DEBATE: IS ZIONISM SETTLER COLONIALISM? Joseph Cohen vs Abdullah al Andalusi 

I can only say good things of Abdullah Al-Andalusi and The Quran Institute’s current Palestine Course. Great service, great content and an excellent teacher

Thank for uploading this Debate. i have learned a lot from this. may Allah increase you and us in knowledge and protect you from all evil.i am from Ethiopia.i am just mentioning this to say that your lecture and debate are reaching the whole world. keep this up for the sake of Allah and this Umma.jazakallahu khiren.

A great and civilised debate (dialogue) from both sides. I highly appreciate the patience of both sides and their ability to listen to each other. I learned a lot from this debate. Thank you!

He didn't say he will not be civil, he said he will not be overly friendly with people killing his brothers. To try and force him to smile and be giggly because he is being 'over dramatic' for babies being blown to pieces is called gas lighting. As malcolm x said, the 'talk' they want you to have is between their foot and your neck

That course that Ustadh Abdullah Al Andalusi is heading looks really enticing

1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state 2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state. 4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid Arab-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state. 5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state. 6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there was the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state. 7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state. 8. Before the Byzantine Empire, there were the Sassanids, not a Palestinian state. 9. Before the Sassanid Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state. 10. Before the Byzantine Empire, there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state. 11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state. 12. Before the Hasmonean state, there was the Seleucid, not a Palestinian state. 13. Before the Seleucid empire, there was the empire of Alexander the Great, not a Palestinian state. 14. Before the empire of Alexander the Great, there was the Persian empire, not a Palestinian state. 15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state. 16. Before the Babylonian Empire, there were the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, not a Palestinian state. 17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 18. Before the kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state. 19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state. 20. Actually, in this piece of land there has been everything, EXCEPT A PALESTINIAN STATE. (Borrowed from a friend) A little more history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'. In 132 AD the Emperor Hadrian resolved to stamp the Jews and their religion out of existence. He sold all Jewish prisoners into slavery after the revolt of Bar Kikhba, forbade the teaching of the Torah, renamed the province Syria Palaestina, and changed Jerusalem’s name to Aelia Capitolina. He renamed Israel to wipe out the national identity of Israel and the Jews. So if you are looking to 'restore Palestine to the Palestinians', you need to give it back to the Jews.

Loved the format where the other party is muted... this is exactly how these debates should be done

Only listened to the first hour yet, but I very much appreciate the respectful and civilised debate. Even more in these days. I'm curious to see how it's going to proceed, given the serious topic. I don't expect my views on it to be turned inside out, yet it's great to listen to each perspective in a discussion without time limit. That's the way social media should be used for.

Jazakallahu khairan

The conclusion of the audience is Joseph introduced a strawman. The topic of the debate is settler colonialism not what Jewish life was under Islam.

If we don't steal Palestinian's land then someone else will - israhelli proverb

Slavery of man to God is not immoral. It is a the best of all goods.

JazakAllahu khairan

Great work

Joseph, please control laughing, during or after speaking. Unless your telling a joke. Thanks for your great contribution to informing and educating us. Bless you and all Israel.

1:15:55 Lol thats cheeky Nice debate brother, May Allah reward you

This is a more calmer debate, then sometimes with atheist.respect for both speakers conducting themself

*_Occupied Palestine will return to it's rightful owners. insha'Allah_*

Asalamu Alaykum My Dear Brother, Can you do live sessions / call-in? BaarakAllahu Feek

Thank you both for this fruitful debate it really helped to unveil many aspects of Zionism and the palestinian issue that official mass media wouldn't discuss or expose

I've been waiting for this debate so patiently (OK fine, very impatiently 😉), may Allah bless you, protect you, preserve you and increase the power of your voice brother Abdullah, ameen. Has anyone ever noticed that Joseph is the only jew who wears a larger skull cap which is ordinarily recognizable as a muslim skull cap. I've always thought it's his way of blending in with muslims as they do in israel "mustarebeen" as he always goes to certain Muslims and speaks nicely, while on his videos and away from speakers corner he says the exact opposite

For the first time, l felt unknowledgeable about a topic as l heard these gentleman debate this topic.

A good answer to the question "Where has a settler colonial system arised with an indigenous group bringing in foreign ideas?" would be Liberia, which was a colony set up by former slaves in the USA in Western Africa.

جزاک اللّٰہ خیر Brother Abdullah. It’s about time we inform ourselves about Palestine & the arguments of the Apartheid regime. This type of content is a must have for the Ummah. جزاک اللّٰہ خیر brother Abdullah for curating this project. I am going to start this course today انشااللّٰہ

Even in my country Sweden, some places have Celtic names despite we have no real recorded presence of Celts inhabiting our land, at least nothing written, like runestones and sagas. Maybe 3000 years ago, people spoke Celtic instead of Germanic. Using name origins of regions and villages arent always good arguments in order to undermine rights and historical presence. Even if some regions would have Celtic or even Sami and Finnish origin we would never see those places as anything else than Swedish and I guess the same can be said regarding Palestinian places with Roman, Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew names.

just finished the whole debate. jazak'Allah khair Abdullah my bro. please keep doing what you are doing and rest assured that we support you. may Allah reward you. Ameen.

Yes.

Perfect

MashaAllah been kicking butt for more than two decades now. I wish I had come across this brother back in the day because the mainstream media did such a great job demonising Muslims, it was a time of what seemed like hopelessness but Abdullah was there, setting the record straight.

i wish i could have been there chairing this..

Cohen thinks that if he laughs like a 6 year old girl after every statement it will legitimize his argument. Hihihi

He had no problem criticizing his holy book while kept rationalizing the disgusting comments of the Zionist leaders. That’s how nationalism becomes a religion, and decides priorities. He’s only an orthodox when it comes to Zionism, everything else is questionable.

was not there also a debate between Joseph Cohen and an anti-zionist jewish brother? where is it possible to watch that?

Jazzakallahu khairaiann Abdullah! This is just amazing...phenomenal

Mashallah

3:46:48 highlight

Wonderful debate you did so well Abdullah .. It's so clear that you were the victorious

4:03:07 “I wanted to talk to Muslims…” - but also him a few mins earlier “answer my question yes or no!”

2:21:27 was a brilliant response by brother Abdullah, it needs to be a meme or made as a separate video clip. I couldn't stop laughing when he got to the Germany question 🤣🤣🤣 brother Abdullah is top class, may Allah Azzawajal bless you brother, ameen And just after the above, Joseph was nodding agreeing with brother Abdullah that a lot of the names for the villages are pre israelite yet he argued for the exact opposite earlier on in the video about some of those same names. What a numpty

This was a good debate and it just drives home my thankfulness to Allah for making me muslim a person who's main goal is to submit to Allah. Everything else about my life and myself is secondary but is connected to the rest of humanity and our father Adam.

I have to conclude that its counter productive discussing with Joseph. I have carefully listened to his discussions at Speakers Corner and he doesnt intend to stay on topic. Get someone who will stay on topic.

Abdullah clearly won the debate Alhumdullilah

It’s good to listen to both sides. I’d love to see more debates with you two. I’d like to listen to a debate on how we move forward realistically considering both sides contemporary arguments.

Joseph was not arguing the topic. The guy spent his whole time attacking Islam historically and Scripturally.

Clearly, Joseph lost this debate badly. You can tell bc towards the end he got emotional and was no longer laughing. The guy spent the whole conversation creating strawmans.

☝🏽☝🏽

Most African countries and cities were named by their colonisers. It doesnt mean the people that were colonised werent indigenous or natiive. Thats the same case for the USA; What is factual is that when Zionism started, towns, villages and cities had Arabic names. After the Ethnic cleansing the Zioinists had to rename close to 400 villages, cities and towns. Joseph is incorrect once again.

(1:11:30) Theodor Herzel-ism might have been settler colonialism, but as he said, his ideals regarding that never came into fruition.

May Allah protect you health and intellect, and reward you janah.

Another thing which should’ve been mentioned is that Jews were in Hijaz (specifically Madinah) because they awaited the advent of the final Prophet (s). When that Prophet (s) was found to be an arab Ishmaelite the Jews rejected him (s) and commited treachery against him (s).

yes it is

Its an interesting analogy the word massacre. All Jew killing according to Joseph are massacres. Yet not once has any official Israeli representative described Israels killings of Arabs as massacres. So, Joseph needs to define what is a massacre.

the way he ran away from answering 04:02:40 xD

Joseph's basis of his claims is Jewish indegenouity to the Land of Israel when Abdullah Al Andalusi clearly pointed out that according to the biblical narrative that they effectively invaded the land and committed stack of atrocities as well to do it. If someone's ancestors lived or controlled the land at some point has the same level of claim as Arab or European Jews

Interesting & informative debate, however Abdullah is more sincere & made more sense than Joseph. The latter is being disingenous & smug

Hilarious hearing him trying to say it isn’t settler colonialism. 26:00. And you can see why he does it, he delegitimizes country’s with settle colonialism. So he would be delegitimization his own country. He should embrace it, it was through force of arms Israel gained its independence

Joseph said they are banned, then he said they can visit but cant pray. Is this reasonable? Places of worship are specifc for that religion. Why would a Jew want to pray in a mosque? Its not the place of worship of a Jew.

Whilst the Torah glorifies Jehovah it isnt necessarily bias to a particular group of people. If you read Genesis 10 called the "table of nations" it actually makes it clear that following the great flood and the dispersion at the Tower of babel God divinely dispersed mankind across the world to inhabit many lands. This was to fulfill his original aim which was for mankind to have rule over the earth. The table of nations are the original 70 nations from which all countries have sprung from. Each nation were given there own space to grow. (Deuteronomy 32:8) Following this you than begin to read about the specific nation of Hebrews from the line of Shem who were given the land of Canaan. This story is played out through the life of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph and comes to a head in Israel's Exodus from Egypt. By the time they enter the land of Canaan they are removing other tribes who have encroached onto the land that was given to Israel. Let's also be clear that Israel were also warned that should they reject Jehovah they too would be exiled from their lands which will be restored when they return to him. This happened on numerous occasions through the books of judges, Samuel and kings. Ultimately this debate comes down to whether you agree with the history of the Torah or not. If you agree with it than Israel has a right to the land. If you do not agree with it than possession is nine tenths of the law and any invading nation has claim to it.

Joseph said 'Herzl died before his vision was realised.' Well transfer still took place, people were pushed out of the state into other states and a few were allowed to remain. So, we could say the founding fathers did keep to Herzls vision.

Joseph made the argument he's upset at how the relationship between muslims and jews has "broken down" and he's here to build peace, yet he argues the relationship was never "really" good anyway. 🤔🤔

Why is he smiling when he is talking about Jews massacre?

A bit off-topic, but since you mentioned it: You said Rumi was an Arab, how did you come to that conclusion?

Great debate Abdullah.

Over all, Bro. Andalusi did a great job in refuting Joseph's claims, you also gave highlight to Joseph's deceptions and omissions, like, when he NEGLECTED to include that other Muslims overthrew the Umayyads or Abbasid (whichever Empire it was) because they were violators of the Deen. Joseph, don't speak of people who got rich in their own lands, vs an occupying foreign people.....you may not like the indigenous got rich, BUT, you don't condemn them after you as a foreigner came in and subdued EVERYONE and GOT RICH while doing it. Joseph always quotes the Conquerors or the enemy who fits his narrative. Extremely unethical and immoral Joseph Cohen is.

Is Joseph saying Jews have a monoply on persecution? He said 'antisemites' have said Jews dont have a monopoly on persecution. How is that an antisemitic statement?

The answer is no.

(3:04:55) that would make me personally question his morality..

3:57:25 - he’s talking like one of those kofereen abdullah mentioned earlier

One can not colonise their own home

Did Joseph say being a Jew is codified in the scriptures?

Abdullah, be more active in social media

I hope two people become one

(1:56:19) that's not what he did. That's not what his point was - his point was Jews were oppressed by Muslim caliphates and Jews cannot depend on different caliphates anymore as he said.

Bro realized he cant make up anything this time and showed his victim card to Abdullah. Although he didnt directly say it, but he ment to say that Abdullah is an anti semite. Literally Abdullah wasnt even harsh with him, but Joe began acting like he was being persecuted by Abdullah. But anyways that was a great debate brother Abdullah. Your probably already labeled as a nazi anti semite by the zionist.

joseph weasled out - at the end.. he wanted abdullah to point blank say slavery is wrong but the big quote about killing child/women and not distinguishing between guilty/non guilty.. and he weasled out like a little weasel wanted context but didnt afford abdullah the same courtesy

Abdullah got into Josef that is looking glazed. He has the deer caught in full headlamp syndrome.

SUBHANALLAH ❤️🤍❤️

JC got exposed so badly. He couldn't cope

Interesting and informed debate ...imo there has been way too much suffering for all groups jews muslims and christians in the middle east In an ideal world all would cohabit peacefully Unfortunately judging from the historic evidence this is not practical which calls for barriers borders and nation states to maintain relative peace between peoples jmo I pray for peace

5 hours! 😶

Uthman Ibn Affan radiyallahu anh was a successful trader. That’s how he amassed his wealth.

3:57:20 😳 🤯

wonderful work brother Abdullah, this shows the hypocrisy of the zionists

Truth is the first casualty of war

15 minutes into the debate but can't take it anymore. The victim playing makes me sick

His little tea cup is "full" all the time 😂😂

(07:09) people of the injeel or people of the Taurat and Psalms to be more correct.

Perhaps Josef should tell us where are the 12 nations that came from the 12 princes from Ishmael, if none of them existed on the land of their direct patriarch, Abraham especially considering Ishmael buried his father and the children of his nephew Jacob, the father of the children of Israel knew his story well enough and passed it on to his children and on their religious book as history, today.

Joseph phrases it as if Islam promotes and encourages slavery. It does not. At the time the religion came to be the world ran by a system of slavery. The Holy Prophet (s) set a precedent of freeing slaves and through the system of Islamic laws you can see Many ways to seek forgiveness from God is to free a slave.

the narration of Muhammad SAW evicting jews but then letting them stay if they pay 50% tax is because of their betrayal. which explains the 50% tax and also explain why other jews were allowed to stay

The debate was finalized at 1:16:21 The final blow

Joseph is basically gaslighting throughout the debate.

Slavery is a consequence of war. Just like the destruction of war. So in islam it has rules such as not to burn fruit trees or harm women and children. There are similar rules on how to treat the captured eg slaves in war.

Did anyone notice the mug Joseph is sipping from? It’s like the one David Wood has but it says “Anti zionist tears” 🤦🏻‍♂️

The Native Americans have a connection to the land of North America, and they were here long before the settlers who set up a powerful state here. Do they have the right to set up a Native American majority ethno-state on this land? Apparently, Joseph Cohen would have to say they do, right?

Did Joseph say that what Ben Gurion said does matter??? LOL!

Abdullah is very eloquent. Zionist Joseph made emotional points not based in reality. One truth among ten lies is how he justified his whining. Whereas Abdullah's rebuttals were based on facts and reality.

Well done Adbullah!! Thank you for keeping the history alive.

This part was interesting: Joseph claimed he'd heard an argument used by Abdullah from anti-Semites. Abdullah pointed out the ad hominem and said don't make veiled accusations. Abdullah defended himself by pointing to his record to point out that he's not singling out Jewish nationalism and that he fights against _all_ nationalism specifically because he's anti-racist. I think Abdullah's charge of veiled accusation was maybe unfair, as I genuinely don't think that was Joseph's intention; but it is an ad hominem he uses a lot and it specifically implies a charge of anti-Semitism on baseless grounds before (unconsciously) using it as a way of discounting the argument. Joseph pointed out what he saw as a hypocrisy since Abdullah got mad at being called a racist and essentially turned it back on the other person in trying to defend himself. I want to point out that this is an unfair comparison; while the two charges were essentially the same charge, they were completely different in approach. Joseph's charge was attacking the argument by attacking previous sources of the argument thereby unintentionally implying by logical necessity that anyone who makes that argument must be from them. Abdullah's charge was attacking the argument itself as racist per se and thereby unintentionally implying that anyone who makes the argument by necessity falls into the criticism he has of the argument. I believe neither were intended to be smear the name of the interlocutor in front of them, but Abdullah's charge was on the argument itself, while Joseph's charge was on the sources (even if he didn't necessarily mean the source in front of him). For that reason, I do believe Abdullah had much more of a right to be angry at being charged, as he was essentially made guilty by association, as opposed to the merits of his case. You can much more easily read Joseph's charge as a veiled baseless accusation, even though I'm sure he didn't intend it that way. I do believe he tries to be honest, and perhaps more pertinently, is genuinely looking for constructive conversation instead of veiled attacks, despite his bias (as we all have).

1:34:00 it’s funny how he says we’ll Jews aren’t European, look at how they treated them……. That’s how they treated other Europeans as well…