Arab nationalism and the Middle East
QUOTE]Originally posted by jakkorz:
<strong>
First, regarding my questions and your answers:
You still did not answer the question of how do you say "friend" in classical arabic, which your native language is a sister of. I would appreciate it if you provide a clear answer.
Otherwise there is no use to carry on with this argument and I will just consider the subject closed for the lack of your knowledge to support what you claim to be the right translated word for the said verse.
Regarding what you claim about Samaria and Judea, Abraham have moved from the lands between the rivers, Tigris & Euphrates, to settle in a land which the Canaan's [I am not sure if the Philistines were at that time yet] were already occupying. Can you refute that?
Regarding your inquiry about what Arabs are doing all over the countries they are in now, well, it is simple. They conquered, settled, and immigrated to those lands, over time they have became the majority and ruled over up to this date. In the case of Afghan, I believe you are talking about Qaeda members here, well it is very clear that there are political interests to have the Afghan lands on the Arab sides of the equation rather than any other side. Qaeda members have found a good heaven for their terrorist training activities in Afghanistan due to the support they found from the extremist ruling government at the time. Not to mention American support for the so called mujahedin in their war against USSR.
Second, regarding my origins which distract you a lot from the subjects we discuss at the time, I noticed:
If you find my origins bothersome and distracting, please note that I was born from an american father and mother in kentucky, lived in the States for five years, then moved with family in diplomatic mission for about 13 years in the middle east and went back for my college degree to the University of Kentucky [go Wild Cats], at the moment I am living in Tokyo.
Long ago, due to the atmosphere in the middle east where I lived at the time, I have came across those quotes you have mentioned above [further worse ones also] and was so troubled to even think about making friends with the muslims and arabs of the region. I consider myself lucky to have met someone who was patient enough to show me how false some of those quotes are, and how misleading the rest will be if taken out of context, and how each verse must be related to the time at which it was revealed, the place, and the incident that caused it to be revealed in order for it to be interpreted in the right way.
I am not a muslim by the way.
I don't mind the truth being said, there are many things we can compile against muslims, christians, and those of Judiac faith.
Just leave "Islam", "Quran", "Christianity", "Bible", "Judaism", and "Torah" out of that attack.
I hope that your next line of attack, which you seem to consider very often and I can not blame you for it because you are living there in the middle of all that mess, will not be "oh they have brain washed you". </strong>[/QUOTE]
<strong>
First, regarding my questions and your answers:
You still did not answer the question of how do you say "friend" in classical arabic, which your native language is a sister of. I would appreciate it if you provide a clear answer.
Otherwise there is no use to carry on with this argument and I will just consider the subject closed for the lack of your knowledge to support what you claim to be the right translated word for the said verse.
Regarding what you claim about Samaria and Judea, Abraham have moved from the lands between the rivers, Tigris & Euphrates, to settle in a land which the Canaan's [I am not sure if the Philistines were at that time yet] were already occupying. Can you refute that?
Regarding your inquiry about what Arabs are doing all over the countries they are in now, well, it is simple. They conquered, settled, and immigrated to those lands, over time they have became the majority and ruled over up to this date. In the case of Afghan, I believe you are talking about Qaeda members here, well it is very clear that there are political interests to have the Afghan lands on the Arab sides of the equation rather than any other side. Qaeda members have found a good heaven for their terrorist training activities in Afghanistan due to the support they found from the extremist ruling government at the time. Not to mention American support for the so called mujahedin in their war against USSR.
Second, regarding my origins which distract you a lot from the subjects we discuss at the time, I noticed:
If you find my origins bothersome and distracting, please note that I was born from an american father and mother in kentucky, lived in the States for five years, then moved with family in diplomatic mission for about 13 years in the middle east and went back for my college degree to the University of Kentucky [go Wild Cats], at the moment I am living in Tokyo.
Long ago, due to the atmosphere in the middle east where I lived at the time, I have came across those quotes you have mentioned above [further worse ones also] and was so troubled to even think about making friends with the muslims and arabs of the region. I consider myself lucky to have met someone who was patient enough to show me how false some of those quotes are, and how misleading the rest will be if taken out of context, and how each verse must be related to the time at which it was revealed, the place, and the incident that caused it to be revealed in order for it to be interpreted in the right way.
I am not a muslim by the way.
I don't mind the truth being said, there are many things we can compile against muslims, christians, and those of Judiac faith.
Just leave "Islam", "Quran", "Christianity", "Bible", "Judaism", and "Torah" out of that attack.
I hope that your next line of attack, which you seem to consider very often and I can not blame you for it because you are living there in the middle of all that mess, will not be "oh they have brain washed you".
</strong>[/QUOTE]
Comments
You still did not answer the question of how do you say "friend" in classical arabic, which your native language is a sister of. I would appreciate it if you provide a clear answer.
Good. I?m glad you?re skeptical, but so am I. The only way to do this, is to do it in real time or as close to real time as we can manage. I suggest we both make up a sentence in Arabic, but with Latin script. And then we both translate it into English. That way we both know where we stand. Is that fair?
Quote:
Regarding what you claim about Samaria and Judea, Abraham have moved from the lands between the rivers, Tigris & Euphrates, to settle in a land which the Canaan's [I am not sure if the Philistines were at that time yet] were already occupying. Can you refute that?
You?ll need to rephrase this paragraph because I just don?t understand you here. For an American College student your English is atrocious.
Quote:
Regarding your inquiry about what Arabs are doing all over the countries they are in now, well, it is simple. They conquered, settled, and immigrated to those lands, over time they have became the majority and ruled over up to this date.
Hmm, the question is what propelled them to conquer these lands? Read the Essays I pointed to. You claim to be an impartial observer. We can then discuss these points.
Quote:
In the case of Afghan, I believe you are talking about Qaeda members here, well it is very clear that there are political interests to have the Afghan lands on the Arab sides of the equation rather than any other side. Qaeda members have found a good heaven for their terrorist training activities in Afghanistan due to the support they found from the extremist ruling government at the time. Not to mention American support for the so called mujahedin in their war against USSR.
Hmm, ? so religion plays no part in this equation? you?ll need to do better if you want me to take you seriously.
Quote:
Second, regarding my origins which distract you a lot from the subjects we discuss at the time, I noticed:
If you find my origins bothersome and distracting, please note that I was born from an american father and mother in kentucky, lived in the States for five years, then moved with family in diplomatic mission for about 13 years in the middle east and went back for my college degree to the University of Kentucky [go Wild Cats], at the moment I am living in Tokyo.
Long ago, due to the atmosphere in the middle east where I lived at the time, I have came across those quotes you have mentioned above [further worse ones also] and was so troubled to even think about making friends with the muslims and arabs of the region. I consider myself lucky to have met someone who was patient enough to show me how false some of those quotes are, and how misleading the rest will be if taken out of context, and how each verse must be related to the time at which it was revealed, the place, and the incident that caused it to be revealed in order for it to be interpreted in the right way.
I am not a muslim by the way.
Ok. For the interest of this debate, I?ll take you at your word. For now.
Quote:
I don't mind the truth being said, there are many things we can compile against muslims, christians, and those of Judiac faith.
Just leave "Islam", "Quran", "Christianity", "Bible", "Judaism", and "Torah" out of that attack.
I don?t think so. I?ll just leave Jews and Arabs out of the equation as well. What you?re asking is to limit the debate to your own artificial parameters, and I wont agree to that since all these issues are interconnected. Particularly when you?re dealing with Islamic societies.
Quote:
I hope that your next line of attack, which you seem to consider very often and I can not blame you for it because you are living there in the middle of all that mess, will not be "oh they have brain washed you".
Not at all. I?m obviously giving you the benefit of the doubt here. One thing please. I find your lavish use of the emoticons rather annoying. And they come across as insincere to me. So if you could be more conservative in this department, I?ll appreciate it. And it will probably increase the civility of this discussion.
mika.
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
Not at all. I?m obviously giving you the benefit of the doubt here. One thing please. I find your lavish use of the emoticons rather annoying. And they come across as insincere to me. So if you could be more conservative in this department, I?ll appreciate it. And it will probably increase the civility of this discussion.
<hr></blockquote>
The benefit of doubt you are giving me not
"Ok. For the interest of this debate, I'll take you at your word. For now."
"For an American College student your English is atrocious."
Further more, emoticons are there to reflect facial expressions which, in turn, reflect feelings. That is how I feel at the time of typing my replies. If you are not taking them as sincere, then, and again, you are not giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Back to our subject ...
[quote]
Good. I?m glad you?re skeptical, but so am I. The only way to do this, is to do it in real time or as close to real time as we can manage. I suggest we both make up a sentence in Arabic, but with Latin script. And then we both translate it into English. That way we both know where we stand. Is that fair?
<hr></blockquote>
This is not a contest. This thread is to verify that I am wrong. Your suggestion about Latin script, however, is a good one. The following will be more than enough to show every one that I am wrong:
Translation Of "friend" in arabic
(using Latin script)
The original Arabic word used in the Quran
(using Latin script)
Each on a separate line so everyone can clearly see how wrong am I.
[quote]
You?ll need to rephrase this paragraph because I just don?t understand you here. For an American College student your English is atrocious.
<hr></blockquote>
You mean my punctuation skills.
Here goes the question:
Who were the first settlers in the lands east and west of the river? (references please)
[quote]
Hmm, the question is what propelled them to conquer these lands? Read the Essays I pointed to. You claim to be an impartial observer. We can then discuss these points.
<hr></blockquote>
As opposed to:
[quote]
A better question to ask is what the hell are Arabs doing on the lands of Judea and Samaria? What the hell are they doing in Afghanistan? What the hell are they doing in Egypt? Or for that matter, what the hell are they doing in North Africa, period? Can you answer that for me?
<hr></blockquote>
Like I told you, if it is true and well known, it is better said. There is no point in trying to hide it. Your, later, refined question makes me think that you did not expected a straightforward answer that would satisfy you desires.
Regarding the Essays written by Mr. Anwar Shaikh.
Let us await the translation of "firend", then maybe Mr. Shaikh, since the quotes are coming from his humble site, will have some credibility left at hand to consider and further discuss.
[quote]
Hmm, ... so religion plays no part in this equation? you?ll need to do better if you want me to take you seriously.
<hr></blockquote>
Sorry for dropping the word religious, I thought it is self intuitive since everyone knows that the kind of extremism, and fanaticism is the religious one in Afghanistan.
[quote]
I don?t think so. I?ll just leave Jews and Arabs out of the equation as well. What you?re asking is to limit the debate to your own artificial parameters, and I wont agree to that since all these issues are interconnected. Particularly when you?re dealing with Islamic societies.
<hr></blockquote>
That request was put only for your benefit. I can only ask you to leave those words out of the subject due to the implications they draw. The final call is yours.
I am really interested to see how this goes and hope that it can be full of good information from all concerned. Stop playing word games with each other and answer the questions put forth. Pretty please.
You said 'too' instead of 'to', so that totally invalidates your post! How can i take anything you say seriously!?!?!
The benefit of doubt you are giving me not
heheh, ? ok Yoda. Dangerous and disturbing your use of English is. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> (Sorry Noah)
Quote:
Further more, emoticons are there to reflect facial expressions which, in turn, reflect feelings. That is how I feel at the time of typing my replies. If you are not taking them as sincere, then, and again, you are not giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Ok. If you want to stick to your story that you walk around smiling at everyone and everything you see like some damn imbecile, so be it. Just don?t indulge this habit when you?re talking to me...
You say I didn?t give the benefit of the doubt. Ok, I won?t. You claim you?re not a Muslim. Fine. What is your background? Christian? How is your Japanese? Where were you and your parents stationed in the Middle East? And for how long? These are all pertinent questions we should know. (I already made my personal beliefs known about your background in another thread. Mainly, that you are of Iranian extraction).
Quote:
This is not a contest. This thread is to verify that I am wrong. Your suggestion about Latin script, however, is a good one. The following will be more than enough to show every one that I am wrong:
No No No. You don?t get away this easily. I want to know the extent of your knowledge of Arabic. You claimed those Koran translations are ?devious miss-translation?. I want to know the extent to which you can judge these things and make such statements. You also said the quotes are ?out of context, place, event, and purpose of revelations.? So here I?m to assume that you read the Koran. If you didn?t read the Koran, why would you make such comments as an impartial observer?
Now I see we?ll have a problem in communication because of the time zones differences. But I?m sure we can resolve this. Let me know what times (GMT +/-) I can expect to catch you online. We will then coordinate a time acceptable to us both to do our little experiment.
Quote:
Who were the first settlers in the lands east and west of the river? (references please)
You want a purely biblical account, or you want an purely archeological account?
Quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, the question is what propelled them to conquer these lands? Read the Essays I pointed to. You claim to be an impartial observer. We can then discuss these points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A better question to ask is what the hell are Arabs doing on the lands of Judea and Samaria? What the hell are they doing in Afghanistan? What the hell are they doing in Egypt? Or for that matter, what the hell are they doing in North Africa, period? Can you answer that for me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I told you, if it is true and well known, it is better said. There is no point in trying to hide it. Your, later, refined question makes me think that you did not expected a straightforward answer that would satisfy you desires.
Well remember, I earlier gave you the benefit of the doubt. Yet on both instances you gave me evasive replies. Seems like as an ?impartial observer? you are awfully protective of Islam and of Arabs. Why is that?
But back to the question at hand. So how did the Arabs get to Judea and Samaria? How did they get to North Africa, Spain, etc? Were they attacked from these lands and needed to defend themselves against these peoples? I mean what was their motivation in crossing these great distances from their home? We?re talking about thousands and thousands of kilometers ?
Quote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, ... so religion plays no part in this equation? you?ll need to do better if you want me to take you seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for dropping the word religious, I thought it is self intuitive since everyone knows that the kind of extremism, and fanaticism is the religious one in Afghanistan.
But why continually try to underplay and ignore this perspective in our discussion?
So again, I have to ask myself, what is your reason for being so protective of Islam? Why would you ask me to, and I quote: leave "Islam", "Quran", "Christianity", "Bible", "Judaism", and "Torah" out of this?
These are not ?secular? Arabs that are involved in this. These are Arab Islamicists funded with moneys from ultra religious Islamic regimes. i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia. Why should we ignore these facts?
mika.
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]
[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
I believe that you are still working on that translation request. I wish you the best of luck in that.
Like I have shown you how to answer the translation question in a simple form, here goes the form for answering the question with regard to the first settlers of the lands east and west of the river:
The first settler of the lands east and west of the river are/is __________. (Reference)
There are no restrictions to be applied on the kind of references you supply.
Best of wishes, and good luck on your journey in search for the answers.
al kalima "friend" alati mawjooda fi al Kuran "sadeek". fi a-Tali, a-rajool aladi kan fi al aradi shakian wa'gharbian min a-nahr fa3al kadalika kabla miat alf sana. ma kanat endahom qawmiya. sa'aatikum al makanat fi al kutuv fi darsi al kadim.
iza ta'tafham hada, sa'tuktub emailak al kadim bi' al lugha al arabiya.
mika.
[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
<strong>hmmm, ... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
al kalima "friend" alati mawjooda fi al Kuran "sadeek". fi a-Tali, a-rajool aladi kan fi al aradi shakian wa'gharbian min a-nahr fa3al kadalika kabla miat alf sana. ma kanat endahom qawmiya. sa'aatikum al makanat fi al kutuv fi darsi al kadim.
iza ta'tafham hada, sa'tuktub emailak al kadim bi' al lugha al arabiya.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, I am not sure what kind of game are you playing this time. I would like to bring to your attention, again, that this is not a contest in which we are to satisfy our individual egos. We are hear to read each others idea and deduce the truth from our arguments in the process.
I will keep posting my threads in English out of respect for the human individuals on this discussion board. Your request in the last sentence, therefore, is not granted. I will not discuss the implications of such diversion in language use because I believe my personal pride and dignity is dependent on keeping your pride and dignity unharmed.
Although I believe I understand what your post says, I feel compelled to wait for a reassuring translation by seeking a native speaker's help.
Expect my reply, which is ready and awaiting final touches in reaction to the reaffirmed translation, within the next 24 hours.
<strong>hmmm, ... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
al kalima "friend" alati mawjooda fi al Kuran "sadeek". fi a-Tali, a-rajool aladi kan fi al aradi shakian wa'gharbian min a-nahr fa3al kadalika kabla miat alf sana. ma kanat endahom qawmiya. sa'aatikum al makanat fi al kutuv fi darsi al kadim.
iza ta'tafham hada, sa'tuktub emailak al kadim bi' al lugha al arabiya.
mika.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Translation:
The word "freind" that is present in the Kuran is "sadeek". In the following, the man (rejaal = men) that was in the lands eastward and westward from the river did that before 100 thousand year. They did not have Nationality. I will bring you the "makanat" (places?) in the "kutuv" (kutub = books?) in the next lesson.
If you understand this, you will write your next e-mail in the Arabic language.
Regarding your Answer to question 1:
The word "sadeek" in arabic is the singular "friend" and since both Christians and Jews are mentioned in the verse it should be in the plural form, like the quote you have put from Mr. Shaikh's page. I admit of being wrong to ask you about the singular form instead of asking you about the plural form. "asdekaa" is the plural form of "sadeek". The quote you have put from Mr. Shaikh's page is:
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them." (The Table V: 55)
I have claimed that "friend" is not the proper translation. In light of all the above:
51. Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena (<a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/005.html"; target="_blank">5:51</a>)
I leave it to the reader to find in the above Arabic using Latin script paragraph to find a word that comes even close to "sadeek" or "asdekaa". As a hint to the reader, "alyahooda waalnnasara" means the Jews and the Christians and the word that follows "awliyaa" is the word I am disputing the wrong translation of. "awliyaa" is also in plural form and the singular is "waliy".
There goes the credibility of Mr. Shaikh and all those who choose to translate the Quran without proper authority, along with the credibility of those who quote the translators. Note that the proper authority can be argued even within the muslims themselves due to the 73 sects muslims have. Some with fierce animosity against each other and going as far as calling the rival sect as the No. 1 enemy; not the US, not the Western world, and definitely not even Satan himself.
Regarding your answer for question 2:
As far as I understand, You are basically stating that the Jews (as a nation) were not the first settlers of that region. Should you claim that those historical settlers are the ones who make the Jewish nation at present time, then you are very bluntly opposing almost all known historical accounts that state clearly that Canaan was settled by Canaanites. Not to mention that there was another ethnic group settled in the South West of Greater Israel, a region today referred to as the Gaza strip, and those people were the Philistines.
Simply put, the Jews (as a nation) have no historical (as opposed to religious rights) right to that land whatsoever, according to what you have stated above. Also simply put, the Jews have conquered, occupied, and migrated to parts of that land (just like others have done also) and this is the fact that people of Earth are to deal with right now: Facts on land.
Should you retract from the above historical account and refer to a religious biblical account, then Israel (including Christian and Jewish blind supporters) is not so much better than those muslim terrorist who use religion to kill the innocent ("by mistake" does not count since everyone is compensated for mistakenly killing even the animals, while Palestinian victim relatives and immediate families are not compensated). Not to mention the fact that biblically, the land of the Jews is not defined clearly due to the fact that they were a nomad like nation. Add to that, the biblical sources say that Abraham have migrated from Haran, so after the Occupied Territories no one can guarantee that Israel is not going to occupy Syria, Iraq, and Southern Turkey just like they are doing with Samaria and Judea.
The above was my reply to your post.
Should you find anything in the above that you disagree with and would like to further discuss, I will be happy to reply.
I will be glad to answer the questions related to the topic you have later asked in your above post (No. 294) once we are done with these two questions.
I hope you agree that my personality, origin, ethnicity, and believes will not change the reality, "Facts on the land" so to speak, that we are discussing. Unless, of course, you are thinking that I possess the power to change past history, the "Bible", and maybe force feed my ideas to the intellectual community of the world.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
Awliyaa
Protectors, friends, supporters, helpers. Comes from the same root word as Maula. Singular: Walee.
According to this definition, friends cannot be ruled out simply based on what you prefer to interpret it as. My $0.02
<strong>http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/glossary/a1.html
Awliyaa
Protectors, friends, supporters, helpers. Comes from the same root word as Maula. Singular: Walee.
According to this definition, friends cannot be ruled out simply based on what you prefer to interpret it as. My $0.02</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really wish if it was that easy.
You can not imagine how that simple answer would have made my life easier in search for a religion to embrace. It is not simple however. Look at the following:
<a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html"; target="_blank">(5:55)</a>
YUSUFALI: Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).
PICKTHAL: Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).
SHAKIR: Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
The above are three different translations each preceeded by the name of the translator for the same verse (5:55) which is only couple of verses below what we were discussing. Here is the Arabic in Latin script:
55. Innama waliyyukumu Allahu warasooluhu waallatheena amanoo allatheena yuqeemoona alssalata wayu/toona alzzakata wahum rakiAAoona <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/005.html"; target="_blank">(5:55)</a>
Note the second word "waliyyukumu" is the singular which can be broken into two parts one means "waliyyu" and the second is "kumu" which means literal you. One translator has put it as "friends", another as "guardian", and yet the last couldn't substitute it for an English word so he put the closer to English pronounciation of "waliy". None of the translators above is a native arabic speaker. Add to that, none of them has proper authority to interpret the Quran in order to translate it. Not, interpret first, then translate.
Like I have mentioned, interpretation of the Quran is not easy. If it was as easy as you think I would have been a convert of Islam long time ago.
If you are really interested into how to pursue such interpretation, please ask and I will tell you what I have learned so far in my research.
Another way to look at this is basically ask any muslim if the prophet did have a christian wife. I think a Jewish one too. Note, that is a wife, not just a friend. The answer will be yes, her name was Mary.
You can have your $0.02 back.
<strong>
I really wish if it was that easy.
You can not imagine how that simple answer would have made my life easier in search for a religion to embrace. It is not simple however.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you really mean by this? What are you searching for in a religion that makes the choice so difficult?
[quote]<strong>Look at the following:
<a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html"; target="_blank">(5:55)</a>
YUSUFALI: Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).
PICKTHAL: Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).
SHAKIR: Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
The above are three different translations each preceeded by the name of the translator for the same verse (5:55) which is only couple of verses below what we were discussing. Here is the Arabic in Latin script:
55. Innama waliyyukumu Allahu warasooluhu waallatheena amanoo allatheena yuqeemoona alssalata wayu/toona alzzakata wahum rakiAAoona <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/transliteration/005.html"; target="_blank">(5:55)</a>
Note the second word "waliyyukumu" is the singular which can be broken into two parts one means "waliyyu" and the second is "kumu" which means literal you. One translator has put it as "friends", another as "guardian", and yet the last couldn't substitute it for an English word so he put the closer to English pronounciation of "waliy". None of the translators above is a native arabic speaker. Add to that, none of them has proper authority to interpret the Quran in order to translate it. Not, interpret first, then translate.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Kinda like your English..
[quote]<strong>Like I have mentioned, interpretation of the Quran is not easy. If it was as easy as you think I would have been a convert of Islam long time ago.
If you are really interested into how to pursue such interpretation, please ask and I will tell you what I have learned so far in my research.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that this is what the thread is basically about. Except it has taken the form of you and PCKilla bickering. One of you gives a bit and the other tightens the screws some more. I wish you would both stop playing games and just answer each other openly.
[quote]<strong>Another way to look at this is basically ask any muslim if the prophet did have a christian wife. I think a Jewish one too. Note, that is a wife, not just a friend. The answer will be yes, her name was Mary.
You can have your $0.02 back.
Which prophet?
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
Honestly guys, does it matter what the ancestors of the jews and muslims in current-day Israel and Palestine did 200 or 500 or 1000 years ago? Does it matter what they wrote in their books? Does it matter how they wanted you to translate it? Does it matter if they felt justified in killing someone for their land? Is it *really* relevant? I don't think it is - not event remotely so.
The only possible reason for arguing semantics of religious or historical texts is to either cast blame onto another group, or to vindicate the (likely unpleasant) actions of one's own group. As if there is some magical connection between texts that were written hundreds or even thousands of years ago, and what the men and women of today *choose* to do with their own hands and minds.
That 14 year old Palestinian kid who packs explosives under his coat and walks into a restaurant full of people - it's not his fault. We shouldn't hold him responsible, because an Israeli soldier killed his older brother and his neighbor for no reason at all.
And those Israeli tank drivers (who last time I checked had free will and a brain), they shouldn't be held accountable for putting that extra shell or two smack in the middle of a civilian housing comlpex where they know innocent people live, as well as the guilty.
This whole conflict is a sad fvcking joke and until both parties can be honest with themselves about where the blame for their own actions lie, it will NEVER be solved. So go ahead and kill each other little by little. Surely God is great and will grant you victory - or maybe your great, great grandkids a victory. [Face it: the combatants on both sides are] morons [if they think there can be a real victory from all this.
The truth is, the Palestinians and the Israeli's don't *want* peace. They don't want anything to do with one another, other than to eliminate each other. What they want, is the last word, the last salvo, the last kill. It's the worst game of one-upmanship I have ever seen. Like two 5 year olds slapping at each other in the sandbox.
You two can sit around like your "cousins" and find all the "authoritative excuses" you want, but it still doesn't change the reality that the groups of people you seem to be supporting have blood on their hands and it's nobody's fault but theirs.
End of story.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
<strong>I love it when people argue -- ad nauseum -- about the semantics of religeous texts and historical texts, all in order to avoid the inevitable fact that "their side" is guilty in the extreme and has no excuse or justification whatsoever for their behavior. There's no delusion like self-delusion, is there?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably not. But it does not change the fact that one major reason why this fighting is occurring is what is written in those texts, and the interpretation of the words therein.
[quote]<strong>Honestly guys, does it matter what the ancestors of the jews and muslims in current-day Israel and Palestine did 200 or 500 or 1000 years ago? Does it matter what they wrote in their books? Does it matter how they wanted you to translate it? Does it matter if they felt justified in killing someone for their land? Is it *really* relevant? I don't think it is - not event remotely so.<hr></blockquote></strong>
It sure seems to to those in the middle of it all and those spurring the situation on. Should it matter? Maybe not, but the reality of the situation says it does. Sad but true. And therefore being that this is relevant to them and their situation you have to approach it on those terms to bring them back to the present day and out of the past.
[quote]<strong>The only possible reason for arguing semantics of religious or historical texts is to either cast blame onto another group, or to vindicate the (likely unpleasant) actions of one's own group. As if there is some magical connection between texts that were written hundreds or even thousands of years ago, and what the men and women of today *choose* to do with their own hands and minds.<hr></blockquote></strong>
Nothing magical about the connection. They read the texts, made a wrong choice based on what they read (or it may have even been the right choice according to the texts), and the decision was theirs, but they may not have made it to begin with had they not read the text in the first place. I have been reading the Koran and am in the 5th book. Here is an interesting example of what i am talking about.
[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
So far the Koran has been full of passages like this. It is full of these contradictions and exceptions. If one were to follow these to the letter it is no wonder we have suicide bombers and planes crashing into the WTC.
[quote]<strong>That 14 year old Palestinian kid who packs explosives under his coat and walks into a restaurant full of people - it's not his fault. We shouldn't hold him responsible, because an Israeli soldier killed his older brother and his neighbor for no reason at all.
And those Israeli tank drivers (who last time I checked had free will and a brain), they shouldn't be held accountable for putting that extra shell or two smack in the middle of a civilian housing comlpex where they know innocent people live, as well as the guilty.
This whole conflict is a sad fvcking joke and until both parties can be honest with themselves about where the blame for their own actions lie, it will NEVER be solved. So go ahead and kill each other little by little. Surely God is great and will grant you victory - or maybe your great, great grandkids a victory. [Face it: the combatants on both sides are] morons [if they think there can be a real victory from all this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Coming from someone who is not there and is only getting what the media reports about it on both sides this carries very little weight. At least Rashuman and PC^KILLA were/are right there in the middle of it and knows what is really happening day to day. And yet you choose to tell them that you know better what is going on? Where do you get your information that is so much better than first hand?
[quote]<strong>The truth is, the Palestinians and the Israeli's don't *want* peace. They don't want anything to do with one another, other than to eliminate each other. What they want, is the last word, the last salvo, the last kill. It's the worst game of one-upmanship I have ever seen. Like two 5 year olds slapping at each other in the sandbox.
You two can sit around like your "cousins" and find all the "authoritative excuses" you want, but it still doesn't change the reality that the groups of people you seem to be supporting have blood on their hands and it's nobody's fault but theirs.
End of story.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually you could say that the Israeli's have shown that they want peace, and the palestinians have show that they don't.
I will give further evidence of this in my next post.
"kutuv" (kutub = books?)
In Hebrew it?s ?ktav?. Meaning writing. So here are the writings I said I?ll provide:
1] <a href="http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/09016.html"; target="_blank">http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/09016.html</a>;
2] <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml</a>;
The second site is particularly rich in information concerning this subject matter.
You?ve asked who as the first settler of the land. And the answer to that is that there has been found human skeletal remains in caves 15 km South of Haifa dating some 100,000 years. Now, you want to stick a label of nationality on these skeletal remains, be my guest.
What you have today is a conflict involving two rival claims to the land of Canaan. That of Jews and that of Arabs. And even by the most conservative dating methods, the claim of Israel precedes that of Arabs by almost 2,000!!! years. I?ll refer you to the victory stele of the pharaoh Mernephtah (c. 1224-1214 B.C.) who campaigned in the land Canaan, and which mentions the cities of Ashkelon, Gezer and Yenoam, and announces that "Israel is laid waste; his seed is not."
Quote
As far as I understand, You are basically stating that the Jews (as a nation) were not the first settlers of that region. Should you claim that those historical settlers are the ones who make the Jewish nation at present time, then you are very bluntly opposing almost all known historical accounts that state clearly that Canaan was settled by Canaanites. Not to mention that there was another ethnic group settled in the South West of Greater Israel, a region today referred to as the Gaza strip, and those people were the Philistines.
I know of no one that would or did argue that Jews were the first people to settle the land of Canaan. Even the biblical account is very clear on this issue. Why would that even be an argument that you think I would need to take? The current conflict is not about Israel and Canaanites, or Israel and Philistines. These peoples have long ago ceased to exist. The current conflict is between Jews and Arabs. A people that stormed these lands on a murderous wave of conquest spurred on by religious Islamic nationalistic fervor.
Quote
Simply put, the Jews (as a nation) have no historical (as opposed to religious rights) right to that land whatsoever, according to what you have stated above. Also simply put, the Jews have conquered, occupied, and migrated to parts of that land (just like others have done also) and this is the fact that people of Earth are to deal with right now: Facts on land.
That is not what I stated. You?ve asked who was first on the land, and I gave you the answer. The Jews were there 2000 prior to the Arabs. I also stated, being that there is evidence of human inhabitance on the land dating some 100,000 years, it is very doubtful that national identities played a role during that late Paleolithic period.
Second, you say that the Jews as a nation have no historical as opposed to religious rights to that land whatsoever. This is such an absurd statement. And according to your criteria, there is hardly a peoples on Earth that can claim any historical claims to any of their land. And certainly not the Arabs to the land of Israel.
Quote
There goes the credibility of Mr. Shaikh and all those who choose to translate the Quran without proper authority, along with the credibility of those who quote the translators. Note that the proper authority can be argued even within the muslims themselves due to the 73 sects muslims have. Some with fierce animosity against each other and going as far as calling the rival sect as the No. 1 enemy; not the US, not the Western world, and definitely not even Satan himself.
heheh, ? for someone who is so unsure of his Arabic you are awfully quick to dismiss Anwar Shaikh. Did you read his biography? Because if you did, you would know that he was a leading Islamic scholar. And in fact, he was perceived as being such a threat to the Islamic establishment that they have issues fatwas against him and those that distribute and carry his writing. This speaks volumes of the intolerance in the Islamic culture. But also speaks to the seriousness the mullahs placed on Anwar Shaikh writings.
And as far as the specific passage is concerned, you have yet to offer an alternative translation of the passage.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena (5:51)
"You who believe, do not feel mercy for the Jews and Christian; do not cooperate with them. Allah does not approve of it"
Quote:
I hope you agree that my personality, origin, ethnicity, and believes will not change the reality, "Facts on the land" so to speak, that we are discussing.
No, your ethnicity and religious background won?t change historical facts, but it does effect your personality and your views on the issues. You claim to be an impartial observer. I question your impartiality. When I questioned you on your background you provided evasive replies. When I questioned you as to the motives that drive Islamic converts to commit the acts that they commit you again gave evasive answers. Why are you so reticent to criticize Islam and so eager to dismiss Anwar Shaikh writings?
mika.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
The Jews, whose last revolt against Rome in AD 135 led to the final loss of Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land for almost two millennia, have known terrible persecutions, expulsions, tortures and unnatural deaths. The purpose of this book is not to document all of these sorrowful pages in Jewish history - which include the Crusades, the expulsion and Inquisition in Spain, the massacres of the Ukrainian leader Cmielnicki of 1648, nor of the Russian Pogroms, nor the Nazi Holocaust of 1933-1945 - but to draw a conclusion that there is no people that seeks peace and safety more than the Jews. Ironically, it is this people that knows peace the least and desires it the most.
Teh Jews almost uninterruptedly maintained a presence in the Holy Land even after the failed Bar Kochba revolt of AD 132 to 135, but the massive return of the Jewish people to its land began only about a century ago.
With the awakening of Arab-Islamic fanaticism after WWI came the first Pogroms (anti-jewish) riots in Palestine of 1920, 1921, the infamous riots of 1929 in Hebron, and finally, the Arab revolt of 1936 to 1939 against the British mandatory authorities in Palestine. Hundreds of Jews were slaughtered and mutilated during these riots and revolts. All of this was even before the creation of the Jewish State of Israel in 1948. Ironically, though, for every Jew the Arab terrorists killed, they killed ten of each other in internecine terror.
With the United Nations' decision in 1947 to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state came agreement by David Ben Gurion of Israel and rejection by all the Arab parties to the dispute. Seven Arab armies invaded the fledgling State of Israel on may 15th after irregulars had already been fighting the Jews for over six months.
The War for Independence lasted over a year. By some miracle, Israel survived - and on land greater in size than the UN partition plan. A cease fire was achieved after the Rhodes talks in 1949, but not a peace agreement. For years, fedayeen (Arab infiltrators) wreaked havoc on Israeli settlements and even travelers in buses and private vehicles. By 1956, Israel found itself in need of stopping these fedayeen infiltrations and terrorist attacks.
At the same time, Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser was massively arming Egypt with Soviet and eastern bloc weaponries in preparation for a war with Israel. Nasser blocked he Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping which in itself was a casus belli, and then poured tens of thousands of troops into Sinai to attack Israel. Since Nasser also nationalized the Suez Canal, Israel together with Britain and France participated in the Sinai Campaign against Egypt. This was Israel's second war.
President Eisenhour forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai in 1957, but promised Israel US military intervention and support should the Straits of Tiran be gain blocked by Egypt, which is precisely what happened in May, 1967. But the US claimed it could not find the agreement in the safe of the State Department and so it balked at fulfilling this solemn agreement. At the same time, the Egyptians were again massively rearming with Soviet weaponries, pouring over 100,000 troops into Sinai and finally, with the expulsion of the UN peace keeping troops from Gaza and Sinai, it became evident to Israel that it was facing a third war with Egypt.
Due to a series of Arab miscalculations and blunders, Israel was again cornered into a war for its survival. It preemptively attacked Egypt. It warned Jordan to stay out of the fray, but when King Hussein refused to heed these warnings and ordered the shelling of Jerusalem as well as the Jordonian Legionnaires' incursion-invasion into Jerusalem across UN held Government House in Armon Hanatziv near Talpiot, the Israeli response was to defend itself leading to the liberation of Jerusalem and the West bank (Judea and Samaria). when the Syrians continued their artillary bombardmant of the Israeli settlements in the north of Israel, Israel decided to on the fifth and sixth days of the Six Days War to silence the Syrian artillary by taking the Golan Heights. The result of this war was that the 1949 map of Israel (which was greater than the map of the UN Partition) was now increased to include Sinai, the West bank (Judea and Samaria), as well as the formerly Syrian Golan. This was war number three for Israel in twenty years of existance.
Chapter 6: Is Fanatic Islam a Global Threat by Victor Mordecai
there is much more there if you need me to go on. It speak of how israel tried to give all the land back fromt he six days war and the response from the Arabs at Khartoum in 1968. "No recognition, no negotiations, no peace."
Then there was the sneak attack war of Yom Kippur, and the war in Lebannon. Of all of these none were started by Israeli aggression.
I don't claim my information is better than anyone's, but then again I don't have to be standing on a street in Gaza to understand -- at a fundamental level -- what's happening there. I've read the editorials from both sides, seen the ugly imagery from both sides, heard the "leaders" of both sides interviewed on Nightline, etc. etc. How much do I really need to see what's going on? You have to be really lousy at seeing the forest through the trees if you can't figure this one out.
These two who are arguing like to think that they've mastered some kind of ultra-complex middle-eastern puzzle that only they and their countrymen can understand. The truth is, if you understand human nature and the nature of religeon - you have all the information you'll ever need to understand this conflict. I might suggest to both of them that they should "Keep It Simple, Stupid" - the information that results from their subsequent analyses would be a lot more honest and therefore useful.
I understand what you're saying about people who take these texts literally and act on them in ignorant ways, but my whole point is, studying and arguing different interpretations of the Koran isn't going to yield anything but some nice rhetoric and interesting term papers for polysci students.
Do these two (or anyone else) who argue the semantics of the Koran, really think if everyone understands how each side is translating things, that suddenly there will then be this new spirit of cooperation or that the war will end? Wars don't end because of one side understanding the other side's semantics. They end because either one side is completely vanquished (which frankly, is what both sides seem to want) or because both sides make a concerted effort to compromise and end the suffering of their people.
[edited after Noah's second reply to me - sorry]
Regardless of what understandings are reached about the various interpretations of the Koran and which groups follow which interpretations, [some] groups will still hate Jews, or Christians, or both (and of course, invite hatred in return). Understanding religeous texts does nothing unless you somehow intend to turn people away from acting upon those intrepretations. In other words, understanding someone's warped interpretation of religeous texts (sorry, it's true) doesn't prevent them from continuing to act on those beliefs. Great, when the next 9/11 comes, then we'll truly understand *why* they did it. Ok. Wonderful. Now what?
My point here is, wasting time on semantic arguments solves nothing, even if some understanding about the other person is ultimately reached.
In the end, do you think the Israeli government will ever admit that they themselves cause suffering among the Israeli people - or that Arafat would admit the same about his followers? Me either, but when that day comes, the war will end. All I'm saying is, no one ever ended a war by writing a thesis....
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Do you not believe that individuals should be held accountable for their actions? I don't see how specific first-hand information - tainted by conflict - should have any bearing on that judgment.
[quote]Actually you could say that the Israeli's have shown that they want peace, and the palestinians have show that they don't.<hr></blockquote>
I don't care how you justify a generalisaton like that; it is bound to be untrue with such a large amount of people. People on both sides do appear to want peace. I would guess that a majority of Palestinians, though, want peace for themselves and Christians, but not Jews. I'm sure there is a minority of Jews who want peace only for themselves and the Christians as well.
There are elements of both sides that could ensure the peace isn't attained, just as there are those who are level-headed and continually get screwed over by the former.
Additionally, it seems to me that the question of who wants peace and who doesn't is just another excuse for people to fight.