Pages

▼

Narendra Modi and India

RESULTS of the elections to the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat were long awaited because Chief Minister Narendra Modi had acquired considerable notoriety over the last decade. He had presided over the pogrom of the Muslims of the state in 2002, an offence for which the US State Department still refuses to grant him a visa to that country.

Modi has expressed no contrition and made not the slightest effort to make amends for the loss of 2,000 lives. Not only that, he went on to consolidate the Hindu community’s support by what can only be described as a campaign of hate. That accomplished, he began asserting his independence from his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) central leadership and its mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Having won his first assembly election in 2002 after the pogrom and the next in 2007 on a similar stance, he made a bid for victory in 2012 on the platform for the BJP leadership in the 2014 general election in order to ultimately emerge as prime minister of India. It was not the Muslims and the secularists alone who waited for the poll results with bated breath. So did the BJP’s leadership and the RSS cabal. Since independence few elections to a state assembly have been watched with such keen interest as the polls in Gujarat.

On paper the results declared on Dec 20 would suggest that Modi’s rise has been checked. In a house of 182 seats he won 115 seats, two short of the tally in 2007. The Congress won 61 seats, two more than it won in 2007. However, even as results were being declared, printed placards surfaced declaring Modi as the next prime minister. They were obviously printed well in advance for the predicted victory.

Modi himself emerged in public and, in a rare performance, eschewed Gujarati to declaim triumphantly in Hindi, the national language. The symbolism was not lost on the BJP’s leaders. His supporters predict that the 2014 general elections to the Lok Sabha will witness a straight fight between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. At 62, Modi can face reverses more than once as he pursues his ambition.

The crucial question is what do his politics portend for the future of India’s polity? He claimed: “The entire election was fought here on the plank of development. Gujarat has endorsed the plank of development and has voted accordingly.” Both claims are false. He freely exploited the communal factor, and his speeches were laced with attacks on Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and others in coarse language. He accused the prime minister of selling out Sir Creek to Pakistan. Not one Muslim was awarded the party’s ticket for the polls.

Modi was a hard-core RSS pracharak (volunteer) who was seconded to the BJP. In 2001, he was sent from the BJP’s headquarters in New Delhi to Gujarat to replace Keshubhai Patel as chief minister.

The burning of the train at Godhra in 2002 provided an opportunity to whip up hatred towards Muslims. A pogrom followed.

The hatred persists. From mixed localities Muslims have moved into ghettos. Politically they are marginalised. So deep is the demoralisation that a few significant sections of Muslims decided to make peace with Modi.

In the run-up to the 2007 elections Sonia called him a “maut ka saudagar” (merchant of death). During the recent polls however, none dared attack him along those lines as it would have alienated the Hindus who back him. Muslims constitute 10 per cent of the total population. The BJP won in 24 constituencies which had more than 15 per cent Muslim voters. In nine seats with 25 per cent or more Muslims, the BJP won seven, including one in which they had a 60 per cent majority and another in which they had nearly 50. The number of Muslims in the assembly is down to two from five in 2007.

The contest was between a Congress afraid to fight for secularism, let alone for redress of Muslim grievances, and a BJP which is increasingly communal. A minority community has some leverage in a multi-party contest, very little in a polity divided on religious lines. If Modi launched a sadbhavna (harmony) campaign last year it was not to woo the Muslims but to project himself as a moderate on the national level. During the campaign he firmly refused to put on a skull cap presented to him by a Muslim while accepting all manner of other caps which were offered to him. The message was driven home forcefully.

Modi’s false claims on development have been exposed thoroughly. Gujarat ranks 14th and ninth respectively in men’s and women’s rural wage rates among the country’s 20 major states. The network of super highways, which impress some, cannot conceal the awful state of roads in the interior and the abject poverty that is the norm there. Meanwhile big business has rallied behind Modi.

The BJP leaders in New Delhi had no say in the award of party tickets nor were they assigned a role in the election campaign. It was Narendra Modi’s show entirely and exclusively. Therein lies his greatest strength and greatest weakness. He has undoubtedly emerged as a powerful regional satrap but has in the process alienated some in the BJP and the RSS, their allies in the National Democratic Alliance — especially the Chief Minister of Bihar Nitish Kumar — and very many across the country.

In 2013 there will be elections to five state assemblies. Will Modi campaign in any of them? For that matter will he tour the country to project himself as a ‘national’ leader? In that event what will be the country’s response? If he manages to win significant popular support outside Gujarat, will the BJP adopt him as leader, as in 1990-1992 when L.K. Advani launched his Hindutva hate campaign?

In 2014 India will battle for its soul once again. As before it is certain to triumph for the hate campaign is assured of failure. The souffle cannot rise twice.

By A.G. Noorani, an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
http://dawn.com/2012/12/29/narendra-modi-and-india/
More:

 Will India Accept Modi?
In the mid-1980s when Indian television was bland, but less insulting to the intellect than it is now, and viewers were not spoilt for choice since the only channel broadcast was the state-run Doordarshan, many Indians came ...
Verdict on Godhra गोधरा पर फैसला
This is exactly the position maintained all along by Mr Modi and the BJP — and opposed by the Congress, the Left parties and many 'secular' and liberal-minded sections of society…. The BJP is naturally jubilant at Tuesday's ...
Peace-Forum: Discrimination against Muslims: A question that India ...
Even 10 years after the killings, there is no real punishment. How does the Muslim community put faith in the polity? Thetamasha that chief minister Narendra Modi puts up every now and then does not impress anyone about ...
Peace-Forum: An image makeover for Narendra Modi, The Muslim ...
Mr Modi is a polarising figure, Is India's most controversial and divisive politician emerging as a prime ministerial candidate? Supporters of Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, believe so. For evidence, they point to his ...
Peace-Forum: Advani, Modi and communalism
The man responsible for the Godhra tragedy was Narendra Modi, chief minister of Gujrat, who exploited burning of the S-6 to retain his power which otherwise he was sure to lose. And the man mostly responsible for the ...

Anti Islam Film- Rebuttal مكافحة الإسلام الأفلام نقض



Books & Articles
General Topics: 

  1. Religion cause Wars? 

  1. Tribulation and Discord in Muslim World & Future 
  2. Islamic Society & Culture
  3. Women in Islam
  4. Rise & Decline of Muslims   
  5. Caliphate: Redundant or Relevant?
  6. Sectarianism
  7. Learning & Science
  8. Islam and Modernism: By Mufti Taqi Usmani
  2.  
  4. Tolerance  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
 A Project of 
Overall 2 Million visits/hits
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mary, the mother of Jesus in Islam

Come Christmas time, invariably Christians and Muslims are both faced with probing questions about Jesus (peace be upon him) and Mary (peace be upon her). 

Popular magazines put up Jesus' photo on their cover with questions such as "Who was Jesus?" and "The Truth about Jesus". Much has already been written about Jesus's exalted position in Islam. At this time, I would like to focus on how Mary (peace be upon her) is viewed in Islam.

Mary is mentioned in the Qur’an in several chapters, including chapter 19 that is named after her. Mary is revered by Muslims on account of her chastity and devotion to God. The Qur’an makes clear the exalted status of Mary as follows:

And [mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. O Mary, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow [in prayer]." (3:42, 43) 

According to the exegesis of the Qur'an by Ibn Katheer, Mary was born in a noble family from the lineage of David (peace be upon him). The Qur’an mentions the story of her mother’s pregnancy with Mary in the third chapter called Al ‘Imran and how she dedicated Mary to the service of the Bait Al Maqdis (the mosque of the sacred house) in Jerusalem. 

[Mention, O Muhammad], when the wife of 'Imran said, "My Lord, indeed I have pledged to You what is in my womb, consecrated [for Your service], so accept this from me. Indeed, You are the Hearing, the Knowing.”

But when she delivered her, she said, "My Lord, I have delivered a female." And God was most knowing of what she delivered, "And the male is not like the female. And I have named her Mary, and I seek refuge for her in You and [for] her descendants from Satan, the expelled [from the mercy of God ]." 

So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her to grow in a good manner and put her in the care of Zechariah. Every time Zechariah entered upon her in the prayer chamber, he found with her provision. He said, "O Mary, from where is this [coming] to you?" She said, "It is from God. Indeed, God provides for whom He wills without account." (3:35-37)

According to various commentaries of the Qur’an, Mary distinguished herself with unmatched worship and devotion to God. Mary’s exalted status was to reach newer heights when God chose her to be the mother of Jesus. The interaction between Mary and Angel Gabriel is given in a most moving manner in the Qur’an as follows:

[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed God gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to God ]. 

He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." 

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is God ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is. 

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel.

And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of God . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of God . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. 

And [I have come] confirming what was before me of the Torah and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. And I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, so fear God and obey me. (3:45-50)

In chapter 19 titled Mary, the same story is narrated in greater detail as follows:

And mention, [O Muhammad], in the Book [the story of] Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place toward the east.

And she took, in seclusion from them, a screen. Then We sent to her Our Angel, and he represented himself to her as a well-proportioned man.

She said, "Indeed, I seek refuge in the Most Merciful from you, [so leave me], if you should be fearing of God."

He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy."

She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?"

He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.' "

So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten."

But he [the angel] called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.

And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates.

So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, 'Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to [any] man.' "

Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have certainly done a thing unprecedented.

O sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."

[note: "Sister of Aaron" may either mean that Mary had a brother of the name of Aaron, or it may mean that she belonged to the family of Prophet Aaron.]

So she pointed to him. They said, "How can we speak to one who is in the cradle a child?"

[Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of God . He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.

And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah (charity) as long as I remain alive.

And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant.

And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive." (19:17-33)

During one of the interfaith discussions, a Christian friend remarked that the Qur’an is very kind and compassionate to Mary. She explained that the Bible mentions the first miracle of Jesus when he was 33 years old whereas the Qur’an narrates the first miracle of Jesus when he was a newborn and thus saving Mary from the humiliation of having to wait 33 years to be absolved from the calumny that was heaped upon her by the people at that time.

The world’s 1.6 billion Muslims honor Mary (peace be upon her) and her son the Messiah Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). They send blessings on them when they mention their names, they recite these verses from the Qur’an in their prayers, and they name their children after them as a mark of respect.
  
I would like to wish our Christian readers a joyous and peaceful Christmas holiday season. 
Posted by: Zafar Siddiqui 
http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/184609581.html

More: Read eBook: Christianity, Jesus & Bible



The strategic agenda

THE present flows from the past, and the future will emerge from the present.

Syria’s sectarian war: The headline issue today and in the near future is likely to be the escalating sectarian war in Syria. The Sunnis will win eventually. Ethnic cleansing will lead to the religious and geographical division of Syria. An Alawite satellite state in their majority areas may be the only viable solution.

The Syrian conflict has inflamed religious and ethnic tensions within and across Syria’s borders. In retaliation for Turkey’s support to the opposition, the Assad regime has stirred the Kurdish pot. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been politically defensive but could become more assertive internally and externally. Lebanon’s sectarian divisions will become more pronounced. Israel may face a more active Hezbollah and victorious Sunni militants on the Golan.

Iran vs. the rest: The Iranian nuclear controversy is part of a larger campaign to contain and reverse the rise of Iranian power. Nuclear sanctions have weakened Iran’s economy and its support for Syria has damaged its standing in the Arab street.

Tehran will continue to negotiate smartly on the nuclear issue, seeking to ease the impact of sanctions while avoiding the threat of an Israeli military strike. To retain domestic support and to preserve its future strategic options, Iran will not be able to yield on its right to enrich uranium. If the US and its allies can live with limited Iranian enrichment under IAEA or even stronger safeguards, a deal may be possible, yielding Iranian cooperation on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other issues.

But even a re-elected US president may not be able to override objections from Israel and the US right wing to such a deal. Mounting economic and other pressures could lead Iran to escalate retaliatory actions on several fronts.

Afghanistan-Pakistan: The political goals of the US and Pakistan, at this juncture, are partially convergent and partly divergent. But the main feature of the US, Pakistan, and Afghan positions is confusion. Only the Afghan Taliban seem to have strategic clarity: an end to foreign military presence, no truck with a ‘puppet’ Karzai regime, talks on their terms to secure withdrawal of foreign forces and an expectation of resumed power in the areas they dominate.

An agreed process to negotiate peace appears highly unlikely at present. Thus, the prognosis is for continued violence and a disorderly withdrawal, perhaps even speeder than anticipated.

While Pakistan-US relations may improve further, given the convergence of their tactical objectives, relations between Islamabad and Kabul could deteriorate given the reciprocal perception that each side is supporting the other’s enemies. Thus, even as the withdrawal proceeds, the conflict could acquire a different dimension, reminiscent of past civil wars in Afghanistan, except now it may encompass Pakistan.

The Arab Winter: The Arab Spring was followed by a hot and violent summer, in Libya and then Syria. A common feature was the rise of Islamic parties. But as Tunisia’s new leaders and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood are discovering, the political price of incumbency arrives early: blame for the failure to deliver jobs and improve governance.

Popular revolts are possible in Egypt and Tunisia, while Libya is in the grip of uncontrolled militias. Moreover, assertive Islamic militancy is spreading on the periphery of the Arab world — Yemen, Somalia and beyond to Mali and Nigeria. Unfortunately, there is no grand plan to address the issues which are at the root of this phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the central issue that unified the Arab and Muslim world in the past — Palestine — remains unresolved. It has become a symbol of Arab and Muslim political impotence. The prospects for a two-state solution are fast receding.

Continued expansion of Israeli settlements will make this impossible. Netanyahu is likely to be re-elected. On the Palestinian side too, Hamas has gained popular support while the pro-peace process Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah have lost ground.

A divided America: Obama may not be able to assert US influence due to the deep political and ideological division in America today. The split was evident in the presidential election campaign. The liberals’ loathing of the right-wing Republicans is matched only by the right wing’s visceral hatred of Obama and his social agenda.

Much of this mutual loathing is related to race and class divisions. The upshot is the inability in Washington to pursue a bipartisan, national position on almost any issue.
Thus it is proving difficult to deal with the fiscal cliff and the related social and economic issues. The same divisions will frequently prevent the implementation of reasonable policies on strategic issues — Iran, China and Russia being principal among them.

Russian reversion: The visible Western encouragement of President Putin’s opponents has triggered a fresh souring of Russia-US relations. The reset button is again on preset. Diplomatic escalation is already under way: the Magnitsky Bill in the US Congress and retaliatory ban on US adoption of Russian children.

Such posturing is accompanied by strategic differences on a host of issues including Syria and the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles in Europe. The latter may scuttle major arms control agreements between Russia and the US.

Rising China: Notwithstanding the deep interdependence between China and the US, processes have been initiated both in Washington and Beijing which, unless checked, can lead to an inevitable strategic contest.

China is deeply suspicious of the ring of alliances being built by the US around its periphery, the US desire to involve itself in China’s maritime border disputes and its declared ‘pivot’ to Asia.

The strong nationalist positions adopted by China, at the popular and official level, on the islands dispute with Japan is partly a response to the US moves. With new leaders in China, Japan, North and South Korea, and America’s interest in the region, northeast Asia may soon emerge at the top of the global strategic agenda.

The Europe crisis: The forced pace of European economic integration over the past two decades has led to an inevitable consequence: economic diversion between the efficient economies of the north and the Mediterranean laggards.

The choice before Europe now is a closer economic and political union under German leadership and financing or progressive escalation of domestic unrest and inter-European friction. In either case, Europe’s economies will shrink further. Some ‘regions’, like Catalonia and Scotland, may want to opt for statehood.

Europe’s global influence will continue to decline with its economic fortunes. Yet Europe has the best living conditions and, after its economic contraction, may become the best location for the construction of advanced modern economies.

The poverty trap: The poorest billion in the world — in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia — suffer mostly out of sight. Their deprivations are creating myriad conflicts. The surprises for the global agenda will emanate from these silent crises.

Climate disasters: Increasingly frequent natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy in the US, and the more devastating hurricane which destroyed the southern Philippines, are visible warning signals. Melting glaciers, rising seas, repeated droughts and floods are further evidence of the progressive deterioration of the environment.

The assertion that this will sooner or later threaten the survival of humanity appears increasingly credible. This threat may not be at the top of the global strategic agenda. But it may force itself to the forefront with no further warning.

By Munir Akram; The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.
<<Free-eBooks Click here>>> 

Happy Birthday God !

Happy Birthday God ! Can You digest this phrase? Christmas is here and so the marketing of Jesus’s godship through festivals, wine, dance parties, Christmas cards and Christmas cakes will be in full boom. In my school days, Christmas was celebrated with a teacher becoming Santa Claus and giving us gifts....  keep reading >>

Before Zionism, Most Christians and Jews Were Pro-Palestinian-By Rev Ted Pike

Few people realize that, as recently as 120 years ago, virtually every religious Jew was essentially anti-Zionist.  They agreed that, because of their sins, God allowed their expulsion into the world.  They also agreed it was God's will that they remain in exile and not return to Palestine until collective repentance had occurred. They agreed, as Jeremiah warned, that they should not listen to the rebellious voice of those who advised them, contrary to God's decree, to return to Jerusalem and retake the land.  (Jer. 29:8-9)  Instead, they should wait until the Messiah comes. He would reinvigorate their piety and lead them once again to their promised land.  (See "Jewish Religious Opposition of Zionism" at Rense.com)
Today, ultra-Orthodox Jews of Neturei Karta and Jews Against Zionism are among the last survivors of at least eight million eastern European (Ashkenazi) and a million Sephardic/Oriental Jews who believed this way.  Reform Jewry was among them.  Jews living in the 1880s would be astonished at any suggestion that dispersed Jewry had privileges to return and set up a kingdom in Palestine. They would point to dozens of prohibitions in the Old Testament law upholding Jehovah’s dictum that if they rebelled they could never come back as a nation except in obedience. (See List of Conditional Occupation Verses)
However, such Jews, including Neturei Karta today, do not believe their people were exiled because of rejection or even crucifixion of Jesus. Such ultra-Orthodox devotees of the Talmud and Kabala make public statements of reverence for Jesus as a “great teacher” and declare that Talmudic Judaism shares Christ's values. (This pleases anti-Zionists.)  But they agree with the Talmud that Jesus was a false prophet. The Talmud says that He (under the pseudonym “Balaam”) now resides in hell, writhing in boiling semen (Gittin 56b-57a). As such, they believe it was the greatest virtue for the Pharisees and the Jewish people to have persuaded the Romans to crucify Him.

Such anti-Zionist Jews believe the Jewish people are under judgment for not fully obeying a vastly greater authority than Jesus or even Moses and the prophets: the Pharisees. Only when Jews repent and return to study and veneration of the sacred writings of the Pharisees, the Talmud and Zohar, as God desires, and end defilement of the holy land by allowing Talmud-rejecting secular Jews to live there, will God’s blessing return to Jews.  When God allows Messiah to come, He will soften the hearts of Jews everywhere to seek the God of their Pharisaic forefathers. In fulfillment of a multitude of Old Testament prophesies, the Jewish people will be gathered and led back to Palestine to occupy the land and rule over the nations. Christianity (idolatry) will be banned and Hebrew monotheism enforced under penalty of death.  (Zohar I 25b, 47a, 60a, etc.)
Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and Bar Kokhba failed to bring in the Messianic kingdom in his revolt of the Jews in 135 AD.  Recognizing God's clear judgment on them, Jewry everywhere accepted His conditional terms for reoccupation of Palestine.  Such remained unquestioned dogma for religious Jews until emergence of Zionism in the late 19th century. 
Secular Zionism discounted Old Testament conditional terms of occupation. Obedience no longer mattered.  According to Zionism, the overwhelming issue facing Jewry was how to find a safe place in an allegedly anti-Semitic world. Uganda and Madagascar were considered, but charismatic and determined leaders like Theodore Herzl convinced secular Jews (largely Marxist from Eastern Europe) they could find such safety in Palestine.
19th Century Christians Agreed with Jews: No Obedience, No Land
For 1900 years Christians shared the basic belief of Orthodox Jews that Jewish sin caused exile and Jews should not return to Palestine. Most Christians believed their return would be permitted at the second coming of Christ when a remnant would repent.
Zionism was massively funded by western Jewry and promoted particularly by the British and their Balfour Declaration. Zionism had one virtue which made it irresistible to both Jews and evangelicals: It was extremely successful.

Most Jews and evangelical Christians quickly succumbed to the argument that God’s conditional terms were part of a previous Old Testament dispensation (as Scofield taught). (See "A Simple Explanation of Scofield Dispensationalism") Zionism’s success seemed to confirm that God was waiving His previous demands for obedience. Clearly, the safety and prosperity of His chosen people now took precedence. Both Jews and Christians began to teach that God's top priority was to provide refuge to persecuted world Jewry. Most completely dismissed God’s conditional terms of occupation, which were incompatible with the new theology.
Today, evangelicals have set aside God's Old Testament requirements and have no idea of their ancestors’ convictions.  They reason from a distorted interpretation of God's covenant with Abraham, saying its blessings are unconditional for all Jews.  They perfectly agree with secular Zionists that Jewish obedience no longer matters.  As a result, conditional Scriptures are not part of the premises from which modern Jews and evangelicals reason about the Mideast.
The Problem of the Palestinians
Yet there existed for the Zionists a major obstacle to repopulation of Palestine by Jews. In 1914, there were 634,133 Muslim and Christian Arabs occupying the lands which Jews and evangelicals now believed Jews had divine exclusive right to settle. The question was: “How should Jews and Christians regard the Palestinians in the context of God’s new pleasure in restoring Israel to occupation of Palestine?”
The fundamental attitude of Jews and evangelicals was simple, as it remains today. The Palestinians were a riff-raff people who had no long-term right to live on land hallowed for the Jews. They should somehow just go away, perhaps to surrounding Arab nations. If the land they lived on could not be purchased and they happened to be forced off through unpleasant means (including terrorist violence, mass expulsions, government seizure for “security reasons,” etc.), religious Jews and evangelicals did not want to think about that.
This brings up an unwelcome Biblical fact that Jews and most evangelicals also want to ignore.  When Nebuchadnezzar exiled the southern kingdom of Judah to Babylon in 597 BC, God forbade any Jews but the poorest to live in Palestine. He allowed settlers from Babylonian lands to occupy and cultivate the land. When Jesus came six centuries later, the Jews of Palestine accepted the divine right of such scorned “Samaritans” to occupy most of northern Israel and what is now the West Bank. When the Jews were again exiled by the Romans, the right of the Samaritans and Arabs to tend the land was upheld. As a result, with Jews primarily dispersed into Europe and Western lands for more than 1800 years, Palestinian Arabs continued to be regarded by Jews and Christians as enjoying a divine mandate of occupation. Originally allowed by God to cultivate and tend the land, such descendants of the Babylonian colonists of Samaria, racially mixed with Arabs, became unrivalled agriculturalists of the Mideast.
During the nearly two millennia of Jewish exile, Christians and Jews agreed that Palestinians had divine rights to temporarily dwell in Palestine without threat of eviction. Jews and Christians were thus pro-Palestinian, but not in granting permanent ownership of Palestine to the Palestinians (something the Bible allows only to Christian Jews).  Instead, they unquestionably upheld the original tenant rights God gave the ancestors of the Palestinians as long as the Jews remained in unbelief.
Summary
From this discussion, we can see that, although the Jews were given Palestine by Christian nations for ostensibly Biblical reasons, the premises on which almost everyone today reasons concerning the Israeli/Arab conflict are not at all Biblical. They were provided by secular Zionism, overturning Biblical precedent.
Is it any wonder, then, that the Jewish occupation of Palestine beginning in the 20th century has only produced strife and confusion? There is little anyone can do to return the state of Israel to God’s law, as contained in the Jews’ own Torah. But the least every Bible-believing Christian should do is reason not from premises supplied by Bible-destroying Zionists but from the Bible itself.
Did evangelicals and Jews, disregarding God's law, obtain a safe haven for world Jewry?  Prime Minister Netanyahu said last year that Israel is the most dangerous place on earth for a Jew to live.
"There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked." (Isaiah 48:22)

Author; Rev. Ted Pike is director of the National Prayer Network, a Christian/conservative watchdog organization. 
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015 www.truthtellers.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2012/December/10%20o/Before%20Zionism,%20Most%20Christians%20and%20Jews%20Were%20Pro-Palestinian%20By%20Rev%20Ted%20Pike.htm
More:

:

Palestine is the most complex geopolitical and religious issue, confronted by the humanity, which if left unresolved will continue to pose major threat to the world peace.

The Zionist Cuckoos in Christianity's Nest
Stuart Littlewood views the ideology of Christian Zionism, which is rampant in the United States and has made some inroads in other "Christian" societies, and argues that, in essence, Christian Zionism is "a gross corruption of ...
http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/
Zionist Christians: Useful tool for Zionist Jews
Zionist Christians: Useful tool for Zionist Jews. Christian Zionists believe that in order to fulfill Biblical prophecy, Israel must conquer most of the Middle East. They are a growing force in American politics with ties to many ...
Peace-Forum: Zionist West versus Islam
The notorious crusades were initiated in by Pope Urban 2nd in 1096 when the Church was losing its hold on Christians, this ploy was used by them to bring the Christians back under the yoke of the Church. As a reaction to ...

Coherence in the Qur'an : A Study of Islahi's Concept of Nazm in Tadabbur-i Qur'an

Tadabbur-i-Qur'an (Urdu: تدبر قرآن‎) is a tafsir (exegeses) of the Qur'an by Amin Ahsan Islahi based on the concept of thematic and structural coherence, which was originally inspired by Allama Hamiduddin Farahi. The tafsir is extended over nine volumes of six thousand pages. It was originally written in Urdu, but now it is being translated in English. It expounds each surah as a coherent discourse, arranging surahs into pairs, and establishing seven major surah divisions - the entire Qur'an thus emerges as a well-connected and systematic book. Keep reading >>>>

The roots of global anti-Americanism


As long as unchecked American militarism continues, the phenomena of anti-Americanism will continue to spread and damage the ability of the US to find necessary allies in a strategically-important part of the world [EPA]
The incongruity of it seemed to be nothing short of a betrayal. After lightheartedly dancing his way into the hearts of Americans and gaining entrance to the inner sanctum of their cherished cult of celebrity, the Korean rapper, Psy, whose song "Gangam Style" became the most watched video in the history of YouTube and made him a pop culture sensation, has been revealed to have a politically active past which places him directly at odds with the American mainstream worldview and which violently decries its most basic articles of faith.
The man whom they enjoyed as an unthreatening, comically light-hearted foreigner dancing for their enjoyment was revealed to have only years earlier been a vociferous public critic of American policies and the country's role in the world.
In a 2004 performance, the rapper famous for his "invisible horse dance" denounced the United States in a song called "Hey American":
"Kill those f---ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives
  Kill those f---ing Yankees who ordered them to torture
 Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers
 Kill them all slowly and painfully"
For an American public conditioned to the type of unquestionable worship of the military embodied in the phrase "Support the Troops", Psy's words represent nothing less than sacrilege. This song however was not his only offence.
In a previous performance, he had come on stage to protest the presence of 37,000 US troops in South Korea and smashed a miniature American tank in protest over the killing of two South Korean schoolgirls by American forces stationed in the country.
As it turned out, the Asian pop-star whom Americans had enthusiastically embraced, arguably the first entertainer to bridge the continental divide so successfully, brought with him not just a culturally unique style of song and dance, but also a worldview which is threateningly alien to most Americans.
If even an innocuous pop singer from a country perceived as benign could espouse views the typical American would attribute to menacing terrorists such as al-Qaeda, it begs serious questions about the pervasiveness of global anti-Americanism as well as to what informs it.
A legacy of violence
While the stories of American brutality in places such as Korea are unknown or ignored by the overwhelming majority of Americans, they are less quickly forgotten by the citizens of the countries which have suffered and continue to suffer horrific atrocities at the hands of US troops. 
 Inside Story Americas - What is fuelling
anti-American protests?
During the Korean War, American troops were believed to have been responsible for hundreds of instances of mass-killings of civilians, including the infamous No Gun Ri massacre in which members of the US 7th Cavalry Regiment massacred hundreds of Korean civilians under a railway underpass over the course of three days.
A 2009 investigative film revisiting the massacre documented the words of one Korean survivor who recalled how US troops had indiscriminately murdered men, women and children:
"Children were screaming in fear and the adults were praying for their lives… they never stopped shooting."
Another Korean War survivor described the common American tactic of firebombing villages with napalm in a scorched-earth campaign which killed countless civilians:
"When the napalm hit our village, many people were still sleeping in their homes…. Those who survived the flames ran…. We were trying to show the American pilots that we were civilians. But they strafed us, women and children."
The wanton disregard to Korean lives during America's global campaign against Communism continues to extend to the present day in the form of rape and murder directed towards Korean civilians by US soldiers stationed at bases throughout the country.
In one 2011 incident, emblematic of long-documented practices by US troops in the country, a 21-year-old soldier, Kevin Flippin, broke into a Korean woman's hotel room and raped and tortured her for several hours before robbing her of the equivalent of roughly US $5 and fleeing back to his base.
Sexual violence and murder has been a recurrent theme throughout the decades of American military presence in Korea and reflects longstanding behaviour in countless other countries across the world subject to US military basing and occupation.
Widespread American unfavourability
While the virulent undercurrent of anti-Americanism which was briefly glimpsed in the revelations surrounding Psy's political history have their basis in incidents such as these, Korea is far from being the most anti-American country in the world.
Polls of regions such as Latin America have shown anti-American sentiment to be even more rife; a legacy of US military interventionism in the continent which has been most vividly expressed in the form of torture, murder and the subversion of democratically elected leaders over the past several decades.
However, a 2012 Pew Research poll showed the least favourable perceptions of the US today to be in countries within the Arab and Muslim worlds; negative views which are thought to have briefly abated upon the election of Barack Obama but which can now be seen to have returned to their historic lows during the George W Bush era. 
Among countries polled the bottom echelon are exclusively countries with Muslim majority populations. Even those such as Turkey and Jordan whose governments are traditionally allied with the US showed overwhelmingly negative attitudes towards America, with the latter polling at a mere 12 per cent favourability.
Tellingly, Jordan also happens to be home to a massive population of refugees from the American invasion of Iraq, the civilian victims of a war who have been forgotten by Americans but continue to live on in desperation and misery in many countries scattered throughout the region.
While an incredible amount of research has gone into formulating complex theories to explain this widespread disdain for the US, Occam's Razor, the logical principle that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one suggests that the American militarism which once ravaged Korea and which has now been set upon the Muslim world is the cause of this growing antipathy.
Pakistan, which polled at roughly 9 per cent favourability towards the US in a 2010 BBC World poll, once had a vibrantly pro-American polity where Jacquelyn Kennedy was mobbed in the streets with flower garlands by thousands of admirers during a state visit and where American popular culture was once widely revered and emulated. 
 Inside Story Americas - US post-Iraq legacy
In recent decades however, all of this has changed, as Pakistanis have been left to witness the staggering human cost of US warfare in neighbouring Afghanistan as well as to deal with the millions of refugees that conflict has sent into Pakistan.
Pakistanis themselves have also increasingly become the direct target of American violence; being gunned down in the streets by rogue CIA officers, murdered by remote operated drones and renditioned for torture at clandestine "black-sites" throughout the world.
By starting a massive war and occupation in Afghanistan which caused widespread destabilisation and social chaos in Pakistan, a country which shares deep ethnic and religious bonds with its neighbour, the US has helped turn a once reasonably benign relationship into an increasingly dangerous one which has fuelled virulent anti-Americanism even amongliberal and secular Pakistanis.
The degeneration of American popularity in Pakistan is however only one illustration of a broader trend where wanton militarism has generated negative popular perceptions towards the US.
Arrogance and atrocity
For Americans who are commonly feted with reassurances of their country's benevolent role in the world, it may come as a surprise that half of all refugees on the planet today are running from American wars.
The wanton, industrial-scale violence, which the US has unleashed upon the civilians of countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia has naturally generated a tidal wave of negative feeling within these countries which many Americans utterly fail to grasp.
Episodes such as the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and her family by US troops are emblematic of the fundamental sadism of American policy towards the region. However, in a type of bizarre dark comedy, popularly elected American leaders continue to question the lack of gratitude among the populations upon whom they have let loose this violence.
What this appears to represent is a type of brazen ignorance and egotism which has come to represent mainstream government policy; the type of myopia under which a country can launch a full-scale war, invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation under entirely false pretences, kill hundreds of thousands in the process and create millions of refugees and still at the end sincerely ask the question "Why they do hate us?".
While the US military, whom the American public puts forth as the unquestioned heroes and proud symbols of the apex of their society, finds new and innovative ways to inflict violence upon the populations of Arab and Muslim countries - including wanton, lawless and often completely anonymous target killings, and even recently the sanctioning of killing so-called"hostile children" in Afghanistan, the popular reputation of America as a country naturally sinks to new depths among the countries in the Middle East and around the world. 
An illustrative example of the essentially self-destructive arrogance of US policy in the region pertains to that of Afghanistan; where the US in 2001 categorically refused to negotiate with the Taliban when the latter expressed a desire to co-operate with the full spectrum of US objectives and hand over Osama bin Laden, on the rhetorical grounds of "refusing to talk to evil".
Fast forward 11 years - with tens of thousands of lives lost, trillions of dollars wasted, and America is doing exactly this, negotiating with the Taliban exactly as it could have done a decade earlier were it not for flagrantly irrational government policymaking informed by a mixture of arrogance and bloodlust. 
"A 2012 Pew Research poll
showed the least favourable perceptions of the US today to be in countries within the Arab and Muslim worlds."
For the self-proclaimed preeminent global power to behave in such a shockingly ignorant and destructive manner and to still express wonderment over others' negative perceptions of it speaks to a deep lack of national self-awareness and perspective which could seriously impede the country from operating an effective foreign policy in the future.
An increasingly poisoned relationship
Even among those within the Arab and Muslim worlds and beyond who admire purported American values such as secularism, free speech and free enterprise, the past decade of increasingly wanton and unrestrained violence has worked to permanently stain the reputation of a country which was at one time held in high esteem across social strata.
American policy towards the Middle East today is popularly perceived to be informed by a cruel, arrogant and fundamentally racist worldview in which subject populations are essentially lesser peoples whose suffering is an accounted-for externality of hegemonic policies.
The type of brutality which Americans inflicted upon Korea decades ago still manifests in the undercurrent of anger held by many Koreans today, so it bears asking how long it will take for negative perceptions of America in the Muslim world to dissipate.
As long as unchecked American militarism in the region continues, these negative perceptions will only escalate and the phenomena of anti-Americanism will continue to spread and damage the ability of the US to find necessary allies in a strategically-important part of the world.
Regardless, as evidence has shown even when such negative feelings are sublimated for the sake of pragmatism, they seldom truly cease to exist. When its history is written, the US will have to come to terms with the legacy of global disdain, distrust and resentment it has engendered over its time as a superpower - a history which may very likely be unkind and incongruent with the image most Americans hold of themselves and of their country.
Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.
Follow him on Twitter: @MazMHussain

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212108205749534.html
<<Free-eBooks Click here>>>