What Jews? What Christians? History.....

[SWalt]

is being erased.

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/middle-east-palestinians-woke-history

[Garand Hunter]

Ever read where MO says in his writings that his believers are permitted to LIE ? Lie to infidels ie non muslims eh ?

I have, look it up for yourself.

Psalm 1

[CVShooter]

And, to some extent, they're right. The modern Zionist movement that established the modern state of Israel was done by European (Diaspora) Jews that had long vacated the land. Palestinians have always been there. I'd venture a guess that Jesus himself would have been genetically closer to a Palestinian Muslim today than a Israeli Jew from Ashkenazi (European) ancestry. Pure speculation there, I'll admit. But their point is valid, even if grossly oversimplified. Such is history.

Bear in mind that the PA isn't a religious entity anyway. It is a political one. I have been told by some folks there that the PA has a strange place in the Arab world. They're too secular and westernized to get along with the more religiously conservative countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al) thanks to their influence by Israel. But they're too conservative, backward & poor for the more westernized countries that ally with the U.S. (Turkey, Jordan, et al). Plus, they're understandably a little bitter about the role of the U.S. and western Europe in establishing and maintaining Israel's power in the region. So conservative leaders, like Bin Laden & such, talk about Palestine. But it's little more than an empty rallying cry. It's one of those issues that a lot of people in the Arab world can get behind (dismantling Israel & expelling western forces) but they have no intention or interest in uniting with the PA or actually lending them much support. Just "tawk."

There were, of course, plenty of Jews living in Palestine when it was just Palestine -- before '48. And Jews there, on the whole, had been treated better under Ottoman rule than Jews in Europe at similar times. Had life not been so damn hard in Europe for Jews, there would probably had never been a Zionist movement to reclaim the land for ethnic Jews. Sadly, we largely have Christianity and the Church to thank for that.

[M1NM]

We could go back to the first crusade. When they arrived in Jerusalem they killed the Jews and Muslims. It was said the blood in the streets was ankle deep.

[SWalt]

And, to some extent, they're right. The modern Zionist movement that established the modern state of Israel was done by European (Diaspora) Jews that had long vacated the land. Palestinians have always been there. I'd venture a guess that Jesus himself would have been genetically closer to a Palestinian Muslim today than a Israeli Jew from Ashkenazi (European) ancestry. Pure speculation there, I'll admit. But their point is valid, even if grossly oversimplified. Such is history.

Bear in mind that the PA isn't a religious entity anyway. It is a political one. I have been told by some folks there that the PA has a strange place in the Arab world. They're too secular and westernized to get along with the more religiously conservative countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al) thanks to their influence by Israel. But they're too conservative, backward & poor for the more westernized countries that ally with the U.S. (Turkey, Jordan, et al). Plus, they're understandably a little bitter about the role of the U.S. and western Europe in establishing and maintaining Israel's power in the region. So conservative leaders, like Bin Laden & such, talk about Palestine. But it's little more than an empty rallying cry. It's one of those issues that a lot of people in the Arab world can get behind (dismantling Israel & expelling western forces) but they have no intention or interest in uniting with the PA or actually lending them much support. Just "tawk."

There were, of course, plenty of Jews living in Palestine when it was just Palestine -- before '48. And Jews there, on the whole, had been treated better under Ottoman rule than Jews in Europe at similar times. Had life not been so damn hard in Europe for Jews, there would probably had never been a Zionist movement to reclaim the land for ethnic Jews. Sadly, we largely have Christianity and the Church to thank for that.

The simple fact is without Abraham, there are 0 Muslims. But also, over time that area has been conquered by many "peoples" and which had their own cultures and beliefs. To say the Palestinians have been there since the beginning is hog wash. I dare say todays "Palestinians" are not "idol worshipers" which was the case in Abrahams day. If they want to claim themselves as "idol worshipers" then so be it, let the Muslims set them straight.

BTW......Zionism started in the late 1800's, not 1948. Jews were simply thinking/dreaming of returning to their homeland instead of being in Europe. And notice, even though Europe wasn't paradise for the Jews, who held the most Jews in all the world? It wasn't the Middle East, like Christians they were held is disregard.

[SWalt]

We could go back to the first crusade. When they arrived in Jerusalem they killed the Jews and Muslims. It was said the blood in the streets was ankle deep.

Which is nothing by hyperbole. Do you have any clue why there were Crusades?

[CVShooter]

The simple fact is without Abraham, there are 0 Muslims. But also, over time that area has been conquered by many "peoples" and which had their own cultures and beliefs. To say the Palestinians have been there since the beginning is hog wash. I dare say todays "Palestinians" are not "idol worshipers" which was the case in Abrahams day. If they want to claim themselves as "idol worshipers" then so be it, let the Muslims set them straight.

BTW......Zionism started in the late 1800's, not 1948. Jews were simply thinking/dreaming of returning to their homeland instead of being in Europe. And notice, even though Europe wasn't paradise for the Jews, who held the most Jews in all the world? It wasn't the Middle East, like Christians they were held is disregard.

Conquered and populated are two entirely different things. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans controlled the area at various times but they never really populated the area. It was always populated by Canaanites. The similarity between the names "Philistine" and "Palestine" are because they refer to the same region and the same people. From the area being controlled by the Ottoman Empire for so long, the language is Arabic and the primary religion is Islam. But they're not ethnic Arabs any more than they were ever ethnic Greeks or Italians. They're the Levant's equivalent of Indigenous people. The language, religion and culture have changed but they're ethnic identity is still Palestinian.

You're right about Zionism having earlier beginnings. But Theodore Herzel was its main leader and he wasn't even born until 1860. Zionism existed but it didn't really gain major traction until the very early 1900s, which puts us pretty close to the setting for WWI and II. I wonder if it would have gotten much traction at all if it weren't for the Nazis creating such a disincentive to stay. Granted, the Russians and the French weren't exactly cozy with the Jews either.

In any case, Zionism was pretty much a European thing. Immigration was encouraged with the objective of overwhelming the Ottoman (and then British) control and then allow for an independence movement. In other words, Zionist Jews from Europe are not the same as ethnic Palestinians. The Palestinians have a much longer history there.

[M1NM]

Which is nothing by hyperbole. Do you have any clue why there were Crusades?

Ankle deep blood was written by a historian at the time.
The Crusades were to take over the Holy Land for the Christians - which was the Pope and Catholic church. Later when they lost it back the crusaders were launched against heretics such as the Cathars in France. You also had the Spanish inquisition and them trying to push the Moors off the Iberian peninsula who had made it almost to France.

[GlockN'Roll]

Ever read where MO says in his writings that his believers are permitted to LIE ? Lie to infidels ie non muslims eh ?

I have, look it up for yourself.

Psalm 1

You mean Taqiyya...

There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya (the Shia name). These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.


Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) - This verse instructs believers not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.

Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."
The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals - see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)

Quran (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths..."
For today's reader, the circumstances for betraying your word are not specified, leaving this verse open to interpretation. According to Yusuf Ali in his commentary: "if your vows prevent you from doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons, you should expiate the vow." (Presumably, whatever advances the cause of Islam would qualify as 'doing good').

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" (see also 5:89)

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."
The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which means 'cunning,' 'guile' and 'deceit'.
If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/taqiyya.aspx

[RAMCLAP]

Ankle deep blood was written by a historian at the time.
The Crusades were to take over the Holy Land for the Christians - which was the Pope and Catholic church. Later when they lost it back the crusaders were launched against heretics such as the Cathars in France. You also had the Spanish inquisition and them trying to push the Moors off the Iberian peninsula who had made it almost to France.

Uh no. The Crusades were because Muslim armies had attacked ans surrounded Constantinople. The Emperor sent a letter to the Pope asking for help. The armies that obliged decided that a direct beach invasion against the Muslims at Constantinople was a bad idea. So, they invaded palistine(the Roman word for Phillistine) to draw off the armies from Constantinople. It worked for a couple of hundred years.

[Featureless]

......snip
There were, of course, plenty of Jews living in Palestine when it was just Palestine -- before '48.

There never was a country or a place or a land called "Palestine". That is a false narrative. There is voluminous written documentation however that the area you refer to is the ancient Jewish homeland.

And Jews there, on the whole, had been treated better under Ottoman rule than Jews in Europe at similar times. [b] Had life not been so damn hard in Europe for Jews, there would probably had never been a Zionist movement to reclaim the land for ethnic Jews. Sadly, we largely have Christianity and the Church to thank for that

So you hate both Jews and Christians. Does that make you an 'equal opportunity bigot'?

[Sierra57]

is being erased.



https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values...s-woke-history

So are they going to worship Ba'al, like the Philistines did?

EDIT: Check that - It was the Canaanites who worshipped Ba'al. The Philistine god was Dagon.

[Sierra57]

And, to some extent, they're right. The modern Zionist movement that established the modern state of Israel was done by European (Diaspora) Jews that had long vacated the land. Palestinians have always been there. I'd venture a guess that Jesus himself would have been genetically closer to a Palestinian Muslim today than a Israeli Jew from Ashkenazi (European) ancestry. Pure speculation there, I'll admit. But their point is valid, even if grossly oversimplified. Such is history.

Bear in mind that the PA isn't a religious entity anyway. It is a political one. I have been told by some folks there that the PA has a strange place in the Arab world. They're too secular and westernized to get along with the more religiously conservative countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al) thanks to their influence by Israel. But they're too conservative, backward & poor for the more westernized countries that ally with the U.S. (Turkey, Jordan, et al). Plus, they're understandably a little bitter about the role of the U.S. and western Europe in establishing and maintaining Israel's power in the region. So conservative leaders, like Bin Laden & such, talk about Palestine. But it's little more than an empty rallying cry. It's one of those issues that a lot of people in the Arab world can get behind (dismantling Israel & expelling western forces) but they have no intention or interest in uniting with the PA or actually lending them much support. Just "tawk."

There were, of course, plenty of Jews living in Palestine when it was just Palestine -- before '48. And Jews there, on the whole, had been treated better under Ottoman rule than Jews in Europe at similar times. Had life not been so damn hard in Europe for Jews, there would probably had never been a Zionist movement to reclaim the land for ethnic Jews. Sadly, we largely have Christianity and the Church to thank for that.

The Jews "vacated" because they were killed, sold into slavery or fled thanks to the Romans.

[Sierra57]

Conquered and populated are two entirely different things. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans controlled the area at various times but they never really populated the area. It was always populated by Canaanites. The similarity between the names "Philistine" and "Palestine" are because they refer to the same region and the same people. From the area being controlled by the Ottoman Empire for so long, the language is Arabic and the primary religion is Islam. But they're not ethnic Arabs any more than they were ever ethnic Greeks or Italians. They're the Levant's equivalent of Indigenous people. The language, religion and culture have changed but they're ethnic identity is still Palestinian.

You're right about Zionism having earlier beginnings. But Theodore Herzel was its main leader and he wasn't even born until 1860. Zionism existed but it didn't really gain major traction until the very early 1900s, which puts us pretty close to the setting for WWI and II. I wonder if it would have gotten much traction at all if it weren't for the Nazis creating such a disincentive to stay. Granted, the Russians and the French weren't exactly cozy with the Jews either.

In any case, Zionism was pretty much a European thing. Immigration was encouraged with the objective of overwhelming the Ottoman (and then British) control and then allow for an independence movement. In other words, Zionist Jews from Europe are not the same as ethnic Palestinians. The Palestinians have a much longer history there.

The Philistines are not native to Palestine. They were a sea people who arrived from the Greek Isles or Greek mainland about 1,200 BC and disappeared from history about 600 BC. There is supposed to be some Philistine DNA in Palestinians and also in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Palestinians now are mostly Arab, with some Turk, Syrian and other stuff in the mix.

If they want to claim to be descended from the Philistines, and that the land was stolen from them, and that they were here before the Israelis, then they should be held to the same standard and go back to the Greek Isles, and give it back to the Canaanites that they stole the land from ...... if they can find any.

At any rate, I don't know why anyone here pretends ..... repeat ..... PRETENDS to care about the Palestinians, beyond engaging in nauseating, childish virtue signalling.

[CVShooter]

The Philistines are not native to Palestine. They were a sea people who arrived from the Greek Isles or Greek mainland about 1,200 BC and disappeared from history about 600 BC. There is supposed to be some Philistine DNA in Palestinians and also in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Palestinians now are mostly Arab, with some Turk, Syrian and other stuff in the mix.

If they want to claim to be descended from the Philistines, and that the land was stolen from them, and that they were here before the Israelis, then they should be held to the same standard and go back to the Greek Isles, and give it back to the Canaanites that they stole the land from ...... if they can find any.

At any rate, I don't know why anyone here pretends ..... repeat ..... PRETENDS to care about the Palestinians, beyond engaging in nauseating, childish virtue signalling.

Okay, bud. Time to do some reading. Here's a briefing on the history of the name "Palestine." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...name_Palestine

Do you really think that an invading people just disappear? Cultures are never discreet. They're always a blend. Intermarriage is great at that. Plus it's a great way to make peace.

So you're saying that before the Roman diaspora, all Jews lived in Palestine/Judea/Israel (Levant)? I guess you might be surprised to learn that there were several diaspora events. Yea, the Romans did a number on them. But so did the Assyrians, the Babylonians (continued and then ended by the Persians) and the Greeks. In fact, Paul himself was a diaspora Jew. His Hellenistic interpretation of Jesus was what put him at odds with the original (remaining) 11 disciples. There were strong Jewish communities all over the Mediterranean long before the Roman diaspora. Many had rich philosophical traditions completely different from those in the Levant. And there were a lot of tensions between those groups as their identities, allegiances and worldviews diverged. People look back at the Davidic monarchy and think "That's what Judaism is" rather than "That is what it was."

I could address so many things in your posts but... why? Attacking a person suggests to me that you're quite content in your ignorance. I wish you well with that.

And no. I hate neither Jews nor Muslims. Deep respect for both traditions. But I pull no punches and enjoy making a mockery of all organized religions. I'll readily admit to that. They all have plenty of fodder for jokes. And a lot of the followers of the Abrahamic faiths are especially good at taking themselves way too seriously.