Hamas Covenant: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

[ygalg1]

link

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day...

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement...

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion.

Article Fourteen:
struggle against Zionism...

Palestine is an Islamic land which has the first of the two kiblahs (direction to which Moslems turn in praying), the third of the holy (Islamic) sanctuaries, and the point of departure for Mohamed's midnight journey to the seven heavens (i.e. Jerusalem).

[Mediocrates]

It will be interesting to see Hamas' supporters in the west confront the fact that they are at heart a Sharia inspired radical Islamic group. I sure hope all the Rachel Corries' in waiting don't:

Smoke
Drink
Do drugs
Are gay
Considering women's rights

That of course would all be criminalized under the Hamas brand of stern Sharia and would have to be punished.

[ygalg1]

Originally Posted by Mediocrates

It will be interesting to see Hamas' supporters in the west confront the fact that they are at heart a Sharia inspired radical Islamic group. I sure hope all the Rachel Corries' in waiting don't:

Smoke
Drink
Do drugs
Are gay
Considering women's rights

That of course would all be criminalized under the Hamas brand of stern Sharia and would have to be punished.

there are mirages that do not please with the results, not all are Muslims
100% though but going to be, if they want to keep their head intact

Originally Posted by ygalg1

link

When we start to negociate the initial position is to be compromised sooner or later probabaly these clauses does not justify the abondonment of negociation it will be more ideal if exteremists group in Israel win the coming election because anyaccord signed between two opposit exterems without any pressure from outside will probabaly bring everlasting peace

[ygalg1]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

When we start to negociate the initial position is to be compromised sooner or later probabaly these clauses does not justify the abondonment of negociation it will be more ideal if exteremists group in Israel win the coming election because anyaccord signed between two opposit exterems without any pressure from outside will probabaly bring everlasting peace

we will have to see if they are capable to compromise and then make our own decision.

[Reffo]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

When we start to negociate the initial position is to be compromised sooner or later probabaly these clauses does not justify the abondonment of negociation it will be more ideal if exteremists group in Israel win the coming election because anyaccord signed between two opposit exterems without any pressure from outside will probabaly bring everlasting peace

The problem though is that by their own admission Islamists don't feel obliged to honour any agreements with "Kafirs". They view such agreements as a temporary convenience which they can break as soon as they feel that they become stronger than their hated enemy. They point to historical precedents during Muhammad and during the crusades where the Muslim armies concluded truces with their enemies only to break it at a time of their choosing. So I ask you, why should Israel trust such people? This war has already lasted about 100 years and unfortunately IMO, at this rate, it's likely to last another 100 years so the sooner Israelis recognise and accept this bleak conclusion, the more likely it is that they will be able to factor it into their lives and accept it.

Originally Posted by Reffo

The problem though is that by their own admission Islamists don't feel obliged to honour any agreements with "Kafirs". They view such agreements as a temporary convenience which they can break as soon as they feel that they become stronger than their hated enemy. They point to historical precedents during Muhammad and during the crusades where the Muslim armies concluded truces with their enemies only to break it at a time of their choosing. So I ask you, why should Israel trust such people? This war has already lasted about 100 years and unfortunately IMO, at this rate, it's likely to last another 100 years so the sooner Israelis recognise and accept this bleak conclusion, the more likely it is that they will be able to factor it into their lives and accept it.

Mohammad(PBH) never broke any treaty but any opponant who broke the treaty was never spared,now if i am not wrong truce is treaty forced upon a losing side by victorious army and now whole west is talking of truce if i am not wrong it means ''the right of existance on the conditions and terms prescribed by west under westeren dominance''which might not be acceptable to muslims in anycase it amounts to accepting westeren dominanace wher as the the peace can only prevail if the treaty is on equal terms and acceptable to both the parties.The day people in Israel will accept the reality of fully soveriegn state of palistine with own armed froces manning their own borders and palistinian would accept that jews need a country in this world too which happens to be israel things will start moving in positive direction

[RoofRabbit]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

The day people in Israel will accept the reality of fully soveriegn state of palistine with own armed froces manning their own borders and palistinian would accept that jews need a country in this world too which happens to be israel things will start moving in positive direction

I disagree. The palistines won't stop until all jews are gone. Giving into anything with them will only hurt Israel. Just listen to what is taught in gaza and you'll see the same thing.

[redcake]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

Mohammad(PBH) never broke any treaty

Maybe not a treaty, but he sure broke a cease fire, or Hudna as they're called. 2 years into a 10 year cease fire agreement, he took Mecca.

Originally Posted by redcake

Maybe not a treaty, but he sure broke a cease fire, or Hudna as they're called. 2 years into a 10 year cease fire agreement, he took Mecca.

no it was meccans who broke the ceaze fire by attacking banu khazaa the alliws of prophet in the haram during the months when bloodshed was haraam otherwise meccans were told either to
stop protecting the criminals
pay the dayyat of dead
or
declare the cieze fire is finished
the meccans accepted the third clause and sent the messeger of prophet back then they realize their mistake started asking for the cease fire to be effective again which was not accepted by prophet (pbh) AS the cease fire was abrogated from otherside so muslims were free to accept new treaty or wage war this is how it happens even today

[Reffo]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

Mohammad(PBH) never broke any treaty but any opponant who broke the treaty was never spared,now if i am not wrong truce is treaty forced upon a losing side by victorious army and now whole west is talking of truce if i am not wrong it means ''the right of existance on the conditions and terms prescribed by west under westeren dominance''which might not be acceptable to muslims in anycase it amounts to accepting westeren dominanace wher as the the peace can only prevail if the treaty is on equal terms and acceptable to both the parties.The day people in Israel will accept the reality of fully soveriegn state of palistine with own armed froces manning their own borders and palistinian would accept that jews need a country in this world too which happens to be israel things will start moving in positive direction

I thought we were talking about Israel and the Palestinians not the whole west.

You don't seem to be aware of history. Let me remind you that the Palestinian/Arab side was the first to reject Israel and it's right to exist. It was the Palestinian/Arab side that first attacked the newly formed Israel in 1948 and tried to destroy Israel then, as well as subsequently. Unfortunately for them they were unsuccessful and their failure resulted in the loss of the Palestinian state. Israel however has been willing to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state if they in turn accept Israel's right to exist and live in a secure recognised Jewish state (the only Jewish state in the world as compared to how many Muslim/Arab countries?). Of course the Palestinians never accepted this and given this history, it should therefore not be a surprise if Israel does not agree to allow any new Palestinian state to fully arm and pose a threat to Israel. They would however agree to the establishment of an independent demilitarised Palestine under the right circumstances (as stated above).

[redcake]

Originally Posted by taimur khaliq

AS the cease fire was abrogated from otherside so muslims were free to accept new treaty or wage war this is how it happens even today

You mean, you offer a Hudna and then make up some elaborate imaginary reasoning as to how to blame your enemies (wait, shouldn't that be peace partner?) and then once you've regained a strategic and tactical position you say they breached it first, so you can go back to wartime. Yes that is how it happens today, you're correct.

I hope that Hamas the Palestinians enjoy Hamas rule, it is there to stay. As for the Greek Orthadox Priests who constantly incite against jews, Israel, and their fellow christians I hope that they realise Israel isn't going to save them from Hamas style rule which is as bad as the Taliban.

Originally Posted by redcake

You mean, you offer a Hudna and then make up some elaborate imaginary reasoning as to how to blame your enemies (wait, shouldn't that be peace partner?) and then once you've regained a strategic and tactical position you say they breached it first, so you can go back to wartime. Yes that is how it happens today, you're correct.

there was no imaginary reason it was other party who broke hudna in reply to prophets letter for qasas of his allied tribe banu khazaa,h at the hands of qoresh and banu bakar but qoresh who were bound by the treaty not to attack prophets allies abrogated the treaty instead of explanations so the case was simple breach of agreement and refusal to negociate

Originally Posted by Reffo

I thought we were talking about Israel and the Palestinians not the whole west.

You don't seem to be aware of history. Let me remind you that the Palestinian/Arab side was the first to reject Israel and it's right to exist. It was the Palestinian/Arab side that first attacked the newly formed Israel in 1948 and tried to destroy Israel then, as well as subsequently. Unfortunately for them they were unsuccessful and their failure resulted in the loss of the Palestinian state. Israel however has been willing to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state if they in turn accept Israel's right to exist and live in a secure recognised Jewish state (the only Jewish state in the world as compared to how many Muslim/Arab countries?). Of course the Palestinians never accepted this and given this history, it should therefore not be a surprise if Israel does not agree to allow any new Palestinian state to fully arm and pose a threat to Israel. They would however agree to the establishment of an independent demilitarised Palestine under the right circumstances (as stated above).

\
no it is unjust and unwanted israel is strongest state in the region and and has over 600 nukes thr estimate can be plus or minus to protect them.i have yet to hear a logic since i don,t like my neighbours intensions so he should not be allowed to keep gun but i can keep messiles for sure i don,t think so hamas is going to accept it or for that matter a single palistinian this kind of treaties can never guarenty peace i am afraid