Israel in the Quran

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله الحمد لله ثم الحمد لله
الحمد لله رب العالمين و الصلاة و السلام على سيدنا محمد
ان الله يهدي من يشاء ويضل من يشاء
الحمد لله الذي هدانا لهذا و ما كنا لنهتدي لولا ان هدانا الله

Ama ba’d,
May the be upon he who follow guidance.

Once here at my blog, we had a discussion about the mentioning of “Israel” in the Quran. Now, when it popped up again over at Drima’s, i’ve decided to write a post about the verses, especially the ones that is being used to justify The Holy Land being jewish.

I hope that Allah Almighty will grant me success.

The relevant verse

These are the verses in question, i have chosen to use Yusuf Ali’s translation in this post:
(17:101-105):
To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: “O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery! Moses said, “Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!”
And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel,Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.
So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him. We sent down the (Qur’an) in Truth, and in Truth has it descended: and We sent thee but to give Glad Tidings and to warn (sinners).

{ وَقُلْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِ لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ ٱسْكُنُواْ ٱلأَرْضَ فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ ٱلآخِرَةِ جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِيفاً }


Imam Tabari explains what “land” there is in question here:
{ اسْكُنُوا الأرْضَ } أرض الشام 
{Dwell securely in the land}, that is the land of Sham (Greater Syria). (1)

So there remains no question which land it was that Allah (t) suggested the Children of Israel to dwell in. It contained modern Israel/Palestine.

The Allegation
The following is the quote of Andrew Brehm, a german/irish guy who usually comments over at Drima’s:
Both Tanakh and Quran acknowledge that G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews. (2)
And when asked which verse he referred to, he responded:
As for the Quran, it is indeed true. Sure 17 tells the story of how G-d sent Moses to the children of Israel and commanded them to go and settle in the holy land.

Later, over at Drima’s, he provided us with the following link, confirming that he was referring to 17:104 (3). On that link, i found the following interresting quote:
The Qur’an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.

Taking all that together, the allegations seems to be that God – according to the Quran – granted the modern Israel to the Jews, and that modern muslims fail to understand that.

My response to that allegation.
First of all, lets analyse what is actually being said. “Dwell securely in the land”. In Arabic, the phrase is “Uskunu al-Ardh”. “Uskunu” means “Inhabit” and “Ardh” means “earth”.
“Uskunu” derives from the root “S-K-N”, meaning “inhabit, dwell”. An example: When asked where i live (Inta sâken feen?), i reply “Sâken fe Denmark” (I live in Denmark).
What was granted to the Children of Israel was thus to inhabit the land. Should we assume that it meant owning the land, then the following problem arise:


1. The Children of Israel do NOT means “the Jews”. It means the children of Yaqoob (pbuh), son of Ishaaq (as), son of Ibrahim (as). It is important to understand that Ya’qob (as), being an Islamic prophet, according to Islam was a muslim – not a jew and not a christian. According to Islam, he followed the creed of his noble grandfather, Ibrahim (as):

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah’s (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah. (Quran, 3.67)The very father of the Children of Israel was a muslim according to Islam! The man who led the Children of Israel into the land mentioned was Musa (peace be upon him), a muslim as well according to Islam. Great kings of the nation they created, Sulaiman and Dawood (peace be upon them) were MUSLIMS according to Islam! So if we, as muslims, should from this verse decide who the land belongs to, it should be the muslims, NOT the jews who, according to Islam, altered the religion of their patriarchs.
 

 

 

Andrew Brehm, claiming to have read the entire Quran, is ofcourse aware of this. I believe the reason for his confusion is that he reads the verse with a biblical background, using it to stress his own views, as his interpretation only makes sence if you believe that all of the Children of Israel were jews. He believes them to be jews. But as such, the very argument is invalid, because muslims do not believe that the great patrairchs were jews.

2. Andrew Brehm says the following:
Either way, I wasn’t using the Quran as “proof” that Israel must be Jewish (hence my saying “I’m not saying that Israel must be Jewish because G-d said so”), but as proof that Israel predates “Palestine” and that “Palestine” is merely another name for the land, one that wasn’t even acknowledged by Muhammed (who I doubt would acknowledge the pagan name for any territory).

I say:
You actually did, as i demonstrated above, but lets leave it there. Where in the verse to you see the term “Israel” being used for the land? The land remains unnamed in the very verse. The word “Israel” exist only as a reference to Ya’qoob (as) in this verse. Not as a name of the land.

 

I hope this will suffice.

 

Advertisements

113 Responses to “Israel in the Quran”

  1. Roman Kalik Says:

    The very father of the Children of Israel was a muslim according to Islam! The man who led the Children of Israel into the land mentioned was Musa (peace be upon him), a muslim as well according to Islam. Great kings of the nation they created, Sulaiman and Dawood (peace be upon them) were MUSLIMS according to Islam! So if we, as muslims, should from this verse decide who the land belongs to, it should be the muslims, NOT the jews who, according to Islam, altered the religion of their patriarchs.

    You are making a rather decisive error of logic here, Ahmad: You are mixing two distinct concepts, one being faith, the other being extended family and the nation that grew out of it. According to your own assertion, if we take “inhabit” as being inclusive of having actual sovereignty in the land (which fits the way the Qu’ran describes the nation of the Hebrews), then it is a matter relevant to that family and the children and inheritors of that family – regardless of whether or not they corrupted their faith at any given phase. Muslims believe that they hold the true path of faith in the Almighty, and that the path the Jews have taken in their belief is false.

    Your mistake is first and foremost in treating the Jews as purely a belief system. The Jews (Yehudi singular, Yehudim plural, meaning Judean/Of Judea, the last large surviving Hebrew kingdom and also the name of the last remaining whole clan, Judah, which in turn is descended from Judah’s extended family – who was, in turn, the son of the third Patriarch, Jacob/Yakoub) remained a nation which grew out of the extended families of the early Hebrews – who, as the Qu’ran claims, were of “perfect faith”, which the Qu’ran equates with Islam.

    So, we have an assertion in the Qu’ran that the Land was given to the Children of Israel to inhabit – but the inheritance of the right to live in the land is not a matter of belief, unless the Almighty explicitly states that he has disowned the Children of Israel and given the right to live in the Land to others based on their pure faith.

    So, the question is thus simple – does the Qu’ran explicitly assert that the Children of Israel have been stripped of their birthright, as defined by the Almighty, and that birthright had been given over to others of “pure faith”?

    As for the naming of the land, that actually is the simplest matter here – if the Land was given over to the Children of Israel, then it thus becomes the Land of [the people of] Israel, named after those who have been given it by divine edict.

    Also, I’d like to say that I’m happy that I have something that I can comment about in your blog again. 😉

  2. NB Says:

    1. The Children of Israel do NOT means “the Jews”. It means the children of Yaqoob (pbuh), son of Ishaaq (as), son of Ibrahim (as). It is important to understand that Ya’qob (as), being an Islamic prophet, according to Islam was a muslim – not a jew and not a christian. According to Islam, he followed the creed of his noble grandfather, Ibrahim (as):
    Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah’s (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah. (Quran, 3.67)

    The very father of the Children of Israel was a muslim according to Islam! The man who led the Children of Israel into the land mentioned was Musa (peace be upon him), a muslim as well according to Islam. Great kings of the nation they created, Sulaiman and Dawood (peace be upon them) were MUSLIMS according to Islam! So if we, as muslims, should from this verse decide who the land belongs to, it should be the muslims, NOT the jews who, according to Islam, altered the religion of their patriarchs.

    Is it really that common among Muslim preachers to address their audiences as “Oh Children of Israel” or have I misunderstood something?

  3. NB Says:

    Anyway at this rate of appropriation of names and prophets I imagine that Muslims will soon lay claims to our most beloved title of Sons of Apes and Pigs. Under certain circumstances I can consider giving up on Children of Israel, but that one with Apes and Pigs ??? No way !!!

  4. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Some mistakes occured while printing the article, as you can see i accidentally removed large parts of the article. Therefore expect sone major additions.

  5. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Okay i’m lost here… Dont know what is wrong, it simply will not change. Lets leave it here and have the discussion, i can always insert the remaining parts here in the comment section.

    Roman, i will now respond to your comment. Be aware that i will use islamic methodology in this comment, like if i were talking to a muslim 🙂

    “You are making a rather decisive error of logic here, Ahmad: You are mixing two distinct concepts, one being faith, the other being extended family and the nation that grew out of it. According to your own assertion, if we take “inhabit” as being inclusive of having actual sovereignty in the land (which fits the way the Qu’ran describes the nation of the Hebrews), then it is a matter relevant to that family and the children and inheritors of that family – regardless of whether or not they corrupted their faith at any given phase. Muslims believe that they hold the true path of faith in the Almighty, and that the path the Jews have taken in their belief is false.”
    – Here is where i disagree with that:

    1. If one analyse the context of the verse, it become quite obvious that the reason that they were granted the right to inhabit the land freely was not their noble linage. No. It was their Islam – they were the people of Musa (as), who believed in his Prophethood, while Pharaoh considered him to be a man of sorcery. They were prosecuted for their belief in Islam, but Allah (tt) saved them and granted them the land – for their faith, not for their lineage. This is what alters the picture. Their faith was the reason.

    2. Should we still assume that the central issue is Bani Israel, not their faith, then still this covers other than the jews.

    So either way we see it, it cannot be specifically granted to the jews.

    “Your mistake is first and foremost in treating the Jews as purely a belief system. The Jews (Yehudi singular, Yehudim plural, meaning Judean/Of Judea, the last large surviving Hebrew kingdom and also the name of the last remaining whole clan, Judah, which in turn is descended from Judah’s extended family – who was, in turn, the son of the third Patriarch, Jacob/Yakoub) remained a nation which grew out of the extended families of the early Hebrews – who, as the Qu’ran claims, were of “perfect faith”, which the Qu’ran equates with Islam.”
    – But on the same time, you should notice that the Quran in specific negates the term “yahudi” for Abraham (as), who is the grandfather of the children of Yaqoob (as).

    “So, we have an assertion in the Qu’ran that the Land was given to the Children of Israel to inhabit – but the inheritance of the right to live in the land is not a matter of belief, unless the Almighty explicitly states that he has disowned the Children of Israel and given the right to live in the Land to others based on their pure faith.”
    – You seem to assume here that i agree that the country were given to the Bani Israel forever to be theirs to rule.

    In fact, if one claims that it is needed for the Almighty to disown the right to rule the land in order to come to this understanding, i could say that this have already be done: Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) conquered the lands and made it under the rule of Muslims, him being second only to Abu Bakr (ra), he being among the 10 promised paradise and most important: he being one of the rightly guided caliphs, whose Sunnah the Prophet (pbuh) ordered us to follow.

    I can however see your point if you are talking about the right to LIVE in the land, not necessarily RULING it.

    “So, the question is thus simple – does the Qu’ran explicitly assert that the Children of Israel have been stripped of their birthright, as defined by the Almighty, and that birthright had been given over to others of “pure faith”?”
    – Again, with birthright is this? The right to live in the land, the right to rule it? I do not believe that “Then we said to the Children of Israel: Dwell in the land” means that every single descendant of Ya’qoob (as) is born with the right to live in the land – are you aware of how many people that will cover, jews and non-jews alike?

    If you however believe that the verse grants the descendants of Yaqoob (as) a certain right in ruling the land to last forever, then it can be said that this was overruled by the conquest.

    Roman, often such commands are temporary in their very nature. Like, for instance, it is said: {And We made the son of Mary and his mother a portent, and We gave them refuge on a height (rabwa), a place of flocks and water springs} [23:50], it is repported that this place was in Damascus. Does this mean that this height was forever the property of Isa (as)?

    All we can say for sure from this verse alone, is that Musa’s (as) people were given the right to inhabit the land.

    “As for the naming of the land, that actually is the simplest matter here – if the Land was given over to the Children of Israel, then it thus becomes the Land of [the people of] Israel, named after those who have been given it by divine edict.”
    – This is an obscure methodology indeed, obligating people to name every country after the ancestor of the people who were given it! The fact remains that the land is unnamed in the Quran, and there is no divine islamic edict on naming the land.

    “Falastin” is simply the name of the land in Arabic, derived from a Roman term, who in return was derived from the Filistrea, a greek pagan people inhabiting Gaza. There is no blame in retaining calling it with that name. Today, the name of the state of Syria in Arabic is “Souriya”, and this despite that the Prophet (saw) explicitly called the area by the name of “Sham”. The term “Syria” is derived from greek, in return derived from the pagan Akkadian term “Ashur”. That is not rebellion against the Prophet (saw), thats just speaking ones language.

    Exacly like when an englishman refers to a particular area in history as “Arabia” rather than using the present term “Saudi Arabia” – he is not necessarily disapproving of the Aal Saud, just using a geographic reference instead of a political one. Likewise, when an Egyptian returning from pilgramage asking where he have been, there is nothing wrong in him saying that he have been in “So3odeya”, i.e. Saudi Arabia, and this is not approval of the House of Saud in any way. He is just speaking his language. I hope you see where i am going here.

  6. Nobody Says:

    Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah’s (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.

    From this does not follow that Abraham was a Muslim. This passage just says that Abraham was true in Faith. He obviously could not be a Christian or whatever since he preceded them all. This is what this passage says: that in the age preceding religions this was the truly faithful man. No more and no less.

    If one analyse the context of the verse, it become quite obvious that the reason that they were granted the right to inhabit the land freely was not their noble linage. No. It was their Islam – they were the people of Musa (as), who believed in his Prophethood, while Pharaoh considered him to be a man of sorcery. They were prosecuted for their belief in Islam, but Allah (tt) saved them and granted them the land – for their faith, not for their lineage. This is what alters the picture. Their faith was the reason.

    The right may have been given to them because of their faith but it was given to them as a collective right. Obviously Abraham could not have been a Son of Israel, it’s true, but the people who can be called Sons of Israel are just that: Jakob’s descendants.

    In fact, if one claims that it is needed for the Almighty to disown the right to rule the land in order to come to this understanding, i could say that this have already be done: Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) conquered the lands and made it under the rule of Muslims, him being second only to Abu Bakr (ra), he being among the 10 promised paradise and most important: he being one of the rightly guided caliphs, whose Sunnah the Prophet (pbuh) ordered us to follow.

    Very nice. And now we have the Allah finally making good on the last part of his promise – to assemble the sons of Israel in Israel when the time is right. Given the utter failure of this one billion strong Muslim civilization to unseat a handful of Jews from here it’s quite obvious that Allah is very good on keeping his promises. The creation and existence of this state is wrought with miracles, it’s the ultimate historical miracle and paradox, probably without precedents in human history and a way more impressive than the conquests of Omar.

  7. Nobody Says:

    I noticed that I am posting occasionally as NB and sometimes as Nobody. For those who did not get it, it’s the same person.

  8. Roman Kalik Says:

    1. If one analyse the context of the verse, it become quite obvious that the reason that they were granted the right to inhabit the land freely was not their noble linage. No. It was their Islam – they were the people of Musa (as), who believed in his Prophethood, while Pharaoh considered him to be a man of sorcery. They were prosecuted for their belief in Islam, but Allah (tt) saved them and granted them the land – for their faith, not for their lineage. This is what alters the picture. Their faith was the reason.

    The reason is correct, and yet nowhere is it stated that:

    1. The right to inhabit the land has been stripped from the Children of Israel.

    2. That the more recent “pure of faith” were given the right to inhabit the land. And,

    3. That the right of the more recent “pure of faith” supersedes that of the original recipients of the Almighty’s favor.

    The purity of faith of the “new Muslims” does not mean that the descendants of the “old Muslims” have been stripped of what was previously given to them. Unless, of course, this was directly mentioned in the Qu’ran or said by Muhammed in the presence of one of his first followers. Anything else is, I must note… a bit of a stretch, and so a cleric like Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi can reasonably decree that there is nothing in Islam that demands that Muslims object to Jewish sovereignty in the Land.

    And though others may publish different rulings, his is still legitimate, and those who follow his ruling do not stray from the path of Islam. In fact, his ruling may be the most correct and impartial ruling.

    2. Should we still assume that the central issue is Bani Israel, not their faith, then still this covers other than the jews.

    Ten of the tribes have been lost to Babylonian forced relocation, though we have managed to recover the remnants of some. Some remnants that bear the naming customs, partial traditions, and oral history of the Children of Israel still remain. The largest noteworthy group to claim to originate from the Ten Lost Tribes are the Pashtun people of Afghanistan. If you have other national/cultural groups that claim to trace their lineage to the Hebrews, please let me know.

    The existence of other people who hold a somewhat legitimate claim to having descended of, or once having had in their midst, one of the Tribes of Israel, does not in any way lower from the legitimate claim of the Jews. It merely adds others who share the birthright in question.

    So either way we see it, it cannot be specifically granted to the jews.

    All that you have said does not in any way lower from the legitimate claim of the Jews, which by the Qu’ran their ancestors were granted and they have inherited. That there are other descendants of the old Tribes that may also hold a claim to the land does not lower the claim of the Jews – it merely adds others to the claim, and their legitimacy (and for that matter, their wish to claim the right to the Land) must be adequately compared to that of the Jews.

    – But on the same time, you should notice that the Quran in specific negates the term “yahudi” for Abraham (as), who is the grandfather of the children of Yaqoob (as).

    Faith-based, yes. It is an assertion that Abraham was “of perfect faith”, rather than the “imperfect faith” that is at the center of Judaism and Christianity. By the Qu’ran, Islam is Perfection in Faith – the Qu’ran thus asserts that the Patriarchs were not “flawed” as the Jews and Christians of time it was written, and further lays claim to them – as in the Qu’ran, “perfect faith” and “Islam” are two indistinct terms.

    Doesn’t have anything to do with the Jewish legitimacy to settle in the land, I’m afraid. They may have strayed in their faith, as the Qu’ran asserts, but neither have they been stripped of their divine boon.

    In fact, if one claims that it is needed for the Almighty to disown the right to rule the land in order to come to this understanding, i could say that this have already be done: Umar ibn Al-Khattab (ra) conquered the lands and made it under the rule of Muslims, him being second only to Abu Bakr (ra), he being among the 10 promised paradise and most important: he being one of the rightly guided caliphs, whose Sunnah the Prophet (pbuh) ordered us to follow.

    *shrug* Conquest of land without having been granted the divine edict that it is your land doesn’t make it your land for all eternity. You could have just as easily argued that the Hebrews have lost the right to rule the land based on the conquests of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and various armies since.

    The importance of the conqueror in question in the matters of just rule by divine law, and the edicts that he has published, does not imply a divine edict to rule the Land anymore than it implies that those who were not of “perfect faith” and “precedence of edict” in the 700 years prior to Mohammed’s birth had a right to the land.

    Unless, of course, you can show me in the Qu’ran, Hadith, or even in the rulings of the early clerics and leaders of Islam, that the land was given by the Almighty’s will and must remain in the hands of the “perfect of faith” who were not of the Children of Israel and who did not receive the original boon of the Land.

    – Again, with birthright is this? The right to live in the land, the right to rule it? I do not believe that “Then we said to the Children of Israel: Dwell in the land” means that every single descendant of Ya’qoob (as) is born with the right to live in the land – are you aware of how many people that will cover, jews and non-jews alike?

    Oh, it would cover many people… Or very few, should you only count those who have actually kept track of their lineage, retained their identity and attempted to retain the customs and traditions to the best of their ability.

    This is an important distinction, actually. One can leave a nation or a family, and become part of another. This is what many of the Children of Israel have done, depending on where they ended up as they were uprooted from the Land. Others remained part of the Family, retained their Nation, but simply accepted that they could not yet manage to leave the Great Exile.

    If you however believe that the verse grants the descendants of Yaqoob (as) a certain right in ruling the land to last forever, then it can be said that this was overruled by the conquest.

    I would say instead that the conquests are but a temporary measure, even if they are made by those “pure of faith”. One can just as easily claim that the Muslim conquest of the Land was a matter of Divine Will to safeguard the Land until the Children of Israel were seen as capable and deserving of returning to it, as part of their own return to purity of faith and to their Land.

    Roman, often such commands are temporary in their very nature. Like, for instance, it is said: {And We made the son of Mary and his mother a portent, and We gave them refuge on a height (rabwa), a place of flocks and water springs} [23:50], it is repported that this place was in Damascus. Does this mean that this height was forever the property of Isa (as)?

    Note the word “refuge”, and I assume that that is the most accurate translation from the original Classic Arabic. Refuge by its definition is indeed a temporary affair – only granted until the need for the refuge is no longer needed. An altogether different issue than what we have been discussing here so far.

    All we can say for sure from this verse alone, is that Musa’s (as) people were given the right to inhabit the land.

    Inhabiting without self-rule is impossible, actually. If another holds sway over you then you do not “inhabit” – another inhabits, while you are merely a temporary serf who must obey the will of the sovereign, a sovereign who is not of the People of Israel and who may strip their “right to inhabit” at a whim, or to place his own people first. How can one inhabit a land without possessing self-governance?

    – This is an obscure methodology indeed, obligating people to name every country after the ancestor of the people who were given it! The fact remains that the land is unnamed in the Quran, and there is no divine islamic edict on naming the land.

    Is there another country in the Qu’ran that has been explicitly given to a specific group of people? If not, then I’m afraid your claim is rather moot. The people who inhabit and rule the land by the Almighty’s explicit word thus become those who name it.

    “Falastin” is simply the name of the land in Arabic, derived from a Roman term, who in return was derived from the Filistrea, a greek pagan people inhabiting Gaza. There is no blame in retaining calling it with that name. Today, the name of the state of Syria in Arabic is “Souriya”, and this despite that the Prophet (saw) explicitly called the area by the name of “Sham”. The term “Syria” is derived from greek, in return derived from the pagan Akkadian term “Ashur”. That is not rebellion against the Prophet (saw), thats just speaking ones language.

    Very well, this is probably the only point I can entirely concede on – that the name of a region is but the commonly accepted form by the majority. If most people know it by such a name – then that is the name of the region for them. But to cling to one name and to object to another based on political considerations thus becomes a rather problematic issue – do you now call it Palestine because it is how you have commonly known the region to be named, or do you cling to the old accepted name because accepting the current name would imply losing face or conceding a common political cause?

    As for us, we simply knew it as the Land of Israel, or the Land of the City of Jerusalem. Or the Holy Land.

    Or simply The Land. Jews knew quite well what they were referring to when they spoke of *the* land.

  9. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “The reason is correct, and yet nowhere is it stated that:

    1. The right to inhabit the land has been stripped from the Children of Israel.

    2. That the more recent “pure of faith” were given the right to inhabit the land. And,

    3. That the right of the more recent “pure of faith” supersedes that of the original recipients of the Almighty’s favor.

    The purity of faith of the “new Muslims” does not mean that the descendants of the “old Muslims” have been stripped of what was previously given to them. Unless, of course, this was directly mentioned in the Qu’ran or said by Muhammed in the presence of one of his first followers. Anything else is, I must note… a bit of a stretch, and so a cleric like Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi can reasonably decree that there is nothing in Islam that demands that Muslims object to Jewish sovereignty in the Land.

    And though others may publish different rulings, his is still legitimate, and those who follow his ruling do not stray from the path of Islam. In fact, his ruling may be the most correct and impartial ruling.”
    – We are talking in two completely seperate direction here.
    Before i would have to bring you evidence that they were stripped off their right, you have to proove first that “Uskunu al-Ardh” is eternal in its very nature, and cover the descendants of all the time, and that it is specified to every single children of Israel. Al-Samarqandi in his Tafsir limits it to those who were with Musa (as).

    You should understand that even through the Quran used such a broad term as “Bani Israel”, there is nothing linguistic who excludes the term in this specific verse to be narrowed down to those who were with Musa (as). I.e. Allah Almighty said what he said to the people of Musa (as) and not every single descendant of Jacob at all times, even through he calls them “Children of Jacob”.

    Again, friend, i will need to stress the fact that when you work with a Quranic concept and its importance among muslim, you have to see it in the light of the very same system that the Quran brings forward.

    With regards to Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, i have no idea who this italian muslim is, i never heard of him before this. I, for some reason, consider he’s ruling to be shadh (abnormal) because there is something near consensus among both sunni, salafi and shia scholars among the opposite, i.e. that this verse do not make every single descendant of Yaqoob (as) inheritor of the land.

    Also i would like to ask on which Islamic jurisprudence-based arguments is his ruling considered under valid difference of opinion (adab al ekhtelaf) when it stands in opposition to virtually all other senior scholar? (this seems to be a junior one).

    “Ten of the tribes have been lost to Babylonian forced relocation, though we have managed to recover the remnants of some. Some remnants that bear the naming customs, partial traditions, and oral history of the Children of Israel still remain. The largest noteworthy group to claim to originate from the Ten Lost Tribes are the Pashtun people of Afghanistan. If you have other national/cultural groups that claim to trace their lineage to the Hebrews, please let me know.

    The existence of other people who hold a somewhat legitimate claim to having descended of, or once having had in their midst, one of the Tribes of Israel, does not in any way lower from the legitimate claim of the Jews. It merely adds others who share the birthright in question.”
    – I think you got me wrong on that one. If we should assume that Bani Israel were to inhabit the Holy land forever, then what i said is: This does not mean exclusively the jews, and it do not give the jews any special right over the land being jews, but only being the descendants of Jacob (pbuh). The jews are just one people among these promised the land, if we should follow that logic, and not THE people promised the land as Andrew Brehm wrote.

    “*shrug* Conquest of land without having been granted the divine edict that it is your land doesn’t make it your land for all eternity. You could have just as easily argued that the Hebrews have lost the right to rule the land based on the conquests of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and various armies since.”
    – Wrong, because we are not talking about any conqueror, we are talking about Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) – the Prophet (saw) ordered us to stick to the Sunnah of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliph, and Umar (ra) etablished Muslim (and Arab!) rule in the very same land. How would he do that if the land were supposed to be ruled by only descendants of Israel, when Umar (ra) was a descendant of Ismael (as)?

    Like i said, the image changes if we are talking about only “Saken”, dwelling, because Umar (ra) did not expel the people of the book from that land.

    “The importance of the conqueror in question in the matters of just rule by divine law, and the edicts that he has published, does not imply a divine edict to rule the Land anymore than it implies that those who were not of “perfect faith” and “precedence of edict” in the 700 years prior to Mohammed’s birth had a right to the land.”
    – Explain me how Umar (ra) could etablish control over the country to the Children of Ismael, if Allah (t) and his Prophet (pbuh) wanted it to be ruled by the Children of Israel for all eternity? You should know that many noble companions who saw the prophet (saw) participated in the very same conquest, and in the time of his successors, none of the sahaba or the tabi’in (successors to the sahaba) argued that the rule of the Children of Ismail were unlawful. How would that be possible if the divine decree says that ruling the land is a birthright for every descendant of Israel!?

    “Unless, of course, you can show me in the Qu’ran, Hadith, or even in the rulings of the early clerics and leaders of Islam, that the land was given by the Almighty’s will and must remain in the hands of the “perfect of faith” who were not of the Children of Israel and who did not receive the original boon of the Land.”
    – Why would i do that? I do not claim that we Arabs or Muslims hold a similar birthright to rule that land per religion, and if you read the entries of this blog you would never find such claim of mine. Why would i want to prove something that i do not believe in?

    You should understand that i oppose many Israeli politics of political reasons and i am a staunch supporter of Palestine for political reasons, and i do not oppose the existence of a jewish state in that land for religious reasons.

    “I would say instead that the conquests are but a temporary measure, even if they are made by those “pure of faith”. One can just as easily claim that the Muslim conquest of the Land was a matter of Divine Will to safeguard the Land until the Children of Israel were seen as capable and deserving of returning to it, as part of their own return to purity of faith and to their Land.”
    – Should the descendants of Israel all suddenly return to Islam, then there will be no distinction between them and Arab muslims with regards to any of these things. And no, one cannot argue for that, because it was quite possible that Umar (ra) would allow the descendants of Israel to obtain more right over the land than other of the conquered peoples did, but he treated them all the exact same way, proving that the present descendants of Israel have no special birthright to rule the land that cannot be obtained by anyone else.

    it prooves that the “Uskunu al-Ardh” command did not include ruling the land for all eternity. It is such a command that is of temporary nature, at is was limited to those of the Children of Israel that were with Musa (as) and the great patriarchs of Israel such as Solomon (as) and David (as).

    Else, Umar (ra) would have violated that command.

    “Very well, this is probably the only point I can entirely concede on – that the name of a region is but the commonly accepted form by the majority. If most people know it by such a name – then that is the name of the region for them. But to cling to one name and to object to another based on political considerations thus becomes a rather problematic issue – do you now call it Palestine because it is how you have commonly known the region to be named, or do you cling to the old accepted name because accepting the current name would imply losing face or conceding a common political cause?

    As for us, we simply knew it as the Land of Israel, or the Land of the City of Jerusalem. Or the Holy Land.

    Or simply The Land. Jews knew quite well what they were referring to when they spoke of *the* land.”
    – Glad we can agree on something 🙂 When speaking about the COUNTRY in the land today in political aspect, i call it by its name of Israel, but when speaking about both Israel and the occupied territories, i call it by the name of the geographic area which is Palestine. Thus in Ahmad’s dictionary, it is not wrong to say that Israel is a state situated in Palestine, just like Lebanon is a state situated in the Levant.

  10. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Nobody:
    “From this does not follow that Abraham was a Muslim”

    Like Roman said, “true in faith” includes being Muslim in Islam. In fact, the very word translated as “true in faith” is “Haneef”. That word have been heavily written about, also by danish interllectuals at the universities, and there seems to be some kind of agreement that it means a Muslim who predates Muhammad’s (saw) prophecy.

    But to close it altogether, i will translitterate the verse for you:
    مَا كَانَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَكِنْ كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ
    Ma kana Ibrahim yahudian (jew) wa la nasranian (christian) wa laken kan Haneefan _MUSLIMAN_ wa ma kana min almushrikeen.

  11. SudaneseDrima Says:

    Ahmad, I haven’t read your post yet (I will in a while) but before that I wanted to copy and paste something I just wrote in the comments section at my blog.

    Here.

    FACT: Moses is a Prophet recognized and respected in Islam.

    FACT: The story of how Moses led his people away from the Pharaoh’s oppression and into the land of Israel is one that is recognized and told in Islam.

    FACT: In the Quran, that piece of land is not called Palestine. It’s called Israel.

    FACT: Before the Kabba was cleansed of idols, Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem.

    FACT: Based on the facts above, there is evidence that clearly indicates the inherent ties between the land of Israel and the Jewish people. However, there is no evidence indicating that the land is *exclusively* Jewish or *exclusively* meant for Jews.

    P.S.: This comment has no agenda really… besides conveying the facts of course. 😛

  12. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Israel” was a person, Jacob, the son of Isaac. The “Children of Israel” are the people he fathered as defined by the laws of that people.

    It seems unlikely to me that Muhammed, who was aware and proud of his ancestry (Isaac’s brother Ishmael, I hope I get all the names right), would use the term to mean anything but that.

    Muhammed confirms that Moses gave laws to the Children of Israel that, among other things, included a title to the Land of Israel (later “Palestine”). Perhaps G-d did mean that the title includes other sons of Abraham or Jacob and not just those present in Sinai at that moment.

    However, none of the sons of Jakob were Arabs.

    Perhaps Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Jakob. It seems likely. The Zionists didn’t contradict such a claim and included Arab inhabitants of Israel/Palestine as citizens in their project. (And any Arab who believed himself to be “Palestinian” and can prove descent from Jakob via a maternal line would certainly have the right to immigrant and become an Israeli citizen.)

    However, none of this would give Palestinian Arabs (or anybody) the right to prevent Israel from becoming independent, to prevent Jews from living in Israel, or even to prevent Jews from ruling Jerusalem. Quite in contrast, the Quran does recognise a Jewish title to the land in as much as Jews have a right to live there. That is a right the Quran grants (or rather “recognises”) but which both the PLO and Hamas deny. How a believing Muslim can support either of these groups is hence a mystery to me.

    Now there is the question of the lost tribes. This is indeed a problem as they would have a claim too, or part of the claim. However, Israel does grant citizenship to members of the lost tribes as well, if such are found and proven to be descendants of Jacob.

    I myself think there is reason to believe that the Igbo in Nigeria qualify, or that some 10% or so of them do.

    Ahmad, I agree with you that Abraham was a “Muslim”, as he did certainly submit to G-d’s will. That is true regardless of whether Muhammed was a prophet or not, because neither Muhammed’s followers (may I use “Muhammedan” to distinguish post-Muhammed Muslims from pre-Jesus Muslims?) nor Jews or Christians doubt that Abraham did submit.

    The way I see it Abraham had two (here relevant) children, Ishmael and Isaac.

    Isaac was the father of Jacob, who was also named “Israel” and the children of Israel are the people that came from Jacob. G-d gave those people the right to live in the land of Israel (which the Roman pagans later named “Palestine”).

    Ishmael was the father of another great nation of which Muhammed was apparently a descendant. They merged with Arabs. Muhammed believed that the legend about Isaac’s descendants and Moses and G-d was true and taught exactly that to his followers.

    (Incidentally, other monotheistic faiths, most prominently the Zoroastrians also believed the Moses legend to be true.)

    Muhammed also went as far as claiming that after the second exile there won’t be a third.

    So ironically we have today people who insist on using the pagan name for the land religiously and who deny the Jews’ right to live in the land, who despite claiming to be followers of Muhammed think and act exactly as the Roman pagens whom Muhammed had little patience for.

    And as Drima said, the Quran does not grant exclusive rights to the Jews (although I’m not sure how such a right would be phrased differently), but it does support exactly what the Zionists demanded and fought for.

    So the Quran is on Israel’s side.

    The Quran does not necessarily support the demands of (the few) Jewish extremists, but it certainly supports Zionism and the Zionists’ idea of a Jewish state with Jewish and Arab citizens.

  13. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Should we still assume that the central issue is Bani Israel, not their faith, then still this covers other than the jews. So either way we see it, it cannot be specifically granted to the jews.”

    I agree. If any “children of Israel” that are not Jews are ever found, they have a right to live in Israel as well.

    I believe Israel acknowledges that claim and does grant citizenship to, for example, Samaritans, who are children of Israel but not (I think) Jews.

    However, Moses’ law does define who is a “child of Israel”, and the Quran doesn’t contradict those laws or define new ones to establish membership of the people.

    “The Children of Israel” certainly doesn’t include descendants of Ishmael (unless they are also descendants of Jacob or Isaac), all Arabs, all Muslims, or all descendants of Abraham.

    As was mentioned before, imams really do not address their congregations as “children of Israel”; and no Muslim leader that I have heard of has in the past ever claimed that Muslims are “children of Israel” (unless they are Jews who converted to Islam).

    Perhaps the term “Jewish state” is not wholly accurate as there are tribes of Israel that are not descendants of the tribes of Juda (however, Levites are always considered Jews unless they are Samaritan, I think). But a very large majority of currently living children of Israel are Jews, be they religious or atheist (or even Christian or Muslim).

    Perhaps the Pashtuns have a claim, certainly the Aethipian and Yemenite Jews did. Perhaps the Igbo have a claim. All of that is possible.

    However, any group or people who deny the Jewish claim to the land certainly don’t have a claim to the land. And neither do automatically any descendants of Ishmael.

    Hamas don’t have a valid claim. The PLO doesn’t have a valid claim. Hizbullah doesn’t have a valid claim. But the Zionists do. As do any Arabs living in the land who do not support any of the groups that don’t have a legal claim.

    Hamas, the PLO, and Hizbullah are openly in opposition to the word of the Quran.

    If they were not, they would certainly use the opportunity to quote the relevant statements from the Quran, if they actually believed that those quotes would support their position rather than Israel’s.

    Sheikh Palazzi, whose short essay I was originally referring to, is a real Muslim, in the sense that he submits to G-d’s will as revealed in the Quran despite it being an unpopular and dangerous position for him. He defends the children of Israel and the state of Israel and stands up for a cause even though in doing so he has made himself hundreds of millions of enemies.

    It is people like him who demonstrate to me what Muhammed’s position must have been like in Mecca. Moses had it easier, perhaps.

    Hizbullah shelled my university because I (and many others) were there DOING WHAT THE QURAN TOLD US TO DO. I didn’t do it because the Quran told me to, but I did do it, partly at least, because I believed what Muhammed believed. I wonder if that shouldn’t count for something among Muslims!

  14. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “there seems to be some kind of agreement that it means a Muslim who predates Muhammad’s (saw) prophecy.”

    Would it not also include people who came to the realisation that there is only one god who created the world without reading or hearing of any scripture?

    Would a Zoroastrian not qualify as a Haneef? What about Yezidis? I think they all qualify.

  15. Roman Kalik Says:

    You should understand that even through the Quran used such a broad term as “Bani Israel”, there is nothing linguistic who excludes the term in this specific verse to be narrowed down to those who were with Musa (as). I.e. Allah Almighty said what he said to the people of Musa (as) and not every single descendant of Jacob at all times, even through he calls them “Children of Jacob”.

    I disagree. The Qu’ran also used the same term – Children of Israel – to discuss the Hebrews long after Jacob and Moses were dead, during the times of King David, King Solomon, and during even later periods in which the Babylonian Exile and Roman Exile took place. Unless you mean that the exact same terminology has a different meanings in different verses, when in each case it was referring to them as Children of Israel long after Israel, meaning the Patriarch Jacob, was long dead, already encompassing an extended-family/nation and encompasses a much larger group of people.

    Yes, the reference in that particular verse refers to the Children of Israel who were with Moses – because they were the entirety of the Children of Israel *for their time*. And yet referring to them in a continuous manner for later periods in Hebrew history – speaking of the same continuous group – does show a continuity in everything discussed.

    That continuity is very important, and shows that it wasn’t individuals in a certain era who were discussed – but rather a continuous nation.

    Al-Samarqandi in his Tafsir limits it to those who were with Musa (as).

    Pardon my ignorance, but who is Al-Samarqandi? I *think* you’re referring to Abu’l Layth al-Samarqandi, the late 10th century, Hanafi school of Muslim religious law, but my research could be at fault. If I’m correct, I’d like to know how authoritative he is for the Hanafi school, and what the other schools have to say on the issue.

    Also i would like to ask on which Islamic jurisprudence-based arguments is his ruling considered under valid difference of opinion (adab al ekhtelaf) when it stands in opposition to virtually all other senior scholar? (this seems to be a junior one).

    His ruling is actually not an assertion of Jewish right as much as it is an assertion that there is no Islamic counter – no authoritative ruling that the land must be under *Muslim* sovereignty. He simply says that there is no Islamic argument to object to Jewish sovereignty in the Land, and that there exist numerous implications to the *possibility* that the Jews are living in the Land with divine approval.

    He does not explicitly assert that such a divine approval exists today, but does explicitly assert that there is no argument for opposing Jewish sovereignty and presence – that there is no ruling for current-day Muslim sovereignty in the Land, and thus no legitimacy to demanding it removed based on an argument for Islamic sovereignty.

    You should understand that i oppose many Israeli politics of political reasons and i am a staunch supporter of Palestine for political reasons, and i do not oppose the existence of a jewish state in that land for religious reasons.

    *nod* And in religious terms, that makes you on par with Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi. His ruling is based purely on religious arguments – and as you yourself said, there is no religious reason to object to Israel, but rather political reasons. Shaykh Palazzi objects to what he sees as a political issue entering the rulings and teachings of too many modern-day Muslim clerics, who do make religious decrees against Israel and thus put politics into the religion.

    His is a more positive stance towards Israel in political terms, but the main issue is that he sees no religious argument against it.

    So I fail to see how his ruling would be abnormal.

    – Wrong, because we are not talking about any conqueror, we are talking about Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) – the Prophet (saw) ordered us to stick to the Sunnah of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliph, and Umar (ra) etablished Muslim (and Arab!) rule in the very same land. How would he do that if the land were supposed to be ruled by only descendants of Israel, when Umar (ra) was a descendant of Ismael (as)?

    Does Muslim rule for a *specific* time contradict a *general* right? I could rightly argue that Jewish rule in the Land at that period of time was impossible – the Jews were too spread apart across the world, with the various sovereigns and armies around not being all that friendly towards them. Thus, Umar’s rule becomes a temporary necessity, even a requirement, until the conditions to bring back Jewish presence and sovereignty in the Land could be met.

    – Should the descendants of Israel all suddenly return to Islam, then there will be no distinction between them and Arab muslims with regards to any of these things. And no, one cannot argue for that, because it was quite possible that Umar (ra) would allow the descendants of Israel to obtain more right over the land than other of the conquered peoples did, but he treated them all the exact same way, proving that the present descendants of Israel have no special birthright to rule the land that cannot be obtained by anyone else.

    Else, Umar (ra) would have violated that command.

    Again, this is a matter of making a distinction between the two concepts – the people, ergo the Children of Israel, and their Faith.

    And why would Umar give Jews more rights? To give them false hope, to make them believe that they could return to the Land when it was not yet feasible? Quite the contrary, he did *not* need to give Jews extra rights if the time was not yet right for the Jews to return to the Land of Israel. Thus, Umar acted by the necessity of his time and era, as he was not personally capable of returning the Jews to the Land of Israel.

    Thus, you have proved nothing, I’m afraid.

    Thus in Ahmad’s dictionary, it is not wrong to say that Israel is a state situated in Palestine, just like Lebanon is a state situated in the Levant.

    Except we’re also in the Levant. 😉

  16. Andrew Brehm Says:

    It seems to me like Sheikh Palazzi supports Israel not so much because of a Jewish right to the land but because there is no current real Islamic power that could rule instead.

    All of its Israel’s enemies are either secular (PLO, German Nazis) or heretical, at least according to Palazzi’s view (Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Iranian regime), which means that the Sheikh opposed them as much as he supports Israel, what with Israel being the closest to a Muslim power that can (currently) control the holy land.

    Either way, his arguments make sense.

    And Israel’s modern history and miraculous survival certainly suggest that IF there is a G-d Who is interested in that particular conflict, He has been on Israel’s side.

  17. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “So I fail to see how his ruling would be abnormal.”

    Sheikh Palazzi just seems to take religion more seriously than others and apparently argues that politics should not change what religion has established.

    Yes, there are many political reasons for why Israel should have been destroyed. For Arab dictators Israel is a problem.

    But whether those political reasons are sound (I think rather not) or Islamic (they are not) is a different question.

  18. Nobody Says:

    Ahmad al-Safawi Says:
    June 26, 2008 at 10:36 am

    Nobody:
    “From this does not follow that Abraham was a Muslim”

    Like Roman said, “true in faith” includes being Muslim in Islam. In fact, the very word translated as “true in faith” is “Haneef”. That word have been heavily written about, also by danish intellectuals at the universities, and there seems to be some kind of agreement that it means a Muslim who predates Muhammad’s (saw) prophecy.

    Well. I believe that what they teach in Danish universities ia that Hanifs were pre-Islamic monotheists in the Arabian peninsula. In fact I doubt that there exists a consensus among the experts on who exactly these people were. The majority of university scholars, while not denying existence of the Hanifs, would certainly be skeptical towards the idea that they represent an uninterrupted tradition dating from the time of Abraham. Nevertheless I will accept your interpretation as it is.

    The point is still that Sons of Israel means Jews and not Muslims just as Roman argues it. About Omar you say:

    – Wrong, because we are not talking about any conqueror, we are talking about Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) – the Prophet (saw) ordered us to stick to the Sunnah of the Prophet and the rightly guided caliph, and Umar (ra) etablished Muslim (and Arab!) rule in the very same land. How would he do that if the land were supposed to be ruled by only descendants of Israel, when Umar (ra) was a descendant of Ismael (as)?

    It’ all right that the prophet ordered to stick to the rightly guided caliph but does the prophet indicated Omar as being one? And does a rightly guided caliph mean infallible one like a catholic pope?

    Ponder on the first thread quotes something that seems to coincide with two exiles inflicted on the Jews while if I remember it right there is a quote in Koran that says that Children of Israel will be brought back when the time is right. In this sense the creation of Israel in recent time is actually quite in line with the Koran. And my point is vindicated by history much more than yours by the conquests of Omar that seem to have been lately reversed to make space precisely for those prophecies in the Koran that predict the future return of Children of Israel to the Land.

  19. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “FACT: In the Quran, that piece of land is not called Palestine. It’s called Israel.”
    – Wrong, it is unnamed, please read the comments through.

    “FACT: Before the Kabba was cleansed of idols, Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem.”
    – Only partly correct, since the Qibla changed to Makkah long before the Ka’ba was cleansed.

    “FACT: Based on the facts above, there is evidence that clearly indicates the inherent ties between the land of Israel and the Jewish people. However, there is no evidence indicating that the land is *exclusively* Jewish or *exclusively* meant for Jews.”
    – I would change that to: Based on the facts above, there is evidence that clearly prooves that the Children of Israel at SOME point were given the right to inhabit the land.

    “Would it not also include people who came to the realisation that there is only one god who created the world without reading or hearing of any scripture?

    Would a Zoroastrian not qualify as a Haneef? What about Yezidis? I think they all qualify.”
    – Zoroastrian no. Yazidi no. These are religions, while a Haneef was one who disassociated himself from these religions and remained true to what was revealed, for example, a man that believed in Musa (as) and all that have been revealed to him without altering the meaning would be considered Haneef Muslim, because he indeed is a Muslim but the term “Haneef” is used specifically to the muslims before Muhammads (saw) prophecy.

    I will prefer to continue my discussion with Roman instead of answering all the comments, as there are too many of them. I hope this is okay with you guys.

    “I disagree. The Qu’ran also used the same term – Children of Israel – to discuss the Hebrews long after Jacob and Moses were dead, during the times of King David, King Solomon, and during even later periods in which the Babylonian Exile and Roman Exile took place. Unless you mean that the exact same terminology has a different meanings in different verses, when in each case it was referring to them as Children of Israel long after Israel, meaning the Patriarch Jacob, was long dead, already encompassing an extended-family/nation and encompasses a much larger group of people.”
    – What i meant was: There is nothing linguistic that PREVENTS the use of Bani Israel in a narrower sense, like for example, “Then we said so and so to the Muslims”, in this case only the muslims present at the point where i said it but not all muslims included in what i just said. I hope you understand what i mean. “Then it was said said to Bani Israel” does not necessarily means that this command encompass all Bani Israel at all times. This is why Alsamarqandi specifies it.

    Yes, this is Abu al-Layth Al-Samarqandi who was a hanafi scholar. I do not know exactly to which extent his Fiqh-stances are relied upon in the Hanafi Madhhab, but i cannot see the relevance as this is Tafsir, not Fiqh. The 4 madhhabs do only apply in Fiqh.

    “Yes, the reference in that particular verse refers to the Children of Israel who were with Moses – because they were the entirety of the Children of Israel *for their time*. And yet referring to them in a continuous manner for later periods in Hebrew history – speaking of the same continuous group – does show a continuity in everything discussed.

    That continuity is very important, and shows that it wasn’t individuals in a certain era who were discussed – but rather a continuous nation.”
    – I am sorry but you need an explicit text who says so in order to etablish what you just said. I mean – i cannot see how you make the analogy between the people of Musa (as) and the latter generations (not those in the time of the great Prophets), and i cannot see why only the latter generations being mentioned as Bani Israel (which they were) etablish that “Uskunu al-Ardh” is a command that applies to them as well.

    “His ruling is actually not an assertion of Jewish right as much as it is an assertion that there is no Islamic counter – no authoritative ruling that the land must be under *Muslim* sovereignty. He simply says that there is no Islamic argument to object to Jewish sovereignty in the Land, and that there exist numerous implications to the *possibility* that the Jews are living in the Land with divine approval.”
    – That is not what he is saying, he says:
    “The Qur’an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.”

    “Does Muslim rule for a *specific* time contradict a *general* right?”
    – This is were we seem to talk in seperate lines. Where do you find that right to be “GENERAL”? So far i have not seen any reason to believe that it was general, in fact, it sounds specific in its very nature.

    But yes, quite obviously, Bani Ismail controlling the land CONTRADICTS Bani Israel having the right to rule the land. It was in no way impossible for ‘Umar (ra) to etablish some kind of special autonomy for the descendants of Israel, but he did’nt. In fact, it remained ruled by descendants of Ismail (as) for so long without any of the major scholars objecting to it. The Messiah (May peace and blessings be upon him) was also a descendant of Israel, he’s grandfather being Imran ibn Mathan, descendant of Dawood (as), and never did he spoke of restoration if this particular right.

    Fact is that the jews in Holy Land were treated the exact same way as any other religious minority under “Ahl al-Kitab”.

    “I could rightly argue that Jewish rule in the Land at that period of time was impossible – the Jews were too spread apart across the world, with the various sovereigns and armies around not being all that friendly towards them. ”
    – I would like to see an argument that at least some kind of acknowledgement of a special right was impossible? I do not believe that was impossible, and the thing i want you to notice is that no special acknowledgement of all were given to the jews, and no one objected to the ruling by the descendants of Ismael.

    I think i will write more later, so keep in touch.

  20. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “It’ all right that the prophet ordered to stick to the rightly guided caliph but does the prophet indicated Omar as being one? And does a rightly guided caliph mean infallible one like a catholic pope?”
    – It is well known that ‘Umar (ra) was the best of all the sahaba, only second to Abu Bakr (ra), and he was one of the Mubashirin – people promised paradise. There is absolute consensus that Umar (ra) was among the rightly guided caliphs, note that he is superior to all other caliphs except Abu Bakr (ra). I will present some of his virtues:


    Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, hadith no. #793:
    Wahb Al-Souay narrates: I saw Ali deliver a sermon, and he said: Who is the best of this Ummah after its Prophet? And i answered: You are, O commander of the faithful. He said: No, the best of this Ummah after its Prophet is Abu Bakr, and then Umar.

    Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5896:
    Jabir reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I entered Paradise and saw in it a house or a palace. I said: For whom is it resersred? They (the Angels) said: It is for ‘Umar b. Khattab. (The Holy Prophet said to ‘Umar b. Khattab): I intenied to get into it but I thought of your feelings. Thereupon ‘Umar wept and said: Apostle of Allah, could I feel any jealousy in your case?

    Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5901:
    A’isha reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There had been among the people before you inspired persons (Muhaddathun) and if there were any such among my Umma Umar b. Khattab would be one of them. Ibn Wahb explained the word Muhaddathun as those who receive hint from the High (Mulhamun).

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 14:
    Narrated ‘Amr bin Al-As:

    The Prophet deputed me to read the Army of Dhat-as-Salasil. I came to him and said, “Who is the most beloved person to you?” He said, ” ‘Aisha.” I asked, “Among the men?” He said, “Her father.” I said, “Who then?” He said, “Then ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab.” He then named other men.

    Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5909:
    Abu Musa al-Ash’ari reported that while Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was in one of the gardens of Medina, reclining against a pillow and fixing a stick in a mud, that a person came asking for the gate to be opened, whereupon he said: Open it for him and give him glad tidings of Paradise and, lo, it was Abu Bakr. I opened (the gate) for him and gave him the glad tidings of Paradise. Then another person asked for the door to be opened, whereupon he said: Open it and give him the glad tidings of Piradise. He said: I went away and, lo, it was ‘Umar. I opened it for him and gave him the glad tidings of Paradise. Then still another man asked for the door to be opened, and thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Open it and give him the glad tidings of Paradise after a trial would afflict him. I went and, lo, it was ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan. 1 opened the door and gave him the glad tidings of Paradise and informed him (what the Holy Prophet had said). Thereupon he said: O Allah, grant me steadfastness. Allah is one Whose help is to be sought.

    But no, they are not infallible, but their example should be followed. This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule, and keep in mind that Uthman (ra) and Mu’awiya (ra) also ruled the land without any objections from any of the sahaba or the successors.

  21. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Based on the facts above, there is evidence that clearly proves that the Children of Israel at SOME point were given the right to inhabit the land.”

    But that’s a slippery slope towards complete irrelevance of the Quran.

    Once the word of G-d as recorded by the Quran (if we assume the Quran is the word of G-d) is not understood as permanent, EVERYTHING in the Quran becomes unimportant.

    The Quran commands Muslims to pray five times a day? Perhaps they don’t have to care any more.

    The Quran says that the Jews will be punished (exiled) twice? Perhaps they will be exiled a third time.

    The Quran says that Muhammed was the greatest prophet? Perhaps there will be a greater one.

    Everything in the Quran can be read to refer to some point in history. But in this case the Quran specifically talks about the future as well as the past. The Quran tells us that G-d commanded the children of Israel (a term which always referred to the Jews in the Quran) to “enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously”. The Quran does not, however, claim that G-d withdrew His command or changed it.

    “Fact is that the jews in Holy Land were treated the exact same way as any other religious minority under “Ahl al-Kitab”.”

    And why wouldn’t they have been? The land was under Muslim (Muhammedan) rule. The Quran doesn’t demand that the land be under Jewish rule, it merely allows for it to be while not specifically acknowledging that non-Jews have any rights at all (to the land).

    The problem is that it is not at all obvious that Umar would not have given up sovereignty or granted autonomy to a Jewish state if enough Jews had followed his call to return to Israel.

    “I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule”

    The Bani Israel have a right to dwell in Israel, not necessarily a right to rule. However, they do rule now, and there is nothing in the Quran that indicates that such rule is illegal.

    In fact, at the moment, it is the ONLY way for Jews to live in Israel, and hence the only correct solution.

    The name “Palestine”, however, still remains a pagan invention and shouldn’t be used by Muslims, I think. The Romans made it up to destroy the connection of the land with G-d, and it is today still used for that purpose among Arab nationalists.

    As Drima said, the Quran refers to the land as Israel, namely when it refers to the land as the land given to the children of Israel by G-d.

    And if the Quran said that a land between France and Poland was given to the Germans, how would it not be Germany rather than [some fantasy name]?

    Umars rule over Israel was established by conquest. Jewish rule over Israel today was (as in the past) also established by conquest.

    But the Jewish right to Israel is, according to the Quran, given by G-d.

    No Arab has such an inherent right to the land of Israel.

    (If you don’t want to call the land “Israel”, just call it “the land given to the children of Israel by G-d”. I get the feeling that you keep calling it “Palestine” for the same reasons the pagans did: to disconnect the land from the people.)

    Now, Arabs that LIVE in Israel have a right to live there, perhaps. The Zionists certainly accepted that and Israel today has Jewish and Arab citizens.

    However, the Arab invaders of 1948 certainly didn’t pay much attention to the right of Jews to dwell in the land, or why did they expel the Jews of Hevron?

  22. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Andrew i just wish that you payed more attention to the previous posts.

    “But that’s a slippery slope towards complete irrelevance of the Quran.

    Once the word of G-d as recorded by the Quran (if we assume the Quran is the word of G-d) is not understood as permanent, EVERYTHING in the Quran becomes unimportant.

    The Quran commands Muslims to pray five times a day? Perhaps they don’t have to care any more.

    The Quran says that the Jews will be punished (exiled) twice? Perhaps they will be exiled a third time.

    The Quran says that Muhammed was the greatest prophet? Perhaps there will be a greater one.”
    – That is an invalid logic for following reasons:
    They were being given the right to live in the land on the reason of their faith, not of their lineage, and today – according to the Quran – the jews do not hold the same beliefs, but they have went astray along with the christians. It all happended in connection with Musa (as), who according to Islam was a muslim. On that level, it can be said that the land belongs to those who believe in Allah (tt) and not those who have went astray, which is the Muslims.

    This is in fact very obvious from the Quran:
    Al Maeda, 20-21:
    Remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
    “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

    Please note the following:
    1. Prophet Moses (pbuh) first ordering his people to remember Allah (tt), stressing the importance of obedience to Allah in this aspect.
    2. Just after transmitting Allahs (tt) command for them to enter the land, they are warned not to turn back – that would cause them to be overthrown (…)..
    3. The word translated as “Turn back” is “Tartadu” (Second person, plural), it derives from “Irtidad” which means “Apostasy” (the word Riddah is from the same rood).
    4. Imam Qurtubi’s mentioning in his Tafsir:
    قوله تعالىٰ: { وَلاَ تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِكُمْ } أي لا ترجعوا عن طاعتي وما أمرتكم به من قتال الجبارين. وقيل: لا ترجعوا عن طاعة الله إلى معصيته، والمعنى واحد.
    And with regards to The Most High’s words, [turn not back ignominiously], it means: Do not withdraw from obedience to Me, and what I ordered you to of fighting the Jabariyen. And it is also said (that it means): Dont turn away from Obedience in favor of sins. And this (i.e. these two meanings) are one (i.e. the same in their essense).

    It remains quite obvious that this land was granted to them not without condition, it was granted to them because of their faith.

    “And why wouldn’t they have been? The land was under Muslim (Muhammedan) rule. The Quran doesn’t demand that the land be under Jewish rule, it merely allows for it to be while not specifically acknowledging that non-Jews have any rights at all (to the land).”
    – Perhaps because you claim that the very same shari3a that ‘Umar (ra) upheld decides for the country to belong to the jews? Should i remind you of your own words:
    “Both Tanakh and Quran acknowledge that G-d gave the land of Israel to the Jews”

    The land were granted to the jews according to you, and Umar (Ra) was the one who upheld that very law. How is it even permissible that a descendant of Ismail should rule what is supposed to be the property of Israel’s children? “Necessity”, according to you, but why then did’nt they have any special treatment when after all it was Allah that granted to them their land?

    “The problem is that it is not at all obvious that Umar would not have given up sovereignty or granted autonomy to a Jewish state if enough Jews had followed his call to return to Israel.”
    – Why is that not obvious?

    “The Bani Israel have a right to dwell in Israel, not necessarily a right to rule. However, they do rule now, and there is nothing in the Quran that indicates that such rule is illegal.”
    – Per default, according to the Shari’a there is no soil on earth that jews and christians have no right to inhabit, except Arabia. This is why Umar (ra) expelled the jews from Khaybar and payed them the value of their land.

    “As Drima said, the Quran refers to the land as Israel, namely when it refers to the land as the land given to the children of Israel by G-d.”
    – The term used in the Qur’an is “the land” – not Israel, not Palestine, not anything else. Simply “the land”. It remains unnamed.

    Regarding naming the country “Palestine”, first of all read my discussion with Roman. It will explain a lot. May i have your comment on how Imam Qurtubi could tell the story by saying: “And then, when the Banu Israel went out from Egypt, Allah ordered them to fight Ahl Arihaa’ from the soils of Palestine…”
    لما خرجت بنو إسرائيل من مصر أمرهم بجهاد أهل أرِيحاء من بلاد فلسطِين

    He is one of the most classic authorities of Tafsir and Maliki Fiqh, and yet he uses the term “Palestine”!

    And it goes way more back than this! The term was famously used among the Tabi’in, Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) frequently uses the term in his history work, and virtually all the classic scholars uses that as a name for the geographic area while i have seen none use the term Israel! Even Prophet Muhammad (saw) was reported to have used that term, refer to: Musnad al-Imam Ahmad, under “Baqi Musnad al-Ansar”, #23327. I have not yet done any research with regards to the Isnad (narration-chain), but if you like i will do it for you?

  23. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Just looked up the isnad. The hadith is as follows:
    حدثنا ‏ ‏سليمان بن داود ‏ ‏قال حدثنا ‏ ‏حرب بن شداد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏يحيى بن أبي كثير ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏الحضرمي بن لاحق ‏ ‏أن ‏ ‏ذكوان أبا صالح ‏ ‏أخبره أن ‏ ‏عائشة ‏ ‏أخبرته ‏
    قالت دخل علي رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وأنا أبكي فقال لي ما يبكيك قلت يا رسول الله ذكرت ‏ ‏الدجال ‏ ‏فبكيت فقال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إن يخرج ‏ ‏الدجال ‏ ‏وأنا حي كفيتكموه وإن يخرج ‏ ‏الدجال ‏ ‏بعدي فإن ربكم عز وجل ليس بأعور وإنه يخرج في يهودية ‏ ‏أصبهان ‏ ‏حتى يأتي ‏ ‏المدينة ‏ ‏فينزل ناحيتها ولها يومئذ سبعة أبواب على كل ‏ ‏نقب ‏ ‏منها ملكان فيخرج إليه شرار أهلها حتى ‏ ‏الشام ‏ ‏مدينة ‏ ‏بفلسطين ‏ ‏بباب ‏ ‏لد ‏ ‏وقال ‏ ‏أبو داود ‏ ‏مرة حتى يأتي ‏ ‏ فلسطين ‏ ‏باب لد ‏ ‏فينزل ‏ ‏عيسى ‏ ‏عليه السلام ‏ ‏فيقتله ثم يمكث ‏ ‏عيسى ‏ ‏عليه السلام ‏ ‏في الأرض أربعين سنة إماما عدلا وحكما مقسطا
    It is a narration dealing with the false Massiah that will arrive, and some events that will happen in this regard in Sham, where the term “Falastin” is explicitly used.

    The narration chain is as follows:
    Solaiman ibn Dawood-Harb bin Shadad-Yahya bn Abi Kathir-Alhadhramy bn Lahq-Zekouan Abu Salih-Aisha (ra).

    1. Solaiman ibn Dawood. He is Solaiman ibn Dawood ibn Jarood Abu Dawood al-Tiyalisi al-Basri. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states in Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb: Hafiz, of Persian origin… Nu’man ibn Abdelsalam said he is a trustworthy narrator… Ibn Almadini said: I have not seen anyone more learned than him… Imam Ahmad said he was trustworthy and truthful… He died in Basra in the year of 204 AH.

    2. Harb ibn Shadad. Ibn Hajar writes in his Taqreeb:
    1165- حرب ابن شداد اليشكري أبو الخطاب البصري ثقة من السابعة مات سنة إحدى وستين
    Harb ibn Shadad Alyashkari Abu Alkhattab Al-Basri, trustworthy, died in the year of 161 AH.

    3. Yahya ibn Abu Kathir. Ibn Hajar writes, again from his Taqreeb:
    7632- يحيى ابن أبي كثير الطائي مولاهم أبو نصر اليمامي ثقة ثبت لكنه يدلس ويرسل من الخامسة مات سنة اثنتين وثلاثين وقيل قبل ذلك
    He says that he is proven trustworthy, died in the year of 132 AH and it is said that he died before this as well, but he makes Tadlees and Irsal. These are complex terms in hadith science and i will not get further into them now, because they seem rather irrelevant in this particular narration where the people he narrated from were contemporaries and trustworthy people and he uses the term “haddathani”.

    4. Hadhramy ibn Lahq. Ibn Hajar writes:
    1396- حضرمي ابن لاحق التميمي اليمامي القاص بتشديد المهملة لا بأس به
    Nothing wrong with him.

    5. Zekouan Abu Saleh al-Saman al-Ziyat al-Madini. Ibn Hajar writes:
    1841- ذكوان أبو صالح السمان الزيات المدني ثقة ثبت
    His trustworthiness is proven.

    6. Aisha (ra), mother of the faithful, and beloved wife of the Prophet (pbuh).

    Conclusion: It is a strong narration.

  24. Roman Kalik Says:

    – What i meant was: There is nothing linguistic that PREVENTS the use of Bani Israel in a narrower sense, like for example, “Then we said so and so to the Muslims”, in this case only the muslims present at the point where i said it but not all muslims included in what i just said. I hope you understand what i mean. “Then it was said said to Bani Israel” does not necessarily means that this command encompass all Bani Israel at all times. This is why Alsamarqandi specifies it.

    *nod* And neither does it prevent the other interpretation, as there is no linguistic reason to assert merely the limited form.

    Further, I’m not sure these semantics are really that relevant – what is more relevant the matter of inheritance, of the obligations and of the rights. Jews are born into the nation and the faith, so it is quite reasonable to deduce that they have inherited the obligations and gifts of their fathers.

    Yes, this is Abu al-Layth Al-Samarqandi who was a hanafi scholar. I do not know exactly to which extent his Fiqh-stances are relied upon in the Hanafi Madhhab, but i cannot see the relevance as this is Tafsir, not Fiqh. The 4 madhhabs do only apply in Fiqh.

    Very well, I stand corrected on that issue. Then my question altered – how authoritative is his interpretation of the Qu’ran, then? How many similar works exist? And how each is treated withing the context of Islam?

    – That is not what he is saying, he says:
    “The Qur’an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled.”

    I stand corrected. I focused too much on the rest of the article that I forgot this particular line of commentary.

    – I am sorry but you need an explicit text who says so in order to etablish what you just said. I mean – i cannot see how you make the analogy between the people of Musa (as) and the latter generations (not those in the time of the great Prophets), and i cannot see why only the latter generations being mentioned as Bani Israel (which they were) etablish that “Uskunu al-Ardh” is a command that applies to them as well.

    Sura 17, same English version that you used:

    2. We gave Moses the Book, and made it a Guide to the Children of Israel, (commanding): “Take not other than Me as Disposer of (your) affairs.”

    4. And We gave (Clear) Warning to the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)!

    101. To Moses We did give Nine Clear Sings: As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: “O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery!

    104. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

    This is the important reference, in my eyes. Mind, I’m pretty sure there is a typo that went with this translated version since its first day – “As” is “ask” in every other translation of the Qu’ran that I could find, but correct me if I’m wrong here.

    Note the difference. Verse 2, 4, and 104 all refer to the Children of Israel in the past, from the time of receiving the Book to the time of them settling the land – several generations passed from Moses to David and Solomon!

    And most importantly, we now return to verse 101 – which refers to the Children of Israel at the time of Mohammed. More than that, Mohammed received something of a guide here by which he could identify the Children of Israel of his time and era.

    – This is were we seem to talk in seperate lines. Where do you find that right to be “GENERAL”? So far i have not seen any reason to believe that it was general, in fact, it sounds specific in its very nature.

    Again, I believe this matter is becoming semantic – refer to previous question on the issue.

    But yes, quite obviously, Bani Ismail controlling the land CONTRADICTS Bani Israel having the right to rule the land. It was in no way impossible for ‘Umar (ra) to etablish some kind of special autonomy for the descendants of Israel, but he did’nt. In fact, it remained ruled by descendants of Ismail (as) for so long without any of the major scholars objecting to it. The Messiah (May peace and blessings be upon him) was also a descendant of Israel, he’s grandfather being Imran ibn Mathan, descendant of Dawood (as), and never did he spoke of restoration if this particular right.

    The majority of the Children of Israel had not been living in the Holy Land at the time. Quite the contrary, most had been massacred and exiled, with communities often living abroad and beyond the Muslim rule of that period, particularly that of Umar. The Jewish population of the Holy Land had been *very* scarce at that time, having suffered from severe limitations and oppression until Umar’s conquest of the land. And frankly… Umar did treat them with extreme favor. He allowed Jews to enter the Holy Land, and for the first time since the 500-long expulsion from the Holy Land, Jews could practice their faith freely in the country and live in Jerusalem and the nearby area. Had he simply conquered the area without further ado, the Jews would have largely remained outside the Holy Land – and wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near Jerusalem.

    Now, back to the security of the era. Imagine the reality of that time and era for a moment, and this is purely from a security-related point of view now. Imagine a thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands even, traveling through lands generally not favorable to the Jews – especially if they ever raised their heads too much – and they *would* have traveled, most of them, had they heard of the restoration their kingdom, a monumental event central to their religion, hopes, and dreams.

    And most of them would have ended up dead. Pretty much all of them, in fact. It wasn’t a particularly safe period.

    This is possibility number one.

    Possibility number two: Verse 4 of Sura 17 mentions that the Children of Israel were to be punished twice for their arrogance. This refers to the two cataclysmic evens for the Children of Israel – destruction and desecration of the center of the faith, eradication the state, and near-total exile.

    Perhaps the punishment had simply not been finished yet at the time of Umar, and he would have not taken it upon himself to facilitate an event that may yet be opposed to the will of the Almighty.

    By either possibility, publicly asserting that the Jews currently had a divine right to become the sovereigns of the Holy Land would have been either greatly inadvisable or entirely forbidden. Later scholars, lesser when compared to the first few, would have given the issue little consideration, if any at all – both because this was not an issue that had much anything to do with Muslims of their time, and because they were lesser and did not enjoy either divine revelation, inspiration, or anything close to perfection.

    Fact is that the jews in Holy Land were treated the exact same way as any other religious minority under “Ahl al-Kitab”.

    Yes and no. Under Umar Jews actually returned to the Holy Land with his blessing and that of his governing officials – which, by the way, may support your argument for mere “presence” rather than the added “sovereignty”.

    But no, they are not infallible, but their example should be followed. This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule, and keep in mind that Uthman (ra) and Mu’awiya (ra) also ruled the land without any objections from any of the sahaba or the successors.

    You know, funny thing is… If we assume that Umar couldn’t assert that Jews were of those that inherited the right to live in and rule the Holy Land, the later caliphs would then… follow that example, and that of Uthman and Mu’awiya.

    If we assume that the issue was the *period*, be it for its dangers or for Divine Will or for another theory I did not consider here, then the Sahaba would also not make such a statement. And the successors would simply follow the example of their predecessors at this point.

    Whew, this debate is certainly keeping me up late!

  25. Nobody Says:

    But no, they are not infallible, but their example should be followed. This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule, and keep in mind that Uthman (ra) and Mu’awiya (ra) also ruled the land without any objections from any of the sahaba or the successors.

    Well. You know, if you have in your books something about Bani Israil coming back to reclaim the land (I assume that you have it, I did not read it actually) and then you have them eventually coming back and doing just that, then in your place I would have made some rethink about who is meant by Bani Israil.

    Let alone that in our world that it does not happen on a weekly basis that people who spent thousands of years in the diaspora come back to retake their place on the way resurrecting the language that was basically dead. Don’t you think there is something out of ordinary going on here? Let alone that it seems that in your book you have two Jewish exiles mentioned together with the prophecy of Bani Israil eventual return.

    You know, we can be splitting hairs until we are blue in the face about all sorts of things such as why Umar who was basically fallible is nevertheless considered infallible in everything he did. Not that I consider sacred books the ultimate authority and care too much for what is written in them, nevertheless I do think that the minimal intellectual honesty requires recognition that there are some parallels here that seem to go way beyond mere coincidences.

  26. lirun Says:

    hi

    this is all very interesting.. but im not entirely sure i see the point of the discussion..

  27. SudaneseDrima Says:

    “FACT: In the Quran, that piece of land is not called Palestine. It’s called Israel.”

    CORRECTION: Ahmad is right. I screwed up this one. However, when the land is talked about, it is often mentioned in relation to “Bani Israel.”

    Anyways, I’m staying out of this one since I’m not well versed in the details of this area. I’d rather watch and enjoy. 🙂

  28. Israel in the Quran? : The Sudanese Thinker Says:

    […] my, Islam supports Zionism? Find out here at this nice discussion and make up your own mind. As for me, this is my position: FACT: Moses is a Prophet recognized and […]

  29. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Dear Roman:

    Thank you for that long comment. Forgive me for being quite busy right now, i will respond later i promise. In the meantime, please read what i wrote to Andrew:

    They were being given the right to live in the land on the reason of their faith, not of their lineage, and today – according to the Quran – the jews do not hold the same beliefs, but they have went astray along with the christians. It all happended in connection with Musa (as), who according to Islam was a muslim. On that level, it can be said that the land belongs to those who believe in Allah (tt) and not those who have went astray, which is the Muslims.

    This is in fact very obvious from the Quran:
    Al Maeda, 20-21:
    Remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
    “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

    Please note the following:
    1. Prophet Moses (pbuh) first ordering his people to remember Allah (tt), stressing the importance of obedience to Allah in this aspect.
    2. Just after transmitting Allahs (tt) command for them to enter the land, they are warned not to turn back – that would cause them to be overthrown (…)..
    3. The word translated as “Turn back” is “Tartadu” (Second person, plural), it derives from “Irtidad” which means “Apostasy” (the word Riddah is from the same rood).
    4. Imam Qurtubi’s mentioning in his Tafsir:
    قوله تعالىٰ: { وَلاَ تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِكُمْ } أي لا ترجعوا عن طاعتي وما أمرتكم به من قتال الجبارين. وقيل: لا ترجعوا عن طاعة الله إلى معصيته، والمعنى واحد.
    And with regards to The Most High’s words, [turn not back ignominiously], it means: Do not withdraw from obedience to Me, and what I ordered you to of fighting the Jabariyen. And it is also said (that it means): Dont turn away from Obedience in favor of sins. And this (i.e. these two meanings) are one (i.e. the same in their essense).

    It remains quite obvious that this land was granted to them not without condition, it was granted to them because of their faith.

  30. Nobody Says:

    Ahmad

    Frankly, the more you explain it, the more it starts looking exactly as what Roman is saying and how it’s understood in the Jewish tradition. Basically the Jewish tradition would readily agree with the idea that the both times the Jews have been kicked out of Israel it happened because of them going astray.

    They were being given the right to live in the land on the reason of their faith, not of their lineage, and today – according to the Quran – the jews do not hold the same beliefs, but they have went astray along with the christians. It all happended in connection with Musa (as), who according to Islam was a muslim. On that level, it can be said that the land belongs to those who believe in Allah (tt) and not those who have went astray, which is the Muslims.

    I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Jews and Christians don’t believe in God, only Muslims do? Anyway, what follows from your quotes is first of all that the land is indeed given to Bani Israil. Nowhere it’s said that Bani Israil are Muslims. In the passages you quote Jews are only instructed to behave nicely and be good boys or else. Nowhere it’s explicitly said that the promise is no longer valid. Nowhere it’s said that the promise can be extended or transferred to somebody else.

    With a brief look at history it’s perfectly compatible with the Jewish idea that Jews have a continuous relation to the land and twice when they have gone completely overboard with their shit, they were indeed overthrown, but the whole thing nevertheless continues as it is which is witnessed by their subsequent returns to the land. Probably because occasionally the Jews do manage to get hold of themselves and behave.

  31. Andrew Brehm Says:

    Ahmad,

    I have read all the comments. I just don’t agree with your assertion that “children of Israel” (or “Bani Israel”) means anything other than what the same term means in Judaism (or everywhere else for that matter).

    Muhammed was addressing Arabs with a tribal mindset. For them “Bani Israel” certainly meant Jewish tribes. Some of them even lived around Mecca.

    Yes, the Quran speaks of Jews losing their way (twice) and getting punished for it (also twice). But it doesn’t say that the Jews won’t find their way again (and perhaps they have now).

    Your assumption that those fighting Israel today are acting on G-d’s behalf contradicts the Quran, probability, and reality.

    First, the Quran would have predicted such an event, instead of predicting the return of the children of Israel.

    Second, the idea that G-d supports secular Arab nationalism in its fight against all sorts of minorities including the returning children of Israel is just a bit too convenient to be true.

    And third, Israel is winning. Events happened that at least seem miraculous and they happened in Israel’s favour. (Also, Israel is doing much better economically than those Arab countries that fight it; whereas those Arab countries that don’t fight are also doing better than those who fight Israel.)

    If G-d wanted to help Israel, He couldn’t do a better job (assuming that Israel’s own shortcomings prevent even greater successes).

    And if G-d wanted to help the anti-Zionist forces, He couldn’t do a worse job, because they keep losing, even with modern weaponry, advantage of numbers, advantage of ruthlessness, and advantage of first move (most of the time).

    You have the Quran telling you that

    a) G-d gave the land to the children of Israel

    b) the children of Israel would lose His favour twice and be punished twice

    c) the children of Israel would return

    And you interpret that to mean that

    a) the children of Israel are not actually the people that descended from Jacob, despite the fact that all other writings consistently used the term “children of Israel” to refer to that people AND despite the fact that the Quran also uses that term to refer to that people in other chapters AND despite the fact that “children of Israel” would be understood, if not by everyone then at least by many, as referring, literally, to the “children of Israel” (i.e. the descendants of Jacob)

    b) the Jews have lost His favour again (or haven’t gotten it back), despite the fact that the Quran doesn’t mention such

    c) the founding of a state for the children of Israel is not the predicted return

    Using that method, you can re-interpret absolutely everything in the Quran.

    Fact is that the Quran says that the Jews have a right to live in the land of Israel. And that’s exactly what the Zionists said and what the (secular) Arab dictatorships and the (secular) PLO opposed.

    Yes, that doesn’t mean that non-Jews don’t have a right to live in Israel (and the ones who live there certainly do have a right to be there), but the Zionists never doubted that right (until they were attacked by those non-Jews) and the state of Israel does have Arab citizens.

    Your claim about the children of Israel being anything other than what the term means in every other context is simply false.

    And if the term meant “Muslims”, then what rights to Christian Palestinians have to live in Israel/Palestine?

    Do other Muslims (re-)interpret the Quran as you do? Is that why Bethlehem is quickly becoming a Muslim-majority town?

  32. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “the Jewish idea that Jews have a continuous relation to the land and twice when they have gone completely overboard with their shit, they were indeed overthrown, but the whole thing nevertheless continues as it is which is witnessed by their subsequent returns to the land.”

    That’s a good summary, I guess.

    I don’t know, of course, what really happened when the Jews were overthrown before. But at the moment, should Israel lose against the terrorists (which would also mean that Hamas will have to entertain their own hospitals and not just send all the really sick patients to Israel for treatment), it doesn’t seem to me like it was the Jews who have lost their way.

    Surely when the grand mufti of Jerusalem made a pact with the devil (aka Adolph Hitler), it was HE and his followers who lost the way of Islam.

  33. Nobody Says:

    Ahmad

    You should also take into account that Jews have a different concept of what sinful means. From what you say it looks as if Islam holds practicing Judaism as something which is bad enough to justify stripping a person from all promises God or man has given to him.

    Now this point will be lost on many Jews since Judaism itself does not think that there is anything inherently wrong in a person being a Muslim. From the point of view of Judaism what matters is practice as such which is basically ten basic commandments. What people believe is more like a matter of their personal peculiarities.

    The chances are good that if you come to a very senior and respectful Jewish scholar with the stories of how Muslims believe that Muhammad was the God’s ultimate prophet and considered infallible, perfect and whatever, the rabbi would say something in the sense that these Muslim guys are smoking too much, but he would agree that what really counts is not this but whether they believe in a single God, who is the creator; if they address him directly without the medium of images, pictures and whatever; if they are setting up courts to rule themselves… that kind of stuff.

    From the point of view of Judaism people can be people of a book, a movie, or a cartoon. It’s not that important. You can believe that the world stands on a turtle or is shaped as a suitcase. It’s all right as far as Judaism is concerned since Judaism is less preoccupied with what theories people happen to believe in. That’s why many Jews will struggle to grasp the link you draw between those passages where Jews are warned against sinning and the basic fact that Jews tend to practice Jewish religion instead of Islam since Jews themselves don’t have similar expectations or demands from other people.

  34. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Nobody:
    “Frankly, the more you explain it, the more it starts looking exactly as what Roman is saying and how it’s understood in the Jewish tradition. Basically the Jewish tradition would readily agree with the idea that the both times the Jews have been kicked out of Israel it happened because of them going astray.”
    – No, it is far away from the same. While Roman believe that it was once promised to the Children of Israel (among them is the jews) and still is, i believe that it was promised to the Children of Israel (who were Muslims), but that is not valid anymore because the reason for that promise were their faith, which according to the Quran was Islam, which jews do not hold anymore. Musa (as) was a MUSLIM according to Islam. He was not a jew. The jews later went astray from Musa’s (as) religion, which was Islam, and thus judaism was created. Please, i ask you again – NOTE how the Quran several times negates the term “yahudi” for Ibrahim (as) and several others of the great prophets of his lineage.

    The difference is that according to Islam, jews ARE astray. Same with all other faiths. They ARE astray. “Surely, the Religion acceptable to Allah is Al-Islam” (3:19).

    Do you get it now? If you admit that the Quran strips them off their land should they go astray, then the case is closed.

    “I am not sure I understand your last sentence. Jews and Christians don’t believe in God, only Muslims do?”
    – Christians and Jews believe in God, but they do not believe in all that he has revealed, among them is Prophets (as) and books, which constitute failure to accept Islam. And like i said before, in the Quran the only religion acceptable to Allah is Islam.

    “Anyway, what follows from your quotes is first of all that the land is indeed given to Bani Israil. Nowhere it’s said that Bani Israil are Muslims.”
    – That it WAS given to Bani Israel, and also that should they go astray, they would be overthrown.

    I am not saying that Muslims are Bani Israel, but that the great patriarchs of Bani Israel were muslims. Look:
    And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam.” (2:132).

    and:
    Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma’il Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? but Allah is not unmindful of what ye do! (2:140)

    “In the passages you quote Jews are only instructed to behave nicely and be good boys or else. Nowhere it’s explicitly said that the promise is no longer valid. Nowhere it’s said that the promise can be extended or transferred to somebody else. ”
    – It is not transferred, for if we assume that there is an everlasting promise, then it was for those who were Muslims who happended to be the Bani Israel at that point of time.

    “You should also take into account that Jews have a different concept of what sinful means. From what you say it looks as if Islam holds practicing Judaism as something which is bad enough to justify stripping a person from all promises God or man has given to him.

    Now this point will be lost on many Jews since Judaism itself does not think that there is anything inherently wrong in a person being a Muslim. From the point of view of Judaism what matters is practice as such which is basically ten basic commandments. What people believe is more like a matter of their personal peculiarities. ”
    – Like i will mention to Andrew, a Quranic concept should be seen in the shade of the Islamic laws that it comes with, not in the shade of jewish law.

    Andrew Brehm:
    “I have read all the comments. I just don’t agree with your assertion that “children of Israel” (or “Bani Israel” means anything other than what the same term means in Judaism (or everywhere else for that matter).

    Muhammed was addressing Arabs with a tribal mindset. For them “Bani Israel” certainly meant Jewish tribes. Some of them even lived around Mecca.”
    – Like i said so many times before: When analyzing a QURANIC concept, you must do it in the shade of its environment, which is Islam. You cannot take a quranic verse, interpret it with christian/jewish logic and expecting Muslims to believe in that interpretation.

    For example, you say “Muhammad was addressing”, but muslims do not believe that this was the word of Muhammad, we believe it to be the word of God.

    I do hope that you will keep this in mind from now on.

    “And you interpret that to mean that

    a) the children of Israel are not actually the people that descended from Jacob”
    – When did i said that? I actually did nothing but keep stressing that it means the descendants of Jacob, while you interpret it as only ONE line of the descendants.

    If you really did read all the comments, you obviously did not do so carefully.

    “Your assumption that those fighting Israel today are acting on G-d’s behalf contradicts the Quran, probability, and reality.”
    – I did not state that.

    “First, the Quran would have predicted such an event, instead of predicting the return of the children of Israel.”
    – You have ret to prove that the Quran predicts that the land will be ruled by Bani Israil again, and even if you can, you have to proove that this do not refer to the return of the Messiah. Before that, this remains an unsupported claim of yours.

    “Second, the idea that G-d supports secular Arab nationalism in its fight against all sorts of minorities including the returning children of Israel is just a bit too convenient to be true.”
    – I will not respond to that.

    “And third, Israel is winning. Events happened that at least seem miraculous and they happened in Israel’s favour. (Also, Israel is doing much better economically than those Arab countries that fight it; whereas those Arab countries that don’t fight are also doing better than those who fight Israel.)

    If G-d wanted to help Israel, He couldn’t do a better job (assuming that Israel’s own shortcomings prevent even greater successes).

    And if G-d wanted to help the anti-Zionist forces, He couldn’t do a worse job, because they keep losing, even with modern weaponry, advantage of numbers, advantage of ruthlessness, and advantage of first move (most of the time).”
    – I assume that you here are trying to awake the patriot and burning feelings inside me, but i will respond:

    Holocaust happended. So many jews were killed. If God wanted to help the jews, why did’nt he start there?

    I hope you see why thats a strange, invalid and obscure logic. In Islam, there are two kinds of wishes of God, one that is conditioned and one that is unconditioned. For example, God wishes for all mankind to worship him, but this do not happen unconditional. But God also wished to create the worlds, and that happended unconditional.

    Thus, merely something happening is not a proove that Allah (tt) is supporting what it is happening. I do not know of a religious person who would disagree with me on this.

    “You have the Quran telling you that

    a) G-d gave the land to the children of Israel

    b) the children of Israel would lose His favour twice and be punished twice

    c) the children of Israel would return”
    – Regarding a), like i said, that happended as a result of their faith, and not their lineage, and were a virtue of them being Muslim, not jews. Regarding c), I will await your evidences regarding the return.

    “And you interpret that to mean that

    a) the children of Israel are not actually the people that descended from Jacob, despite the fact that all other writings consistently used the term “children of Israel” to refer to that people AND despite the fact that the Quran also uses that term to refer to that people in other chapters AND despite the fact that “children of Israel” would be understood, if not by everyone then at least by many, as referring, literally, to the “children of Israel” (i.e. the descendants of Jacob)”
    – That is somewhat manipulative as i wrote above, i believe Bani Israel to refer to the descendants of Yaqoob (as), but i believe Yaqoob, Musa, Sulaiman, Dawood and Zulkifl (peace be upon them) to be MUSLIMS, not jews and not christians.

    “b) the Jews have lost His favour again (or haven’t gotten it back), despite the fact that the Quran doesn’t mention such”
    – As i The Quran mentions the, obvious to anyone who have read it.

    1. On the general level, verse 3:19 mentions that the only religion acceptable to Allah is Islam. Also was the term “jew” denied for Abraham (3:67), for his offspring (2:140), and that his grandchild Yaqoob (as) ordered his sons to stick to the religion of Islam (2:132). Allah also says:
    They say: “Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation).” Say thou: “Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.” (2.135)

    Do you see the jews following Islam today, or do they follow judaism?
    2. On the specific level, every single day Al Fatiha is recited houndreds of millions of times all over the earth, may i tell you its meaning?

    From Tafsir Al Jalalain, from Imam Suyuti:

    صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنْعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ } بالهداية ويبدل من الذين بصلته { غَيْرِ ٱلْمَغْضُوبِ عَلَيْهِمْ } وهم اليهود { وَلاَ } وغير { ٱلضَّالّينَ } وهم النصارى ونكتة البدل إفادة أن المهتدين ليسوا يهوداً ولا نصارى
    the path of those whom You have favoured, with guidance (from alladhīna together with its relative clause is substituted by [ghayri l-maghdūbi ‘alayhim]) not [the path] of those against whom there is wrath, namely, the Jews, and nor of those who are astray, namely, the Christians. The subtle meaning implied by this substitution is that the guided ones are neither the Jews nor the Christians.

  35. Andrew Brehm Says:

    Ahmad,

    You still owe us the evidence for your claim that “Bani Israel” in that context means “Muslims” rather than what “Bani Israel” usually means.

    Is it not true that the Quran also refers to the “Bani Israel” in other chapters?

    “Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.” [5.78]

    Does the term “Children of Israel” refer to Muslims or Jews? The sentence above clearly speaks of people who “rejected Faith” but are “Children of Israel”. How can that be if “Children of Israel” is not a people but a term for believers?

    “And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic.'” [5.110]

    The “unbelievers among” the “Children of Israel”? If “Children of Israel” means “Muslims”, how can there be “unbelievers” among “Muslims”?

    “Both the Jews and the Christians say: “We are sons of Allah, and his beloved.”” [5.18]

    So the Quran does refer to “Jews” when it speaks of the religion rather than the people. But it does refer to “Children of Israel” even when it specifically includes non-believers among them!

    (I checked the Arabic text and could see the word alyehudu.)

    But apart from that your theory also doesn’t work because of Ishmael.

    Ishmael believed what Abraham believed and Ishmaels descendant Muhammed also believed what Abraham believed. Muhammed clearly believed that Moses was a prophet. Ishmael and Muhammed were both Muslims, of course. But they were NOT “Children of Israel”. Hence the term “Children of Israel” cannot mean “Muslims” since it certainly does and did exclude certain Muslims (who were not descendants of Jacob).

    So whatever “Children of Israel” means in the Quran, the following holds true:

    a) It INCLUDES non-believers (aka non-Muslims) and/or individuals who rejected faith.

    b) it DOES NOT INCLUDE Ishmael and Muhammed, who were both believers/Muslims.

    c) It INCLUDES the people who were with Moses at Sinai and who wrote down what they heard in Hebrew.

    The Quran clearly speaks of “Children of Israel” in totally different terms than it does of “Muslims”.

    It is possible to be a Muslim but not a Child of Israel (like Abraham and Muhammed) and it is possible to be a Child of Israel but not a Muslim (like those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith).

    Clearly, “Children of Israel” describes a people, not a community of believers; and that is why the term “Bani Israel” (a term that describes a people) is used; and that is why the term is used that would be understood by everyone as describing a people.

    Now you can tell me that I don’t understand the Quran (although I don’t see why I wouldn’t) or that I don’t understand Arabic (although these terms are really the same as in Hebrew), but none of that is very convincing.

    If you were right, and the Quran says here not what I think it says but something else, than I am sure Hamas, Hizbullah, the PLO and other groups would quote THAT PARTICULAR SURA from the Quran to prove their claim to the holy land.

    The fact that they don’t do it demonstrates that, at the very least, that it is not quite as clear that “Children of Israel” means “Muslims” rather than “the people descended from Jacob” as you claim it is.

    And yes, the “Children of Israel” before Jesus were Muslims (according to the Islamic definition). But that doesn’t mean that they were no longer the “Children of Israel” afterwards or that G-d took back His word at any point. Even during the exiles the Jews had the right to live in the land of Israel. G-d NEVER took that right away from the Jews, only the opportunity to use it.

    But taking the right or the opportunity is G-d’s privilege and right, NOT yours or the Arabs’ or Iran’s or the PLO’s.

    If G-d should tell the Jews to leave Israel, we can talk about leaving.

    But until then His last instructions are good enough for me.

    P.S.: To be fair, I have quoted that particular statement from the Quran (without giving a source at first) to Muslims on the Web often. Some would know it, but most hadn’t heard it before and believed I was quoting the Bible. None of them understood the term “Children of Israel” to mean “Muslims”. None. So even if in the context “Children of Israel” means “Muslims”, it was certainly not the best choice of words to make that clear.

  36. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Holocaust happened. So many jews were killed. If God wanted to help the jews, why did’nt he start there?”

    Some people claim that the Holocaust happened because not enough Jews followed the calls of the Zionists to return to the land of Israel as G-d commanded them.

    I believe that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened if Israel had been (re-)founded 50 years earlier.

    Perhaps G-d only wanted to help the Jews IF they were true to the covenant (and hence live in Israel)?

    That would fit the Quran’s description of G-d’s relationship with the Children of Israel exactly.

    Not that the Nazis were servants of G-d, but it is true that the Holocaust only happened to people who didn’t have a homeland, like Jews and Gypsies (and homosexuals).

  37. Nobody Says:

    And if G-d wanted to help the anti-Zionist forces, He couldn’t do a worse job, because they keep losing, even with modern weaponry, advantage of numbers, advantage of ruthlessness, and advantage of first move (most of the time).

    With this kind of arguments you can prove absolutely anything. While reading this I had a vivid mental picture of a rapidly shrinking and disappearing bunch of Muslims who spent decades here under siege by dozens of millions of Jews, packed with oil and Russian weapons. Advantage of numbers? Of weapons? Of ruthlessness??!!

    By the way, I have to reject another argument of yours:

    This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule, and keep in mind that Uthman (ra) and Mu’awiya (ra) also ruled the land without any objections from any of the sahaba or the successors.

    This is not a legal issue so much as it’s just an acknowledgment that a certain promise was made to the descendants of Jacob and, given the fact that the Jews are back, there exists a good enough reason for anybody, who takes the Koran in serious, to consider the possibility that something is still going on between Jews and God along the lines laid out in the Koran.

    Now when it comes to Omar, he has nothing to do with this. There was no equivalent of Zionism in those days, the Jews were not aiming at statehood at the time, no such demands were presented to Omar and his successors. Probably If they were I guess Omar would have rejected them and advised against by the majority of scholars. Nevertheless as a matter of fact he was never called on to make such a decision, so no legal precedence exists here in the first place. The Koran has no instructions for Muslims as to what they are supposed to do about it. They were not asked to set up a state for the Jews. There is only a general piece of information here about something concluded between the Jews and God and the prediction that these will be back one day and that’s all.

    Anyway, I think we are getting too repetitive. On my part I would only say that however well reasoned your arguments can be they are still just interpretations and deductions. When you first picked up the subject and invited Andrew to come and take part, I was sure there would be a massacre here, but now I see that it takes you time and effort to make your point and this is because you don’t have it, at least as far as I can see, spelled so clear cut in your book.

    Never mind that you are talking to people who are ignorant of the Koran and Islam and nevertheless try to carry this debate within what, you call, the shade of the Islamic law/tradition. I bet if we had a better knowledge of your religion the debate could have looked very different.

  38. Nobody Says:

    And if G-d wanted to help the anti-Zionist forces, He couldn’t do a worse job, because they keep losing, even with modern weaponry, advantage of numbers, advantage of ruthlessness, and advantage of first move (most of the time).”

    With this kind of arguments you can prove absolutely anything. While reading this I had a vivid mental picture of a rapidly shrinking and disappearing bunch of Muslims who spent decades here under siege by dozens of millions of Jews, packed with oil and Russian weapons. Advantage of numbers? Of weapons? Of ruthlessness??!!

    By the way, I have to reject another argument of yours:

    This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule, and keep in mind that Uthman (ra) and Mu’awiya (ra) also ruled the land without any objections from any of the sahaba or the successors.

    This is not a legal issue so much as it’s just an acknowledgment that a certain promise was made to the descendants of Jacob and, given the fact that the Jews are back, there exists a good enough reason for anybody, who takes the Koran in serious, to consider the possibility that something is still going on between Jews and God along the lines laid out in the Koran.

    Now when it comes to Omar, he has nothing to do with this. There was no equivalent of Zionism in those days, the Jews were not aiming at statehood at the time, no such demands were presented to Omar and his successors. Probably If they were I guess Omar would have rejected them and advised against by the majority of scholars. Nevertheless as a matter of fact he was never called on to make such a decision, so no legal precedence exists here in the first place. The Koran has no instructions for Muslims as to what they are supposed to do about it. They were not asked to set up a state for the Jews. There is only a general piece of informatioon here about something concluded between the Jews and God and the prediction that these will be back one day and that’s all.

    Anyway, I think we are getting too repetitive. On my part I would only say that however well reasoned your arguments can be they are still just interpretations and deductions. When you first picked up the subject and invited Andrew to come and take part, I was sure there would be a massacre here, but now I see that it takes you time and effort to make your point and this is because you don’t have it, at least as far as I can see, spelled so clearcut in your book.

    Never mind that you are talking to people who are ignorant of the Koran and Islam and nevertheless try to carry this debate within what, you call, the shade of the Islamic law/tradition. I bet if we had a better knowledge of your religion the debate could have looked very different.

  39. Andrew Brehm Says:

    Nobody, your reply to my statement about G-d’s help for anti-Zionists doesn’t appear to make much sense.

    Perhaps you misread and mis-attributed the paragraph?

  40. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “I bet if we had a better knowledge of your religion the debate could have looked very different.”

    I don’t think it’s a matter of knowing the religion better and agreeing with him.

    Sheikh Palazzi certainly knows Islam and agrees with me (or I with him). King Faisal (of the Hashemites) was in favour of Zionism. And Umar did indeed tell the Jews that the exile is over. (Despite the theory that the people exiled were not the “Jews” but the “Children of Israel”.)

    And then this particular part of Islam is not unique. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians believe it too.

    The idea that the Quran would repeat a legend believed by three other religions already, using the same words as they did, to mean something completely different seems just weird.

    Christians also believe that they are the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. Nevertheless many (or most) Christians still believe that Israel should be a Jewish state. (The Jews would ideally become Christians, of course; but they would still be “Children of Israel”.)

  41. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Guys, it is getting weird now.

    Andrew: You are keeping on arguing against something that you are wishing me to have said, but i never said. Your whole comment is an attemp to refute my saying that Bani Israil means muslims, which is rather weird considering that i never said that.

    I’ve always said that Bani Israil means the descendants of Jacob. However, them being granted the land was a result of their faith, not their noble lineage. Now IF we assume that this means that the ones told to dwell in the land should do that forever by necessity (and that this includes ruling), then look here:

    I assume that we can atleast agree that the Quran states that Moses (as) was a muslim, right? Good… Now look, i’ll make it real simple:
    1. The Quran states that the religion intended for them was Islam.
    2. His followers were thus granted a land as a result of their faith, which was Islam.
    3. The jews went astray from the religion of Abraham (Islam).

    Do you see that point? I hope you do, because i cannot make it anymore obvious. IF we do assume that this includes right to rule the land, then Muslims have a greater right to that claim than jews, because according to Islam the Jews went astray.

    And by the way, please answer:
    1. You have yet to prove that the Quran predicts that the land will be ruled by Bani Israil again, and even if you can, you have to proove that this do not refer to the return of the Messiah. Before that, this remains an unsupported claim of yours.
    2. I assume that your silence regarding the matter of naming of the land means acceptance?

    Nobody:
    The first point you are addressing was not mine, it was Andrews and i objected to the very same point.

    “Now when it comes to Omar, he has nothing to do with this. There was no equivalent of Zionism in those days, the Jews were not aiming at statehood at the time, no such demands were presented to Omar and his successors. Probably If they were I guess Omar would have rejected them and advised against by the majority of scholars. Nevertheless as a matter of fact he was never called on to make such a decision, so no legal precedence exists here in the first place. The Koran has no instructions for Muslims as to what they are supposed to do about it. They were not asked to set up a state for the Jews. There is only a general piece of informatioon here about something concluded between the Jews and God and the prediction that these will be back one day and that’s all.”
    – With regards to that argument, it only makes sense if you can answer to what i asked of Andrew: Proove the prophecy that they will return to rule the land exists in Islam, and if you can then proove that this do not refer to the Messiah who is also of Bani Israel.

  42. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “1. The Quran states that the religion intended for them [Children of Israel] was Islam.”

    Ok. But the same is obviously true for all other peoples, not just the Bani Israel. PLUS the Quran does permit the Jewish religion.

    Incidentally, I seem to remember that Muhammed spoke of “our religion” and “their religion” and both being true with regards to Muslims and Jewish tribes. That suggests to me that the religion the Jews have to stay true to is not necessarily Islam but Judaism.

    “2. His followers were thus granted a land as a result of their faith, which was Islam.”

    No. His _people_ were granted a land, not his followers. Not all of the Children of Israel were always followers of Moses, as the Quran points out.

    Nevertheless G-d granted the title to the people “Children of Israel” and not simply those among them that were true in their faith (be it Islam or not).

    “3. The jews went astray from the religion of Abraham (Islam).”

    Yes, they did. At times. However, the Jewish religion is permitted per the Quran and it is entirely possible for the Jews to return to a acceptable faith.

    The Quran actually says that the Children of Israel occasionally (twice) went astray and were punished.

    Whether the Jews have to return to Islam or Judaism is not clear from the Quran. If you want to take the title to the land away, I guess you would have to prove that Judaism wouldn’t be good enough.

    “1. You have yet to prove that the Quran predicts that the land will be ruled by Bani Israil again, and even if you can, you have to prove that this do not refer to the return of the Messiah. Before that, this remains an unsupported claim of yours.”

    I don’t have to prove the first point (“will be ruled by”) because Zionism advocates a democracy where the country would be ruled by Jews and non-Jews.

    And I don’t have to prove that this doesn’t refer to the return of the Messiah, because the burden of proof when it comes to TAKING AWAY a right is certainly on those who want to take away, not on the current owner of the title.

    When G-d grants a title to a people, for whatever reason, it is not for you to take that title away again, just because you don’t see that people serving G-d as it used to any more. That was Sheikh Palazzi’s point as well.

    “2. I assume that your silence regarding the matter of naming of the land means acceptance?”

    Me? Silent? Must be an oversight.

    I still think the land should be named “Israel” as it was first the land of the Children of Israel.

    “Your whole comment is an attempt to refute my saying that Bani Israil means muslims, which is rather weird considering that i never said that.”

    Well, you did say that the title to the land was given to the Children of Israel because of their faith and was hence taken away again when they (allegedly) lost their faith.

    You also said that “Children of Israel” doesn’t mean “the Jews”, even though the Jewish people are certainly the most prominent surviving members of the “Children of Israel” alive today.

    Apart from the fact that the Quran does mention that the Children of Israel occasionally return to their faith (for example after the first exile/punishment), the Quran does NOT say that the title to the land was taken away at any point. The title was certainly not taken away during or after the first punishment.

    However, the Quran does say that the Jewish religion was a true religion, which means that Jews (or Children of Israel) could very well be true enough in their faith to keep the title to the land even if they were not Muslims.

    And that assumes that the title would be lost if the Jews lose their faith, which is something the Quran doesn’t say, even though it was written 600 years after that event would have taken place (Jesus’ birth) AND even though the Quran specifically predicts that the Children of Israel would return.

    None of this would prove an Arab title to the land, however, even if it might put doubt on the Jewish title (which I still don’t think it has).

    The point is that the Quran does tell us that G-d gave the right to live in the land to the Children of Israel and that you have yet to prove that He took that right away again.

  43. Nobody Says:

    Andrew Brehm Says:
    June 27, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Nobody, your reply to my statement about G-d’s help for anti-Zionists doesn’t appear to make much sense.

    Perhaps you misread and mis-attributed the paragraph?

    yes .. I did

  44. Andrew Brehm Says:

    A few important points perhaps:

    1. The state of Israel grants citizenship not only to Jews but to ALL “Children of Israel”, including Samaritans and potential lost tribes, if they are found and proven to be “Children of Israel”.

    (This should cover the “Jews” != “Children of Israel” argument as Israeli citizenship is not based on being “Jewish” as much as being “Child of Israel” really.)

    2. The state of Israel also granted citizenships to Arabs living in Israel in 1948 (and those who didn’t flee have that citizenship still). Those Arabs could be “Children of Israel” but had a right to live in Israel that was not necessarily based on being a part of the people.

    (This proves that the Zionists recognised the rights of non-“Children of Israel” to live in the country, based on the assumption that since the Quran doesn’t mention non-“Children of Israel”, they might have a right to live there too.)

    3. In Israel both “Children of Israel” and non-“Children of Israel” have the right to vote. Hence the country is not specifically ruled by Jews (or Children of Israel).

    (This should cover the “live” != “rule” argument as there is nothing in Israeli law that specifically states that Jews (or Children of Israel) must rule.)

  45. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “You have yet to prove that the Quran predicts that the land will be ruled by Bani Israil again”

    Incidentally, it is ruled by the Bani Israel.

    So you can either accept the Quran’s prediction that the Children of Israel will return as fulfilled or you can worry that the Quran failed to predict that the Bani Israel will rule the land again.

    That’s up to you.

    And I still think that IF G-d had wanted us to know that He took the title away from the Children of Israel, the Quran could have simply said that, instead of mentioning that the title was given and not saying that it was taken away again.

    If I told you a story of how Paul gave a hundred bucks to Peter, I would assume that you understand that story to mean that Paul gave a hundred bucks to Peter.

    I would not assume that you understand that story to mean that Paul took the money back later.

    If I had wanted to tell you about Paul giving a hundred bucks to Peter which Peter has no longer title to (because Paul took them back), I would have either told you precisely that or not mentioned the entire thing at all.

  46. Nobody Says:

    Ahmad al-Safawi Says:
    June 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    . . .

    “Now when it comes to Omar, he has nothing to do with this. There was no equivalent of Zionism in those days, the Jews were not aiming at statehood at the time, no such demands were presented to Omar and his successors. Probably If they were I guess Omar would have rejected them and advised against by the majority of scholars. Nevertheless as a matter of fact he was never called on to make such a decision, so no legal precedence exists here in the first place. The Koran has no instructions for Muslims as to what they are supposed to do about it. They were not asked to set up a state for the Jews. There is only a general piece of information here about something concluded between the Jews and God and the prediction that these will be back one day and that’s all.”

    With regards to that argument, it only makes sense if you can answer to what i asked of Andrew: Prove the prophecy that they will return to rule the land exists in Islam, and if you can then proove that this do not refer to the Messiah who is also of Bani Israel.

    Well. To start with, you said:

    This is what creates the controversy in my head: I cannot get how Umar (ra) and the caliphs after him possibly could have ruled Palestine if it were legally the right of Bani Israel to rule,

    So I was basically addressing what creates the controversy for you. When it comes to the prophesy itself, I won’t go into the messiah stuff since I think this debate is getting too very repetitive and circular. I would only briefly respond to the part about rule vs dwell.

    First of all I agree that dwell does not mean necessarily establishing a state, but it does not contradict it either. Lets say, what is said is not – please live, but don’t rule. In this sense I would look at what is actually happening and suggest that given the actual course of events what was meant by dwell included to rule and the rest.

    But I would also say that this argument is more about splitting hairs. It’s not very practical. Practically to dwell securely means to rule, not to be dependent on the good will of others but to be in control of one’s fate. I don’t think that many Jews would argue about what’s involved in dwelling securely in one’s land.

    Another thing is that in practical terms it was impossible for the Jews to return to Israel to dwell in it without establishing a Jewish state. People don’t like immigrations and the Arabs in Palestine were no exception to this rule. The attitudes that the Arabs leaders took towards Jewish immigration were very predictable and in fact would have been the same with or without Zionism. Now it seems to be quite popular in the Arab world to talk about binational state and the stuff but this was not the situation at the beginning. So in practical terms this distinction between “dwell and not rule” and “dwell and rule” is quite meaningless, though I admit that it’s open to debate at the purely theoretical level.

  47. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “Ok. But the same is obviously true for all other peoples, not just the Bani Israel. PLUS the Quran does permit the Jewish religion.”
    – How do you mean permit? Permit it like giving certain rights to its followers? Yes. Permitting it as a valid religion to follow? NO. I have already adressed that, why do you keep circulating that strange claim?

    Inna al-deen 3end Allah al-Islam (3:19). The religion acceptable to Allah is ISLAM. Thats the very message of the Quran you are altering there.

    “Incidentally, I seem to remember that Muhammed spoke of “our religion” and “their religion” and both being true with regards to Muslims and Jewish tribes. That suggests to me that the religion the Jews have to stay true to is not necessarily Islam but Judaism.”
    – Well incidentally i demand the exact text then. However i can already tell you that, the only religion acceptable in Islam IS Islam, nothing else.

    “No. His _people_ were granted a land, not his followers. Not all of the Children of Israel were always followers of Moses, as the Quran points out.

    Nevertheless G-d granted the title to the people “Children of Israel” and not simply those among them that were true in their faith (be it Islam or not).”
    – See, now you got it – THIS is where we disagree. He actually did grant it to the followers of Musa (as pointed out in Al-Samarqandi’s tafsir), and the very context demands that. It is near explicit in Al-Maida:
    Al Maeda, 20-21:
    Remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.
    “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

    Look how Musa (as) first of all called them to Allah, and warned them that they should behave good in the land that Allah assigned to them (i.e. stay true to obedience to Allah, that tends to include believing in his Prophets…), else they would be overthrown.

    From here it is quite clear that their faith is actually _THE_ condition for the right they were being given – it was their companionship with Musa (as), the Messenger of Allah, and their belief in his religion, Islam. But the jews strayed away from these, every muslim affirm that on a daily basis in Al Fatiha.

    Why is’nt that obvious?

    “Yes, they did. At times. However, the Jewish religion is permitted per the Quran and it is entirely possible for the Jews to return to a acceptable faith.

    The Quran actually says that the Children of Israel occasionally (twice) went astray and were punished.

    Whether the Jews have to return to Islam or Judaism is not clear from the Quran. If you want to take the title to the land away, I guess you would have to prove that Judaism wouldn’t be good enough.”
    – What you are presenting here is the jewish view. The Quran severely disagree with that view. The jews strayed from Abrahams (as) religion PERMANENTLY, as they are not muslim, while the Quran says that Abraham (as) was not jewish or christian, but a hanif muslim. And also that Ya’qoob (as) left the tribes the legacy to be Muslims.

    So you can get my point if i proove that being jewish in faith is not acceptable in Islam? Because that’s like the easies of all things to proove from the Quran and the Prophetic narrations. That the only religion acceptable in Islam is Islam. The Quran says it all:
    The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.

    So it is very clear. The Quran abrograted the previous scriptures. The religion have been perfected now (5:3). The only religion before Allah is Islam (3:19).

    Thus, i consider that one closed unless you have real arguments against it.

    “I don’t have to prove the first point (”will be ruled by” because Zionism advocates a democracy where the country would be ruled by Jews and non-Jews.

    And I don’t have to prove that this doesn’t refer to the return of the Messiah, because the burden of proof when it comes to TAKING AWAY a right is certainly on those who want to take away, not on the current owner of the title.

    When G-d grants a title to a people, for whatever reason, it is not for you to take that title away again, just because you don’t see that people serving G-d as it used to any more. That was Sheikh Palazzi’s point as well.”
    – Well INCIDENTALLY :D, if you want to take it to the level where we are battling on who have the greatest scholars to support each others claim, then you know you stand weak on that one. Sheikh Palazzi’s argument is rather abnormal and he have virtually all other islamic scholars against him on that one. The consensus of the scholars regarding the meanings of these verses outranks Sheikh Palazzi, who is only a junior italian scholar and who to my knowledge do not hold a higher, traditional islamic education.

    I am not the one who takes away that title. That title was a result of their faith. Their faith and their title was equal – when their faith goes, their titles goes as well. That is what Allah (tt) stated in the book.

    “Well, you did say that the title to the land was given to the Children of Israel because of their faith and was hence taken away again when they (allegedly) lost their faith.

    You also said that “Children of Israel” doesn’t mean “the Jews”, even though the Jewish people are certainly the most prominent surviving members of the “Children of Israel” alive today.”
    – Yes, so you know what i were saying. Why equal these statements to “Bani Israel and Muslim are synonymous”? Did you get me wrong, what happended…. incidentally? 😀

    “Me? Silent? Must be an oversight.

    I still think the land should be named “Israel” as it was first the land of the Children of Israel.”
    – Yes, it is of course your opinion, as long as you do not ascribe the same opinion to Islam. (By the way the Quran mentions it to be the land of some kinds of giants before the Bani Israel entered).

    “Apart from the fact that the Quran does mention that the Children of Israel occasionally return to their faith (for example after the first exile/punishment), the Quran does NOT say that the title to the land was taken away at any point. The title was certainly not taken away during or after the first punishment.”
    – Of course did they occassionally return, there have always been believers among them who were not christians or jews, Isa (as) and his mother (as) is among them.

    “However, the Quran does say that the Jewish religion was a true religion, which means that Jews (or Children of Israel) could very well be true enough in their faith to keep the title to the land even if they were not Muslims.”
    – No it do not say that. It says that some of the jews and the christians will be allowed into paradise, but that was all abrogated with Islam being chosed. Allah (tt) says: “Today i have completed for you your religion and chosen Islam for you as your religion” 5:3. That was the revelation being made complete. Islam was chosen as our religion. Not anything else. Period.

    “And that assumes that the title would be lost if the Jews lose their faith, which is something the Quran doesn’t say, even though it was written 600 years after that event would have taken place (Jesus’ birth) AND even though the Quran specifically predicts that the Children of Israel would return.”
    – You cannot keep repeating that the Quran predicts their return without showing me where. That method does not work on me.

    “None of this would prove an Arab title to the land, however, even if it might put doubt on the Jewish title (which I still don’t think it has).”
    – Hey, dont give me wrong. If you’ve read all the comments, then read what i wrote to Roman Kalik – those who believe for the land to be returned to the Palestinians do not do so on religious basis, since among the palestinians is also christians. It is for political reasons, which is an entirely other debate.

    However, i am arguing that if ANYONE is granted the land for all eternity from these verses, then it is the muslims.

    “The point is that the Quran does tell us that G-d gave the right to live in the land to the Children of Israel and that you have yet to prove that He took that right away again.”
    – My answer to that remains: The point is that the Quran states that their right depended on their faith, when they strated away from faith, they strated away from their right.

    AND that there is no soil save Arabia where jews cannot live according to the Sharia.
    “Incidentally, it is ruled by the Bani Israel.

    So you can either accept the Quran’s prediction that the Children of Israel will return as fulfilled or you can worry that the Quran failed to predict that the Bani Israel will rule the land again.

    That’s up to you.”
    – Well INCIDENTALLY again and again, them ruling the land do not make it a divine prophecy, however the Prophecy being recorded in the Quran makes it a divine prophecy. So just tell me about the prophecy.

  48. Nobody Says:

    Well. To put it short there is probably no prophesy about Jews returning to Israel in the Koran (as one who did not read the book I am relying only on what other people quote). Yet there is an affirmation that a certain promise was given to Bani Israel. Now some people may see in the events of the last decades proof that the promise is still in tact, in particular given that the creation of modern Israel is an ultimate historical paradox in some respects without parallels in the modern history.

    To this Ahmad says it was all contingent on Jews staying in (converting to) Islam. Not that it’s stated explicitly anywhere in the Koran, but this is a consensus among al-Samarqandi and other scholars. Not a Jew or Christian will be allowed to cross the gates of a paradise, by their mere being Jews they are doomed to hell, eternal destruction or whatever is reserved for them in Islam. No way for Jews to have so much Allah mercy as long as they persist in their religion.

    On the bright side, the title of Bani Israel stays with us (hopefully if I get it right), and the title of the Sons of Apes and Pigs too, the last one being of a particular importance to me. The temple mount may be gone but at least temporarily we are not denied our identity. A fair enough deal as far as I am concerned. I guess we are finished with this thread. I don’t think I have anything more to add to this.

  49. Nobody Says:

    Wait …Wait … And what’s about this ???!!! I have just found it in your another post

    [17:104] And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, “ scatter and live all over the world…and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land”.

    Anyway I have no more patience left for this thread. I prefer this dispute to be resolved by military means

    😀 😀

    salam shalom peace

  50. Nobody Says:

    You know, Ahmad. After this discussion of Children of Israel in the Koran I am now thinking that it’s so not much our problem to persuade you that it’s us. Rather it’s more like your problem to convince yourselves that it’s not us

    😀 😀

  51. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Nobody i hope that you are not anrgy because i failed to reply to your previous posts. If you notice, i happen to having this discussion with three of you, and it is quite hard to respond to everything. I hope you understand this and have no hard feelings.

    “To this Ahmad says it was all contingent on Jews staying in (converting to) Islam. Not that it’s stated explicitly anywhere in the Koran, but this is a consensus among al-Samarqandi and other scholars. Not a Jew or Christian will be allowed to cross the gates of a paradise, by their mere being Jews they are doomed to hell, eternal destruction or whatever is reserved for them in Islam. No way for Jews to have so much Allah mercy as long as they persist in their religion. ”
    – Yes, if one consider the Quranic context, then it becomes quite obvious that the condition was remaining on their faith. It is not stated explecitly, but reading the whole Quran instead of just some verses here and there hardly leaves the muslim with another possibility.

    And in fact i do not believe that al-Samarqandi address that very issue directly in his tafsir, if i am wrong you might quote him here?

    Yes, it is a part of Islamic belief that one, after the revelation of Islam, can only enter paradise by sound belief and good actions. There is some discussion in the details, like for people unreached by the message. The Ash’ari’s (whom i follow at most theological points) tend to believe that such people are saved from the fire, not for their beliefs but for their ignorance.

    “On the bright side, the title of Bani Israel stays with us (hopefully if I get it right), and the title of the Sons of Apes and Pigs too, the last one being of a particular importance to me.”
    – Yes, most jews are most likely today the descendants of Israel. Well, what should i say? Should i explain what is meant with Sons of Apes and Pigs, and if i did, would you believe me?

    “Wait …Wait … And what’s about this ???!!! I have just found it in your another post

    [17:104] And we said to the Children of Israel afterwards, “ scatter and live all over the world…and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land”.

    Anyway I have no more patience left for this thread. I prefer this dispute to be resolved by military means

    salam shalom peace”
    – Did i write that?? Where did i use that weird, zionistic-biased translation? It is wrong at almost all points man. Here it is from Yusuf Ali’s translation:
    And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.

    You should ask yourself why such people even stand in need of fixing the verse.

    “You know, Ahmad. After this discussion of Children of Israel in the Koran I am now thinking that it’s so not much our problem to persuade you that it’s us. Rather it’s more like your problem to convince yourselves that it’s not us”
    – Well, i tend not to have that problem. Why do i expect you to believe in that? 😀 A muslim would tend to follow the tafsir of the great scholars of the past, instead of rare opinions invented by lesser, recent scholars.

  52. Nobody Says:

    Yes, it is a part of Islamic belief that one, after the revelation of Islam, can only enter paradise by sound belief and good actions. There is some discussion in the details, like for people unreached by the message. The Ash’ari’s (whom i follow at most theological points) tend to believe that such people are saved from the fire, not for their beliefs but for their ignorance.

    I find it very hard to believe. In particular given the attitude of Islam towards people of the book. It’s probably true that Islam sees itself as a superior religion but the tolerance towards people of the book plainly stems from the fact that being a Jew or Christian is not that bad according to Islam. If every Jew and Christian were doomed to spiritual perdition, they would have not been allowed to continue practicing their religions under Islam. Of course as a Muslim you should know better, but you have no idea how much my opinion of Islam has suffered in the wake of this discussion (not that it was very high from the beginning but nevertheless…). I was simply amazed to hear this. Is it indeed a consensus among major scholars and does the Koran state it explicitly that all Christian or Jew are doomed?

    Yes, most jews are most likely today the descendants of Israel. Well, what should i say? Should i explain what is meant with Sons of Apes and Pigs, and if i did, would you believe me?

    Sons of apes and pigs are a part of our folklore and slang now. It’s our trademark. Don’t touch it. If you ever decide like rewriting your holy book please leave that part as it is.

    Did i write that?? Where did i use that weird, zionistic-biased translation?

    The weird zionistic-biased translation was quoted on your another post titled fascinating perspective. So what happened now? You don’t find that perspective fascinating any longer.

    By the way. If we are on this. What was about this Haneefs that they were considered Muslims and how is that different from Jews or whatever? In fact if one could be Muslim before Muhammad’s prophesy, then what makes a person a Muslim?

  53. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “I find it very hard to believe. In particular given the attitude of Islam towards people of the book. It’s probably true that Islam sees itself as a superior religion but the tolerance towards people of the book plainly stems from the fact that being a Jew or Christian is not that bad according to Islam. If every Jew and Christian were doomed to spiritual perdition, they would have not been allowed to continue practicing their religions under Islam. Of course as a Muslim you should know better, but you have no idea how much my opinion of Islam has suffered in the wake of this discussion (not that it was very high from the beginning but nevertheless…). I was simply amazed to hear this.”
    – Well… First of all, when asked about Islam, i answer from what i believe in. The answer you get is my belief. NOT necessarily the answer you wish to hear. I know that you probably have experienced muslims acting otherwise, but i’m striving to be honest in my answers.

    Second, Islam differs between acknowledgement of a religion and acknowledgement of the peoples right to practice it. What gives the jews and the christians special rights in this regard is that their religion is based on genuine, divine revelation, however a corrupted one, however Islam is the religion that God chose for humans. That’s stated explicitly i dont know how many times in the Quran, and most important at all, when the religion was made complete with the revelation of 5:3, Allah explicitly said “I have chosen Islam for you as your religion”. So there is no other religion that is accepted with Allah besides Islam.

    “Is it indeed a consensus among major scholars and does the Koran state it explicitly that all Christian or Jew are doomed?”
    Read this:
    http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=118&CATE=24
    It is by the Ash’ari scholar Shaykh Nuh Ha-Mim Keller.

    Please note that it deals only with their fate in the afterlife, not how they are considered by the sharia in this world.

    “Sons of apes and pigs are a part of our folklore and slang now. It’s our trademark. Don’t touch it.”
    – Well all israelis being evil in themselves was once a part of my brain, you could not take that out of my head without taking my entire brain out. However, things changed… And if i can somehow moderate your thoughts in the same direction, i would be pleased with myself.

    “If you ever decide like rewriting your holy book please leave that part as it is.”
    – That is not possible.

    “The weird zionistic-biased translation was quoted on your another post titled fascinating perspective. So what happened now? You don’t find that perspective fascinating any longer.”
    – Just discovered what you are talking about. Thats not a post of mine. WordPress insert per default a link that it believes to be a related post by another blogger. Please check the URL.

    “By the way. If we are on this. What was about this Haneefs that they were considered Muslims and how is that different from Jews or whatever? In fact if one could be Muslim before Muhammad’s prophesy, then what makes a person a Muslim?”
    – What makes a person a MUSLIM is submitting oneself to God and believing in all what he has revealed. In fact the coming of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) were revealed to both Moses (as) and Jesus (as), so as such, they all believed in the coming of a Messenger of Allah. Their belief in that – and all other that have been revealed to them – made them Haneef. That is different from a Jew, because a jew believe also in what have been corrupted in his religion according to Islam. However many of these jews living before the coming of Muhammad (saw) MAY BE SAVED in the hereafter even through they are not Haneef, but exactly who will be saved is something that Allah (tt) only knows. Hope that makes sense, and if i failed to explain it in a correct manner, then please point it out and i will try to improve it.

  54. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    And dear Roman: Sorry, it becomes too confusing, but i think i have dealed with the main issue of our discussion in my comments to Andrew; namely the central condition in the promise being the faith. Please, feel free to take it up from there if you like.

  55. Roman Kalik Says:

    *shrug* I don’t think I want to continue this discussion much further – we seem to be going in circles. But what you said about the translation of [17:104] Nobody had brought really bothered me just now… know why?

    http://quran-online.net/

    Let’s quote a little, shall we?

    A. J. Arberry: (104) And We said to the Children of Israel after him, ‘Dwell in the land; and when the promise of the world to come comes to pass, We shall bring you a rabble.’

    Ahmed Ali: (104) After this We told the children of Israel: “Dwell in the land. When the promise of reckoning comes, We shall bring you together from a motley crowd.

    Ali Ünal: (104) And after that We said to the Children of Israel: “Dwell now securely in the land (which God has decreed for you and commanded you to enter). But when the time (for the fulfillment) of the last decree comes, We will bring you as a mixed crowd (gathered from disparate nations).

    Daryabadi: (104) And We said, after him, unto the Children of Isra’l: dwell on the earth, then when there cometh the promise of the Hereafter, We shall bring you as a crowd.

    Faridul Haque: (104) And after him, We said to the Descendants of Israel, “Reside in this land – then when the promise of the Hereafter comes, We will bring you all huddled together.”

    Pickthall: (104) And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

    Shakir: (104) And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

    Syed V. Ahamed: (104) And after him, We said to the Children of Israel, “Live safely in the land (of promise)”: Then as the second of the warnings comes true, (the birth of Messiah, the Christ or the Day of Judgment) We will gather you together in a mingled crowd (of many peoples and nations).

  56. Roman Kalik Says:

    My previous comment is awaiting moderation, but I just wanted to say that I deliberately avoided taking any unaccepted translations in my quotes – in fact, I took upon myself to look for those translations that enjoy wide acceptance and circulation.

    From what I see here, Ahmad, Yusuf Ali is in a minority here. Nearly alone, in fact, in his take on the verse – whereas the “Zionist” take enjoys the widest circulation.

  57. Ponder Says:

    Unfortunately You are not a debator (Andrew) and yet you failed to come up with one clear evidence The Land of Palestine belongs to Jews or Israel…

    Sir, niether the Quran nor any other holy book says that Palestine is the land of Israel… and again Quran chapter 17:100-104 has never mentioned that…

    and since you believe in Quran, the following is also from the Quran:

    وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ يَدُ اللَّهِ مَغْلُولَةٌ غُلَّتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَلُعِنُواْ بِمَا قَالُواْ بَلْ يَدَاهُ مَبْسُوطَتَانِ يُنفِقُ كَيْفَ يَشَآءُ كُلَّمَآ أَوْقَدُواْ نَاراً لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا اللَّهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَسَاداً وَاللَّهُ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمُفْسِدِينَ } [المائدة:64].

    Translated: 5:64 And the Jews said: “The hand of God is tied-down!” Their hands will be tied-down, and they will be cursed for what they have said. No, His hands are wide open spending as He wills. And for many of them, what has been sent down to you will increase them in rebellion and rejection; and We have cast between them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they ignite the fire of war, God puts it out; and they seek to make corruption in the land; and God does not like the corrupters.

    AND GOD DOES NOT LIKE THE CORRUPTERS… anyone can answer me: How God almighty can give the Right of Property to bunch of Corrupters..

    Sir, This ownership does only exist in you racist brain!

    4:155 So, for the breaking of their covenant, and their rejection of God’s signs, and their killing of the prophets without justice, and their saying: “Our hearts are layered over.” Indeed, God has stamped upon their hearts because of their rejection; they do not believe, except for a few”

    How come that who murder God almighty Messenger and Prophets are given any right over the Holy land… but I hope that you will be one of those few believers

    The Holy Quran also mentioned that you have no wisdom………
    59:14 They will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Strong is their fighting (spirit) amongst themselves: thou wouldst think they were united, but their hearts are divided: that is because they are a people devoid of wisdom.

    Believe me If you put down you weapons and offer a true peace to Muslim and Arab after admitting your sins, mistakes, and slips. We Arab, Muslims will forgive for whatever you have done. Even The Arab Christian may forgive for killing The beloved the messenger of mercy Jessus.

    Change before it’s too late

    Peace

  58. Nobody Says:

    Second, Islam differs between acknowledgement of a religion and acknowledgement of the peoples right to practice it. What gives the jews and the christians special rights in this regard is that their religion is based on genuine, divine revelation, however a corrupted one, however Islam is the religion that God chose for humans. That’s stated explicitly i dont know how many times in the Quran, and most important at all, when the religion was made complete with the revelation of 5:3, Allah explicitly said “I have chosen Islam for you as your religion”. So there is no other religion that is accepted with Allah besides Islam.

    I understand what you are saying but, maybe because I am an outsider to all this, it does not follow for me so automatically that salvation is impossible for non Muslims. I mean it’s obvious that Islam is confirmed as a supreme religion in the Koran, but from this to conclude that all Jews and Christians are doomed seems to be quite a distance to me.

    Neither I understand what difference it makes that what is practiced by Jews and Christians used to be a divine revelation until corrupted by people to whom it was entrusted. If I believe you, in practical terms Jews and Christians practice something that does not leave them any chance. Under such circumstances it’s a moral imperative to stop these people from practicing their religions.

    But I won’t deny that there may be some cultural predisposition on my part because Judaism cares more for what people do than for what they believe in. Not that I am a religious person but nevertheless there may be some influence here. And I guess I should not tell you that in our days most people who are not deeply involved with Islam will find the whole concept as explained by you here quite abhorrent. To say that your religion is the best one is one thing but to claim for such an exclusivity in matters of God’s grace or spiritual salvation is a totally another thing.

    Anyway, the general idea is clear. Thanks for the explanation

  59. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Sorry Roman i dit not see that. I have approved it now.

    Roman, lets break the verse up in the 2 main points where Yusuf Ali disagree with the zionist biased version that Nobody used.

    1) “Uskunu al-Ardh” means “Inhabit the land (of Palestine”, not “Live scattered all over the world”. That is something that have reached consensus among the Quran-interpretors (i cannot find any who disagree with that interpretation), and from the quotes you mentioned i cannot see anyone supporting it, except “dwell on the earth” by Daryabadi who is a little ambigous.

    2) فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ الآخِرَةِ جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِيفاً. “Fa idha jaa’ wa’d al-akherati ji’na bikom lafifa”. In the zionist-based version, this is:
    “and when the end of the world is near we will gather you again into the Promised Land”

    The way i understand it, the only other translation that can be understood as a support for that interpretation, is that of Pickthall: “but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations”.

    That, of course, assuming that they will be gathered together in the Holy Land, which is nowhere in Pickthall’s translation nor in the original text, only in the translation that i in this comment refer to as the “Zionist” one.

    I will not go into the details with the translation because i am not trained in translating classic arabic into english, and it happen to be a little difficult.

    Instead, let me do some quoting too – this time from the muslim mufassirin (interpretators):

    Imam Qurtubi, in Al-jami’ li Ahkam al-Quran (my own, very rough translation):
    فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ ٱلآخِرَةِ } أي القيامة { جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِيفاً } أي من قبوركم مختلطين من كل موضع، قد اختلط المؤمن بالكافر لا يتعارفون ولا ينحاز أحد منكم إلى قبيلته وحَيّه
    [but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass] that is Judgement Day (Qiyamah), [We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations] from your graves, mixed in every matter, the believers and the unbelievers together, not with their tribes.

    Shaykh al-Baghawi, in Ma’alim al-Tanzil (my own very rough translation too):
    { فَإِذَا جَآءَ وَعْدُ ٱلأَخِرَةِ } ، يعني يوم القيامة، { جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِيفًا } أي: جميعاً إلى موقف القيامة. واللفيف: الجمع الكثير: إذا كانوا مختلطين من كل نوع،
    [but when the promise of the Hereafter cometh to pass], that is the judgement day [We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations] That means: All of them together into the position of Judgement Day, mixed in every sense.

    Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (author of the famous history work known as Tarikh Alrusul Wal Muluk), in his Jami’ al-Bayan (again my own poor translation):
    يقول: فإذا جاءت الساعة، وهي وعد الآخرة، جئنا بكم لفـيفـا: يقول: حشرناكم من قبوركم إلـى موقـف القـيامة لفـيفـا: أي مختلطين قد التفّ بعضكم علـى بعض، لا تتعارفون، ولا ينـحاز أحد منكم إلـى قبـيـلته وحيِّه،
    And he says: “So when the Hour (Judgement Day) comes, and that is (what is meant) by “The Promise of the Hereafter” (in the verse), [We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations] we will revive your from your graves to the position of Judgement Day, all of your mixed together, no one will be placed next to his tribesmen”.

    I am in no way saying that my translations are without mistakes or even that they are good. If anyone likes to correct me, please do it.

    It remains quite clear that the “zionist” translation in its meaning stands quite alone and that the muslim scholars agreed that this was referring to judgement day, not to the return to the holy land.

    And regarding your previous questions about the Tafsir:
    Genereally, AlSamarqandi’s tafsir is considered a lesser one, i admit that. I used it because i could not find any other commenting on the adressation of the verse. The most authorative ones in popular use is:
    – Aljalalain of Suyuti and Mahally, being very simple in its explanation and uses a simple and easy language that most arabs understand despite lack of higher education.
    – Tafsir Ibn Kathir, which is perhaps the most authorative one. It is not used among the masses as much as Aljalalain because it is more complex and long, but is still very famous and very often quoted.
    – Tafsir of Al-Qurtubi (Aljame’ li ahkam al quran). It focus very much on legal rulings derived from the Quran, and Imam Qurtubi being a maliki, it serves both as a Tafsir of the Quran and as a reference for Maliki fiqh. Used very widely, both among scholars and among the people.
    – Tafsir of al-Tabari, which is perhaps the one least in use of the 4. It predates all of them by more than a century, making it one of the most early known compeherensive tafsirs. However, its method of mentioning a wide difference of opinion (a method used by many other tafsir works too) including the evidences for the same opinion, sometimes without judging between them, have made it more popular among scholars and acedemics and among the people.

    I hope that is useful.

  60. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Nobody: You are welcome. However, it seems like you did not view the link that i provided you with. Please read it, because it goes into detail about how a non-muslim is granted salvation.

    I can understand if this seems hard for a jew to understand, if judaism encourage the actions over the beliefs. I never knew that, i always thought that jews and muslims were united on that one, as opposed to the christians who emphasize belief very much.

    But i disagree that we, as muslims, as a consequence of this should stop the christians and the jews from practising such misguidance. It is our duty to inform about Islam and invite them into Islam, that is without doubt, but the choice is theirs. Islam acknowledge their right to practice their religion, but the consequences of it in the hereafter is not our responsibility. It is theirs.

  61. Roman Kalik Says:

    Thank you for explaining about the various versions of Tasfir, Ahamad. As for the translations of Verse 104… frankly, I think all of them can go either way, and I don’t quite see why you took Pickhall’s as more suitable to the “Zionist” translation than the rest. I do believe, though, in terms of my own faith, that they discuss the period of described in Judaism as the End of Days, The Coming of the Messiah, the Resurrection – and the Great Return.

    In Judaism, this is discussed as the end of reality as we knew it until now, the end of the Exile in both the physical *and* the spiritual sense, as opposed to what meager efforts we can achieve today. In Judaism, we can’t really end the Exile ourselves – we can, at most, pave the way for a smoother ending for it, build its foundations, if you will – that is pretty much where the Jewish religious support stems from, and not everyone shares that particular belief about current events. To each his own, is my view on it – I personally don’t see our current country as Ithalta De’Geula (The Foundation of the Salvation Period), but I do most certainly see it as a positive event for my people, my culture, and my faith.

    And that’s that, really. I don’t think we have much left to discuss on this particular topic… at least for now.

  62. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    really i cant make any of them fit to the zionist one, and besides, the “Zionist” one is not really a translation, but more an interpretation, as many of their words do not even exist in the original text. I chose Pickthalls as more close because it mentions “nations”. If the the text should be translated strictly litteraly, it would be something like:
    So when the promise of the Hereafter comes, we will bring you forth mixed.
    Fa idha jaa’ wa’d al-akherati ji’na bikom lafifa

    Fa idha = So when
    jaa’ = comes
    wa’d = promise
    Al Akherah = The hereafter. It derives from the word “Akhir” which means “last”, i think you have that word in Hebrew too.
    ji’na = we bring forth
    bikom = with you, by you (plural)
    lafifan = Hans Wehr translates it in the following way:
    “Gathered, assembled; crowded, throngig, multitude, crowd, swarm, body, cluster, group (min = of people); mixed company”.

    Yes i have also heard that not all jews believe that zionism can be based in judaism, and i suppose that there are jews who are zionists of political rather than religious reasons too. I however always believed that the Naturei Karta was the only religious based group that actively spoke against zionism. I understand from your post that i was wrong in thinking that?

  63. Roman Kalik Says:

    I however always believed that the Naturei Karta was the only religious based group that actively spoke against zionism. I understand from your post that i was wrong in thinking that?

    Neturei Karta don’t “speak against Zionism”. Neturei Karta fanatically oppose its very existence. This, I must say, is a very important distinction. These are people who would break the very basic-most tenets of the Jewish faith if it meant spitting on some “Evil Zionist Symbol”… and why the larger group I shall mention next has pretty much disowned them.

    Now, Neturei Karta, in turn, are a small part of a subset of Haredi Jews who oppose the existence of the state based on religious grounds – the largest group of those being the Satmar Hassidim (this would be a good time to say that Hassidim are also split down numerous branches). The Land of Israel is still central to their belief system, but they view the largely secular state establishment as a corrupting force on the faith. They may still live in the country, but avoid taking part in state institutions or symbols of any kind.

    These, in turn, are a subset of the Haredim, ultra-Orthodox Jews, very religious people who would like the state to be of a more religious outlook, but who prefer to participate in the political system to achieve that. They do not oppose the state, but would like it to be less secular and more religious – more suitable for their own take on how a Jewish state should be.

    They, in turn, are a subset of Israel’s religious Orthodox Jews. This is pretty much where I come into the equation, as part of the non-Haredi “plain Orthodox” Jews which constitutes the remainder. This group doesn’t focus as much on changing Israel towards having a more religious outlook, but this is also where the “Ithalta De’Geula” crowd largely resides. The Haredim don’t much fancy that a state founded by secular/atheist socialists could be much of a way to start the End of the Great Exile, but there’s nothing against viewing it as a potentially positive (or negative) political power.

  64. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Thank you for that explanation. I got the thing about the Naturei Karta. Do you know that in shia-muslim circles here in DK (which are very largely pro-iranian), the Neturei Karta are often portrayed as “the orthodox jews” – as in contrast to the “not-real-jews” who supports Israel?

    I have something that i have heard that you perhaps can elaborate on. Many danes of my generation went to Israel to work in a kibbutz when they were young (funny enough, they are mainly leftists who today oppose much of israeli policy) – i know many danes who have enjoined this experience. Now, i work with one of these guys, who once explained to me that orthodox jews do not believe in the state of Israel in the sense that it is the promised return to Israel. Because the exiled would be ended by GOD – not by the people. Israel will return to the Jews, but it will be God who will give it to them. While they might support and believe in the state of Israel, they do so of political reasons and not for religious reasons. He said that their logic was as follows: “That is what is best for the jews, but not necessarily what our religion has assigned for us”.

    Are this the same and the “Ithalta de’Geula”-idea largely the same? And do you share that?

    If yes, i would like to ask the following theoretical question:
    The central thing seems to be that the jews have a state to support and protect themselves after have being prosecuted in practically everywhere they have lived for more than a millenia, and this being motivated by “easing the exile” and not “ending the exile”, the central element seems to be the state and not the location of this state. Ignoring that now the jews happen to live in Israel and changing that is not a suitable solution, would it be theoretically acceptable if the state were located elsewhere?

    Please note that this is not something i ask as a matter of discussion because i am very much aware that such theoretical questions do not help anyone in the present situation where the jews happen to live and have a state in Israel. I ask it to understand. Please take this in mind before answering the question.

  65. Roman Kalik Says:

    Do you know that in shia-muslim circles here in DK (which are very largely pro-iranian), the Neturei Karta are often portrayed as “the orthodox jews” – as in contrast to the “not-real-jews” who supports Israel?

    Not surprising. The current rulers of Iran and Neturei-Karta seem to have decided to give legitimacy pats on the back to each other… All it reminds *me* about is Communist Jews in the Soviet Union, and how the other Jews there had to be yes-men for them and the regime in general… or else. Iran’s remaining Jewish population is in a similar bind just now. Things are very… cooperative over there, ever since the old community leader got executed shortly after the revolution.

    Are this the same and the “Ithalta de’Geula”-idea largely the same? And do you share that?

    Different, actually. Orthodox Jews believe that the Almighty will end the Exile, that’s a general consensus issue and one of the basics of the religion. But the “Ithalta de’Geula” philosophy views the currently founded state as a precursor to the end of the Exile, and its very existence as a confirmation for its beginning. Hence the Prayer for the State added in some synagogues here, which considers the state as “Reshit Tzmichat Geulatenu” – The Root of the Growth of Our Salvation.

    Note the difference. One may view the state of Israel as “good for the Jews”, possibly miraculous in its present-day existence and continued survival, but not much beyond that. The other view takes the existence of the state as a confirmation for old prophesies, and quite possibly the first step on the path that will lead to the Divine Salvation.

    As for myself, I’m mostly of the first view. Mostly.

  66. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Thank you for that explanation, very useful indeed.

  67. Andrew Brehm Says:

    “Ignoring that now the jews happen to live in Israel and changing that is not a suitable solution, would it be theoretically acceptable if the state were located elsewhere?”

    Other locations had been considered by Jewish groups in the 19th century. I believe they even started buying land in Argentina.

    However, Israel was the best location, because it was the best compromise (all Jews would find Israel acceptable whereas other locations wouldn’t have the support of almost everyone), because it was poor (and land was cheap), because Jews had already been living there and were still living there, because a deal was made with the Hashemites, and because Israel was a “land without a people”, in the sense that very few people lived there (compared to how much could live in the land).

    So the Zionists won and started buying land in Israel.

    But note that Jerusalem was still important to Jews and it was necessity, not wish, that made Jews consider other locations for a Jewish state. And had a Jewish state been founded elsewhere (Argentina), what would have happened to the Arab Jews? Would France have taken them in? All of them? (Don’t tell me that without Israel they wouldn’t have needed to flee. The attacks on Jews all over the Arab world started before Israel was re-founded, and other groups, like the Kurds, are also routinely targeted even today.)

    Incidentally, if Umar had understood the Quran text to mean that G-d took away the Jewish right to live in Israel, he wouldn’t have called on Jews to return from the exile, would he?

    Clearly Umar thought that the Jews had a right to live in Israel. And that’s exactly what the Zionists believe(d).

  68. Roman Kalik Says:

    The central thing seems to be that the jews have a state to support and protect themselves after have being prosecuted in practically everywhere they have lived for more than a millenia, and this being motivated by “easing the exile” and not “ending the exile”, the central element seems to be the state and not the location of this state. Ignoring that now the jews happen to live in Israel and changing that is not a suitable solution, would it be theoretically acceptable if the state were located elsewhere?

    Not quite simple as that, I’m afraid. Israel is the only place on which the vast majority of Jews could ever agree on – and to which the vast majority of Jews already share a tie. Stalin, in an attempt to counter the Jewish flow towards Palestine, founded the Jewish Autonomous Oblast – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast

    Didn’t work. Nor did the idea being thrown around at some point about Uganda – which turned one Zionist Congress into an uproar and a laughing stock at the same time.

    It’s not just about security, at the end of the day. It’s also about restoring the culture, the language, and the only place to which we felt a tie – and in which we could start such a restoration… was the Land. With a capital L. The ones who wanted to found the country purely out of security-based considerations were the entirely secularized and near-entirely assimilated European Jews – they were the ones who wanted to just emulate the European national model for the Jews, but somewhere safer than Europe. They found out the hard way that most Jews had different ideas about it all.

  69. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “Incidentally, if Umar had understood the Quran text to mean that G-d took away the Jewish right to live in Israel, he wouldn’t have called on Jews to return from the exile, would he?

    Clearly Umar thought that the Jews had a right to live in Israel. And that’s exactly what the Zionists believe(d).”
    – He did not take away their right to live in Israel, because in Islam there is no soil on earth that jews cannot inhabit save Arabia, why don’t you listen to this?

    Besides, i want some historical references for that.

  70. Nobody Says:

    Ahmad al-Safawi Says:
    June 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Nobody: You are welcome. However, it seems like you did not view the link that i provided you with. Please read it, because it goes into detail about how a non-muslim is granted salvation.

    But the link just repeats what you’ ve been saying all the time and this is that ever since Muhammad no salvation is possible for non Muslims unless the message of Muhammad has not reached them.

    I can understand if this seems hard for a jew to understand, if judaism encourage the actions over the beliefs. I never knew that, i always thought that jews and muslims were united on that one, as opposed to the christians who emphasize belief very much.

    I have lost you here. Christians indeed emphasize belief in Christ very much to the point of making it a prerequisite for salvation. But what were you thinking Muslims and Jews to be united on as opposed to the Christians? Anyway, I see it mentioned occasionally that in Judaism the balance between faith and action is shifted towards the latter more than in the other two religions.

    By the way one of the explanations of why gentiles should be discouraged from converting to Judaism I was told is that their chances to get it right are immensely better as non Jews since they have only ten primary commandments to follow instead of hundreds if they are Jews. But I don’t think that this is necessarily because Judaism encourages actions over beliefs but rather because Judaism approaches this stuff from the operational point of view. It’s not important if people call their god Allah or Brahman. As far as the whole humanity is concerned the idea is clear: people should practice strict monotheism, to avoid making troubles and the stuff. The idea is that people should stick to the right routine. If on top of this they can have right beliefs and right views, then so much better. But first things come first and the first thing is how people actually live their lives.

    Now I used to think that this is a matter of common knowledge or better universal spiritual intuition that not only having the right doctrine does not guarantee a thing to anybody but some people manage to get it right even when operating under false premises and concepts. In fact I was sure that such a recognition exists in Islam too. People may claim that having the right doctrine provides people with better framework for organizing one’s thoughts and actions, that it makes living their lives in the right way easier for a person. That’s ok with me. But I think it’s quite an arrogance to believe that just because somebody does not accept your religion, however virtuous this person may be, he will end rotting in hell.

  71. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    “But the link just repeats what you’ ve been saying all the time and this is that ever since Muhammad no salvation is possible for non Muslims unless the message of Muhammad has not reached them.”
    – Well okay then, i just wanted to ensure that you got it right.

    “I have lost you here. Christians indeed emphasize belief in Christ very much to the point of making it a prerequisite for salvation. But what were you thinking Muslims and Jews to be united on as opposed to the Christians? ”
    – I were thinking that jews and muslims held the same beliefs regarding the balance between faith and actions.

    “Now I used to think that this is a matter of common knowledge or better universal spiritual intuition that not only having the right doctrine does not guarantee a thing to anybody but some people manage to get it right even when operating under false premises and concepts.”
    – The reason why Islam do not operate that way is because of the famous saying of the Prophet (saaws): Actions are according to the intentions, and everybody will be rewarded for what they intended.

    As such, the correct intention is most important, and that one happen to be love and obedience towards Allah (tt) and all what follows from that. You cannot quite call it obedience if you reject Prophets and Books revealed from Allah (tt).

    “It’s also about restoring the culture, the language, and the only place to which we felt a tie – and in which we could start such a restoration… was the Land. With a capital L. ”
    – I am not quite sure i get that 100%. I cannot see why one cannot restore the culture and the language elsewhere hypothetically speaking, but i understand the thing about feeling a tie towards the land as it plays a major role in judaism and jewish tradition.

    “The ones who wanted to found the country purely out of security-based considerations were the entirely secularized and near-entirely assimilated European Jews – they were the ones who wanted to just emulate the European national model for the Jews, but somewhere safer than Europe. ”
    – So there were nobody using the argument that “Creating the State of Israel would be ending the exile and only God would do that?”

  72. Roman Kalik Says:

    – I am not quite sure i get that 100%. I cannot see why one cannot restore the culture and the language elsewhere hypothetically speaking, but i understand the thing about feeling a tie towards the land as it plays a major role in judaism and jewish tradition.

    I see language and culture as part of the entire parcel. In the end, the center of our faith is here. The ruins of our culture and nation, both figuratively and literally, were here. The graves of our ancestors are here, as is what’s left of what they built.

    Where else would we go? What other place could we ever unanimously agree on?

    – So there were nobody using the argument that “Creating the State of Israel would be ending the exile and only God would do that?”

    It was used to some extent, yes. But after the state had become a fact that argument saw much less use – primarily, I suspect, because the state actually managed to survive, and because of the Holocaust. Jewish passivity – a hallmark of our mentality in the Diaspora for the past 1000 years or so – had become too dangerous to maintain, and for the first time in centuries there was a viable alternative to it.

  73. Nobody Says:

    The reason why Islam do not operate that way is because of the famous saying of the Prophet (saaws): Actions are according to the intentions, and everybody will be rewarded for what they intended.

    This is all right. I bet that many rabbis would go as far to say that intentions are actually more important than actions. It’s impossible to judge one’s actions without taking into account his intentions and what’s intended may be frequentlly more important that the result, the execution is not necessarily under our control. But again, there is a certain gap between accepting this and believing that all non Muslims went so far astray as to be hopeless.

  74. Nobody Says:

    Lazy blogging, Abu Skander. Everything is fine?

  75. Ahmad al-Safawi Says:

    Just returned from a long trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia… I hope blogging will begin again soon.. Thank you for asking about me. I hope you and your family also is okay.

  76. mtakbar Says:

    Palazzi is a Zionist and a discredited person and not really considered a scholar at all by anyone. It’s funny when Neo-Cons and Zionists want to prove a point they bring a so called “native” to reveal the truth. It seems to make them feel better about themselves.

    I am surprised at the constant attempts by non-Muslims to be Muffassireen, (Quranic Commentators), without the minimal engagement of the corpus of Islamic thought and text. It confirms the fact that people will read into text whatever is their whims and or desires without even excepting that they have pre-judgments and then they will claim to be objective!

    The land is Palestine, it’s been called Shaam/Filisteen for the longest, that is a fact!

    -MT

  77. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Good article Ahmad al-Safawi; also note that Yusuf Ali correctly translates Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104; from: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran17_104.htm

    Quote- “So he (Pharaoh) resolved to remove them (the Jews) from the face of the earth: But We did drown him and all who were with him. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell securely in the land (of promise)’: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, we gathered you together in a mingled crowed. (The Noble Quran, 17:103-104)”

    Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran gave the People of Israel two opportunities to elate with might on earth before the Noble Quran was revealed. After the second time came, He the Almighty, sent to them enemies that poured destruction upon them:

    “If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power. (The Noble Quran, 17:7)”

    “The second doom was due to the rejection of the Message of Jesus. ‘To disfigure your faces’ means to destroy any credit or power you may have got: the face shows the personality of the man. Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.C. was complete. He was a son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, and at the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, had the title of Caesar as heir to the throne. He ruled as Roman Emperor from 79 to 81 A.C.
    end quote.

    Also as for some peoples claims of alleged “miraculous survival” of zionist “israel”. This hasn’t been “yahweh” helping them it has been the superpowers of the day funding and arming them! Heck the Nazis would’ve exterminated the Jews had America, Britain, and the Soviets not come to there aid! So if the jews are so allegedly loved why would God allow Hitler to destroy them?!!! In all of the wars fought 1948, 1967, 1973 zionist “israel” was completely armed and funded either by superpowers and military giants like America, Britain, or France. Today “israel” uses American F-16 fighter jets, American Apache attack helicopters, etc. All of these are given to “israel” largely for free by the American government and military. In 1948 “israel” had the support of the “Mahal” foreign volunteers who were WWII trained Americans and British mostly. “israel” was given all the technology for their nuclear weapons by the French who were allied with “israel” against Nasser’s Egypt. “israel” in the 1967 war destroyed Egypt’s air force on the ground, for this attack zionist “israel” used French supplied Dassault Mirage IIICJ fighter jets. The lists goes on and on, see Holy Qur’an Surah 3:112 were it shows the jews are cursed unless they are given a reprieve by God and then are given an alliance by MEN (in this case America, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union all helped and continue to help “israel”). The foreign superpower backers are what makes “israel” strong, not alleged “Yahweh” of their Torah!!! Most of this comes also with Western Christian sympathy for having oppressed Jews for centuries and for not stopping the Nazi Holocaust.

    Regarding zionist idiot kaafir Palazzi all that needs to be said about him is; Holy Qur’an Surah 5:51- YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
    end quote.

    Palazzi(la) is a fake pretend “convert to Islam” who is in bed with the christians and jews.

  78. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Another thing that completely rips apart the Zionists claims on Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104 is that this verse was time specific as can be shown from the beginning of this Qur’anic Surah; that is Qur’an Surah 17 (al-Israa’). Most specifically this can be seen if we simply look at Holy Qur’an Surah 17:2-7. The Holy Qur’an is not set in chronological order, it is not a “storybook” that has a beginning-middle-climax-and end, etc. For example the Bible fits the common Western “storybook” format, you have a beginning God creates everything in “Genesis”, you then have a timeline of events, ending with the end of the world in “Revelation” (in the Christian New Testament in this case). The Holy Qur’an is Allah(SWT) words to mankind, therefore it doesn’t need to fit this western storybook form! God knows his creation and is telling us laws to obey in the Holy Qur’an, stories are given to show examples. The order of the Holy Qur’an Mushaf (book) is al-Faatiha (the Beginning), and then you have the large Surahs (Chapters) which give laws and are where (along with Hadith and later scholarly interpretations) you get the Islamic Shariah law. After these longer Surahs (Chapters) you have at the back of the Holy Qur’an Mushaf (Book) the shorter Surahs (Chapters) and these are words of wisdom to capture the hearts of men; think of them like “Psalms” or “wise sayings” from Almighty God. These small Surahs (in the back) were mostly revealed first to the Prophet(SAWW) to get the people to embrace Islam, and then the laws were revealed (Shariah) once they were strong and had fully embraced Islam as their religion and way of life.

    Now after that important information for understanding context, let us go back to the verses in question.

    First, Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104. For this instance I will use the non-Yusuf Ali translation (even though I believe Yusuf Ali’s translation is best)
    Holy Qur’an Surah 17:101 and 104

    [Shakir 17:101] And certainly We gave Musa nine clear signs; so ask the children of Israel. When he came to them, Firon said to him: Most surely I deem you, O Musa, to be a man deprived of reason.

    [Shakir 17:104] And We said to the Israelites after him: Dwell in the land: and when the promise of the next life shall come to pass, we will bring you both together in judgment.

    Note this was in a specific time period, that of Prophet Musa(as). The Bani Israel (children of Israel) had just been rescued from Pharaoh. After, being saved from Pharaoh the Israelites rebelled against Allah who had saved them. For disobeying Musa(as) and rebelling against God; the Israelites were not allowed to enter Palestine for 40 years after.
    After this punishment was over and the Israelites were allowed by Allah to enter Palestine they lived under righteous Muslim leaders like David(as) and Solomon(as). Note that Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104 makes clear that they were told they could dwell in the land; but this was OBVIOUSLY conditional as later events show! In 586 BCE the Babylonians invaded and destroyed the Israelite kingdom. The Holy Qur’an speaks of this in Holy Qur’an Surah 17:5- [Yusufali 17:5] When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled.

    A good authentic Muslim Tafseer (commentary of the Qur’an) tells us about this verse (Holy Qur’an Surah 17:5)
    [Pooya/Ali Commentary 17:5]
    Please refer to Jeremiah 25: 9 where it is stated that the Lord said:

    “I will send for my servant Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. I will exterminate them and make them a thing of horror and derision, a scandal for ever.”

    In Jeremiah 52: 4 to 27 the annihilation of the Jews alongwith their king Zedekiah and his sons and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C. is mentioned in detail. The Babylonians penetrated through their lands, their temple, and their homes, and carried away the Jews, men and women, into captivity.

    end quote.

    The Jews were then rescued by the Persian king Cyrus the Great who defeated the Babylonians and decreed that the Jews could return to Palestine. The Holy Qur’an speaks of this in the very next verse; Holy Qur’an Surah 17:6- [Yusufali 17:6] Then did We grant you the Return as against them: We gave you increase in resources and sons, and made you the more numerous in man-power.

    Tafseer
    [Pooya/Ali Commentary 17:6]
    The return of the Jews from the captivity was about 520 B.C. They started life afresh. They rebuilt their temple. They carried out various reforms and developed a new Judaism under the guidance of prophet Uzayr. Refer to Ezra 1: 1, 2 and 9 to 11; Ezra 2 :64 and 65.

    However, the Israelites were going to be thrown out of the land for a second time and this was the last time they had a “religious right” to Palestine (not like how colonialist europeans stole Muslim Palestine in 1948 C.E.)

    The 2nd time the Holy Qur’an speaks of the Jews being defeated, humilated, and exiled is in the very next verse! This came when they rejected Prophet Jesus(as) aka Prophet Isa(as).

    Holy Qur’an Surah 17:7- [Yusufali 17:7] If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power.

    Tafseer (Commentary)
    [Pooya/Ali Commentary 17:7]
    The Jews again showed a stiff-necked resistance to Allah’s message in the time of prophet Isa; and the inevitable doom followed in the complete and final destruction of the temple under Titus in 70 A.D, when they rejected the message of Isa. See Matthew 23: 37 to 39 and 24 I and 2.

    So one must read Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104 as a temporary deal with the Israelites who were pious Muslims and not Jews. This was under Muslim leaders like King David(as), King Solomon(as), etc. However this promise cannot be taken as being forever, as we see later on in time the Israelites were rejected and thrown out of Palestine for their disbelief and sins. Holy Qur’an Surah 17:2-7.

  79. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    More good points from: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217104943AAHzopV

    Regarding Holy Qur’an Surah 17:104

    Quote- If you just finish the rest of the meaning you will understand what it means! But zionists (generally speaking) like to play the word games to promote for their occupation project!

    I would first like to note that your translation of that verse was not accurate. There you go :

    “So he (Pharaoh) resolved to remove them (the Jews) from the face of the earth: But We did drown him and all who were with him. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, ‘Dwell securely in the land (of promise)’: but when the SECOND OF THE WARNINGS came to pass, we gathered you together in a mingled crowed. ”

    Read the rest of the story here:

    And we made this known to the children of Israel through revelation: [5] Twice, indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing! (17:4)

    The first time:

    “Hence, when the prediction of the first of those two [periods of iniquity] came true, We sent against you some of Our bondmen of terrible prowess in war, and they wrought havoc throughout the land: and so the prediction was fulfilled.” (17:5)

    The second time:

    “And after a time We allowed you to prevail against them once again, [8] and aided you with wealth and offspring, and made you more numerous [than ever].” (17:6)

    And what the “second of the warnings” is:

    “If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the SECOND OF THE WARNINGS came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power. ” (Quran, 17:7)

    17:104: “And We say to the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land, then, when the final and the last promise comes near [i.e. the Day of Judgment or the decent of Jesus on earth], We shall bring you altogether as a mixed crowd.”

    When the tribe of Israel were rescued from the Pharaoh, God told them to go stay in Palestine. This was a revelation given to them. However, they did not heed Gods’ command.
    This verse is referring to Prophet Moses’ time, the story of the tribe of Israel, basically. It has nothing to do now with the state of Israel.
    I find it amusing, that you guys claim the Quran is horrible, violent, etc, except when it comes to the things you want. Only then do you ask Muslims why they “don’t respect what there holly book says”, and you don’t even know what it’s referring to!

  80. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Some important notes, refuting a main Zionist clown named Massimo Palazzi (a pretend “Muslim” who calls himself “Abdul Hadi Palazzi”); read the great non-Muslim Islamic historian from Georgetown University in the United States: Professor John Esposito; “But John Esposito, author of Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam and a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington, said “Sheik” Palazzi’s Koran interpretations are “not credible.” “I’m not too sure who, other than Palazzi, supports his position” that the Koran endorses Jerusalem as an Israeli-held capital, said Mr. Esposito, who is also editor of the Oxford History of Islam. “I understand why Jewish groups like him — he’s got a good product to sell — but when you talk about top scholars on Islam, I’ve never heard his name mentioned.”

    Thus this clown (and alleged Italian “Muslim convert” i.e. pretend “convert”) Massimo Palazzi has received much attention from the neo-con Zionist Jewish press, but has received little or NO attention from any actual Muslims!

    Note from Italy itself- “Palazzi is totally discredited by the Muslim community of his homeland Italy and is not taken seriously at all by the Muslim community there. Another damning indictment if there ever was one! One of the main Islamic organizations in Italy is AMI (the Italian Muslim Association) which Palazzi was made to leave which lead Palazzi to set up his own organization entitled AMI also. On February 25, 2004 the Director of the bona-fide AMI Omar Danilo Speranza stated in an open letter:
    ‘Further, I hereby declare that I have no relationship or connection to Mr. Massimo Palazzi (Abdul Hadi Palazzi) or to the directives or policies which he imposed on the Italian Muslim Association in the past.'”

    Also read these statements:
    “fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out” (Holy Qur’an 2:191)

    this is enough justification from our primary source of law for the palestinians to expel the zionist*invaders and drive them out from where they have been driven out. as you can see in islam it is not permitted for the muslim*to*give recognition to an occupying force!

    Another great statement by a Muslim intellectual: I am appalled at what I am reading in this post. No offense, but the idea that Allah(swt) expects us to support a terrorist state like that is completely absurd. As for the prophecies, there is a prophecy that there will be an antrichrist who will come to power, but does that mean we should help the antichrist so the prophecy will come true. (Of course NOT!) If a prophecy is truly from Allah(swt) it will happen regardless what we do. The only thing Allah(swt) orders us to do is to fight in His way for justice. That means fighting Israel until they dismantle all settlements and allow refugees the right to return and pull their troops out of our Muslim territories.

    And a last great statement destroying Zionist claims:
    First of all, the ‘Jews’ in Palestine cannot trace their lineage to the tribe of Judah, or any other tribe of Israel; they are mainly a mix of eastern European nationalities. Therefore, they are not Jews in the racial sense.

    Secondly, their state is not based on Mosaic law, but Western Liberalism, and while they oppress non-Jews, they also accept vast amounts of weapons and money from non-Jews to aid in their persecution of other non-Jews, though they can hardly be called Jews themselves, since they do not rule by Mosaic law and cannot trace their lineage back to Ya’qub. Strangely enough, the Pashtun Taliban have a stronger Jewish lineage than the ‘Jews’ in Palestine.

    As soon as the tyrant Israeli government proves its lineage and rules by Mosaic law, then, and only then, will I accept them as Jews, and since I know that this will never happen, I’ll even go ahead and say that I’ll accept them as the legitimate heirs of Palestine. They are not fighting for the establishment of a Jewish state; they are merely an engorged American outpost in the Middle East. Their state has absolutely nothing to do with God.

  81. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    A great article on this issue; http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/7726/Quds

    Quote- Praise be to Allaah.

    Firstly: with regard to the importance of Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), you should know – may Allaah bless you –that the virtues of Bayt al-Maqdis are many:

    – Allaah has described it in the Qur’aan as being blessed. He said (interpretation of the meaning): “Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allaah) Who took His slave (Muhammad) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah) to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsaa (in Jerusalem), the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed…” [al-Israa’ 17:1]. Al-Quds is part of the neighbourhood surrounding the mosque and hence it is blessed.

    – Allaah has described it as being holy, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “[Moosa said:] O my people! Enter the holy land (Palestine) which Allaah has assigned to you…” [al-Maa’idah 5:21]

    – In al-Quds there is al-Masjid al-Aqsaa, and one prayer there is equivalent to two hundred and fifty prayers elsewhere.

    It was reported that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: we were discussing, in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which of them was more virtuous, the mosque of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or Bayt al-Maqdis. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: One prayer in my mosque is better than four prayers there, but it is still a good place of prayer. Soon there will come a time when if a man has a spot of land as big as his horse’s rope from which he can see Bayt al-Maqdis, that will be better for him than the whole world. (Narrated and classed as saheeh by al-Haakim, 4/509. Al-Dhahabi and al-Albaani agreed with him, as stated in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, at the end of the discussion of hadeeth no. 2902).

    One prayer in al-Masjid al-Nabawi is equivalent to one thousand prayers elsewhere, so one prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsaa is equivalent to two hundred and fifty prayers elsewhere.

    With regard to the famous hadeeth which says that prayer in al-Masjid al-Aqsaa is equivalent to five hundred prayers elsewhere, this is da’eef (weak). (See Tamaam al-Minnah [?] by Shaykh al-Albaani – may Allaah have mercy on him – p. 292).

    – The one-eyed Dajjaal (“Antichrist”) will not enter it, because of the hadeeth, “He will prevail over all the earth, apart from al-Haram [in Makkah] and Bayt al-Maqdis.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 19665. Classed as saheeh by Ibn Khuzaymah, 2/327, and Ibn Hibbaan, 7/102).

    – The Dajjaal will be killed close to al-Quds. He will be killed by the Messiah ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), as was stated in the hadeeth: “The son of Maryam will kill the Dajjaal at the gates of Ludd.” (Narrated by Muslim, 2937, from the hadeeth of al-Nawwaas ibn Sam’aan). Ludd (Lod) is a place near Bayt al-Maqdis.

    – The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was taken to Bayt al-Maqdis on his Night Journey (al-Israa’) from al-Masjid al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsaa. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Glorified (and Exalted) be He (Allaah) Who took His slave (Muhammad) for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah) to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsaa (in Jerusalem)…” [al-Israa’ 17:1].

    – It (al-Quds) was the first qiblah of the Muslims, as was reported by al-Baraa’ (may Allaah be pleased with him): the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed in the direction of Bayt al-Maqdis for sixteen or seventeen months. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 41 – this version was narrated by him – and by Muslim, 525).

    – It is the place where Wahy (Revelation) came down, and it is the homeland of the Prophets. This is well known.

    – It is one of the mosques to which people may travel.

    Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No journey should be made except to three mosques, al-Masjid al-Haraam, Masjid al-Rasool (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and Masjid al-Aqsaa.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1132. Also narrated by Muslim, 827, from the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, with the words, “Do not travel except to…”).

    – The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) led the Prophets in one prayer in al-Aqsaa, as reported in the lengthy hadeeth: “… Then the time for prayer came, and I led them in prayer.” (Narrated by Muslim, 172, from the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah).

    It is not permissible to travel to any spot on earth for the purpose of worshipping there, except these three mosques.

    Secondly:

    The fact that Ya’qoob (peace be upon him) built al-Masjid al-Aqsaa does not mean that the Jews have more right to the mosque than the Muslims, because Ya’qoob was a monotheist and the Jews are mushrikeen. The fact that their father Ya’qoob built the mosque does not mean that it belongs to them. He built it for the monotheists to worship in it, even if they were not his children, and he did not allow the mushrikeen to enter it, even if they are his children, because the call of the Prophets has nothing to do with race; it is based on taqwaa (piety, awareness of Allaah).

    Thirdly:

    Your saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) led the previous Prophets in prayer to signify the unity of the message and all divine revelations is correct from the point of view of the origin of the religion and ‘aqeedah (belief) of the Prophets. All of the Prophets received their Message from one source, which was the Wahy (Revelation), and they all had the same ‘aqeedah, which was the belief in Tawheed (absolute unity of Allaah) and the worship of Allaah Alone, even though there were differences in the details of their laws. This was confirmed by our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he said: “I am the closest of mankind to ‘Eesaa ibn Maryam in this world and in the Hereafter. The Prophets are brothers although they have different mothers, and their religion is one.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3259; Muslim, 2365).
    The phrase “brothers although they have different mothers” means brothers who have the same father but different mothers, i.e., they are the children of co-wives.

    Here we would caution readers against believing that the Jews, Christians and Muslims are following the same principles nowadays, because the Jews have changed the religion of their Prophet. Indeed, part of the religion of their Prophet is that they should follow our Prophet and not reject him, but they disbelieve in the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and associate others in worship with Allaah.

    Fourthly:

    The Jews do not have any stake in al-Quds, because even though they may have lived in the land previously, that land now belongs to the Muslims from two points of view:

    1. The Jews disbelieved and are no longer following the religion of the believers among the Children of Israel who followed and supported Moosa and ‘Eesaa (peace be upon them).

    2. We Muslims have more right to it than them, because land does not belong to the people who lived there first, but to those who establish the laws of Allaah therein. Allaah created the land, and He created people to worship Allaah in the land and to establish therein the religion, laws and rulings of Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… Verily, the earth is Allaah’s. He gives it as a heritage to whom He wills of His slaves; and the (blessed) end is for the Muttaqoon (the pious).” [al-A’raaf 7:128]

    Hence if some Arabs came who were not followers of Islam and they ruled the land with kufr, they would have to be fought until they submitted to the rule of Islam or were killed.

    It is not the matter of race or ethnicity; it is the matter of Tawheed and Islam.

    Here it is useful to quote the words of one of the researchers:

    “History tells us that the first people to settle in Palestine were the Canaanites, six thousand years BCE. They were an Arab tribe who came to Palestine from the Arabian Peninsula, and after their arrival, Palestine was named after them [i.e., Canaan].”

    (al-Suhyooniyyah, Nash’atuhaa, Tanzeemaatuhaa, Inshitatuhaa, by Ahmad al-‘Awadi, p. 7).

    “As for the Jews, the first time they entered Palestine was approximately six hundred years after Ibraheem had entered the land, i.e., they entered it approximately 1400 years BCE. So the Canaanites entered Palestine and lived there approximately 4500 years before the Jews.”

    (Ibid., p. 8)

    Hence it is clear that the Jews have no right to the land, whether according to religious law or in terms of who lived there first and possessed the land. They are aggressors who are seizing the land by force. We ask Allaah to rid Bayt al-Maqdis of them sooner rather than later, for He is Able to do that and He is Most Generous in answering. Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds.

    Islam Q&A
    Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

  82. my blog Says:

    check this out…

    this is mine…

  83. гей плешка знакомства Says:

    и всё эе: неподражаемо!

  84. オテモニャン Says:

    kdi3qcg

    すっごいよ!
    オナニー
    オナニー
    逆援助
    SEX
    フェラチオ
    ソープ
    逆援助
    出張ホスト
    手コキ
    おっぱい
    フェラチオ
    中出し
    セックス
    デリヘル
    包茎
    逆援
    性欲

  85. diagopdj Says:

    Chapter 5: 20-21, which says Moses declared, “O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.”

    “So the simple fact is then,” he says, “from a faith-based point of view???
    If God has ‘WRITTEN’ the Holy Land of Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?”

    The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, ” probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism, etc., but certainly not having anything to do with the Quran.”

    “The issue, is that when the Muslims entered that land in the 7th century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action — wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis.”

    Medieval scholars, “without any exception” interpreted the Quran to recognize Israel as belonging to the Jews.

    So if God mandated this to the people of moses by WRITING, who can take it from them?

    Just like how saddam thought Kuwait is Iraq’s he invaded it. It is WRITTEN for whom?

    Just like India saying Kashmir is theirs and Indias history books show Kashmir, while pakistans history books also show Kashmir as their? Whose is it WRITTEN FOR???? And Who can take if from whom??

    Just like the pre-islamic people who had first left Arabia only to return back with a FALSELY PRESUMED acceptance of their faith, but Mohammad and his followers, TURNED BACK ON THEIR HEELS, and we know what happened next. Who took it from whom??
    Just like Iraq and Iran fought 10yrs of war with each other claiming land is theirs. Whose is it WRITTEN for?

    Etc. etc.

    But here the Quran is very specifically saying that ALLAH GOD WROTE FOR THEM.

    WHY ARE ARABS TURNING THEIR HEELS ON THEM?

    Surah Al-Imran: “And Muhammad is only an apostle, ALL of the (other) apostles HAVE PASSED AWAY BEFORE HIM : if, then, he dies or is slain, will you turn about on your heels” (Q3:144)?

    ALL PROPHETS BEFORE MOHAMMAD DIED, ………… ARE YOU TURNING ABOUT ON YOUR HEELS??

  86. Ben Othman Says:

    Quran 5:21-26

    20. And (remember) when Musa said to his people: “O my people! Remember the favor of Allah to you: when He made Prophets among you, made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations (Al-`Alamin).”)
    (21. “O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back; for then you will be returned as losers.”)
    (22. They said: “O Musa! In it are a people of great strength, and we shall never enter it, till they leave it; when they leave, then we will enter.”)
    (23. Two men of those who feared (Allah and) on whom Allah had bestowed His grace said: “Assault them through the gate; for when you are in, victory will be yours. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.”)
    (24. They said: “O Musa! We shall never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.”)
    (25. He ﴿Musa﴾ said: “O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother, so Ifruq us from the rebellious people!”)
    (26. (Allah) said: “THEREFORE IT IS FORBIDDEN FOR THEM FOR FORTY YEARS; in distraction they will wander through the land. So do not grieve for the rebellious people.”)

    Note: The Assignment is conditional(not absolute ) that is the Israelites were to be righteous and do not turn back from Jihad.The Israelites refusal resulted in them wandering in the desert for 40 years.

    Note; Quran 3:144–revealed in a different context.

  87. heinz von heiden Says:

    I need to know around your website reinforce with the abundance of information stick serving providers like you.

  88. Fa bani pe net cu sau fara investitii Says:

    Fa bani pe net cu sau fara investitii…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  89. Find great Pec Workouts! Says:

    Find great Pec Workouts!…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  90. rip quotes Says:

    rip quotes…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  91. cheap roman shades Says:

    cheap roman shades…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  92. madbid Says:

    madbid…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  93. Olympus Pen E-PL2 Says:

    Olympus Pen E-PL2…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  94. Assassin's Creed Revelations Game Key kaufen Says:

    Assassin’s Creed Revelations Game Key kaufen…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  95. Cyberking Says:

    Cyberking…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  96. знакомства Says:

    Remarkable things here. I’m very glad to look your post. Thanks a lot and I’m taking a look ahead to contact you. Will you please drop me a mail?

  97. lineage2dropfinder Says:

    lineage2dropfinder…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  98. vizio xvt553sv deal Says:

    vizio xvt553sv deal…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  99. swagbucks.com Says:

    swagbucks.com…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  100. housing in Haifa at cheap cost ! Says:

    housing in Haifa at cheap cost !…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  101. bioidentical hormones woodstock Says:

    bioidentical hormones woodstock…

    […]Israel in the Quran « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…

  102. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    And also a new large website of a prominent anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish group: http://www.truetorahjews.org/

  103. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/52606/Palestine

    Praise be to Allaah.

    It says in a number of reports that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) allocated Bayt Habroon or al-Khaleel to Tameem al-Daari.

    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

    Tameem ibn Aws ibn Khaarijah Abu Ruqayyah al-Daari moved to Greater Syria after the assassination of ‘Uthmaan and he settled in Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). He converted in the year 9 AH.

    Ya’qoob ibn Sufyaan said: He did not have any sons, but he had a daughter called Ruqayyah.

    It was narrated from several sources that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had allocated Bayt Habroon to him.

    Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, 1/449

    It says in Mu’jam al-Buldaan (2/212):

    Habroon is the name of a town in which is located the grave of Ibraaheem al-Khaleel (peace be upon him) in Palestine. It is now known as al-Khaleel.

    Tameem al-Daari came with his people to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and asked him to allocate Habroon to him, and he responded and wrote a document for him, which says:

    In the name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is what Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah has given to Tameem al-Daari and his companions. I give to you Bayt ‘Aynoon, Habroon, al-Martoom and Bayt Ibraaheem and all that is in them; I give that to them and to their descendents for ever and ever. Whoever disputes with them concerning that is offending Allaah. Witnessed by Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhaafah, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib. End quote.

    At that time Palestine was not under Muslim control, rather it was ruled by the Byzantines. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was allocating it for after Allaah enabled (the Muslims) to conquer it. So in this way the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was foretelling that it would be conquered.

    When it was conquered during the reign of ‘Umar, he fulfilled the promise of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and Tameem gave it as a waqf to his descendents. This was the first Islamic waqf ever in Palestine. Al-Maqdisi says in his book Ahsan al-Taqaaseem fi Ma’rifat al-Aqaaleem:

    … There is a permanent guest-house with bakers, cooks and servants, which offers lentils in olive oil to every pilgrim or visitor who passes through the city of al-Khaleel. This hospitality and food is provided by the waqf of Tameem al-Daari (may Allaah be pleased with him).

    Al-Qalqashandi said:

    Al-Hamadaani said: The city of al-Khaleel is populated by Bani Tameem al-Daari (may Allaah be pleased with him), in whose possession is the document which was written by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to Tameem and his brothers, allocating to them Bayt Habroon which is the town of al-Khaleel and some of its outskirts.

    Subh al-A’sha, 1/47

    And Allaah knows best.

  104. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Another link lol!

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/11/muslim-zionist-abdul-hadi-palazzi-now-hindu/

  105. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    From the charter of the Mujahideen of Hamas in Palestine:

    http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html

    Part III – Strategies and Methods
    Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
    The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

  106. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJN90t2gN6hxGiFQuBv-gYQE060w?docId=CNG.52483183e4e0f60d963361c17572c848.81

    Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews

    (AFP) – Jan 16, 2013

    PARIS — Jews of European origin are a mix of ancestries, with many hailing from tribes in the Caucasus who converted to Judaism and created an empire that lasted half a millennium, according to a gene study.

    The investigation, its author says, should settle a debate that has been roiling for more than two centuries.

    Jews of European descent, often called Ashkenazis, account for some 90 percent of the more than 13 million Jews in the world today.

    According to the so-called Rhineland Hypothesis, Ashkenazis descended from Jews who progressively fled Palestine after the Moslem conquest of 638 AD.

    They settled in southern Europe and then, in the late Middle Ages, about 50,000 of them moved from the Rhineland in Germany into eastern Europe, according to the hypothesis.

    But detractors say this idea is implausible.

    Barring a miracle –which some supporters of the Rhineland Hypothesis have in fact suggested — the scenario would have been demographically impossible.

    It would mean that the population of Eastern European Jews leapt from 50,000 in the 15th century to around eight million at the start of the 20th century.

    That birth rate would have been 10 times greater than that of the local non-Jewish population. And it would have occurred despite economic hardship, disease, wars and pogroms that ravaged Jewish communities.

    Seeking new light in the argument, a study published in the British journal Genome Biology and Evolution, compares the genomes of 1,287 unrelated individuals who hail from eight Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations.

    Geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, trawled through this small mountain of data in search of single changes in the DNA code that are linked to a group’s geographical origins.

    Such telltales have been used in past research to delve into the origins of the Basque people and the pygmy people of central Africa.

    Among European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East.

    The results, said Elhaik, give sound backing for the rival theory — the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

    Under this concept, eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, a hotchpotch of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries AD and, influenced by Jews from Palestine, converted to Judaism in the 8th century.

    The Judeo-Khazars built a flourishing empire, drawing in Jews from Mesopotamia and imperial Byzantium.

    They became so successful that they sent offshoots into Hungary and Romania, planting the seeds of a great diaspora.

    But Khazaria collapsed in the 13th century when it was attacked by the Mongols and became weakened by outbreaks of the Black Death.

    The Judeo-Khazars fled westwards, settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and in Hungary, where their skills in finance, economics and politics were in demand, and eventually spread to central and western Europe, according to the “Khazarian Hypothesis.”

    “We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaised Khazars, Greco-Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews and Judeans,” says Elhaik.

    “Their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga, with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan.”

    Many things are unknown about the Khazars, whose tribal confederation gathered Slavs, Scythians, Hunnic-Bulgars, Iranians, Alans and Turks.

    But, argues Elhaik, the tale sketched in the genes is backed by archaeological findings, by Jewish literature that describes the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism, and by language, too.

    “Yiddish, the language of Central and Eastern European Jews, began as a Slavic language” before being reclassified as High German, he notes.

    Another pointer is that European Jews and their ancestral groups in the Caucasus and Middle East share a relatively high risk of diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

    The investigation should help fine-tune a fast-expanding branch of genomics, which looks at single-change DNA mutations that are linked with inherited disease, adds Elhaik.

    Copyright © 2013 AFP. All rights reserved.

  107. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    ‘Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine. .Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.’ Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kumar (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.

    OUP is Oxford University Press

  108. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Also it should be noted that in the Deen of Al-Islam, Allah SWT (God Almighty) has commanded the Muslims to fight the kuffar until they either submit to and accept the religion of Islam or submit and pay us the Jizya (poll tax) in complete submission. See Qur’an al-Kareem Surah 9:29 on that.

    Again Allah SWT calls for offensive Jihad to spread Islam, and only the law of Allah SWT has the right to be implemented on the surface of the earth.

    http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/43087/spread%20sword

    “Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.”

    This further refutes claims of Khazarian ziofascist kuffar propagandist liars, who try to use the false supposed “arguments” that the brother who started this website fully addresses here and in the comments section. See Allah SWT telling the believers not to befriend the evil kuffar (Surah 5:51) and to check any information a wrongdoer tries to bring to you Surah 49:6

  109. Abdul-Rahman Says:

    Allah SWT tells the believers in his Qur’an al-Kareem not to befriend the evil kuffar Surah 5:51 and to check any information a wrongdoer tries to bring to you Surah 49:6

  110. submitter Says:

    The prophecy tells about Ahmad; ‘Servant of God’ whom will war to correct the wrongs and bringing judgement based on the law of God. He will liberate act of worshiping molten images and thus Arabia (wilderness desert, villages and cities) will glorify God since then. As can be seen today, inhabitants of Arabia are worshiping,praising God and singing words of God daily.

    And we continue reading Isaiah 42:18 – 25; God remind the ‘blind and deaf’ about the wrath of God towards Children of Israel, who neglect the message brought by past Servant of God.

    And not to repeat; the same mistake upon the coming of the new Servant of God,
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In Isaiah 42:1, it is not a coincidence upon seeing the writing of both אתמך (Atmc) אחמד (Ahmd). And the word before אתמך (Atmc), is עבדי (Abedi~My Servant). For indeed, It is indicating Ahmad; Abedallah (Ahmad; Servant of God).

    Not to mention אתמך (Atmc) is a special term foretelling the coming of a righteous man and is used only ONCE throughout the entire Book. [could this be a copying error or an intended error?]

    Children of Israel have been foretold upon the coming of Ahmad but sadly, only a few accepts.

  111. strategy flashgames Says:

    Greetings! Very helpful advice in
    this particular article! It’s the little changes that produce the most significant changes. Thanks a lot for sharing!

  112. ALI BAKRI Says:

    Hello i jut want to mention that in the book of god the (Quran) when the mentioned that the prophet Ibraham was a muslim, that doesnt mean a relegion. Ibraham was teaching his people that there’s one god, second when they said not a jew,or chrestian and he was a muslim that means that he didnt have any relegion, but he was a (muslim). THE world muslim or islam in arabic mean (peace) so what this verse mean he was a prophet of peace and not relegion, because in the time of moise we start to see the judaisem.

  113. vijay Says:

    Hello,

    I invite you to login to the following site and share your knowledge about the following topic.
    Topic: What does really QURAN tells about those who never had an opportunity to hear about it?
    http://holyvision.net/quran-5/what-does-quran-tells-about-those-who-never-had-an-opportunity-to-hear-3/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: