Women and Islam

[Cluny]

The abuse of women in third world countries should not be obscured by an attempt to attack religion. It is a problem throughout the world, though it seems to be worst in impoverished nations without much education.

Like the Moslem in Michagan who started an Islamic TV station to show the world the moderate face of Islam who beheaded his own wife?

Or are you saying that the state of Michigan is a third-world country where people don’t have much education?

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

Behold how Islam exalts and protects women

WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:

THE MYTH &
THE REALITY

BY Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem

sultan.org/articles/women.html

For other languages of this book

islamhouse.com/p/191528

 

[ralphinal]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

WOMEN IN ISLAM VERSUS WOMEN IN THE
JUDAEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION:

THE MYTH &
THE REALITY

BY Dr. Sherif Abdel Azeem

sultan.org/articles/women.html

For other languages of this book

islamhouse.com/p/191528

I just read that book. First, I am shocked! This was a link from a Muslim poster that included citations and foot-notes that can be verified. There may be hope yet. Second, it is really more about the difference between Islam and Judaism, with a little Christianity thrown in. Thrid, when Bible verses are mentioned, they are always interpreted in a way that is different then the commonly accepted way. For example, they use the quote that women should be quiet in Church as meaning they should not be educated. That verse means that women should not be given a place of authority. I think Islam agrees with that.

My one biggest charge against the book is that it shows ideal Muslim laws versus Western failure in the real world. There is no discussion of how Islam is dealing with honor killings, the unfair treatment of women in places like Saudi Arabia, how women were denied rights in Afganistan under the Taliban, etc. If you read this in a vacuum of information, you would think that life is perfect for Muslim women and horrible for non-Muslim western women.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’ll play along…

Do you really think that the United States fighting those who would attack us in these areas is causal to this problem?

Causal? Not necessarily. But definitely correlated. Definitely making things worse. It’s not the only reason, but it’s the one you have the most power to affect change in.

Why should we care about how corrupt a leader is if the people seem not to?

What makes you think the people don’t care? That’s why these places are so unstable, the people are trying to form different kinds of opposition to the government, aren’t following its leadership because it’s corrupt. The people care, but in most cases there’s not much they can do–especially when the corrupt governments are bringing in massive amounts of money from the US in aid.

I cannot help but view things as an American. Here, when things are not as they should be, men took action. Yes, people suffered and died, including children, but eventually things changed. Why do these people not take action? Yes, people will suffer and die, but eventually things will change.

Uh, hello? They are taking action. People just don’t like the action they are taking, so they get called “terrorists.”

And, by the way, if the US stops fighting terror groups, will they no longer attack us?

War is not the answer.

Think of a playground, and there’s a bully who goes around taking people’s lunch money, making them move out of the way when he wants to play in a certain spot, and making fun of them in front of everyone, like the way they dress or the food they bring from home. One little kid, the scrawniest of all, gets fed up with being mocked and robbed all the time and he spits in the bully’s eye. And the bully gets angry and starts beating the kid up. Then some other kids get smart too, and they spit in his eye also when he tries to take their money or leave the spot they’re playing at, so he beats up on them too.

If he stops beating up on them, do you think that they’ll stop spitting in his eye?

They probably won’t.

So maybe it’s time to look at why they were spitting in his eye in the first place.

 

[Muslim_Woman]

In the name of Allah , Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Salaam/peace

… it is really more about the difference between Islam and Judaism, with a little Christianity thrown in.

I read that long ago . It has many verses from NT , also OT . To my knowledge , OT is still a holy book to Christians .

That verse means that women should not be given a place of authority. I think Islam agrees with that.

Who interpreted the verse that it’s about authority ? it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Women are advised to ask husband for explanation if they have any question but not to speak inside the Church .

I don’t know about any bar against women speaking at mosque. When Caliph Omar (ra) wanted to fixed a maximum amount as Mahr for women , it was an ordinary woman who protested against him at mosque & Caliph agreed & withdraw his command.

 

[ralphinal]

Causal? Not necessarily. But definitely correlated. Definitely making things worse. It’s not the only reason, but it’s the one you have the most power to affect change in.

Fair enough…however, there are places where we have no real presence, and women there are not any better off

What makes you think the people don’t care? That’s why these places are so unstable, the people are trying to form different kinds of opposition to the government, aren’t following its leadership because it’s corrupt. The people care, but in most cases there’s not much they can do–especially when the corrupt governments are bringing in massive amounts of money from the US in aid.

Ok

Uh, hello? They are taking action. People just don’t like the action they are taking, so they get called “terrorists.”

Years ago, a group of Chinese students lead a peaceful protest against the government. A kid stood up to a tank. Now, not much really changed, but it was a start.

War is not the answer.

That axe cuts both ways

Think of a playground, and there’s a bully who goes around taking people’s lunch money, making them move out of the way when he wants to play in a certain spot, and making fun of them in front of everyone, like the way they dress or the food they bring from home. One little kid, the scrawniest of all, gets fed up with being mocked and robbed all the time and he spits in the bully’s eye. And the bully gets angry and starts beating the kid up. Then some other kids get smart too, and they spit in his eye also when he tries to take their money or leave the spot they’re playing at, so he beats up on them too.

If he stops beating up on them, do you think that they’ll stop spitting in his eye?

They probably won’t.

So maybe it’s time to look at why they were spitting in his eye in the first place.

But to make this story 100% applicable, you have to mention the kid who decides that the best way to teach that bully something is to go and rape his little sister. The bully then focuses on that one kid. The others, saying that it is unfair because the bully started it, gang up on him again. Other kids, too afraid that their sisters will get attacked, do nothing but hope that the bully prevails because they are too scared to do anything.

In the meantime, a group of kids who could intervene and stop it all keep saying that this is not how to do things yet will not leave the wall to help either side.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Fair enough…however, there are places where we have no real presence, and women there are not any better off

Ok

Years ago, a group of Chinese students lead a peaceful protest against the government. A kid stood up to a tank. Now, not much really changed, but it was a start.

That axe cuts both ways

But to make this story 100% applicable, you have to mention the kid who decides that the best way to teach that bully something is to go and rape his little sister. The bully then focuses on that one kid. The others, saying that it is unfair because the bully started it, gang up on him again. Other kids, too afraid that their sisters will get attacked, do nothing but hope that the bully prevails because they are too scared to do anything.

In the meantime, a group of kids who could intervene and stop it all keep saying that this is not how to do things yet will not leave the wall to help either side.

Nah, I think my analogy pretty much covered it. The whole raping little sister business is way out there and doesn’t correspond as closely to reality.

 

[ralphinal]

Nah, I think my analogy pretty much covered it. The whole raping little sister business is way out there and doesn’t correspond as closely to reality.

Yes, actually it does. The people inside the World Trade Center had nothing to do with US policy or the implementation of it. Yet they were attacked. The vast majority of terrorist acts carried out by Islamic extremests are done against those who are not in power. They attack the weak and the unarmed. It is par for the course for those types. It is not unique to Islamic terrorists.

How does hijacking a plane or a cruise ship confront a problem with foreign policy? It does not. All that it does is make the hijackers look like thugs. When these people realise this, perhaps true diplomacy can begin

 

[Cluny]

The abuse of women in third world countries should not be obscured by an attempt to attack religion. It is a problem throughout the world, though it seems to be worst in impoverished nations without much education.

Then why do honor killings of females occur in Great Britain, Canada, and the US–but ONLY among Moslems? Or are you saying that these are third word countries with general ignorance?

Why does clitoridectomy (aka female circumcision) occur ONLY in Moslem countries?

Islam is the world’s greatest abuser of women.

PS–Impoverished third world countries with widespread ignorance. Hmmmmm—what’s the major religion practiced in such places?

Think there’s a connection?

 

[Sister_Amy]

Yes, actually it does. The people inside the World Trade Center had nothing to do with US policy or the implementation of it. Yet they were attacked. The vast majority of terrorist acts carried out by Islamic extremests are done against those who are not in power. They attack the weak and the unarmed. It is par for the course for those types. It is not unique to Islamic terrorists.

How does hijacking a plane or a cruise ship confront a problem with foreign policy? It does not. All that it does is make the hijackers look like thugs. When these people realise this, perhaps true diplomacy can begin

Well the hijackers were thugs, that’s one problem. There is no justification for what they did. I don’t want to sound like I’m approving or condoning of the attack.

Yet if you look at what al-Qaida and any other allegedly terrorist organization for what they are saying, you’ll see it’s mostly political change they are trying to achieve. Even al-Qaida had political aims, they just cloaked their goals in religious rhetoric.

The way terrorism is supposed to work is that by attacking civilians, who are innocent by definition, a government will take whatever means necessary to protect its people. In the case of the USA, that meant going to war, right? The terrorists just wanted the USA to do what served their interests, and naturally the USA refused.

 

[Sister_Amy]

The abuse of women in third world countries should not be obscured by an attempt to attack religion. It is a problem throughout the world, though it seems to be worst in impoverished nations without much education.

Then why do honor killings of females occur in Great Britain, Canada, and the US–but ONLY among Moslems? Or are you saying that these are third word countries with general ignorance?

Why does clitoridectomy (aka female circumcision) occur ONLY in Moslem countries?

Islam is the world’s greatest abuser of women.

PS–Impoverished third world countries with widespread ignorance. Hmmmmm—what’s the major religion practiced in such places?

Think there’s a connection?

Honor killings are forbidden in Islam. I would like to see you provide proof that it’s only done by Muslims (I don’t think that’s a true statement, so prove me wrong.) Either way, though, it’s still absolutely forbidden in Islam.

Female Genital Mutilation is also not Islamic. And as a matter of fact it occurs in African nations, regardless of religion. It happens to Christians too, and people of various tribal religions. But in Muslim countries all over the rest of the world, it practically never happens. So it’s a cultural thing in Africa, and not related to Islam.

 

[ralphinal]

Well the hijackers were thugs, that’s one problem. There is no justification for what they did. I don’t want to sound like I’m approving or condoning of the attack.

I did not think that you did. I wanted to give you a chance to say it.

Yet if you look at what al-Qaida and any other allegedly terrorist organization for what they are saying, you’ll see it’s mostly political change they are trying to achieve. Even al-Qaida had political aims, they just cloaked their goals in religious rhetoric.

Although, can it be said that with Muslim goof-balls, the two go hand in hand? Isn’t their world-view one that Islam is both political and religious?

The way terrorism is supposed to work is that by attacking civilians, who are innocent by definition, a government will take whatever means necessary to protect its people. In the case of the USA, that meant going to war, right? The terrorists just wanted the USA to do what served their interests, and naturally the USA refused.

Is it fair to blame the US, then? Someone kicked our door in, we responded in the “best” way we could. now, innocents are suffering. What is the answer? I have some ideas, but none of them will really work…

 

[Sister_Amy]

I did not think that you did. I wanted to give you a chance to say it.

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify the point–I think you know my view but maybe not everyone else does, and I’d hate to be misunderstood on something like that.

Although, can it be said that with Muslim goof-balls, the two go hand in hand? Isn’t their world-view one that Islam is both political and religious?

Goof-balls? Hmm.

Actually, I think this is a fair criticism, their world-view involves religion with politics, but let me explain how I see it. Muslims are a single nation–they are a nation, regardless of their location, of their ethnicity, or even their language. And when one part of that nation is suffering, the rest of the nation feels it. They are one brotherhood, and when some of the brothers are hurting, the rest of the brothers hurt for them and try to help. That’s a major reason why some men living in caves in one part of the world are willing to risk their lives for their brothers who are being oppressed in another part of the world.

Now, that oppression is political, not religious. Specifically, the oppression of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel. It is oppression, and it is political (at least, more so than religious.) The Palestinians aren’t really being oppressed for being Muslim, obviously, as the Christian Palestinians are going through pretty much the same thing.

But all the Muslims in the world are pained over the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank–even if they live in caves in south/central Asia, even if they live on the other side of the world and speak another language, they still hurt. Because of the bond through the religion.

So yeah there is politics and religion at play, that’s true. The religion is the bond with other Muslims. The goal (this is just one of many that’s easy to explain) is to establish justice for the Palestinians. There are political and religious manifestations of that goal. Politically one can say solidly enough that what is happening to the Palestinians is not just. It violates international law. The USA is sometimes assisting Israel in the oppression of Palestinians so it could also be violating international law. The religious implication is that Muslims are supposed to strive for justice in all cases, and this specifically is an injustice against Muslims.

So yeah there are political and religious aspects to the overall ideology, but in that way.

Unfortunately, the way things are actually framed is to say that Muslims want to take over the world or something and force everyone into islam or cut of their heads–meaning Muslims are trying to establish political power and religious domination. But neither of those are true. So I typed a lot here but I hope it made sense.

Is it fair to blame the US, then? Someone kicked our door in, we responded in the “best” way we could. now, innocents are suffering. What is the answer? I have some ideas, but none of them will really work…

I don’t think it’s really fair to blame the US at first–it reacted pretty much naturally given the circumstances. It was brutally and unjustly attacked.

However, that was almost 8 years ago, and the bloodshed continues, and I don’t think that is right. I think the US at some point (like in 2003) transgressed and started becoming an aggressor and causing more problems in the world. It wasn’t immediate. So at first the USA was more or less justified–that’s why people were so supportive of the war in Afghanistan, especially at first. But the Iraq War for instance has always been much more contentious–there is far less justification for it. And I think that’s where we see the US becoming more and more blameworthy for its actions in the world.

 

[Rocky]

Well, it seems to me that by far the Muslims that have suffered in Iraq, Afghanistan (and in places where the US is not involved—Darfur for instance) suffer because other Muslims drive car bombs into innocent members. Even now with US forces giving over duties to Iraqi security, bombings are coming by Muslims on other innocent Muslims who are just shopping, etc. So I don’t think Muslims are one big brotherhood—
if they are, they are the most dysfunctional family I can imagine.

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks. I just wanted to clarify the point–I think you know my view but maybe not everyone else does, and I’d hate to be misunderstood on something like that.

I agree.

Goof-balls? Hmm.

Actually, I think this is a fair criticism, their world-view involves religion with politics, but let me explain how I see it. Muslims are a single nation–they are a nation, regardless of their location, of their ethnicity, or even their language. And when one part of that nation is suffering, the rest of the nation feels it. They are one brotherhood, and when some of the brothers are hurting, the rest of the brothers hurt for them and try to help. That’s a major reason why some men living in caves in one part of the world are willing to risk their lives for their brothers who are being oppressed in another part of the world.

Now, that oppression is political, not religious. Specifically, the oppression of the Palestinian people at the hands of Israel. It is oppression, and it is political (at least, more so than religious.) The Palestinians aren’t really being oppressed for being Muslim, obviously, as the Christian Palestinians are going through pretty much the same thing.

But all the Muslims in the world are pained over the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank–even if they live in caves in south/central Asia, even if they live on the other side of the world and speak another language, they still hurt. Because of the bond through the religion.

So yeah there is politics and religion at play, that’s true. The religion is the bond with other Muslims. The goal (this is just one of many that’s easy to explain) is to establish justice for the Palestinians. There are political and religious manifestations of that goal. Politically one can say solidly enough that what is happening to the Palestinians is not just. It violates international law. The USA is sometimes assisting Israel in the oppression of Palestinians so it could also be violating international law. The religious implication is that Muslims are supposed to strive for justice in all cases, and this specifically is an injustice against Muslims.

So yeah there are political and religious aspects to the overall ideology, but in that way.

Unfortunately, the way things are actually framed is to say that Muslims want to take over the world or something and force everyone into islam or cut of their heads–meaning Muslims are trying to establish political power and religious domination. But neither of those are true. So I typed a lot here but I hope it made sense.

It does, actually. This may be more of a rhetorical question, but is as much time and energy devoted to ending the suffering of Muslims at the hands of corrupt Muslim governments? For example, why were they not fighting Sadam Hussain?

I don’t think it’s really fair to blame the US at first–it reacted pretty much naturally given the circumstances. It was brutally and unjustly attacked.

However, that was almost 8 years ago, and the bloodshed continues, and I don’t think that is right. I think the US at some point (like in 2003) transgressed and started becoming an aggressor and causing more problems in the world. It wasn’t immediate. So at first the USA was more or less justified–that’s why people were so supportive of the war in Afghanistan, especially at first. But the Iraq War for instance has always been much more contentious–there is far less justification for it. And I think that’s where we see the US becoming more and more blameworthy for its actions in the world.

Iraq is a strange situation. It really is. Afganistan is easier to discuss.

However, all of it could have been avoided if two things had happened. The second was if the Talaban had handed over OSB and his bunch. They would still be in power and we would be at home.

The first was years ago. Clinton fired 50 cruise missles into OBL’s camp. The foreign minister in Pakestan called and warned him, giving them time to leave. Had the Clinton Administration handled it, this conversation would not be occuring.

About the Nation of Muslims (I would have said Islam, but that would be misunderstood), do many Muslims take it to mean that Muslims are always correct in their dealings with non-Muslims? If a Muslim nation attacks a non-Muslim one, do most Muslims automatically side with the Muslim? Is an attack on a Muslim nation automatically seen as an attack on Islam?

 

[ahollars]

I speak from my own experience as a former soldier who spent a year in the Persian Gulf nations.

Islam has a brotherhood because of the hajj. It is the one thing that every Muslim must do or has done. That is what unites them in a worldwide sense. It transcends all else. As Catholics, we have the Pope. Whenever he speaks we are united.

At the same time, the two are not comparable. Catholics do not suffer the pain of other Catholics simply because they are Catholic. An attack on one is not an attack on all, unless the reason for the attack was Catholicism itself. That is why there is a fallout now between Christianity and Islam. Islam will rally to the defense of Muslims who are attacked, even if the attack has nothing to do with religion. The prime example of that was Iraq.

The world, specifically the Middle East, is better off with Saddam Hussein no longer the President of Iraq, and no one has disputed that. In 1990, Iraq attempted to annex Kuwait, a U.S. business partner and ally, and was driven back. They signed Terms of Surrender and in exchange kept the current system in place. Within months, those terms were violated. After 12 years, 17 U.N. Resolutions, and two campaigns that destroyed the weapons infrastructure, only then did the U.S. decide to finish what they should have done the first time around. Believe me, as I was there during the time, those 12 years in between were not peace. Our pilots were fired upon daily. Kuwait’s defense was key, and Saddam never abandoned his goal of taking it. We were there to protect an Islamic nation, but that’s not how the rest of the world sees it.

Instead, we are warmongers, even though we had nothing to gain, and have gained nothing. We captured Saddam, and as we’ve done in every country for 60 years, we stayed to rebuild what was destroyed during the fight. Before we could even begin, foreigners began coming in, looking for a fight. Al-Sadr, who had no power with Saddam around, demanded we leave, even though we did him a favor (BTW, his tune has changed in the last year).

This is the thanks we get when other nations ask us to do something. All America is good for is money. Don’t buy or ship supplies, and don’t use the military to deliver anything, even if the military is alone in capability of humanitarian aid on a large scale. That is the reason why Americans have begun to turn libertarian, preferring the rest of the world to solve their own problems. Since most of America is Christian, the feeling is, “Why should we help at all?”

I know not all the Middle East is like this. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, U.A.E., and until two years ago, Pakistan have all treated Americans with courtesy. But the others, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Oman, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, have shown nothing but contempt for America. Keep in mind I am talking about the people, not government leaders.

Christianity is only recently being allowed to grow. No matter how slow the pace may be. But if Islam expects to have a stake in America, the must admit that they cannot squash religious freedom in their own territories and not have a fight.

One last thought, has anyone stopped to wonder why Jordan and Egypt don’t even want back the territory known as Palestine? Their plight could be solved overnight, but Israel isn’t the only country with a wall.

 

[Sister_Amy]

It does, actually. This may be more of a rhetorical question, but is as much time and energy devoted to ending the suffering of Muslims at the hands of corrupt Muslim governments? For example, why were they not fighting Sadam Hussain?

I really don’t have an answer. I live in America, and this is the only place I can make a difference.

Iraq is a strange situation. It really is. Afganistan is easier to discuss.

However, all of it could have been avoided if two things had happened. The second was if the Talaban had handed over OSB and his bunch. They would still be in power and we would be at home.

They are still in power.

About the Nation of Muslims (I would have said Islam, but that would be misunderstood), do many Muslims take it to mean that Muslims are always correct in their dealings with non-Muslims? If a Muslim nation attacks a non-Muslim one, do most Muslims automatically side with the Muslim? Is an attack on a Muslim nation automatically seen as an attack on Islam?

Some Muslims might take it that way, but they would be incorrect. The Qur’an tells Muslims to stand out for justice, even against their own selves.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I speak from my own experience as a former soldier who spent a year in the Persian Gulf nations…

Christianity is only recently being allowed to grow. No matter how slow the pace may be. But if Islam expects to have a stake in America, the must admit that they cannot squash religious freedom in their own territories and not have a fight.

I didn’t have a problem with most of what you said, but this bothered me. America is based on the premise that there is no religion to be imposed on anyone. America founded itself on that.

There are many countries in the world that are not. In fact, hardly any are.

But what you’re saying is that in order for America to follow it’s own laws, other countries have to follow America’s laws first. It doesn’t make sense. Religious freedom in America is not dependent on religious freedom elsewhere–in fact, the point is that it is independent of religious freedom (or lack thereof) in the rest of the world.

Islam is a religion like Christianity is a religion like Hinduism is a religion and so on, according to American law. If America were to make a law prohibiting Islam because some Muslim countries are stupid and oppressive, it would be violating the very first constitutional amendment.

One last thought, has anyone stopped to wonder why Jordan and Egypt don’t even want back the territory known as Palestine? Their plight could be solved overnight, but Israel isn’t the only country with a wall.

Palestine does not belong to Egypt or Jordan. It belongs to Palestinians, and was taken by Israelis. Are you suggesting that Israel is planning to relinquish Palestine?

That would be news.

 

[ahollars]

But what you’re saying is that in order for America to follow it’s own laws, other countries have to follow America’s laws first. It doesn’t make sense. Religious freedom in America is not dependent on religious freedom elsewhere–in fact, the point is that it is independent of religious freedom (or lack thereof) in the rest of the world. Islam is a religion like Christianity is a religion like Hinduism is a religion and so on, according to American law. If America were to make a law prohibiting Islam because some Muslim countries are stupid and oppressive, it would be violating the very first constitutional amendment.

No religious freedom isn’t dependent on freedom elsewhere. But that doesn’t mean that America’s leaders won’t intervene with the religious interference that occurs elsewhere. That has never been our policy. Islam just happens to be today’s protagonist. In decades past, it was Buddhists in China targeting Christians, Christians in Europe targeting Jews, and Christians in the Balkans targeting Muslims.

Perhaps my statement came out wrong. I would never advocate the persecution of Islam because of what happens overseas. However, it is another thing to believe that we won’t intervene in the persecution if it happens outside of America. We do this all the time without the use of our military, usually through economic sanctions. Today’s example of this would be Sudan (although it doesn’t seem to be working).

As for the last statement… if you look at any map of the region prior to 1956, there is no Palestine. The West Bank was Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was Egypt. These nations have inexplicably abandoned what were their citizens once upon a time. Israel has no attachment to Gaza, but the West Bank is a different story. The question over what to do with Jerusalem must be addressed. Until then, the current stalemate will continue. Actually, the West Bank seems to be doing well right now, at least much better than they were under Arafat’s leadership. It’s Gaza who can’t stop firing rockets.

As for America, we behave the way we do because, deep down, we are a Christian nation, with Christian roots, founded by Christian men. Christmas is a federal holiday, and we conduct our government and business on a Christian timetable. No offense to others, but it’s just the way it is, and it doesn’t appear to be shifting. As much as some would like us to be secular, secularists aren’t exactly having children at a rate that will change that mentality in this country. Meanwhile, I imagine most of the parents on this forum have large families.

Food for thought… Middle Eastern nations are not afraid to admit they are Islamic countries, and it does not offend us when they do. Why should we be different?

 

[Sister_Amy]

The reason there is no “Palestine” on a map is because Israel is on top of it. That whole strip there is Palestine, and has been known as such for centuries.