Washington’s New Islamic Front

[kawilt]

Washington’s New Islamic Front: Expanded U.S. Support to Al Qaeda Rebels in Syria
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 15, 2013
Url of this article:
Washington’s New Islamic Front: Expanded U.S. Support to Al Qaeda Rebels in Syria | Global Research


From the outset, the Western military alliance has (covertly) supported the terrorists with a view to destabilizing Syria as a nation state.
Lest we forget, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA.
The US, NATO, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have channeled most of their support to the Al Qaeda brigades, which are also integrated by Western Special Forces.
British and French Special Forces have been actively training opposition rebels from a base in Turkey.
Israel has provided a safe have to Al Qaeda affiliated rebels in the occupied Golan Heights.
Western special forces have been training the rebels in the use of chemical weapons in Jordan.
NATO and the Turkish High command have been involved in the development of a jihad involving the recruitment of thousands of “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria. (Debkafile, August 31, 2011). Debka, August 2011 emphasis added)
This is a war of aggression. It is not a civil war.
The New Islamic Front
The Al Qaeda fighters integrated by mercenaries, trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar constitute the mainstay of so-called opposition forces, which have been involved in countless atrocities and terrorist acts directed against the civilian population from the outset in March 2011.
The existence of “more moderate opposition brigades” supported by the West is a myth. They exist in name, they do not constitute a meaningful military force. They are not the object of significant support by their Western handlers, who prefer to channel their aid to the Al Qaeda affiliated brigades.
The FSA and its Supreme Military Command essentially serve as a front organization. The SMC under the helm of General Salim Idriss has largely been used to channel support to the terrorists.
In recent developments, fighting has broke out between the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels covertly supported by the West and the more moderate FSA brigades, officially supported by the West.
Having “expressed their concern”, US officials have announced the holding of talks with the rebel commanders of the New Islamic Front (created in November).
The objective, however, is not to mediate between opposing factions. What is contemplated are new procedures for channeling support to the Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists, through the newly created Islamic Front umbrella organization.
The New Islamic Front regroups six or seven major rebel entities, including the former Syrian Islamic Front ( ?????? ????????? ???????? al-Jabhah al-Isl?miyya as-S?riyyah) which constituted a Salafist umbrella organisation. The Salafist Ahrar al-Sham was the lead entity of the (defunct) SIF. The latter has been disbanded and integrated (under a new label) into the New Islamic Front, which is working hand in glove with Washington.
The expected contacts between Washington and the radical fighters reflect the extent to which the [New] Islamic Front alliance has eclipsed the more moderate Free Syrian Army brigades — which Western and Arab powers tried in vain to build into a force able to topple President Bashar Al Assad. The talks could also decide the future direction of the Islamic Front, which is engaged in a standoff with yet more radical Sunni Muslim fighters from the Al Qaeda-linked Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
A rebel fighter with the Islamic Front said he expected the talks in Turkey to discuss whether the United States would help arm the front and assign to it responsibility for maintaining order in the rebel-held areas of northern Syria.
The Islamic Front rebel told reporters that rivalry with the ISIL had already led to a spate of hostage-taking between the two sides, and that the Front’s decision to talk to the Americans had further escalated tension. Although he described the two Islamist forces as ideologically close, he said ISIL appeared set on confrontation, perhaps encouraged by some of their backers in Saudi Arabia. (Gulf Today, December 13, 2013)
Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert Stephen Ford has been involved in negotiations with the Islamic Front. Ford had established contact with New Islamic Front leaders in November.
The involvement of Ambassador Ford should come as no surprise. He was one of the main architects of the death squad brigades sent into Syria, starting in March 2011. He has, no doubt, been in permanent liaison with Al Qaeda rebel commanders from the outset of the insurgency.
Robert S. Ford had previously worked at the US embassy in Baghdad (2004-2005) under the helm of Ambassador John D. Negroponte. He played a key role in implementing the Pentagon’s “Iraq Salvador Option”. The latter consisted in supporting Iraqi death squadrons and paramilitary forces modeled on the experience of Central America. With regard to Syria, the US State Department has been collaborating with several US intelligence agencies and the Pentagon is overseeing US support to rebel forces in Syria.
A Syria policy committee was created in 2012. It involved the participation of Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford, former CIA director David Petraeus, Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Derek Chollet, Principal Deputy Director of Clinton’s Policy Planning Staff at the State Department.
Under Jeffrey Feltman’s supervision, the actual recruitment of terrorist mercenaries, however, is carried out in Qatar and Saudi Arabia in liaison with senior intelligence officials from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Libya and NATO. The former Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, who remains a key member of Saudi intelligence, is said to be working with the Feltman group in Doha. (Michel Chossudovsky, “The Salvador Option For Syria”: US-NATO Sponsored Death Squads Integrate “Opposition Forces”, Global Research, 28 May 2012)
Expanded US Support to Al Qaeda Affiliated Rebels in Syria
What the US and its allies are establishing are new effective “direct channels” for increasing their support to their Al Qaeda foot soldiers, essentially using the new Islamic Front as a “Go Between”. This procedure is contemplated following the apparent demise of the Supreme Military Command of the FSA.
Until recently US and allied support to Al Qaeda was channeled to the rebels through an indirect route, namely through Supreme military Command (SMC) commander General Salim Idriss.
General Idriss is reported to have fled Syria for Doha, “as a result of the Islamic Front taking over his headquarters.” The takeover of SMC headquarters has, according to reports
“prompted the United States and Britain to announce [December 11] that they were suspending non-lethal aid to northern Syria, due to fears of equipment ending up in the wrong hands.”
This again is a smokescreen: the New Islamic Front which attacked the SMC headquarters is working in close liaison with its Western handlers including Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford.
Washington intends to use the Islamic Front to channel its support to the more radical Al Qaeda factions including Al Nusrah which, according to reports, has established ties to the New Islamic Front.
The Obama Administration has committed itself to “an expanded Syrian insurgency that includes the recently-formed Islamic Front”:
The Front has been pressing for inclusion in the SMC, and wants to be represented at the Geneva talks, according to rebel commanders. … Ex-Ambassador Ford is traveling to London on Friday to meet other international backers of the opposition, and then to Turkey for discussions with the Syrian National Coalition. He may also meet there with the Islamic Front, said the senior official. (EA World View, December 13, 2013
The propaganda ploy is to portray the new Islamic Front as “moderate”. With the FSA Supreme Military Command in disarray, Washington’s objective is to provide a semblance of legitimacy to the insurrection largely integrated by the Western military alliance’s Al Qaeda foot soldiers.
The creation of a pro-US Islamic Front serves that purpose, namely to channel money and weapons directly to the rebels via the new Islamic Front umbrella organization.
Copyright © 2013 Global Research

 

[nuncaquite]

They reported this like it was news. I knew, you knew, we all knew. The exact details maybe not, but we knew. What a bunch of dumb asses we have in DC

 

[kawilt]

But you know, I still get a lot of blank stares from everyday people at work when I mention things like this. There are people who don't seem to have a clue about what's going on around them.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

But you know, I still get a lot of blank stares from everyday people at work when I mention things like this. There are people who don't seem to have a clue about what's going on around them.

Spot on. There are people who actually believe Islam is a religion of peace.

 

[pittbox]

But you know, I still get a lot of blank stares from everyday people at work when I mention things like this. There are people who don't seem to have a clue about what's going on around them.

Hit that nail on the fucking head!
I think most people just don't want to believe things like this are happening so they just choose to ignore it in one way or another.

 

[nuncaquite]

Spot on. There are people who actually believe Islam is a religion of peace.

You surprise me with this comment. Islam is a peaceful religion.
When you believe to the letter what they believe. You can live in peace.
If you dont believe as them. You die in piece---s.

 

[TheGuy85]

Oh yeah Islam is so terrible, Saudi Arabia, the poster child for Islam must be our biggest enemy and evil murderous sons of bitches because we hear about the Saudis doing so much to hurt Americans. Oh wait the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been holding hands for how long? No Saudi Arabia doesn't have intelligence agencies that thwart terror cells, no they aren't considered an ally of the U.S. Nope the terrorists and Saudis are on the same page, that's why they try assassinating Saudi princes http://www.nowpublic.com/world/saudi-prince-injured-sucide-bomb-attack. Get your facts straight, there are different sects of Muslims the main sect denouncing terrorists calling them heretics for their misguided beliefs. Oh yeah and lets not forget Americans do reside in developed Islamic countries and are safe (military and business). Lets not forget the Saudis allowed the U.S. to put military bases in their country. Don't buy into the right wing propaganda it is just as stupid and distasteful as the left wings.

I do agree that these "rebel" groups overthrowing leaders are made up of terrorists and the U.S. is aiding some bad people (think Cold War, Russians, Afghanistan). Overthrowing these evil dictators could be a future problem if extremist Islamic factions take over in the future.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Oh yeah Islam is so terrible, Saudi Arabia, the poster child for Islam must be our biggest enemy and evil murderous sons of bitches because we hear about the Saudis doing so much to hurt Americans. Oh wait the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been holding hands for how long? No Saudi Arabia doesn't have intelligence agencies that thwart terror cells, no they aren't considered an ally of the U.S. Nope the terrorists and Saudis are on the same page, that's why they try assassinating Saudi princes http://www.nowpublic.com/world/saudi-prince-injured-sucide-bomb-attack. Get your facts straight, there are different sects of Muslims the main sect denouncing terrorists calling them heretics for their misguided beliefs. Oh yeah and lets not forget Americans do reside in developed Islamic countries and are safe (military and business). Lets not forget the Saudis allowed the U.S. to put military bases in their country. Don't buy into the right wing propaganda it is just as stupid and distasteful as the left wings.

You exemplify the type of person mentioned above by your inability to distinguish the religion of Islam from people who happen to be muslim.

I don't "buy into propaganda" - from the left or the right. My interest lies in finding the truth, whatever that may be. You on the otherhand, have apparently bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

Before telling others to "get your facts straight," I suggest you do some reading on the tenets of Islam if you wish to engage in this debate.

 

[TheGuy85]

I am well versed in Qur'an, Sunnah, Tafsir, and Islamic verdicts. I could infiltrate a fucking terror cell, the only thing that would make me suspicious is being a white American.

 

[TheGuy85]

Did your knowledge of the "tenets" of Islam come from a scholar or a student of knowledge or any of their writings or lectures? And are these scholars of the minhaj of the salaf? If not your source of information is jacked.

I am not going to sit here and say that Islam encourages passivity, in fact it encourage the opposite. When a person encounters something evil he should stop it, if he cannot with his hand, than with his tongue, and if not with his tongue in his heart he must know that it is wrong. The religion of Islam turned tribes of savages who practiced polytheism and gross immorality into moral upstanding people. If you want to argue the injustices of the Shari'ah, again who did you learn Islamic Law from b/c there are a lot of deviant sects who practice innovation.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I am well versed in Qur'an, Sunnah, Tafsir, and Islamic verdicts. I could infiltrate a fucking terror cell, the only thing that would make me suspicious is being a white American.

I find it ironic that you are trying to argue Islam is a religion of peace, yet you state you are so versed in Islamic teachings that you could "infiltrate a fucking terror cell."

Regardless, if you are truly versed in the Qur'an, Sunnah, the hadiths and sira, then you would be well aware that Islam, at its very heart, is a warrior religion.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Did your knowledge of the "tenets" of Islam come from a scholar or a student of knowledge or any of their writings or lectures? And are these scholars of the minhaj of the salaf? If not your source of information is jacked.

I am not going to sit here and say that Islam encourages passivity, in fact it encourage the opposite. When a person encounters something evil he should stop it, if he cannot with his hand, than with his tongue, and if not with his tongue in his heart he must know that it is wrong. The religion of Islam turned tribes of savages who practiced polytheism and gross immorality into moral upstanding people. If you want to argue the injustices of the Shari'ah, again who did you learn Islamic Law from b/c there are a lot of deviant sects who practice innovation.

Those "tribes of savages" were almost entirely Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus and Buddists. Hardly a group of people that one might consider guilty of "gross immorality" or in need of saving (by the sword) with "Islamic" morality.

Despite the protests from muslim leaders and Islamic apologists, Pope Benedict XVI, in his Regensburg address, was not wrong when he used 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos' quote: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Ironically, Constantinople fell in 1453... to Islam.

 

[TheGuy85]

I never said Islam was a religion of "peace". The Jewish tribes were however offered peace treaties and lived peacefully amongst the Muslim population during the time of Muhammad. The Jewish tribes betrayed the treaty one by one and were kicked out of Madina due to their constant betrayal (assassination attempts on Muhammad, helping the polytheists of Mecca at the time fight against the Muslims.) The Byzantines attacked the Muslims first during the time of Muhammad. At one point Jews and Christians lived in Jerusalem under Muslim rule "peacefully". The people I was referring to were the polytheists of Mecca and the bedouins who raped, plundered, and circumambulated around the Kaba naked. Treaties of peace were offered during the time of Muhammad and the jizyah was paid, and the the people were protected by the Muslims. Lol, quote a pope, join the Catholic church so you can buy your way into heaven. The hypocrisy of the Church, didn't they raid Jerusalem and knock down the Jews temples, all while raping and plundering, I am sure Jesus didn't tell them to do that. Oh, how about the Spanish Inquisition. Your version of history was not during the time of Muhammad because if you knew the history you would see in every instance another tribe or nation betrayed a treaty with the Muslims or didn't accept the treaty at all. People were NOT forced to say la illaha illallah, instead they could keep their religion and practice it upon agreeing to the treaty offered by the Muslims. This is mentioned in authentic hadith. Better yet, read The Sealed Nectar and you would probably get a better understanding of the history of Islam during the time of Muhammad.

"Know that Paradise lies under the shade of swords." Martyrdom is highly regarded in the religion of Islam, however Jihad has to be declared under certain conditions. “Whoever kills a person, unless [as punishment through due process] for murder or mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I never said Islam was a religion of "peace". The Jewish tribes were however offered peace treaties and lived peacefully amongst the Muslim population during the time of Muhammad.

You certainly view Islam with rose colored glasses. These "treatises" amounted to the Jews becoming dhimmis or second class citizens, forced to pay a tax (jizya) to their muslim overlords.

The Jewish tribes betrayed the treaty one by one and were kicked out of Madina due to their constant betrayal (assassination attempts on Muhammad, helping the polytheists of Mecca at the time fight against the Muslims.) The Byzantines attacked the Muslims first during the time of Muhammad.

And your point is what? Those pesky Jews didn't like being forced to live as second class citizens? The nerve of them!

At one point Jews and Christians lived in Jerusalem under Muslim rule "peacefully".

There are those rose colored glasses again. No infidel has ever lived "peacefully" under muslim rule without being reduced to dhimmi status.

The people I was referring to were the polytheists of Mecca and the bedouins who raped, plundered, and circumambulated around the Kaba naked.

IOW's, the complete opposite of Muhammed and his band of merry men.

Treaties of peace were offered during the time of Muhammad and the jizyah was paid, and the the people were protected by the Muslims.

As dhimmis, not equals.

Lol, quote a pope, join the Catholic church so you can buy your way into heaven. The hypocrisy of the Church, didn't they raid Jerusalem and knock down the Jews temples, all while raping and plundering, I am sure Jesus didn't tell them to do that.

No, Jesus did not instruct his followers to commit violence, unlike Muhammed

Oh, how about the Spanish Inquisition. Your version of history was not during the time of Muhammad because if you knew the history you would see in every instance another tribe or nation betrayed a treaty with the Muslims or didn't accept the treaty at all. People were NOT forced to say la illaha illallah, instead they could keep their religion and practice it upon agreeing to the treaty offered by the Muslims.

Dude! Do you not see how utterly ridiculous your argument is? These treatises you keep talking about require infidels accept dhimmi status, become second class citizens and pay the jizya. LMFAO!

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This is mentioned in authentic hadith. Better yet, read The Sealed Nectar and you would probably get a better understanding of the history of Islam during the time of Muhammad.

"Know that Paradise lies under the shade of swords." Martyrdom is highly regarded in the religion of Islam, however Jihad has to be declared under certain conditions. “Whoever kills a person, unless [as punishment through due process] for murder or mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)

Sounds nice doesn't it. The problem is that verse was abrogated by several others, including this one:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

[kawilt]

You certainly view Islam with rose colored glasses. These "treatises" amounted to the Jews becoming dhimmis or second class citizens, forced to pay a tax (jizya) to their muslim overlords.

I


And your point is what? Those pesky Jews didn't like being forced to live as second class citizens? The nerve of them!



There are those rose colored glasses again. No infidel has ever lived "peacefully" under muslim rule without being reduced to dhimmi status.




IOW's, the complete opposite of Muhammed and his band of merry men.




As dhimmis, not equals.



No, Jesus did not instruct his followers to commit violence, unlike Muhammed




Dude! Do you not see how utterly ridiculous your argument is? These treatises you keep talking about require infidels accept dhimmi status, become second class citizens and pay the jizya. LMFAO!

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.




Sounds nice doesn't it. The problem is that verse was abrogated by several others, including this one:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

It's a tangled ball of thread over there. I'm sure a lot of you are somewhat familiar with the Talmud. Looks like the tables have turned for the Jews on who's a second class "citizen" or really a citizen at all. I listen to proponents of the Muslims, and I listen to the supporters of the Jews, and then the Christians put their two cents in. It becomes quite a confusing subject with all the "conflicting" perspective quotes (taken out of context from the some writings) from all sides.
All I know (I think) is that this shit is not going to get straightened out. Plenty of places left to send the troops.

by Robert Lindsay | March 9, 2012 · 7:55 PM

? Jump to Comments

“Is Israel Sovereign?” by Roy Tov


A very interesting article by Roy Tov asks a lot of interesting questions about Israel. I’m not completely sure what to make of all of these arguments, most of which center around legal notions, especially ideas dealing with international law. You are invited to read the article and comment on it if you can understand the concepts he is talking about here.

Roy Tov is an interesting fellow. An Israeli Jew who converted to Christianity and then left the country, he was attacked, apparently by Israeli operatives, where he was living in Bolivia. He suffered permanent damage to his throat and he can barely even speak anymore.

He is trying to get citizenship in a foreign country, preferably Iran, so Israeli agents can’t attack him anymore, but he has not been successful. He is currently being watched by Israeli operatives in Bolivia who work in concert with Bolivian police.


“This is another funny term from Political Sciences,” I told myself. After all, no self-defined sovereign state can decide that the sun would rise on the west tomorrow. In theological terms, the only possible sovereign is God. Yet, to make this argument clearer, I adopted the definitions used in Political Sciences texts and the media. A short definition of the term claims that sovereignty is the right to exercise the highest authority by the law within a territory.

The key point is the exclusivity of jurisdiction. When a decision is made by a sovereign entity, it cannot be overruled, in most cases, by any other authority.

The current notions of state sovereignty were defined in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, and include territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state rather than the Church; the sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority. Another significant change occurred by the end of the 18th Century, when the American Constitution of 1787 and the French Revolution of 1789 shifted the possession of sovereignty from the king to the people. However, how can such power be achieved?

There are two parameters that allow recognition of the existence of sovereignty: internal and external. Internal sovereignty refers to the relations between the sovereign and its own subjects; it deals with the question: by what right does the sovereign exercise authority over its subjects? In the past, the most common answer was by divine right. Nowadays, a social contract, like a Constitution, is the norm.

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between sovereign entities. Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory and its denizens, or not. This parameter is not exact; in the near past, the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China claimed sovereignty over the same territory. Different countries adopted different answers on the issue.

This fluid definition of external sovereignty proves it is less valuable than internal sovereignty. Hence, the latter is de facto its defining property. A state can exist without external sovereignty, but it would fail without an internal one.

Sovereignty may be recognized even when the sovereign possesses no territory or when its territory is under occupation by another sovereign entity. It happened to the Holy See during the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870 and the signing of the Lateran Treaties in 1929, when it was recognized as a sovereign state and was granted Vatican City.

Since it lost Malta to Napoleon, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta rules only over two properties in Rome, but is widely recognized, and is even an observer at the UN. Occupied European countries during WWII were still recognized as sovereign states. Even under this strained condition, these entities kept their sovereignty because their subjects recognized it and fought for it.

If they had lost the people’s support during the occupation period, they would have been effectively terminated. This happened with many political entities during human history; under this test, the sovereignty awarded by the people has been proved as being more stable than the one relying on a king.

The latter disappears more easily, especially if the king and his heirs are killed in a war against other sovereign states. Thus, the key issue while testing sovereignty is its endorsement by the individuals comprising it.

In modern states, the acquisition of sovereignty by the state is defined by a social contract. This is often based on a single document, a constitution, which is ratified by the people, and later expanded into laws by a legislative body. This is the case with countries defined as democracies. Among these, the UK doesn’t have a constitution but has replaced it with a legal practice spanning several centuries.

Political power originates in the people. Benjamin Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, “In free governments, the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.” Thomas Jefferson said in 1799: “The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself.”

On November 29, 1947, Resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly decided to divide Palestine between Jews and Palestinians and this became the basis of the external recognition of the State of Israel by other sovereign entities.

On May 15, 1948, Israel’s Declaration of Independence was issued by a small group of people led by David Ben-Gurion. They didn’t have a formal and popular consent for that. Moreover, the declaration was never ratified by popular vote, though it was recognized by several states.

The new state never issued a social contract. Israel has no constitution and thus never ratified one. That means the State of Israel never got its people’s consent to be a sovereign entity, in other words, a state. The recent Basic Laws legislated by the Knesset—the Israeli Parliament—are a fig leaf. The state claims they are the basis for a future constitution.

However, they do not properly cover key issues like human rights, were subject to arbitrary changes due to needs of coalition governments, and were never ratified by the people. In a secondary issue, the entity doesn’t have a defined territory; there are neither internal nor external resolutions awarding the State of Israel a well defined territory.

A problem deriving from the latter is: Who are the sovereign’s subjects? Again, the State of Israel fails to fulfill the basic requisites to become a sovereign entity.

Under these circumstances, the external recognition of Israel is baseless; the recognition of other sovereigns, especially those defining themselves as democracies, of a non-ratified entity which has obviously not been invested by God, contradicts their own social contracts and thus would not stand a serious test.

The internal recognition of Israel is not an issue since it has never been ratified by its subjects. State propaganda over the local and international media cannot change the absolute fact that the State of Israel is not a sovereign entity.

Israel’s Independence Declaration was printed in an elegant fashion; but it has no legal value. Even its declarative value is questionable: it expresses only the opinion of those who signed it. They didn’t have the people’s mandate to do that and totally ignored the human rights issue, mainly because of Ben Gurion’s assessment that they needed the support of Orthodox Jews support to form a stable coalition government.

The latter recognized only the Talmud and related texts as a basis for the legal system; yet, the Talmud and the Mishna are not compatible with modern definitions of human rights. However, the main reason it is void of value, is that the state itself denies it.

In the eyes of the State of Israel authorities, one of the problems of the declaration is that it promises: “freedom, justice and peace,” “complete social and national equal rights to all its citizens without difference of religion, race or gender,” and “securing freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture, will keep the Holy Places of all religions and will be faithful to the United Nations.”

These are uncomfortable promises. Until now, all the Israeli governments were based upon coalitions that included political parties that couldn’t agree to some of these promises. The main problems were imposed always by the Ultra Orthodox Jewish parties, like Agudat Israel and Shas.

Avoiding the problem, the Knesset claims the declaration is neither a law nor an ordinary legal document. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the declaration contains guiding principles, that it is not binding constitutional law. Nowadays, Knesset laws are enforced even if they are inconsistent with the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

Placed in an uncomfortable position on the international arena, the Knesset legislated two basic laws—the Human Dignity and Liberty and Freedom of Occupation ones—stating that “fundamental human rights in Israel will be honored.” However, these laws fail to give an exact definition.

Another landmine in the independence declaration is the claim that Israel will be faithful to the UN principles; this is another reason for the formal institutions of the State of Israel to be declared void of legal value. On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine into a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. Special areas, like Jerusalem, would be under the direct administration of the UN.

An overlooked part of that decision was a formal minority rights protection system. The protection was to be enforced by the UN and the International Court of Justice. Thus, twice in the declaration, Israel promises to be nice to the minorities; once explicitly by promising equality and second implicitly by promising to be faithful to the UN, which promised protection to those minorities.

Subsequently, Israel claimed these minority rights were constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel through the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various letters addressed to the Secretary General.

These assurances were the basis for the General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, from May 11, 1949. Reality was different. One irregularity—the lack of a formal constitution or any other social contract—gave birth to another.

The Law of Return gives automatic and immediate citizenship to every Jew arriving in Israel. A Jew is defined in that law as a person born Jewish (with a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), with a Jewish ancestry (with a Jewish father or grandfather) or a convert to Orthodox Judaism (Reform and Conservative converts are recognized only if performed outside the State of Israel, Messianic Jews are rejected).

The basis for this racist law is what is known as “jus sanguinis” in Latin, namely the “Blood Law.” In ancient times, it was used to attribute citizenship on the basis of family relations. However, the Law of Return denies citizenship to Jews who have converted out of their free will. Did their blood change during the conversion process?

Later, the law was amended to include non-Jewish relatives of Jews, but it never recognized the Right of Return of other ancestral denizens of the land that were expelled during the wars: the Palestinians. For them, “jus sanguinis” does not exist. Again, that is despite the earlier promises of equality. In a related discrimination, the Arab citizens of the State of Israel were under military government until 1966, while the Jewish citizens were not.

An important point to keep in mind is that the Israeli citizens, regardless of their ethnic background and religion, were never allowed to give their opinion. This discriminating principle was never put to the democratic test. Due to its importance to the nature of the Israeli society, it should have been.

The Law of Return gives citizenship to Jews arriving in Israel. However, an intrinsic flaw accompanies it: “Who is a Jew?” “If your mother was, or…” is the argument presented by that law to answer the question. However, they have created only a recursive trap; the same question would apply to the testifier of one’s “Jewishness,” ad infinitum. Who would testify for King David’s mother?

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which is part of the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs and is most of the time controlled by Ultra Orthodox Jewish parties, has been the authority deciding on “Who is a Jew?” until now due to coalitional considerations, but this is a questionable practice. Non-Orthodox religious Jews do not accept it, because the Ultra-Orthodox refuse to recognize their conversions.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that conversions performed by the latter outside Israel must be recognized, but those inside Israel not. What? Is one’s religion dependent on geographical issues? Absurd as it seems, eleven out of twelve of the most respected judges in Israel claimed that one’s conscience on the issue is irrelevant; your religion may be defined by your trajectory upon earth. They claimed that and are still considered wise; moreover, a whole country abides by this rule.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law from 2003 places age restrictions for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits to spouses of Israeli citizens, such that spouses who are inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are ineligible. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination unanimously approved a resolution stating that this law violated an international human rights treaty against racism.

The decision was adopted because this law disproportionately affects Israeli Arabs, since they are far more likely to have spouses from the West Bank and Gaza Strip than other Israeli citizens. Yet, Israel continues to claim it is a democratic country securing the rights of minorities. Again, Israel just ignores its own commitments towards its citizens and the international community.

When considering the Law of Return, then the parallel Palestinians’ right must also be assessed. This Right of Return was defined by the UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Article 11 of that resolution states:

“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

Judging by the results, it seems that Israel’s Independence Declaration promise to be faithful to the UN does not include uncomfortable resolutions.

This right has since then been ratified several times. The 1974 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236, recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self determination, and makes the contacts between the United Nations and the Palestine Liberation Organization official. It also states that it: “Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.”

Again, Israel just ignores its own commitments towards its citizens and the international community. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Israel ignores that.

“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country,” says the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Israel ignores that. Simply, the Palestinians are not Jews, and thus are not recognized by the Law of Return. The Talmud teaches in Baba Bathra Folio 54b that non-Jews have no property rights. Their possessions are “like unclaimed land in the desert.” The passage appears on page 222 of the Soncino edition: “Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land; whoever first occupies it acquires ownership.”

Doesn’t the occupation of Palestine appear now in a new light?

On the other hand, Israel accepted massive numbers of non-Jews during various Aliyah waves. The most remarkable one was during the 1990’s when over a million people entered from the former USSR to Israel under the protection of the Law of Return. Orthodox sources claimed that well over a hundred thousand of them were Christians seeking to leave their former Communist state.

I have enjoyed underground Christmas meals with some of them; underground because openly celebrating the Prince of Peace is forbidden in Israel.

In another impossible angle of the Israeli reality, settlers in the West Bank live next to Palestinians. I have visited both. The Palestinians are void of citizenship, cannot move freely and cannot even marry their beloved ones if these are Israeli citizens (one case reached the Supreme Court in 2006 and the sublime and wise judges rejected the marriage).

The settlers are outside the territory of the State of Israel, yet they enjoy all the regular rights of an Israeli citizen. In my exiled location, I cannot vote for the Israeli Parliament because it is not within Israel; yet, the settlers can vote and marry whoever they want. This is discrimination and racism hiding under claims of democracy and equality.

Israel plays a double game. Towards its citizens, it claims the Declaration of Independence is not a binding document, but to the UN it states otherwise. The State of Israel is faithful neither to the UN nor to its citizens. The promise in the Declaration to create a Constitution for the new state is ignored.

Israel failed to fulfill the basic requirements for achieving sovereignty. It purposely failed the external requirements towards the UN, which provided the initial external recognition, and failed in its proposed social contract towards its citizens. I used the word “proposed,” because it was never properly ratified and because Israel does not have a constitution even now.

If these irregularities were all the existing problems, many would be tempted to say: “Let it be, there are more serious things in life than an illegally founded country.” However, as it has been shown, the list of violations goes on and on.

Israel openly breaks the condition upon which it was recognized as sovereign by the UN, and has not been awarded sovereignty by its own citizens, through a social contract. Hence, Israel cannot be considered a sovereign entity. Such a situation opens the possibility for an international force to enforce human rights in the area. Technically, the State of Israel cannot object to that because it does not exist as a legally sovereign entity.

The international community and the UN should also adopt a clear policy for such rogue states; until now we see enforcement in some cases (Iraq) or apathy in others (Pol Pot’s Cambodia). People must be free to choose their own future. If the UN was faithful to its declared goals, it would apply equal policies everywhere on the globe.

One of the characteristics of sovereignty is territory, though it is not an essential one. However, the vast majority of what we call “sovereign entities” does have a territory, even if only a small one like the Holy See and the Order of Malta do. If we are considering territory, then implicitly we are also considering borders. What is the situation of Israel’s borders?

These were established by the British Mandate of 1922, and were based on the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916; which divided the Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East between the UK and France. However, things have changed since then.

The borders with Egypt and Jordan have been formalized in the peace agreements with these countries in 1979 and 1994 respectively. They gave up the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, creating an undefined border between Israel and Palestine (the last being represented by the Palestinian Authority).

The border with Lebanon was based on the 1949 Armistice Agreement, though Israel had several times ignited tensions along an area known as the Shabaa Farms on the former border between Lebanon and Syria. In the year 2000, the UN defined what is known as the Blue Line as the IDF retreat border; this is different from the Green Line, which marks the 1949 Armistice Agreement line.

In this respect, there is some ambiguity also along this border. The borders with Syria are not settled. Israel still occupies the Golan Heights. It even annexed them unilaterally in 1981. There is no formal Israeli decision on the country’s borders. Israel has no Constitution, so the borders cannot be defined there. There is no other formal government or general referendum decision concerning the country’s borders. That is exceptional and must have some repercussions on other areas of life.

Unluckily, it didn’t demand a Herculean effort from my side to find the result of that.

The question “Who is a Jew?” is a key issue in modern Israel. However, no less valuable is asking: “Who is a citizen?” This is a question with no clear answer in Israel.

Only citizens within the State of Israel are allowed to vote for the parliament. But the state has no defined borders, so what is a legal vote? A settler living in the West Bank is even by the State of Israel’s definition outside the state borders. Yet, he is allowed to vote and gets social benefits; at the same time, another Israeli citizen living in Egypt or Greece or the US does not have these benefits. This is an outstanding mystery.

A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship living in Jaffa cannot marry a Palestinian from Jenin in the West Bank. Marriage is a basic human right, though not in the eyes of the Israeli Supreme Court. This is a geographical mystery.

A Jew converted to Christianity and married to a Christian woman in a church wouldn’t get his marriage recognized by the state. His bastard sons would not enjoy the social benefits normal children in the country enjoy, unless he marries outside Israel and returns with the happy bride. This is another mystery, though I admit judges are smarter than lesser humans. No normal human can follow the logic of such a decision.

The truth is that I have no wish to solve these mysteries. Israel must adopt international standards of law and a constitution as it promised the UN in exchange for the recognition of its sovereignty. Otherwise, having broken the UN resolution and having failed to sign a social contract with its citizens, it has no right to exist as a sovereign country

 

[TheGuy85]

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

You need to read a tafsir, you obviously have no idea what the ayah mean or what you are talking about, obviously you learned about Islam through a terrorist group it seems or some extremist pastor. This abrogated nothing, this particular ayah was given in reference to the cowardly polytheists of who tried to hide within the holy city of Mecca thinking the Muslims would be afraid to shed their blood. This ayah (revelation) came down to give the Muslims the green light to kill the polytheists wherever they may find them. Mind you, the Muslims of that time ONLY fought and killed enemy combatants as it was unlawful to kill women and children. You really think the jizyah was soooooo bad, well lets look at what the Christians did to the Jews and other groups of people. I think the jizyah is much more humane. This tax was paid because the male disbelievers were not aloud to fight within a Musim army (good thing due to the constant treachery they encountered), where as all able bodied Muslim men were REQUIRED to fight. The Muslims pay the Zakaat and the disbelievers pay the Jizyah, that is so terrible right, being forced to pay taxes? The Jews and Christians were aloud to celebrate their festivities and attend freely their houses of worship. Yeah 2nd class rate citizen right? You do not understand the ayaat of the Qur'an because you did not learn their meanings from a proper authority. The whole Qur'an is wonderfully laid out and explained in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which is an authentic Tafsir studied by the Salifiyyah.

I urge you to please find a better source of information regarding abrogations, as there are many deviant sects that spin hadeeth and ayah. Terrorists for instance believe that major sins take you out of the fold of Islam and you should be executed, this is not a belief of the Salaf. The terrorists spin ayah and hadeeth as you have to justify the slaughter and mass killing of innocent people. The developed Muslim nations should be responsible for fighting these people and not the U.S. The scholars in Saudia Arabia urge their leaders to fight the heretical innovators who have corrupted Islam. It shouldn't be the U.S. job to stop these people but it is responsibility of the Muslims. This would be proper jihad (struggling in the cause of Allah), to preserve the truth and integrity of the religion.

 

[nuncaquite]

It surprises me to find other readers of the Quran here on Meso.
This is interesting. I also study the Quran. It is not a religion of peace.
But it is easier to read than the Bible.

 

[nuncaquite]

Oh yeah Islam is so terrible, Saudi Arabia, the poster child for Islam must be our biggest enemy and evil murderous sons of bitches because we hear about the Saudis doing so much to hurt Americans. Oh wait the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been holding hands for how long? No Saudi Arabia doesn't have intelligence agencies that thwart terror cells, no they aren't considered an ally of the U.S. Nope the terrorists and Saudis are on the same page, that's why they try assassinating Saudi princes http://www.nowpublic.com/world/saudi-prince-injured-sucide-bomb-attack. Get your facts straight, there are different sects of Muslims the main sect denouncing terrorists calling them heretics for their misguided beliefs. Oh yeah and lets not forget Americans do reside in developed Islamic countries and are safe (military and business). Lets not forget the Saudis allowed the U.S. to put military bases in their country. Don't buy into the right wing propaganda it is just as stupid and distasteful as the left wings..

You might want to read on these a bit. I can save you the time if you want, Saudis were in a 911.
Much more to come on their involvement soon.


Saudi Royal Ties to 9/11 Hijackers Via Florida Saudi Family? - WhoWhatWhy
FBI: Knew About Saudi 9/11 Hijacker Ties—But Lied to Protect “National Security” - WhoWhatWhy
http://www.alternet.org/story/152505/is_the_saudi_royal_family_connected_to_9_11_hijackers
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=0
http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2013/09/911-report-incontrovertible-evidence-that-saudi-govt-supported-hijackers-cia-and-fbi-face-scathing-critique-2448892.html

 

[TheGuy85]

I don't know why the Saudis would intentionally aid a terrorist group that has attacked them in the past and even tried assassinating a Saudi prince. Could it be similar to how we are aiding terror groups unintentionally by arming rebels? This is something I cannot answer, honestly, but it would seem odd to intentionally aid a group that has been hostile towards you in the past. Not to mention why would the Saudis even lash out at the U.S., have you seen how greedy the royal family is, would they really compromise their wealth and economic interests by pissing off the U.S. Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been on good terms for a long time, not to mention there are many Saudi students who study here in the U.S. and look at the number of American companies who are invested in the Saudi market.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

You need to read a tafsir, you obviously have no idea what the ayah mean or what you are talking about, obviously you learned about Islam through a terrorist group it seems or some extremist pastor. This abrogated nothing, this particular ayah was given in reference to the cowardly polytheists of who tried to hide within the holy city of Mecca thinking the Muslims would be afraid to shed their blood. This ayah (revelation) came down to give the Muslims the green light to kill the polytheists wherever they may find them.

"The cowardly polytheists?" Be careful, your bias is showing.

That verse I quoted is "The Verse of the Sword" and is widely held by Islamic theologians as abrogating earlier versus and is used to justify muslim violence against non-believers.

Your argument that it was intended for *certain* polytheists is either wishful thinking or you are deliberately misleading the readers. You continue to argue for reading a tafsir but it is becoming clear that you haven't taken your own advice.

Regarding tafsirs - I can post these all day long but this post is getting too long so I'll limit it to this and another reference.

From the Maariful Tafsir on 9:29

Verse 28 appearing earlier referred to Jihad against the Mushriks of Makkah. The present verses talk about Jihad against the People of the Book. In a sense, this is a prelude to the battle of Tabuk that was fought against the People of the Book. In Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, it has been reported from the Quran commentator, Mujahid that these verses have been revealed about the battle of Tabuk. Then, there is the reference to "those who were given the Book". In Islamic religious terminology, they are referred to as "ahl al-Kitab" or People of the Book. In its literal sense, it covers every disbelieving group of people who believe in a Scripture but, in the terminology of the Holy Quran, this term is used for Jews and Christians only - because, only these two groups from the People of the Book were well-known in and around Arabia. Therefore, addressing the Mushriks of Arabia, the Holy Quran has said,


lest you should say, "The Book was sent down only upon two groups before us, were ignorant of what they studied."

As for the injunction of Jihad against the People of the Book given in verse 29, it is really not particular to the People of the Book. The fact is that this very injunction applies to all disbelieving groups - because, the reasons for the injunction to fight mentioned next are common to all disbelievers. …
​

From the "Reliance of the Traveler, (the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)", one of the more respected classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page volume contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by "the great 13th century hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Imam Nawawi, and others. This work was not written with a Western audience in mind. Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was precise, and accurate; one that taught true Islamic values.

[Section o9.0, page 599]
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada", signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad."

[Section o9.8, page 602]
The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself - while remaining in their ancestral religions (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled." 9:29

[Section o9.9, page 603]
The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) …


[Section q2.4, page 718 - I added this as support for justifying what we call suicide bombers. They are not committing suicide, rather they are dedicated warriors for Islam.]

"There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle-lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed. ..."

​

The principle of abrogation -- al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) -- is well known and accepted by Islamic scholars. Verses revealed later in Muhammad's life abrogate the earlier ones they contradict. Therefore, the later verses, when Muhammad was in Medina overrule the verses when he was in Mecca.

The Quran gives instructions on the principle of abrogation:

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?​

The Quran's commandments to wage war on the unbelievers are unmistakeable. And since these verses come later in Muhammed's life, they abrogate earlier, peaceful versus and CORROBORATE 9:5

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).​

You really think the jizyah was soooooo bad, well lets look at what the Christians did to the Jews and other groups of people. I think the jizyah is much more humane.

Now you're trying to create a straw man. Christ gave no commandments to subjugate anyone. Ever.

This tax was paid because the male disbelievers were not aloud to fight within a Musim army (good thing due to the constant treachery they encountered), where as all able bodied Muslim men were REQUIRED to fight.

My, my... there's that bias again.

The Muslims pay the Zakaat and the disbelievers pay the Jizyah, that is so terrible right, being forced to pay taxes? The Jews and Christians were aloud to celebrate their festivities and attend freely their houses of worship. Yeah 2nd class rate citizen right? You do not understand the ayaat of the Qur'an because you did not learn their meanings from a proper authority. The whole Qur'an is wonderfully laid out and explained in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which is an authentic Tafsir studied by the Salifiyyah.

Oh, oh! Ibn Kathir? Lets take a look at what he has to say about jihad against unbelievers, the jizya and dhimmis, shall we?

From Ibn Kathir’s commentary on 9:29.

The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

Allah said,

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.)

Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)

This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

Allah said,

(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,

(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,

(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled.

Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, …​

From your commentary, it appears you have an agenda. Regardless, I'm getting bored with this discussion. When your rebuttals consist of little more than "you're wrong," and "you read the wrong book," I lose interest.