HHMI Newsgroup Archives
FROM: Clarence H. Wagner, Jr., International Director - Jerusalem
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: [BFP-UPDATE] Palestinian Right of Return
WOULD THE RIGHT OF RETURN SPELL END OF THE JEWISH STATE?
An insignificant question in the
midst of Israel's current
crisis, if implemented could well spell the end of the Jewish State as we
know it. The question, called "The Right of Return," includes compensation
for losses suffered by those Palestinians who were "driven from their
homes."
It is important to remember that
Israel begged Arabs not to leave
their homes in 1948 when radio broadcasts from Syria, Jordan and Egypt were
calling for evacuation to prevent Arabs from being caught in the promised
war that would "wipe out the Jewish population in Israel."
Representatives of a Multilateral
Conference on the Refugee
Question have arrived at what they consider to be a fair sum for
compensating the Palestinian refugees that fled from Israel in the 1948
war. The staggering amount is $550 billion US. The exaggerated number of
refugees that the Palestinians are claiming compensation for is 2,000,000
people. The math works out to US $250,000 for every man, woman and child.
That means a man, his wife and four children will receive US $1,500,000.
The monetary value of the largest Arab home in 1948 was around $10,000. A
grant of $1,500,000, even today, would buy several palatial homes in the
Arabic sections of most Islamic nations, including the Arabic sectors of
Israel.
Abu Mazen, one of the more moderate
members of the Palestinian
leadership, says that the compensation payments have to come out of
Israel's pocket and not from any international refugee fund. But, it does
not bother the PA to take contributions from almost every major nation in
the world to the tune of billions of dollars. Where has that donated money
gone? Which refugee group has benefited from any of that money? Arafat has
received enough money to turn Gaza into paradise and yet the latest
television photos of Gaza reveal it to be a slum of the lowest third world
quality.
But, the monies granted to each
individual is just the beginning.
In addition the Palestinians would demand compensation for other items as
well. Those include; damages incurred by the occupation since 1967;
exploitation of water rights and remuneration for the water that Israel has
used since that time period; the beach front damage on the shores of the
Dead Sea (we are unsure of exactly what that means); and the return of
taxes that Israel has collected from Palestinians.
Astoundingly, this is still not the
end. Israel will have to
compensate states such at Syria and Jordan that have provided the refugees
with asylum. The PLO will also receive compensation for public property
that has remained in Israel.
The frosting on this cake is that
even though the "Right of
Return" may be granted to Palestinians, they may not have to actually act
on that right and return to Israel to collect the compensation.
With all this in mind we have to
ask, "What about compensation
for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who were driven from their
homes out of Islamic countries during the same time period?" Angry Arabic
governments created a mass exodus of Jews from their respective nations.
The numbers of displaced Jews and the monetary amount that would be owed
are as staggering as the inflated requests of the Palestinian leadership.
What is in the mind of the
Palestinian leadership with the
staggering financial burden, the right of return to Israel and not just the
West Bank and Gaza, and the other listed monetary remunerations is to bring
the Jewish State of Israel to an end.
Sources for this article are:
"More on the Palestinian right of
return" by Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'artz English newspaper; "From Time Immemorial"
by Joan Peters; "The Forgotten Millions" by Hillel Shulewitz; "A Place
Among the Nations" by Benjamin Netanyahu. (by Ron Cantrell, BFP
Publications Director, January 5, 2001)
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
WHO ARE WE?
For those who are new to the list, Bridges for Peace is a
Christian
charitable organization, headquartered in Jerusalem, Israel. Since 1977, we
have been working to build Christian-Jewish understanding and support for
the people and land of Israel. We do this through twelve different aid
projects to help the people of Israel, while disseminating information
about Israel and teaching Christians about the Hebraic roots of
Christianity. We have national offices in Israel, the U.S., Canada, the
U.K., S. Africa, Japan, Brazil, Australia and Puerto Rico.
We also invite you to look at our WEB SITE at:
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com
*******************************************************************
From: Gary Collett
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Islam and Human Rights
Greetings from Jerusalem!
Not often do I forward an article that we have received...it has to
really be good in our estimation for us to do so. The following is
"really good" as it is enlightening for any who may not understand
some of the behind the scenes pressures. The article also then gives a
foundation for related concepts we have and will share again from our
own research and experience. Also the article helps in answering a
question that was sent to us. So enjoy...
Blessings, --Gary and Debra
The following article explains the religious basis for Islamic social
behavior. It tells how the "belief" standards between Islam and the
Judeo-Christian traditions are at complete odds with each other. This
is a good article to send to anyone who believes that the Palestinians
can integrate into Israeli society and culture. Both Christians and
Jews should become familiar with this information as a basis for
understanding Islamic-Arab motivation and behavior. The following
article on the Islamic understanding of human rights is written by Dr.
Christine Schirrmacher. Dr. Schirrmacher holds a Ph.D. in Islamic
Studies from the University of Bonn in Germany and often lectures on
Islamics in the U.S. and Europe. Note: This is an edited version of a
longer article.
*************************************
Three sections follow the introduction:
Civil Rights for Muslims and Non-Muslims,
Freedom of Religion for Non-Muslims, and Persecution by the family.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN MUSLIM UNDERSTANDING
By Dr. Christine Schirrmacher
When Christians are persecuted for their faith in Muslim countries, or
when Muslims convert to Christianity and are threatened with the death
penalty, the Western press accuses the Islamic State of human rights
violations. At the same time, most Islamic states have ratified
declarations such as the United Nations l948 General Declaration of
Human Rights. How can they justify this contradiction? In recent
decades, various Islamic organizations have themselves formulated
declarations of human rights. They have one basic difference to those
of Western statements, however. Because they give priority to the
Koran and to the Shari'a (Islamic law), human rights can only be
guaranteed in these countries under the conditions imposed by these
two authorities and their regulations. Article 24 of the 1990 Cairo
Declaration of Human Rights, for example, states that "All rights and
freedoms mentioned in this statement are subject to the Islamic Shari'a," and Article 25 adds, "The Islamic Shari'a is the only source for the
interpretation or explanation of each individual article of this
statement." This emphasizes the "historic role of the Islamic Umma
[Muslim society or community], which was created by God as the
best nation, which has brought humanity a universal and well-balanced
civilization, in which harmony between life here on earth and the
hereafter exists, and in which knowledge accompanies faith." What does
the priority of the Koran and the Shari'a mean for human rights
discussions? These two authorities insure that in Islamic states,
human rights only exist within the limitation set by the religious
values of Islamic revelation and are guaranteed only within the
framework determined by the Koran and Islamic law. The secularized
Westerner, molded by the Enlightenment and accustomed to separation of
church and state, has difficulties understanding that a country could
determine its standards for political and social life, for private and
public affairs, by the standards of religion.
Civil Rights for Muslims and Non-Muslims:
Islamic culture has never known any sort of separation of religion and
state, nor of politics and religion, while in the Old Testament, a
certain division of authority between the king and the high priest did
exist. In Islam, Muhammad had unified both aspects in his own person,
being simultaneously religious and political leader of the first
Islamic community. His immediate successors, the Caliphs, also carried
out both offices. In the Islamic states, Islam is the state religion,
to which all citizens are assumed to belong, and which is considered
to be the "principle on which
the state is built. The state is bearer of a religious idea and is,
therefore, itself a religious institution...It is responsible for the
worship of God, for religious training and for the spreading of the
faith." For this reason, the law must distinguish between the civil
rights of Muslims, who can fully enjoy legal protection because they
prove their loyalty to the state by their adherence to its religion,
and the rights of non-Muslims, who, as "traitors," forfeit their right
to state protection because of their 'unbelief'. In these countries,
Muslims always have more rights than non-Muslims. A non-Muslim can
usually not inherit from a Muslim, for example.
Freedom of Religion for Non-Muslims
To be a Muslim means to be a citizen imbued with all legal rights,
whereas to become an unbeliever is to commit high treason, for Islam
is an "essential element of the basic order of the state". When a
Muslim repudiates his faith, he rebels against that order and
endangers the security and the "stability of the society to which he
belongs." When Islamic law is interpreted in its strictest sense, this
'watchman' function of the state over its citizens' religion makes it
impossible for human rights to be given priority over Islamic law when
a Muslim gives up his faith, in spite of human rights declarations.
Although the constitutions of many Islamic countries provide for
freedom in exercising religious beliefs, non-Muslims almost always
have great difficulties in practicing their faith. Muslims who have
become Christians may even lose their lives. Still, Islamic countries
claim to be tolerant and to guarantee freedom of religion.
A few other faiths, such as Judaism and Christianity, are allowed a
certain right to exist, so that their members are not required to
convert to Islam, even if they live in an predominantly Islamic area,
but they are never equal
to Muslims before the law. They remain "second-class citizens" with
limited legal rights and are subject to the Islamic State, which
defines the limits of their religious freedoms very strictly.
Non-Muslims are forbidden to insult or disparage Islam, the Koran, or
the prophet Muhammad, which automatically occurs in Christian
evangelization, according to Muslim opinion. In Moroccan law, for
example, repudiation of Islam is still considered to be a crime worthy
of death, whereas the Muslim has the right to proselytize others. When
Muslims convert to Christianity - Apostasy and the Death Penalty in
Islam Does a Muslim have the right to desert Islam and turn to
Christianity? Is faith a private matter or do the state and its organs
have the responsibility to monitor and control it? Christianity and
Islam view this question quite differently. In our 'enlightened'
Western world with its separation of church and state, the personal
belief of the individual is one
of the most private areas of life - so much so that many are unwilling
to even share the details of their faith. The Islamic view is quite
different: faith and religion are basically public
affairs subject to the control of the state, although the measure of
the control varies from country to country. Wherever Islam is the
state religion and the very pillar of state order, the good citizen is
expected to
adhere to Islam; apostasy is treason. The Koran discusses apostasy in
several places. Apostasy will not be forgiven, so that the apostate
will be thrown into hell. God can in no way forgive apostates, for
they are unbelievers who have made themselves particularly punishable.
It is interesting, however, that beyond eternal damnation, the Koran
defines no concrete worldly penalty and no judicial procedure for the
punishment of the apostate.
Persecution by the family
Apostasy is basically an offence to be prosecuted by the state, once
charges have been brought. But often the relatives prefer to wash away the
'shame' of apostasy itself with an alternative 'solution' such as
casting the offender out of the family, driving him out of the
country, or even killing him. In practice, the courts seldom deal with
cases of apostasy. When Muslims convert to Christianity, they are
usually punished unofficially by their families or even by onlookers
instead of conviction by a judge. Immediate private revenge does at
least seem to frequently follow a Muslim's declaration of his
apostasy. Besides, judicial proceedings on apostasy provoke unwelcome
attention in the Western press.
The apostate usually loses his job, and his family will possibly try
to bring him back to the fold with the counsel of a Muslim clergyman,
but if that fails, they may send him to a psychiatric clinic or out of
the country, or expel him from the family. His marriage is
automatically dissolved, for marriage with an apostate is illegal, so
that a male convert suddenly finds himself living in adultery with his
own wife, who could also be stoned to death, if she refuses to leave
him Islam threatens the apostate with severe penalties, whether he has
become a Christian or has rejected religion altogether. Exile,
disinheritance, divorce, intimidation, loss of family and of job,
threats, beating, torture,
prison and even death are very real expectations for any Muslim who
becomes a Christian, even though not all may take place. Only seldom
does the miracle occur that the family of the convert accepts his
decision or become Christian as well. Otherwise, the new believer
lives in constant danger of detection and persecution. It is the chief
duty of any Christian living in the Western countries to publicly
remind legislators of the persecuted church and individual converts in
Islamic nations and support them wherever possible.
============================================ >
From an article by:
"World Evangelical Fellowship's Religious Liberty E-mail Conference."
*************************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.