From: abdullahalandalusi . com

Some people have asked how does the Zionist take-over of Palestine differ from Caliph Omar (RA)’s led conquest of Al-Sham (the Levant) from Roman domination.

The basis behind this question, is actually a faulty assumption. The assumption is, that our criticism of the Zionist movement is simply their take over of an area of land within the Muslim world. This is not the case, because the land was actually conquered by the British Empire first, and they then facilitated Zionist colonialism (let’s not forget that the French did the same in Algeria, and brought in French settlers to gradually take more and more land – however, this was thankfully reversed).

...

Now, it’s true that when Bani Israel first entered into Canaan, the Torah reports that they were commanded to massacre the Canaanite inhabitants* in the area that was given to them.

However, the Torah explains that this was only because these people were reportedly vile and polytheists. But this doesn’t mean that no non-Jews were allowed. The Torah expressly legislates for how Jews should justly treat the non-Jews around them (plus, Palestinians are monotheists, not polytheists, so there’s that too …).

...

Now getting back to the point, when the Muslim conquered the land of Al-Sham (the Levant, including Palestine), they didn’t kick people out. They didn’t demolish homes, kick people off their land, send them into exile, or build walls to divide people and keep them apart (and no, having cities with ‘quarters’ doesn’t count, because there was no barrier between them. Think of them as community neighborhoods, not sealed out areas).

...

Had Palestine being created with both Jewish refugees from Europe, without dispossessing the Palestinian inhabitants, and Britain joined them together under a state of ‘Levant’ or ‘Palestinians’ (a old Roman [-ish] word for the region BTW), then Muslims would’ve had only the same gripes we do about ALL nation-states, like Singapore, but also Malaysia! (and all the other ones in the Muslim world) – namely, they’re artificial, secular and an created by imposition of colonial powers.

...

Now while Islam would be in natural contention with socialism and liberalism as applied by states to be their political systems, but these two systems don’t care about race (well, in theory anyway), and rather view themselves as being fair and just within their own criteria of what justice and rights are. Muslims are obliged to rebut them, and contend against them with our own Din as the better way of life for all mankind. But in this contending, we’d never call a socialist or liberal system applied on Muslims equally as well as other inhabitants of a region as ‘unjust’ in the sense of it being applied inconsistently and hypocritically [we WOULD call it unjust in the sense of it being unjust to true human nature, or fit-rah, and unjust in disregarding the rights of the Creator! A truly significant injustice!].