Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Chocoholic wrote:Of course in an ideal world it should matter and all these people should learn to live together.

Live together as human beeings who all have rights and dignity, or live together after giving up parts of Egypt, all Jordan, parts of Saudi Arabia and parts of Iraq?

MS, but the point is why do you believe that you have more rights than anyone else? That's what gets people annoyed, you're not more special than any other race, nationality, religion etc!

I'm agnostic so all this stuff means absolutely nothing to me, but at least I'm trying to learn and see both sides. You fail to even look at the otherside of the picture.

Liban at least gives good reason and can see both points. I suggest you stop being so arrogant!

I was very reasonable, by speaking of a 2-nation solution. I haven't heard anyone of you agreeing even to the principle.

Instead, you talk about giving up the other countries. Read my posts, and find out that there is no arrogance.

I simply quoted from the Bible what was promised by God. So what is your issue with that? Are you questioning the word of God? Do you not believe in one of the Holy books?

You failed to reply in terms of that, which only leads me to believe that you have no respect for these things.

MS

I asked you to define arrogance because you use this word a lot. Indeed you use the word totally out of context, and furthermore to your advantage when adressing anyone that questions or disagrees with you.

Liban

Great post, i'm not being rude and i have read all what you posted. But, could you summerise it for us not so knowledgeable peeps please. In particular, i didnt understand its relavance in relation to the interpretation in our Bible as quoted by Chocs.

Choco, I believe in all books of good. I believe in the Torah and the Bible. I believe also in all Prophets of God. I believe in Prophet Moses and prophet Jesus. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus (not my own prophet) is the one who will return to the world to save us all.

Having said that, I may not believe that all your interpretations of the bible are accurate.

Therefore can other people not feel the same way about the Koran?

And fair enough of your opinion, however you seriously think there's no truth in it even though the Israelites were making their way to the promised land 2,000 years ago?

Chocoholic wrote:Therefore can other people not feel the same way about the Koran?

I have never denied you the right to do that. In our previous discussions (about the dress code) I was only trying explain what we believe in, and that we are happy with it. By no means was I trying to convince you that you should have the same belief/interpretation.

But with respect, dress code, and land are are two completely different issues. So why do you not accept that which was written thousands of years ago?

Chocoholic wrote:And fair enough of your opinion, however you seriously think there's no truth in it even though the Israelites were making their way to the promised land 2,000 years ago?

Of course I believe in the story that happened 2000 years ago. I am totally with Moses and those who believed in him, and totally against Pharaoh and what he has done.

And of course, dress code and land are 2 different issues.

Fine, in light of this, why do you have an issue whith the Jews trying to claim what if the Bible is to be believed, is rightfully theirs? Or that they believe to be theirts as promised to them by God.

I was talking of a 2-state solution, remember, not a 1-state solution. Besides, how that what happened 2000 years ago reflects the political situation today is interpretation, not the original text. Please refer to Liban's post on this issue.

Moreover, it is you who never agreed on a 2-state solution. So, where's your acceptance of the right for Palastenians to have their own state.

MS, I've given direct quotes from the Bible over what was promised, I'm not interested in discussing what the Koran says on the issue. I'm just trying to understand your thinking in why you have a problem with it!

Over history lands have been conquered and re-conquered.

How can you have something promised then have other people deny you of it?

Again, where's your acceptance that the Palastenians have the right in a state of their own?

Of course they're entitled to a place of their own, but does it really have to be the same place?

You just keep avoiding the question which means you're not willing to answer it.

I recently went the St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt on Mount Sinai. 22 Grrek Orthodox Monks live there and it's open to all people of all faiths, there's a church and a moque in the grounds side by side.

The Monastery is protected, and the Egyptian Government asked the Bishop how far the lands of the monastery stretched so it could be protected. His reply was simple, 3 days walk in any direction, which was accepted without question.

So why do you question?

Also MS, Palestinians are not the ones who experience such discrimination. Many factions refuse to acknowledge the state of Israel and if you have an Israeli passport then you're banned from entering many countries as well. Is this fair or right?

I repeat the question to Chocoholic, Dubai Knight and Arniegang. Do you think the Palastenians have the right in an independent country of their own?

Chocoholic wrote:Of course they're entitled to a place of their own, but does it really have to be the same place?

You just keep avoiding the question which means you're not willing to answer it.

I recently went the St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt on Mount Sinai. 22 Grrek Orthodox Monks live there and it's open to all people of all faiths, there's a church and a moque in the grounds side by side.

The Monastery is protected, and the Egyptian Government asked the Bishop how far the lands of the monastery stretched so it could be protected. His reply was simple, 3 days walk in any direction, which was accepted without question.

So why do you question?

It is not just the St Catherine's Monastery. Egypt has a lot of churches that stand side by side to mosques.

MS wrote:Knight, your elegent speech cannot hide a great deal of arrogance and fundamentalism. You even failed to agree with me on a solution based on 2 countries living side by side. So don't under-estimate my inteligence, and don't think you are superiour by speaking about debate.

Arnie, I know what arrogance means. It is the arrogance itself to ask me to define "discussion", and then remind me of the meaning of arrogance. My English is not as good as yours, but it is good enough.

I have to take issue with you here MS, I am by far a fundamentalist and I certainly attempt not to be arrogant. Why do you think my id and avatar are based on a theme of Star Wars and the Jedi Knights? It is because I 'fundamentally' disagree with ALL earthly bound institutionalised churches...not religions. It has been the human and political involvement in religion through the power of the 'church' (I use the word as it is the best one I can find to describe the collection of power hungry, political hypocrites who endeavour to control the masses through their interpretations of any relgious meaning) that has turned the world upside down.

I take no sides and I try to see both points of view. Since I have become a member of this forum, my knowledge of the background and teachings of Islam has increased exponentially, mostly thanks to the posting here by knowledgeable people such as Liban and Shafique, and there are points that have enlightened me to issues about which I initially knew very little.

As for being superior, all I have suggested is to bring forward a solid argument for debate, based on either an a subjective or objective point of view. Liban, for instance has posted a long and very detailed description and summarised it with his explanation as to the reasons why an Israeli state should not be in existence. It is an informative 'point of debate'. I like to look at both sides of an argument before I draw any conclusions. That conclusion will be influenced by the presented facts and any personal knowledge of history, not by 'blind faith' or indoctrinated wrote. I have raised this point before with Lionheart who is wont to deliver a diatribe from a totally one sided viewpoint.

Anyone on this forum who has met me and knows me will tell you, you are making false accusation!

Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:

MS wrote:Knight, your elegent speech cannot hide a great deal of arrogance and fundamentalism. You even failed to agree with me on a solution based on 2 countries living side by side. So don't under-estimate my inteligence, and don't think you are superiour by speaking about debate.

Arnie, I know what arrogance means. It is the arrogance itself to ask me to define "discussion", and then remind me of the meaning of arrogance. My English is not as good as yours, but it is good enough.

I have to take issue with you here MS, I am by far a fundamentalist and I certainly attempt not to be arrogant. Why do you think my id and avatar are based on a theme of Star Wars and the Jedi Knights? It is because I 'fundamentally' disagree with ALL earthly bound institutionalised churches...not religions. It has been the human and political involvement in religion through the power of the 'church' (I use the word as it is the best one I can find to describe the collection of power hungry, political hypocrites who endeavour to control the masses through their interpretations of any relgious meaning) that has turned the world upside down.

I take no sides and I try to see both points of view. Since I have become a member of this forum, my knowledge of the background and teachings of Islam has increased exponentially, mostly thanks to the posting here by knowledgeable people such as Liban and Shafique, and there are points that have enlightened me to issues about which I initially knew very little.

As for being superior, all I have suggested is to bring forward a solid argument for debate, based on either an a subjective or objective point of view. Liban, for instance has posted a long and very detailed description and summarised it with his explanation as to the reasons why an Israeli state should not be in existence. It is an informative 'point of debate'. I like to look at both sides of an argument before I draw any conclusions. That conclusion will be influenced by the presented facts and any personal knowledge of history, not by 'blind faith' or indoctrinated wrote. I have raised this point before with Lionheart who is wont to deliver a diatribe from a totally one sided viewpoint.

Anyone on this forum who has met me and knows me will tell you, you are making false accusation!

Knight

I have gone a step further than Liban, I talked about a 2-state solution. I've heard no single word accepting this. Choco is even saying do the Palastenians have to have a country in the same place?

MS

I totally accept that the Palastinians have a right to a home and a country or state. Everyone on this earth should have that right.

But from my limited point of view, maybe its time for people to "move on". I dont see why the Arab Nations cannot resolve this amongst themselves, to everyones satisfaction.

Dubai Knight wrote:Anyone on this forum who has met me and knows me will tell you, you are making false accusation!

Knight

I'm looking forward to meeting you! You'll be also surprised when you meet me.

arniegang wrote:MS

I totally accept that the Palastinians have a right to a home and a country or state. Everyone on this earth should have that right.

But from my limited point of view, maybe its time for people to "move on". I dont see why the Arab Nations cannot resolve this amongst themselves, to everyones satisfaction.

It's hard to keep up answering all of you. But, no, the Arab Nations accept the fair 2-state solution. It was proposed by the Saudi King (Crown Prince at that time) to withdraw from all 1967 territorries and have a fair solution to the refugees' problem, and the Arab Nations shall fully recognize Israel. This proposal was fully endorsed by the Arab summit. Israel refused it. Again, this goes by far beyond what Liban says.

Then is there no way the Arab Nation could not give up some of their borders to create a "state of palestine".?

MS wrote:

Dubai Knight wrote:Anyone on this forum who has met me and knows me will tell you, you are making false accusation!

Knight

I'm looking forward to meeting you! You'll be also surprised when you meet me.

Why? Are you a Klingon?



Knight

Both sides have to make compromises to live happily ever after. It is not fair to ask one party to give up everything. It is impossible for any arab leader to convince his people to give up East Jerusalem.

MS wrote:

arniegang wrote:MS

I totally accept that the Palastinians have a right to a home and a country or state. Everyone on this earth should have that right.

But from my limited point of view, maybe its time for people to "move on". I dont see why the Arab Nations cannot resolve this amongst themselves, to everyones satisfaction.

It's hard to keep up answering all of you. But, no, the Arab Nations accept the fair 2-state solution. It was proposed by the Saudi King (Crown Prince at that time) to withdraw from all 1967 territorries and have a fair solution to the refugees' problem, and the Arab Nations shall fully recognize Israel. This proposal was fully endorsed by the Arab summit. Israel refused it. Again, this goes by far beyond what Liban says.

I am not opposed to a 2 nation state at all...however it would seem that the Palestinians and the Isrealis are...so back to square one. The fundamental differences between the two different peoples here will never allow a peaceful solution in the current climate.

The argument is over the actual piece of land, an argument that has been going backwards and forwards for centuries. I cannot think of another single area on the planet that has been fought over more often than this comparatively small space. I have seen the Negev from the air and I sometimes wonder why? The answer is not the land itself, but what it stands for.
Surely the centre of the Islamic faith is based in Mecca? Correct me if I am wrong.

The fact that there are claims laid to the city of Jerusalem tells me that the faiths Islam, Christianity and Judaism must have common roots all centred about this one place. If the faiths are therefore so closely linked, why can they not find areas of common ground, which I know exist, and build an understanding from there?

The Coptic Church in Egypt has managed to do it for many centuries.

Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:I am not opposed to a 2 nation state at all...however it would seem that the Palestinians and the Isrealis are...so back to square one. The fundamental differences between the two different peoples here will never allow a peaceful solution in the current climate.

The argument is over the actual piece of land, an argument that has been going backwards and forwards for centuries. I cannot think of another single area on the planet that has been fought over more often than this comparatively small space. I have seen the Negev from the air and I sometimes wonder why? The answer is not the land itself, but what it stands for.
Surely the centre of the Islamic faith is based in Mecca? Correct me if I am wrong.

The fact that there are claims laid to the city of Jerusalem tells me that the faiths Islam, Christianity and Judaism must have common roots all centred about this one place. If the faiths are therefore so closely linked, why can they not find areas of common ground, which I know exist, and build an understanding from there?

The Coptic Church in Egypt has managed to do it for many centuries.

Knight

The holiest mosques in Islam are: the holy mosque in Mecca (Al-masjid Al-Haram), the Prophet's mosque in Medina and the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. So, the Aqsa mosque is the third holiest site in Islam.

And yes, the 3 religions are closely linked. the 10 commandments are our principles as Muslims, and as I mentioned, we believe in Jesus as the Messiah. And sure, we should be able to reach common ground. A common ground that respects the dignity of all parties.

Dubai Knight wrote:The Coptic Church in Egypt has managed to do it for many centuries.

Knight

You have to look at this both ways. Egypt became dominantly Muslim, and was ruled by Muslims ever since Islam entered Egypt. Muslims have managed to resepect the Coptic Church for all these centuries.