Nice thoughts, but do they matter?
Reader comment on: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel: An Islamic Prophecy
Submitted by Phillip Slepian, Jan 29, 2013 12:51
Assuming Salim's interpretation of the Koran and other Islamic texts is legitimate, his sentiments are quaint, but in the end, meaningless. Voices like Salim's are few and far between in the Islamic Umma, and those in power work quickly and ruthlessly to silence them. Of course there were Germans in World War II who objected to the Nazi rulers, but it made no difference. They were silenced, imprisoned, or executed.
While Salim's points are reasonable on their face, they still eminate from the basis that Islam is the one and only legitimate faith. The idea that if others, like the Jews, "do well" they will benefit from Allah's largesse ring hollow to non-Muslims. What does "do well" really mean? Many Islamic scholars would suggest that for the Jew or the Christian to "do well" means, at the least, to accept their dhimmi status within the Islamic Umma and pay the jizya - to "feel themselves subdued" as the Koran states.
How can Salim reconcile the Jewish right to the land of Israel and Muhammad's prophecy of a world completely submitted to Islam? How can he reconcile all of the seemingly contradictory statements in Islamic texts regarding Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? What about the principle of abrogation? Salim admits that Jerusalem does not appear once in the Koran (it appears several hundred times in the Torah), yet has no trouble naming it Islam's third holiest city. How can he justify that? Salim suggests that a state of Palestine in Judea and Samaria is a legitimate goal (albeit minus Jerusalem), but does not address the historical reality that these territories are the very heart of the ancestral Jewish national homeland. Salim's piece begs more questions than it answers.
Salim should understand that non-Muslims do not wish to be defined by Islam.
Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. This site reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable.
Other reader comments on this item
|Jerusalem [84 words]||Jeremy||Dec 12, 2013 12:32|
|Fantastic [40 words]||Edward Ovadia||Oct 20, 2013 11:14|
|Remarkable. [28 words]||Mark||Oct 16, 2013 14:56|
|Bible [9 words]||Tom Skylark||Aug 12, 2013 19:33|
|Jerusalem and the Jews [54 words]||Gerald A. Honigman||Jun 19, 2013 10:03|
|Koran and the Jews [34 words]||Sandra||Feb 20, 2013 06:53|
|Forgery of history: the Muslims are champions! [112 words]||François Alexandre||Feb 13, 2013 02:40|
|Muhammad's 'prophecy' [89 words]||Winnie||Feb 4, 2013 12:59|
|Read your Quran and Hadith more closely, Mr. Salim. [30 words]||Steven Buckley||Jan 31, 2013 17:25|
|Who is the author? [20 words]||PC||Jan 30, 2013 12:54|
|I wonder...? [93 words]||Max Modine||Jan 29, 2013 22:49|
|↔ Racist? [20 words]||Treehugger||Feb 15, 2013 11:05|
|Wow [5 words]||Robert Nicholson||Jan 29, 2013 20:34|
|⇒ Nice thoughts, but do they matter? [299 words]||Phillip Slepian||Jan 29, 2013 12:51|
|↔ Al taqiyya? [62 words]||Jim Fox||Feb 7, 2013 14:00|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.