Unless the “Palestinians” get serious about making peace with Israel. So watch for a massive “War is Deceit” initiative from the “Palestinians” in the coming months.
“Trump Admin Threatens To Shut Down Palestinian Office In DC,” by Jonah Bennett, Daily Caller, November 18, 2017:
The Trump administration said Friday it will shut down the Palestinian Liberation Office (PLO) in Washington, D.C., unless the Palestinians get serious about peace talks with Israel.
The State Department has determined that the PLO has violated a law stating that the PLO cannot push for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israelis. Violation of this law means that the State Department could force the PLO to close its mission, The Associated Press reports.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated in September that the Palestinians have called for the ICC to “open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people.”
Given the PLO’s violation, President Donald Trump has 90 days to assess whether the Palestinians are engaged in meaningful negotiations with Israel. If Trump decides that the negotiations are meaningful, the Palestinians can keep their D.C. office. But if not, the office will be shut down. It’s also possible that the Trump administration could close the office down before the 90-day window, but even if the office is closed, that doesn’t mean peace efforts have collapsed.
Trump’s team has already started working on a plan to bring peace to the Middle East 10 months after taking office. For Trump, achieving peace in that region is the “ultimate deal.” The plan will likely discuss Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians have expressed some amount of skepticism because of how Trump’s loud, unabashed support for Israel and the fact that several Trump staffers heading the plan are Jews, like Jason D. Greenblatt, chief negotiator, David M. Friedman, ambassador to Israel and Jared Kushner….
Emilie Green says
“It’s also possible that the Trump administration could close the office down before the 90-day window, but even if the office is closed, that doesn’t mean peace efforts have collapsed.”
No, the collapse happened 1400 years ago.
Scott says
The collapse happened 1400 years ago……
+1000
RodSerling says
OT: For some reason, when I go to the Jihadwatch main page, it does not show the November 18 articles on Firefox or Microsoft Edge — at least from where I am. (I’m in southern Ontario, Canada). However, I am able to see the Nov 18th articles on Internet Explorer. Strange. Anyone else having this problem? I’ve encountered this before when attempting to access Jihadwatch.
gravenimage says
I’m not having this problem, Rod–but then, I’m using Google Chrome.
You might want to contact Jihad Watch tech guy Marc Louis, and see if he has any suggestions.
Angemon says
Working fine on FF, at least here and now.
Jack Diamond says
Good to see you again, Angemon.
Angemon says
´The feeling is mutual, JD 😉
mortimer says
In 1921, the Emirate of Transjordan was created, transferring 77% of the territory of the original Palestine Mandate to Arab control and creating the Jewish Agency which was to develop the Jewish home.
It is clear in hindsight, that the UK did not know how to proceed and so adopted of policy of stalling. The US is now stalling too. The entirety of Mandatory Palestine that was assigned for Jewish settlement should finally be recognized as Israel and the this matter should be put behind us.
Jordan is the Arab-only, apartheid zone of the former Palestine Mandate. 77% is what they got. Jews have an irrefutable connection with the land of Israel which is confirmed by several passages in the Koran as well.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Hear, hear!
Every deal the Israelis try to make potentially carves out more land from their homeland. They need to realize that “peace for land” does not work with these people. Instead, they should be TAKING more land. Why not? No matter what they do, the so-called Palestinians will whine and play the victim.
J D S says
Israel just needs to take back ALL the land originally GIVEN to them by GOD…The PROMISED repeat, PROMISED Land.
DBM echo says
Peace efforts with Muslims?
That ship sailed, and sank, long, long ago.
gravenimage says
Trump administration threatens to shut down Palestinian office in DC
…………………
*Good*.
Wellington says
But I am very much inclined to think, gravenimage, it’s just posturing. Which goes to that real problem I have mentioned several times before, to wit, Trump has the right instincts but not nearly enough knowledge. Just look at the mediocrities he has surrounded himself by for confirmation here (yeah, imagine what Jeff Sessions really knows about Islam——and he’s better than others like McMaster).
Here’s what’s ideal (and so sorely needed respecting the abomination which is Islam): A man (or woman) with Trump’s instincts and Quincy Adams’ knowledge————and the political savvy and wealth to put oneself in a position of power to effect such a combination and thereafter act accordingly.
None of such in sight, no? And Islam and the Left continue to profit by this particular absence, rare but necessary though it surely is. Boy, do they ever. Yes, Trump is a step in the right direction (no Leftist gets this and many on the Right, e.g., RINOs like McCain and Graham, don’t as well), but we need several steps in the right direction to preserve freedom from those twin enemies of liberty, Islam and modern Leftism. One step here and there simply won’t do.
Freedom and other good things remain in deep peril. No doubt. Trump is just not enough. A Churchill or Lincoln is needed. None in sight.
mortimer says
Agree. Trump is a quick study. He is an expert on economics, but not on history or jihadology. His advisors are not fully informed about jihad and they bluff.
Proud Anti-Islam says
hey, mortimer.
you are very stupid and very closed minded. shut your mouth.
Proud Anti-Islam says
I would like to see Trump close the Palestinian Office. Those Palestinians are nothing, but evil and troublemakers for Islam.
Wellington says
Mortimer is far from stupid nor he is closed minded. Many here at JW admire his in depth knowledge of Islam and his many insights. Moreover, I essentially agree with mortimer’s 8:53 P.M. post above, with the semi-exception that Trump may know more history than mortimer supposes he does, but this is a minor disagreement I have with him at most. That Trump does not have an in depth knowledge of Islam (ditto for his almost all his advisers) is pretty clear to me, though once again, and as mortimer observed, Trump is a quick study, and I do believe he has great street smarts, that is to say keen instincts about many things.
Darryl Kerney says
can someone here please help me out ?
surely someone knows the answer to my question,
i know i have read it in the quran but can’t remember where,
that merely opposing islam constitutes an act of war against islam.
what sura says that ?
Jack Diamond says
5:33 “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
Ibn Kathir on 5:33 says:
“the punishment of those who wage war against Allah & His Apostle & strive to make mischief (fasadan)* in the land is only this, they should be murdered or crucified or their hands & feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned” [* fasad meaning corruption, creating disorder by opposing God.]
Corruption in the land is…disorder by opposing God {i.e. opposing Islam}.
Shi’a scholar Aga Mahdi Puya:
“Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him… or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims.”
Opposing Islam is war against Allah and his Prophet.
We also have Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until there is no more fitnah (persecution or trial in religion, i.e. disbelief) and religion will be for Allah alone (in the whole world).”
Ibn Kathir, commenting on verse 8:39:
“(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more “Kufr”, disbelief).
“Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitna”. Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.”
Fitna, disbelief in Islam, or associating partners with Allah, is rebellion, requires fighting against, and is considered war against Allah and Muhammad {Islam}.
The war declared non-Muslims in surah 9:5 and 9:29 is based solely on their disbelief in Allah and Muhammad. War is declared on them because they have declared war on Islam. Dar al-Harb is the House of War, a war on Allah and Muhammad first. Rejecting the invitation to Islam by Muslims prior to jihad, is considered declaring war on Islam and invites attack. Such is the logic of Muslims.
“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah…invite them to accept Islam…if they refuse to accept Islam, demand for them the jizya..if they refuse to pay the tax seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim 4294). Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. That is their crime.
Muhammad: “I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me” (Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).
Jack Diamond says
This also refers to apostates from Islam, they also war against Islam and should die.
mortimer says
Darryl, the issue is this: A disbelieving kafir is considered in Sharia law to be AT WAR WITH ISLAM if he merely MENTIONS SOMETHING IMPERMISSIBLE ABOUT ISLAM. The punishment for this ‘FIGHTING ISLAM VERBALLY’ is death.
Sharia permits the MURDER of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
Sharia law even forbids the ‘mention’ of any Islamic topic by a dirty kafir.
Another Sharia manual states:
“We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear.” (i.e. the sentence is execution)- from Sharia law manual, “Qadhi Iyaadh in ash-Shifa”, Volume No.2, Page No. 27
-as-Suyuti writes: “(If they break their oaths…) This ayah (K. 9:11-12) is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam (VERBALLY) or the Qur’an or MENTIONS the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED, whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, ‘hopefully they will stop.’”
Darryl Kerney says
thanks mortimer, all good examples, still not the one i’m looking for though,
it was a clear proof that jihad is not just defensive but offensive, yes the R of T makes it clear in chapter O, Justice o9 Jihad, but i’m sure it was in the quran.
been looking through lists but still can’t find it.
mortimer says
Compliments to Jack Diamond for a superb understanding of FITNA.
Sadly, the doctrine of FITNA is not generally well known, but it is VITAL in understanding the MIND of Islam and the attitude of Muslims towards dirty kafirs.
Darryl Kerney says
thanks JD, yes those ones are indicative, but not what i wish i could remember where i read it.
it was a different one, it’s bugging me now that i can’t find it…..
Darryl Kerney says
it had to do with forbidding the killing of the innocent, and how unbelievers are not innocent….
Jack Diamond says
That is the gist of 5:32 and the real meaning of 5:33. Other echoes of the same thing:
“Those who do not call on any other god together with Allah and do not kill anyone God has made inviolate, except with the right to do so…” (Qur’an 25:68)
“that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate – except with the right to do so”. (Qur’an 6:151)
“Nor take life — which Allah has made sacred — except for just cause” 17:33
There is always that “except” and it means the unbelievers.
“Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)” 4:76
Darryl Kerney says
Thanks again JD,
I was chatting online with an imam yesterday who says he rejects the violent parts of islam, i said that’s great, but they’re still in there….
5:33 was one of my arguments.
Guess what, of course he used the standard “context” qualifier, big surprisre eh ?
I posted numerous suras like the ones you and gi mentioned, and hadith and R of the T passages from chapter O, Justice, i got the usual responses. another fellow chimed in with “half knowledge is a dangerous thing” LOL…..
The imam even claimed mo loved the jews…
Still searching for the part i read that gave me the Ah ha! moment, where it said that islam forbids the killing of innocents and then defined it as only muslims are innocent and that resisting islam is grounds for offensive war. It wasn’t just one sura, but spanned 2 or more.
Really hope i can find it, it was a great rebuttal to the “islam only allows defensive war” narrative, as chapter O section 9 of the R of T makes clear is false.
RodSerling says
Hi Darryl,
Plenty of verses in the Qur’an say that disbelievers are not innocent, that disbelief is the worst crime, and so on (see the linked article below, regarding 5:32-33).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/does-the-koran-forbid-the-killing-of-non-muslims/
Regarding 5:32-33 and the types of offenses that fall under the category of War against Allah, the passage does not give examples of what War against Allah is, and as far as I can recall–it’s been some years since I’ve studied it–the Qur’an does not really clarify it. The Qur’an, for the most part, is just not that precise in terms of legal and narrative contextual detail. Also, the Qur’an does not outright say that “opposing Islam” (e.g., disagreeing with it publicly, advocating against sharia punishments, etc.) in and of itself constitutes “War against Allah (and his prophet),” but that seems to be a reasonable interpretation, given how much the Qur’an rants and rails against those who don’t go along with Muhammad’s program. At least one passage comes close, though, and that is 9:12 is where Muslims are ordered to fight and kill (q-t-l) those who “revile your religion.” What’s not clear from that passage or indeed the Qur’an overall is whether “reviling” Islam is itself grounds for warfare, or just one in a list of grievances cited that are used to drum up the motivation for warfare.
The practical question is what do Muslim authorities and Muslims generally think ought to be the policy against non-Muslims who disagree with it or oppose it, and what are those policies as actually implemented by Muslims. Most of them think opposing Islam in words alone is enough to warrant severe punishments, and it is no surprise that people are punished for offending Islam in Islamic countries. In past centuries, for dhimmis under Islamic law, reviling Islam or insulting Muhammad would likely get them killed, as those expressions violate of one of the core tenets of the dhimmi pact.
There are also, of course, more well-known verses such as 9:5 and 9:29 that give open-ended commands to fight and kill (q-t-l) non-Muslims if they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to accept subjugation and the demand to pay the jizya. Then there is 9:123, which commands Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims who are around them. In these three verses, (despite apologetics to the contrary) no aggression on the part of non-Muslims is required; they are simply fought for who they are, and are to be brought under Islamic rule.
In Islam, disbelief is illegal and has to be controlled, through policies such as the dhimmi pact, blasphemy laws and other restrictions on non-Muslim practices and expressions, and various forms of jihad from verbal rebuke to rape and beheading, depending on how much power Muslims have compared to non-Muslims.
Darryl Kerney says
thanks Rod, good info.
for sure the “Disbelief is worse than killing” aspect is significant, and the idea that oppressing muslims consists of resisting the spread of islam.
i guess I’ll run across the part I’m trying to find eventually, but as you and others have already pointed out, there are many parts that say not believing is unacceptable.
chapter O5.4 of the R of T says,
“05.4 (0: There is no expiation for killing someone
who has left Islam, a highwayman (def: 015),
or a convicted married adulterer, even when
someone besides the caliph kills him.)
also, i find it very revealing that the quran says allah chooses who believes and who doesn’t, and then punishes the unbelievers, how is that fair if they have no choice ?
quran 2:7 –
” Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.”
and R of T O1.2
see #2, and #4 which justifies “honor” killing…
01.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(I) a child or insane person, under any circumstances
(0: whether Muslim or non-Muslim.
The ruling for a person intermittently insane is
that he is considered as a sane person when in his
right mind, and as if someone continuously insane
when in an interval of insanity. If someone against
whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently
becomes insane, the fuB penalty is nevertheless
exacted, A homicide committed by someone who
is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a
sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis:
n1.2));
(2) A MUSLIM FOR KILLING A NON-MUSLIM;
(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the
Islamic state for killing an apostatefrom Islam (0:
because a subject of the state is under its protection,
while killing an apostate from Islam is without
consequences);
(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or
mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s
offspring;
(5) nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant
for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose
death would otherwise entitle the descendant to
retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.
and O8.4
o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate
(0: or any expiation, since it is killing someone
who deserves to die)……
J D S says
Now does not these few WRITINGS, QUOTES, ETC.by Jack Diamond and others, give enough proof that Islam itself ,even though established by an individual,who has never been proven to have ever existed, is something that should be abhorred by every civilized nation to the point of eradication and not just the Palestinians either.
Voytek Gagalka says
The Trump administration is naive in extreme to even think that any lasting peace is possible between so called “Palestinians” and Israel. To know why, they should better read independently for themselves (without diluting and distorting influence from the Pope Francis and the former Secretary of State, Kerry) what is really contained in Qur’an. Sure, they would run the risk to find themselves on infamous proscription list of the SPLC as “haters” and be called “Islamophobic,” but there is simply no other way or avoidance of that!
R Russell says
Of course the true ‘Palestinians’ are Jewish and not Arab. The Bible tells us the descendants of the son of Hagar will be at war with the descendants of the son of Sarah. It has been going on since Abraham foolishly listened to Sarah and slept with her Egyptian maid. It will come to an end. There will be no peace until the Prince of Peace returns when every eye will see him.
Trump is surrounded by praying Christians whom I’m sure know which countries will rise up against Israel. I’m sure that means Trump knows too. It will be in the not to distant future.
Mark A says
Why has it taken so long to close down the PA office?
It’s not the first time Abbas and/or other senior figures in the PA kleptocracy have made comments like this.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
They didn’t put the Ikwan on the terrorist organization list (mostly because of Tillerson). That is far more important than any gesture like this. So I’m not holding my breath.
Ren says
Shut down all islamic related organizations.
Guest says
Is that a threat or a promise?
Infidel says
Peace and Islam do not mix at all..
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
This is a wicked madness from Mad Devil Trump. how can one imagine that a call for Investigation of atrocities committed by fascist Zionist state of Israhell is a violation of a law? which draconian law is that?
JawsV says
Just can it with your crap, in-bred Mohammedan.
Angemon says
Have you tried reading the article, itface? Or is the law only applicable when it suits you?
Yitz says
Poor ibraham. His total hatred has made him totally irrationa
cjmcd says
Is it not written in the koran that it is okay for “believers” aka, followers of the koran, to deceive “non-believers” aka, everyone else, until the “believers” become strong enough to overcome the “non-believers?” No one who is a “non-believer” should really expect a muslim, a believer, to tell the truth if they are true believers, now should they.
ploome says
just do it
duh swami says
Might as well shut the office now,,,There will be no peace with Israel unless Allah wills it, and that is not going to happen anytime soon…