I am seeking knowledge

Ginghis wrote: Political Science professor If I were teaching a course about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would probably go all the way back to father Abraham and his adulterous affair with Haggar and their son Ishmael, who was a thorn in the side of Israel, the "legitimate" heir. You see, it's all a family feud that we need to stay out of....... I better stop here. I'm getting in over my head." No **it

A glaring disinformation and a major source of racist attitude amongst the western Christian (in fact it is a western religion) mindset (based on Galatians tract  by Paul�s sacrilegious  mumbo jumbo) about who is legit and who was not  legit of Abrahams sons Ishmael or Isaac!!!!

I did bring this point in another thread also. This kind of talk is not going to help the westerners.

They need to know and clear once for all, the rule in OT ---If a man slept with any woman, she would automatically become his wife the child would be in the old man�s inheritance no questions asked. Is� it a coincidence that close to 50% of the European and thereabouts in the good old USA, children born are out of wedlock. Think about �Brangelina� And there is no discussion of illegitimacy anywhere. What a hypocracy!!!!

Going further Ishmael was no where around Israel (Jacob) who was son of Isaac.

Has anybody given an honest thought that 12 sons of Israel were the issues from 2 wives (who were sisters>>> Leah�s kids by # of birth 1.Reuben; 2.Simeon; 3.Levi; 4. JUDAH; 9. Is sachar; 10.Zebulun and daughter Dinah>>> Rachel�s sons 11. Joseph & 12. Benjamin) and 2 handmaids (Leah�s hand maid Zilpah�s sons # 7. Gad; 8. Asher) Rachel�s maid Bilhah�s sons # 5. Dan and 6. Naphtali�(a grand case of polygyny  and say illegitimacy according to filthy, hypocritical western minds but not by divine laws that is legit even today if you are a true believer)

All 12 brothers and half brothers were the heads of what is known Israelites today. How many really survived the diaspora, that would be  a different thread.

 U may send this over to the professor, he may need some home work in this area

You  know the root cause, the reality is GWB and his cahoots believe that they don't ***t or worse>>>>  it doesn't stink.

Peace

peacemaker wrote: Duende wrote: s666 wrote: "may not be brother, andalusia is a conquered territory.  muslims do not belong there. they are the invaders." For me, this is an example of what we still suffer from today: interpretations of history. Even though we are right in the midle of it, it's happening all around us, we are still unnable to have an objective view. New studies are suggesting the so-called 'Arab invasion' of Spain (not Andalusia, but Al-Andalus which was the Moorish name for the country,) was nothing of the sort. More like a settlement which simply expanded. We have all accepted the official history which has been given to us: Arabs invaded Spain, and this ended when the Catholic Kings expelled them. The expulsion of the Moors from Spain, alongside the less well known expulsion of the Jews (to this day known as Sephardies, with their own language and culture, and nostalgia for a lost Golden Age in Spain) which occurred at the same time, caused the worst economic crash the country had ever experienced which was why Ferdinand and Isabela hired Columbus to steal the riches from the Aztec and Maya kings. The discovery of America is still celebrated today as a peaceful and righteous achievement. It was in fact the result of daring seamanship: Columbus thought he had reached India by a new route and thus declared the natives to be 'Indians'. Imagine! They had no idea it was an entirely new continent, they were looking for spices and goods from India. They were looking for a new trade route. When they found the Aztec and Mayan riches: the Catholic kings ordered them to sieze them. So, from this example a mere 500 years ago you can get an idea of how difficult it is to find root causes for conflicts, and how difficult it is to get a clear view of history. As Napoleon said; History is nothing but an agreed upon set of lies. Today's media play a vital role in teaching the public, who have no other way of knowing, what is actually going on and why. However, as the current invasion of Lebanon shows us: the media are as biased and subject to persuasions of propaganda as everybody else is. In the end, people believe what they want to, whatever suits their own mind set and personal limits. In any case, Ginghis, please don't rely on quotes from Wikipedia, the entries there are as biased as the people who wrote them. Does Patty's quote mention the fact that Israel, up to today's Prime Minister, has been ruled by terrorists? Former army generals responsible for human rights massacres (Shabra, Shatila = Sharon- soon to be celebrated as an Israeli heroe as he shuffles off this mortal coil) and erstwhile members of terrorist cells (Begin). Here's an interesting slant someone posted on another forum. I don't know where he got this from, but it lends spice to the thinking: "The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, called Aliyah started in 1881. The Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs. There was no country of Palestine or Israel or Lebanon at this stage. There was no people called Palestinians back then. Palestine was a name for an region (not country) that extended in the north-south direction typically from Raphia (south-east of Gaza) to the Litani River (now in Lebanon). The western boundary was the sea, and the eastern boundary was the poorly-defined place where the Syrian desert began. In various European sources, the eastern boundary was placed anywhere from the Jordan River to slightly east of Amman. The Negev Desert was not included. The idea of an independent nationality for Palestinian Arabs was greatly boosted by the 1967 Six Day War in which these lands were conquered by Israel; instead of being ruled by different Arab states encouraging them to think of themselves as Jordanians or Egyptians, those in the West Bank and Gaza were now ruled by a state with no desire to make them think of themselves as Israelis, and an active interest in discouraging them from regarding themselves as Egyptians, Jordanians, or Syrians. Moreover, the natives of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now shared many interests and problems in common with each other that they did not share with the neighboring countries." Assalamu Alaikum, Can anybody quote what famous historian, Thomas W Arnold said about so called Arab or Muslim invasion of Spain. Peace

Assalam Aleikum.

There is an entire chapter dedicated to Spain. Anything in particular you are interested in?

Thank You Amalhayati2,

I simply asked the same question of many people. These are the answers I received. The term "root cause" is being bandied about as if if can be defined. Every root cause I have heard has been challenged and disputed. There is truly no place to start and understand why no solution can be found that all parties can agree on. History seems to have many intrepertations. How people think has been declared wrong. Where people live and their values have been declared wrong. Cultures have been rated better or worse than another. It is as if we are not all humans who want to have a good life.

I registered to this forum to get an Islamic perspective on the root cause. I no longer trust the media. I wanted to talk to people and learn todays feelings and motivations. Mostly what I get are justifications that perpetuate present actions and events. I have gained an understanding of why the conflict goes on and on, but I have not gained much understanding of why it started in the first place. I don't think we are capable of descerning that.

Some how at some time we have come to the conclusion it is our duty to be mean to those who are not like us.