Post Reply
Page 1 of 7  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Btw, it's not the Al Asqa mosque, but the Temple Mount
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 3:52PM #1
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

Part of the media bias is to use names that reflect one side and not the other. Long before Islam, King Solomon built the Temple (in Hebrew Beit HaMikdash) on the site where Jacob had his vision of the ladder. Long before Muhammed, Ezra and Nehemiah built a second Beit HaMikdash on the Temple Mount after the first had been destroyed by the Babylonians. 

Politically, contemporary Arabs and Muslims deny the existence of such Temples, even as the ruins of its once magnificent structure are plainly visible to all and the pages of history are filled with evidence of its existence.

They have turned a religious holy site into a political tool. Over the years they have incited the Muslim masses to throw rocks at Jewish and non-Jewish worshippers. It is time people talk about this. 

And even if it's not time it's time that the media stop the bias by calling the area by a muslim name, which represents a tremendous desecration to Jews. 

 

Moderated by Miraj on Feb 24, 2012 - 05:17PM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 4:56PM #2
rangerken
Posts: 16,408

In my opinion Israel made a bad mistake after the 1967 war. Israel should have immediately made it clear that the entire temple mount was, is, and would be Israeli territory and that Israel, out of consideration and respect, would 'permit' Muslims to continue to use the Al Asqua mosque, and to govern the mosque itself, but NOT the land it sat on or the land beneath it since that was going to be thoroughly explored by Israeli historians and archeologists. Also, Israel should have assumed any and all responsibility for security and control and access to the temple mount...allowing Muslims to freely come to pray in the mosque...but that's all.


They really should have done that. And they should have done it after the 1973 war. I'd still like to see them do it but it's probably not politicaly possile now...too bad. It's an excellent example of the victor in a war giving away part of the victory out of the mistaken belief, and unrealized hope that the defeated enemy would be 'reasonable'.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 5:05PM #3
KindredSai
Posts: 5,841

From a Muslim perspective Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other religions such as Zoroastrianism and even Hinduism are part of the same Divine inspired message.


Your quarm that Muslims hijack Jewish beliefs as a political tool holds no substance, these are the core of Islamic beliefs, it's not your beef with Muslim or Arab politicians rather with the Islamic religion itself.


Judaism from a secular perspective is as much BS as any other religion, you can't from a sane perspective hold that Jewish history or beliefs holds more validity.


The goal of the extremist is for one religion to dominate in this city, land and so forth.


Both what are deemed Jewish and Muslim holy sites, should hold the same respect.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 5:55PM #4
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,775

KS


If what you (and others) claim about Islam were remotely true we would not have the problems we have today. 


The structures placed on the Temple Mount are an abomination and a violation of the most sacred place in Judaism. (for Muslims, think about what it would be like for someone to put a Mephis B-B-Que joint on the Kabbah) However, since the Temple will not be restored until the coming of the Messiah and since we respect other religious traditions (whether or not they respect ours) the decision was made to allow Muslims to continue to control the Temple Mount. (this was also done as a gesture of good faith and as an olive branch, but like all other such gestures and olive branches to the Palestinian Arabs the response was a spit in the eye). In retrospect that was a mistake. In retrospect a lot of decisions which were made to demonstrate good faith were a mistake, including not out right annexing all of Judea and Samaria and declaring that Israel would continue to recognize the Arabs as Jordanian citizens.  So many lost opportunities. 


the Temple Mount should be referred to as the Temple Mount and not the Al Aqsa Mosque as the Mosque is merely a structure placed on the Mount. It is a building it is not the whole Temple Mount

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 6:01PM #5
Amin21
Posts: 4,643

What exactly was on the temple mount immediately prior to the Jewish community of the levant assisting the Muslim conquest of the area?


To Muslims the building of the structures was an act of ultimate reverence to an extremely holy site.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 6:09PM #6
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,775

Amin


Actually the Christians had constructed a Church on one end of the Temple Mount which was converted into the Mosque.


From my perspective, the building on top of the Mount by Arab conquerors was a statement of conquest, it had no particular religious significance as the Temple Mount (and Jerusalem) had no particularly noticeable or observed religious significance in Islam until after 1967.  I suppose you could argue that changing a church into a mosque had religious significance, but that would be the same for all churches which were converted to mosques. (It was a common practice)


In any event, I think the best solution would be for everyone who wanted to be allowed onto the Temple Mount and to pray or play soccer (which is a common occurrence these days) or picnic, or be tourists, etc... without regard to religious affiliation. The only restriction should be for public safety, crowd control and the like. (Although there is the belief that the Temple would swell to hold as many people as came, I assume that there is actually room for only a finite number of people at any given time on the Temple Mount)   

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 6:21PM #7
Amin21
Posts: 4,643

I don't agree about Jerusalem or the temple mount having no significance until after 1967, as it is counter factual, but I really don't desire going down that path again.  There are strong narrative traditions concerning this subject in Islamic holy texts and histories dating back to between the 8th and 12th centuries AD.  The buildings were also established in these times. 


In fact the crusades were not fought by Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders simply to take out a foreign invasion but we see even from the literature of that time plenty of religious significance placed on the lands stolen by the crusaders.


Further, the conversion of Churches was mainly done to primary churches and not the majority of Churches.  This was common practice for thousands of years and was much less invasive under Islamic rule than under Byzantine rule, as most Churches (except central locations associated with the previous ruling powers) were not changed.


An Example in Syria of the Omayyad mosque and many other "former churches" is very telling as they were force converted with ALL pagan temples into churches, and pagan religious celebrations and ceremonies and temples were all made illegal. In the case of the Ommayad mosque it was an Assyrian temple... a Roman temple... a church and finally a mosque.  Its central location in the city to the primary marketplaces and administration centers were what necessitated its change to a mosque from a temple, not the fact that the building was non-Muslim or Christian.


In the old world religious buildings were understood to be government buildings and the act of changing a primary one in non-secular medieval society was not considered in any way disrespectful, but rather was expected.


I don't disagree with your last paragraph at all...


In fact... when I learned of the bans on visits by non-Muslims to the Mosques on the temple mount I was very surprised.  The Ommayid mosque in Damascus is open to all tourists and if I remember correctly Christians pray inside to a shrine that is said to contain the head of John the Baptist.  The only expectation is that people cover their bodies, take off their shoes and that women wear a scarf over their heads, as well as respect Friday prayers and not enter at that time.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 7:30PM #8
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Mosques/masjids have been converted into churches, too.

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 9:32PM #9
KindredSai
Posts: 5,841

If what you (and others) claim about Islam were remotely true we would not have the problems we have today. 


This is what Leah would say was normative belief, in this case Islamic belief.


Normative Islamic belief will always clash will Jewish beliefs. Islam claims to be the first monotheistic faith. This I reitirate is not a minority belief Rocket as you and Jastor make out, it's the consensus of most Muslims and scholars.



The structures placed on the Temple Mount are an abomination and a violation of the most sacred place in Judaism. (for Muslims, think about what it would be like for someone to put a Mephis B-B-Que joint on the Kabbah)


And I'm sure Jewish structures were abominations to Canaanites too.


I don't buy your Jewish supremacy argument. Makkah doesn't hold any religious value to Jews as much as Jerusalem does to Muslims.


I think my point is, there are three religions important to Jerusalem and they are all deserve respect, calling other religious sites abomination denotes extremism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 24, 2012 - 10:36PM #10
Amin21
Posts: 4,643

Feb 24, 2012 -- 7:30PM, Miraj wrote:


Mosques/masjids have been converted into churches, too.




Exactly,  I didn't point this out but it is true as well... and was perfectly normal in its time.  No one had any doubt when loosing a war that the main government run place of worship would be change.


In point of fact the main place of worship is almost always converted in such a way, in many ways the Jewish temple at the time of the Roman take over was an exception, that was probably left as is (initially anyway) due to the history of the Greeks with the same issue.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 7  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook