DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**bDvYaQfM** · 09-04-2012, 02:57 AM

A post from a blog claiming the Palestinians are cursed:

We all know the plight of Palestinians. On a daily basis we see Ads splashed across all the Islāmic channels, TV channels and hear about it on the radio stations. No one needs an introduction to the situation of the Palestinians. Or, be told how the ongoing atrocities committed by the Zionists of Israel are continuing despite the global condemnation. To be honest, we as outsiders, can never fully understand or empathize with them. All we can do is, draw an image of Palestinian daily life from what we see on the TV screens or hear about it from third-party sources.
With this in mind and the understanding of the great struggle they go through daily...

read more: http://mybeliefs.co.uk/2012/08/25/al...-palestinians/

really?

No- not really.

First, any claim as to who Allah

curses cannot be derived solely by our reasoning. Rather, it should be established based on Wahy.

What is the textual evidence which establishes such a 'curse'?
Does the text specify curse "l`anat", or does it mention something else, such a Sunnah of Allah of causation?

And if it is a curse, does it specify a people by name or action?
And if action, how is such action defined?
And can the action be clearly identified today?

Second,
Believers canNOT take the history and heritage of Islam and the Muslim Ummah from disbelievers. The OP is a 'cutnpaste' excerpt from the linked blog, which appears to arrive at this nationalist theory from these historians: Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal. One is an Israeli academian and historian, the other an American academian and historian. They have their own agenda ( possibly validating Palestinian statehood). Believers should not be fooled by them.

Third,
For the sake of establishing an authentic Islamic awareness of OUR HISTORY, let us look at the reality of the 1830s ce.

What was the context of the 1834 ce Arab revolt?

In summary, the French empire had invaded and conquered Misr. Napoleon did this in order to reconqure Al Quds on behalf of the Franks and Christiandom. The logic was: Misr was the powerhouse which served as the protectorate of al Quds. By removing Misr from the equation, Al Quds could be held by Christians.

The British empire sought the French conquest as an opportunity to inject its own power and influence into Misr and thereby weaken the Uthmani state and render the sultan beholden to Britain. The British made the same calculation regarding Misr and al Quds, only they chose NOT to revert to overt conquest. They favored colonization through capitulation.

So the French conquered Misr in 1798 and then marched/sailed to al Quds, eventually taking biladul Shaam.
Napoleon established his legal system in Misr, and that has remained in place since, hence modern Egypt. Napoleon and his Egyptian lackeys even tried to paint him as a "Muslim" in spirit, if not open religious affiliation.

The British gained Uthmani trust in a joint military counteroffensive against the French. As a result, the British were able to establish in power a 'proxy': Muhammad Ali Pasha.

Muhammad Ali Pasha opened supported "modernization". As wali of Egypt, he instituted numerous European modernizing national systems. Without going too deep, he initiated a national modern state system on the European model.

It was under Ali's state structure which invoked discontent in biladul Shaam, leading to the revolt. Ali was trying to draft into a conscript military young men from Shaam as well as collection taxation along a secular European model ( not an Islamic model). Various tribes and people did not agree with Ali.

By thw 1830s, the British were already involved in "advising" Ali on how to modernize and run Egypt. To no surprise, Ali's bureaucratic modernizing got Egypt indebt to Britain, paving the way for a pretext of British conquest and colonization.

09-04-2012, 02:57 AM	#13
bDvYaQfM Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 375 Senior Member	A post from a blog claiming the Palestinians are cursed: We all know the plight of Palestinians. On a daily basis we see Ads splashed across all the Islāmic channels, TV channels and hear about it on the radio stations. No one needs an introduction to the situation of the Palestinians. Or, be told how the ongoing atrocities committed by the Zionists of Israel are continuing despite the global condemnation. To be honest, we as outsiders, can never fully understand or empathize with them. All we can do is, draw an image of Palestinian daily life from what we see on the TV screens or hear about it from third-party sources. With this in mind and the understanding of the great struggle they go through daily... read more: http://mybeliefs.co.uk/2012/08/25/al...-palestinians/ really? No- not really. First, any claim as to who Allah curses cannot be derived solely by our reasoning. Rather, it should be established based on Wahy. What is the textual evidence which establishes such a 'curse'? Does the text specify curse "l`anat", or does it mention something else, such a Sunnah of Allah of causation? And if it is a curse, does it specify a people by name or action? And if action, how is such action defined? And can the action be clearly identified today? Second, Believers canNOT take the history and heritage of Islam and the Muslim Ummah from disbelievers. The OP is a 'cutnpaste' excerpt from the linked blog, which appears to arrive at this nationalist theory from these historians: Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal. One is an Israeli academian and historian, the other an American academian and historian. They have their own agenda ( possibly validating Palestinian statehood). Believers should not be fooled by them. Third, For the sake of establishing an authentic Islamic awareness of OUR HISTORY, let us look at the reality of the 1830s ce. What was the context of the 1834 ce Arab revolt? In summary, the French empire had invaded and conquered Misr. Napoleon did this in order to reconqure Al Quds on behalf of the Franks and Christiandom. The logic was: Misr was the powerhouse which served as the protectorate of al Quds. By removing Misr from the equation, Al Quds could be held by Christians. The British empire sought the French conquest as an opportunity to inject its own power and influence into Misr and thereby weaken the Uthmani state and render the sultan beholden to Britain. The British made the same calculation regarding Misr and al Quds, only they chose NOT to revert to overt conquest. They favored colonization through capitulation. So the French conquered Misr in 1798 and then marched/sailed to al Quds, eventually taking biladul Shaam. Napoleon established his legal system in Misr, and that has remained in place since, hence modern Egypt. Napoleon and his Egyptian lackeys even tried to paint him as a "Muslim" in spirit, if not open religious affiliation. The British gained Uthmani trust in a joint military counteroffensive against the French. As a result, the British were able to establish in power a 'proxy': Muhammad Ali Pasha. Muhammad Ali Pasha opened supported "modernization". As wali of Egypt, he instituted numerous European modernizing national systems. Without going too deep, he initiated a national modern state system on the European model. It was under Ali's state structure which invoked discontent in biladul Shaam, leading to the revolt. Ali was trying to draft into a conscript military young men from Shaam as well as collection taxation along a secular European model ( not an Islamic model). Various tribes and people did not agree with Ali. By thw 1830s, the British were already involved in "advising" Ali on how to modernize and run Egypt. To no surprise, Ali's bureaucratic modernizing got Egypt indebt to Britain, paving the way for a pretext of British conquest and colonization.
	Quote