Preparations are under way in Gaza to receive a convoy of ships that is trying to break Israel's economic blockade of the Palestinian territory.
The ships, carrying up to 10,000 tonnes of aid and human rights activists from around the world, will try to reach Gaza on Sunday.
Israel is adamant it will not allow them into Gaza.
Read more @ BBC News
Tags:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10193249.stm
Monday now.
So that is tomorrow then. Sooner than I had expected. Let's see what happens here.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Will be intresting which ever way it goes.
But inshallah they will reach gaza.
Gaza aid flotilla attacked, two killed
Death toll from Gaza aid attack hits 20
wow. this is on the front page of the BBC News website and Sky News.
i'm shocked.
so am i very shocked.
why are you shocked.
did you expect fairness and justice from god forsaken israel. israel is cursed by God. it is panicking and behaving like a scared bully.
jewish army in israel behave worse than nazis. they are now expected by muslims to do this worst kind of evil and killing of innocent people. therefore, i am not shocked at all.
no wonder muslims regard Israel as a monster that is out of controlled. Iran wants this monster dead before it continues with more bloodshed. israel will soon be wiped off the map, inshallah.
Lanat on Israel and those who support it in any way. God curse them.
http://www.therevival.co.uk/forum/general/6150?page=2
Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".
www.presstv.ir
i am shocked that they are on the front page of the bbc and sky news, not at israel's actions.
oh thats good then. i thought you were surprised at israeli brutality. satan and his followers do worse crimes than this. Allah told us in Quran.
but BBC and SKY, yeah, thats a surpise that they are giving real news for a change. they often brush israeli crimes and murders under the carpet. thats why muslims dont trust these kafir sources. a lot of us are now watching muslims 24 hour news channels like PRESS TV channel 515. its world news every two hours is better than BBC and SKY.
even the public in america are sick of their own lying media. a lot of them are turning to muslims new courses like press tv to get information. its spreading slowly.
i head that in 2006, even the jews inside israel were watching lebanese channels rather than their own israeli tv which did not give them real news. they did not trust their own govenrment to provide accurate news. so Jews tunned in Hezbollah's Al Manar TV which is banned in EU and US. freedom of speech hey?
Lanat on the double standard kafirs.
www.presstv.com
www.naharnet.com
http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/HomePage.aspx?language=en
Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".
www.presstv.ir
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-Mk4bFz-U&feature=player_embedded#!]
what to say?
The real problem are our Muslim leaders who watch passively - making token gestures and noises to pacify their angry populations. Egypt for instance supports the blockade and prevents anything entering Gaza even though it adjoins it! Turkey trades tens of millions of weapon contracts with Israel every year!
The Muslims need to wake up and realise this requires a political solution - we need to politically unite and dump divisive identities that have been imposed on us to divide the Muslim ummah (British, US, Egyptian, Moroccan, Pakistani, Saudi, Turkish, Bangladeshi etc) and revert to our God given identities - one Islamic Ummah. We need to call for the Caliphate to unite us and militarily deal with those who oppress our brothers and sisters - with tens of millions of Muslim troops across the Muslim world sitting in their barracks, watching silently, apartheid states like Israel can get away with such slaughters and blockades of innocent civilians knowing full well the inept rulers will not stop them...
Last time there was a caliphate, there was al genocide of the armenians... more it is makebelief to suggest that historically there has been one united Muslim state - for much of Muslim history that is simply untrue.
Most of the groupings you mention are also along ethnic lines and thus also "God Given".
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
After the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, secular nationalists rewrote history - a process known as historic revisionism. Such claims as those you repeat were made, to blacken Muslim history, inaccurate in fact and political in agenda.
Recent scholarship has exposed much of this and I would recommend you read the work of expert Ottomanists such as Suriaya Farouqhi - the following article touches on some of these issues and references latest research based not on nationalist narrative but on recently released historical documents from archives in Cairo, Istanbul, Damascus during the Ottoman Caliphate period.
http://www.muslimdecline.blogspot.com/
The Armenian massacre was done towards the end of the First World War by Turkish nationalists who had hijacked the Caliphate - you will notice that throughout its history the Islamic Caliphate never had such policies but applied Sharia/Khilafah which are mandatory on Muslims and provided security and protection for non-Muslims who paid a jizya tax. Salahudin's entry into Jerusalem is famous for its civility compared to the bloodshed of the Crusaders when they entered.
National identities comprise an integral aspect of the nation state formed after the treaty of Westphalia. They do more than provide a geographical identity - they comprise a bundle of ideas that allow for developing cohesion in fixed border nation states, usually built around characteristics of a nation, marginalising those who don't fit those characteristics. They include notions of statehood, political authority and laws, symbols, culture and shared collective histories. Given the Islamic identity has addressed many of these issues, adopting nation state based identies results in a number of contradictions making it difficult to reconcile the two. It's worth reading some texts on the meaning of national identities and their development and separating them out from other identities so the discussions are clear - Anthony Smith's text on the subject, National Identity, is quite easy reading and academically sound - the following link lets you read most of it if you don't have a copy:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bEAJbHBlXR8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=n...
I would welcome your considered responses to the above points.
Finally, there has been a coherent Caliphate state throughout Muslim history upto 1924. They were known as the Medinan State, The Khulafah Rashida, The Khulafah Umawiyya, The Khulafah Abassiyya, The Khulafah Uthmaniya.
You should not confuse the fact that peripheral provinces often broke away or achieved autonomy or even declared their own Caliphates in competition with the core to declare there was no one Caliphate state - disobedience does not negate the Caliphate, it just requires sharia laws to be enforced like when Abu Bakr/Umar (ra) fought tribes in relation to Zakat or for claiming prophethood. It is like arguing that the contested nature of democracy, socialism or republicanism or most social science terms means there is no one acceptable core definition. The differences are usually on peripheries and scope of terms rather than their core meanings.
You may want to refer to the books of the classical scholars who wrote historically on the subject who confirmed pretty much what I have written - including Juwayni, Abu Yala, Mawardi, Ghazali, Ibn Khaldoon, Ibn Taymiyyah, Mustafa Ali, Mustafa Naima Effendi, Ahmed Resmi, Ahmed Cevdet etc
What would you say to the comment that centuries the real power in the ottoman khalifate lied with the jannisarries - A christian elite that had so much power that even the leader of t caliphate could rarely chllenge them? On occasion when they were challenged by the sultan, it would result in his death.
More, for aproximately three centuries before the ottomans manag ed to have the greater power, there was no functioning single caliphate (and is known as the shadow caliphate). Before then under he ayyubids the stem was of separte almost-kingdoms which would operate mostly separatly but one at times had more power a could unite the kingdoms when needed.
This was not peripheral provinces but the core structure that was used - one of decentralisation.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You've not addressed the points I put down in response to your original comments - I would be interested in your responses.
Regarding your recent points, they support the points I made.
The Caliphate structure of governance existed throughout (ie appointment of Caliph, bayah, implementation of Sharia, provision of security etc).
Your first point contends where power actually lay for some centuries - even if proven which I would disagree with (it being a separate discussion) - this does not negate the structure of governance which remained the Caliphate.
Your second point argues there was no functioning caliphate for three centuries - are you arguing there was no caliphate or it was there but not functioning well? Many scholars argue for three years there was no Caliph when the state was attacked by the mongols. However a Caliph was appointed in Egypt after 3 years and the Abbassid rule continued until 1517 according to many scholars when it was transferred to the Ottomans. Thus for two and a half centuries the Caliphate model was implemented in Egypt having moved from Baghdad. Whether it functioned well or badly, that argument was used since the time of the Khulafah Rashida where Othman (ra) is often criticised for appointing relatives from Banu Ummayyah into government who later gave Ali(ra) a hard time and imposed harsh Ummayyad rule - either way, it does not negate the fact that the Caliphate governance was in operation - all it does is describe how well the Caliphate functioned.
Do you mean this comment?
Yes, Egypt is complicit.
Turkey is changing and if you cannot see that you are blind. It was a close ally of Israel, but then the people voted in an islamic government that is slowly but surely changing many aspects of the government. It is fast becoming the leader of the Muslim world again - a role that wa taken from it when the arabs decided to try and break away from the ottoman empire in WW1.
More, the idea that we need to revert to God implies that we have forsaken God in the first place... and if you look at the historical times when such calls were made - Spain decided to "revert to God" and a hundred years later there were no Muslims living there. When people in the middle east decided to go on that journey there was a shadow caliphate for three centuries before you got a single entity that was recognised as powerful and ruling.
Then you got that with the arabs in the 19th centurey and that resulted in the abolishment of the khilafah.
Words are easy to speak but you should realise what they mean too and their repercussions.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
There was no principle state for the three centuries - there were smaller states that were fully independent. Actually, there was not a united state for longer - even at the time of Salahuddin, there was a separate empire running basra and the muwahidun were ruling western africa and southern spain. (the Mughals and other indian Muslim kingdoms etc were separate too.)
When the ottomans conquered the other empires, they did not call their empire a caliphate - they only used the religious titles centuries later after they had started to lose superiority other empires such as the Russians.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The discussion has never been whether there has been a principle state or not, whether it has remained united or not - I'm not arguing that so am not sure why you are trying to refute it - you're back to straw man arguments.
If you refer to the above postings, the argument is whether the Caliphate existed or not - and I cited all the Caliphates that continuously ran (albeit 3 years in 1258) from the death of the Prophet(saw) till 1924. You have not shown otherwise.
there was no "caliphate" for most of that time - there were smaller indipendent kingdoms and empires. Or caliphates. Multiple warring factions where the side that had control of the hijaz was seen as having greater legitimacy.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salahaddin worked for the Abassid Caliph and united the Muslim world again before expelling the crusaders. It proves that the Caliphate form of governance was there.
One does not need to call the Islamic form of governance Caliphate; the shias call it Imamate. One can call it Sultanate, Imarate etc as different terms were used by the Prophet(saw) and his companions. The jurists commonly began to use the term Caliphate so we use it. The Ottomans applied the Caliphate form of governance as seen in the baya process, application of sharia, their institutions and policies - proving my point. The use of the term Caliph appeared in political Ottoman usage in treaties in 1774 but it was used before that if you search the historical literature.
Asserting it is not the same as proving it - the Caliphate existed as evidenced by the existence of Abbassid Caliphs and then Ottoman Sultans. You appear to be confusing the form of governance with its strength, unity and permeance - a category error.
erm... this is the Ayyubid empire at its largest:
EDIT - here is another picture showing the other empires present:
A picture that speaks more than a thousand words. And that was BEFORE the shadow caliphate that was for three centuries.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Still no evidence that there was no Caliphate. Give it up - you can't negate Caliphate was not there for over 1300 years - even the term of shadow caliphate states there was a caliphate - just a weakened version of it!
Throughout this region, the Caliphate form of governance was in place - even your images shows that - a Caliph in Baghdad, with wazirs, walis etc You have yet to address this argument - showing its varying size does not negate the fact that the Caliphate was there which you seem to not understand.
Even the images you bring don't demolish the straw man arguments you construct and attack - Salahaddin did not have an empire separate to that of the Caliphate - unlike the Fatimids which he destroyed to unify the state - which is what a number of Orientalists wanted to assert and such interpretation of these images are from their propaganda which you are reproducing without having researched them. Read Edward Said and what he said about their research.
These images reflect the dynasties that ruled various regions of the Caliphate.
It is interesting to note your whole approach of attacking Islamic heritage and culture and defending kufr western culture like nation states and kufr national identities - reflecting a unique individualistic secular outlook that appears to want to import democracy into his religion and negate the Islamic political system...
Look at the picture. pretty pretty colours. multiple separate Muslim empires. They were disunited - Salahuddin Ayyubi (ra) tried to conquer the bit controlled by the abbasids a few times but failed.
and this is BEFORE the "shadow caliphate".
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I've already acknowledged the Caliphate had regions that became autonomous - having already agreed that in a very early post, what point are you making with the picture? It appears to be none! As such the picture is irrelevant to the discussion and you should try to focus on addressing the question and not adding irrelevancies.
The point you need to address is that the Caliphate was not there - does the picture support that? No! Maybe you have some evidence that does prove the Caliphate was not there? Or are you going to play politics with the discussion now you have realised you are backing an incorrect argument?
You appear unaware that even Salahaddin gave baya to the Caliph, Aurangzeb of the Mughals gave bayah to the Ottomans, the Murabitun gave baya too - but in pictures they would be shown with different colours to which various laymen interprets varying conclusions - a bit like paint diagrams!!!
You should read the history as well as looking at pretty coloured pictures.
These are not "regions that became autonomous" - these are separate empires.
The "regions that became autonomous" are all covered by the Ayyubid empire bit in yellow there where Salahuddin gave each region autonomy.
Salahuddin did give Bay'ah buit that was to the empire which he then had conquered and incorporated in his own after that person he gave bay'ah to passed away. (he also switched allegiance from another caliph and thus incorporated that empire within his own too.)
Salahuddin did unite many lands and smaller kingdoms. But not all. And this was before the three centuries where there was even less unity (which started near the arrival of the mongols which is much later).
The picture tells a thousand words. The Muslim historians all have recorded what has happened and how. It is only modern reinterpretation (or ignorance - because lets face it, its not an article of faith to know eacha nd every facet of history) that tries to hide such things.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I'll address the autonomous regions argument later as it requires a separate discussion - in the meanwhile I'd ask you to read Ibn Athir's history of Salahaddin who disagrees with a number of your assertions.
The discussion had been, was there a Caliphate until 1924.
To date I've not seen you show or bring anything against this - if you have please repost it alone without other issues attached - if not we can put this question to rest as it seems from what I've seen so far, we are in fact agreed that the Caliphate existed in some shape or form till 1924. What that shape and form was is another discussion which we can no doubt.
Pages