|
'The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?
'This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
'It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.'
The waqf business is a mildly big deal in some interpretations of shari'a. Waqf land is land owned by non-Muslims at the conquest, and which no Muslim wanted to take over (or which the amir at the time didn't dole out). So it's held in trust, meaning that a religious group administers it. They can rent it to the people that live on it (a handy practice, quit-rent, if you're the conqueror and you're a bit thin on the ground), until you need it for 'your own'. Or you can make a rule saying that only Muslims can continue working that land, and see what the consequence is. But then you have to have forces around to put down the inevitable rebellion; death for the rebellious is ok, and solves the problem almost as well. One submits in and to Islam (in traditional forms of the religion); nothing Islamic should submit to anything non-Islamic--and having soil made Islamic suddenly submit to being non-Islamic, well ...
Moreover, while the argument that Jerusalem's (and the haram al-sharif's) importance has waxed and waned over the centuries as political exigency has demanded holds a fair amount of water, there's even the current attempt to deny any Jewish claim to Israel. Jews were never there, or Arabs predated them, or the Temple Mount was actually a mosque, and not only was al-Aqsa special, but all the surrounding areas. With some trying to make the surrounding areas expand from the immediate area to all of Palestine. This is, of course, the extremist view. Then again, the context is Hamas.
Hamas would have to change its overt theology; since it's painted it in such absolutist terms, direct from Allah's lips to Yassin's ears (yes, I know this isn't at all how they'd put it, cut me some slack), they're hoist on that petard of their own making. On the other hand, the ideologues seem to believe it, and it's comforting to the masses of 'refugees' who believe themselves entitled to wealth and honor and ... You get the picture. Selling people on their true glorious past and why *they're* really the important folks never fails the populist leader.
|