Palestine, Israel | Do you admit this, Gellius?

Gellius repeats much of what I have already refuted from his first letter.

It makes it seem as if the October 7 terrorist attack and the Hamas resistance are not due to ethnic cleansing and atrocities committed by Israel over 75 years.

Instead, he believes the conflict is a religious war because Hamas derives its value base from Islam, which he considers an anti-Semitic religion.

If Gellius’s reasoning is correct at all, how should we view centuries of persecution and murder of Jews by Christians, including the Holocaust?

What do you call the ray in your eye, Gellius?

Or do you think that faith is just a reason when Muslims do something stupid?

Not answered

I would like to remind Gellius of my answers which he either ignored or deliberately omitted, when he first sat down to answer me:

When Gellius claimed that Storr was turning a blind eye to the ideological underpinnings of Hamas, I wrote that Gellius himself was turning a blind eye to the ideological underpinnings of Israel and the Zionists.

Why doesn’t Gellius answer my claim about the ideology and motives of some Jews and Christians for invading Palestine, which were revealed, for example, in the documentary “Praying for Armageddon”?

If religious war is the real cause of the conflict in Israel and Palestine, why does Gellius not acknowledge religious motives that are clearly presented by reference to the Bible, for example, by the Israeli government itself?

In his first post, Gelios claimed that Hamas has deep roots in the history of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. To prove this claim, Gellius tried to give an example from the Qur’an.

I replied that he had misquoted the Qur’an. Do you admit this, Gellius?

Stay up to date with the latest news: Get the Nettavisen app iPhone And Android here!

Historyless and ridiculous

Without understanding my detailed answer regarding the Banu Qurayza, Gellius made another attempt to say that the Muslims slaughtered this Jewish tribe, when he wrote that this is confirmed in Sura 33 of the Qur’an.

The Qur’anic verse that mentions the Banu Qurayza only confirms my point of view, which is the high treason of the Jewish tribe, and that only some of them received the death sentence, not all of them.

Accusing Muhammad of anti-Semitism over this incident is at least as ahistorical as claiming that the execution of Quisling and those with him was for a reason other than pure high treason.

Or more precisely, and it is ahistorical and absurd, to say that Palestinians’ opposition to the Israeli state is primarily due to anti-Semitism, not the injustices Israel has committed against them since 1948.

Read the Qur’an

Instead of accommodating my answer as to why Gellius is wrong about the prohibition of having friends among non-Muslims, he introduces a Qur’anic verse from Surah 5, to insist that Muslims cannot be friends with either Jews or Christians.

Then he encourages readers to read the Qur’an.

Then I encourage Gellius to read the Qur’an as well. In only a few verses after the verse he quoted, he finds the answer to who are these Jews and Christians who he should not associate with, that is, those who were “prior to those before you…” (5:58).

The same chapter (5:6) allows Muslim men to marry women of the People of the Book. As I mentioned in my previous response to Gellius, this clearly shows that the prohibition did not apply to all Christians, Jews, or all non-believers.

Read also

John Foss Listens to God. Is it that serious then?

Gives a wrong impression

Another reason why the ban does not apply to all Jews and Christians at all times is that, as with all people in the world, not all Jews and Christians are the same. Verses 3: 114-116 say this specifically, that all People of the Book are not equal, because among them are also those who adhere to the covenant, do good deeds, and receive their reward from God.

At the end of his article, Gellius quotes Cary Vogt. The goal seems to be to give another false image of the teachings of Islam. Yes, it is true that the term jihad is also used for armed conflict.

But this does not mean that the Qur’an permits aggressive war against innocent people or the killing of civilians. The reader can easily get the opposite impression from what Gellius writes.