Clashes After Jews Permitted to Pray At Temple Mount

According to Islamic tradition, the biblical Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon were Muslim prophets. The Israelites were also originally Muslim. The corollary is Islamic supersession, namely the belief that Muslims—and not Jews—are the legitimate heirs to the Israelite faith and homeland. Muslim denial that a Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem reflects Islamic beliefs that the Muslim king and prophet Suleyman built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Islamic supersession is based on the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, which teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures distort the Islamic message delivered by the prophets of antiquity.

As fanciful as tahrif and Islamic supersession may appear to non-Muslims, these teachings are fundamental in justifying the doctrinal superiority of Islam. These teachings also shed light on the fundamental reason most Muslim states refuse to recognize Jewish ties to Jerusalem and to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland involves accepting the Zionist narrative. For Muslims, this means engaging with Jewish history and Jewish scriptures on historical terms—not Islamic terms. Doing so leads to recognition that Judaism predates Islam and that Islam appropriated prophetic traditions from Judaism.



Source
 
Also, there are lists of thousands and thousands of non-Islamic houses of worship which were converted into mosques. Are they all shared holy places? Does the act of converting or building upon another holy place make it yours? And how is this not simply usurping someone else's holy places? How is this not simple Imperialism? And replacement?
 
Jews...always pushing it.
They have every right to pray at their holy places. How is that pushing anything?
Unless you have been living under a boulder you know the Muslims have controlled the temple mount since the 7th century. Yet...Jews are gonna do what they do best...push it.

Muslims have controlled the Temple Mount but since it’s a religious site for both religions what gives them the Right to Forbid Jews to go there?
The answer is...,,,,, Waiting
Typical Goyim non response
When you forbid them from the lands they owned prior to the formation of your apartheid state.
Turnabout is fair play, hook nose.
 
Of course you wouldn’t. That is part of the problem. Neither side regards the Other” as human beings.


Still, the Jews are not using violence to prevent Muslim attendance and prayer.

Nor did the Jews usurp the holy place of another faith.

The first I agree with.

The second, I don’t. Religions build upon preceding faiths and the structures and traditions for both faiths there are ancient.

And none of that makes them any less human beings, and individual human beings at that.

“Othering” (apparently that is now a verb) is a real problem for both sides in this conflict.


I’m not convinced it is true that religious faiths build on preceding faiths and structures. Actually the only instance I can think of is the Christian usurpation of Judaism and the Islamic usurpation of Judaism.

Can you suggest others?

Essentially, all of them.

Do you think Moses was an original story? Or the son of God? Today’s holy sites were often built on other older ones (sometimes as a means of conquest or control, sometimes out of the belief that it is sacred). The Gods of prior religions are absorbed and appear as angels, demons, and spirits in newer ones. You call it “usurpation”, but isn’t that really just a way of marginalizing any claims those faiths might have to figures, stories and places? Much the same way you say they do to the Jews?

To bad we can’t require everyone to take a course in comparative religion. Maybe a greater understanding and tolerance of “the other” would develop.

There is a great deal of difference between shared myths and stories, commonality of human experience, ancestral memories and other growth and development of human civilization, especially in situ, with replacement theology, conquest and the wholesale "borrowing" of the entirety of another peoples's tradition and erasing them and replacing them with your own. Only Christianity and Islam did that. To my knowledge.

Did the Jewish people build their faith on the existing stories and myths? Of course they did. Lots of civilizations have flood myths, and dragon-creature myths, and a single god, and evil women stories. These are human myths. Literally the story of civilization.

That is not the same thing as claiming that the specific writings and stories in Torah are actually your stories (except for the places where the vile Jews corrupted them). I'm not marginalizing Muslim right to have stories, or places. I'm suggesting they should use their own. Not the Jewish ones.

The Muslim claim to the Temple Mount, especially the Arab Palestinian claim, is not predicated on the Night Journey (though that is also problematic) it's predicated on the direct link between modern Muslims and ancient Canaanites and that the stories of Abraham and the early figures in Torah are MUSLIM stories and NOT Jewish stories.

And remember, I am not actually demanding they give up anything. Not a thing. They should be able to access the Temple Mount compound and their holy shrines there. They should be able to come to pray and worship and sing and even play soccer if they want. They should be able to bring their Qu'rans and their holy symbols, and dress the way they want and say what they want in whatever language they want.

And I know that we both want the Jewish people to be able to do the same thing.

I think the term replacement theology is being used in a new way for a very old concept and that concept has all of a sudden become unacceptable, and that is where I have issues. It is a bit like the term cultural appropriation. It is poorly defined and vague and in the case of Islam and Christianity, you are talking thousands of years.

And in a sense you are demanding they give up something, a right to their own stories regardless of whether they are stories that had their origins elsewhere. Now doesn’t give them any right to claim shared sacred places solely as their own.

The only difference between the shared stories of the Abrahamic faiths and older religions is that they were written down and most older ones lack a comprehensive and detailed record. But you can look at concepts and see some incredibly close similarities in accounts.

Moses’ story closely follows that of Sargon (Akkadian) and Karnataka Hindu)....replacement theology? Or how about the habit of religions like the Romans, of take Greek mythologies and deities and just giving them Roman names and taking them for their own?

In many ways what I see with the Abrahamic faiths is that they are really a vast collection of faiths loosely characterized as Judaic, Muslim, Christian and within those many many splits that could almost new faiths rather than sectarian splits (LDS or Baha’i) for example. All lay claim to earlier stories, just putting their own spin on it or adding another populist prophet. I don’t see this as “replacement theology”.

When I looked up the concept, after I wrote the first part of my post, it doesn’t seem to match what you are saying exactly other than the part about the Mosiac covenant being superceded (as in Christianity) or corrupted (as in Islam). It seems it is a very old concept, in the origins of both religions, that came into question after the Holocaust and I can see why. But I don’t really see the difference between that and other ancient religions that forceably replaced one theology with another while maintaining the same themes and characters.
 
Jews...always pushing it.
They have every right to pray at their holy places. How is that pushing anything?
Unless you have been living under a boulder you know the Muslims have controlled the temple mount since the 7th century. Yet...Jews are gonna do what they do best...push it.

Muslims have controlled the Temple Mount but since it’s a religious site for both religions what gives them the Right to Forbid Jews to go there?
The answer is...,,,,, Waiting
Typical Goyim non response
When you forbid them from the lands they owned prior to the formation of your apartheid state.
Turnabout is fair play, hook nose.
Why are you obsessed with people’s noses? The tricky part of the issue is that you ignore the significant displacement of both Jews and Arabs in these conflicts and that Jews as well were forced lands that been in their families for generations. It is messy and not at all black and white.
 
Also, there are lists of thousands and thousands of non-Islamic houses of worship which were converted into mosques. Are they all shared holy places? Does the act of converting or building upon another holy place make it yours? And how is this not simply usurping someone else's holy places? How is this not simple Imperialism? And replacement?

That is the product of historic conquest. And in the ethics of those times, that is what people did. Christians and Muslims replaced mosques, churches and synagogues. As did others, And that could well include the Jews when they conquered territory from other ancient people and destroyed or replaced ancient artifacts with their own. It wasn’t uncommon for conquerors to replace sacred places with their own, either because it was a way of enforcing their power, or by taking it and making it their own (Romans giving deities new names at old shrines) or even the local populace, having converted to a new religion, replacing the old with the new. Is right, wrong? In today’s ethics we would regard it as a human rights violation or even war crimes.

So who does it really belong to...the original builders, who we may not even be able to identify? The succeeding inhabitants who built their own structures there and worshipped on it for hundreds or thousands of years?

So yes, those places are shared places that can no longer be claimed by only one group.
 
Jews...always pushing it.
They have every right to pray at their holy places. How is that pushing anything?
Unless you have been living under a boulder you know the Muslims have controlled the temple mount since the 7th century. Yet...Jews are gonna do what they do best...push it.

Muslims have controlled the Temple Mount but since it’s a religious site for both religions what gives them the Right to Forbid Jews to go there?
The answer is...,,,,, Waiting
Typical Goyim non response
When you forbid them from the lands they owned prior to the formation of your apartheid state.
Turnabout is fair play, hook nose.

Israeli girls are beautiful. Many GOYIM have “ hook noses” like Italians and others. Were Jews permitted to go there even before 1948, you ignorant stupid GOY
 
According to Islamic tradition, the biblical Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon were Muslim prophets. The Israelites were also originally Muslim. The corollary is Islamic supersession, namely the belief that Muslims—and not Jews—are the legitimate heirs to the Israelite faith and homeland. Muslim denial that a Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem reflects Islamic beliefs that the Muslim king and prophet Suleyman built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Islamic supersession is based on the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, which teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures distort the Islamic message delivered by the prophets of antiquity.

As fanciful as tahrif and Islamic supersession may appear to non-Muslims, these teachings are fundamental in justifying the doctrinal superiority of Islam. These teachings also shed light on the fundamental reason most Muslim states refuse to recognize Jewish ties to Jerusalem and to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland involves accepting the Zionist narrative. For Muslims, this means engaging with Jewish history and Jewish scriptures on historical terms—not Islamic terms. Doing so leads to recognition that Judaism predates Islam and that Islam appropriated prophetic traditions from Judaism.



Source
Interesting read, thanks for posting it!
 
Also, there are lists of thousands and thousands of non-Islamic houses of worship which were converted into mosques. Are they all shared holy places? Does the act of converting or building upon another holy place make it yours? And how is this not simply usurping someone else's holy places? How is this not simple Imperialism? And replacement?
You also have many places where local populations have changed and churches no longer used. Other religions take them on. This created a big faux outrage here when a Muslim group converted an unused church into a mosque. Imperialism?
 
Also, there are lists of thousands and thousands of non-Islamic houses of worship which were converted into mosques. Are they all shared holy places? Does the act of converting or building upon another holy place make it yours? And how is this not simply usurping someone else's holy places? How is this not simple Imperialism? And replacement?
You also have many places where local populations have changed and churches no longer used. Other religions take them on. This created a big faux outrage here when a Muslim group converted an unused church into a mosque. Imperialism?


Don't be silly. You are trying to conflate this with the actual Imperialism which occurred, in order to deflect from and minimize that actual Imperialism. Its a logical fallacy.
 
That is the product of historic conquest. And in the ethics of those times, that is what people did. Christians and Muslims replaced mosques, churches and synagogues. As did others, And that could well include the Jews when they conquered territory from other ancient people and destroyed or replaced ancient artifacts with their own. It wasn’t uncommon for conquerors to replace sacred places with their own, either because it was a way of enforcing their power, or by taking it and making it their own (Romans giving deities new names at old shrines) or even the local populace, having converted to a new religion, replacing the old with the new. Is right, wrong? In today’s ethics we would regard it as a human rights violation or even war crimes.

"That's what people did back then", "It happened a long time ago" and "The Jews probably did it too" are not really convincing arguments for continued Imperialistic ideas such as the Muslims are (successfully) implementing on the Temple Mount.

In Canada, we have a practice of acknowledging the First Nations Peoples on whose land we, as settlers, colonizers and descendants of Imperialism, gather, as in: "We are gathered on the traditional, ancestral lands of the (insert name of First Nation)", or, "We are gathered on the unceded territory of the (insert name of First Nation)."

The human understanding behind this practice is to acknowledge the harm done by the Imperialism of the past (the effects of which continue to this day) and also to recognize unsettled claims between peoples and the Imperialist societies which overtook them. This is altogether a GOOD idea to recognize this, don't you think? (And yes! Thank you, in today's ethics we regard this as a human rights crime.)

So who does it really belong to...the original builders, who we may not even be able to identify? The succeeding inhabitants who built their own structures there and worshipped on it for hundreds or thousands of years?
Well, in this case we don't have unidentifiable people. We have two living groups of people. One of which IS the original builder and one of which built on top of someone else's sacred site as part of an Imperialistic conquest. Its not a zero sum game here, where only one of them gets it. BUT the original ownership, pre-invasion, must be acknowledged.
 
Last edited:
According to Islamic tradition, the biblical Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon were Muslim prophets. The Israelites were also originally Muslim. The corollary is Islamic supersession, namely the belief that Muslims—and not Jews—are the legitimate heirs to the Israelite faith and homeland. Muslim denial that a Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem reflects Islamic beliefs that the Muslim king and prophet Suleyman built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Islamic supersession is based on the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, which teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures distort the Islamic message delivered by the prophets of antiquity.

As fanciful as tahrif and Islamic supersession may appear to non-Muslims, these teachings are fundamental in justifying the doctrinal superiority of Islam. These teachings also shed light on the fundamental reason most Muslim states refuse to recognize Jewish ties to Jerusalem and to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland involves accepting the Zionist narrative. For Muslims, this means engaging with Jewish history and Jewish scriptures on historical terms—not Islamic terms. Doing so leads to recognition that Judaism predates Islam and that Islam appropriated prophetic traditions from Judaism.



Source
Interesting read, thanks for posting it!

Would you like to comment on how this Islamic ideology impacts how Muslims relate to the Jewish people, specifically on the Temple Mount?

Islam teaches that the First Holy 'Mosque' was built by a Muslim King. This informs their absolute right to exclusive use of the physical space where this "Mosque" was built.

You don't find that problematic? You don't find that to be erasure of the Jewish people, Jewish faith and Jewish history? You don't find that to be replacement? Where a Jewish king is really a Muslim one 1500 years after the fact?
 
Last edited:
Can you imagine Muslims standing on the Temple Mount, before they enter prayer services, saying, “We acknowledge we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Jewish people”?
 
Also, there are lists of thousands and thousands of non-Islamic houses of worship which were converted into mosques. Are they all shared holy places? Does the act of converting or building upon another holy place make it yours? And how is this not simply usurping someone else's holy places? How is this not simple Imperialism? And replacement?
You also have many places where local populations have changed and churches no longer used. Other religions take them on. This created a big faux outrage here when a Muslim group converted an unused church into a mosque. Imperialism?


Don't be silly. You are trying to conflate this with the actual Imperialism which occurred, in order to deflect from and minimize that actual Imperialism. Its a logical fallacy.

No it isn’t. You are labeling all imperialism, a modern term by the way and you are. Applying to ancient events. You don’t know all the reasons why religious buildings got repurposed and I pointed there many reasons in addition to actual conquest. I think there is a fallacy in using terms like imperialism to try to characterize ancient events because that term is loaded with modern meaning that did exist in those times.
 
Can you imagine Muslims standing on the Temple Mount, before they enter prayer services, saying, “We acknowledge we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Jewish people”?
Why should they? Before it belonged to the Jews, it belonged to the people they conquered. And now it is as much theirs as it is the Jewish people’s. This is not recent history, it all about events over a thousand years ago.

What Muslims SHOULD is acknowledge it is shared sacred site, that the Jewish people preceded them in creating it, and that it is incumbent upon all faiths to recognize and respect each other’s rights and treat the site and fellow worshippers with respect. And peace. In that sense they need to self police and work in removing individuals who are unable or unwilling to gather peacefully.

That is my view at any rate.

Unfortunately religion is not very rational.
 
Last edited:
According to Islamic tradition, the biblical Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon were Muslim prophets. The Israelites were also originally Muslim. The corollary is Islamic supersession, namely the belief that Muslims—and not Jews—are the legitimate heirs to the Israelite faith and homeland. Muslim denial that a Jewish temple existed in Jerusalem reflects Islamic beliefs that the Muslim king and prophet Suleyman built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Islamic supersession is based on the Islamic doctrine of tahrif, which teaches that Jewish and Christian scriptures distort the Islamic message delivered by the prophets of antiquity.

As fanciful as tahrif and Islamic supersession may appear to non-Muslims, these teachings are fundamental in justifying the doctrinal superiority of Islam. These teachings also shed light on the fundamental reason most Muslim states refuse to recognize Jewish ties to Jerusalem and to accept Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Recognizing Israel as the Jewish homeland involves accepting the Zionist narrative. For Muslims, this means engaging with Jewish history and Jewish scriptures on historical terms—not Islamic terms. Doing so leads to recognition that Judaism predates Islam and that Islam appropriated prophetic traditions from Judaism.



Source
Interesting read, thanks for posting it!

Would you like to comment on how this Islamic ideology impacts how Muslims relate to the Jewish people, specifically on the Temple Mount?

Islam teaches that the First Holy 'Mosque' was built by a Muslim King. This informs their absolute right to exclusive use of the physical space where this "Mosque" was built.

You don't find that problematic? You don't find that to be erasure of the Jewish people, Jewish faith and Jewish history? You don't find that to be replacement? Where a Jewish king is really a Muslim one 1500 years after the fact?

I am thinking about it, why should I comment before that point?
 
No it isn’t. You are labeling all imperialism, a modern term by the way and you are. Applying to ancient events. You don’t know all the reasons why religious buildings got repurposed and I pointed there many reasons in addition to actual conquest. I think there is a fallacy in using terms like imperialism to try to characterize ancient events because that term is loaded with modern meaning that did exist in those times.

Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending a nation's rule over foreign nations, often by military force or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.[2] Imperialism was both normal and common worldwide throughout recorded history, the earliest examples dating from the mid-third millennium BC, diminishing only in the late 20th century. In recent times, it has been considered morally reprehensible and prohibited by international law.

Imperialism has a simple meaning. Trying to pretend that it doesn't apply because it happened a long time ago is not a convincing argument. Pretending that the Islamic Conquest was just a "repurposing" of some buildings is minimizing and degrading to those indigenous peoples who continue to feel the harmful effects of the conquest.
 
Why should they? Before it belonged to the Jews, it belonged to the people they conquered. And now it is as much theirs as it is the Jewish people’s. This is not recent history, it all about events over a thousand years ago.What Muslims SHOULD is acknowledge it is shared sacred site, that the Jewish people preceded them in creating it, and that it is incumbent upon all faiths to recognize and respect each other’s rights and treat the site and fellow worshippers with respect. And peace. In that sense they need to self police and work in removing individuals who are unable or unwilling to gather peacefully.
Again, "it happened a long time ago" is not a convincing argument. In fact, it justifies and excuses conquest and erases the harm perpetrated on peoples whose Holy Place was destroyed and taken over. It suggests that the taking over of other people's holy sites is not problematic. This is wrong. It is harmful and problematic. Whether it takes place tomorrow or happened a thousand years ago.

The truth of it is that during the Islamic Conquest, Muslims deliberately built a mosque over a Jewish Holy Site. Why is it so hard for Muslims to make that simple acknowledgement? Its the simple truth.

And I'm not suggesting that the site should not be shared. (That would the Muslims who are suggesting that and using violence and threat of violence to maintain its exclusive use). I agree the site should be shared. As do the majority of Jews (as long as there is no violence and no threat of violence). You can't unbreak eggs.

Unfortunately religion is not very rational.
I deplore the implication that I am arguing from a religious perspective (I am not) and that I am not being rational. I am arguing from a human rights perspective, one that in particular calls attention to oppressed and persecuted peoples, including the victims of conquest.
 
The Temple Mount should be demolished and the area paved over into a parking lot. When little kids fight over a toy, you take it from them.
Which is why you have no business at all with what happens with the Temple Mount.

By your standards, Kashmir and anywhere else in dispute should be destroyed.

How destructive of you :(
Kashmir is a large swath of land. Not a stupid, "magical" rock.

So you would be OK with razing the the Kaaba?
 
Why should they? Before it belonged to the Jews, it belonged to the people they conquered. And now it is as much theirs as it is the Jewish people’s. This is not recent history, it all about events over a thousand years ago.What Muslims SHOULD is acknowledge it is shared sacred site, that the Jewish people preceded them in creating it, and that it is incumbent upon all faiths to recognize and respect each other’s rights and treat the site and fellow worshippers with respect. And peace. In that sense they need to self police and work in removing individuals who are unable or unwilling to gather peacefully.

Again, "it happened a long time ago" is not a convincing argument. In fact, it justifies and excuses conquest and erases the harm perpetrated on peoples whose Holy Place was destroyed and taken over. It suggests that the taking over of other people's holy sites is not problematic. This is wrong. It is harmful and problematic. Whether it takes place tomorrow or happened a thousand years ago.

It doesn’t justify or excuse anything. You can not hold a people today responsible for action of people thousands of years ago. People who lived under a completely different set of ethics, customs, and norms. You can not hold children responsible for the acts of their parents.

By that logic, Jews should apologize for the violence they bestowed on the earlier inhabitants when they invaded and conquered them. And who knows what other apologies over thousands of years of history that may not be entirely accurate or a complete accounting.

The thing is, taking over religious sites WAS not problematic. Not then and frankly, only became so in the last century. And now that site is sacred to three very old religions equally.

The truth of it is that during the Islamic Conquest, Muslims deliberately built a mosque over a Jewish Holy Site. Why is it so hard for Muslims to make that simple acknowledgement? Its the simple truth.

It is a simple truth sure, from the acts of people a thousand years. Why should they have to? If they want to, fine, but it should not be demanded or required. And I do kind of wonder, is requiring that a means of diminishing their religious claim to it?

And I'm not suggesting that the site should not be shared. (That would the Muslims who are suggesting that and using violence and threat of violence to maintain its exclusive use). I agree the site should be shared. As do the majority of Jews (as long as there is no violence and no threat of violence). You can't unbreak eggs.

I agree. But I would also add, you can’t also lay the burden of ancienthistory on today’s people.

Unfortunately religion is not very rational.
I deplore the implication that I am arguing from a religious perspective (I am not) and that I am not being rational. I am arguing from a human rights perspective, one that in particular calls attention to oppressed and persecuted peoples, including the victims of conquest.
[/QUOTE]

I am not implying you are, I was referring more to the people who’s religious zeal makes them incapable of recognizing these shared connections.

IMO a human rights perspective would only require a shared acknowledgement, mutual respect and tolerance. Today’s people should carry no responsibility over the actions of their ancestors.
 

Forum List

Back
Top