Hoe staan de (islamitische) forumleden hier tegenover? Voor alle duidelijkheid dit onderwerp is niet bedoeld om te vervallen in (quasi) theologische discussies over waarom wel een hypotheek afsluiten of waarom niet, maar puur om de verschillende visies te horen, dus waarom heb jij wel een hypotheek afgesloten of dat van plan bent te doen of waarom juist niet.
- Welkom bij Amazigh.nl.
Deze sectie stelt je in staat om alle bijdragen van dit lid te bekijken. Je kunt alleen de bijdragen zien waar je op dit moment toegang toe hebt.
#2
Politiek / De wereld kan niet blijven wegkijken
07/01/2009 om 20:32:37 #3
Evenementen / Benefiet voor overstroming Marokko
22/12/2008 om 09:19:37 #4
Algemeen / rente & de belastingdienst
12/10/2008 om 18:45:46
onderstaand mailtje ontving ik enkele dagen geleden, dus voor de geinteresseerden onder ons:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bij 'toeval' ben ik er achtergekomen dat wanneer men geld ontvangt van de belastingdienst daar altijd een percentage rente aan toegevoegd wordt. Dit is tevens bevestigd door de belastingdienst zelf, nadat ik telefonisch contact met hen had opgenomen.
Indien je de belastingdienst geld schuldig bent (= terugbetalen) dan betaal je altijd rente over het verschuldigde bedrag, maar ook wanneer je geld onvangt is daar rente aan toegevoegd. Dit geldt dus voor alle bedragen die je terugkrijgt, dat noemen ze heffings- en vorderingsrente. Lees hieronder zelf verder.
Heffings- en invorderingsrente
U kunt aan de Belastingdienst een bedrag verschuldigd zijn. Andersom komt het ook voor dat u juist geld van ons terugkrijgt. Diegene die het geld onder zich heeft, kan het geld gebruiken. Als het geld bijvoorbeeld op de bank staat, ontvangt die persoon hierover rente.
Om deze reden hanteren wij heffings- en invorderingsrente.
Dit werkt twee kanten op. Als u van ons geld terugkrijgt, vergoeden wij rente. In het omgekeerde geval, als u een bedrag verschuldigd bent aan de Belastingdienst, betaalt u meestal rente. Omdat de rente die wij in rekening brengen of vergoeden meestal hoger is dan waar de banken mee rekenen, is het dus voordelig om zo snel mogelijk te betalen en zo laat mogelijk geld te incasseren.
Het percentage van de heffings- en invorderingsrente wordt ieder kalenderkwartaal opnieuw vastgesteld.
Het verschil tussen de heffingrente en de invorderingsrente is dat de heffingsrente wordt berekend vanaf 1 juli van het betreffende be-lastingjaar over de periode tot de dagtekening van de belastingaanslag. De invorderingsrente gaat lopen vanaf het moment dat deze aanslag had moeten worden betaald.
Wijziging percentage heffings- en invorderingsrente (11 juni 2008)
Het percentage voor de heffings- en invorderingsrente voor het betalen van belasting of belastingschuld, is gewijzigd. Het percentage voor de heffingsrente en invorderingsrente is voor het 3e kwartaal 2008 vastgesteld op 5,15% (dit was in het 2e kwartaal 4,75%). Het nieuwe percentage geldt met ingang van 1 juli 2008.
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/belastingconsulent/nieuwsbrief/nieuwsberichten/2008-06-11-06_heffingsrente.html
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/zakelijk/betalen/betalen-29.html
http://www.toeslagen.nl/intermediairs/intermediairsentoeslagen/intermediairsentoeslagen-10.html
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%253D213561,00.html
http://www.hh-adviseurs.nl/pageAntwoord.asp?command=viewcompleteitem&id=000008036&sjabloon=bureaubvh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En zoals wellicht wel bekend, kun je ontvangen rente het best aan armen of een goed doel schenken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bij 'toeval' ben ik er achtergekomen dat wanneer men geld ontvangt van de belastingdienst daar altijd een percentage rente aan toegevoegd wordt. Dit is tevens bevestigd door de belastingdienst zelf, nadat ik telefonisch contact met hen had opgenomen.
Indien je de belastingdienst geld schuldig bent (= terugbetalen) dan betaal je altijd rente over het verschuldigde bedrag, maar ook wanneer je geld onvangt is daar rente aan toegevoegd. Dit geldt dus voor alle bedragen die je terugkrijgt, dat noemen ze heffings- en vorderingsrente. Lees hieronder zelf verder.
Heffings- en invorderingsrente
U kunt aan de Belastingdienst een bedrag verschuldigd zijn. Andersom komt het ook voor dat u juist geld van ons terugkrijgt. Diegene die het geld onder zich heeft, kan het geld gebruiken. Als het geld bijvoorbeeld op de bank staat, ontvangt die persoon hierover rente.
Om deze reden hanteren wij heffings- en invorderingsrente.
Dit werkt twee kanten op. Als u van ons geld terugkrijgt, vergoeden wij rente. In het omgekeerde geval, als u een bedrag verschuldigd bent aan de Belastingdienst, betaalt u meestal rente. Omdat de rente die wij in rekening brengen of vergoeden meestal hoger is dan waar de banken mee rekenen, is het dus voordelig om zo snel mogelijk te betalen en zo laat mogelijk geld te incasseren.
Het percentage van de heffings- en invorderingsrente wordt ieder kalenderkwartaal opnieuw vastgesteld.
Het verschil tussen de heffingrente en de invorderingsrente is dat de heffingsrente wordt berekend vanaf 1 juli van het betreffende be-lastingjaar over de periode tot de dagtekening van de belastingaanslag. De invorderingsrente gaat lopen vanaf het moment dat deze aanslag had moeten worden betaald.
Wijziging percentage heffings- en invorderingsrente (11 juni 2008)
Het percentage voor de heffings- en invorderingsrente voor het betalen van belasting of belastingschuld, is gewijzigd. Het percentage voor de heffingsrente en invorderingsrente is voor het 3e kwartaal 2008 vastgesteld op 5,15% (dit was in het 2e kwartaal 4,75%). Het nieuwe percentage geldt met ingang van 1 juli 2008.
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/belastingconsulent/nieuwsbrief/nieuwsberichten/2008-06-11-06_heffingsrente.html
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/zakelijk/betalen/betalen-29.html
http://www.toeslagen.nl/intermediairs/intermediairsentoeslagen/intermediairsentoeslagen-10.html
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%253D213561,00.html
http://www.hh-adviseurs.nl/pageAntwoord.asp?command=viewcompleteitem&id=000008036&sjabloon=bureaubvh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
En zoals wellicht wel bekend, kun je ontvangen rente het best aan armen of een goed doel schenken.
#5
Politiek / No, I Can't! Obama, Israel and AIPAC
18/06/2008 om 10:25:26
By URI AVNERY
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
* * *
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
* * *
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
* * *
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
* * *
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
* * *
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
* * *
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
#6
Muziek / Kareem Salama - A Land Called Paradise
25/03/2008 om 21:50:49 #7
Politiek / Democratie & Arabische Eenheid
06/03/2008 om 16:42:10 #8
Geschiedenis / De Vogels Nabootsen
08/02/2008 om 14:05:36 #9
Geschiedenis / 25-9-658 A.H. - Deel 1
30/09/2007 om 23:56:26
http://www.wijblijvenhier.nl/index.php?/archives/1263-25-9-658-A.H.-Deel-1.html
Deze gast schrijft sinds kort voor wijblijvenhier.nl, maar uit ervaring en mijn persoonlijke voorkeur kan ik zeggen dat zijn schrijfseltjes vaak interessant zijn.
Deze gast schrijft sinds kort voor wijblijvenhier.nl, maar uit ervaring en mijn persoonlijke voorkeur kan ik zeggen dat zijn schrijfseltjes vaak interessant zijn.
#10
Babbelhoek / lachen met amerikanen...
25/09/2007 om 11:29:46 #11
In de media / De weg naar Mekka
24/09/2007 om 12:12:43
Elke vrijdag omstreeks 20.50u
Vanaf 28 september, tien weken lang op Canvas
Stevenen we af op een clash tussen het Westen en de moslimwereld? Steeds meer mensen zijn ervan overtuigd. Want zowel bij ons als elders in de wereld wordt er straffe taal gesproken: van "de hoofddoek is een mensenrecht" tot "de koran moet verboden worden".
Misschien wonen we wel naast elkaar, maar blijkbaar leven we werelden apart: van de hysterie om de Mohammed-cartoons tot de diabolisering van iedereen met baard of boerka is elk begrip zoek.
Maar niemand lijkt te weten wat de moslims nu echt bezielt, in die enorme moslimwereld die drie continenten overspant. En daarom besloot Jan Leyers de weg naar Mekka te kiezen.
Jan Leyers trekt op zoek naar antwoorden, op zoek naar de achterkant van de moslimtong. Hoe zit het nu echt met de moslims, van Marokko tot Saoedi-Arabië?
Hoe denken en voelen moslims, hoe leven ze, hoe zit het met de moslima's, hoe kijken ze naar het Westen en hun eigen islam? Jan dringt steeds dieper door tot het hart van de islam en van de moslims, richting Mekka, waar het allemaal begon.
Website
'De weg naar Mekka' start op vrijdag 28 september. Op die dag gaat ook de bijhorende website online. Die website zal de route van Jan stap voor stap volgen en zal verder bol staan van interessante achtergrondinfo, links, foto's en meer.
www.canvas.be/dewegnaarmekka
Vanaf 28 september, tien weken lang op Canvas
Stevenen we af op een clash tussen het Westen en de moslimwereld? Steeds meer mensen zijn ervan overtuigd. Want zowel bij ons als elders in de wereld wordt er straffe taal gesproken: van "de hoofddoek is een mensenrecht" tot "de koran moet verboden worden".
Misschien wonen we wel naast elkaar, maar blijkbaar leven we werelden apart: van de hysterie om de Mohammed-cartoons tot de diabolisering van iedereen met baard of boerka is elk begrip zoek.
Maar niemand lijkt te weten wat de moslims nu echt bezielt, in die enorme moslimwereld die drie continenten overspant. En daarom besloot Jan Leyers de weg naar Mekka te kiezen.
Jan Leyers trekt op zoek naar antwoorden, op zoek naar de achterkant van de moslimtong. Hoe zit het nu echt met de moslims, van Marokko tot Saoedi-Arabië?
Hoe denken en voelen moslims, hoe leven ze, hoe zit het met de moslima's, hoe kijken ze naar het Westen en hun eigen islam? Jan dringt steeds dieper door tot het hart van de islam en van de moslims, richting Mekka, waar het allemaal begon.
Website
'De weg naar Mekka' start op vrijdag 28 september. Op die dag gaat ook de bijhorende website online. Die website zal de route van Jan stap voor stap volgen en zal verder bol staan van interessante achtergrondinfo, links, foto's en meer.
www.canvas.be/dewegnaarmekka
#12
In de media / God Cried
21/09/2007 om 14:37:42 #13
Algemeen / The "Satanic Verses": Did Muhammad (PBUH) Compromise Islam?
21/09/2007 om 13:09:09 #14
Algemeen / “Do Not Take Christians and Jews as Friendsâ€
21/09/2007 om 13:04:25
Some Misappropriations of Quranic Verses
by David Dakake
Islamic Research Institute
Washington, D.C.
In this synopsis we shall discuss two verses that have received much “air time†in the post 9/11 media environment.
The first verse appears in chapter 5, verse 51 of the Quran and says, according to the most common English translations,
O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya’. They are awliya’ to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them.
Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk.
The word awliya’ (sing. “waliâ€), which we left above in the original Arabic, has been commonly translated into English as “friends.†Given this translation, the verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing “normative†or “kindly relations†between Muslims and Jews and Christians, however, when we look at the traditional Quranic commentaries of Medieval times, which discuss the events surrounding the revelation of this verse, the modern translation becomes suspect.
Put within its proper historical context, the word awliya’ here does not mean “friends†at all. While it is true that one of the meanings of awliya’ is “friends,†it also has additional meanings such as “guardians,†“protectors†and even “legal guardians.†Interestingly enough, we find that when we consult the traditional commentaries on the Quran we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly delicate moment in the life of the early Muslim community, and here it is necessary to explain, to a certain extent, what was the existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia so as to situate verse 5:51 within its proper circumstances.
Before 5:51 was revealed, the Prophet of Islam and the Muslims had only recently migrated as a community from Makkah to Medina, some 400 km to the north. They had done so, according to Islamic histories, due to the persecution to which they were subjected at the hands of their fellow tribesmen and relatives in Makkah. Most Makkans worshipped various idols as “gods†and feared the rise of interest in the message of Muhammad within the city, even though Muhammad was himself a son of Makkah. The
Makkans feared the growing presence of the Muslims because the Muslims claimed that there was only one true God, who had no physical image, and who required of men: virtue, generosity and fair and kind treatment of the weaker members of society. This simple message, in fact, threatened to overturn the social order of Makkah, based as it was upon the worship of multiple gods and the privilege of the strong and the wealthy. It also threatened to disrupt the economic benefits of this privilege, the annual pilgrimage season when people from all over the Arabian peninsula would come to worship the many idols/gods at the Ka`bahâ€"a cubical structure which the Quran claims was originally built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, as a temple to the one God, before the decadence of religion in Arabia [2:125-129].
The message of Islam threatened to replace the social and economic system of Makkan polytheism, with the worship of the one God, Whoâ€"as in the stories of the Old Testamentâ€"would not allow that others be worshipped alongside Him. In this difficult environment the Prophet of Islam preached peacefully his message of monotheism and virtue, but he and his small band of followers were eventually driven from the city by torture, threats of assassination and various other forms of humiliation and abuse. The Muslims then migrated to the city of Medina where the Prophet had been invited to come and live in safety with his followers and where the main Arab tribes of the city had willingly accepted his message.
According to the commentary tradition in Islam, it was not long after this migration to Medina that verse 5:51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (2 A.H. / 623 A.D.) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3 A.H. / 625 A.D.). In these early days, even though the Muslim community constituted no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already left the city of Makkah, yet the Makkans continued to confront them militarily, and these two early battles, as well as others, were crucial events in the history of the early Islamic community.
Militarily, the Makkans were a far more powerful force than the Muslims, and in addition, the Makkans had allies throughout Arabia. Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet and his fledgling community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts. Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medina there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with the Makkans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims saw the possibility of taking alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of guaranteeing their own survival should the Makkan armies ultimately triumph. This was the stark reality of Arabia at that time, that it was only through the protection of one’s tribe or one’s alliances with other tribes or clans that one’s own individual security was insured.
From the perspective of Islam, however, the Prophet realized that a young community, faced with great peril, could not allow such “dissension†in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals taking bonds of loyalty with other groups not committed to the Islamic message. Indeed, from the Islamic point of view such actions, had they been allowed, would have been a kind of communal suicide that would have seriously undermined Muslim unity, broken the morale of the community and perhaps caused the many individuals taking such alliances to lack fortitude in the face of the clear and present danger of the Makkan armies and their allies.
Keeping all these historical issues in mind, it becomes obvious that the translation of awliya’ as “friends†is wrong and that it should be rendered as “protectors†or “guardians†in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as, “Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another....†This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this understanding is supported not only by the historical context for its revelation but also by the fact that nowhere does the Quran oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Quranic verses such as,
God does not forbid that you should deal kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for the sake of [your] religion or drive you out of your homes. Truly, God loves those
who are just. [60:8]
and
The good deed and the evil deed are not equal. Repel [the evil deed] with one that is better. Then truly the one, between you and he is enmity, shall become as a bosom friend. [41:34]
Another verse which has caused much confusion is 9:5. This is the first Quranic verse mentioned in the fatwa of Usama bin Ladin. It is also a verse which has been referred to by Reverend Franklin Graham in his comments about the “wicked, violent†nature of Islam. Verse 9:5 says,
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the polytheists (mushrikun) wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem [of war].
Contrary to what may be thought from a literal reading of this translation, this verse is not a kind of carte blanche to attack any and all non-Muslim peoples. Here again the issue of historical context is so crucial for understanding.
Verse 9:5 was revealed specifically in relation to the Muslims fighting the idolaters of Makkah. The Makkan idolaters are referred to in the Quran by the technical term “mushrikun†(sing. “mushrikâ€). This term comes from a three letter Arabic root “sh-r-k†which means “to associate†or “take a partner unto something,†so that the word mushrikun literally means, “those who take a partner [unto God],†that is to say, “polytheists†or “idolaters.†It should be noted, therefore, that the injunction in this verse to fight against the “polytheists†does not pertain to either Jews or Christians from the point of view of Islamic Law. Interestingly, Jews and Christians are never referred to within the Quran by the term mushrikun. They have, in fact, a very different “status†or “title†according to the Quran which, when not addressing them as individual communities, often refers to the two groups together by the technical term, ahl al-kitab or “People of the Book,†meaning people who have been given a book or scripture by God other than the Muslims. Given these facts, it is interesting that this verse should be cited by Bin Ladin in the context of a declaration calling on Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, particularly since this verse says nothing about Jews, Christians or the People of the Book in general. This being the case, the fatwa’s use of 9:5 represents a misappropriation of this verse to an end other than the one intended from its established historical context of fighting the “polytheist†Arabs, who were neither Christians nor Jews.
Given this context, this verse does not, in fact, show Islam to be a “wicked, violent†religion, as Franklin Graham would like us to believe, but shows that Islam gave to Muslims the right to defend themselves against those who would not let them worship God, a right, incidentally, which is protected by the United States Constitution.
We hope that this short analysis may help to demonstrate that the practice today of quoting Quranic verses as justification for sweeping generalizations about the Islamic faith is actually a far more complex matter than may be immediately apparent and requires a deep knowledge of both Quranic commentary and Islamic history. The very least that can be said is that it is a matter more complex than the rhetoric of extremists on all sides of this issue. We pray that this discussion may be something of an opening for greater understanding between all people of faith, people for whom the truth, and not rhetoric, must be paramount, precisely because in all religious traditions truth belongs to God.
by David Dakake
Islamic Research Institute
Washington, D.C.
In this synopsis we shall discuss two verses that have received much “air time†in the post 9/11 media environment.
The first verse appears in chapter 5, verse 51 of the Quran and says, according to the most common English translations,
O, you who believe [in the message of Muhammad], do not take Jews and Christians as awliya’. They are awliya’ to one another, and the one among you who turns to them is of them.
Truly, God does not guide wrongdoing folk.
The word awliya’ (sing. “waliâ€), which we left above in the original Arabic, has been commonly translated into English as “friends.†Given this translation, the verse appears to be a very clear statement opposing “normative†or “kindly relations†between Muslims and Jews and Christians, however, when we look at the traditional Quranic commentaries of Medieval times, which discuss the events surrounding the revelation of this verse, the modern translation becomes suspect.
Put within its proper historical context, the word awliya’ here does not mean “friends†at all. While it is true that one of the meanings of awliya’ is “friends,†it also has additional meanings such as “guardians,†“protectors†and even “legal guardians.†Interestingly enough, we find that when we consult the traditional commentaries on the Quran we are told that this verse was revealed at a particularly delicate moment in the life of the early Muslim community, and here it is necessary to explain, to a certain extent, what was the existential situation of the Muslims at this time in Arabia so as to situate verse 5:51 within its proper circumstances.
Before 5:51 was revealed, the Prophet of Islam and the Muslims had only recently migrated as a community from Makkah to Medina, some 400 km to the north. They had done so, according to Islamic histories, due to the persecution to which they were subjected at the hands of their fellow tribesmen and relatives in Makkah. Most Makkans worshipped various idols as “gods†and feared the rise of interest in the message of Muhammad within the city, even though Muhammad was himself a son of Makkah. The
Makkans feared the growing presence of the Muslims because the Muslims claimed that there was only one true God, who had no physical image, and who required of men: virtue, generosity and fair and kind treatment of the weaker members of society. This simple message, in fact, threatened to overturn the social order of Makkah, based as it was upon the worship of multiple gods and the privilege of the strong and the wealthy. It also threatened to disrupt the economic benefits of this privilege, the annual pilgrimage season when people from all over the Arabian peninsula would come to worship the many idols/gods at the Ka`bahâ€"a cubical structure which the Quran claims was originally built by Abraham and his son, Ishmael, as a temple to the one God, before the decadence of religion in Arabia [2:125-129].
The message of Islam threatened to replace the social and economic system of Makkan polytheism, with the worship of the one God, Whoâ€"as in the stories of the Old Testamentâ€"would not allow that others be worshipped alongside Him. In this difficult environment the Prophet of Islam preached peacefully his message of monotheism and virtue, but he and his small band of followers were eventually driven from the city by torture, threats of assassination and various other forms of humiliation and abuse. The Muslims then migrated to the city of Medina where the Prophet had been invited to come and live in safety with his followers and where the main Arab tribes of the city had willingly accepted his message.
According to the commentary tradition in Islam, it was not long after this migration to Medina that verse 5:51 was revealed. Specifically, we are told that this verse came down around the time of the battle of Badr (2 A.H. / 623 A.D.) or perhaps after the battle of Uhud (3 A.H. / 625 A.D.). In these early days, even though the Muslim community constituted no more than perhaps a few hundred people and had already left the city of Makkah, yet the Makkans continued to confront them militarily, and these two early battles, as well as others, were crucial events in the history of the early Islamic community.
Militarily, the Makkans were a far more powerful force than the Muslims, and in addition, the Makkans had allies throughout Arabia. Given the small numbers of the Muslims, the Prophet and his fledgling community faced the real possibility of utter annihilation should they lose any of these early conflicts. Within this highly charged environment some members of the Muslim community wanted to make individual alliances with other non-Muslim tribes in the region. Within the city of Medina there were Jewish tribes who constituted a powerful presence in the town and who were on good terms with the Makkans, and to the north of the city there were also numerous Christian Arab tribes. Some Muslims saw the possibility of taking alliances with one or more of these groups as a way of guaranteeing their own survival should the Makkan armies ultimately triumph. This was the stark reality of Arabia at that time, that it was only through the protection of one’s tribe or one’s alliances with other tribes or clans that one’s own individual security was insured.
From the perspective of Islam, however, the Prophet realized that a young community, faced with great peril, could not allow such “dissension†in the ranks of the faithful as would be created by various individuals taking bonds of loyalty with other groups not committed to the Islamic message. Indeed, from the Islamic point of view such actions, had they been allowed, would have been a kind of communal suicide that would have seriously undermined Muslim unity, broken the morale of the community and perhaps caused the many individuals taking such alliances to lack fortitude in the face of the clear and present danger of the Makkan armies and their allies.
Keeping all these historical issues in mind, it becomes obvious that the translation of awliya’ as “friends†is wrong and that it should be rendered as “protectors†or “guardians†in the strict military sense of these terms. The verse should be read as, “Do not take Christians and Jews as your protectors. They are protectors to one another....†This is the message of the verse, and the appropriateness of this understanding is supported not only by the historical context for its revelation but also by the fact that nowhere does the Quran oppose simple kindness between peoples, as is clear from other Quranic verses such as,
God does not forbid that you should deal kindly and justly with those who do not fight you for the sake of [your] religion or drive you out of your homes. Truly, God loves those
who are just. [60:8]
and
The good deed and the evil deed are not equal. Repel [the evil deed] with one that is better. Then truly the one, between you and he is enmity, shall become as a bosom friend. [41:34]
Another verse which has caused much confusion is 9:5. This is the first Quranic verse mentioned in the fatwa of Usama bin Ladin. It is also a verse which has been referred to by Reverend Franklin Graham in his comments about the “wicked, violent†nature of Islam. Verse 9:5 says,
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the polytheists (mushrikun) wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem [of war].
Contrary to what may be thought from a literal reading of this translation, this verse is not a kind of carte blanche to attack any and all non-Muslim peoples. Here again the issue of historical context is so crucial for understanding.
Verse 9:5 was revealed specifically in relation to the Muslims fighting the idolaters of Makkah. The Makkan idolaters are referred to in the Quran by the technical term “mushrikun†(sing. “mushrikâ€). This term comes from a three letter Arabic root “sh-r-k†which means “to associate†or “take a partner unto something,†so that the word mushrikun literally means, “those who take a partner [unto God],†that is to say, “polytheists†or “idolaters.†It should be noted, therefore, that the injunction in this verse to fight against the “polytheists†does not pertain to either Jews or Christians from the point of view of Islamic Law. Interestingly, Jews and Christians are never referred to within the Quran by the term mushrikun. They have, in fact, a very different “status†or “title†according to the Quran which, when not addressing them as individual communities, often refers to the two groups together by the technical term, ahl al-kitab or “People of the Book,†meaning people who have been given a book or scripture by God other than the Muslims. Given these facts, it is interesting that this verse should be cited by Bin Ladin in the context of a declaration calling on Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, particularly since this verse says nothing about Jews, Christians or the People of the Book in general. This being the case, the fatwa’s use of 9:5 represents a misappropriation of this verse to an end other than the one intended from its established historical context of fighting the “polytheist†Arabs, who were neither Christians nor Jews.
Given this context, this verse does not, in fact, show Islam to be a “wicked, violent†religion, as Franklin Graham would like us to believe, but shows that Islam gave to Muslims the right to defend themselves against those who would not let them worship God, a right, incidentally, which is protected by the United States Constitution.
We hope that this short analysis may help to demonstrate that the practice today of quoting Quranic verses as justification for sweeping generalizations about the Islamic faith is actually a far more complex matter than may be immediately apparent and requires a deep knowledge of both Quranic commentary and Islamic history. The very least that can be said is that it is a matter more complex than the rhetoric of extremists on all sides of this issue. We pray that this discussion may be something of an opening for greater understanding between all people of faith, people for whom the truth, and not rhetoric, must be paramount, precisely because in all religious traditions truth belongs to God.
#15
In de media / Radio show calls for muslims to be tagged holocaust style...
11/09/2007 om 17:47:51 #16
Politiek / verkiezingen in Marokko
05/09/2007 om 15:35:10 #17
#19
Mededelingen / Stichting OntdekIslam
21/08/2007 om 13:09:43 #20
Films / comedy filmpjes
11/07/2007 om 12:19:11
post hier je comedy filmpjes
Theo Maassen - Coca Cola
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q9ugmUG8pYU
Javier Guzman - Technologische vooruitgang
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AbhRGkVk5o
Javier Guzman - Vooruitgang?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kogU622-HxY
Najib Amhali - Vliegtuig
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfw87oyqQkE
Najib Amhali - Wildplassen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uMWarBD7QUU
Axis of Evil Comedy Clips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JMCAsGJPd4
Theo Maassen - Coca Cola
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q9ugmUG8pYU
Javier Guzman - Technologische vooruitgang
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AbhRGkVk5o
Javier Guzman - Vooruitgang?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kogU622-HxY
Najib Amhali - Vliegtuig
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfw87oyqQkE
Najib Amhali - Wildplassen
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uMWarBD7QUU
Axis of Evil Comedy Clips
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JMCAsGJPd4