[Tailz]

Abu Rashid wrote: What's wrong with a two state solution?

What's right with it? Would you accept me coming into your land, taking 75% of it, and graciously offering you a two state solution?

Since Mandatory Palestine wasn't a nation-state it wasn't 'their' land. It was international property.

The problem with such an argument statement Redcarpet, is that in an instant, you stripped the people who live in a given area, of that circumstance and instantly framed them as foreign, even though they live there. This is an argument that deprives people, especially indigenous people who's land rights are often not considered by colonialists. To native peoples, or any population that lives somewhere, they consider the geographic region to belong to themselves because they live there. They don't necessarily own it in accordance with the concept of ownership in Western Society, but they do consider that it belongs to them as the host population. We see this conflict of intrest between populations ad "state actors" in situations such as pre- aboriginal land rights Australia, the Amazon Indians and their rights to their ancestral lands, American Indians, and the Palestinians whom didn't own Palestine, but certainly lived there.

Trying to defy the 1947 UN Partition Plan was both squatting and conspiracy with other criminals, trying to take by force more than was allocated to them.

Not that the hard Right Zionists like Irgun & so on weren't any different.

Both sides defied partition in the pursuit of their own selfish self intrest. The Palestinians defied it because they already lived there and didn't want to move around to appease what they saw as foreign interests and foreign Zionist settlers. While the Zionists settled where ever and whatever they could acquire (a policy that continues to this day via the Israeli Settler Movement).

[abu_rashid]

So?

So... the the Uthmani (Ottoman) state was not a foreign occupation, it was the Islamic Caliphate of the Muslims.

Britain and Sweden are both Protestant, if Sweden occupied the UK tomorrow people wouldn't be too happy about it.

Chalk and cheese.

You don't think everyone who is a fan of big Mo is magically part of one nation?

Not only do I think it, Islam teaches this.

[Dagoth Ur]

It is an ideal A_R not something which is truly practiced. Your romantization of Muslims is unrealistic.

[abu_rashid]

It is an ideal A_R not something which is truly practiced. Your romantization of Muslims is unrealistic.

I don't think anyone would ever claim that every single individual Muslim was politically united under the one single contiguous state all throughout Islamic history. And if that's what you'r trying to debunk here, then well done.. for stating the obvious.

However, Islam does indeed put great emphasis on the unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did indeed unite all Muslims into a single nation and state. And from that time till 90 years ago, the bulk of the Islamic world was mostly living under the one state, with a Caliph as head, who implemented Shari'ah and maintained the honour and dignity of Islam & the Muslims.

These are facts.

And even those Muslims who weren't directly within the Ottoman realm, like in the Indian sub-continent, still felt as part of it, and declared their allegiance to it, and worked for its defense and revival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

[layman]

That's not even true, anyway, Islamic powers fought against non-Europeans and against each other plenty of times.

To be fair, not nearly as much as christians.

Especially when you take Iran out of the picture. A state/ideology that abu does not recognise as muslim.

[wat0n]

Even then, the Ottomans fought against each other quite a few times, especially once its decline began in the late 18th century.

[ArtAllm]

To be fair, not nearly as much as christians.

Especially when you take Iran out of the picture. A state/ideology that abu does not recognise as muslim.

Yes, Christians killed each others throughout the history, especially in the 20th century, and non-Christian banksters earned a lot of money in this process.

In Muslim countries they did not have the same banking system.

[Tailz]

And from that time till 90 years ago, the bulk of the Islamic world was mostly living under the one state, with a Caliph as head, who implemented Shari'ah and maintained the honour and dignity of Islam & the Muslims.

Actually you have to be careful when it comes to the implementation of Shari'ah and the Ottomans. I find this interesting as I was just recently watching a Doco about the Ottomans and it touched on how the Ottomans handled law while maintaining a facaded of Shari'ah - since Shari'ah put power into the hands of the clerics and the Ottomans centered power into the hand of the ruler. The Ottomans maintained a system where the laws of the Ottoman empire ran parallel to Shari'ah. The Ottoman's maintained a system where Shari'ah courts gave an initial ruling, which was then reviewed in accordance with Ottoman state law which was the finial judgement. Thus the ruler was law, not the clerics.

[Decky]

Most of the Caliphs never even bothered going on the Hajj.

[abu_rashid]

Actually you have to be careful when it comes to the implementation of Shari'ah and the Ottomans.

Pre-Tanzimaat they implemented exclusively Shari'ah.

I find this interesting as I was just recently watching a Doco about the Ottomans and it touched on how the Ottomans handled law while maintaining a facaded of Shari'ah - since Shari'ah put power into the hands of the clerics

This is just plain false. Shari'ah completely rejects the very existence of clerics, so it certainly doesn't put power in their hands. The Qur'an is abundantly clear that clergy is forbidden in Islam.

and the Ottomans centered power into the hand of the ruler.

Which is precisely what Shari'ah demands.

The Ottomans maintained a system where the laws of the Ottoman empire ran parallel to Shari'ah.

In the post-Tanzimaat period, yes.

The Ottoman's maintained a system where Shari'ah courts gave an initial ruling, which was then reviewed in accordance with Ottoman state law which was the finial judgement.

They actually tried to walk quite a fine line, by hand picking scholars and judges who they knew could be trusted the legitimise the Tanzimaat laws, and they presented them to the people as being Islamically approved.

Thus the ruler was law, not the clerics.

As it should be, according to Shari'ah.

This is a nice discussion, and I'd be glad to have it with you, but I'm stumped as to what any of this has to do with the fact Muslims considered the Ottoman state their state, not a foreign Turkish occupation? Muslims throughout the Ottoman realm and beyond considered it a Shari'ah state and the legitimate extension of the Caliphate. Hanafi scholars from around the Muslim world flocked to it and were even instrumental in helping to codify it's law system (The Majellah). The Grand Wazir (Prime Minister) was often from different Muslim lands, including the Arab lands a few times. The Ottoman state didn't even distinguish ethnicities in its census records, it only divided people up according to their Millah (religious affiliation). Anyway there's been a lot of discussion about this is historical works, and all sides of the discussion agree, the Ottoman state was in no way Turkish, it was Muslim. Of course this changed in the final death throes of the state, primarily because Turkish nationalists came into existence and staged a coup, taking it over.

[annatar1914]

I don't think anyone would ever claim that every single individual Muslim was politically united under the one single contiguous state all throughout Islamic history. And if that's what you'r trying to debunk here, then well done.. for stating the obvious.

However, Islam does indeed put great emphasis on the unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did indeed unite all Muslims into a single nation and state. And from that time till 90 years ago, the bulk of the Islamic world was mostly living under the one state, with a Caliph as head, who implemented Shari'ah and maintained the honour and dignity of Islam & the Muslims.

These are facts.

And even those Muslims who weren't directly within the Ottoman realm, like in the Indian sub-continent, still felt as part of it, and declared their allegiance to it, and worked for its defense and revival.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I have a feeling that the Ottoman Realm is coming back, maybe even greater than before. In fact, more than a feeling, a certainty.

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote: Actually you have to be careful when it comes to the implementation of Shari'ah and the Ottomans.
Pre-Tanzimaat they implemented exclusively Shari'ah.

The Ottomans waxes and waned on the degrees of religious law vs kings law depending upon the rulers whims.

Tailz wrote: I find this interesting as I was just recently watching a Doco about the Ottomans and it touched on how the Ottomans handled law while maintaining a facaded of Shari'ah - since Shari'ah put power into the hands of the clerics...
This is just plain false. Shari'ah completely rejects the very existence of clerics, so it certainly doesn't put power in their hands. The Qur'an is abundantly clear that clergy is forbidden in Islam.

And yet there are a lot of different competing religious clerics - religion has never gotten in the way of ambitious people. It just gets... bent... to fit the view of those in power or those seeking power.

Tailz wrote: ...and the Ottomans centered power into the hand of the ruler.
Which is precisely what Shari'ah demands.

The implementation of Shari'ah often ends up putting power into the hands of appointed clerical bodies who then end up being in competition with the ruler - which is what the Ottomans wanted to control so that the clerics would not then compete with the ruler and thus cause the ruler to compete with the powers of the clerics which they would then in turn point too as the ruler being in competition with the law of Allah.

Tailz wrote: The Ottomans maintained a system where the laws of the Ottoman empire ran parallel to Shari'ah.
In the post-Tanzimaat period, yes.

The situation fluctuated, ultimately the end law was the word of the ruler, not Shari'ah.

Tailz wrote: The Ottoman's maintained a system where Shari'ah courts gave an initial ruling, which was then reviewed in accordance with Ottoman state law which was the finial judgement.
They actually tried to walk quite a fine line, by hand picking scholars and judges who they knew could be trusted the legitimise the Tanzimaat laws, and they presented them to the people as being Islamically approved.

Indeed, the Ottomans wanted to be in charge, but they didn't want to appear to be over ruling or in competition with the law of Allah.

Tailz wrote: Thus the ruler was law, not the clerics.
As it should be, according to Shari'ah.

Yes, but the optics of it end up having a great deal of meaning when it comes to who is really in charge. The Ottoman rulers wanted to be in charge, but with Shari'ah as law, the power shifts to those who adjudicate that law: the clerics. Even though as you say, Islam does not grant the clerics such powers, yet it turns out that way as people end up following clerics as leaders. Thus you end up with competing power bases.

This is a nice discussion, and I'd be glad to have it with you, but I'm stumped as to what any of this has to do with the fact Muslims considered the Ottoman state their state, not a foreign Turkish occupation? Muslims throughout the Ottoman realm and beyond considered it a Shari'ah state and the legitimate extension of the Caliphate. Hanafi scholars from around the Muslim world flocked to it and were even instrumental in helping to codify it's law system (The Majellah). The Grand Wazir (Prime Minister) was often from different Muslim lands, including the Arab lands a few times. The Ottoman state didn't even distinguish ethnicities in its census records, it only divided people up according to their Millah (religious affiliation). Anyway there's been a lot of discussion about this is historical works, and all sides of the discussion agree, the Ottoman state was in no way Turkish, it was Muslim. Of course this changed in the final death throes of the state, primarily because Turkish nationalists came into existence and staged a coup, taking it over.

Not a lot, I was just remarking that your perspective of the application of law, was not quite what you thought it was. But as a parting shoot, the Ottomans were themselves a take over of the old Caliphate. While the actual topic of this thread is: What's wrong with the two state solution?

What's wrong with the two state solution? Israel does not want it, nether do many Palestinians.

[RedStarSky1959]

I support a two-state solution as in Gaza on one side and Israel/West Bank with equal rights for all within it on the other. The current Israeli governmental policy is to attempt to improve the living conditions of Arabs in the West Bank, bypassing the PLO. I believe accepting Israel's right to exist is going to be one of the main contributing factors to the Islamic Reformation. If not, Muslims will show that they're not capable of coexisting as civilized people in today's world.

[KlassWar]

However, Islam does indeed put great emphasis on the unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did indeed unite all Muslims into a single nation and state.

Cm'on: Even you gotta acknowledge that the fact the early muslims all lived in the Arabian peninsula helped Muhammad a whole lot when it came to unifying the Ummah.

And from that time till 90 years ago, the bulk of the Islamic world was mostly living under the one state, with a Caliph as head, who implemented Shari'ah and maintained the honour and dignity of Islam & the Muslims.

Not since the fall of the Ummayads, except briefly. The Abbasids immediately lost control over Andalusia and were quickly thrown out of North Africa by the Fatimids. Sure, the Andalusians split into independent sheikhdoms and the Fatimids eventually fell... But by that time the Caliphs were de facto vassals of the levantine Sultans.


I don't think you're looking at the Ottomans from a defacto perspective.

First things first, as a Turkish empire it was very much a foreign conqueror: Sure, they claimed the Caliphate and paid lip service to shariah: They had to push the Islamic angle pretty hard to legitimize their rule over the Arabs. But once their rule was solid, it became a standard-issue absolute monarchy. When it comes to continuously ruling the bulk of the Muslim world, the Ottoman track record is somewhat better than the Abbasids, but not by much.

The Safavids took over the Shia Crescent and kept most of it under Shia rule since. That's like a third of the Middle East. In Northwest Africa, Ottoman control was nominal at best... Same goes for the Sahel. And the sultanates of sub-saharan Africa. And the Mughals. And the muslim kingdoms of Southeast Asia. When you think about it, they consistently ruled over less than half of the Muslim world.