I'm not sure why people refuse to believe Radical Islamists, like Hamas members, when they say exactly what they mean. They want Israel gone; they'll kill (Muslims or Jews or anyone) to get it done. They're not playing with semantics or using the word "recognize" in some ambiguous way.
Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., constantly denounce Israel as evil and worthy of death, calling for jihad against it and the West. And still some here ask for the "context" of a quotation that directly says what they want. Are we really this naive?
So you won't provide the context then? Great. Thanks.
So, it can't mean what it directly states because that conflicts with your take on the Middle East. (That Israel and the US are the cause)
Google the direct quotation and you find it on numerous sites, if you really need to. I'm sure the "context" of it will show how it doesn't really mean what it says and that you were right all along.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
My main point is this: the Israel situation is incredibly inflammatory but it's not the basis of the resentment of Judaism or of the Radical Islamist ideology. The Muslim Brotherhood, which essentially started the entire radical movement, came along 20 years before Israel existed. Its stated goal was a return to Islamic glory. The reinstatement of the Caliphate.
All this was founded on resentment from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey's adoption of Western 'modernization', which took place in 1918 or so. The goal is not simply to right the wrongs of Zionism. It is to establish a Muslim state and dominate the world, as had been done in the past. It also was to free Muslim culture from the ideologies of the West, which are corrupt and based on the kuffar.
Israel and the US are great scapegoats for countries like Iran that use incredibly extremist and ridiculous propaganda. (tv shows that show Jews killing children for their blood to use it in a recipe for Matzos, Jews cutting out the eyes of an Arab child to use them for something else, claiming that Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Support Israel", etc.) Radical Imams rail against the evils of Jews and Christians all the time, calling for Jihad. And their message is not that once the "recognized" state of Israel is gone, victory is achieved. Or that once the meddling US is out of the region, victory is achieved. The goal is to dominate the west through Islamism.
That is what few people seem to really grasp, like when they question the "context" of a quotation that says just that.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
My main point is this: the Israel situation is incredibly inflammatory but it's not the basis of the resentment of Judaism or of the Radical Islamist ideology. The Muslim Brotherhood, which essentially started the entire radical movement, came along 20 years before Israel existed. Its stated goal was a return to Islamic glory. The reinstatement of the Caliphate.
All this was founded on resentment from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey's adoption of Western 'modernization', which took place in 1918 or so. The goal is not simply to right the wrongs of Zionism. It is to establish a Muslim state and dominate the world, as had been done in the past. It also was to free Muslim culture from the ideologies of the West, which are corrupt and based on the kuffar.
Israel and the US are great scapegoats for countries like Iran that use incredibly extremist and ridiculous propaganda. (tv shows that show Jews killing children for their blood to use it in a recipe for Matzos, Jews cutting out the eyes of an Arab child to use them for something else, claiming that Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Support Israel", etc.) Radical Imams rail against the evils of Jews and Christians all the time, calling for Jihad. And their message is not that once the "recognized" state of Israel is gone, victory is achieved. Or that once the meddling US is out of the region, victory is achieved. The goal is to dominate the west through Islamism.
That is what few people seem to really grasp, like when they question the "context" of a quotation that says just that.
The quotation you posted out of context said nothing of the sort:
Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas Foreign Minister, says: “Even if the U.S. gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives.”
Please explain where this statement points to Hamas wanting to take over the whole world in an Islamic crusade.
Please also explain to me when a Muslim state dominated the world. I must have been off sick from school the day they taught that.
I'm not sure why people refuse to believe Radical Islamists, like Hamas members, when they say exactly what they mean. They want Israel gone; they'll kill (Muslims or Jews or anyone) to get it done. They're not playing with semantics or using the word "recognize" in some ambiguous way.
Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., constantly denounce Israel as evil and worthy of death, calling for jihad against it and the West. And still some here ask for the "context" of a quotation that directly says what they want. Are we really this naive?
the problem is when people take hamas to represent all palestinians or hezbollah to represent all lebanese ... the whole thing surrounding whether one group chooses to recognize another group is a diversion from the real issue ... besides - does israel recognize palestinians right to exist?? ... doubt it ... but i digress ...
the point is that would radical islamists have any say or power in a world where there was justice? ... there is mass oppression and suffering in the middle east right now - only then can you have extremists flourish ...
who benefits from this? ... this is what one needs to ask at all times ...
So, it can't mean what it directly states because that conflicts with your take on the Middle East. (That Israel and the US are the cause)
Google the direct quotation and you find it on numerous sites, if you really need to. I'm sure the "context" of it will show how it doesn't really mean what it says and that you were right all along.
Yes. You're right. In it's proper context it does make much more sense.
In a conciliatory message to Israeli voters on the eve of the election, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas wanted to end the bloodshed and the longstanding conflict in the region.
"We don't want a whirlpool of blood in this region," Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City as he prepared to present his cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
"We want the rights and dignity of our people. We also want to put an end to this complicated conflict that has been going on for decades." Hamas leader Haniyeh said his movement's victory in the January 25 parliamentary election was not the reason why the conflict was continuing. "On the contrary," he added, "Hamas's presence in power marks the beginning of resolving the crisis."
Haniyeh lashed out at Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to withdraw unilaterally from some areas in the West Bank, saying it was unacceptable because it would be carried out without coordination with the Palestinians.
He added that the Palestinians would not accept the future borders of a Palestinian state as defined by Israel.
Asked if Hamas would be prepared to hold negotiations with Israel, Haniyeh said the real problem was Olmert and his Kadima Party. "He said that he wouldn't negotiate with the [new] Palestinian cabinet," Haniyeh said. "He has stated his position and the problem is not with us." Haniyeh stressed, however, that his cabinet was entitled to pursue the fight against Israeli occupation. "Hamas was elected on the basis of the principle of defending the legitimacy of resistance to the occupation," he said.
Haniyeh expressed confidence that his cabinet would be ratified by the PLC during its special session on Monday. He said his cabinet's program would emphasize the Palestinians' right "to defend themselves against Israeli measures and challenges."
He accused unnamed Palestinian parties of trying to drive a wedge between him and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "I believe there are some parties in the Palestinian arena that are trying to create tension between President Abbas and the cabinet," he said. "Yet I don't expect a crisis between us because our relations are good."
Incoming Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar took a more militant stance when he declared on Sunday that Hamas would not "give up one inch of Palestine." Addressing a rally in Beit Sahour on the second anniversary of the assassination of former Hamas leader and founder Ahmed Yassin, Zahar said, "Even if the US gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives." He said Yassin had sacrificed his life "for the sake of the Aksa Mosque and Palestine and his blood would therefore not be wasted. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and holy sites."
In another development, the only Christian who was supposed to serve as a minister in the Hamas cabinet has backed away, citing health problems. Sources in Bethlehem told The Jerusalem Post that Tanas Abu Aitah, who had been named tourism minister, decided to quit following immense pressure from some Palestinians and foreign parties.
Anwar Abu Zubun, a Hamas legislator from Bethlehem, quoted Abu Aitah as saying that he had come under heavy pressure from his family and other local and foreign parties. Abu Aitah reportedly complained that some tourist companies abroad had threatened to cut off their business ties with him and his family if he agreed to join a Hamas cabinet. Abu Aitah's family owns a number of hotels and souvenir shops in Bethlehem.
The legislator revealed that Abu Aitah had also received faxed threats warning him against joining the Hamas cabinet. "He faced unprecedented pressure," he added, noting that Hamas has chosen Judeh Murqus, another Christian from Bethlehem, as the new tourism minister. Murqus, 47, worked as a civil engineer in the Bethlehem Municipality.
Meanwhile, Abbas on Sunday held talks in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm e-Sheikh with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The talks focused on the upcoming Arab summit in Sudan and the latest developments in the Palestinian and Israeli arenas, PA officials said.
Following the meeting, Abbas called on Arab states to support the Palestinians by continuing their economic aid and adhering to the road-map plan for peace in the Middle East. "We look forward to the Arab summit, to Arab support for the Palestinians to continue, and the Arab states should - and we hope they will - continue their economic aid to the Palestinian people and comply with international legitimacy, especially the road map," Abbas said.
He denied that he had issued a threat to Hamas because of its political program, saying he had only pointed out that their political program was different from that of the PLO and the PA.
Wow, I didn't think you would be so brazen in your lack of knowledge of history.
From the time of Mohammed till about 750 AD, (that's about 100 years of time), the Islamic Caliphate expanded throughout most all of present day Middle Eastern countries into Pakistan, all of northern Africa, Spain, the Mediterranean countries, and most of Italy. In other words, it expanded at a very quick rate throughout a large part of the known world at the time. Muslims were influential in many ways and, according to some, Islam was the strongest ideology in the world. Mohammed and his successors were extremely successful in spreading the Muslim message.
Then, there was the Ottoman Empire. (I hope you've heard of it.) Although it wasn't technically a Caliphate, the Ottoman leaders were Muslim and dominant throughout much of the known world in the 16th century and expanded up until about 1700 or so. For almost 400 years, the Ottomans (and Muslims) were successful in spreading their Empire and their religion. The Ottoman Empire continued after that, up until WW I. The establishment of Turkey ushered out the Ottomans and the Muslims because of what Ataturk did in setting up a democracy, which bin Laden refers to as a major transgression against Islam because it gave way to Western influence.
So, you have two periods of Muslim dominance in the world. Radical Islamism today strives to re-establish such dominance. This is claimed over and over again in literature, speeches, by Imams, and all over. "Jihad" to fight the West in Israel and beyond, not to take Israel and go home happy.
Hamas is a Radical Islamist group, a direct shoot off of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such groups constantly call for Jihad everywhere, not just in Israel.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
In a conciliatory message to Israeli voters on the eve of the election, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas wanted to end the bloodshed and the longstanding conflict in the region.
"We don't want a whirlpool of blood in this region," Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City as he prepared to present his cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
"We want the rights and dignity of our people. We also want to put an end to this complicated conflict that has been going on for decades." Hamas leader Haniyeh said his movement's victory in the January 25 parliamentary election was not the reason why the conflict was continuing. "On the contrary," he added, "Hamas's presence in power marks the beginning of resolving the crisis."
Haniyeh lashed out at Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to withdraw unilaterally from some areas in the West Bank, saying it was unacceptable because it would be carried out without coordination with the Palestinians.
He added that the Palestinians would not accept the future borders of a Palestinian state as defined by Israel.
Asked if Hamas would be prepared to hold negotiations with Israel, Haniyeh said the real problem was Olmert and his Kadima Party. "He said that he wouldn't negotiate with the [new] Palestinian cabinet," Haniyeh said. "He has stated his position and the problem is not with us." Haniyeh stressed, however, that his cabinet was entitled to pursue the fight against Israeli occupation. "Hamas was elected on the basis of the principle of defending the legitimacy of resistance to the occupation," he said.
Haniyeh expressed confidence that his cabinet would be ratified by the PLC during its special session on Monday. He said his cabinet's program would emphasize the Palestinians' right "to defend themselves against Israeli measures and challenges."
He accused unnamed Palestinian parties of trying to drive a wedge between him and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "I believe there are some parties in the Palestinian arena that are trying to create tension between President Abbas and the cabinet," he said. "Yet I don't expect a crisis between us because our relations are good."
Incoming Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar took a more militant stance when he declared on Sunday that Hamas would not "give up one inch of Palestine." Addressing a rally in Beit Sahour on the second anniversary of the assassination of former Hamas leader and founder Ahmed Yassin, Zahar said, "Even if the US gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives." He said Yassin had sacrificed his life "for the sake of the Aksa Mosque and Palestine and his blood would therefore not be wasted. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and holy sites."
In another development, the only Christian who was supposed to serve as a minister in the Hamas cabinet has backed away, citing health problems. Sources in Bethlehem told The Jerusalem Post that Tanas Abu Aitah, who had been named tourism minister, decided to quit following immense pressure from some Palestinians and foreign parties.
Anwar Abu Zubun, a Hamas legislator from Bethlehem, quoted Abu Aitah as saying that he had come under heavy pressure from his family and other local and foreign parties. Abu Aitah reportedly complained that some tourist companies abroad had threatened to cut off their business ties with him and his family if he agreed to join a Hamas cabinet. Abu Aitah's family owns a number of hotels and souvenir shops in Bethlehem.
The legislator revealed that Abu Aitah had also received faxed threats warning him against joining the Hamas cabinet. "He faced unprecedented pressure," he added, noting that Hamas has chosen Judeh Murqus, another Christian from Bethlehem, as the new tourism minister. Murqus, 47, worked as a civil engineer in the Bethlehem Municipality.
Meanwhile, Abbas on Sunday held talks in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm e-Sheikh with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The talks focused on the upcoming Arab summit in Sudan and the latest developments in the Palestinian and Israeli arenas, PA officials said.
Following the meeting, Abbas called on Arab states to support the Palestinians by continuing their economic aid and adhering to the road-map plan for peace in the Middle East. "We look forward to the Arab summit, to Arab support for the Palestinians to continue, and the Arab states should - and we hope they will - continue their economic aid to the Palestinian people and comply with international legitimacy, especially the road map," Abbas said.
He denied that he had issued a threat to Hamas because of its political program, saying he had only pointed out that their political program was different from that of the PLO and the PA.
Yes, it makes much more sense, I'm sure...
The question is this: if Israel and its "illegal" existence was gone, do you think groups such as Hamas would be satisfied and violence in the name of Islam would stop?
Yes or no.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
The question is this: if Israel and its "illegal" existence was gone, do you think groups such as Hamas would be satisfied and violence in the name of Islam would stop?
Yes or no.
I don't think that's relevant. We need to deal with the cause of the conflict in the here and now, and look at what the majority of the world - barring the U.S - has been calling for the past 40 years. I.e, a two state solution and Israels return to the 1967 borders. If attacks continue after that happens then we can deal with it. For the moment it's just hypotheses.
Wow, I didn't think you would be so brazen in your lack of knowledge of history.
From the time of Mohammed till about 750 AD, (that's about 100 years of time), the Islamic Caliphate expanded throughout most all of present day Middle Eastern countries into Pakistan, all of northern Africa, Spain, the Mediterranean countries, and most of Italy. In other words, it expanded at a very quick rate throughout a large part of the known world at the time. Muslims were influential in many ways and, according to some, Islam was the strongest ideology in the world. Mohammed and his successors were extremely successful in spreading the Muslim message.
Then, there was the Ottoman Empire. (I hope you've heard of it.) Although it wasn't technically a Caliphate, the Ottoman leaders were Muslim and dominant throughout much of the known world in the 16th century and expanded up until about 1700 or so. For almost 400 years, the Ottomans (and Muslims) were successful in spreading their Empire and their religion. The Ottoman Empire continued after that, up until WW I. The establishment of Turkey ushered out the Ottomans and the Muslims because of what Ataturk did in setting up a democracy, which bin Laden refers to as a major transgression against Islam because it gave way to Western influence.
So, you have two periods of Muslim dominance in the world. Radical Islamism today strives to re-establish such dominance. This is claimed over and over again in literature, speeches, by Imams, and all over. "Jihad" to fight the West in Israel and beyond, not to take Israel and go home happy.
Hamas is a Radical Islamist group, a direct shoot off of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such groups constantly call for Jihad everywhere, not just in Israel.
Yeah, the Muslims were the dominant force around the Mediterranean for a long part of history. They were never the dominant force in the world as you're trying to pretend.
You can put your A-level history text book back on the shelf now.
Wow, I didn't think you would be so brazen in your lack of knowledge of history.
From the time of Mohammed till about 750 AD, (that's about 100 years of time), the Islamic Caliphate expanded throughout most all of present day Middle Eastern countries into Pakistan, all of northern Africa, Spain, the Mediterranean countries, and most of Italy. In other words, it expanded at a very quick rate throughout a large part of the known world at the time. Muslims were influential in many ways and, according to some, Islam was the strongest ideology in the world. Mohammed and his successors were extremely successful in spreading the Muslim message.
Then, there was the Ottoman Empire. (I hope you've heard of it.) Although it wasn't technically a Caliphate, the Ottoman leaders were Muslim and dominant throughout much of the known world in the 16th century and expanded up until about 1700 or so. For almost 400 years, the Ottomans (and Muslims) were successful in spreading their Empire and their religion. The Ottoman Empire continued after that, up until WW I. The establishment of Turkey ushered out the Ottomans and the Muslims because of what Ataturk did in setting up a democracy, which bin Laden refers to as a major transgression against Islam because it gave way to Western influence.
So, you have two periods of Muslim dominance in the world. Radical Islamism today strives to re-establish such dominance. This is claimed over and over again in literature, speeches, by Imams, and all over. "Jihad" to fight the West in Israel and beyond, not to take Israel and go home happy.
Hamas is a Radical Islamist group, a direct shoot off of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such groups constantly call for Jihad everywhere, not just in Israel.
i'll assume this was directed at me ...
although if it was - it would show you clearly did not read what i wrote ...
again - would any of these groups have any power if there was justice in the region?
I don't think that's relevant. We need to deal with the cause of the conflict in the here and now, and look at what the majority of the world - barring the U.S - has been calling for the past 40 years. I.e, a two state solution and Israels return to the 1967 borders. If attacks continue after that happens then we can deal with it. For the moment it's just hypotheses.
That's where we disagree. I think it is relevant to understand what Radical Islam calls for and understand that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. perpetuate it. Its influence is more than just that, however, and its goal is not the 1967 borders. Its stated goal is much more than that. That is what Radical Islamists - like Hamas - claim and state, directly.
You seem to have the entire Israeli/"Palenstine" situation figured out without understanding the history of Islam or its radical followers, who are growing in popularity today. Muslims often do not see lines between national and religous history. They are the same in Islamic societies, particularly to radical groups and countries.
You claim I don't know the context of a quote, yet you don't know the context how how Radical Islam came about (before Israel existed in its current state) or what its goals were/are.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
I don't think that's relevant. We need to deal with the cause of the conflict in the here and now, and look at what the majority of the world - barring the U.S - has been calling for the past 40 years. I.e, a two state solution and Israels return to the 1967 borders. If attacks continue after that happens then we can deal with it. For the moment it's just hypotheses.
That's where we disagree. I think it is relevant to understand what Radical Islam calls for and understand that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. perpetuate it. Its influence is more than just that, however, and its goal is not the 1967 borders. Its stated goal is much more than that. That is what Radical Islamists - like Hamas - claim and state, directly.
You seem to have the entire Israeli/"Palenstine" situation figured out without understanding the history of Islam or its radical followers, who are growing in popularity today. Muslims often do not see lines between national and religous history. They are the same in Islamic societies, particularly to radical groups and countries.
You claim I don't know the context of a quote, yet you don't know the context how how Radical Islam came about (before Israel existed in its current state) or what its goals were/are.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
although if it was - it would show you clearly did not read what i wrote ...
again - would any of these groups have any power if there was justice in the region?
It was directed to the question about history, not you.
What do you define as Justice?
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
From the time of Mohammed till about 750 AD, (that's about 100 years of time), the Islamic Caliphate expanded throughout most all of present day Middle Eastern countries into Pakistan, all of northern Africa, Spain, the Mediterranean countries, and most of Italy.
Most of Italy you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Italy
'The current presence of a million or so Muslims in Italy is not the first foray of Islam into that country. Under the Islamic Empire, which emerged following the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad and especially in the 7th to 11th centuries, small parts of peninsular southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia were ruled by Muslims.'
And the moors never conquered all of Spain as you have said above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain
They conquered '...most of the Iberian Peninsula, (except for small areas in the north-west Asturias and the Basque territory), under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They attempted to move north-east across the Pyrenees Mountains toward France, but were defeated by the Frankish Christian Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. The Moors ruled in North Africa, parts of Spain and Portugal regions in the Pyrenees) for varying periods, usually measured in centuries, ranging from just 28 years in the Spain's north-west (Galicia), but up to 781 years in Spain's mountainous south-east, around the city of Granada.'
And yes, I've used Wikipedia for reasons of convenience.
That's where we disagree. I think it is relevant to understand what Radical Islam calls for and understand that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. perpetuate it. Its influence is more than just that, however, and its goal is not the 1967 borders. Its stated goal is much more than that. That is what Radical Islamists - like Hamas - claim and state, directly.
You seem to have the entire Israeli/"Palenstine" situation figured out without understanding the history of Islam or its radical followers, who are growing in popularity today. Muslims often do not see lines between national and religous history. They are the same in Islamic societies, particularly to radical groups and countries.
You claim I don't know the context of a quote, yet you don't know the context how how Radical Islam came about (before Israel existed in its current state) or what its goals were/are.
So what are you driving at here exactly? You pretend that Islam wants to take over the world based on the fact that Palestinians want to reclaim their land which is under an illegal occupation.
Also, let's say that this is evidence of a wish for world domination. Please refer to your history book and explain to me how these supposed wishes differ from those of Zionism, or of Christianity for that matter.
It was directed to the question about history, not you.
What do you define as Justice?
that's a loaded question for sure ...
i will simply say ... if you were to independently observe what is going on right now - forget about all the history for a brief moment - forget about the missle attacks, the suicide bombings, forget it all ... can you say that there is justice for the palestinian people right now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Italy
'The current presence of a million or so Muslims in Italy is not the first foray of Islam into that country. Under the Islamic Empire, which emerged following the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad and especially in the 7th to 11th centuries, small parts of peninsular southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia were ruled by Muslims.'
And the moors never conquered all of Spain as you have said above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain
They conquered '...most of the Iberian Peninsula, (except for small areas in the north-west Asturias and the Basque territory), under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They attempted to move north-east across the Pyrenees Mountains toward France, but were defeated by the Frankish Christian Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. The Moors ruled in North Africa, parts of Spain and Portugal regions in the Pyrenees) for varying periods, usually measured in centuries, ranging from just 28 years in the Spain's north-west (Galicia), but up to 781 years in Spain's mountainous south-east, around the city of Granada.'
And yes, I've used Wikipedia for reasons of convenience.
So your response to all this is quoting Wikipedia to claim that Islam spread through not "most" of Italy, just some of it. And not "all" of Spain, just most of it? Would that really make a huge difference, assuming it's true?
Are you kidding?
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
So your response to all this is quoting Wikipedia to claim that Islam spread through not "most" of Italy, just some of it. And not "all" of Spain, just most of it? Would that really make a huge difference, assuming it's true?
Are you kidding?
No I'm not kidding. You've exaggerated points of history in every one of your posts so far. You said that Islam had dominated all of Spain and most of Italy. That was a lie. I just thought it worth pointing out that your word can't be trusted.
So what are you driving at here exactly? You pretend that Islam wants to take over the world based on the fact that Palestinians want to reclaim their land which is under an illegal occupation.
Also, let's say that this is evidence of a wish for world domination. Please refer to your history book and explain to me how these supposed wishes differ from those of Zionism, or of Christianity for that matter.
I'm driving at what I said, that Radical islam's drive is much more than the 1967 borders of Israel.
Radical Islamists want to dominate the world not based on the Israel situation. It's rooted in history and ideas that run deeper than that.
My point is, don't assume that your (or anyone else's) version of "justice" in the region will pacify the radical elements that have taken hold in Islam. Whether that's the 1967 borders or the entire state of Israel, Islamists are interested in much more. People need to understand that before they play expert in any Radical Islamist situation.
It's humorous that you lecture me on history after questioning if Islam ever dominated the world. Oh, yeah, that's right, you and Wikipedia proved me wrong...(Christianity? Are there several radical Christian groups today trying to resurrect a Political/Physical Christian Kingdom by blowing up mass amounts of civilians, dictators, and extremist propaganda?)
Bottom line is, learn about Islam and Radical Islam before claiming to know the intentions or context of Islamic struggles, particularly involving groups - like Hamas - born out of Radical Islam, which was around BEFORE Israel ever existed. There's really not much more to say.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
Christianity? Are there several radical Christian groups today trying to resurrect a Political/Physical Christian Kingdom by blowing up mass amounts of civilians, dictators, and extremist propaganda?
It's humorous that you lecture me on history after questioning if Islam ever dominated the world. Oh, yeah, that's right, you and Wikipedia proved me wrong.
I questioned it because it was false. And yes, you were proven wrong. The world is bigger than the Mediterranean region.
No I'm not kidding. You've exaggerated points of history in every one of your posts so far. You said that Islam had dominated all of Spain and most of Italy. That was a lie. I just thought it worth pointing out that your word can't be trusted.
Ha!
That's cool, man, if you want to take things that route. I'm not going down that path, though. Life's too short.
I totally disagree with you, and you don't seem to know much about Islam, other what what you type into Wikipedia and paste onto the board to "counter" what I say.
Oh well, thought we could discuss it without namecalling.
Best of luck to you.
2000: Lubbock; 2003: OKC, Dallas, San Antonio; 2006: Los Angeles II, San Diego; 2008: Atlanta (EV Solo); 2012: Dallas (EV Solo); 2013: Dallas; 2014: Tulsa; 2018: Wrigley I
My point is, don't assume that your (or anyone else's) version of "justice" in the region will pacify the radical elements that have taken hold in Islam. Whether that's the 1967 borders or the entire state of Israel.
And I don't assume anything. I just stick to the facts. But thank you for your hypothetical musings and somewhat exaggerated, and none too relevant forays into 1st millennium history. I'll take them into account the next time I hear a Christian or Zionist profess to being on a crusade. I never did take such rantings seriously, and I certainly won't place an entire religion or race into the same category as these fanatics as you seem to want to do.
It's humorous that you lecture me on history after questioning if Islam ever dominated the world. Oh, yeah, that's right, you and Wikipedia proved me wrong...
Comments
So you won't provide the context then? Great. Thanks.
Google the direct quotation and you find it on numerous sites, if you really need to. I'm sure the "context" of it will show how it doesn't really mean what it says and that you were right all along.
So you're disputing the fact that Israel and the U.S are the cause of the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine? Please elaborate.
In the meantime entertain yourself with this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzNPZf-5aO4
All this was founded on resentment from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey's adoption of Western 'modernization', which took place in 1918 or so. The goal is not simply to right the wrongs of Zionism. It is to establish a Muslim state and dominate the world, as had been done in the past. It also was to free Muslim culture from the ideologies of the West, which are corrupt and based on the kuffar.
Israel and the US are great scapegoats for countries like Iran that use incredibly extremist and ridiculous propaganda. (tv shows that show Jews killing children for their blood to use it in a recipe for Matzos, Jews cutting out the eyes of an Arab child to use them for something else, claiming that Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Support Israel", etc.) Radical Imams rail against the evils of Jews and Christians all the time, calling for Jihad. And their message is not that once the "recognized" state of Israel is gone, victory is achieved. Or that once the meddling US is out of the region, victory is achieved. The goal is to dominate the west through Islamism.
That is what few people seem to really grasp, like when they question the "context" of a quotation that says just that.
The quotation you posted out of context said nothing of the sort:
Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas Foreign Minister, says: “Even if the U.S. gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives.”
Please explain where this statement points to Hamas wanting to take over the whole world in an Islamic crusade.
Please also explain to me when a Muslim state dominated the world. I must have been off sick from school the day they taught that.
the problem is when people take hamas to represent all palestinians or hezbollah to represent all lebanese ... the whole thing surrounding whether one group chooses to recognize another group is a diversion from the real issue ... besides - does israel recognize palestinians right to exist?? ... doubt it ... but i digress ...
the point is that would radical islamists have any say or power in a world where there was justice? ... there is mass oppression and suffering in the middle east right now - only then can you have extremists flourish ...
who benefits from this? ... this is what one needs to ask at all times ...
Yes. You're right. In it's proper context it does make much more sense.
HAMAS calls for 'end of bloodshed'
http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=738
Posted: 3/28/2006 7:33:00 PM
Author: Khaled Abu Toameh
Source: http://www.standwithus.com
In a conciliatory message to Israeli voters on the eve of the election, Palestinian Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said Hamas wanted to end the bloodshed and the longstanding conflict in the region.
"We don't want a whirlpool of blood in this region," Haniyeh told reporters in Gaza City as he prepared to present his cabinet to the Palestinian Legislative Council for a vote of confidence.
"We want the rights and dignity of our people. We also want to put an end to this complicated conflict that has been going on for decades." Hamas leader Haniyeh said his movement's victory in the January 25 parliamentary election was not the reason why the conflict was continuing. "On the contrary," he added, "Hamas's presence in power marks the beginning of resolving the crisis."
Haniyeh lashed out at Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to withdraw unilaterally from some areas in the West Bank, saying it was unacceptable because it would be carried out without coordination with the Palestinians.
He added that the Palestinians would not accept the future borders of a Palestinian state as defined by Israel.
Asked if Hamas would be prepared to hold negotiations with Israel, Haniyeh said the real problem was Olmert and his Kadima Party. "He said that he wouldn't negotiate with the [new] Palestinian cabinet," Haniyeh said. "He has stated his position and the problem is not with us." Haniyeh stressed, however, that his cabinet was entitled to pursue the fight against Israeli occupation. "Hamas was elected on the basis of the principle of defending the legitimacy of resistance to the occupation," he said.
Haniyeh expressed confidence that his cabinet would be ratified by the PLC during its special session on Monday. He said his cabinet's program would emphasize the Palestinians' right "to defend themselves against Israeli measures and challenges."
He accused unnamed Palestinian parties of trying to drive a wedge between him and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "I believe there are some parties in the Palestinian arena that are trying to create tension between President Abbas and the cabinet," he said. "Yet I don't expect a crisis between us because our relations are good."
Incoming Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar took a more militant stance when he declared on Sunday that Hamas would not "give up one inch of Palestine." Addressing a rally in Beit Sahour on the second anniversary of the assassination of former Hamas leader and founder Ahmed Yassin, Zahar said, "Even if the US gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives." He said Yassin had sacrificed his life "for the sake of the Aksa Mosque and Palestine and his blood would therefore not be wasted. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and holy sites."
In another development, the only Christian who was supposed to serve as a minister in the Hamas cabinet has backed away, citing health problems. Sources in Bethlehem told The Jerusalem Post that Tanas Abu Aitah, who had been named tourism minister, decided to quit following immense pressure from some Palestinians and foreign parties.
Anwar Abu Zubun, a Hamas legislator from Bethlehem, quoted Abu Aitah as saying that he had come under heavy pressure from his family and other local and foreign parties. Abu Aitah reportedly complained that some tourist companies abroad had threatened to cut off their business ties with him and his family if he agreed to join a Hamas cabinet. Abu Aitah's family owns a number of hotels and souvenir shops in Bethlehem.
The legislator revealed that Abu Aitah had also received faxed threats warning him against joining the Hamas cabinet. "He faced unprecedented pressure," he added, noting that Hamas has chosen Judeh Murqus, another Christian from Bethlehem, as the new tourism minister. Murqus, 47, worked as a civil engineer in the Bethlehem Municipality.
Meanwhile, Abbas on Sunday held talks in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm e-Sheikh with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The talks focused on the upcoming Arab summit in Sudan and the latest developments in the Palestinian and Israeli arenas, PA officials said.
Following the meeting, Abbas called on Arab states to support the Palestinians by continuing their economic aid and adhering to the road-map plan for peace in the Middle East. "We look forward to the Arab summit, to Arab support for the Palestinians to continue, and the Arab states should - and we hope they will - continue their economic aid to the Palestinian people and comply with international legitimacy, especially the road map," Abbas said.
He denied that he had issued a threat to Hamas because of its political program, saying he had only pointed out that their political program was different from that of the PLO and the PA.
From the time of Mohammed till about 750 AD, (that's about 100 years of time), the Islamic Caliphate expanded throughout most all of present day Middle Eastern countries into Pakistan, all of northern Africa, Spain, the Mediterranean countries, and most of Italy. In other words, it expanded at a very quick rate throughout a large part of the known world at the time. Muslims were influential in many ways and, according to some, Islam was the strongest ideology in the world. Mohammed and his successors were extremely successful in spreading the Muslim message.
Then, there was the Ottoman Empire. (I hope you've heard of it.) Although it wasn't technically a Caliphate, the Ottoman leaders were Muslim and dominant throughout much of the known world in the 16th century and expanded up until about 1700 or so. For almost 400 years, the Ottomans (and Muslims) were successful in spreading their Empire and their religion. The Ottoman Empire continued after that, up until WW I. The establishment of Turkey ushered out the Ottomans and the Muslims because of what Ataturk did in setting up a democracy, which bin Laden refers to as a major transgression against Islam because it gave way to Western influence.
So, you have two periods of Muslim dominance in the world. Radical Islamism today strives to re-establish such dominance. This is claimed over and over again in literature, speeches, by Imams, and all over. "Jihad" to fight the West in Israel and beyond, not to take Israel and go home happy.
Hamas is a Radical Islamist group, a direct shoot off of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such groups constantly call for Jihad everywhere, not just in Israel.
Yes, it makes much more sense, I'm sure...
The question is this: if Israel and its "illegal" existence was gone, do you think groups such as Hamas would be satisfied and violence in the name of Islam would stop?
Yes or no.
I don't think that's relevant. We need to deal with the cause of the conflict in the here and now, and look at what the majority of the world - barring the U.S - has been calling for the past 40 years. I.e, a two state solution and Israels return to the 1967 borders. If attacks continue after that happens then we can deal with it. For the moment it's just hypotheses.
Yeah, the Muslims were the dominant force around the Mediterranean for a long part of history. They were never the dominant force in the world as you're trying to pretend.
You can put your A-level history text book back on the shelf now.
i'll assume this was directed at me ...
although if it was - it would show you clearly did not read what i wrote ...
again - would any of these groups have any power if there was justice in the region?
That's where we disagree. I think it is relevant to understand what Radical Islam calls for and understand that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. perpetuate it. Its influence is more than just that, however, and its goal is not the 1967 borders. Its stated goal is much more than that. That is what Radical Islamists - like Hamas - claim and state, directly.
You seem to have the entire Israeli/"Palenstine" situation figured out without understanding the history of Islam or its radical followers, who are growing in popularity today. Muslims often do not see lines between national and religous history. They are the same in Islamic societies, particularly to radical groups and countries.
You claim I don't know the context of a quote, yet you don't know the context how how Radical Islam came about (before Israel existed in its current state) or what its goals were/are.
That's where we disagree. I think it is relevant to understand what Radical Islam calls for and understand that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. perpetuate it. Its influence is more than just that, however, and its goal is not the 1967 borders. Its stated goal is much more than that. That is what Radical Islamists - like Hamas - claim and state, directly.
You seem to have the entire Israeli/"Palenstine" situation figured out without understanding the history of Islam or its radical followers, who are growing in popularity today. Muslims often do not see lines between national and religous history. They are the same in Islamic societies, particularly to radical groups and countries.
You claim I don't know the context of a quote, yet you don't know the context how how Radical Islam came about (before Israel existed in its current state) or what its goals were/are.
It was directed to the question about history, not you.
What do you define as Justice?
Most of Italy you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Italy
'The current presence of a million or so Muslims in Italy is not the first foray of Islam into that country. Under the Islamic Empire, which emerged following the death of the Muslim prophet Muhammad and especially in the 7th to 11th centuries, small parts of peninsular southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia were ruled by Muslims.'
And the moors never conquered all of Spain as you have said above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain
They conquered '...most of the Iberian Peninsula, (except for small areas in the north-west Asturias and the Basque territory), under Islamic rule in an eight-year campaign. They attempted to move north-east across the Pyrenees Mountains toward France, but were defeated by the Frankish Christian Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. The Moors ruled in North Africa, parts of Spain and Portugal regions in the Pyrenees) for varying periods, usually measured in centuries, ranging from just 28 years in the Spain's north-west (Galicia), but up to 781 years in Spain's mountainous south-east, around the city of Granada.'
And yes, I've used Wikipedia for reasons of convenience.
So what are you driving at here exactly? You pretend that Islam wants to take over the world based on the fact that Palestinians want to reclaim their land which is under an illegal occupation.
Also, let's say that this is evidence of a wish for world domination. Please refer to your history book and explain to me how these supposed wishes differ from those of Zionism, or of Christianity for that matter.
that's a loaded question for sure ...
i will simply say ... if you were to independently observe what is going on right now - forget about all the history for a brief moment - forget about the missle attacks, the suicide bombings, forget it all ... can you say that there is justice for the palestinian people right now?
So your response to all this is quoting Wikipedia to claim that Islam spread through not "most" of Italy, just some of it. And not "all" of Spain, just most of it? Would that really make a huge difference, assuming it's true?
Are you kidding?
No I'm not kidding. You've exaggerated points of history in every one of your posts so far. You said that Islam had dominated all of Spain and most of Italy. That was a lie. I just thought it worth pointing out that your word can't be trusted.
I'm driving at what I said, that Radical islam's drive is much more than the 1967 borders of Israel.
Radical Islamists want to dominate the world not based on the Israel situation. It's rooted in history and ideas that run deeper than that.
My point is, don't assume that your (or anyone else's) version of "justice" in the region will pacify the radical elements that have taken hold in Islam. Whether that's the 1967 borders or the entire state of Israel, Islamists are interested in much more. People need to understand that before they play expert in any Radical Islamist situation.
It's humorous that you lecture me on history after questioning if Islam ever dominated the world. Oh, yeah, that's right, you and Wikipedia proved me wrong...(Christianity? Are there several radical Christian groups today trying to resurrect a Political/Physical Christian Kingdom by blowing up mass amounts of civilians, dictators, and extremist propaganda?)
Bottom line is, learn about Islam and Radical Islam before claiming to know the intentions or context of Islamic struggles, particularly involving groups - like Hamas - born out of Radical Islam, which was around BEFORE Israel ever existed. There's really not much more to say.
Errm...Yep.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article349125.ece
I questioned it because it was false. And yes, you were proven wrong. The world is bigger than the Mediterranean region.
Ha!
That's cool, man, if you want to take things that route. I'm not going down that path, though. Life's too short.
I totally disagree with you, and you don't seem to know much about Islam, other what what you type into Wikipedia and paste onto the board to "counter" what I say.
Oh well, thought we could discuss it without namecalling.
Best of luck to you.
And I don't assume anything. I just stick to the facts. But thank you for your hypothetical musings and somewhat exaggerated, and none too relevant forays into 1st millennium history. I'll take them into account the next time I hear a Christian or Zionist profess to being on a crusade. I never did take such rantings seriously, and I certainly won't place an entire religion or race into the same category as these fanatics as you seem to want to do.
I agree.