Why I cannot support the 2 state proposal

This morning I was sent a link asking me to sign a petition which requests European states in particular to support the bid for a Palestinian state. My refusal to sign such a petition may make me seem to be a traitor, both on Islamic and humanitarian grounds. I therefore state for the record my views on my opposition to these petitions, the recognition bid and the "Palestinian" state as it is currently envisaged. Let me first add that I respect the sincerity of activists who genuinely believe that the 2-state proposal is a solution to the conflict and hope to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians.

So why do I not sign?

1.       For years Jews have no longer been enticed by the Zionist puppet masters to leave their birth lands and colonise Palestine. More had in fact been leaving. Throw birth rates into the scenario, and the Zionist entity realised a long time ago that Palestinians would soon reconstitute a majority. What a nightmare for them! The only solution short of an “ethnic cleansing” is to give the Palestinians their little Bantustan and keep the remaining occupied land majority Zionist. The Zionists’ pretence that they are opposed to the Bantustan is just part of their usual manoeuvrings. The Apartheid Wall was part of preparation of this. These facts are well known. I don’t have the time now for full references, but researchers can start here with an article from the Jerusalem Post http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=196877&R=R1

2.       Once the Palestinians have their own scrap of a Bantustan, the same policy which the South African Apartheid regime implemented can be done here as well i.e. expel the undesirables from the white land to the Bantustan. This has been announced by the Minster of Foreign Affairs, see http://www.roytov.com/articles/hamasprotests.htm . So is the 2 state proposal really as humanitarian as some would have us believe? Besides the human suffering that a new expulsion will cause (in whatever form it will take), who is going to stop the demolishment of Masaajid and Islamic features once those areas have been “vacated”?

3.       As a South African citizen I am amazed that the same people who vehemently opposed the creation of Transkei etc, cannot see the difference with the Palestinian Bantustan.

4.       Fatah is asking for less than 20% of Palestine. This automatically means recognition and legitimising the occupation of more than 80% of the sacred land. Despite what might be on paper, anyone with at least two brain cells would know that al-Masjid al-Aqsa and al-Quds proper would be included in the 80%, not the Bantustan. While the fat cat elites of Fatah might be content with this, I would hope that those who subscribe to a slightly higher moral code will not accept this.

5.        Who will rule the Bantustan? Did the liberation movements rule Venda in Apartheid South Africa? Whatever your views of Hamas may be, they won the last democratic election, freely and fairly. Do I need to continue the argument here? Think!

6.       As a Muslim,  Palestine is inexorably linked to my faith. I cannot applaud a process which will leave a quasi-Atheistic movement in charge and de-Islamise the issue in the long term.  

سليمان الكندي

Plan in motion 300 years before Balfour

I am currently reading "The Secret History of the West" by Nicholas Hagger. Whilst the writing style is very difficult to follow, and most of the book is quite frankly plain conjecture, one little gem I gained from the book is a real must-share.

It is known that Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290, and that they could only return after Cromwell killed King Charles I in 1649. The author however proves that the Jews, under the leadership of Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel financed Cromwell. To what purpose? World Government? Why England?

Their belief was that the scattering of the Jews should be to the "angle" or end of the earth, interpreted as "Angle-Terre" or England. From there would be their springboard to Palestine, however long it might take (3 centuries actually).

The following extract from the Rabbi's address to Cromwell is interesting in itself (quoted from Jewish website):

My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.

My third Motive is grounded on the profit that I conceive this Common-wealth is to reap, if it shall vouchsafe to receive us;

سليمان الكندي

Plan in motion 300 years before Balfour

I am currently reading "The Secret History of the West" by Nicholas Hagger. Whilst the writing style is very difficult to follow, and most of the book is quite frankly plain conjecture, one little gem I gained from the book is a real must-share.

It is known that Edward I expelled the Jews from England in 1290, and that they could only return after Cromwell killed King Charles I in 1649. The author however proves that the Jews, under the leadership of Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel financed Cromwell. To what purpose? World Government? Why England?

Their belief was that the scattering of the Jews should be to the "angle" or end of the earth, interpreted as "Angle-Terre" or England. From there would be their springboard to Palestine, however long it might take (3 centuries actually).

The following extract from the Rabbi's address to Cromwell is interesting in itself (quoted from Jewish website):

My second Motive is, because the opinion of many Christians and mine doe concurre herein, that we both believe that the restoring time of our Nation into their Native Countrey, is very neer at hand; I believing more particularly, that this restauration cannot be, before these words of Daniel, Chap. 12. ver. 7. be first accomplished, when he saith, And when the dispersion of the Holy people shall be compleated in all places, then shall all these things be compleated: signifying therewith, that before all be fulfilled, the People of God must be first dispersed into all places and Countreyes of the World. Now we know, how our Nation at the present is spread all about, and hath its seat and dwelling in the most flourishing parts of all the Kingdomes, and Countreys of the World, as well in America, as in the other three parts thereof; except onely in this considerable and mighty Island. And therefore this remains onely in my judgement, before the Messia come and restore our ration, that first we must have our seat here likewise.

My third Motive is grounded on the profit that I conceive this Common-wealth is to reap, if it shall vouchsafe to receive us;

سليمان الكندي

The stench of medieval Europe

 

[The following article is taken from the Russian news agency, Pravda. Its is a real eye-opener to what our state would have been had our beloved Nabī ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam not taught us cleanliness. We do not appreciate his countless favours to this Ummah as we should .]

People normally associate different epochs with different smells. The Middle Ages smell of sewage and decaying bodies. German writer Patrick Suskind, the author of a well-known novel “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” wrote in his book that the stench of European cities in the late Middle Ages period was unbearable. His work conveys the terrible smell of human faeces and urine in the streets, decaying wood and rat dung, spoiled coal and animal fat, mouldy dust and chamber pots.

Stench used to be an inseparable part of all human activities, constructive or destructive. The Queen of Spain Isabel of Castle (the end of the 15^th century) confessed that she had taken a bath only twice in a lifetime – when born and married. A daughter of one of French kings died of lice. Dysentery and scab caused fatal terminations to Popes Clement V and Clement VII correspondingly. Duke Norfolk neglected bathing for religious reasons. As a result of such disregard numerous abscesses dotted his body.

A billet-doux sent by the inveterate Don Juan Henry of Navarre to his sweetheart Gabrielle d' Estrées became an anecdote. Its contents conveyed the following meaning: “Do not wash yourself, my sweetheart, I’ll visit you in three weeks”. The king himself took a bath only thrice in a lifetime, twice coercively.

Russian ambassadors at Louis XIV court wrote that His Majesty stunk like a wild animal. Europeans considered Russians perverts because it was a tradition for the latter to take steam baths once a month.

European cities were buried in sewage. Town residents splashed the contents of garbage pails and washtubs out into the street on the heads of carefree passers-by. Stagnated slops made stinking pools; and a great number of town pigs crowned the whole picture. People emptied chamber pots right out of their windows making streets look like cesspools. Bathrooms were the rarest luxury. Fleas, lice and bugs swarmed in rich and poor houses of London and Paris.

Unsanitary conditions, diseases and starvation personify medieval Europe as it was. Even the noble class could not afford to eat their fill. Noble families were happy if at best two or three of ten children survived. Delivery was quite an undertaking for women: a third part of them died in labor. Street illumination also was poor – oil lamps, splinters or wax candles at best. Hunger, smallpox, leprosy and syphilis disfigured people’s faces.

There were not any cleaning agents or the notion of personal hygiene in Europe up to the middle of the 19^th century. One Italian nobleman said in his memoirs that in the 16^th century it was impossible to walk along the streets that resembled a fetid stream of turbid water. He had to hold a scented handkerchief or a small bouquet to his nose not to vomit. But not only faeces poisoned the air. Butchers slaughtered and disembowel cattle right in the streets. They would scatter guts around and pour blood out onto the pavement.

In late Middle Ages people learned to process wastes and faeces. Urine, for example, was used to tan leather and bleach cloth, animals’ bones – to produce flour. In days of old painters placed barrels for urine near the farms, they used it to knead paints. In Ancient Rome they sold even the urine from latrines to wool dyers and leather tanners. What could not be processed was left in the street.

Rain was the only street cleaner in those times. And still, notwithstanding its sanitary function, rain was considered a providential punishment. Rains washed dirt out of all cracks, and raging sewage streams rushed through the streets. Just like this there appeared a small river Merderon in France (from French “merde” – shit).

If there were stinking funds in the country, in cities people defecated in narrow side streets and yards. Only after the ‘hydraulic revolution’ aqueducts and gutters appeared; they provided houses with water and removed the sewage.

People were not cleaner than the streets where they lived. “Water baths warm the body, but weaken the organism and widen pores. That’s why they can be dangerous and cause different diseases, even death”, a medical treaty of the 16^th century runs. Medieval doctors thought that infectious air could penetrate through the cleaned pores. Owing to this cause all social bathhouses were abolished. In 15-16^th centuries rich citizens had a bath at least twice a year, in the 17-18^th centuries they decidedly stopped to wash themselves. The French king Louis XIV had a bath only twice in his life on doctors’ advice. But the procedure shocked the sovereign so, that he made a vow not to do it anymore.

All hygienic arrangements included only hands and mouth rinsing, but not the whole face. “By no means you should wash your face, - wrote medics in the 16^th century, - as it can cause catarrh or weaken the eyesight.” As for women, they had a bath only two or three times a year.

The majority of aristocrats used scented rags to rub the body. It was recommended to moisten armpits and groin with rose water. Men wore small bags with fragrant herbs between the shirt and waistcoat. Women used only fragrant powder

Medieval ‘neat’ persons often changed their clothes. They considered that it absorbs all dirt and cleans the body. But our ancestors were rather selective on this issue. Clean starched shirt for every day was a privilege for rich people only. That is why white crimped collars and cuffs that were the evidence of wealth and cleanliness of their owners became fashionable. Poor men neither washed nor changed their clothing. Most of them had only one shirt. No wonder – clothes were extremely expensive. The cheapest canvas shirt and one milk cow, for example, had the same price.

The stench of medieval Europe

 

[The following article is taken from the Russian news agency, Pravda. Its is a real eye-opener to what our state would have been had our beloved Nabī ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam not taught us cleanliness. We do not appreciate his countless favours to this Ummah as we should .]

People normally associate different epochs with different smells. The Middle Ages smell of sewage and decaying bodies. German writer Patrick Suskind, the author of a well-known novel “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” wrote in his book that the stench of European cities in the late Middle Ages period was unbearable. His work conveys the terrible smell of human faeces and urine in the streets, decaying wood and rat dung, spoiled coal and animal fat, mouldy dust and chamber pots.

Stench used to be an inseparable part of all human activities, constructive or destructive. The Queen of Spain Isabel of Castle (the end of the 15^th century) confessed that she had taken a bath only twice in a lifetime – when born and married. A daughter of one of French kings died of lice. Dysentery and scab caused fatal terminations to Popes Clement V and Clement VII correspondingly. Duke Norfolk neglected bathing for religious reasons. As a result of such disregard numerous abscesses dotted his body.

A billet-doux sent by the inveterate Don Juan Henry of Navarre to his sweetheart Gabrielle d' Estrées became an anecdote. Its contents conveyed the following meaning: “Do not wash yourself, my sweetheart, I’ll visit you in three weeks”. The king himself took a bath only thrice in a lifetime, twice coercively.

Russian ambassadors at Louis XIV court wrote that His Majesty stunk like a wild animal. Europeans considered Russians perverts because it was a tradition for the latter to take steam baths once a month.

European cities were buried in sewage. Town residents splashed the contents of garbage pails and washtubs out into the street on the heads of carefree passers-by. Stagnated slops made stinking pools; and a great number of town pigs crowned the whole picture. People emptied chamber pots right out of their windows making streets look like cesspools. Bathrooms were the rarest luxury. Fleas, lice and bugs swarmed in rich and poor houses of London and Paris.

Unsanitary conditions, diseases and starvation personify medieval Europe as it was. Even the noble class could not afford to eat their fill. Noble families were happy if at best two or three of ten children survived. Delivery was quite an undertaking for women: a third part of them died in labor. Street illumination also was poor – oil lamps, splinters or wax candles at best. Hunger, smallpox, leprosy and syphilis disfigured people’s faces.

There were not any cleaning agents or the notion of personal hygiene in Europe up to the middle of the 19^th century. One Italian nobleman said in his memoirs that in the 16^th century it was impossible to walk along the streets that resembled a fetid stream of turbid water. He had to hold a scented handkerchief or a small bouquet to his nose not to vomit. But not only faeces poisoned the air. Butchers slaughtered and disembowel cattle right in the streets. They would scatter guts around and pour blood out onto the pavement.

In late Middle Ages people learned to process wastes and faeces. Urine, for example, was used to tan leather and bleach cloth, animals’ bones – to produce flour. In days of old painters placed barrels for urine near the farms, they used it to knead paints. In Ancient Rome they sold even the urine from latrines to wool dyers and leather tanners. What could not be processed was left in the street.

Rain was the only street cleaner in those times. And still, notwithstanding its sanitary function, rain was considered a providential punishment. Rains washed dirt out of all cracks, and raging sewage streams rushed through the streets. Just like this there appeared a small river Merderon in France (from French “merde” – shit).

If there were stinking funds in the country, in cities people defecated in narrow side streets and yards. Only after the ‘hydraulic revolution’ aqueducts and gutters appeared; they provided houses with water and removed the sewage.

People were not cleaner than the streets where they lived. “Water baths warm the body, but weaken the organism and widen pores. That’s why they can be dangerous and cause different diseases, even death”, a medical treaty of the 16^th century runs. Medieval doctors thought that infectious air could penetrate through the cleaned pores. Owing to this cause all social bathhouses were abolished. In 15-16^th centuries rich citizens had a bath at least twice a year, in the 17-18^th centuries they decidedly stopped to wash themselves. The French king Louis XIV had a bath only twice in his life on doctors’ advice. But the procedure shocked the sovereign so, that he made a vow not to do it anymore.

All hygienic arrangements included only hands and mouth rinsing, but not the whole face. “By no means you should wash your face, - wrote medics in the 16^th century, - as it can cause catarrh or weaken the eyesight.” As for women, they had a bath only two or three times a year.

The majority of aristocrats used scented rags to rub the body. It was recommended to moisten armpits and groin with rose water. Men wore small bags with fragrant herbs between the shirt and waistcoat. Women used only fragrant powder

Medieval ‘neat’ persons often changed their clothes. They considered that it absorbs all dirt and cleans the body. But our ancestors were rather selective on this issue. Clean starched shirt for every day was a privilege for rich people only. That is why white crimped collars and cuffs that were the evidence of wealth and cleanliness of their owners became fashionable. Poor men neither washed nor changed their clothing. Most of them had only one shirt. No wonder – clothes were extremely expensive. The cheapest canvas shirt and one milk cow, for example, had the same price.

Differences of Opinion in Islam

السلام عليكم
Please download here  my translation of a treatise concerning differences of opinion. We may not agree with every point, but I find it quite beneficial to share. The only additional comment I have to make is that the author mentioned the important incident of Banu Qurayzhah, without mentioning what actually happened.

 During the siege of al-Madinah during the Battle of Khandaq (5 Hijri) the Jews of Banu Qurayzhah who were bound by treaty to the Muslims, betrayed the Muslims. After the siege was lifted, Jibreel alayhis salaam ordered Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to punish the traitors.

Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam therefore announced: لا يصلين أحدكم العصر إلا فى بنى قريظة - None of you should pray Asr except at Banu Qurayzhah!

One group of Muslims took long to reach Qurayzhah. It was nearing sunset, and they had not yet prayed Asr. Some insisted on following the command literally, even it meant praying Asr at Qurayzhah only when the stars had appeared. Others opined that the command meant to hurry, but Asr had to be prayed before sunset, which meant not at Qurayzhah in their case.

Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not rebuke either group, even though their actions were opposite.

و السلام
سليمان الكندي

Differences of Opinion in Islam

السلام عليكم
Please download here  my translation of a treatise concerning differences of opinion. We may not agree with every point, but I find it quite beneficial to share. The only additional comment I have to make is that the author mentioned the important incident of Banu Qurayzhah, without mentioning what actually happened.

 During the siege of al-Madinah during the Battle of Khandaq (5 Hijri) the Jews of Banu Qurayzhah who were bound by treaty to the Muslims, betrayed the Muslims. After the siege was lifted, Jibreel alayhis salaam ordered Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to punish the traitors.

Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam therefore announced: لا يصلين أحدكم العصر إلا فى بنى قريظة - None of you should pray Asr except at Banu Qurayzhah!

One group of Muslims took long to reach Qurayzhah. It was nearing sunset, and they had not yet prayed Asr. Some insisted on following the command literally, even it meant praying Asr at Qurayzhah only when the stars had appeared. Others opined that the command meant to hurry, but Asr had to be prayed before sunset, which meant not at Qurayzhah in their case.

Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not rebuke either group, even though their actions were opposite.

و السلام
سليمان الكندي