mean Jews, they are not "settlers". They have lived in this land for more than 3000 years. Why the heck they should give up their historical home to some ghost people invented in 1970s? >>
Oh! That's a new one , I thought holders of German, French, Russian, Polish,
Hungarian, Austrian passports were indeed The nationals of those countries
Yes they are . And they don't live in Palestine .
Post by trueman
and I can not deny them of their true nationalities even if they were of Jewish faith.
But you denying the followers of the Jewish faith their historical home called Israel but instead you want to grant it to some ghost people invented in 1970s. That's not fair. Should you try to play such tricks, say, with Russians , you would instantly feel the taste of Russian missiles fired from Russian choppers and tanks. Remember Chechnia? The city of Grozny was leveled to the ground when Chechen Muslims tried to redraw the map of Russia in favor of Islam. Muslims understand very well only the language of brutal force.
Post by trueman
If I agree with your argument then I would also be agreeing with Hitler , >sorry , I can not and will not do that.
You would be agreeing with Satan himself if this agreement helps you to promote Islam. You proved that very well during WWII when you were closely cooperating with Nazis helping them very enthusiastically to commit their crimes.
trueman
2013-08-17 15:36:35 UTC
Permalink
<<There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there.

All the Jewish terrorist members of gangs such as Irgun, Hagana and the Stern gang operating in Palestine murdering, looting, raping Palestinians and blowing up their houses during the night were part of Zionist strategy of Bloody ethnic cleansing of both Christian and Muslim Palestinians. These gangs consisted mainly of
European Jews from various countries. Almost all of the earlier prime ministers of this newly established countrynoutnof Palestine came from these gangs. Here is a short list:
David Ben Gurion - real name David Grun. Member of the Irgun terrorist gang. Nationality - Polish
Menachem Begin - Part of the same gang as the terrorist in chief David Grun above. Nationality - Russian
Golda Mier - Member of another 'Palestinian cleansing' gang called Hagana. Nationality - Ukrainian.
Ariel Sharon- Real Name Ariel Schinermann. parents came from Russia.
Yitzhak Shamir - origin - Belarus
Etc.etc.etc.







But if you mean Jews, they are not "settlers". They have lived in this land for more than 3000 years. Why the heck they should give up their historical home to some ghost people invented in 1970s? >>
staten
2013-08-18 12:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
<<There is no "settlers from Europe" in Palestine. There is no Germans, no Frenchies , no Dutch people there.
All the Jewish terrorist members of gangs such as Irgun, Hagana and the Stern gang >operating in Palestine murdering, looting, raping Palestinians and >blowing up their houses during the night were part of Zionist strategy of Bloody ethnic cleansing of both Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
More vicious Muslim lies, propaganda and disinformation. None of the above named Jewish militias were involved in looting, raping or ethnic cleansing. Even if you call them “terrorists” they never went for maximum civilian deaths. The Arab and Muslim terrorists doing exactly the opposite.

The creation of these militias was a direct response to war declared on the infant Jewish state by the Arabs. Six months before the War of Independence in 1948, the Arabs , not the Jews, launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN's 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs
rejected. The Arabs marked all Jews for extinction. The Arab press and public speeches made it clear that this was to be a war of annihilation . The Jews would be either dead or out. Israel was fighting not a war of independence, but a war of survival.
Post by trueman
These gangs consisted mainly of
David Ben Gurion - real name David Grun. Member of the Irgun terrorist gang. Nationality - Polish
Menachem Begin - Part of the same gang as the terrorist in chief David Grun above. Nationality - Russian
Golda Mier - Member of another 'Palestinian cleansing' gang called Hagana. Nationality - Ukrainian.
Ariel Sharon- Real Name Ariel Schinermann. parents came from Russia.
Yitzhak Shamir - origin - Belarus
Etc.etc.etc.
How can it be: Golda Meir- Jewish. Nationality -Ukrainian. Menachem Begin - Jewish. Nationality – Russian. David Ben Gurion – Jewish . Nationality – Polish

Do you have a personality disorder or suffering from an other form of mental disease making you to write such an idiotic nonsense?

Now listen up. When persecuted by the Stalinist regime Germans living in Russia in the Volga region, who never lived in Germany, returned to their historical home Germany , no one questioned their nationality they all were accepted as Germans and absorbed into German society .

During the many wars of the 20th century, tens of millions of refugees were created in Europe and Asia. In 1922, 1.8 million people were relocated to resolve the Turkey-Greece war. Following World War II, 3,000,000 Germans were forced from countries of Eastern Europe and resettled in Germany. When the Indian sub-continent was divided, over 12 million people were transferred between India and Pakistan.
All these refugee issues have been resolved. No one questioned their nationalities . They all were accepted and absorbed.

Why on earth persecuted Jews cannot go to live in their historical home Israel but instead got to ask a permission from invented by Islamofascists "palestinisn people" is just beyond sickening .

My question to you , Muslim. Why the hell 50 million hostile Arabs and Muslims can dig in their Islamist asses all over Europe (to which they have no historical or cultural relations whatsoever) but Jews from Russia, Spain or Poland cannot go to live on the land of their patriarchs?
trueman
2013-08-18 16:42:16 UTC
Permalink
<<Why on earth persecuted Jews cannot go to live in their historical home Israel but instead got to ask a permission from invented by Islamofascists "palestinisn people" is just beyond sickening . >>

Your ignorance is overwhelmingly sickening. This is the last response afforded to you .

First of all the Expat Germans living in Russia simply came back to their long existing mother country, they did not create one. they spoke the same language, belonged to the same culture and simply assimilated in their 'father land'.
European Jews on the other hand had no cultural ties and did not even speak the same language, they landed in Palestine with a pre-planned hidden agenda of
Ethnically cleansing Palestine with terrorism and then creating a 'Yehudistan'.

You say 'persecuted Jews', by whom my Kleiner Juden Mensch? Certainly not by the Palestinians, so why should they pay the price?

<<My question to you , Muslim. Why the hell 50 million hostile Arabs and Muslims can dig in their Islamist asses all over Europe (to which they have no historical or cultural relations whatsoever) but Jews from Russia, Spain or Poland cannot go to live on the land of their patriarchs? >>

Firstly, 'Mr Juden Pfurze', Jew is one who follows the religion Judaism it is not a nationality. So the settlers and later occupiers of Palestine were of Polish, Russian, Austrian , Ukrainian etc. nationalities.

Secondly, the Muslims in Europe are workers, running the industry due to the shortage of manpower after the major wars. they have not and don't intend to creat a country there like the Juden Leute from Europe.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-08-18 16:52:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:42:16 AM UTC-5, trueman wrote:

"You say 'persecuted Jews', by whom my Kleiner Juden Mensch? Certainly not by the Palestinians"

Yes by the Palestinians!!!


NAZI - ISLAM CONNECTION, THE PERSECUTION OF JEWS IN PALESTINE PRIOR TO 1948
http://www.answering-islam.org/Walid/israel.htm#NAZIISLAMCONNECTIONPALESTINE

Arab terrorism in the Holy Land originated centuries before the recent "tool" of the Palestinian cause was invented. In towns where Jews lived for hundreds of years were periodically robbed, raped, and massacred. The survivors were obliged to abandon their possessions and run. At the beginning of this century Jews were recorded in nearly every town that is today considered to have been "purely Arab". It was Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from their homes within Palestine to other areas in Palestine. David Landes in "Palestine Before the Zionists", writes: "Jews had to pass Muslims on their left side, because that was the side of Satan. They had to yield the right of way, step off the pavement to let the Arab go by, above all make sure not to touch him in passing, because this could provoke a violent response. In the same way, anything that reminded the Muslims of the presence of alternative religions, any demonstration of alternative forms of worship, had to be avoided, so synagogues were places in humble, hidden places, and the sounds of Jewish prayers carefully muted". DeHass also writes: "Murad III decreed that all Jews throughout his empire be executed", this decree was prevented by Solomon Ashkenazi, Murad's confidential agent. In 1576 Sultan Murad III enacted legislation to uproot and deport a 1000 of the 15,000 of Safed's Jews to Cyprus.

In the 16th century in Jerusalem the Jews were so taxed to the point of extortion and most of Jerusalem's Jews ran to Hebron, Gaza, and Tiberius to become refugees. Bedouin raiders, general anarchy, tax corruption, with additional tax burden was aimed only at the Jews, yet they held steadfast in Judah-cum-Palestine. The Jerusalem Jews were bitterly and mercilessly persecuted during the 17th century reign of an Arab ruler Ibn Barouk who bought the rule from Murad IV. In 1660 the entire Jewish community was massacred by Arabs with only one survivor.

Little is known by Arabs as to why Ahmad Basha El-Jazzar[The butcher] held this name, his sadistic wanton exploits became legend during the 1800s, who was known to travel accompanied by an executioner. When The Butcher encountered a subject who was adjudged to be misbehaving, "The criminal bowed his neck, the executioner struck, and the head fell" (DeHass). Hayim Farhi, the only Jew who has risen to power in the area was imprisoned by The Butcher, cutting off his nose, ear, and gouging out his eye. The Jews were at the bottom of the heap of peoples in status who had to pay to pray on the Wailing Wall, protection money was always collected against destruction and vandalism of the Jewish burial grounds, and to prevent molestation of Jewish travelers.

In the 1830s havoc was created during the Egyptian reign of Palestine, and the Jews were persecuted brutally throughout the country. In 1834 the inhabitants of Eastern Palestine crossed the Jordan River to join natives of Nablus, Hebron, and Bethlehem, 40,000 of them rushed on Jerusalem and looted the city for 5 days were the Jews had their homes sacked and their women raped. (DeHass, History, vol V, p.393).

The Jewish story in Palestine was like the story of a rape victim, blamed for being there at the time. In the following few decades (1848 - 1878) scores of incidents involving anti-Jewish violence, persecution, and extortions filled page after page of documented reports from the British Consulate in Jerusalem too overwhelming to show in these pages.

Throughout the 19th century Jews were victims of mass hunger and of Arab attacks. The 1929 Arab riots resulted in the rape and massacre of most of Hebron's Jewish community.

Later Muftism by Haj Al-Ameen El-Husseni started fatwas (religious decrees) against all the Jews as a response to the Zionist movement. His collaboration with Hitler on the Eve of The Final Solution left an everlasting mark on the history of Muftism in The Holy Land. Letters of collaboration with Heinrich Himmler and the Hungarian Prime Minister resulted in the death of 400,000 Jews when he succeeded to stop them from immigrating to the Holy Land. Till now, no apology, hearing, or condemnation was made by any Arab government or religious official.
Jihad Johnny
2013-08-18 20:03:49 UTC
Permalink
"Secondly, the Muslims in Europe are workers, running the industry due to
the shortage of manpower after the major wars. they have not and don't
intend to creat a country there like the Juden Leute from >Europe."
Is that so? You might want to let France know that muslims have no
intention of creating a sub-country.
France is beginning to wake up to muslims attempting to force their
stone-age rules of law on western countries.
http://tinyurl.com/kp9xc6x

Australia has also done a nice job of telling muslims to shut the fuck up
and behave, or get the hell out.

Muslims Out of Australia!
CANBERRA AUSTRALIA: Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were
told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted
radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. A day after a group
of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special
meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear
that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some
radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept
that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If
those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a
theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national
television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two
laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the
Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law,
independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the
opportunity to go to other country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's
a better option," Costello said. Asked whether he meant radical clerics
would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly
be asked to move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did
not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who
don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian
values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he
said. Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by
saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

I don't trueman, it seems many people are waking up to muslim busllshit and
no longer want muslims in their country.
staten
2013-08-18 20:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by trueman
<<Why on earth persecuted Jews cannot go to live in their historical home Israel but instead got to ask a permission from invented by Islamofascists "palestinisn people" is just beyond sickening . >>
Your ignorance is overwhelmingly sickening. This is the last response afforded to you .
First of all the Expat Germans living in Russia simply came back to their long existing mother >country,
And so did the Jews. Israel is their historical home. It does not belong to phoney people created in 1970s.
Post by trueman
they did not create one.
Correct. Israel was established long before Islam was born. No need to create it for the second time.
Post by trueman
they spoke the same language, belonged to the same culture and simply assimilated in their 'father land'.
European Jews on the other hand had no cultural ties and did not even speak the same language, they landed in Palestine with a pre-planned hidden agenda of
Ethnically cleansing Palestine with terrorism and then creating a 'Yehudistan'.
Since Israel got back Jerusalem in 1967, it has guaranteed free access for all religions. In the four decades since then, the Arab population of Jerusalem has quadrupled. It's very weird "ethnic cleansing" . Instead of diminishing it's growing like mosquito colony in the swamp.
Post by trueman
You say 'persecuted Jews', by whom my Kleiner Juden Mensch? Certainly not by the Palestinians, so why should they pay the price?
First off, my Muslim idiot pal, I had told you already that I am not Jewish. You you are barking up the wrong tree . Yes, I am pro-Israel but it doesn't change my nationality and my religion.

Second. When I mentioned “persecuted Jews”, I meant Jews fleeing the Nazi and later the Soviet communist regimes.

Third. You still owe me an explanation who the hell are those “Palestinians” if they never existed in the first place. If you want to be taken seriously, give me an historical account about the land of Palestine: its origin, how it got its name, list all original dwellers how they come to this land in the first place and and only then tell us whom you think Palestine rightly belongs to. Be specific . No lies and no Arab mythology are accepted.




And
Post by trueman
<<My question to you , Muslim. Why the hell 50 million hostile Arabs and Muslims can dig in their Islamist asses all over Europe (to which they have no historical or cultural relations whatsoever) but Jews from Russia, Spain or Poland cannot go to live on the land of their patriarchs? >>
Firstly, 'Mr Juden Pfurze', Jew is one who follows the religion Judaism it is not a nationality.
That's what you say. But since you are a Muslim certainly no one expects from you anything new but just gross ignorance and lies.

Wikipedia:
All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion. According to halakha, a Jew by birth must be born to a Jewish mother. Halakha states that the acceptance of the principles and practices of Judaism does not make a person a Jew. But, those born Jewish do not lose that status because they cease to be observant Jews, even if they adopt the practices of another religion
Post by trueman
So the settlers and later occupiers of Palestine were of Polish, Russian, Austrian , Ukrainian >etc. nationalities.
If you are a schizophrenic then, yes, if you once were born Jew you can be born again as a Russian , Ukrainian, Polish.
Post by trueman
Secondly, the Muslims in Europe are workers, running the industry due to the >shortage of manpower after the major wars. they have not and don't intend to creat a country there like the Juden Leute from Europe.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!! I can't get it anymore, hold me people !!!!! “Muslims running the industry in Europe”!!! That's bloody hilarious!! What “industry” they are running”, you clown ? Making bombs and the devilish concoctions for blowing jet-liners in the air? Name at least one branch of industry run by Muslims in Europe. Most of Muslims coming to Europe have no intentions to work or being assimilated. These people do not bring a single thing with them to benefit Europe , they only want to take from the coffers of Europe and be subsidized , which they are, and they riot because Europe does not coddle them even more.

These Moslems are not only parasites, they are dangerous parasites. Even if they work, they still remain being ticking bombs with no certain day set for explosion. Remember London doctor's plot? A terror ringleader in London doctors’ plot was a brilliant neurologist; his cronies in terror were well paid doctors working in prestigious London’s hospitals.

Muslims are the problem of any lands where they settle, not just in Europe. As as the Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, who worked with young Moslem criminals in the prison in Copenhagen, wrote in his seminal book, “the integration of Moslems into Western society is not possible. They can only feel at home in an Islamic land, where they can live in the culture that has nurtured them”

Geert Widers:
“ Muslims are incapable of integrating into other cultures. I think in reality we do see Muslims on individual level assimilating into our societies. But what I do know is that very many Muslims do not want to integrate. Again, the facts don’t lie: four in ten British Muslim students want Sharia law to be implemented, while one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. Seven out of ten Spanish Muslims consider their self a Muslim first, instead of a Spanish citizen. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks, half of Dutch Muslims admit to ‘understanding’ the 9/11 attacks. Seven out of ten youth prisoners here in Copenhagen are Muslim. In 2005, 82% of the crimes in Copenhagen were committed by immigrants, many of them Muslim. More than half of the Danish Muslims think that it should be forbidden to criticise Islam and two out of three Danish Muslims think that free speech should be curtailed”.
--------------------------------------------------
That's the price Europeans are paying today for importing Muslims “to run European industries”
staten
2013-08-14 23:56:38 UTC
Permalink
The inconsistency is absent in the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ 10:44) where Jmmanuel >says: “Truly, I have not come to bring peace but the sword of knowledge about the power of the spirit, which dwells within the human being.”
Let's see what new crap trueman is trying to sell this time and what this mysterious "Talmud Jmmanuel" is about:


Talmud
Jmmanuel

This book is the work of “Billy” Eduard Albert Meier who was born in Bülach, Switzerland in 1937. His rather obvious Biblical hoax has all the usual characteristics: no manuscript is available, the text only exists in modern translations, the “find story” is unlikely, and it contains anachronisms and obvious “prophecies after the event”. I find it interesting because it’s such a typical and predictable late-20th century Biblical hoax.

Meier makes extensive use of conspiracy theories to explain away the “holes in the script” — see “Hoax Characteristics”. Apparently, the conspiracy in this case consists of powerful Jewish and Christian leaders who are able to control police forces in the Middle East, as well as the Israeli army. The Mossad (Israeli intelligence) are part of it, capable of assassinating people anywhere on the Earth without leaving a trace. And so on.

Meier and his followers insist on misspelling “Immanuel” with an initial J instead of an I. The stated reason is that he was commanded to do so by space aliens. In my text, I refer to the manuscript as “TJ”.
Find story

The manuscript is said to have been found in 1963 by a “Greek catholic priest” (the terminology is uncertain, it might mean an Orthodox priest, or perhaps a Uniate, i.e. Eastern rite but Roman Catholic allegiance, I don’t know which) by the name Rashid. It was found in a hidden cave. Meier claims to have visited the cave with his friend Rashid. The two friends excavated it and found evidence supporting the genuineness of the manuscript. The manuscript consisted of four scrolls written in Aramaic. Rashid translated most of the text, which took until 1974. During the work, Rashid was persecuted by “the church” and Jews who were out to stop the publication of the manuscript. He was forced to flee from Jerusalem to Lebanon. The Palestinian refugee camp where he lived with his family was then subjected to a massive attack by Israeli military forces. The scrolls were taken by the Israelis and probably burned. Rashid found shelter in Bagdad, where he was subsequently assassinated by Israeli agents in 1977.

Some questions are pertinent to this find story:

The location of the cave is not given. Why?
Why are there no records of the alleged excavation, and no information about what finds were made and how (in what scientific way) they supported the genuineness of the alleged scrolls?
Why are we not given any information about Rashid? What was his full name? Where was he ordained? Under which bishop did he serve as a priest? The churches keep records which should verify at least that he existed.
The letter from Rashid speaks of him travelling with his family. Where are they today? They ought to be able to verify some of the information about him.
At which university did Rashid learn Aramaic? Universities keep records, so we should be able to verify not only that Rashid existed but also what subjects he studied.
How did Rashid get to know Eduard Meier? Why did he select Meier and no-one else as his coworker in the manuscript publishing?
Since he had the scrolls for 11 years, why did he not make a single photograph or xerox copy of them?
How did “the church” and the Jews find out about his manuscript find?
How could the “church” or the Jews know that the scrolls contained material that would be damaging to their religions, when not an iota of the material had been published and the only two people who had seen the scrolls were Rashid and Meier?
Is it consistent with what we know of church and Israeli behaviour in other cases when faced with other manuscript finds, that they try to suppress them or murder the finders?

The answer to all these questions is simple and obvious. The cave, Rashid and the scrolls never existed.


The manuscript

According to the accompanying information, the document was written by Judas Iskarioth, the only true disciple of Jesus. All the Biblical gospels are fakes, censored to fit in with church dogma. The first of these forgeries is the gospel of Matthew, which is an altered version of Meier’s scrolls. In reality, this means that Meier has simply re-written the gospel of St Matthew to fit his own ideas. He borrows freely from other hoaxes and his own special contribution is the information that the events in Jesus’ life were orchestrated by aliens from another planet.

The text has a clear anti-Christian leaning, denying most of the central Christian teachings and putting words to that effect in Jesus’ mouth. This is even more outspoken in Meier’s own commentary to the text, where he expresses abject hate for the Christian religion, accusing churches of being power-hungry, ruthless, loveless, bloodthirsty oppressors. In Meier’s opinion, the purpose of the Bible isto hide the real truth about Jesus and fool people into obedience for ecclesiastical authorities, whereas the real Jesus was the son of a human woman and a space alien. Several passages in the text are obviously intended to explain away certain Christian ideas, e.g. the story of Saulus and his conversion which is dealt with at length in this “original gospel” whereas the story actually belongs in the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke. Other characteristics of the text are also typical for hoaxes, e.g.

Jesus travelled to India before his work in Palestine.
Jesus did not die on the cross.
After fleeing the grave, Jesus again travelled to India.
The Essenes are said to be a secret order. (Here, they seek to enroll Jesus who declines to join.)
Jesus preaches reincarnation.

There are plenty of anachronisms, e.g.

“The laws of nature”, a concept formulated in renaissance times.
“The horn-bearing kings” denotes the peoples of Scandinavia, later Vikings — who did not wear horns at all.
“Five hundred million” and other large numbers occur; ancient texts never mention such large numbers, anything beyond a hundred thousand or so is “a myriad” or “countless as the stars”.
The appearance of Muhammed is predicted, by name. He will appear in 500 years from now, says Jesus. This is radically different from all OT and NT prophecies which are never that precise. The prophecies about Jesus, for instance, do not say anything about the time distance from the prophecy to its fulfillment, nor do they give his name or address. Clearly, this is a prophecy after the event.
Other prophecies after the event are abundant, e.g. the Second World War and bomb planes.

Any further analysis of the TJ text is quite superfluous. Even a cursory glance reveals that it has all the characteristics of a hoax, and wherever a more in-depth analysis is attempted, the forgery merely becomes more obvious. However, if you want some fun, do look at the next subject too, where retired professor Jim Deardorff tries to prove that TJ is a genuine manuscript, and fails in a rather spectacular way!

http://questionyourreality.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/the-talmud-of-immanuel-is-a-hoax/
---------------------------------------------------------

As everyone can see this "Talmud" is nothing else but just an another Muslim fakery.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...