Israel - Palestine discussion thread
- Thread starter Beeblebrox237
- 3,578 comments
- 181,689 views
feral and bad
Premium
- 218
- United States
- double_rating7
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Unless you bothered to read item 20.
However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.
That's the two state solution, something they're at least nominally on board with but that Israel has gone to great lengths to avoid. Israel doesn't want two states, it wants all the territory itself.
The rest of it is mostly the same sort of stuff that any independent state would say - we recognise no other claims to our territory and we reserve the right to defend it. Yes, that's how a Palestinian state would work.
The definition of Palestine that is relevant for these things was created by the British Mandate. The rest of the territory involved is for the most part uncontroversially claimed by other states, bar a few bits left over from 1967. So that would be the European history and Zionist movement at play.
Zero. Anything above that should expect to be criticised, or at the bare minimum require justification as to the necessity. But as a blanket "this is okay" number, zero.
Or is it possible to use tactics that are more or less indiscriminate in how they direct violence against legitimate targets?
Yes, it can be difficult to fight in a civilian environment, but that's a problem that Israel largely created for itself. There's no reason the war needs to be conducted so brutally, Israel has Gaza completely cut off. And yet still they choose a method that results in massive collateral loss of life and destruction of civilian infrastructure. For what?
Israel did this because Hamas killed ~1200 innocent Israelis. In response, Israel has killed ~17000 innocent Gazans. Some sort of retaliation was expected and warranted, but this is just slaughter. What possible positive outcome do you think will come of this? At what point does Israel decide that Hamas is wiped out and stop?
- 446
- Israel
The justification is that civilian casualties are collateral damage. Zero isn’t possible, especially when you are fighting a terrorist organization in constant to a military with bases, ships and so on. There’s a good reasons Hamas’ tactics are declared as war crime by pretty much every treaty ever.
Can you provide a different method that would discriminate civilians and terrorists better and would also allow Israel to destroy Hamas, which is the stated goal of the war?
How exactly did Israel create it? By leaving the Gaza Strip in 2005 and not intervening when Hamas was elected in 2007? The Palestinians could’ve turned Gaza into a successful semi state like Singapore but instead they turned it into terror city.
The fear in Israel is that giving the West Bank to the Palestinians would turn it into a mega Gaza. Had the Palestinians proved they could run a state on Gaza, Israelis would be much more inclined to give them a state. The border of Israel with the West Bank is 700+ km. Securing it would be almost impossible against an October 7th style attack.
I strongly disagree with this statement. I think retaliation against Palestinian civilians shouldn’t be allowed as a response to October 7th.
The war goals as declared by the Israeli government are:
- destroying Hamas, which according to the IDF Spokesman has about 30,000 members, 9000 of them wee killed by now.
- Return the hostages
To me this looks like a campaign to destroy a terrorist organization that basically holds 2M civilians captive and radicalizes them. I don’t know of any other way to get rid of Hamas.
Why didn’t you quote the first part of item 20: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea”
Even if Israel accepts giving the whole of Jerusalem and the entirety of the West Bank to the Palestinians, which is the minimum required of Hamas, they still want every Palestinian and their offsprings to return to mainland Israel. We are talking about millions of refugees that would offset Israeli demographic and stop it from being the state of the Jews, which is the whole idea.
Last edited:
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Hamas' tactics are a war crime, because they targeted civilians. So are Israel's, because they make no real effort to avoid civilians.
Civilians as "collateral damage" is something that is only ever justifiable on a case by case basis, and not something that you can handwave broadly as "zero civilian casualties isn't possible". When the ratio of civilian deaths to legitimate enemy kills is over 2:1, you've got some explaining to do as to why that was necessary. "But terrorist organisation" doesn't cut it, especially when you have the area blockaded and you have an overwhelming advantage in manpower, technology and materiel.
Maintain the blockade. You have control of the air, land and sea around Gaza.
Use the significant amount of offered international aid to screen civilians for Hamas members and move them out of Gaza to a safe area, especially the civilians in places like hospitals. Maybe some sort of camp would be appropriate, given the history. Now that you've made a reasonable effort to get most of the civilians out of the actual area of fighting, you can take your time and use your advantages in technology and training to slowly move through the area and identify Hamas fighters in a way that is appropriate for a modern military.
You're still trying to avoid unnecessary damage to civilian infrastructure as well as the deaths of any remaining civilians who may not have been able to evacuate, so any offensive actions should only be taken on positive identification and with the least amount of force required. Bombing civilian buildings that might contain Hamas members, for example, is right out. If an area is considered too difficult or dangerous to sweep, you can simply maintain a siege on that area.
Hamas has limited weapons and almost no manufacturing ability, in any long term conflict they lose. This rush to destroy them quickly betrays that Israel has no real interest about being precise and limiting damage to Hamas. They could if they wanted, and it would probably cost them less in munitions. But the point is to make sure that a Palestinian state cannot arise, and that means killing Palestinians and destroying their infrastructure.
How far back do you want to go? Short term, by maintaining the occupation of Gaza after the 2005 withdrawal.
"Following the withdrawal, Israel continued to maintain direct control over Gaza's air and maritime space, six of Gaza's seven land crossings, maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities."
It was impossible for Gaza to turn into a successful semi-state like Singapore or anything else under those conditions. They were an occupied territory. Israel did not allow Gaza what it would have needed to form any sort of stable government, they made sure that the only reasonable course for Gazans was to rebel against the occupying power. That's how Israel created it.
If you lock someone in their house while controlling their food, water and power, you should not be surprised if they attack you instead of thriving.
There it is. Why do Palestinians have to prove they can run a state? Why is it Israel that gets to decide if they should be allowed to have it or not?
The conflict ultimately exists because land was taken from Palestinians to create an Israeli state. Palestinians had a state that included Jews, but Israel decided that wasn't good enough. Palestinians quite reasonably objected to this, and decades of conflict later it's somehow become "well Palestinians just aren't capable of running a state"?
Israel has proven that it's the enemy of the Palestinian people, and you can see in things like the Hamas charter that Palestinians understand this very well. Palestinians need a state for the same reasons that Jews needed a state in 1948 - because there are people legitimately out to get them and they need a place that they can safely call theirs. Yes, at this point that state will almost certainly be in direct conflict with Israel, but again that's a situation that Israel was very careful to engineer. Tough titties.
There's no evidence that Israel would ever allow a Palestinian state voluntarily. If that was the intention, they wouldn't be flooding the West Bank with settlers against international law.
Excuse me, I was unclear. Some sort of retaliation against Hamas was expected and warranted, but this is just slaughter.
Does Hamas radicalise the Gazan civilians? Or does Israel do it? I don't imagine it took much to convince your average Gazan civilian that Israel was the bad guy and that violent resistance was the only way out, even before October 2023. All they had to do was look at their daily lives, look at the border of their incredibly densely populated piece of land, look at how Israel controls every necessity for life.
And now? Israel has guaranteed that everyone in Gaza will be vehemently anti-Israel for life. Even if they wipe out Hamas, so many Gazans have died that someone will just make Hamas II. This is the practical reason for avoiding civilian casualties and damage. It reinforces a never-ending cycle of hatred.
And this is where the asymmetry between the two sides comes into play. Gaza is under occupation, with little technology, power or access to diplomacy. You could say that they should stop too, but they are using the only option they have to try and change their situation. Israel is not, Israel has considerable freedom of action and could at any point choose to take this whole conflict in the direction of a resolution that might be acceptable to both sides long term. But they don't.
I'll ask again: What possible positive outcome do you think will come of this? After Hamas is wiped out, what does the situation then look like for Israel and Palestine that will avoid future conflict?
I know. That's the problem. That's why we're here, because the Zionists couldn't accept going back to a pre-British Mandate Palestine with a mixed population of Jews and Islamics. They wanted a Jewish majority state, and were willing to go to war for it. Okay, that's kinda ****ed but sort of understandable in 1948. It resulted in the Nakba, which is kind of ironic given the inciting reasons for Jews wanting an independent state.
So a one state solution is off the table. That's been known for a long time, and anyone can see that's just a recipe for disaster at this point. It has value as a propaganda tool for hyping people up, as you can see from the Hamas manifesto, but it's not a viable diplomatic option. Nobody sensible thinks it is.
But then what? Some sort of two state solution would seem reasonable, and Palestinians have at times been on board with this since the 1970s. But it hasn't happened. Right of return is a problem, but again it's a problem that Israel created for itself and there are solutions if Israel is willing to compromise. However Israel continues to make the situation worse with it's creeping annexation of the West Bank and further displacement of Palestinians.
If you accept that Jews should have a state of their own, without qualifications or conditions, I don't see why you wouldn't think that the Palestinians should have the same. They're all just people, and they all deserve safety, self-determination and a place to call their own. Israel has created that for themselves, but at the cost of the Palestinians. That's not right, and getting mad at the Palestinians for pushing back against what Israel has done doesn't make it any righter.
Last edited:
feral and bad
Premium
- 218
- United States
- double_rating7
I did read article 20 which in its' entirety says: "20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
From the river to the sea means from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. This includes the State of Israel as it currently exists. This implies that the State of Israel will cease to exist. To my mind this is just a different single state solution. In what way, shape or form is this a two state solution?
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
I'm grateful you read the entirety of my reply as most people skip past long comments not appreciating the time and effort put into writing them. Most people I come across on social media platforms are subjective and hard-headed, so it's a breath of fresh air to finally find an intellectual to have a civilised and objective conversation with.
English is my second language and I still have a long way to reach fluency. So, in advance, forgive my spelling, grammatical and translation errors in this reply and the previous one.
2. "Who converted to Islam"
3. "The Submissive" (i.e submissive to the one God).
From Islamweb Arabic:
The question
Is it true that all hadiths that talk about the number of prophets and messengers are weak? Thank you.
Praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. As for what follows:
The hadiths mentioned in the number of prophets and messengers are not all weak. Rather, there are scholars who have authenticated some of them, such as the hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad in Al-Musnad on the authority of Abu Dharr . I said: O Messenger of God, how many messengers are there? He said: Three hundred and some ten large masses. In a narration on the authority of Abu Umamah, Abu Dharr said : I said, O Messenger of God, how many fulfillment is the number of the prophets? He said: One hundred thousand and twenty-four thousand. The Messengers, of that, are three hundred and fifteen large masses.
● Prophet Muhammad's hadiths aren't spoken out of his mind but are revealed to him either in his sleep, during the day or in certain situations by Gabriel. The interpretation of verse 164 is that some messengers were related to prophet Muhammad in the Quran like: Moses, Jesus and Abraham (to name some), while there are messengers whose names and stories weren't mentioned in the Quran.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
Sunan Ibn Majah 4075
sunnah.com
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2365c
● Prophet Muhammad prophesied that a group of Muslims will fight for righteousness and here's one hadith: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2484
Here's a second hadith translated from Islamweb Arabic:
The question
Is there a hadith of the Holy Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, about the people of Bayt al-Maqdis and how they will be among the people of Paradise, God willing, because of the injustice they will be exposed to? Is it possible to send the text of this noble hadith? May God reward you
Abdullah bin Imam Ahmad said: I found in my father’s handwriting. Then he narrated with his chain of transmission to Abu Umamah. He said: He, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “A group of my nation will continue to adhere to the religion, prevailing against their enemy.” They are subjugated, and those who oppose them will not harm them except the afflictions that befall them, until the command of God comes to them (i.e Judgment Day). And they are like that.” They said: O Messenger of God, where are they? He said: “In Bayt al-Maqdis (Al-Quds) and the outskirts of Bayt al-Maqdis.” It was also included by Al-Tabarani. Al-Haythami said in the council, “And his men are trustworthy.”
I hope my reply is sufficient and thank you for your time.
English is my second language and I still have a long way to reach fluency. So, in advance, forgive my spelling, grammatical and translation errors in this reply and the previous one.
Exactly. It's known as "The Preserved Tablet".
Yes, and it's an essential part of faith.
If we search for the word "Muslim" in the Almaany dictionary we'll find 3 definitions: 1. "Whoever believes in the message of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, and shows submission and acceptance to it."
2. "Who converted to Islam"
3. "The Submissive" (i.e submissive to the one God).
● I was hesitant to post (4:164) after the hadith and I apologize for the confusion this caused.
From Islamweb Arabic:
The question
Is it true that all hadiths that talk about the number of prophets and messengers are weak? Thank you.
The answer
Praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God and his family and companions. As for what follows:
The hadiths mentioned in the number of prophets and messengers are not all weak. Rather, there are scholars who have authenticated some of them, such as the hadith narrated by Imam Ahmad in Al-Musnad on the authority of Abu Dharr . I said: O Messenger of God, how many messengers are there? He said: Three hundred and some ten large masses. In a narration on the authority of Abu Umamah, Abu Dharr said : I said, O Messenger of God, how many fulfillment is the number of the prophets? He said: One hundred thousand and twenty-four thousand. The Messengers, of that, are three hundred and fifteen large masses.
● Prophet Muhammad's hadiths aren't spoken out of his mind but are revealed to him either in his sleep, during the day or in certain situations by Gabriel. The interpretation of verse 164 is that some messengers were related to prophet Muhammad in the Quran like: Moses, Jesus and Abraham (to name some), while there are messengers whose names and stories weren't mentioned in the Quran.
I hope this clears up the confusion.
According to Islam, Jesus, peace be upon him, was a human being like all of us and he ascended to the Heavens and will come back when the fake Christ (The Dajjal) emerges, he kills him, lives what's remaining of his age, and dies like everyone else.
Sunan Ibn Majah 4075
Sunan Ibn Majah 4075 - Tribulations - كتاب الفتن - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)
Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic
sunnah.com
This is the case for all messengers and not just messenger Muhammad. Here's a beautiful hadith by prophet Muhammad about Jesus and all messengers:
https://sunnah.com/muslim:2365c
● The root cause of this conflict are Zionists. If Jews were living peacefully in Jerusalem prior to the creation of Israel then Israel must be the problem (Its Zionist regime in particular). History has shown us that monotheistic religions coexist perfectly (for the majority of the time at least). Hamas was founded as a response to Israel's brutality against the Palestinians and Iran supplies them with the weaponry to fend off the IDF as Palestine doesn't have an army and it's fighting an occupying force. The powers of evil are the Zionists. That's what I think.
● Prophet Muhammad prophesied that a group of Muslims will fight for righteousness and here's one hadith: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2484
Here's a second hadith translated from Islamweb Arabic:
The question
Is there a hadith of the Holy Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, about the people of Bayt al-Maqdis and how they will be among the people of Paradise, God willing, because of the injustice they will be exposed to? Is it possible to send the text of this noble hadith? May God reward you
The answer
Praise be to God, and prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of God and upon his family and companions. As for what follows:Abdullah bin Imam Ahmad said: I found in my father’s handwriting. Then he narrated with his chain of transmission to Abu Umamah. He said: He, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “A group of my nation will continue to adhere to the religion, prevailing against their enemy.” They are subjugated, and those who oppose them will not harm them except the afflictions that befall them, until the command of God comes to them (i.e Judgment Day). And they are like that.” They said: O Messenger of God, where are they? He said: “In Bayt al-Maqdis (Al-Quds) and the outskirts of Bayt al-Maqdis.” It was also included by Al-Tabarani. Al-Haythami said in the council, “And his men are trustworthy.”
The role in the end of times. Here's a hadith regarding Al-Mahdi: https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4285
I hope my reply is sufficient and thank you for your time.
Last edited:
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
Keef
Premium
- 25,167
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Don't care. Amend it. Scratch that one off the books because the British were wrong. There is zero historical evidence or precedent that Palestine ever encompassed the entire southern half of Canaan.
But so many lines in the world need to be redrawn from actual historical evidence rather than white mans politics.
Last edited:
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
How were they wrong? Regardless of what name you put on it, there was a group of people living in that region under a single government. Those people had homes, land, families. That's the relevant historical evidence, whatever you call those people they were displaced or killed during the Partition Plan and following Nakba.
They have to go somewhere, and they deserve a state where they can have full rights.
Is that so? For example?
I don't disagree that colonialism has been awful for pretty much everyone involved, which I assume is what you mean when you say "white man's politics". But at the same time, I'm curious as to what lines you could redraw at this point that wouldn't cause more trouble than just leaving them alone. And what "historical" justification you would use to do so.
Directly from Wikipedia:
Under the heading "The position toward Occupation and Political Solutions" (paragraphs 18 to 23), the document describes the two-state solution, i.e. the creation of an independent Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, as a "formula of national consensus", but without giving up the claim to the whole of Palestine, "from the river to the sea", and "without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity." Rickard Lagervall (Jönköping University) viewed this as an "ambiguous formulation". Tareq Baconi (Columbia University, European Council on Foreign Relations) gives two reasons why Hamas didn't explicitly recognize Israel:
- The PLO unilaterally offered Israel recognition without extracting an Israeli commitment to recognize the State of Palestine, thus it weakened its own negotiating position. Hamas wanted to avoid that.
- Secondly, Hamas, and Palestinian society at large, could be willing to recognize the fact Israel now exists, but they cannot legitimize Zionism or legitimize what happened to the Palestinians during Israel's creation.
Mustafa Barghouti, party chairman of the Palestinian National Initiative, said, "Acceptance of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders ... means accepting a two-state solution" and described the document as "a sign of maturity and a sign of political development." Michael Schulz (Gothenburg University) thought the statement on the two-state solution being a "formula of national consensus" showed a readiness on the part of Hamas to accept such a solution permanently even if it wasn't its own preference, provided it could be shown to be the declared will of the Palestinian people. According to Schulz, this would require a legitimate future referendum involving all Palestinians living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as well as those living in the Diaspora. Tristan Dunning, a political scientist at the University of Queensland, wrote in 2017 that Hamas had been open to some kind of permanent solution with Israel since the mid-1990s. The changes to the charter were therefore "positive and long overdue but, in many ways, [...] perhaps too little, too late to make any meaningful change to the dynamics of the Palestine-Israel conflict." The Palestinian Authority's Mohammed Shtayyeh accused Hamas of being decades behind in its thinking, telling CNN: "Hamas is debating things [the PLO] did 43 years ago."
Jerome Slater (Professor Emeritus, State University of New York at Buffalo) pointed out that while the document seemed to accept an Israel within the 1967 borders, it also called for the right of Palestinians to return to their original homes, now in Israel.[26] That represented an obvious logical contradiction, but an Israeli government genuinely interested in a political settlement would have used the new charter and other signs of moderation on the part of Hamas as a basis for further talks, which did not happen.
...
Tareq Baconi, who has documented Hamas over the last 20 years, said in December 2023 that the 2017 charter had called Israel's bluff by agreeing to the 1967 borders – and the lack of Israeli response demonstrated to Palestinians that Israel was not interested in the 1967 line.
These are all people that are far more familiar with the background political situation than I, and so I accept their interpretation of what is otherwise a somewhat contradictory passage. I recommend reading the whole page as well as some of the sources if you have time, there's a whole background to political documents like this that goes well beyond the literal words on the page.
Short story, it's politics and propaganda. The references to the 1967 borders indicates a willingness to accept the two-state solution, but the river-to-the-sea portion maintains their rejection of the Zionist regime and the acts it took to get to where it is. And given the history of negotiations between the PLO and Israel, Hamas is very wary of giving an inch lest they take a mile.
I find it fairly understandable if I imagine myself as a Palestinian who wants to secure a safe land for my people, but doesn't want to be seen to be in anyway endorsing the regime that put Palestinians in this position. It's a dichotomy and always will be, because there is no way that everyone can get want. Palestinians can't have their country back the way it was pre-1948, and Israelis can't just have the whole thing. Both peoples need somewhere to live, neither would feel secure living together at this point, and so a two-state solution on 1967 lines is a sensible compromise. There's a lot more than would need to be sorted out, but at least a general agreement on that would be a start.
- 703
- United Kingdom
Three US troops killed in this ever expanding conflict.
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
It's to be expected. Why are US troops so far away from home? US bases are literally in the 'axis of resistance' backyard.
- 2,360
- Ventura, California
If you are asking why they are in Jordan, it's because they were requested to be there by King Abdullah.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Lol. Because US troops have been deployed far from home for decades. Do you need to look up the list of wars the US has stuck it's fingers into? Almost none of them are on US soil.
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
It's a rhetorical question. The US helped create ISIS with Arabian Gulf money and blessings then claimed it was eliminated, but every now and then ISIS launches attacks. The sole purpose of US existence in the Middle East is to spark proxy wars which in turn keeps Israel safe. Arab regimes, especially Gulf monarchies, are afraid of the US pulling out as this will end their rule, thus they fund whatever proxy wars in the Middle East the US chooses to start (e.g: The war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and the Syrian civil war and the funding of ISIS and Al-Nusra front).
feral and bad
Premium
- 218
- United States
- double_rating7
Thank you for your time.
I apologize in advance for the disjointedness of this post as I can't seem to get the quoting of your post to work the way I would like.
feral and bad said:
Does this imply that Islam goes along with the belief in pre-destination?
Oreca 1998 said:
Yes, and it's an essential part of faith.
2 Peter 3:9 says The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I am aware that those who believe in predestination would say that this verse is only speaking
of the chosen.
I John 4:7-21 speaks of God being Love.
It is difficult for people to understand a being who is love but who would condemn out of hand.
Then again God is beyond our comprehension.
I don't know that this matter will ever be settled here on this planet.
Those who do not believe in predestination say that would mean that God condemns
to hell people regardless of their lives or beliefs.
When we finally get to the place where we can get the answer, we probably won't care about the answer as we will have most of the answers we are looking for.
Oreca 1998 said:
According to Islam, Jesus, peace be upon him, was a human being like all of us and he ascended to the Heavens and will come back when the fake Christ (The Dajjal) emerges, he kills him, lives what's remaining of his age, and dies like everyone else.
The problem for the followers of Christ (Christians).
As I understand it, Muslims view Christians to be People of the Book, and also regard them as kafirs (unbelievers) committing shirk (polytheism) because of the Trinity,
In addition from https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2912/who-are-the-jews-and-christians-who-will-enter-paradise
The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of Israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.”
According to this interpretation, all Christians who are post-Muhammad are condemned.
And yet:
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Quran states "twice", in surah an-Nisa, verses 48 and 116, "that God can pardon all sins save one", that of shirk ("associationism").
This would mean that all Christians are condemned.
But:
It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said:
“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body.”
Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 3992
In-book reference : Book 36, Hadith 67
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3992
So, as I understand it, 1 of 72 sects of Christians, who must be pre-Muhammad and did not believe Christ to be a deity are going to paradise and all other Christians are going to hell.
Where have I gone wrong?
I am working on questions about Muhammad, if you have time to entertain them.
Thank you again for your time, I realize that attempting to answer my questions is not without a cost to you, at least in terms of time and maybe in others.
I apologize in advance for the disjointedness of this post as I can't seem to get the quoting of your post to work the way I would like.
feral and bad said:
Does this imply that Islam goes along with the belief in pre-destination?
Oreca 1998 said:
Yes, and it's an essential part of faith.
2 Peter 3:9 says The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I am aware that those who believe in predestination would say that this verse is only speaking
of the chosen.
I John 4:7-21 speaks of God being Love.
It is difficult for people to understand a being who is love but who would condemn out of hand.
Then again God is beyond our comprehension.
I don't know that this matter will ever be settled here on this planet.
Those who do not believe in predestination say that would mean that God condemns
to hell people regardless of their lives or beliefs.
When we finally get to the place where we can get the answer, we probably won't care about the answer as we will have most of the answers we are looking for.
Oreca 1998 said:
According to Islam, Jesus, peace be upon him, was a human being like all of us and he ascended to the Heavens and will come back when the fake Christ (The Dajjal) emerges, he kills him, lives what's remaining of his age, and dies like everyone else.
The problem for the followers of Christ (Christians).
As I understand it, Muslims view Christians to be People of the Book, and also regard them as kafirs (unbelievers) committing shirk (polytheism) because of the Trinity,
In addition from https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2912/who-are-the-jews-and-christians-who-will-enter-paradise
The aayah (interpretation of the meaning), “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:85] is a statement that Allaah will not accept any way or deed from anyone, after sending His Final Messenger, except those that are in accordance with the laws of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Prior to this, however, anyone who followed the Prophet of his own time was on the Straight Path of salvation. So the Jews were those who followed Moosa (peace be upon him) and referred to the Tawraat for judgement at that time. When Allaah sent ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), the Children of Israel were obliged to follow him and obey him, and so they and others who followed him became Christians.. When Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as the Final Prophet and a Messenger to all the children of Adam, all of mankind was obliged to believe in him and obey him, and refrain from what he prohibited. Those who did so are the true believers. The ummah (nation) of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are called the believers because of their deep eemaan (faith) and conviction, and because they believe in all the past Prophets and in the prophesied events that are yet to come.”
According to this interpretation, all Christians who are post-Muhammad are condemned.
And yet:
According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Quran states "twice", in surah an-Nisa, verses 48 and 116, "that God can pardon all sins save one", that of shirk ("associationism").
This would mean that all Christians are condemned.
But:
It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said:
“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The main body.”
Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 3992
In-book reference : Book 36, Hadith 67
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 36, Hadith 3992
So, as I understand it, 1 of 72 sects of Christians, who must be pre-Muhammad and did not believe Christ to be a deity are going to paradise and all other Christians are going to hell.
Where have I gone wrong?
I am working on questions about Muhammad, if you have time to entertain them.
Thank you again for your time, I realize that attempting to answer my questions is not without a cost to you, at least in terms of time and maybe in others.
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
Thank you for the kind words @feral and bad
Unfortunately I'm too busy this week to answer. In the mean time you will find answers to any questions you may have in the Quran, Hadiths at: https://sunnah.com/ , and Islamweb English and Arabic (use the translation feature in Chrome).
Unfortunately I'm too busy this week to answer. In the mean time you will find answers to any questions you may have in the Quran, Hadiths at: https://sunnah.com/ , and Islamweb English and Arabic (use the translation feature in Chrome).
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
● I've looked up the interpretation of Peter 3:9 and I can say it's true. Religion is one which is 'Submission' and is achieved by monotheism, praying, alms, fasting, and promotion of virtue and prevention of vice. This was the original message which Adam taught his offspring.
As I mentioned earlier, Adam's offspring strayed away and worshipped idols, stars and whatever they found in nature. Thus messengers and prophets (whom were human beings) were needed to guide them back.
● The true number of holy books is unknown, but the ones that are mentioned in the Quran are:
1. The Scriptures of Abraham peace be upon him
2. The Psalms of David peace be upon him
3. The Torah of Moses peace be upon him
4. The Bible of Jesus peace be upon him
5. The Quran of Muhammad peace be upon him
● Think of every book in the above as an addition and correction of what people had corrupted over the centuries between those messengers. In the book 'Al-Durr Al-Manthur' written by Al-Suyuti: "On the authority of Ibn Abbas (one of the greatest Muslim scholars of his time) he said: "And between Adam and Noah a thousand years, and between Noah and Abraham a thousand years, and between Abraham and Moses seven hundred years. There were one thousand five hundred years between Moses and Jesus, and six hundred years between Jesus and our Prophet.""
● Prophet Muhammad's companions understood that the previous holy books were corrupted by their people, so they memorised and taught the verses of the Quran as they were recited by Muhammad (peace be upon him), and at the time of the first Caliph Abu Bakir, Omar bin Al-Khattab advised Abu Bakir to collect and order all chapters and verses in a book so as to not be corrupted and forgotten. The Quran was completely assembled at the time of the third Caliph Othman bin Affan and it has been preserved to this day.
● God indeed gives time to people to repent as he's the most merciful until the day the sun rises from its setting. It's at that time when everyone announces submission but it'd be too late.
Indeed. God has 99 names including 'Allah' and you can find them here: https://tarteel.ai/blog/you-cant-lo...names-of-allah-is-essential-for-every-muslim/
It's up to God when judgement comes where everyone is going to go, heaven or hell, depending on their good deeds, bad deeds, and acts of devotion.
Absolutely
● When previous holy books were corrupted by the people they were sent for, the Quran was sent by God as the final message that has corrected every corruption the previous books had and erased all confusions People of the Book had about their books and religion.
● Quran (9:30-31) Surah At-Tawba (The Repentance)
Quran (19:30-37) Surah Maryam (Mary)
Quran (112:1-4) Surah Al-Ikhlaas (The Sincerity)
Look up their interpretation.
● I have to note here that it's not today's Christians or Jews fault that the Bible and the Torah were corrupt as the blame falls unto the ones who corrupted them and misguided later generations which is considered Kifr. As no Jew, Christian or Muslim knows when Jesus is coming back, it's essential to read the Quran and Hadith and abide by them as all of us will be resurrected for judgement day and when it happens no one will have an excuse as we had the time to seek the truth but we chose to ignore it.
● With each passing day a healthy sum of Christians, Jews, polytheists and atheists are embracing Islam which in and of itself is a clear sign that guidance is indeed in the hands of God and whether an individual chooses to accept it or not is entirely up to them.
I'll happily respond to your queries whenever I find the time so don't hesitate to ask.
- 12,298
- Ealing-London
Everyone in the west was so quick to jump on Putin with sanctions and arrest warrants (justifiably so in my opinion). Those voices seem to have fallen silent.
It's so upsetting that a country can commit such blatant genocide and get away with it.
It might be a bit extreme but I think the UN needs to be disbanded. It was created after the horrors of WWII to prevent further war, massacre, genocide, aggression, etc. It has failed miserably. What good is it if one country will not speak out against another because they buy oil from them? Or rely on them for financial support? There is no sense of objective right or wrong now, only who's side you are on.
The Israeli military is firing on ANYTHING that moves. Their goal is to destroy Gaza.
I'm not sure how many of you have seen the film Mars Attacks! but this is "we come in peace" and the world is saying "well ok then".
It's so upsetting that a country can commit such blatant genocide and get away with it.
It might be a bit extreme but I think the UN needs to be disbanded. It was created after the horrors of WWII to prevent further war, massacre, genocide, aggression, etc. It has failed miserably. What good is it if one country will not speak out against another because they buy oil from them? Or rely on them for financial support? There is no sense of objective right or wrong now, only who's side you are on.
The Israeli military is firing on ANYTHING that moves. Their goal is to destroy Gaza.
I'm not sure how many of you have seen the film Mars Attacks! but this is "we come in peace" and the world is saying "well ok then".
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
2 members of the Palestinian Red Crescent were dispatched to save a 6 year old girl named "Hind" only to be killed by a tank shell. The only thing remaining of one of their corpses is a spine, a mandible and a pelvic bone. To top it all off Hind was killed by the Israeli occupation forces.
- 12,298
- Ealing-London
Indeed. It's horrifying.
They peppered her families car with gunfire, killing everyone on board but her. When an ambulance was dispatched to get her and they blew that up too... I don't understand how ANY country can have friendly dialogue with Israel right now.
Last edited:
- 389
- Damascus
- nd4spdey
Arab leaders are still willing to negotiate with Israel no matter how many Palestinians die. I live in Damascus, Syria and yesterday Israeli suicide drones were fired from the occupied Golan Heights towards my neighborhood. Thankfully artillery took them down but 2 hit targets and fortunately there weren't human casualties. The war in Syria hasn't ended yet as ISIS is still running around free and opposition held areas are full of extremists and terrorists that are willing to cooperate with Israel for their interests.
- 12,298
- Ealing-London
I'm sorry to hear that. The world can be a cruel place.
Elites are being elites. Doesn't matter if it's a so-called "democracy" or a full on authoritarian dictatorship unfortunately.
What i actually don't understand is why do i still see the common people having arguments about who's right and wrong and somehow justifying this whole mess.
Almost every day i find myself feeling horrified, sick, ashamed and completely hopeless. I experienced several nightmares. I barely function as a human being.
I'm hardly what you call a political person but i had to add my two cents or rupee's here.
Last edited:
- 5,073
- Connecticut
- Ridley-X4
Was hearing about how the IDF plans to go into Rafah while also admitting in private that they don't have an precise plan. I, for one, was told by my folks, "If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail."
EDIT: Also, if I was in charge of the IDF, I'd order everyone to just frag Bibi.
EDIT2: My cousin's also gonna enter the search & rescue unit. I guess I'm glad she's not going to be in a more offensive role, but I still think she's a naive idiot for wanting to join the IDF. An uncle of mine on the other side of my family said that she needs to fight, even if it's Bibi's fault for funneling money to Hamas, because if she doesn't fight, there'll be no Israel. Even though my dad thinks said uncle is right, why should I care? I'm convinced that Jews already have a safe haven: the United States of America, and if you think that "God's chosen people" should be ghettoed in a parcel of land the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies who threaten them on an existential level, one of which has raped and killed hundreds of them, then you are a dumbass.
Like, they bring up the protesters at Harvard as an example of rising anti-semitism in the USA, but a few possibly naive undergrad students are not comparable to Hamas in any way whatsoever. (You may as well compare a water gun to an M249.) As an American, I've never had to worry about whether my house has a "safe room," or incoming rocket attacks, or literally being raped, killed, and then having my corpse paraded around.
EDIT: Also, if I was in charge of the IDF, I'd order everyone to just frag Bibi.
EDIT2: My cousin's also gonna enter the search & rescue unit. I guess I'm glad she's not going to be in a more offensive role, but I still think she's a naive idiot for wanting to join the IDF. An uncle of mine on the other side of my family said that she needs to fight, even if it's Bibi's fault for funneling money to Hamas, because if she doesn't fight, there'll be no Israel. Even though my dad thinks said uncle is right, why should I care? I'm convinced that Jews already have a safe haven: the United States of America, and if you think that "God's chosen people" should be ghettoed in a parcel of land the size of New Jersey, surrounded by enemies who threaten them on an existential level, one of which has raped and killed hundreds of them, then you are a dumbass.
Like, they bring up the protesters at Harvard as an example of rising anti-semitism in the USA, but a few possibly naive undergrad students are not comparable to Hamas in any way whatsoever. (You may as well compare a water gun to an M249.) As an American, I've never had to worry about whether my house has a "safe room," or incoming rocket attacks, or literally being raped, killed, and then having my corpse paraded around.
Last edited:
feral and bad
Premium
- 218
- United States
- double_rating7
Just for clarity, is it safe to assume that your cousin already did the mandatory time?
Reference:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel
Thanks for clearing it up.
- 446
- Israel
The Zionist rationale is to that the fate of the Jewish people is in their own hands, for good and for bad. While the US is a safe place right now, maybe it won’t be 100 years from now. Jews have lived in closed communities, subject to the whims of the ruling country/leaders and have suffered because of this all throughout history.
Jewish diaspora has its place, these are just two points of view.
That’s definitely true, but on the other massacres weren’t too rare pre-Israel and even pre-Zionism. For example the 1903 Kishinev pogrom. Since 1860, 26k Jews have been killed in wars. This is 0.4% the number of Jews murdered in the holocaust.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest Posts
-
Gran Turismo 7 "February" 2025 Update Prediction & Discussion Thread- Latest: rodrunner2012
-
-
