Skip to comments.The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations
Posted on 01/24/2004 2:31:12 AM PST by dennisw
The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations
Professor Moshe Sharon- Wednesday 24th Dec 2003
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam.
"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.
The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.
Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation - not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other.
But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honouring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
The Essence of Islam
Now let's move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Let's look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation - namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."
The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years - 640 - the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel - namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear - Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.
The Koran sees the world as divided into two - one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) - that's the place where Islam rules - and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb - the house of war. Not the "house of non-Muslims," but the "house of war." It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it's so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear - territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because - and this is very important - this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.
Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.
Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace - you wouldn't believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can't believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, "Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?" (I have obtained a copy of Arafat's recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, "That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."
Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, "Remember the story of Hodaybiya." The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.
Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It's allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That's what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, "What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don't understand the mechanisms of politics."
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing - we haven't seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there's also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn't wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war - inside the U.S.
End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah - peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed - a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That's the vision.
I'm speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they'll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I'm quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They'll be running away and they'll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, "Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him." Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam.
Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, "No. Not in the foreseeable future." What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation.
One needs a mental filter tuned to the quality of sources and also be aware of timing. It is possible that there were some secret conspiracies in the backgroud and it is true that some wealthy men (also in America) were Communist sympatizers and sponsors long before WWI.
Still it is a well established and OPEN fact that Germans decided in 1917 to help radical revolution in Russia to win the war. Search Google for:
"sealed train" Ludendorff Lenin
One sample site is The Sealed Train
I aslo found this to be quite interesting.
Welcome to the club!
It's a shame we cannot all have the edifying brilliance (and insight into the horrors of Leviticus) of Mr. Gonzalez.
The following is the translated lecture of the distinguished Professor of Islamic History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, delivered on September 16th at the 5th Forum of The Ariel Center for Policy Research.
The Oslo agreements were aimed, from the moment they were signed to end all acts of hostility, both physical and verbal, between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli leaders at home presented the agreements in almost Messianic terms, pointing to the "historic reconciliation between the Palestinians and the Israelis." It was clearly understood that the Palestinians would not only stop all acts of violence against Israel but would change the tone of their propaganda, and endeavor to disseminate messages of peace and good neighbourliness. The Israeli public was made to believe that similar to Israel, the Palestinian Authority would develop special educational programs for the schools to educate the young generation in the spirit of peace, and prepare it to live in a new era of no-war, just as Israel had been doing for years on all levels of education, and in the media. It was also hoped that the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic line of propaganda, common in the Palestinian press (and other sources of information), would at least be tempered if not completely changed.
The least that even those who were most skeptical about the agreements had hoped was that, on the official level the notorious symbols of the hatred for Israel, in the official documentation of the PLO would be modified, notwithstanding the Palestinian Covenant and the FATAH Charter. In reality none of these hopes were realized.
After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip and the "West Bank" the terrorist actions against Israeli citizens were intensified. Israel became more accessible, and the terrorists now have territories under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, in which they prepare their acts of murder, and to which they withdraw after perpetrating them and be safe. Israeli property also became easily accessible, and the stealing of Israeli vehicles and other property became a Palestinian national sport, causing Israel tremendous economic damage.
Over and above all this, the Palestinian Authority, from the minute of its establishment, did nothing to change the atmosphere of hatred among the Palestinians. On the contrary, the language of hatred, the incitement for war against the Jews, the belligerent speeches - the books in schools, the ideology of negating Israel's existence, and the Jewish right to a homeland remained the same as they had been even before World War II. Nothing has changed in the ideology but much has changed in the intensification of its dissemination, and the availability of the facilities to bring it to almost every individual: through the press, the electronic media and the internet.
Palestinian achievements in Oslo.
In the eyes of those who signed the Oslo agreements on the Palestinian side their major achievements were as follows:
The acquisition of real estate property, namely land ceded to the Palestinians by Israel, in return for a general, unbinding declaration "against terror." According to the Arab lexicon of the Arab-Israeli conflict, terror does not exist at all on the Palestinian side. When the Arabs condemn "terror" they mean, Israeli terror, represented by the sheer existence of the State of Israel. The Arab definition of the killing of Israeli citizens by Palestinian terrorists is: "Palestinian freedom fighting." For this reason any Palestinian or Arab declaration "against terror," means absolutely nothing, and if it can bring real profit, as in Oslo, the Palestinians, will concede to using it - at a price.
The formation of an army, under the disguise of "a strong police force." The Palestinian Authority, brought the whole PLO fighting force which had been stationed in Tunisia and other Arab countries, into the territories which it received from Israel. This is a well trained army, indoctrinated for war against Israel. Its slogan is: "With our souls and blood we shall redeem thee O Palestine," which the soldiers, inflamed by 'Arafat's speeches, chant. Most of the members of this army are not even disguised as policemen. They wear army uniforms, are organized in military units, get military training, and none of them have any idea about police duties or police work. The agreements limit the number of "policemen" to 30,000, yet the actual size of the standing Palestinian army is double this number, and its arsenals constantly swell with arms strictly forbidden by the agreements, including artillery and rockets, smuggled by the agents of Palestinian Authority itself.
The legitimization of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), which was, and still is, defined as a terrorist organization. This legitimization is a particularly important achievement, because it has been conceded by the very victims of this organization's acts of terror. In this way Israel, the major victim of the PLO, accepted it as a legitimate freedom-fighter body, exactly as this organization had been claiming, and gave up its demand that the PLO should account for the atrocities which it had perpetrated for more than a quarter of a century.
4. Legal precedent
The setting of a precedent, according to which a sovereign state negotiates, officially, with a body of no legal or political standing whose declared aim is to obliterate it. Israel did this without demanding the obvious: the abolishment, and rejection of all the official documents calling for the destruction of Israel as a precondition for even meeting for negotiations.
5. Avoidance of cardinal issues
The creation of a situation by which the Palestinian side acquired meaningful, and real achievements without having to enter into any commitment regarding the major issues which are the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Borders, Refugees, Jerusalem.
The Israelis, so eager to have the Palestinians as partners, regarded the sheer act of the negotiations as a great achievement, and interpreted them as amounting to Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel. For propaganda purposes, especially in the West, official Palestinian bodies, adopted this Israeli interpretation, but they left out the geographical definition of "Israel", namely, they refrained from speaking about Israel within any borders, not even the armistice lines of 1949. Similarly Israel is completely absent from the Palestinian maps: there is no such country in the Palestinian atlas (as well as in any other Arab atlas).
The voice of Palestinian rejection
The Palestinians who rejected Oslo, whether these were independent Islamic bodies such as the HAMAS, or elements inside the PLO, claimed that by recognizing Israel, even in an indirect fashion, and within any borders, no matter how diminished they may be, negated fundamental principals of the Palestinian Covenant. These principals forbid the division of Palestine, do not recognize the Jews as a people, reject Jewish history altogether, reject any form of recognition of the Jews' right to have a state of their own, and regard Zionism as a terrorist, racial and colonialist movement, which should be rooted out together with Israel - its creation.
The Muslim elements, endorsing each one of these ideas, emphasized also the fact that Jihad, the Holy War against the Jews, the historical enemies of Islam, could not, and should not, be stopped. The Qur'an decided that the Jews must forever be demeaned and degraded, and it follows that they may never rule, especially over an Islamic land. It goes without saying that the Muslims should not even post factum accept a situation in which Jews rule over Muslims, or that they abolish the principle which prescribes that only Muslims should govern their own holy places and the holy places of others. In other words, it is impossible that the Muslims, willingly, give up the cardinal idea that Jews, and Christians, can only be dhimmis: they may live under Islamic rule only as an inferior class of "protected people." As far as Muslim organizations led by the HAMAS are concerned: "Islam is the solution, and jihad is the way."
Those who signed the Oslo Agreements, 'Arafat included, though not defined as "Muslim fundamentalists," do not oppose this Islamic ideology. Moreover, in essence they even support it spreading it in every possible manner. Their argument, however, is that this Islamic ideology may be implemented at anytime. Meanwhile, all efforts must concentrate on the achievement of real gains (acquiring territory, building a fighting force, receiving international support), which in the right time, will enable implementation of the Islamic ideology successfully.
'Arafat's policy of free gains
The father of this line of thought is Yassir 'Arafat, and these are its major components:
1. The Palestinian covenant is not, and will not be, abolished. However, it is important to present the world, from time to time with a formula which sounds like its abolishment, taking advantage of the ignorance of the other side, and of the sympathy as well as the ignorance of the Israeli and international media. For example, 'Arafat declares in Paris that the Covenant is "caduc," or the Palestinian National Council takes a decision to nominate a committee to decide which of the articles of the Covenant should be amended, or 'Arafat announces that Israel herself should adopt a constitution prior to the amendment of the Covenant. The basic idea behind these arguments is that the world, and the media in general would accept, adopt, and give currency even to the most outrageous absurdity, if it is repeated long enough.
2. The presentation of the agreements with Israel as temporary ones. It follows that it is permissible, even desirable to sign them, especially since they come cheap, even free, and are useful. Their usefulness is important. In this context 'Arafat speaks the language of the Islamic HAMAS, relying on a historical precedent established by no less a person than the Prophet Muhammad himself.
Muhammad made a treaty with the tribe of Quraysh, his enemy, because he thought that the agreement was beneficial for the Muslims.
The agreement did not abolish the state of war, only postponed it.
The agreement brought great benefits to the Muslims, enabling them to build their military power, weakened their enemy, and anaesthetized it to such a degree that it lost its defensive instincts.
The agreement was breached by Muhammad at the first opportunity, once he was ready with his army.
Those who opposed the agreement at the time of Muhammad, said that it was a shameful agreement, but Muhammad proved that in the long run it was a great strategic move, which led to the ultimate victory of Islam.
The programme of Israel's gradual elimination
Following Muhammad's precedent which 'Arafat loves to quote, the Oslo agreements are therefore presented as a temporary treaty, a mere phase in the overall strategy of destroying Israel in stages. The theoretical foundation of this strategy was formulated already in 1975. It is based on a principal which says: use every opportunity to secure territorial acquisitions at the cheapest price. Oslo, 'Arafat explains, established this principal of cheap acquisition, without giving up the option of war.
Following this line of thought, the Palestinian authorities are developing and spreading the ideas which existed in the various Palestinian movements, the PLO notwithstanding, already long before Oslo. These ideas touch on three major, cardinal issues which were discussed neither in Oslo, nor since Oslo in spite of the fact that they should have been the first to be put on the negotiations agenda. These are the problems on which the final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict depends. (In a side note it must be emphasized that the Palestinians have no interest in discussing the final settlement, because such negotiations would, by their nature, prevent them from making the maximal use of the Oslo agreements which enable them, as has already been emphasized, to acquire maximum property for almost no price).
The Palestinians have a very clear ideas regarding the three (avoided) main problems of the final settlement: Borders, Refugees and Jerusalem, which may be summed-up are as follows:
Palestine, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is indivisible. It belongs only to the Palestinians. It follows that Israel's existence, is just a temporary presence. The final aim is to replace it with an Arab-Palestinian state which would comprise the whole Palestinian territory as it was during the British Mandate.
For this purpose the Arab citizens of Israel must be recruited too, and they should take part in the national Palestinian struggle from within the State of Israel, making use of Israel's democracy, the Israeli media, and the Israeli legal institutions. The aim of replacing Israel with an Arab-Palestinian State can be achieved in two ways.
(a) War. This option involves the recruitment of all, or most of the Arab countries, notably Egypt, Syria, and Iraq at a convenient moment, preferably after Israel is contained at least within the 1967 borders.
(b) Changing Israel's character. This is a plan which aims at the cancellation of Israel as a Jewish state by bringing it to forsake its national Jewish symbols, to abolish the "Law of Return" enabling free Jewish immigration, and to open its borders for free influx of Arabs. In the long run, having been ethnically changed, Israel will be defeated by its own democracy. All agree that this option demands a longer breath, but its implementation is possible, especially since it does not involve bloodshed, and is likely to gain the support of many Israelis too.
It is possible to shorten the last mentioned process, if the Palestinians begin the negotiations about the borders not from the 1949 armistice lines ("The 1967 Green line") but from the 1947 UN "Partition Plan," according to which they can demand most of the Galilee and the major part of the Negev. It should be pointed out that already following the Oslo agreements the Palestinians developed a plan to take over parts of the Negev through the establishment of a corridor, under Palestinian jurisdiction, which connects the Gaza Strip with the "West Bank," and which cuts Israel in half. Both sides of this planned corridor are populated by ever increasing Bedouin tribes, Arab-citizens of Israel, who have undergone in the last decade a sharp process of Palestinization, and are destined to take an active part in this plan.
Appended to the definition of Israel's borders is the thesis which has long acquired international approval, namely that unlike all the refugees in the world which have always been rehabilitated after wars, the Arab refugees are kept, as a permanent problem fully supported by the international community. Moreover, the Arabs have succeeded in imprinting on the international mind the idea that a Palestinian refugee is not a temporary condition, but a status bequeathed, and inherited, from generation to generation. A Palestinian refugee is always a refugee, and so also are his descendants. The "Palestinian refugees" therefore are always on the increase, and a whole UN machinery has been established to support, and directly encourage this anomaly and human suffering. By now the Arab refugees are as permanent as the weather on the UN agenda. The Palestinians understand the tremendous advantage of the refugees tool in their plan to destroy Israel, emphasizing that all the refugees, and their millions of offspring, belong to the original places in which they had lived before the 1948 war. Their right to return to these places, most of which have long ceased to exist, has been the cornerstone in the Arab-Palestinian policy towards Israel. There is no attempt to disguise the reason behind this demand. Flooding Israel proper even with a few hundreds of thousands of Palestinian-Arab, means the end of the Jewish state within a few years. On the other hand however, the refugee camps, are a great asset for the Arabs which they will endeavour to keep even if an agreement on reparations to the refugees is reached some time in the future.
According to the Arabs, Jerusalem belongs only to the Muslims, the Jews do not have, and did not have any right to it. In many of his speeches 'Arafat repeats the absurdity that since the destruction of the First Temple the Jews have not been in Jerusalem, and that they have only recently been brought to it by the British. Arafat is only repeating the false "facts" which are part of the intensive re-writing of "Palestinian history," which has been taking place for more than seventy years, similar to the rewriting of the history of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states which were born after World War I. In their re-writing of history the Palestinians aim at obliterating any memory of the Jews from Jerusalem in particular, and from the historical map of the Holy Land in general. This they do by presenting the whole history of ancient Israel as an insignificant episode between the Canaanites - who are identified as "Palestinians" - and the Islamic conquests, which are presented as just another wave of Arabs coming to historically Arab lands.
The Islamic conquests in the 7th century are introduced as the key to the special position of the Muslim-Arabs in Palestine, since these conquests established the legal relations between the Muslim rulers and the Christian dhimmis, the Jews being of no consequence, and possessing no holy places. Only through this twisting of history was it possible to present the Muslim conquests as the legal source for the establishment of a system of protection bestowed by the Muslims on the Christians, who were made to possess the only non-Muslim holy places.
Following this reasoning 'Arafat hammers repeatedly the idea that the Jews not only are not in possession of the holy places in the Holy Land, these being either Muslim or Christian, but that Israel as a state has no legal right even to offer protection to the Christian holy places, since it was caliph 'Umar (CE 634-644) who established the system of protection which only Muslims may benevolently bestow on the Christians.
The Palestinian-Arab-Muslim ideology regarding the Jews, which followed the Oslo agreements, is the same as the one prior to them. It prescribes the total negation of any connection between the Jews and their historic homeland including all the Jewish historical holy places. All the holy places to which the Jews lay claim are accordingly presented as Muslim-holy places with Arab names: The Western Wall is al-Burq, The Temple Mount is al-Haram al-Quds, Hebron is al-Khal. Classical Islamic texts already Islamized the major figures of Jewish history from Abraham to Solomon - they are all Muslim personalities, mainly prophets. All the holy places connected with them are therefore, by definition, Muslim holy places. The re-writers of Palestinian history are making maximum use of these old texts.
The Palestinian program as seen in the current policies, the educational system, the media, and literature is clear: The eye, the ear, and the heart of the future generations of Palestinians should be recruited to the one and only aim - the removal of Israel. For external consumption this ideological bundle is covered in the necessary verbal wrapping, pleasant to the western eye, and this the meal of deceit is spiced to suit the European and American palate.
See for yourself on Ask the Imam.com
Heartwarming religion, isn't it?
Take a look folks, if you dare. Ask the Imam.
Muhammad definitely had no success getting Jews to convert. They rejected him when he was younger and powerless. He remembered this and came back with a vengeance to decimate Jewish tribes in Arabia (today's Saudi Arabia) when he had the power. He had his Muslims face pagan Mecca (home of many idols and gods including Allah, then just a moon god) for prayer instated of Jerusalem.
Definitely Islam is very conflicted in it's hatred and Jihad for Christians and Jews, since it draws so much (steals from actually) from Judaism and Christianity. The only time Muslim peoples can get along with Christians and Jews (and this happens from time to time) is when they forget and ignore the Koranic commandments for Jihad until the whole world is Muslims.