"1. The Quran refers to Canaan as the land G-d gave to the people of Israel, but the "Palestinians" insist that it be called by the name the Greek and Roman pagans gave to it."

That's a doctrinal thang, just like Christians here have. Some, believe it or not, consider Islam a religion ONLY for Arabs. Not white people, not black people, not turks, not Iranians, based upon the same family of scripture you're referring to.

Some believe the Koran say that Islam was "complete" when Muhammad died, and therefore it is a religion only for Arabs, and only in those parts of the world that he controlled at the time, which was basically Saudi Arabia.

BUT... as always you can make a religious book ambiguously phrased, say anything you want, and the majority in the Middle East, most notably terrorists who profit from it, see it differently.

"2. The worst murderer of Muslims ever has been executed and the "Palestinians" mourn his death."

That's a tad more complex. Iranians aren't racial arabs historically, so that is a major division. They were also the Persian empire, which like the Ottoman empire is a historical "bad guy" in the middle east. They are also the cornerstone of Shia radicalism, which Palestinians traditionally don't share or even appreciate as a religious philosophy.

"3. The King of Jordan, of Mohammed's family and of the traditional ruling family of the holy cities of Islam (until the Saudis violently took over), wants peace with the people of Israel, but the "Palestinians" defy his authority."

One reason for that is the PLO and other terrorist interests want Jordan to be a base, like Lebanon. They've tried to usurp Hashemite rule there.

The Al-Aqsa mosque is in Jerusalem, and many Muslims can't bare the idea of "idolaters" and the unclean having control. It's like any other religion, there's no one interpretation. Not for Jews, not for Christians, and obviously not for Muslims.

Just look at the Jews take on Israel. Many don't believe in the right of Israel to exist biblically, either, at least until the Messiah creates it.

That's a doctrinal thang, just like Christians here have. Some, believe it or not, consider Islam a religion ONLY for Arabs. Not white people, not black people, not turks, not Iranians, based upon the same family of scripture you're referring to.

That doesn't explain why they are so attached to the foreign, pagan, non-Quranic name for the land.

One would assume that they would at least use the monotheistic name for the land (Israel) rather than the pagan name (Palestine) if they have no specific Muslim name for it.

Muhammed himself was very clear about Islam being for everyone. It was not meant to be an Arab nationalist philosophy.

heh, there's lots of things that are very clear in the Christian Bible that don't end up so clear. When you read "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" it takes a bit of doctrinal explanation to clear up why we no longer stone wiccans.

As for the words, Do Isrealis call Palestine 'Israel' or 'canaan'? It seems to me there is a necessity for a second name since Israelis themselves don't want a one-nation solution, right? I'm not understanding your gripe.

After all, the word "Jerusalem" isn't even found in the Koran. To be fair, I can't find the word "canaan", and the only instances of the word "Israel" I find are references to the people, not the place. Do you have a place in the Koran that you can reference that shows modern Muslims departing from the Koranic name?

What is the land called in the Koran, if you could point that out to me.

P.S. Interestingly enough, while you don't find the word "Palestine" in the Koran, you most certainly find it in the KJV of the old testament in Joel 3:4. I'm not sure what the word is in the Hebrew original (maybe "PhLShTh"?):

"Yea, and what have ye to do with me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? will ye render me a recompence? and if ye recompence me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;"

There are no 'p' sounds in traditional arabic at all, right? To me this seems like a non-issue, like someone wondering why people in Japan call it 'nihon'.

as long as they follow the first rule of being a good MUSLIM, hate all Jews, that's all that counts to be in the club.

"as long as they follow the first rule of being a good MUSLIM, hate all Jews, that's all that counts to be in the club."

Lol... nice. When you wrote that, did you really think you were offering anything but ignorant, empty hatefulness? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Côté théologie, on peut épiloguer tout le temps qu'on veut, ça ne nous avancera pas d'un iota sur la destinée des Palestiniens... Je touve cette réduction des palestiniens - des musulmans - à leur dogme très aléatoire, puisqu'elle fait abstraction de l'histoire, du patrimoine, de la démographie, du sentiment national et surtout du processus politique et de la problématique de la paix... Somme toute, noyer le poisson dans la sophistaction hitorico-théologique !!!



Sans m'apesantir dans l'histricisme intellectuel, n'importe qui , avec un zeste de bon sens, peut remarquer, que le regne des Juifs ne représente pas plus q'une simple période de toute la période palestinienne. J'en reste là.

Well, the reign of the Jews certainly represents the CURRENT period in the history of "Palestine".

And I am perfectly willing to stop talking about theology with regard to the issue when the "Palestinians" stop using Islam as an excuse to kill Jews.

I'm not telling you to stop talking theology, I'm just addressing this particular point. I think you are ignoring the dichotomy between modern Zionist Israel and ancient, biblical Israel. People like Iran's president don't consider the two to be the same, and frankly neither do a lot of Jews.

Then of course there's the problem that the PLO was a primarily Marxist organisation for much of its history. There's not much love lost between the Marxists in Fatah and the fundamentalists in Hamas.

I'm not telling you to stop talking theology, I'm just addressing this particular point.

I wasn't talking to you there.

I think you are ignoring the dichotomy between modern Zionist Israel and ancient, biblical Israel. People like Iran's president don't consider the two to be the same, and frankly neither do a lot of Jews.

Frankly, the opinion of the anti-Semitic idiot who calls himself the president of Iran is not a very important point here at all. As for the "dichotomy", the relation between today's Israel and ancient Israel is the same as between ancient Persia and current Iran: it's the continuation of the culture. Some cultures are really old.

Modern "Zionist" Israel is a mixture between modern times and Jewish culture, just as it should be. Lebanon could be considered an Arab equivalent, if the Lebanese could manage to stop fighting for a few years.

At the same time, though, you seem to be arguing against yourself. Modern Jews don't call Israel canaan, do they? You admit they are both new and old, so the "state" of Israel is called Israel.

Well the Palestinians are the same. Like I said, you won't find the word "Palestine" in the Koran, but neither will you find Canaan, or Jerusalem. You will find at least the archaic equivalent of "Palestine" in Joel.

So I don't see anything that goes against the spirit of the Koran you cite when Muslims call their nation Palestine, any more than calling the Arabian peninsula "Saudi Arabia". Many don't believe that the modern "Zionist" has that much to do with their Israelite ancestors at all.

The opinion of the president of Iran is very important to your argument, because it is basically his opinion that you are arguing against. It just seems that you allow for change in the Israeli perspective, while you insist that Muslims stick to the Mohhamed-era ideals.

Isn't that really the PROBLEM, more than the solution?

That's a tad more complex. Iranians aren't racial arabs historically, so that is a major division. They were also the Persian empire, which like the Ottoman empire is a historical "bad guy" in the middle east. They are also the cornerstone of Shia radicalism, which Palestinians traditionally don't share or even appreciate as a religious philosophy.

Just curious.  But how does Iran fit in with the quoted statement?

Believe it or not, Iranians have more claim to the term "Aryan" than Nazis ever did. They were indo-Iranian peoples who called themselves Aryan as far back as Darius the Great. Their ancient language is called "old aryan".

They stem from an old race, related to the the people of the black sea and russian steppes. They are indo-Iranian in the same way Europeans were indo-european. Granted, like everything conquest has mixed their race in the same away that the turks, Iraqis and others in that region are similar enough in appearance that we ignorantly call them all "Arabs", but they aren't, and THEY definately don't see it that way.

BakerStreetJanuary 2, 2007 10:11:23

I am aware of that, but the statement was about (I think) Saddam, and he is not Iranian. I was not disputing your statement, but was curious why you chose to make it after quoting Item 2 of Andrew's statements.