Hardline takeover of mosques?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

This is the problem I have with Islam, in its entirety: the moral logic is only based on "Do whatever you are told",

To an extent you are right but not all Muslims believe in blind following (taqlid). There is quite an in depth thread about this subject which shows the 2 sides to this particular coin, I shall try to dig it out and post a link to it. Most posts are by a Muslim that believes in blind following and myself, who doesn't.

This was imo a dark time in Islamic history. About 100 years after the fall of the last Caliphate the rather powerful scholars decided to cement their authority. They took 3 steps to achieve this:

1. They declared that ilm meant 'religious knowledge' instead of the previously accepted 'all knowledge'. The relevance is that the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) told all Muslims to "search for knowledge even to China".

2. They changed the concept of ijma from the consensus of the Muslim conmmunity to the consensus of the scholars (so that would be themselves then - talk about power hungry).

3. They closed the gates of itjihad (independant reasoning on matters of religion).

At this point Muslim thought and learning basically stagnated and Islam became a closed community. The scholars had decided that the written word could be misinterpreted, so they said they had done this to protect the interpretation of the Quran (imo it was nothing but defending their own power). For three centuries they banned the printing press in Muslim countries, a sharp contrast to the thirst for knowledge of the Muslim people up to that point in history. This is when the Muslim countries became ripe for Colonisation and the rest as they say is history.

Now this does not mean that all Muslims are sheep and we refuse to think because it's against the rules. Many groups have emerged over the years to try to reform Islam and go back to the Islamic principles prior to the closing of the gates. Many scholars call for the reopening of the gates of ijtihad. Look at a country like Iran, they declared themselves a Muslim state but all they did was introduce harsh punishments and make very rich scholars. A return to the old Islamic principles would mean all priciples, science, economics, sociology, art, equality, justice, freedom of religion, etc not oppression and punishment. Punishment for crimes is a part of Muslim life, as it is for all societies but it is only one small part of the Islamic social system.

Muslims are struggling in todays world to find their place but many are trying to shape a better future. Most people just see the banners and calls for killings by the extremists and think this is Islam but behind them are over a billion people with a desire to be true to their faith and once again make genuine contributions to the world we live in.

Originally Posted by bob x

First it would have to BE past. As long as Hamas etc. still exists, it is not "past" yet.

Who are the etc in your view?

There are idiots on every side, holocaust deniers and anti semites on one and even, it seems, 'Jewish' Nazi's now (the mind just boggles)

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israeli anger over 'Nazi' group

and on the other the Israeli governments attitude and behaviour.

Hamas and Israels leaderships terrorise each other, they both commit crimes against each others people, there is right and wrong on both sides. For every attrocity you can show me against the Israeli people by Palestinians, I can show you the flip side - 2 wrongs don't make a right. But to equate the Nazi holocaust to the political fighting between Palestine and Israel, to my mind, is rather insulting to the memory of the millions of Jews that were systematically murdered in WWII, not over land, not over money, not over politics, just over their very existence.

[bob x]

To an extent you are right but not all Muslims believe in blind following (taqlid).

It is the "following", not the "blindness", which is the problem. As soon as you establish as your first principle that morality is what God tells you, you are on the slippery slope and cannot help but end up where Islam is now.

...not over land, not over money, not over politics, just over their very existence.

The Palestinians murder Jews just over their very existence, every bit as much as the Germans did (the Germans, too, claimed that it was about the Jews intruding into their nation, and making too much money). The Palestinians say it is about the "occupation", but it is not: it did not start with the occupation, and would not end if the occupation ended.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

It is the "following", not the "blindness", which is the problem. As soon as you establish as your first principle that morality is what God tells you, you are on the slippery slope and cannot help but end up where Islam is now.

The problem is not the morality laid down by G-d but how people decide to twist that to their own ends.

Originally Posted by bob x

The Palestinians say it is about the "occupation", but it is not: it did not start with the occupation, and would not end if the occupation ended.

Claptrap. You object above to Muslims adhering to the word of G-d, yet the Jews claim to Israel comes from where? That would be their scriptures - hence G-d. To just turn up in a land and say we lived here 2000 years ago so give it back is utter nonsense, so their claim can only come from the scriptures.

So if you accept that ancestry is the deciding factor in who should settle in a land then we had better start looking for the Canaanites and then the Jews and Arabs can all leave -

“Recent archeological digs have provided evidence that Jerusalem was a big and fortified city already in 1800 BCE...Findings show that the sophisticated water system heretofor attributed to the conquering Israelites pre-dated them by eight centuries and was even more sophisticated than imagined...Dr. Ronny Reich, who directed the excavation along with Eli Shuikrun, said the entire system was built as a single complex by Canaanites in the Middle Bronze Period, around 1800 BCE.” The Jewish Bulletin, July 31st, 1998.

However:

The Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314.” Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine.”

...[Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated] ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’...At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

The Jewish National Fund never intended to live side by side with the inhabitants of Palestine.

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.”

“In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt... David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

“While the Yishuv’s leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel’s society — including...Ben-Gurion — were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state’s borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, in “Tikkun”, March/April 1998

Now, I hold my countries hand up - we are immensely responsible for what happened in Palestine but we were not alone:

“I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” President Harry Truman, quoted in “Anti Zionism”, ed. by Teikener, Abed-Rabbo & Mezvinsky.

I find it interesting to note that all of these people agree that the conflict is about land, yet you seem to believe it is about something else (would that be religion?) and that if the Jews left Israel the Muslims would no doubt track them around the world and kill them. The fact that the Jews were treated so badly in Europe and Russia does not make it right for them to turn around and do the same to thing to the Arabs.

I do not support Hamas in any way. I believe the Jews should have settled peacefully in Israel, as they settled in many other countries after the war. I even support their religious claim to live in that land. However, on a human level I cannot support this:

The beginning of Hadawi's story, like those of other Palestinians, is buried under decades of displacement and yearnings for restitution.

He was born in West Jerusalem in what was then Ottoman-ruled Palestine. Growing up in his grandfather's house in the Jewish quarter of the city, he worked for the British government during its mandate of Palestine and at age 44 moved to a house he built for his own family in the Christian quarter.

Little did Hadawi know that the days following his move would usher in a period of homelessness for his family and coincide with the beginning of an era of regional wars and political unrest in the Middle East.

It was 1948, the year of the partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel.

Sitting in his room at the Gibson Retirement Residence in Toronto's northeast end, Hadawi recalls the harsh circumstances of his departure.

"I spent all my life building a house and I lived in it for six or seven days. The house was taken away from us. We were thrown out ... I never wanted to leave ... I left everything ... I was left with nothing."

Hadawi says the pain of parting with his homeland, and the memory of losing his wife shortly after, remains undiminished after all these years.

"I try not to think about the past, because the past hurts a great deal. You don't want to hate people; you don't want to curse people ....

"I had nothing against the Jews all my life ... but what was done (in Palestine) was unforgettable."

[Snoopy]

Salaam,

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

But we know the Bible has been used in the same way in the past, we do not all say the Bible should be shelved.

Well in my attempt at being as offensive as possible, I was trying to infer that revision or “shelving” of any such text may be the only, ultimate solution.

We can't revise the text of the Quran, it is the Word of G-d but we can and should get a clean sheet of paper and interpret it in light of modern knowledge and moral standards.

...

That is certainly the truth of the matter Snoop. If the Quran did not exist they would use Andy Pandy or Where's Waldo to achieve their ends.

Yes, Andy Pandy might be a source of violence (the same as the lyrics on a heavy metal album…) but as long as Andy Pandy is not considered to be the word of G-d and cannot therefore be altered, it would not present the same level of potential problem worldwide. For me, the lack of the “option” of revision (for want of a better term) of a text is the fundamental problem, from which all else derives. The Qu’ran is not a justifier of violence to someone such as yourself, but it seemingly contains material which can be used to justify or incite violence, albeit when taken out of context (as can other such books as noted). (In a related manner, I believe that the Dalai Lama has said that where Buddhist teachings are at odds with established scientific facts then the teachings need to be revised. This I would concur with in principle.)

I guess I see words concerned with “the ethics of war” and that they come from God…
For me, "ethics of war" is ultimately an oxymoron. If I read something and I do not agree with it, I will not accept it, simply because of who the author is; I have to believe it be truthful and acceptable to my core values. The following I do accept:

“In this world hostilities are never
appeased by hostility.
But by the absence of hostility
are they appeased.
This is an interminable truth.”

- The Dhammapada; ch. 1. Contrasting Pairs.

Or as someone else succinctly put it:

Each sides needs to look in the mirror and recognise their part in this and then STOP.

Salaam,

s.

(Hope you don't feel my selective quoting from your post is too brutal; I appreciate the points you are making; just wanted to respond a little )

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well in my attempt at being as offensive as possible, I was trying to infer that revision or “shelving” of any such text may be the only, ultimate solution.

Gassho Snoopy

Sorry dear but you need some lessons in being offensive, I could suggest a couple of members that could give you lessons.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

but as long as Andy Pandy is not considered to be the word of G-d and cannot therefore be altered, it would not present the same level of potential problem worldwide.

I agree but how long, without the scriptures, would it be before someone decided that Andy Pandy IS the word of G-d in order to justify their behaviour? I give you scientology!!

Originally Posted by Snoopy

The Qu’ran is not a justifier of violence to someone such as yourself, but it seemingly contains material which can be used to justify or incite violence, albeit when taken out of context

I take your point and maybe it would have been better if it was full of group hugs but who can question G-d? G-d gave man free will and is no doubt just a tad peeved at what we have chosen to do with that gift. Does it not take free will to live in peace?

Originally Posted by Snoopy

For me, "ethics of war" is ultimately an oxymoron. If I read something and I do not agree with it, I will not accept it, simply because of who the author is;

Me too. However I read the Quran and see nothing I can disagree with, it is all about interpretation. The Quran deals solely with defensive wars and I believe it is every peoples right to defend themselves against oppressors and aggressors. That people choose to use those words to instigate violence is a fault of the people, not the words in the book.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

(Hope you don't feel my selective quoting from your post is too brutal; I appreciate the points you are making; just wanted to respond a little )

Not in the slightest, we both know when I get on my soap box about Islam I tend to waffle - sorry

Salaam
Sally

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry it won't let me edit. The bit about scientology, I realise it is not claimed to be the word of G-d but I believe it is still to be strictly adhered to as 'the only right path'.

[bob x]

"I find it interesting to note that all of these people agree that the conflict is about land, yet you seem to believe it is about something else (would that be religion?) "
During the Ottoman and Mandate period, the Jews were entering as purchasers, not as conquerors, and were met with murder, although other immigrants (from Muslim countries) were not murdered. Allowing people of non-Muslim religion to have *equal* citizenship status was simply not acceptable to the existing mind-set (which preserved "dhimmitude" in a medieval style not surviving in most other places). It was the decision of the Palestinian leadership, supported by the populace, that one community or the other would have to be absolute overlord, that the question of which should be which would be settled by resort to violence, and that the violence which the Palestinian side waged should be mostly random acts of pointless murder not even pretending to any kind of "military" objective (not doing anything to diminish the other side's capacity to do harm in turn). This is why the Palestinians lost.
It is of course quite natural that when a country loses a war, it loses territory, and finds its remaining territory occupied by enemy forces. Germany in the late 40's was likewise occupied, and Russia "donated" large sections of the territory it occupied (Silesia, Pomerania, and parts of Prussia) to Poland (and annexing some of Prussian territory to Russia), which displaced more German refugees than there ever were Palestinian refugees. Since Germans, unlike Arabs, take care of their own, those refugees have been resettled long ago, and their former existence has been practically forgotten. And at no time, during the decades of often brutal Russian occupation, did any Germans ever think to hijack Russian airplanes, or shoot Russian schoolchildren, or even throw rocks at Russian soldiers. That is why Germany is a free country now, and Palestine never will be. Nor should you think "well, Germany was badly to blame for the war it lost, so that case is different": Lithuania was occupied as well, for no crime except being small and in the way; much of the population was banished to Siberia where lots of them died, and Russia planted settlers in the territory, to try to make the Lits a minority in their own home. And at no time, during the decades of often brutal Russian occupation, did any Lithuanians ever think to hijack Russian airplanes, or shoot Russian schoolchildren, or even throw rocks at Russian soldiers. That is why Lithuania is a free country now, and Palestine never will be.

[bob x]

I meant also to respond to the latter part of the sentence: [I supposedly believe that] "if the Jews left Israel the Muslims would no doubt track them around the world and kill them". No, what I said was that if the "occupation" ended, the killing would not stop, and by that I meant the post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (you obviously took it to mean the post-1948 occupation of any part of the land). If the Palestinians were actually given a "state" (not just a self-governing "authority" but a nation-state with the rights of any other nation, such as most particularly the right to purchase arms) in the West Bank and Gaza, they would view it as a base for attacking the "Green Line" Israel. That is why it is not going to happen. The Israelis may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

[bob x]

And I have a lot of questions about "Hadawi's story": he was born in WEST Jerusalem under the Ottomans? West Jerusalem is the new city; I didn't think there was such a place under the Ottomans. He moved from "the Jewish quarter" to "the Christian quarter"? The "quarters" are the districts of EAST Jerusalem, which wasn't captured in 1948 at all. Just how old is this fellow, anyway?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

During the Ottoman and Mandate period, the Jews were entering as purchasers, not as conquerors, and were met with murder, although other immigrants (from Muslim countries) were not murdered.

The Ottoman period:

I shall allow Ahad Ha'am, a hasidic Jew who died in 1927, to address this issue:

Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom in Palestine and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.

The aim of the Jewish National Fund was ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people.’ Now if your family had been living and working on that land for centuries how would you react to your expulsion?

Of course there is blame on both sides. The land had been owned largely by poor farming families with an inalienable right to live on the land and pass it on to his heirs. Greedy Arabs then registered huge tracts of land in their name, courtesy of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. This land was then sold to the Jewish National Fund by absentee landlords. The Turkish Ottomans then forceably removed people from the land at the request of the JNF.

So perhaps this begins to put into context why later settling Jews were met with hostility and violence by people being thrown out of their homes and off their land?

British Mandate period:

" For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion. The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them'. The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country."
Israeli author, Simha Flapan, "The Birth Of Israel"

I would suggest to you that it is clearly not as one sided as you suggest.

Originally Posted by bob x

It was the decision of the Palestinian leadership, supported by the populace, that one community or the other would have to be absolute overlord,

Gosh that is completely different to the Zionist attitude...... or maybe not:

Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that is a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.

Originally Posted by bob x

Since Germans, unlike Arabs, take care of their own, those refugees have been resettled long ago, and their former existence has been practically forgotten.

So your view is that these people should just leave their land, their home and go live somewhere else? Have you ever asked a Palestinian if they WANT to leave their homeland and go to live in another Arab country?

Originally Posted by bob x

Lithuania was occupied as well, for no crime except being small and in the way; much of the population was banished to Siberia where lots of them died, and Russia planted settlers in the territory. And at no time, during the decades of often brutal Russian occupation, did any Lithuanians ever think to hijack Russian airplanes, or shoot Russian schoolchildren, or even throw rocks at Russian soldiers. That is why Lithuania is a free country now, and Palestine never will be.

I am sorry, are you seriously trying to make your case based on 'refugees should just accept their fate and go away quietly, that way we can all forget what happened and get on with life'?????

I also note that you, like all of us, object strongly to Arabs killing school children but make no mention of the school children killed by the Israeli's.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

The Israelis may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

And I would suggest that likewise the Palestinians may be crazy but not stupid. Why did the Palestinians reject the partition?

"Arab rejection was based on the fact that the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, were to be established as the ruling body, a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least. The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organisation was established, namely, to uphold the rights of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own Charter." Sami Hadawi

So what did Sami Hadawi know about this issue?

Sami Hadawi is a Palestinian scholar who was born in Jerusalem in 1904. He was in charge of land taxation under the British mandate over Palestine. After the termination of the mandate he served in the Jordan government, then as 'Land Specialist' to the UN Palestine Conciliation Commission in New York and was entrusted with the task of identifying and evaluating Arab property in the Israeli-occupied part of Palestine. In 1959 he joined the Arab Information Center of the League of Arab States; and in 1965 became the Director of the Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut. He retired from public life in 1968.


Mr Hadawi died in 2004, aged 100 (I'll let you do the math). He was born in the Jewish quarter, which became known as West Jerusalem. Not being Jewish he was forced to move out of that quarter.

Originally Posted by bob x

And I have a lot of questions about "Hadawi's story": he was born in WEST Jerusalem under the Ottomans? West Jerusalem is the new city; I didn't think there was such a place under the Ottomans.

My post did not say that, it said:

He was born in West Jerusalem in what was then Ottoman-ruled Palestine. I would read that to mean he was born in what we now call West Jerusalem but was Ottoman ruled Palestine when he was born.

Perhaps now you know the age of the gentleman it makes sense to you? This site has some really good information on the partitioning of Jerusalem and changes over land ownership over time:

Institute for Palestine Studies | Journals

[Tao_Equus]

I think nothing makes me more bitter than the situation of the people of Palestine being devalued by nonsense.
Facts:
Israeli Military has received $19,509,734,000 in "aid" from the bush administration.* In addition they have received $4 billion worth of ammunition that has not made into CIA stats.
Palestinian Military has a few rockets its got from Syria, as many home made ones as they can muster, and lots of kids with rocks.

We should not forget that in addition to the "aid" Israel received from the US it also gets it from Europe and has a prolific arms manufacturing industry itself. In context Israel's arms exports represent 16% of total exports compared to 4.5% for the US and 2.5% for the UK. They have active arms supply contracts with at least 62 countries. As a percentage they are the worlds greatest war-mongers.

Anyone saying that Israel is justified in any way in its attitude toward Palestine is, IMHO, a blinkered fool. Its like saying we should beat and scar infants for crying that they are hungry.

If the US and UK had not at the end of WW2 decided it wise to have a permanent stage in that region the Jewish people would still be homeless. They are quite happy to let the Israeli state take the flack and deal out the oppression corporate ideologies dictate. Israel stops Suez being hijacked and thats really what this is all about. A huge big smokescreen for a simple purpose.

I dont know a lot about Jewish faith and perhaps a reason for this is that I deliberately avoid doing so so that I can avoid being drawn into any circular bull**** on anti-Semitism. I think the existence and perpetuation of Israel has nothing to do with religion.

Tao



*Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies

[wil]

Well evidently we aren't secure that the Israeli influence and foothold is enough in the region. And we must question how much longer our honeymoon will last with the house of Saud...

Extended U.S. presence in Iraq? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com
Iraq Facilities

We built and still occupy bases in Japan and Germany...any reason to think Iraq will be different?

[bob x]

If you look at my summary of the history as I understand it at the end of the thread Sincere Question (I thought it would draw a lot of responses, but nobody wanted to say anything), you will see that I did acknowledge the "absentee landlord" problem. But I must disagree with

The land had been owned largely by poor farming families with an inalienable right to live on the land and pass it on to his heirs. [emphasis added]

Under Muslim law, the tenant peasants neither owned the land nor had any right to it; as in medieval Europe, the land was owned by the "lords" (by right of military conquest, or by purchase or grant from those who had title by conquest), and the people who had lived and worked there for however long could be thrown out whenever the lords felt like it. Was this a bad system? Sure, I would have no argument there; the grievance of the evicted peasants was genuine. But the Jews did not create the situation.
The absence of a realistic "land title" system goes back, of course, to the basic point that the ancestors of these peasants had entered the lands as squatters, not as purchasers. Should there be a "statute of limitations" on that? Be careful how far you press that argument. I remember talking to an Arab who insisted, "I don't care if it's been fifty years, if it was your house, and you were thrown out, it is still your house; if it was your father's or grandfather's house, even if they are dead, it is your house" -- "So what if the people who actually threw you out are dead and gone too, or have been thrown out by other people, and it has been two thousand years?" He insisted "It is still your house"! He did not realize that if so, then it clearly all belongs to the Jews, and when I pointed out what it was he had just said, he got angry

For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion. The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them'. The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike

Irgun was a terrorist organization, by any objective definition, and I said so when I summarized the history (I assume you just didn't get around to looking at that thread).
Deir Yassin was in response to Gush Etzion, a Jewish village by Bethlehem which had been besieged for months; when the inhabitants (about one thousand) surrendered, all the males were castrated and the females gang-raped.
In response to Deir Yassin, Arabs attacked a convoy evacuating patients (both Jewish and Arab) from Hadassah Hospital, killing about three hundred.

So your view is that these people should just leave their land, their home and go live somewhere else?

It has happened to many people. The Jews expelled from the Arab countries in 1948 were nearly as numerous as the Palestinians; we don't hear about them much because they settled down a long time ago. Aside from the Germans, I could mention the Greek/Turkish mutual expulsions in the 1920's: they all resettled long ago. The most nearly analogous case are the 3 million Chinese on the losing side of the civil war, crowded into refugee camps in Hong Kong: of course those camps aren't still there, because they moved on to the island of Taiwan; I say that there is some analogy because they held on for decades, like the Palestinians, to the unrealistic notion that they were going to refight the war and reverse the outcome, but they are past that now.
A Jewish columnist wrote, "I tried to put myself in the position of the Palestinians. How would I feel if my parents and grandparents were expelled from the home where our family had lived for centuries, and many of my family were killed, and after all this time, I was still not allowed to go back? And then I remembered: my parents and grandparents were expelled from the home where our family had lived for centuries, and many of my family were killed, and you know that? I don't want the farm in Bialystok back!"

He was born in the Jewish quarter, which became known as West Jerusalem. Not being Jewish he was forced to move out of that quarter.

The "Jewish quarter" is not West Jerusalem; it is one of the four sections of East Jerusalem (along with the Muslim, Christian, and Armenian quarters); so called, of course, because Jews used to live there, until they were largely murdered or expelled in 1929, and Arab squatters took over the houses there. Hadawi's story does not say he was "forced" out of the Jewish quarter, but that he voluntarily left there, for a new home in the Christian quarter (also in east Jerusalem), which he then had to leave a week later (in 1948??? Israeli troops didn't get there in 1948). And he doesn't say why he had to leave: Palestinians who left their homes were all over the spectrum; some to be sure were forced out at gunpoint (the entire populace of Lod, now paved over as Ben-Gurion Airport, and the neighboring town of Ramleh were herded onto buses, driven to the front lines, and told to walk across), while others never saw a soldier or a shot fired in anger but left voluntarily to avoid living in the Jewish-controlled areas (Arab radios urged the population of Haifa to leave, promising they could return as soon as "the Jews are pushed into the sea"), and many were in between (Galilee was the scene of much hard fighting, and those who fled their homes out of prudence can hardly be blamed for feeling afraid). Hadawi says of his story, "what was done is unforgettable", and yet he "forgets" to tell me what, exactly, was done to him!

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Under Muslim law, the tenant peasants neither owned the land nor had any right to it;

Under what Muslim law? Where does Muslim sharia prohibit the ownership of land? Even the Zionists accept that prior to the Ottoman Land Code these communities owned the land and verbal agreement was prrof of ownership.

Originally Posted by bob x

He did not realize that if so, then it clearly all belongs to the Jews, and when I pointed out what it was he had just said, he got angry

Utter rubbish. If you want to make that argument then the land belongs not to the Jews or Arabs but to the Canaanites. Remember them? They lived on that land before the Jews migrated there in about 1800 BC. Of course many modern Jews and Arabs would have descended from the Canaanites.

Originally Posted by bob x

Irgun was a terrorist organization, by any objective definition

How amazing, this was a terrorist group who did bad things to Arabs but when Arabs groups do bad things to Jews they are not terrorist groups but are demonstrative of Islamic teaching and Arab thinking. Hmmmmm.

You also do not mention the LEHI, who also took part in this attrocity. Would you call them a terrorist group? If they are a terrorist group I wonder why Israel has honored the group by instituting the military decoration of the LEHI ribbon, which may be worn by the organization's former members? That is not to mention their support of Hitlers Nazi regime - oh good heavens look both sides did that.

Originally Posted by bob x

Deir Yassin was in response to Gush Etzion, a Jewish village by Bethlehem which had been besieged for months; when the inhabitants (about one thousand) surrendered, all the males were castrated and the females gang-raped.

What the hell are you talking about? You should work for the US government, you are great at spin but seem to have trouble with dates and known facts.

First of all you are talking about the massacre at Kfar Etzion (as Gush Etzion was a group of 4 settlements). The siege of Gush Etzion happened after the UN had agreed the partition of the area on 29 Nov 1947 and Gush Etzion fell within the Arab section but the Hagahna decided not to move the Jews from this area due to its stragetic location, even after the settlers had asked for evacuation they refused to move them. In Jan 1948 the British helped to remove almost all of the women and children from the area.

At times, the Jewish forces even ambushed Arab military convoys, (and, according to Morris, also Arab civilian traffic and British military convoys[1]) on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron.

So would that be the Jewish LEHI & Irgun or some other forces?

Your figure of 1000 dead is rather more even than Israeli historians that put the number between 133 and 157.

After Kfar Etzion the other 3 settlements surrendered. The Red Cross moved the wounded to safety and the remainder became prisoners of war but were later released.

This is from an Israeli site:

On the 13th of May the defenders of Kfar Etzion surrendered to the Legion. The Legion honored the surrender, though Arab irregulars continued to fire for some time. The defenders gathered in front of the school and put down their weapons. They were photographed by someone in a kaffiyeh (Arab headdress and European suit. Then an armored car, apparently belonging to the Legion, approached and opened fire, and other Arab attackers opened fire with submachine guns and grenades. Some survivors claimed Legion soldiers were not involved, others insisted that they were. Survivors all recall that that the Arabs were screaming "Deir Yassin." All accounts agree that Legion officers rescued several survivors.

About 50 defenders escaped to the cellar of the old German monastery that was within the grounds, and tried to defend themselves there. The Arab attackers finished them off with hand grenades and then blew up the building, which collapsed over them. All but about five defenders were eventually killed. In all, about 128 defenders were massacred by the Palestinian Arab irregulars or the Jordan Legion, counting those who had escaped to the basement of the monastery. Some accounts do not count these people as "massacred" and estimate that fifty were massacred. However, those who fled to the basement were given no chance to surrender. One of the survivors, a woman, was taken to a field to be raped by two Legion soldiers, but saved by an officer. About 157 Jewish defenders died in the final battle for Gush Etzion, including those killed in the massacre.

Gush Etzion Massacre - 1948

So perhaps you think the Arabs were psychic and had had a vision of a massacre that was going to happen?

Dier Yassin massacre was in the first 2 weeks of April, a month before Gush Etzion. Two wrongs do not make a right but if you are going to quote such attrocities at least get them in the right order.

Your claims of gang rape and castration are as outragous as your numbers of dead and sequence of historical events. I have looked up Gush Etzion on many extreme zionist sites and not one of them make these claims.

You then go on to site the Hadassah medical convoy massacre. AGAIN look up the dates, this was just a few days AFTER Dier Yassin.

Originally Posted by bob x

It has happened to many people.

WOW your attitude is astounding. It has happened before, it will happen again so they should just put up and shut up and accept their fate. I wonder what you would do in their situation? Clearly you would just grab your hat and leave. Just because it has happened to many people doesn't make it RIGHT or mean they should go away quietly.

Originally Posted by bob x

The "Jewish quarter" is not West Jerusalem;

I shall be sure to write to his family and tell them that he clearly didn't know where he lived.

Your hatred of Muslims has clearly blurred your vision, which may account for your difficulties in reading dates. Attrocities have been committed by both sides, both sides have done wrong but you can only see the wrong committed by one side. Blind hatred is a terrible thing, it plays to stereotypes and spreads lies (as we can see from your post).