The following quotes are taken from The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam by Bat Ye’or.
1. The most degrading tasks fell to the dhimmis. In Yemen an edict of 1806, which remained in application until they left for Israel in 1950, obliged the Jews to carry away dead animals and clean the public latrines, even on Saturdays. In Yemen and Morocco the dhimmis were obliged to extract the brains and salt the decapitated heads of the sultan’s enemies, which they then exposed upon the walls of the town.
2. Dhimmis were not permitted to group together to talk in the street. They had to walk with their eyes lowered and pass to the left of the Muslims, who were encouraged to push them aside. In Yemen it was an offence to screw up one’s eyes on seeing a Muslim naked. When standing in front of a Muslim, a dhimmi had to speak in a lowered voice and only when authorised to do so. Until the middle of the nineteenth century the Jews were ill-treated and humiliated in the streets of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed.
3. In Persia, Yemen, and North Africa, until the nineteenth century the Jews were not allowed to enter certain streets of a town. They lived in separate quarters, where they were locked in at sunset, a practice that continued in Yemen until their emigration to Israel in 1949-50.
4. From the nineteenth century into the twentieth, a continuous stream of more than two million Muslim colonists from the Crimea and the Balkans were settled in Anatolia, Armenia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine by the Ottoman government, hoping thereby to counter the dhimmis’ indigenous national aspirations by a massive Islamic colonisation.
5. In 1878 an Ottoman law granted lands in Palestine to the Muslim colonists, with a twelve-year exemption from taxes and military service. In the Carmel region, Galilee and the Plain of Sharon and Caesarea, lands were distributed to the Muslim Slavs from Bosnia and Herzogovnia; Georgians were settled around Kuneitra on the Golan Heights and Moroccans in lower Galilee. In Transjordon and Galilee, Turkmenians and Circassians, driven out by the Russian conquest of the Crimea, the Caucasus, and Turkestan, were added to tribes who had preceded them in the eighteenth century and had settled at Abu Ghosh near Jerusalem. About eighteen thousand Egyptian fellahs immigrated to Jaffa, Gaza and Jericho in the 1830s; Algerians who had gone into exile with Abd al-Qadir settled in Galilee, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.
6. Article 12 of the Agreement of 6 May 1970, signed by all the organisations belonging to the PLO, proposed a similar policy (confirmed in Damascus, June 1980): Therefore the aim of the Palestinian revolution is to liquidate this entity [Israel] in all its aspects, political, military, social, trade unions and cultural, and to liberate Palestine completely.
7. The land of Palestine will utterly spew out all that is on it, with the exception of the sons of Palestine, and none will remain except the Arabs, so that they may rebuild the glory of their homeland and cleanse it from the traces of the Jews, and it shall remain a land of the Arabs for the Arabs.” (Muhammad Husayn Sha’ban, Ben Gurion…the Liar, Government Publishing House, Cairo, 1963.)
8. Stripped of all their possessions, most of the Jews were obliged, mainly by unofficial means of coercion, to leave Arab countries. Only 20,000 remain in 1984 of a population of nearly one million – approximately 5,000 in Syria, where they are still held as hostages. In this way the ancient pre-Islamic Jewish communities, accused of rebelling against the Arab dhimma, have disappeared almost completely from the Middle East and North Africa.
9. [Nasser state] To the disaster of Palestine there is no parallel in human history [and t]he mention of Palestine is sufficient to remind every Arab – indeed, every free man – of the greatest international crime that has been committed in the entire history of mankind.
10. [Abdallah al-Tall wrote] The goal of the criminal State of Israel is that the Arabs should move to the Arabian Peninsula, their first homeland 2,000 years ago. [This implicitly recognising Arab expansionism, which in fact began in the seventh century.]
11. [Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, professor of law at the University of Baghdad and a former Prime Minister of Iraq, said] The existence of Israel nullifies the unity of our homeland, the unity of our nation and the unity of our civilization, which embraces the whole of this on region. Moreover, the existence of Israel is a flagrant challenge to our philosophy of life and the ideals for which we live, and a total barrier against the values and aims to which we aspire in the world.
12. [Ahmad Shukeiry, head of the PLO before the Six-Day War, stated at the UN in 1961] Zionism was nastier than Fascism, uglier than Nazism, more hateful than imperialism, more dangerous than colonialism. Zionism was a combination of all these evils. Its motive power was aggression and expansion.
13. And they celebrated the festival [of Tabernacles] with great rejoicing. And throughout the whole festival, day and night, men and women spoke only of the subject of Eretz Israel. And all the Jews who were in Sana’a and all the Jews of Yemen agreed together to sell all their houses and all their goods in order to use the money to journey to their country. And almost all of them neither slumbered nor slept at night, out of the longing and desire and the burning enthusiasm of their love for Eretz Israel. And so strongly did this love break out in their heart, that they cast away all their money, selling all their houses and possessions at an eighth of the value, in order to find money for the expenses of the journey by land and by sea. [The Exodus from Yemen 1881-1910]
14. The National Socialist Party has inscribed on its flag “the extermination of World Jewry.” Our party sympathises with the fight of the Arabs, especially the Arabs of Palestine, against the foreign Jew. Today, on this memorial day of the Balfour Declaration, I send my greetings and wishes for success in your fight. (Telegram from Heinrich Himmler to Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem)
15. Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion. This saves your honour. God is with you. (Haj Amin el Husseini, 1st March 1944 at 12:30 pm, speaking on Radio Berlin.)
It can be easily understood, even from this brief sampling, that Jews suffered extremely poorly under Islam. That they managed to eventually re-establish themselves as a nation almost defies explanation and should be for Christians a cause for celebration and sweet praise to God. To actually triumph against such terrible oppression and return to their spiritual and historical homeland one would have thought that Sydney Anglicans would have shouted with joy at Israel’s 60th Birthday. But, no, they reviled them and accused them of theft, murder and cruelty.(BTW, I wonder how many degrees of separation there are between false accusations and a curse.) The lone correspondent from the Sydney Anglicans to this site was more interested in salvaging the reputation of one of its sons than rebuking him for falsely accusing Jews of stealing land. Shame on you all. I am ashamed as a Christian to be associated with you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
They will even verge on lying to cover their sins.
Neil Moore
For those who have already read my post, I've added two other quotes at the bottom.
Israel...evolution... all that's happening is that SADs seem unable to address the culture from biblical first principles, but must ape its most noisy advocates...if you can't be separate from the world, I guess all you can do is follow its lead!
It's hardly surprising that Goebbels Cheng would bare false witness against the Jews. After all, the command against this is in the Decalogue, and the Decalogue also contains an explicit statement that God made the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Since Cheng mocks that doctrine and ridiculues those who believe it, it's hardly surprising that he would have a low opinion of the other commandments in the Decalogue.
Ktiso I agree. Genesis is the foundational book of the Bible and it seems when you get it wrong this incorrect view distorts your understanding of more and more of Scripture, as time goes by. One of the next sections of Scripture these fledgling liberals reject is the world-wide flood. They reject it for no Biblical or rational reason but simply because it does not fit with their anti-Biblical theistic evolutionary view.
Theistic Evolution is only a relatively recent belief in the SAD but you only have to look at their liberal brethren to see where they are headed. The liberals switched to the T/E position before the SAD so are further down the road to disbelief.
History shows that a denomination once on the road to liberalism rarely, if ever, comes back to an orthodox Biblical view.
The church is in a sad mess, no pun intended, another clue that we are in the last days.
Hey all.
Whenever I see that some of you kids have been checking my blog I like to check in to say thanks. I'm now also blogging at the Sola Panel, so you might like to check my latest over there on the question of why Genesis 4:10 ought to be taken absolutely literally.
Here you go.
So, Gordon, that's what you look like. I always imagined you were a lot younger.
Yes, I've checked out Sola Panel. It was a bit hard to avoid all that trumpet blowing. Can't say that the articles are particularly intellectually robust. Is that what a Moore education gets you? I reckon the Diocese could put their money to far better use, say, like evangelising a heck of a lot more.
Gordon the straw-man argument sure gets a flogging with some of you guys. Absolutely literally indeed where did that furphy come from?
Imagine you have received a postcard from a friend on holiday:
'Dear Gordon, the flight was murder going on forever and the food was pig-swill. Nonetheless assisted by a bucket of booze I slept like a baby! The hotel was a sight for sore eyes, so much better than the dump we crashed in last time. The first day it rained cats and dogs but the shopping centre was as dry as a bone and I bent the credit card. Love Peter.'
Gordon You obviously would not have a clue what he was on about would you. Conversely I believe most here would understand figures of speech and be able to understand Genesis 4:10. Too easy.
Of course, Goebbels Cheng could only use such a crass argument by continuing to bear false witness to what creationists believe, in line with his false witness against the Jews. Of course, real creationists, as opposed to the straw men that Goebbels knocks down, understand the different genres in Scripture (see Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?). If Genesis as a whole were figurative, it would be full of that sort of figurative language found in 4:10! But it's written as history instead.
So Cheng does accept the historicity of Cain v Abel? So why not the historicity of Adam and Eve, the global Flood or six-day creation?
You often hear someone confidently insist microbe to man (MTM)evolution is a fact. As briefly mentioned recently Dr Karl Kruszelnicki made such a confident statement(SMH GoodWeekend Myth Conceptions 10/05/08)so do you wonder upon what incontestable fact of science his confidence was based? Oh dear I can hear you say, have they discovered some new fact which proves once and for all that microbe to man evolution is a proven reality? Faint not nor fear dear ones as Dr Karl says 'Evolution is the process of change, from one generation to the next, of inherited characteristics.' What does he therefore consider to be proof of MTM evolution? That bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. Amazing! This is a real oldie, a fallacy.
What's wrong with it? The problem is that it is the opposite of that which would be required to turn a fish into a philosopher, or therapods into thelogians. Why? For a very simple reason. Consider: for one kind of animal to evolve into a totally different kind e.g. dinosaur into bird, as evolutionists claim happened, would require the addition of large amounts of totally new and unique genetic information. Obviously birds are very very different creatures than dinosaurs having numerous features,organs and structures radically different than those of dinosaurs. Also birds have structures such as feathers or wings which are lacking in dinosuars. So where did the totally new very specific genetic information needed to build them, come from? Not from dosing bugs with antibiotics for sure.
Dosing bugs with antibiotics kills those critters which do not have resistance, leaving those who do to multpiply. No individual bug evolves, it is only a population change, and is the opposite of what is needed for MTM evolution as it is a net loss of genetic information.
Now don't get me wrong I think Karl is a pleasant and interesting man, but he is simply wrong. I emailed him explaining why he is wrong and he replied saying he didn't understand what I was saing. Yesterday I emailed a far more detailed answer. He has not as yet replied to illustrate where I am wrong, because, I believe he cannot. He is of course under no obligation to reply.
So what's all this about? Many in the SAD believe God used evolution to create, but have not been able to give any Scripture to support this view. In fact Scripture directly contradicts it. I am convinced their capitulation is based upon their leaders accepting MTM to man evolution as a proven fact, a charge they deny. However I think it obviously true.
Karl is a man submersed in the evolutionary culture, mixing with many scientists, so surely up to date with the latest evolutionary knowledge and arguments,but the best he can come up with, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, is simply wrong, the opposite of what is needed. It shows me that our Anglican theistic evolutionary brethren have given up on the plain meaning of Scripture for no good reason. They surrendered without a fight, ditching faith in the Word of the perfect God who was there, and who cannot lie, for the feeble unproven ideas of falible sinful man. This is not a position of faith and God says that which is not of faith is sin.
Is it too late for them to turn away from this heresy? I think so as considerable human pride is now in control.
Gordon Cheng fails again! As a couple of you have said, he confuses a literary device with a dominating macro-genre. The 'macro genre' of Genesis is simply history! Within history literary devices can be used, pretty much as Gen 4:11 is used. But we are still constrained to read, if we are going to read it genuinely, searching for what it has to say, as just that. Why is it history? Because like all history it ties events to chronologoical markers and makes specific chronological reference.
If it's not history, of course, it can teach us nothing 'real'. But serves as a kind of novel: take it or leave it, surely!
But the thread of biblical use of Genesis as a whole and in the contentious first chapters is that its history is of a type with historical utterances made elsewhere; and that this is the connection with our own space-time, or 'historical' situation.
I cannot believe that an adult who has had a (sort of) university education (I'm referring to Moore, of course, assuming that brother Cheng went there), could seriously say what he has said...ye gods!! To think that quoting an obvious idiomatic expression in one part of Genesis wipes out the direct meaning of another part says more about the cocktail of drugs he's on than anything to do with rational intellectual debate...come on Gordon, either get real, or let us all in on the joke!
The other day I saw a piece on ABC-TV on the architect of the Jewish Museum in Berlin. It included footage of his life as a child in a ghetto (post war, but under the Soviets), it told of his parents and their generation's encounter with the rank evil of Nazism.
He made part of the museum with a shaft of light in a dark room, because a relative said that in her blackened cattle car enroute to a concentration camp, she could spy a small crack of light in that black hell.
I thought then of the love of God that showered out in his pronouncement 'let there be light'. His first fiat of creation, and how that blaze as his first act must be aligned most closely with who he is: love. With light all is shown, as it is with love.
But I also thought of the whole reason behind Israel's creation: never should a people be unable to defend themselves as the Jews were, and so it was the western world that set aside their historic homeland to be their nation state, wherein they would have soverign rights and be able to defend themselves, with the agreement of the 'community' of nations.
Eric,
Nice thought. However, the gang of anti-Semites over yonder would have you believe that Israel is a work not of God because it's putative secular nature testifies to this.
If only these bozos had any idea what a secular education in Israel gets you. It's far more impressive than any Anglican school. Go and ask an Israeli about Tanach and their ancient history and you'll be quite surprised as to the depth of their biblical knowledge. I don't know too many Anglo school kids who are firmly grounded in biblical history. After all, it's not their family members that are being studied...but these ancient men and women in Tanach are the family members of all Jews! That's why they study it in school!
Secular indeed, you fascist anti-Semites! How dare you say these things!
I forgot to mention in my comment yesterday that the light in the box car provided sufficient inspiration to keep the woman in question clinging to life and its hope, so said her architect relative in the documentary.
I made the guess that deep in her mind was her religious tradition that told her God created light, and therefore, here was a symbol of God's presence: unquenchable by human evil.
I only hope that she recognised her messiah in later years.
I wonder whether Goebbels Cheng has been influenced by the mendacious Pallywood, as well as the Nazi-spawned PLO. See Faking a Killing by Melanie Phillips, July 2008:
A 55-second piece of video footage of that demonstration, transmitted that day by the French TV station France 2, was to cause unprecedented violence in the Middle East and throughout the world.
The footage, with a voice-over by France 2's Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, showed what was said to be the killing of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura by Israeli marksmen. Viewers saw the child crouching in terror behind his father, Jamal, as they sheltered next to a barrel under what Enderlin said was Israeli gunfire, and then slumping to the ground as Enderlin pronounced that he was dead.
That image of the boy screaming in terror before being killed was uniquely incendiary. It portrayed the Israelis as diabolically gunning down a child in cold blood, even as he cowered for his life. It ignited the Arab and Muslim world with apparent proof that the Israelis were deliberately killing their children, inciting a murderous frenzy.
....
But we now know that this whole fiesta of violence and incitement was based on a lie. For whatever people think they saw in those 55 -seconds, it was not the death of that boy. He was not killed by Israeli bullets; he was not killed at all. At the end of France 2’s famous footage, he was still alive and unharmed. The whole thing was staged, a fantastic piece of play-acting, an elaborate fabrication designed to blacken Israel’s name, and incite the Arab and Muslim mobs to mass murder.
It was, in short, a modern-day blood libel, an updated version of the medieval calumny that the Jews target gentile children for murder — which itself caused the murder of thousands of Jews over the centuries.
How do we know the footage was a lie? Because many of us have seen the evidence for ourselves in a French courtroom. Ironically, this blood libel was only exposed to public view because France 2 and its correspondent Enderlin brought a libel suit against a French media watchdog, Philippe Karsenty, for saying that the “killing” was “pure fiction” and that al-Dura wasn’t dead at all.
...
Melanie Phillips' article is at http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/143/full
Andrew Bolt has a column today about this which has the raw footage that conclusively proves that Pallywood lied through its teeth (hardly for the first time): Al-Dura shooting: credibility wounded.
My thanks to you Ktisophilos.
Gwen
Post a Comment