Agreed.

An the issue you point out is addressed through the Caliphate structure of governance that Islam obliges as it blends centralised governance with regional governance, the central governance focusing on issues of unity, foreign policy, statewide matters, whilst regional governance deals with local provincial issues.

Furthermore it provides for a matrix structure where both geography can be overlaid onto a functional structure or authoritarian structure, depending on the needs and problems at hand. As one would expect, divine revelation has provided a solution that is flexible to political realities and allows for solutions that other structures proposed by humans struggle with.

To see this however requires one to look move away from the concrete examples of the Caliphate and consider the rulings behind it and their abstractions to realise the hikma embedded in them and how they work to solve social problems... difficult to do if one wishes to focus on concrete all the time...

Anonymous1 wrote:

Agreed.

An the issue you point out is addressed through the Caliphate structure of governance that Islam obliges

But there isn't a single structure of governance that can be considered the "caliphate structure".

Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (ra) became leaders using different means. The govenment structure was even different where under the second caliph the existing government structures of conquered lands were kept intact and functioning - the taxes were diverted into the central treasury.

More, Hadhrat Umar (ra) use a strong rotation system for governers along with a secondary system to keep tags on them, which Hadhrat Uthman (ra) did not use (and he became caliph using a third method).

Hadhrat Ali (ra) became caliph more or less under duress, at the request of the people of Madina, so this was a fourth method.

The fifth caliph, Imam Hassan was the son of the fourth, so it can be argued that it was inherited.

The sixth was done as a unity government to unite different warring factions.

The seventh was a disaster.

Later on the Ottoman way I doubt people will accept now or before then - where once there was a male heir all others who could aspire for power were put to death.

There are different styles of government here, different ways of finding a new leader. We must accept that atleast the first 5 (well 6 if we do not want to say that Imam Hassan (ra)'s handing over of power was incorrect) ways of getting a new leader.

You're confusing different styles of expressing preference in the selection process of a Caliph and the structure of the Caliphate system.

A Caliph can be identified in a variety of ways and preferences for who should be a Caliph can be expressed in a variety of ways (seen in the different ways Caliphs were identified through the early Caliphs amongst the companions) - however the appointment is always through the baya (oath of allegiance) without which no Caliph is appointed as it transfers the authority which Allah placed in the Ummah to this man who is then authorised to exercise it - contractually.

Thus the first essential component of the Caliphate is a Caliph who is contractually appointed through the bayah. These two componenets have been continuous in our history - thus my point about the Caliphate being a continuous institution regardless of the size/degree of power over different regions of the Caliph.

Secondly, the Caliph through wikala delegates his powers of judging, ruling, military leadership, financial duties etc to judges (qudaa), governors(wulaa/amils), generals (umara al-jihad) and administration (idaara)... Delegation, roles and responsibilities are not left unregulated through divine texts - there are conditions, recommendations, and obligations associated with each role as exemplified by the structure the Prophet(saw) established in Medina and those who came after him.

This delegated structure can be functionally oriented, geographically oriented or more usually for a large state, a blend of the two.

The Ottomans put heirs to death in an attempt to solve the problem of conflict over the role of sole Caliph - it was the best they could come up with at their time - the lesser of the two evils principle at work if you like...

Bay'ah is an oath of allegiance and is just a formal structure - a way to specify who is in charge.

Consider tht Hadhrat Ali (ra) did not giev bay'ah for a few months to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra).

The Ottomans put heirs to death in an attempt to solve the problem of conflict over the role of sole Caliph - it was the best they could come up with at their time - the lesser of the two evils principle at work if you like...

I dont consider that the lesser of two evils, but a concentration of power.

You wrote:

Bay'ah is an oath of allegiance and is just a formal structure - a way to specify who is in charge.

I would disagree - if you study political theory, you will notice a fundamental problem any political system faces is why society is obliged to obey someone, and what gives the right to some to exert force over others. Without bayah how would you solve these issues? The baya is the Islamic way of normatively addressing this problem. Democracy still has not solved this problem - have a read of consent theory and you will see there are numerous approaches to the problem but none are satisfactory or without gaping holes - thus those Muslims who try bringing in elections as a means of choosing a caliph AND suggest dropping the baya make a fundamental mistake and introduce an unstable and problematic paradigm into the Islamic political system (sorry - another set of abstract discussions!)

You wrote:

Consider tht Hadhrat Ali (ra) did not giev bay'ah for a few months to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra).

There are two kinds of bayah - bayatul-iniqaad and bayatul-taa'a - the bayatul-iniqaad was given by the influentials on behalf of the masses and the Caliph is appointed - the bayatul-taa'a can be given to confirm the first baya but its absence is not a problem. It is usually demanded from those whom the Caliph may suspect do not agree with the bayatul-iniqaad - as what Ali(ra) demanded of Muawiyah(ra). Thus you will note many of the subjects of the state never personally came and gave bayah to the Khulafah Rashidah - but the bayatul-iniqaad was always given which is the important process.

You wrote:

The Ottomans put heirs to death in an attempt to solve the problem of conflict over the role of sole Caliph - it was the best they could come up with at their time - the lesser of the two evils principle at work if you like...

I dont consider that the lesser of two evils, but a concentration of power.

The selection of one leader, the Prophet(saw) at his time, and the Caliphs after him is a concentration of power - that's not a problem as it is countered with a collective and individual responsibility in society to account rulers and the system if there is any wrongdoing.

The issue the Ottomans faced was one of wars and bloodsheds over the position of Caliph especially from competing heirs - something that other nations faced in history as well - and one of the solutions the Ottomans came up with to stop a greater evil of blood of many was bloodshed of a few - lesser of two evils. What would you prefer - the former evil or the latter evil? How would you have solved the problem at their time?

Are you aware that the bay'ah of some people was forcibly taken when it was given to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra)?

I don't think the way of nomination itself is a big issue - as you mentioned the specific person leading does not get a personal bay'ah from everyone anyway.

You wrote:

Are you aware that the bay'ah of some people was forcibly taken when it was given to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra)?

Yes I am - that is one reason the Shia criticise Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) due to such forceful tactics.

However one the bayatul-iniqaad is given and there is a general consensus on the Caliph, small minorities can be forced to give the oath of allegiance (bayatul-ta'a) that CAUSES an obligation of obedience.

You wrote:

I don't think the way of nomination itself is a big issue - as you mentioned the specific person leading does not get a personal bay'ah from everyone anyway.

The reason is probably due to the fact you don't understand the political problem of cause of obligation of obedience to a ruler - if you had read about consent theory you'd have understood the problem. Reading the ahadith on the bayah would have indicated that the Prophet(saw) made them obligatory - all the khulafah ensured the bayah was done - Ali(ra) even fought Muawiya(ra) over the baya - the Caliphate utilised the process upto 1924 - scholars throughout our history (excluding post-Caliphate) all agreed on the need and nature of the bayah - all these should give a hint that the baya has some significance in Islamic political thought, and the question would be what is its significance?

If you want I can try to give you a quick insight into it through posing a few of questions:
1. Why should I obey the rulers?
2. Is obeying the rulers obligatory?
2. What gives them the right to order me about or enforce legislation on me?

After that it is up to you to accept or not...

"consent theory this" and theory that mean less in the real world than they do in academia.

In the real world people just get on with things and then later the academics come along and try to categorise them.

Those who specialise and excel in thinking tend to look beyond the concrete and add profound perspectives to human endeavours - Muslim and non-Muslim scholars did that during the Islamic civilisation and Muslim and Secular scholars do the same today... This notion that they are removed from reality may apply to a small number, but the vast majority work on practical problems affecting societies.

If one berates them, one is simply disrespecting education, learning, research, thought and depth... characteristics that contributed to Muslim success historically...

As the Prophet(saw) said, “Wisdom is the lost property of a believer, it is his, wherever he may find it.”

As you clearly don't want to think about the problem relating to the Prophet's order of the baya any more deeply, I will leave it to you to explore at your will if you choose...

Not all knowledge is equal and some is not required even.

A lot of the political theories are analysing what people did and then manufacturing theories instead of people studying the theory and then applying it to a situation.

When people do the latter, the results rarely turn out as expected.

Consent theory is not of the type which is not necessary or irrelevant - it is answering the basic question that many who reiterate that it's a duty to obey the law of the land are unable to answer, namely, why is one obliged to obey the ruler? what gives the ruler the right to exercise authority over us?

Islam answered this question, feudalism answered this question, democracy tries to answer this question - however democracy given its flawed nature is struggling with a correct and believable answer. Muslims who belittle baya and cannot understand its relevancy can do so when they understand the problem the baya addresses. Problem is most sloganise they follow the classical scholars but don't in fact consistently follow them - the classical scholars advocated the obligatory nature of the baya as part of the Caliphate system.

One notices the same problem many Muslims have with the economy - few can actually articulate what problem is being solved by the Islamic economic system and how that follows through to the detailed rules - resulting in a cogent and coherent comprehensive explanation, rather than the citation of numerous, and often conflicting, rules that don't fully hang together nor make sense.

Many theories may appear abstract and appear on the face of it to a layman not applicable to any real life problem, but usually such theories are relevant to life and have the most profound and applicable effects on life when refined and applied - Einstein's abstract theory of relativity being an obvious example. Can you cite the theories or research by scholars that has no relevancy or application? I would be interested to see what examples you would cite, if any.

Anonymous1 wrote:

If you want I can try to give you a quick insight into it through posing a few of questions:
1. Why should I obey the rulers?
2. Is obeying the rulers obligatory?
2. What gives them the right to order me about or enforce legislation on me?

After that it is up to you to accept or not...

How would the answers to those three questions be different from say a parliamentary democracy?

Both would have implicit acceptance of leadership by the majority. both would have apparatus to obey any rules laid down.

More, the democratic system would have the ability to remove incompetent leadership and to allow an orderly transfer of power.

A major problem with the Ottoman leadership was that eventually it became beset by incompetence - people who would be good at leading, good at getting stuff done were executed in order to concentrate power in one place (and even this did not work out as Egypt eventually became pseudo independent where it was not always guaranteed to follow the orders given to it).

Anonymous1 wrote:

The reason is probably due to the fact you don't understand the political problem of cause of obligation of obedience to a ruler - if you had read about consent theory you'd have understood the problem. Reading the ahadith on the bayah would have indicated that the Prophet(saw) made them obligatory - all the khulafah ensured the bayah was done - Ali(ra) even fought Muawiya(ra) over the baya - the Caliphate utilised the process upto 1924 - scholars throughout our history (excluding post-Caliphate) all agreed on the need and nature of the bayah - all these should give a hint that the baya has some significance in Islamic political thought, and the question would be what is its significance?

While Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) did force others to give Bay'ah, he did not force hadhrat Ali, and Hadhrat Ali (ra) did not do so for a significant period of time (some say 6 months, some say longer).

More, you stated the implicit bay'ah that would come from the general public.

I do not see how this contradicts with say a parliamentary democracy. In the UK there was a vote, there was some explicit bay'ah after the queens speech done by the majority of the representatives of the UK. That is then extended implicitly to the whole population where we now all accept that David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK.

I don't see where you see the issue in that as there are striking parallels.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

If you want I can try to give you a quick insight into it through posing a few of questions:
1. Why should I obey the rulers?
2. Is obeying the rulers obligatory?
2. What gives them the right to order me about or enforce legislation on me?

After that it is up to you to accept or not...

How would the answers to those three questions be different from say a parliamentary democracy?

Both would have implicit acceptance of leadership by the majority. both would have apparatus to obey any rules laid down.

The answer to your question is addressed by considering the following:

In a democracy, why would I have to follow what the majority want? (In fact in many elections majority do not vote, and even when there is a majority of 50-70% voting, the party that rules is a minority as voters are fragmented across parties - so the question can even legitimately be asked, why should I follow what a minority want?)

Why would the majority create an obligation on me?

You wrote:

More, the democratic system would have the ability to remove incompetent leadership and to allow an orderly transfer of power.

The Caliphate model can achieve the same as was shown with Umar's (ra) systematic appointment, accounting and removal of governors and other rulers and his procedure for a new Caliph to be selected within 3 days after his death. Muslims must ensure such procedures are in place so corruption and problems do not arise - if they decide to be secular and not bother, or support idiots who want to divide Muslims and contend for power, whose fault is that? The Caliphate System or the people? Does that justify dumping the Caliphate System and adopting foreign ideologies which also require processes/procedures to be enforced and if they are not, capitalists, corporate interests, corrupt MPs etc exploit the society as is seen in British democracy?

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

The reason is probably due to the fact you don't understand the political problem of cause of obligation of obedience to a ruler - if you had read about consent theory you'd have understood the problem. Reading the ahadith on the bayah would have indicated that the Prophet(saw) made them obligatory - all the khulafah ensured the bayah was done - Ali(ra) even fought Muawiya(ra) over the baya - the Caliphate utilised the process upto 1924 - scholars throughout our history (excluding post-Caliphate) all agreed on the need and nature of the bayah - all these should give a hint that the baya has some significance in Islamic political thought, and the question would be what is its significance?

While Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) did force others to give Bay'ah, he did not force hadhrat Ali, and Hadhrat Ali (ra) did not do so for a significant period of time (some say 6 months, some say longer).

More, you stated the implicit bay'ah that would come from the general public.

I do not see how this contradicts with say a parliamentary democracy. In the UK there was a vote, there was some explicit bay'ah after the queens speech done by the majority of the representatives of the UK. That is then extended implicitly to the whole population where we now all accept that David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK.

I don't see where you see the issue in that as there are striking parallels.

Maybe you need to read Tabari's version of events where Umar(ra) went to Ali's(ra) house where some of his colleagues were with them and threatened them to go and give the bayah... The Shia's quote this incident and even cite Fatima(ra) had a miscarriage when Umar(ra) burst in and hit her with the door (from recollection).

Difference between the implicit baya and the implicit extension of representation in democracy is major - the implicit baya has evidence from the sunnah, for example, the hadith of whoever dies without a baya on their neck dies death of jahiliyyah, thus no Muslim is assumed to die death of jahilliah as they accept the bayah of their representative includes them or they go and do it themselves or they give bayah to an alternative Caliph, thus God is the source of the obligation for Muslims. What evidence do they have in democracy to say everyone implicitly supports the voted for MPs or have any obligation to obey them or have transferred their authority/sovereignty to such people? In fact, many scholars who have considered consent theory say they don't and that's the problem - one cannot assume those who have not voted implicitly support or agree with the rulers - many in fact don't and that's why they abstain. Thus their sovereignty and authority is not transferred nor is there any obligation on them as no oath is given by them to anyone. Some countries like Australia/Belgium try to get around this by making voting obligatory - this raises another problem - does forced elections by a minority on everyone else create a contract or an obligation? Contracts are usually not valid where force is used... Problems problems! Islam as ever solves problems beautifully and cleanly - and this is why the classical scholars who considered democracy dumped it and stuck with the bayah process and the Caliphate as that is what they concluded was divine.

The question for you that you posed earlier is, do you too not follow the classical scholars?

For the initial question, you ignore that even in teh caliphate system the minority view was forced to go along with the majority - where people were even made to give bay'ah by force! So the same question can be asked here - there is no difference in question.

In the caliphate model you confuse the appointment of governors and administrators with the actual leadership.

the concrete example here is that the ottoman sultan/caliph was incompetent at times but all other people who could claim the leadership mantle had already been executed in order to concentrate power.

As for the handover of power, There was war and dissent when Hadhrat Ali (ra) became caliph because many others disagreed. When Yazid became the leader of the Muslim world, that did not go particularly well either. It ended with the massacre of the descendants and family of the Prophet (saw).

Even later hereditary transfer of power was marred with chaos as people seen either too powerful in their own rights or seen as loyal to an opponent would often be killed/assassinated or imprisoned.

You wrote:

For the initial question, you ignore that even in teh caliphate system the minority view was forced to go along with the majority - where people were even made to give bay'ah by force! So the same question can be asked here - there is no difference in question.

It is quite simple really. You appear to be missing the obvious.
The cause of the obligation of bayah is Allah and the baya in turn causes an obligation of obedience:
The hadith of the Prophet(saw) states whoever dies without bayah dies the death of jahilliya - the time limit comes from Umar(ra) who required it to be completed in 3 days. Those who do not give bayah to anyone in 3 days are sinful so can be forced as other divine texts allow a munkar to be removed by force - correct because Allah(swt) says so - all i's are dotted and t's crossed in Islam!

Explain why someone can be forced in democracy and where does the obligation of obedience come from?

You wrote:

In the caliphate model you confuse the appointment of governors and administrators with the actual leadership.

Nope - governors are leaders/rulers as are amils. They can undertake decision making in matters of ruling - maybe you should read some specialist texts of the classical scholars who also says the same - Mawardi's book is translated if you don't know Arabic.
The overall leader is the Caliph who institutionalises the accountability mechanism of the government as Umar(ra) clearly showed - and the Caliph is accounted by the people and their representatives (majlis al-ummah) as for example Umar(ra) was accounted by a woman when he tried to limit the dower.

You wrote:

the concrete example here is that the ottoman sultan/caliph was incompetent at times but all other people who could claim the leadership mantle had already been executed in order to concentrate power.

Not too sure what the point here is - can you elaborate and cite which periods of history you are referring to. The ummah existed at all periods of history and if some people were executed the ummah can account the Caliph - as one notices during Umar's(ra) time or other periods of the Caliphate.

You wrote:

As for the handover of power, There was war and dissent when Hadhrat Ali (ra) became caliph because many others disagreed. When Yazid became the leader of the Muslim world, that did not go particularly well either. It ended with the massacre of the descendants and family of the Prophet (saw).

If a system or procedures that are put in place are not followed, no system works.
The Ali(ra) scenario arose from political events during Othman's time leading to his assassination and various political factions being in Medina - despite all this noone suggested the Caliphate model was wrong. In fact the Sahaba picked Imam Ali(ra) as the Caliph and he attempted reform and setting things straight.
Islam allows and even requires such systems and procedures to be put in place (based on texts of commanding good, fobidding evil, word of truth to tyrant ruler etc) and contemporary scholars who call for the Caliphate advise we learn from our history and do not repeat mistakes that led to problems - procedures of accountability are a must.

I'm not sure what your point is with these examples - maybe you can explain.

So the people give bay'ah to different leaders who may or may not work together... I think you are over simplifying things.

The time limit of three days was set by hadhrat Umar (ra) for his succession, but I am quite sure that either then or the time after it was not done within three days. That was just a structure that he had set into motion in order to ensure that there was a leader chosen within what he (ra) considered a reasonable period of time in order to avoid fitnah.

Explain why someone can be forced in democracy and where does the obligation of obedience come from?

it is enforced by the state just like it would be in a caliphate. No difference.

he overall leader is the Caliph who institutionalises the accountability mechanism of the government as Umar(ra) clearly showed - and the Caliph is accounted by the people and their representatives (majlis al-ummah) as for example Umar(ra) was accounted by a woman when he tried to limit the dower.

You are here choosing the best of examples and ignoring that not every leader is Hadhrat Umar (ra) or anywhere near close to any of the rashidah caliphs.

We have had periods of time in history where the leaders were considered either incompetent, corrupt or unworthy of leadership.

The ummah existed at all periods of history and if some people were executed the ummah can account the Caliph

You are ignoring brutality here. People were murdered when they were not in the wrong. Many early Muslim leaders were also murdered.

reports suggest Muhammad Ibn Qasim (the conqueror of Sindh?) was murdered when the new caliph came into power. There are a bunch of others aswell.

look into it.

There was always an ummah and there still is an ummah.

You wrote:

So the people give bay'ah to different leaders who may or may not work together... I think you are over simplifying things.

Not quite sure what you are talking about here - maybe you can elaborate a little so I can respond.

You wrote:

The time limit of three days was set by hadhrat Umar (ra) for his succession, but I am quite sure that either then or the time after it was not done within three days. That was just a structure that he had set into motion in order to ensure that there was a leader chosen within what he (ra) considered a reasonable period of time in order to avoid fitnah.

That could be a possible interpretation but is negated by one major factor. Umar(ra) ordered companions who disputed after the three day period to be killed. Killing is normally haram unless revelation permits it - thus 3 days is not administrative issue but revelation issue. Thus an ijma al-sahaba on the point.

You wrote:

Explain why someone can be forced in democracy and where does the obligation of obedience come from?

it is enforced by the state just like it would be in a caliphate. No difference

The question is not who enforces it - the question is why somecane can be forced and where does the obligation come from? What gives the right to someone to use force against another? What evidence makes it obligatory on one to obey another who has come to power as a minority?

You wrote:

You are here choosing the best of examples and ignoring that not every leader is Hadhrat Umar (ra) or anywhere near close to any of the rashidah caliphs.

The examples are meant to illustrate the Caliphate system based on revelation has means and mechanisms that allow solution of all problems - Umar(ra) is one of the best examples to bring to show that.

You wrote:

We have had periods of time in history where the leaders were considered either incompetent, corrupt or unworthy of leadership.

The ummah should have removed them - she had the right to do so given to her by Allah(swt) - (also maybe you can cite some specifics so I can see what you mean rather than just broad assertions).

You wrote:

The ummah existed at all periods of history and if some people were executed the ummah can account the Caliph

You are ignoring brutality here. People were murdered when they were not in the wrong. Many early Muslim leaders were also murdered.
reports suggest Muhammad Ibn Qasim (the conqueror of Sindh?) was murdered when the new caliph came into power. There are a bunch of others aswell.
look into it.

I'm not denying brutality - one sees it regularly in secular democractic systems, just look at Nazi Germany or how the US slaughters civilians with nuclear weapons...
The question is how to solve it - the caliphate had mechanisms for its solution - where rulers go to far, the judiciary can step in, as can the military; if they fail, the ummah can arise - all three insititutions have the right to intervene God given through Quranic texts that condemn oppression, tyranny and sin.

Importantly, the rights that Allah gives are missing in democracy - thus one can argue I have to obey no law unless I voluntarily partake in some contract (which causes obligation) or I voluntarily choose to follow a law. I do not have to give up my authority or sovereignty and noone can take it from me unless I do so voluntarily. All this is problematic for secular democratic politics - which some Muslims miss when they try to import it into Islam in the process negating valid Islamic political constructs which the classical scholars proposed - again do you follow classical scholars or not? Or is it a stick to beat me with when you wish to use it but not adhere to it yourself???

Anonymous1 wrote:

That could be a possible interpretation but is negated by one major factor. Umar(ra) ordered companions who disputed after the three day period to be killed. Killing is normally haram unless revelation permits it - thus 3 days is not administrative issue but revelation issue. Thus an ijma al-sahaba on the point.

1. Hadhrat Umar (ra) did not receive revelation.
2. Don't hold me to this, but I am quite sure it took more than three days - I think it was four, but I am quite sure you can look this up to confirm.

He (ra) mentioned that they should be killed if they cannot find a leader in order to stop people from dithering and wasting time.

Anonymous1 wrote:

The question is how to solve it - the caliphate had mechanisms for its solution - where rulers go to far, the judiciary can step in, as can the military; if they fail, the ummah can arise - all three insititutions have the right to intervene God given through Quranic texts that condemn oppression, tyranny and sin.

these can happen in the current parliamentary democracy in the UK too. That people do not rise up does not mean that people can't. it is just unlikely.

Anonymous1 wrote:

You wrote:

We have had periods of time in history where the leaders were considered either incompetent, corrupt or unworthy of leadership.

The ummah should have removed them - she had the right to do so given to her by Allah(swt) - (also maybe you can cite some specifics so I can see what you mean rather than just broad assertions).

I am quite sure Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah argued that it is better to suffer under tyranny for 70 years than to be leaderless for one night...

and may I ask how would this removal of power happen? Would she have had to then pull out a sword and attack the leader?

As for specifics, the (suspected) murder of Muhammad Ibn Qasim is one. And we can then go onto the executions that were part of most later transfers of power - the very first act would be considered one of mass murder.

Are they specific enough issues?

I don't think you comprehend just how hard it would be to replace the leaderhip... especially as the means you mention would require the use of force. that is the benefit of the democratic system where transfer is peaceful and does not require a bloody revolution.

Had problems with my internet connection freezing - feel free to delete any duplicates...

ok, Will do.

I will repond further after work too, but probably in a new topic as this one is annoying another member who does not appreciate us hijacking it.

Noor wrote:

Turkey will "never forgive" Israel

can you stick to the topic please. thanks.

Nobody is bothering to post anything on the topic if you've not noticed...

Noor wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Noor wrote:

Turkey will "never forgive" Israel

can you stick to the topic please. thanks.

Nobody is bothering to post anything on the topic if you've not noticed...

maybe that is because they have been put off by the long posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Or more likely noone's interested in your posts! Nothing since you've posted it! Maybe my comment will stimulate someone to come to your defence

The two discussions can co-exist. but they may be better in separate topics (I should ave done that last night, but I slept).

we cannot know which of the two here is more popular (actually we can assume and I would assume the news about the flotilla is a lot more interesting to most) as being interested is not the same as posting - people can use this topic to keep on top of updates.