Jerusalem Corpus Separatum

[Phoenall]

Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.


...

Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book, reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam by virtue of having been given revelations from God. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.​

I do not see "usurping" unique to Islam - I see the evolution of religions.

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

So answer this question which all of team Palestine have hidden from

What connection does Christianity have with the Jewish temple site, what connection does islam have with Jerusalem that they had never even seen until 35 years after mo'mad died.

First question is a strawman. I never claimed a connection between Christianity and the temple site. I said Jerusalem.

There is no connection other than the fact they both stole Judaisms holy places rather than erect their own. Even the black rock is Jewish, and had no attraction to the arabs before mo'mad was buried there

That's how religions evolve, even Judaism, which "stole" (to use your term) or was influenced by (to use the common term) from Zororastrianism. The region was a melting pot of civilizations, cultures and religions who directly or indirectly influenced each other.

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

Black Stone of Mecca | Islam
Black Stone of Mecca, Arabic Al-Ḥajar al-Aswad , Muslim object of veneration, built into the eastern wall of the Kaʿbah (small shrine within the Great Mosque of Mecca) and probably dating from the pre-Islamic religion of the Arabs. It now consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together with a silver band. According to popular Islamic legend, the stone was given to Adam on his fall from paradise and was originally white but has become black by absorbing the sins of the thousands of pilgrims who have kissed and touched it. In 930 it was carried away by the fanatics of the Qarmatian sect and held for ransom for about 20 years.

So what connection is there between Christianity and Jerusalem then that is not predated by Jewish connections. Remember that the Christian God was a Jew born of Jewish parents that followed Judaism. The Christians stole the Jewish connection and made it theirs, then tried to wipe out the Jews so they could have sole control of the religion and its lands.

 

[Coyote]

Islam's views of Judaism and Christianity

Islam sees Judaism and Christianity as earlier versions of Islam, revelations given within the same tradition by Allah but misunderstood over time by their followers. Muslims see Islam as the final, complete, and correct revelation in the monotheistic tradition of the three faiths.


...

Jews and Christians are specifically protected in the Quran as Peoples of the Book, reinforcing their spiritual connection to Islam by virtue of having been given revelations from God. The Islamic legal tradition has upheld the rights of Jews and Christians to maintain their beliefs and practices within their communities in Islamic lands, and this policy of tolerance has generally been upheld.​

I do not see "usurping" unique to Islam - I see the evolution of religions.

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

So answer this question which all of team Palestine have hidden from

What connection does Christianity have with the Jewish temple site, what connection does islam have with Jerusalem that they had never even seen until 35 years after mo'mad died.

First question is a strawman. I never claimed a connection between Christianity and the temple site. I said Jerusalem.

There is no connection other than the fact they both stole Judaisms holy places rather than erect their own. Even the black rock is Jewish, and had no attraction to the arabs before mo'mad was buried there

That's how religions evolve, even Judaism, which "stole" (to use your term) or was influenced by (to use the common term) from Zororastrianism. The region was a melting pot of civilizations, cultures and religions who directly or indirectly influenced each other.

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

Black Stone of Mecca | Islam
Black Stone of Mecca, Arabic Al-Ḥajar al-Aswad , Muslim object of veneration, built into the eastern wall of the Kaʿbah (small shrine within the Great Mosque of Mecca) and probably dating from the pre-Islamic religion of the Arabs. It now consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together with a silver band. According to popular Islamic legend, the stone was given to Adam on his fall from paradise and was originally white but has become black by absorbing the sins of the thousands of pilgrims who have kissed and touched it. In 930 it was carried away by the fanatics of the Qarmatian sect and held for ransom for about 20 years.

So what connection is there between Christianity and Jerusalem then that is not predated by Jewish connections. Remember that the Christian God was a Jew born of Jewish parents that followed Judaism. The Christians stole the Jewish connection and made it theirs, then tried to wipe out the Jews so they could have sole control of the religion and its lands.

It doesn't matter if it's pre-dated. Many holy sites are pre-dated by even earlier religions. What matters is that is is very important to 3 religions NOW, and they must all accomodate each other reasonably. No one "stole" anything in regards to holy sites and religious practices - there is no copyright or exclusivity on them after all and your claims ignore the fact that the Jews likely "stole" from even earlier faiths. Again, so what?

 

[Coyote]

Here are some examples pulled from Palestinian textbooks:

“…The attempt to Judaize some of the Muslim religious places like the Mosque of Abraham [the Machpelah Sanctuary – Cave of the Patriarch] and the Mosque of Bilal bin Rabbah [Rachel's Tomb].” National Education, Grade 7 (2001) p. 55

“The Arab homeland contains important religious sites to which Muslim and Christian pilgrims come from different parts of the world… as the case is with Palestine where Muslim and Christian holy places are found in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Nazareth and other Palestinian cities.” Physical and Human Geography, Grade 12 (2006) p. 143

See? An evolving faith would represent these places as being Jewish. A departure faith would at least recognize and acknowledge the origins. But a usurping faith entirely ignores and rejects the originating culture or sees the originating faith as being an invader.

That is Palestinian textbooks. Not Islam. Palestinian textbooks.
hat do Israeli textbooks have to say about the Palestinian connections to those places?

The other issue is these are partial quotes with out context - what else is said around those quotes?

 

[Coyote]

Oh, and the bulk of your argument seems to be that "everyone does it". But "everyone does it" does not make it morally acceptable.

It's not that "everyone does it" it's how religions evolve and develop. Even Judaism. Suddenly, it's now considered "usurption"? Did Judaism "usurp" ideas and stories of heaven, hell, redemption, Satan, and the prospect of a final battle from Zororastianism? Should they now be upset at the theft of their stories? No one has a copyright on religion - it has always been a building upon the foundations of older faiths. At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it? The new religion usually regards the earlier ones as flawed and the new one as the "right" one.

 

[Shusha]

At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it?

It is morally unacceptable when the originating faith is ignored, erased, denied, rejected, and made apparently not to exist. THAT is what I am discussing. What UNESCO did. What the Palestinian textbooks did. What is happening all over the Muslim world.

(The Palestinian textbooks say that the "Mosque" of Abraham must not be JUDAIZED! How the hell does one "Judaize" a Jewish holy place? Its already a Jewish holy place!)


How would I disentangle it? ALL of these sites must be recognized, always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness and historical and ancestral significance to the Jewish people. They must be never be permitted to be appropriated by other cultures.

Monuments and places of historical, cultural, ancestral and religious significance are not "shared" holy sites. They are holy sites of the Jewish people, which also are revered by those of other faiths because of the historical and cultural and religious legacy which originated with and came through the Jewish people.

This does not in any way preclude the religious significance of these places to other faiths. Nor does it in any way limit or restrict the access of people of other faiths to these places. (Actually, according to the Jewish faith, just the opposite -- it is necessary that these places be shared).

And if the Palestinians insist on including the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb and even the Temple Mount in their national homeland -- they hold a sacred trust on behalf of the Jewish people to preserve and honor the Jewish history of that place. And if they can not do that -- then they have no business being caretakers of the Jewish monuments and places.

 

[Shusha]

...there is no copyright or exclusivity on them after all ...

Actually there is a generally accepted idea, at least in modern times, that it is morally unacceptable to appropriate someone else's culture. That's why is not okay to use First Nations designs in your Paris couture. And why the Washington Redskins should be re-named. And why Katy Perry shouldn't be dressing as a geisha at the AMA's.

So why would you think it is morally acceptable to build a synagogue at the Kaaba and declare the site holy exclusively to Jews and off-limits to all others?

 

[Phoenall]

There is a difference between progressive revelation and usurping another faith. A progressive revelation acknowledges the source material as belonging to the originating faith. Usurping a faith denies the originating faith. See above. Judaism and Christianity are earlier versions of Islam. The receivers of the messages from G-d were Muslims and practiced Islam as Allah instructed them. Those who follow Judaism and Christianity today are not Muslims and do not practice Islam as their forefathers did -- but practice corrupt and misunderstood faiths which have no roots in the messages of G-d. The people of Judaism and Christianity do not follow a revelation from Allah. According to Islam, Judaism did not exist until the Diaspora, when it was invented. What existed prior to that was Islam. And its practitioners were Muslims.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation - of claiming it to be "usurption" and doing so is denigrating Islam as much as you claim Islam denigrates Judaism.

Usurp

1. take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force.
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   synonyms: seize, take over, take possession of, take, commandeer, wrest, assume, expropriate
   "Richard usurped the throne"
   • take the place of (someone in a position of power) illegally: supplant.
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
     synonyms: oust, overthrow, remove, topple, unseat, depose, dethrone;More
     supplant, replace
     "the Hanoverian dynasty had usurped the Stuarts"
   • archaic
     encroach or infringe upon (someone's rights).
     "the Church had usurped upon the domain of the state"

Muslims see Islam as the final step of the Abrahamic faiths much as Christianity did with the Messiah. Muslims claimed that certain interpretations were corrupt and that is how they fit the preceding religions of Mohammed's era into their own religious view with out rejecting them. That's hardly "usurption" unless you apply it to a variety of other religions - and it's just really odd to see that claim being made now (and I've never heard it claimed before so I'm wondering if it's a recent phenomenum), at the same time as others are pushing the claim that Islam isn't even a religion but a socio-political ideology.

The point may seem subtle and unimportant, but it is not, because it transfers, whole cloth, the entire foundations of Judaism from the Jewish people to Islam and completely denies any claim by the Jewish people to our own stories. It is literally appropriating another culture.

I don't see that at all - I see no difference between it and between Christianity's roots in Judaism.

It means that the Temple Mount is an exclusive Muslim holy site, originating at the location where the Muslim Abraham bound his Muslim son Isaac. It means denying there was ever a Temple to G-d on the site -- or, if there was, that it was a Muslim Temple built by the Muslim Solomon. It means that the city of David is an exclusively Muslim city, built by the Muslim King David. It means the shrines of the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel are Muslim shrines built to honor Muslim men and women. It means that the land is Muslim land and has always been Muslim land from time immemorial. It means it was gifted, not to the Jewish people, but to the Muslim Children of Israel (the Palestinians).

I am truly not seeing it as usurption. How is it any different than when the Roman's took over the Greek pantheon (and their stories) or when Christianity took in the pagan gods and made them demons or saints? Even the stories of Jesus come out of older stories that they made their own. They built their churches on the older pagan shrines and made them their own. It's the way religions form and evolve.

It completely denies Jewish claim and connection to anything. It is along the lines of Monte and Challenger claiming that the Jewish people originated in Europe and have no ties or rights to any historical claim on anything. It denies the Jewish people our history, our origins, our culture, our narratives, our stories.

I think those are two separate issues that are being conflated. The fact that Muslims (and Christians) have many of the same stories, history, and narratives is not denying Jews theirs and in pushing that - aren't you simply demonizing Islam for evolving much like other religions?

Look at the UNESCO decision. Which ignores and thus denies any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount! Look who wrote that resolution. And look who accepted it.

Look at the conversation we are having here! Jerusalem should not belong to its own First Nations people! The Temple Mount should not belong to its own First Nations people! It must be turned over to an international body to become an international city and an international holy place. What other peoples are being stripped of their historical legacy in this way? What other peoples are being denied their historical legacy?

Unlike other "first nation's" holy sites - Jerusalem is important and holy to 3 major world religions, each of whom have over a thousand years worth of history. That's a reality - each one has an integral and just claim. Why are you trying to deny their historical legacy and why is any one of them more legitimate than the other? When you are looking at people that have been there over a thousand years - they are all essentially "first nations" in regards to rights, and their legacy is just as important.

Suggesting - and that is all it is - that Jerusalem should be held jointly is nothing more than an acknowledgement of that world reality - that each of these religions has an important associating with Jerusalem and how can Jerusalem be governed so as to protect it's religious heritage and allow access to those for whom it is important. That is all it is about - not denying someone their heritage. It's a shared heritage - in my opinion.

So answer this question which all of team Palestine have hidden from

What connection does Christianity have with the Jewish temple site, what connection does islam have with Jerusalem that they had never even seen until 35 years after mo'mad died.

First question is a strawman. I never claimed a connection between Christianity and the temple site. I said Jerusalem.

There is no connection other than the fact they both stole Judaisms holy places rather than erect their own. Even the black rock is Jewish, and had no attraction to the arabs before mo'mad was buried there

That's how religions evolve, even Judaism, which "stole" (to use your term) or was influenced by (to use the common term) from Zororastrianism. The region was a melting pot of civilizations, cultures and religions who directly or indirectly influenced each other.

As far as the Black Stone, it pre-dates Islam, and is a relic from their pagan past - there is no indication it is Jewish.

Black Stone of Mecca | Islam
Black Stone of Mecca, Arabic Al-Ḥajar al-Aswad , Muslim object of veneration, built into the eastern wall of the Kaʿbah (small shrine within the Great Mosque of Mecca) and probably dating from the pre-Islamic religion of the Arabs. It now consists of three large pieces and some fragments, surrounded by a stone ring and held together with a silver band. According to popular Islamic legend, the stone was given to Adam on his fall from paradise and was originally white but has become black by absorbing the sins of the thousands of pilgrims who have kissed and touched it. In 930 it was carried away by the fanatics of the Qarmatian sect and held for ransom for about 20 years.

So what connection is there between Christianity and Jerusalem then that is not predated by Jewish connections. Remember that the Christian God was a Jew born of Jewish parents that followed Judaism. The Christians stole the Jewish connection and made it theirs, then tried to wipe out the Jews so they could have sole control of the religion and its lands.

It doesn't matter if it's pre-dated. Many holy sites are pre-dated by even earlier religions. What matters is that is is very important to 3 religions NOW, and they must all accomodate each other reasonably. No one "stole" anything in regards to holy sites and religious practices - there is no copyright or exclusivity on them after all and your claims ignore the fact that the Jews likely "stole" from even earlier faiths. Again, so what?

So you cant find any connections between Christianity and Islam to Jerusalem. Could that be because there are none, that the truth is they have no connection other than through Judaism. Because the Christians and muslims say that it is important NOW does not make it a fact. It is just a plot to have more taken away from the Jews and handed over to late arrivals. That is why you are so vociferous on the subject because you see it as another nail in the coffin of the Jews of Israel.
THE FACT REMAINS IF JUDAISM HAD NOT MADE THE SITES HOLY THEN THE THIEVES WOULD NOT WANT THEM. IT IS LIKE THE MANY PAGAN SITES THAT THE CHRISTIANS HAVE TAKEN AS THEIR OWN, OR THE PAGAN FESTIVALS ALTERED TO BECOME CHRISTIAN.

 

[Phoenall]

Here are some examples pulled from Palestinian textbooks:

“…The attempt to Judaize some of the Muslim religious places like the Mosque of Abraham [the Machpelah Sanctuary – Cave of the Patriarch] and the Mosque of Bilal bin Rabbah [Rachel's Tomb].” National Education, Grade 7 (2001) p. 55

“The Arab homeland contains important religious sites to which Muslim and Christian pilgrims come from different parts of the world… as the case is with Palestine where Muslim and Christian holy places are found in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Nazareth and other Palestinian cities.” Physical and Human Geography, Grade 12 (2006) p. 143

See? An evolving faith would represent these places as being Jewish. A departure faith would at least recognize and acknowledge the origins. But a usurping faith entirely ignores and rejects the originating culture or sees the originating faith as being an invader.

That is Palestinian textbooks. Not Islam. Palestinian textbooks.
hat do Israeli textbooks have to say about the Palestinian connections to those places?

The other issue is these are partial quotes with out context - what else is said around those quotes?

Nothing because they pre-date the theft by 2 millennia so don't have any mention of the thefts.

The Jews built their holiest Temple on the mount and it stood for many years as the focus of the religion. Along comes the Romans who destroy all other religions as a matter of course and they level the Temple. The Christians evolve in Rome 4 centuries later and go back to Jerusalem where they make the Temple mount a public toilet as an insult to the Jews. At the same time showing that they don't see the Temple mount as a significant religious factor in Christianity. The muslims invade some 4 centuries after that and make the Christian inhabitants clean up the mess, then they use the Jewish grave stones to line the sewers with. Grave stones that are linked to the Temple and it's religious significance showing they had no interest in the place. Then the grandson of the long dead prophet of islam decided that the furthest mosque was the one in Jerusalem so he built it to add meat to the bones of his LIES

 

[Phoenall]

Oh, and the bulk of your argument seems to be that "everyone does it". But "everyone does it" does not make it morally acceptable.

It's not that "everyone does it" it's how religions evolve and develop. Even Judaism. Suddenly, it's now considered "usurption"? Did Judaism "usurp" ideas and stories of heaven, hell, redemption, Satan, and the prospect of a final battle from Zororastianism? Should they now be upset at the theft of their stories? No one has a copyright on religion - it has always been a building upon the foundations of older faiths. At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it? The new religion usually regards the earlier ones as flawed and the new one as the "right" one.

So it would be acceptable for a new religion to come along and claim that Jerusalem has always been their holiest place and they are now taking control and banning the Jews, Christians and muslims from the Temple mount. Because this is what you are saying in regards to islams theft of Jerusalem

 

[Humanity]

Seems that all this talk of 'religious theft', which by the way, is slightly off topic, is a clear indicator that corpus separatum for Jerusalem is the only way forward to ensure that Jerusalem is available to all...

No one religion has a given right to decide who can and cannot worship or even claim Jerusalem as 'holy'.

Jerusalem should 'belong' to everyone!

 

[Phoenall]

At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it?

It is morally unacceptable when the originating faith is ignored, erased, denied, rejected, and made apparently not to exist. THAT is what I am discussing. What UNESCO did. What the Palestinian textbooks did. What is happening all over the Muslim world.

(The Palestinian textbooks say that the "Mosque" of Abraham must not be JUDAIZED! How the hell does one "Judaize" a Jewish holy place? Its already a Jewish holy place!)


How would I disentangle it? ALL of these sites must be recognized, always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness and historical and ancestral significance to the Jewish people. They must be never be permitted to be appropriated by other cultures.

Monuments and places of historical, cultural, ancestral and religious significance are not "shared" holy sites. They are holy sites of the Jewish people, which also are revered by those of other faiths because of the historical and cultural and religious legacy which originated with and came through the Jewish people.

This does not in any way preclude the religious significance of these places to other faiths. Nor does it in any way limit or restrict the access of people of other faiths to these places. (Actually, according to the Jewish faith, just the opposite -- it is necessary that these places be shared).

And if the Palestinians insist on including the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb and even the Temple Mount in their national homeland -- they hold a sacred trust on behalf of the Jewish people to preserve and honor the Jewish history of that place. And if they can not do that -- then they have no business being caretakers of the Jewish monuments and places.

They are also in breach of the UN charter and International laws by not accepting the prior claim of the Jews to the holy sites and allowing them to access them. I wonder what the muslims would do if the US invaded Saudi and took control of mecca and medina. Then turned them into garish theme parks as that is the religion of the USA.

 

[Phoenall]

Seems that all this talk of 'religious theft', which by the way, is slightly off topic, is a clear indicator that corpus separatum for Jerusalem is the only way forward to ensure that Jerusalem is available to all...

No one religion has a given right to decide who can and cannot worship or even claim Jerusalem as 'holy'.

Jerusalem should 'belong' to everyone!

And it has been shown that the only way to do that will be to remove one groups access for good. Then defend that by force of arms until they have been wiped out.

 

[Humanity]

Seems that all this talk of 'religious theft', which by the way, is slightly off topic, is a clear indicator that corpus separatum for Jerusalem is the only way forward to ensure that Jerusalem is available to all...

No one religion has a given right to decide who can and cannot worship or even claim Jerusalem as 'holy'.

Jerusalem should 'belong' to everyone!

And it has been shown that the only way to do that will be to remove one groups access for good. Then defend that by force of arms until they have been wiped out.

Has it? When was it shown that removing ONE group is a solution? Which group would that be Phoney?

Seems that the zionut mantra is simply Jerusalem for jews only...

Seems like the Muslim mantra is Jerusalem for Muslims only...

Christians, well, they aren't well represented in the ME so their mantra is fairly muted...

Remove any thoughts of controlling from those who would choose 'exclusivity' to Jerusalem and place Jerusalem into the hands of a neutral, multi national, multi cultural body to govern and keep open Jerusalem for all...

 

[Phoenall]

Seems that all this talk of 'religious theft', which by the way, is slightly off topic, is a clear indicator that corpus separatum for Jerusalem is the only way forward to ensure that Jerusalem is available to all...

No one religion has a given right to decide who can and cannot worship or even claim Jerusalem as 'holy'.

Jerusalem should 'belong' to everyone!

And it has been shown that the only way to do that will be to remove one groups access for good. Then defend that by force of arms until they have been wiped out.

Has it? When was it shown that removing ONE group is a solution? Which group would that be Phoney?

Seems that the zionut mantra is simply Jerusalem for jews only...

Seems like the Muslim mantra is Jerusalem for Muslims only...

Christians, well, they aren't well represented in the ME so their mantra is fairly muted...

Remove any thoughts of controlling from those who would choose 'exclusivity' to Jerusalem and place Jerusalem into the hands of a neutral, multi national, multi cultural body to govern and keep open Jerusalem for all...

Which group was it that invaded in 1948 and occupied the city of Jerusalem. Then annexed the land to its own against the terms of the UN charter and Geneva conventions. That is the same group that will set out to claim it for themselves yet again even though they have no religious , cultural or racial ties to the City. You can tell as many lies as you want, and deflect as much as you want you will never change the facts.


We can tell you are losing the argument you are using your made up words again to demonise the Jews

 

[Coyote]

At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it?

It is morally unacceptable when the originating faith is ignored, erased, denied, rejected, and made apparently not to exist. THAT is what I am discussing. What UNESCO did. What the Palestinian textbooks did. What is happening all over the Muslim world.

I think you are basing this on too little information and a lot of emotional outrage coming out after UNESCO's decision.

What evidence do you have that Judaism is being "erased" all over the Muslim world?

You take two partial quotes, (approx 1 sentence each) and use that as evidence that a) this is somehow typical of Palestinian textbooks and b) unique in it's erasing of "the other". One of the criticism I've read about both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks is that they do exactly that to the other - marginalize, erase, minimalize.

(The Palestinian textbooks say that the "Mosque" of Abraham must not be JUDAIZED! How the hell does one "Judaize" a Jewish holy place? Its already a Jewish holy place!)

It's impossible to know what they mean because it's taken completely out of context and I can't find anything that shows what else is said.

How would I disentangle it? ALL of these sites must be recognized, always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness and historical and ancestral significance to the Jewish people. They must be never be permitted to be appropriated by other cultures.

Wow. Tha' is a pretty extreme demand and it would open up quite a can of worms.

Would you likewise require Christians to do the same to pagan sites, saints and deities they appropriated?
Would you require the Jews to recognize " always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness and historical and ancestral significance" those sites which are also of importance to Islam, for example Al Aqsa?

Monuments and places of historical, cultural, ancestral and religious significance are not "shared" holy sites. They are holy sites of the Jewish people, which also are revered by those of other faiths because of the historical and cultural and religious legacy which originated with and came through the Jewish people.

I disagree. They are shared holy sites in that they have become revered by other faiths. You can't just nullify several thousand years of history by demand. That is exactly the attitude that is causing so much conflict of the the Temple Mount - folks don't want to share or acknowledge the rights of others to it.

This does not in any way preclude the religious significance of these places to other faiths. Nor does it in any way limit or restrict the access of people of other faiths to these places. (Actually, according to the Jewish faith, just the opposite -- it is necessary that these places be shared).

It absolutely does. You are demanding that they first and foremost acknowledge, in every conversation, document etc. that it belongs to another religion and only secondarily to the other religions. You are also stating that to do otherwise is unethical.

Agree, it is necessary that they be shared.

And if the Palestinians insist on including the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb and even the Temple Mount in their national homeland -- they hold a sacred trust on behalf of the Jewish people to preserve and honor the Jewish history of that place. And if they can not do that -- then they have no business being caretakers of the Jewish monuments and places.

Yes, they absolutely do and must, I agree. All of those sites are sacred trusts and must be shared by all those to whom it is sacred.

 

[Coyote]

...there is no copyright or exclusivity on them after all ...

Actually there is a generally accepted idea, at least in modern times, that it is morally unacceptable to appropriate someone else's culture. That's why is not okay to use First Nations designs in your Paris couture. And why the Washington Redskins should be re-named. And why Katy Perry shouldn't be dressing as a geisha at the AMA's.

So why would you think it is morally acceptable to build a synagogue at the Kaaba and declare the site holy exclusively to Jews and off-limits to all others?

I head about that, in relation to music, on NPR. But I absolutely don't agree with it because it's impossible to regulate and destroys the free flow of ideas and creativity.

Historically cultures have borrowed, appropriated, altered, transformed etc items from other cultures pretty much ever since mankind evolved a culture and started to move around the world. There is no culture today (other than isolated aboriginal ones) that have not taken something from other cultures. Even First Nations designs aren't free of the influence of other cultures. So where would you draw the line in what a culture can claim for "its own"? You really can't and to try to do so would stifle freedom and creative expression. Music is an excellent example where people have used instruments from one culture, to make music that might have rythums associated with another culture and then transform them into something new.

 

[Coyote]

Oh, and the bulk of your argument seems to be that "everyone does it". But "everyone does it" does not make it morally acceptable.

It's not that "everyone does it" it's how religions evolve and develop. Even Judaism. Suddenly, it's now considered "usurption"? Did Judaism "usurp" ideas and stories of heaven, hell, redemption, Satan, and the prospect of a final battle from Zororastianism? Should they now be upset at the theft of their stories? No one has a copyright on religion - it has always been a building upon the foundations of older faiths. At what point is it morally unacceptable and how would you disentangle it? The new religion usually regards the earlier ones as flawed and the new one as the "right" one.

So it would be acceptable for a new religion to come along and claim that Jerusalem has always been their holiest place and they are now taking control and banning the Jews, Christians and muslims from the Temple mount. Because this is what you are saying in regards to islams theft of Jerusalem

It's acceptable for a new religion to come along and try to worship there.

It is not acceptable for any religion to come along and ban worshippers of any faith, for whom that place has reverence. As I said many times - sharing is key.

 

[Shusha]

I think you are basing this on too little information and a lot of emotional outrage coming out after UNESCO's decision.

I am basing it on more than just the few examples I have posted. (You don't really want me totally spam the thread, now, do you?). This is based on a decade and a half of conversing with Muslims about this topic. It is based on UN and UNESCO decisions (plural). It is based on the incitement that happens on the Temple Mount and on the stabbings which occur should the Jewish people DARE to even consider being permitted access to our own most Holy Place and on the physical inability of the Jewish people to worship and pray there as we choose.

It's impossible to know what they mean because it's taken completely out of context and I can't find anything that shows what else is said.

You don't have to understand the context. How does one "Judaize" a holy place which is already Jewish? How could that possibly even be a thing? Unless you reject the holy places as being Jewish.

Wow. Tha' is a pretty extreme demand and it would open up quite a can of worms.

Really? To recognize the Jewish Holy places AS Jewish Holy places is opening a can of worms?! Why is admitting that the Jewish Holy places ARE Jewish Holy places (whatever else they may be) opening a can of worms?! Who is being upset by that? For whom is that problematic? Why is it problematic? What possible HARM would there be to just recognize these places as Jewish Holy places?

Would you likewise require Christians to do the same to pagan sites, saints and deities they appropriated?
Would you require the Jews to recognize " always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness ... those sites which are also of importance to Islam, for example Al Aqsa?

Um. Yes. (Btw, it is already widely acknowledged, even by Christians, that Christianity has usurped pagan sites and holidays).

(Note: I removed "historical and ancestral significance", as I do not believe it applies to Islam. I do not believe invading, conquoring and building on top of someone else's holy place is equivalent. This said, I do understand that the length of time there has been a mosque there is something of significance).

I disagree. They are shared holy sites in that they have become revered by other faiths. You can't just nullify several thousand years of history by demand. That is exactly the attitude that is causing so much conflict of the the Temple Mount - folks don't want to share or acknowledge the rights of others to it.

The only people not sharing and not acknowledging the rights of the originating culture to it are Muslims. Israel, in its extreme sensitivity to Muslim demands, are actually voluntarily sacrificing the rights of the Jewish people. Don't you think it is wrong for one culture to sacrifice its human rights to religious freedom in order to appease another culture?

Btw, I notice you have not answered one of my (important) questions: Do you think it is morally acceptable for Israel to build a synagogue on the site of the Kaaba? There is a very great difference, imo, between acknowledging that some eggs can't be unscrambled and insisting that it is morally correct to build a monument and take over someone else's holy place. Do you agree?

And, of course, I am in no way nullifying either the rights of Muslims, nor the length of time their monuments have stood on the Temple Mount. I am advocating the Temple Mount as a SHARED space, in practice, as long as it is acknowledged that it was, and is, a Jewish holy place and that the "right" to it comes through the Jewish people and religious faith and that all other faiths must honor and respect that for what it is.

 

[Coyote]

I think you are basing this on too little information and a lot of emotional outrage coming out after UNESCO's decision.

I am basing it on more than just the few examples I have posted. (You don't really want me totally spam the thread, now, do you?). This is based on a decade and a half of conversing with Muslims about this topic. It is based on UN and UNESCO decisions (plural). It is based on the incitement that happens on the Temple Mount and on the stabbings which occur should the Jewish people DARE to even consider being permitted access to our own most Holy Place and on the physical inability of the Jewish people to worship and pray there as we choose.

I have no way of knowing any of that, I can only go by the information provided in discussions and sources.

It's impossible to know what they mean because it's taken completely out of context and I can't find anything that shows what else is said.

You don't have to understand the context. How does one "Judaize" a holy place which is already Jewish? How could that possibly even be a thing? Unless you reject the holy places as being Jewish.

The partial quotes make NO sense without any sort of context - and YES, you do have to understand the context. Context matters very much - when things are taken out of context, they can be totally distorted - you know that as well as I do when Israeli quotes get taken out of context (and I'm not saying that is the case here, only that there is no way of knowing). The other thing, with a lack of context is the implication that this is common - is it? How do we know?

Wow. Tha' is a pretty extreme demand and it would open up quite a can of worms.

Really? To recognize the Jewish Holy places AS Jewish Holy places is opening a can of worms?! Why is admitting that the Jewish Holy places ARE Jewish Holy places (whatever else they may be) opening a can of worms?! Who is being upset by that? For whom is that problematic? Why is it problematic? What possible HARM would there be to just recognize these places as Jewish Holy places?

Recognizing it, freely and willingly is one thing - demanding it another, in my opinion. I have no problem recognizing Rachel's Tomb as a Jewish Holy Place. I have no problem recognizing the Temple Mount as both a Jewish and Muslim Holy Place. But I don't feel I need to demand that others do so.

Would you likewise require Christians to do the same to pagan sites, saints and deities they appropriated?
Would you require the Jews to recognize " always, in every conversation, in every document, in every treaty or agreement as places of Holiness ... those sites which are also of importance to Islam, for example Al Aqsa?

Um. Yes. (Btw, it is already widely acknowledged, even by Christians, that Christianity has usurped pagan sites and holidays).

Meh. It's not really acknowledged other than by historians. I think your demands complicate an already complex situation. If people want to, more power to them - they are the better people for recognizing that these places of faith are particularly holy to particular people. If someone tries to edit out a particular faith - then fight it publically, show them how they are historically ignorant. That's the way I would do it - the same way things like Holocaust Denial should be fought.

(Note: I removed "historical and ancestral significance", as I do not believe it applies to Islam. I do not believe invading, conquoring and building on top of someone else's holy place is equivalent. This said, I do understand that the length of time there has been a mosque there is something of significance).

I think you are completely wrong there, on several levels.

For one, when a place like the Temple Mount has been an important site for Islam for some 1,300 years then yes, it has an historical significance to that faith and it is absolutely equivalent. You are essentially denying them their heritage as well and demeaning it. It is no less holy to them. Prior to Islam, Christianity had invaded and conquered Jerusalem and the holy places within, and it became one of the most holy places for that faith also. We're talking about events over a thousand years ago - a completely different world and the fact that they came later doesn't make it any less holy. That's why it's such a tinderbox.

I disagree. They are shared holy sites in that they have become revered by other faiths. You can't just nullify several thousand years of history by demand. That is exactly the attitude that is causing so much conflict of the the Temple Mount - folks don't want to share or acknowledge the rights of others to it.

The only people not sharing and not acknowledging the rights of the originating culture to it are Muslims. Israel, in its extreme sensitivity to Muslim demands, are actually voluntarily sacrificing the rights of the Jewish people. Don't you think it is wrong for one culture to sacrifice its human rights to religious freedom in order to appease another culture?

Right now - yes, it's the Muslims that are not willing to share the Temple Mount - but that doesn't negate their rights, it just means they're behaving badly. In this regard - Israel is by far the better actor.

Should a culture "sacrifice its human rights to religious freedom in order to appease another culture"? I'm not sure I view it in quite that way. Jerusalem was taken by conquest (yet again) as it often has been. It is a flash point of 3 religions in a region dominated by one (Islam). I think it's very tricky to maintain a balance without tipping into violence and Israel. Israel - as the conservator, in my opinion, has to work out a balance with the Muslim world on this site that has been one of central sites for their religion for the past 1300 years or so and it's no easy feat.

What I think is WRONG, is that Muslims are so heavily restricting the ability of Jews to worship there. There should be a way for both to respectfully tolerate each other without threats of violence.

Btw, I notice you have not answered one of my (important) questions: Do you think it is morally acceptable for Israel to build a synagogue on the site of the Kaaba? There is a very great difference, imo, between acknowledging that some eggs can't be unscrambled and insisting that it is morally correct to build a monument and take over someone else's holy place. Do you agree?

I missed that question. I think I agree -if I understand you correctly.

Here is the dilemma - we are talking about the ethics of 1300 years ago vs the ethics of today. Is that truly comparable? If, a thousand years ago - Israel rose up again, and conquered that area, and built a synagogue - a Very Important Synagogue that was central to their faith - then yes, it's morally correct because that was the way things were at the time and you can't apply today's ethics on yesterday's cultures.

If it happened today - then it would be an atrocity. In the same way the Taliban destruction of the Buddhas was and the same way ISIS' destruction of ancient artifacts and holy places is.

And, of course, I am in no way nullifying either the rights of Muslims, nor the length of time their monuments have stood on the Temple Mount. I am advocating the Temple Mount as a SHARED space, in practice, as long as it is acknowledged that it was, and is, a Jewish holy place and that the "right" to it comes through the Jewish people and religious faith and that all other faiths must honor and respect that for what it is.

That is where I agree and disagree.

Yes, it is a shared space in practice, but it must be acknowledged as a Jewish holy place, a Christian holy place, and a Muslim holy place - and all faiths must honor and respect that. Otherwise - the only "right" to it comes not through the Jewish people but through the might of whatever people currently occupy it (which are the Jews now).

 

[Shusha]

Should a culture "sacrifice its human rights to religious freedom in order to appease another culture"? I'm not sure I view it in quite that way. Jerusalem was taken by conquest (yet again) as it often has been. It is a flash point of 3 religions in a region dominated by one (Islam). I think it's very tricky to maintain a balance without tipping into violence and Israel. Israel - as the conservator, in my opinion, has to work out a balance with the Muslim world on this site that has been one of central sites for their religion for the past 1300 years or so and it's no easy feat.

What I think is WRONG, is that Muslims are so heavily restricting the ability of Jews to worship there. There should be a way for both to respectfully tolerate each other without threats of violence.

You should view it in that way. If the principle of SHARED religious places (your view) is upheld -- you should absolutely be appalled by the idea that the Jewish people must sacrifice our rights to religious freedom in order to appease those who are willing to both threaten and commit violence in order to prevent others from exercising their rights to religious freedom.

Temple Mount is not a "flashpoint of 3 religions" -- its a place where ONE, dominant, religion, actively and with violence aimed at innocent civilians, restricts the rights of others to religious freedom. Its a travesty of justice and human rights.

I agree that it is no easy feat to appease the Muslims who demand exclusive rights to sites which are Holy to other faiths. But we must not make excuses for them. We must not permit them to claim that Jewish prayer at our Holy site is a "provocation". We must not permit them to terrorize us into sacrificing our human rights.

We must fight on the side of universal human rights of all people to a freedom of worship at holy sites.

And that means, practically, that all Muslims who prevent that from happening, in word or deed, must be opposed.