At the risk of digging myself further in the asshole pit, I think you’re misreading the quotes passage on that paragraph. If you search for various translations of that language you’ll see that it’s pretty clear that it has the opposite meaning from the one you’re placing on it (i.e., it’s saying you should be fair even to those people who treat you unjustly).
Not rhetorical at all. I really do believe when you’re the odd man out that you’re probably the one being unreasonable.
I already posted that in retrospect my comment was far too harsh and took back that part. FWIW, I’m sorry if it appeared I called you a moron but I didn’t mean to.
Here’s my take on the document, for what its worth, and what it says and means. First, Hamas is fine with “Jews”, as such (provided that said Jews recognize that Islam is morally superior and factually correct, and are willing to take a subordinate position). They can live in Hamas run Palestine, no problem. However, Israelis aren’t its"Jews". They’re Zionist invaders who control the world financial system, communists, freemasons and all, and they invaded Muslim Palestine, and just like the crusaders, its a moral duty to kill and drive them out, man, woman, and child, so that none of them polute the soil of Palestine.
Sorry for the confusion. I was a bit tired when I reported it.
Not necessarily.
Sometimes you’re the odd man out because of the pre-existing sympathies of the crowd.
I’m always willing to be educated. To my mind, the following says ‘god forbids you to treat people unkindly or injustly, if they haven’t borne arms against Islam or turned you out of you homes’.
The corollary of that is, of course, if people have borne arms against you because of religion, or turned you out of your homes, you are not required to treat them justly or kindly.
And I wonder who that could possibly apply to? 
Who, in the immediate vicinity of Hamas, could possibly be described as having turned the Palestinains ‘out of their homes’? It’s a mystery. 
But of course if there are other translations that demonstrate the phrase says the opposite of what it appears to say, I’ll be happy to read them.
Oh, I think we agree on the interpretation. I had misunderstood your argument slightly. I think the paragraph as a whole is saying that Hamas will only use violence against those who resist Hamas in ending Jewish sovereignty over the region. That is, saying Hamas will not attack Jews who “desist from struggling against Islam over sovereignty in this region.”
Perhaps I will be accused of splitting hairs again, but I think that distinction is the whole point of this perhaps misguided thread. At least in this paragraph, Hamas seems to be rejecting the contention that it would, if given the chance, not just take over sovereignty over Israel through violence but also slaughter the inhabitants just for being Jews.
ETA: Just so there’s no ambiguity, I’m not saying anyone should believe them. Just trying to analyze what they’re saying.
But as a practical matter, as long as there are any sort of Jews who resist Hamas, they are very unlikely to make this sort of distinction between one Jew and another.
They certainly don’t now.
It’s a bit odd to say “as a practical matter” when these commentators are talking about a completely counter-factual universe in which Hamas is suddenly omnipotent.
We do know that Hamas is fine with indiscriminate killing of Israelis. I’m not sure we know that would continue to be their choice of tactic if they have overwhelming military superiority.
But, again, if the accusation is that none of this matters, then fine. I would just offer the defense that I’m not the one raising this argument about the hypothetical all-powerful Hamas.
The context of the discussion in general - per your own claim - is not about Hamas being “omnipotent”.
Hamas’ goals as expressed in their document are about what they would do if they were omnipotent. But the relevance of what Hamas would do if they were ominpotent is in what is says about what they are likely to do in a more realistic situation.
So if you’re an Israeli thinking of making “peace” with Hamas, you need to consider that you’re allowing the strengthening of a group that seems to call for what would practically be genocide in their founding document. A group that calls for genocide in their Charter, and has not made much distinction in terms of attacking one type of Jews versus another, is likely to be very dangerous if they are given the opportunity to up their military and terrorist capabilities. That should give you considerable pause.
There are two interpretations:
(1) If the Jews desist from fighting, and instead embrace the rule of Islam, they will be entitled to benefit from the traditional Islamic “people of the Book” treatment; or
(2) On the other hand, the Jews have demonstrated such behaviours that they are, in general, not eligible for such treatment.
I do not dispute that traditional Islamic scholarship would extend the “people of the Book” treatment to Jews. I think Hamas is a fundamentalist group that deliberately cherry-picks bits of Islamic teachings to support their hateful agenda - just like some Christian fundies cherry-pick bits to support hate in the name of Jesus.
Hamas has to deal with the traditional and well-known “people of the Book” approach to Jews, because to fail to do that would look odd in an Islamic group.
They do this by emphasiszing that they would extend such treatment to Jews (thus being in line with traditional Islam), but for the perfidity of such Jews - they expressly quote the bit about ‘turning you out of your homes’ to that effect; but more, that Jews are doing this as part of a “master plan” as revealed in places like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Dealing with the subject in this way has several benefits: it allows them to say they are still in line with Islamic teachings; it allows them to congratulate themselves of their “humane” approach; it allows them to blame the victims of their genocide - who would have been fine under Hamas if it were not that they were so evil; and finally, it allows them, apparently, to convince some outsiders that there is “ambiguity” in their message of hate - ambiguity which, I contend, is not really there.
I just think you’re placing a whole lot of weight on that choice of quote in order to negate the much plainer meaning of the preceding paragraph. I wonder, is that quote really cherry-picked by Hamas, or is it commonly used in Islam when discussing interfaith tolerance? That would be useful to know. I would be more sympathetic to your interpretation if it were a seldom-used quote about tolerance selected by Hamas because it can carry the implication you give it.
If you’re implying something about me with this statement and your use of “apparently” you should just come out and say it. I think I’ve been pretty clear about whether Hamas has a message of hate or not.
That I do not know. I do know that, traditionally, the “people of the Book” - that is, Jews and Christians - were, under Islam, not to be persecuted as long as they accept Islamic primacy, etc.
Not at all. It is the “ambiguity” that is in question here, not the hate. The issue is whether it is “ambiguity” as to whether the document calls for genocide or not.
Everyone arguing in this thread agrees it is hateful, from the start. But there are degrees of hate. You contend that it is hateful but not expressly genocidal; I contend it is both.
I haven’t read the Charter of Hamas, never will either, it isn’t anything else than a radical and brainless manifest screed.
But even if I thought it was worthy of time reading it, I wouldn’t consider it as important, since what’s written there is probably the initial step for building an effective propaganda mechanism, to gather some followers, sympathisers from other Jihadi and anti-semitic groups.
Another aim is to subliminally legitimise the group in the perception of Westerners, as a ready to be independent decent group who can lead people and organise governmental responsibilities as a nation.
Although even if these were to happen, it wouldn’t be possible to do these with Hamas, which shows clear anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist anti-Israeli stances. Hamas would opt to chose for a solution that would humiliate Israel and since this would never be accepted upon the thing would be that 2 sides would continue fighting…
Hamas is genocidal, if you knew what the clerics in mosques were giving lectures about.
Hamas is genocidal, if they relocate civilians to Israeli military targets.
Hamas is genocidal, if they use civilians as human-shields against Israeli bullets.
just in order to create anti-Semitic views and propaganda,
so they can kill them easily and with support from the World.
Fun Fact: Hamas, which is an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood is indeed a terrorist organisation as it’s best allies with Islamic Jihad! How nice.
Fatah is Liberty, Unity Government is a sham.
The aim of Unity Government contradicts the one of Hamas, as it was constituted for peace but the Hamas’ one was constituted for the call of destruction of Israel.
Unity Government is a way to Hamas to continue their military activities in the background while being a part of the “peace process” with Israeli via the Unity Government.
People should note that the latest operation was carried against Hamas as a terrorist organisation inflicting violence in the region and rocketing South Israel. Although, as we all know, these happened after Unity Government was formed and in the news it was always Hamas and Israel fighting, not the Unity Government.
Now if the Unity Government is legitimate, then it should not be Hamas but Unity Government fighting with Israel which is contradictory and so Hamas shouldn’t be let firing rockets or the Unity Government should be dissolved.
Open your eyes.
These two goals are pretty much mutually exclusive, so I don’t think the charter is designed to do both. Only the first, probably, since anti-Semitism is much more blatant and common in the Middle East than the West.
Regards,
Shodan
Despite your warning this was my reaction as well. It’s like the protected PC class of muslims can get away with blatant racism and calls for genocide.
If a Republican says inner-city kids grow up in an environment that promotes laziness he’s pure evil.