The moslum claim to Jerusalem and the Mount is fake

[50_RiaL]

The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem is False
There were no mosques in Jerusalem in 632CE when the Prophet Mohammed died... Jerusalem was [then] a Christian city
by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann

The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.

DR. MANFRED R. LEHMANN is a writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.

 

[teddyearp]

Wow, has your mask slipped; no more pretence at "reasonableness". Good, I'm sure you feel better coming out and now we know where we stand with you.

No, my mask has not slipped, the blinders have come off. It is odd that you quote MLK in your sig, he supported the State of Israel. You claim to be "Pro-Palestine" which I have learned to be the politically correct (or propagandist) way of saying you hate the State of Israel. It is too bad that you have fallen for the lie, even though your sig says to keep calm and seek the truth. Funny thing. Although sometimes I have not been calm about it, I have calmly sought the truth.

And the truth is that the Jews have been persecuted and banished from all over the world for almost two thousand years. When the British owned 'Palestine' (and the British were expelling Jews as well at the time) they invited them to have their historic homeland in Israel. When the country was declared, two things happened. The Arab/Moslems fled thinking that the Jews were going to kill them. The neighboring Arab countries attacked. The so called 'Naqba' was of their own creation, but worse is at the same time that the Arabs fled from Israel, the neighboring countries expelled the Jews. The big difference was how the countries handled it.

Look, I know I am wasting my time with you. It is all out there for all to read. The hate that the 'pro-Palestinians' (which should be anit-Israeli) have.

So, Challenger, just go back to YOUR fucking handlers to keep up YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT ON THIS SITE!

Because that is all you post. BULLSHIT LIES AND PROPAGANDA!

 

[teddyearp]

However, I will go back to my last concession, which I had started a couple of threads about, but the anti-Israel hate came to the fore; oops, should I say pro palestine?

If the Palestinians were to stop all the hatred, stop their declaration of violence against Israel, declare peace everlasting right where they are and decide that they would like to declare their "State of Palestine" right now, right where they are; shit would change. I bet that even though for now, their capital would be Ramallah, after some serious pledges of peace and their actions proving it to be so, then even perhaps East Jerusalem could possibly be their capital eventually.

Why? Because the Israeli's love life and peace.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Roudy]

The Romans got fed up with the Jews and demolished the Herod's temple in the 70's, also there is no Israelite claim either , ask yourself why so few Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, they didn't want to. When the Jews operated Herods temple, they did it as a money making thing, people from miles around were to come and pay homage and had to buy doves or sheep whatever they could afford. The money changers , Jews , cheated the people. So its time to quit with this stuff like Jerusalem belongs to the Jews because it does not.

Check your Koran Fatima. Even Mohammad gives Jerusalem to the Jews.

 

[Roudy]

I find it hilariously funny that even the Koran gives Israel and Jerusalem to the Jews, forever, and fails to mention this fictional Palestine or Palestinian people even ONCE. Not even their religion backs their false cause up.

 

[Challenger]

Wow, has your mask slipped; no more pretence at "reasonableness". Good, I'm sure you feel better coming out and now we know where we stand with you.

No, my mask has not slipped, the blinders have come off. It is odd that you quote MLK in your sig, he supported the State of Israel. You claim to be "Pro-Palestine" which I have learned to be the politically correct (or propagandist) way of saying you hate the State of Israel. It is too bad that you have fallen for the lie, even though your sig says to keep calm and seek the truth. Funny thing. Although sometimes I have not been calm about it, I have calmly sought the truth.

And the truth is that the Jews have been persecuted and banished from all over the world for almost two thousand years. When the British owned 'Palestine' (and the British were expelling Jews as well at the time) they invited them to have their historic homeland in Israel. When the country was declared, two things happened. The Arab/Moslems fled thinking that the Jews were going to kill them. The neighboring Arab countries attacked. The so called 'Naqba' was of their own creation, but worse is at the same time that the Arabs fled from Israel, the neighboring countries expelled the Jews. The big difference was how the countries handled it.

Look, I know I am wasting my time with you. It is all out there for all to read. The hate that the 'pro-Palestinians' (which should be anit-Israeli) have.

So, Challenger, just go back to YOUR fucking handlers to keep up YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT ON THIS SITE!

Because that is all you post. BULLSHIT LIES AND PROPAGANDA!

Funny that, because the same thing happened to me. I'd read and absorbed the Zionist Hasbara and hystriography for decades until I noticed inconsistancies in the Zionist narrative. It wasn't until I started doing my own research that the Zionist web of falsification of history began to unravel. I agree, the truth IS out there, all you have to do is look with an open mind.

The Nakhba is a good example. Zionist histeriography denied it happened for decades; the Zionist line was always, "they were ordered to leave to allow the Arab armies free reign" or "they left of their own accord" or they "fled the fighting". Then in the 1980's the archives were declassified and the truth came out. The native Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, their villages blown up behind them. Far from an, "outnumbered IDF valliantly fighting off the brutal Arab invaders", approximately half the IDF were engaged in einsatzgruppen tasks against the Muslim civillian population of Palestine.

You don't have to take my work for it read these two books and come to your own conclusions:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books
Palestine Betrayed Amazon.co.uk Efraim Karsh 9780300172348 Books

Can't help but notice Teddyearp has adopted Phoenall's (aka Phoney's) style of posting, looks like the Zionist script book is doing the rounds again.

 

[Phoenall]

Wow, has your mask slipped; no more pretence at "reasonableness". Good, I'm sure you feel better coming out and now we know where we stand with you.

No, my mask has not slipped, the blinders have come off. It is odd that you quote MLK in your sig, he supported the State of Israel. You claim to be "Pro-Palestine" which I have learned to be the politically correct (or propagandist) way of saying you hate the State of Israel. It is too bad that you have fallen for the lie, even though your sig says to keep calm and seek the truth. Funny thing. Although sometimes I have not been calm about it, I have calmly sought the truth.

And the truth is that the Jews have been persecuted and banished from all over the world for almost two thousand years. When the British owned 'Palestine' (and the British were expelling Jews as well at the time) they invited them to have their historic homeland in Israel. When the country was declared, two things happened. The Arab/Moslems fled thinking that the Jews were going to kill them. The neighboring Arab countries attacked. The so called 'Naqba' was of their own creation, but worse is at the same time that the Arabs fled from Israel, the neighboring countries expelled the Jews. The big difference was how the countries handled it.

Look, I know I am wasting my time with you. It is all out there for all to read. The hate that the 'pro-Palestinians' (which should be anit-Israeli) have.

So, Challenger, just go back to YOUR fucking handlers to keep up YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT ON THIS SITE!

Because that is all you post. BULLSHIT LIES AND PROPAGANDA!

Funny that, because the same thing happened to me. I'd read and absorbed the Zionist Hasbara and hystriography for decades until I noticed inconsistancies in the Zionist narrative. It wasn't until I started doing my own research that the Zionist web of falsification of history began to unravel. I agree, the truth IS out there, all you have to do is look with an open mind.

The Nakhba is a good example. Zionist histeriography denied it happened for decades; the Zionist line was always, "they were ordered to leave to allow the Arab armies free reign" or "they left of their own accord" or they "fled the fighting". Then in the 1980's the archives were declassified and the truth came out. The native Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, their villages blown up behind them. Far from an, "outnumbered IDF valliantly fighting off the brutal Arab invaders", approximately half the IDF were engaged in einsatzgruppen tasks against the Muslim civillian population of Palestine.

You don't have to take my work for it read these two books and come to your own conclusions:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine Amazon.co.uk Ilan Pappe 9781851685554 Books
Palestine Betrayed Amazon.co.uk Efraim Karsh 9780300172348 Books

Can't help but notice Teddyearp has adopted Phoenall's (aka Phoney's) style of posting, looks like the Zionist script book is doing the rounds again.

The naqba was nothing more than the failed attempt at destroying the newly created Israel and the genocide of the Jews. It was a black stain on the arab muslims history of constant victory, even though they outnumbered the Jews 1 million to one they were still defeated. The Israeli's acted no differently to how the arab muslims acted at the time and removed any possible chance of enemy resistance from the land. I prefer to read factual accounts that deal with the reality of the ongoing war. remember that it was the arab muslims that invaded that caused the problem in the first not the Jews

 

[teddyearp]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

 

[Hossfly]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

The anti-Semites like Challenger can present what they think is true, and then there is what is actually the truth.

The Freeman Center - Maccabean Online - The Great Refugee Scam

 

[teddyearp]

Thank you for that Hoss, explains well how the Israeli 'genocide' against the Pali's is going.

 

[abu afak]

The Abassids didn't take over until 750 AD.. from the Umayyads had had themselves Shoe-Horned/Manufactured Jerusalem into an Islamic Holy Place.. as it was Not mentioned in the Koran; contrary to popular belief.

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

[.............]
One comparison makes this point most clearly: Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all.
The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times.
In contrast, the columnist Moshe Kohn notes, Jerusalem and Zion appear as frequently in the Qur'an "as they do in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, the Taoist Tao-Te Ching, the Buddhist Dhamapada and the Zoroastrian Zend Avesta"—which is to say, Not Once.
[...............]
Muslims subsequently accepted the point implicit to the Qur'anic explanation, that the adoption of Jerusalem as qibla was a tactical move to win Jewish converts. "He chose the Holy House in Jerusalem in order that the People of the Book [i.e., Jews] would be conciliated," notes At-Tabari, an early Muslim commentator on the Qur'an, "and the Jews were glad."
Modern historians agree: W. Montgomery Watt, a leading biographer of Muhammad, interprets the prophet's "far-reaching concessions to Jewish feeling" in the light of two motives, one of which was "the desire for a reconciliation with the Jews."

After the Qur'an repudiated Jerusalem, so did the Muslims: the first description of the town under Muslim rule comes from the visiting Bishop Arculf, a Gallic pilgrim, in 680, who reported seeing "an oblong house of prayer, which they [the Muslims] pieced together with upright plans and large beams over some ruined remains." Not for the last time, safely under Muslim control, Jerusalem became a backwater.

This episode set the mold that would be repeated many times over succeeding centuries: Muslims take interest religiously in Jerusalem because of pressing but temporary concerns. Then, when those concerns lapse, so does the focus on Jerusalem, and the city's standing greatly diminishes.

II. Umayyads

The second round of interest in Jerusalem occurred during the rule of the Damascus-based Umayyad dynasty (661-750). A dissident leader in Mecca, ‘Abdullah b. az-Zubayr began a revolt against the Umayyads in 680 that lasted until his death in 692; while fighting him, Umayyad rulers sought to aggrandize Syria at the expense of Arabia (and perhaps also to help recruit an army against the Byzantine Empire). They took some steps to sanctify Damascus, but mostly their campaign involved what Amikam Elad of the Hebrew University calls an "enormous" effort "to exalt and to glorify" Jerusalem. They may even have hoped to make it the equal of Mecca.

The first Umayyad ruler, Mu‘awiya, chose Jerusalem as the place where he ascended to the caliphate; he and his successors engaged in a construction program – religious edifices, a palace, and roads – in the city. The Umayyads possibly had plans to make Jerusalem their political and administrative capital; indeed, Elad finds that they in effect treated it as such. But Jerusalem is primarily a city of faith, and, as the Israeli scholar Izhak Hasson explains, the "Umayyad regime was interested in ascribing an Islamic aura to its stronghold and center." Toward this end (as well as to assert Islam's presence in its competition with Christianity), the Umayyad caliph built Islam's first grand structure, the Dome of the Rock, right on the spot of the Jewish Temple, in 688-91. This remarkable building is not just the first monumental sacred building of Islam but also the only one that still stands today in roughly its original form.

The next Umayyad step was subtle and complex, and requires a pause to note a passage of the Qur'an (17:1) describing the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven (isra'):
Glory to He who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the furthest mosque. (Subhana allathina asra bi-‘abdihi laylatan min al-masjidi al-harami ila al-masjidi al-aqsa.)
When this Qur'anic passage was first revealed, in about 621, a place called the Sacred Mosque already existed in Mecca. In contrast, the "furthest mosque" was a turn of phrase, Not a place. Some early Muslims understood it as metaphorical or as a place in heaven. And if the "furthest mosque" did exist on earth, Palestine would seem an Unlikely location, for many reasons. Some of them:

1. Elsewhere in the Qur'an (30:1), Palestine is called "the closest land" (adna al-ard).

2. Palestine had Not yet been conquered by the Muslims and contained Not a single mosque.

3. The "furthest mosque" was apparently identified with places inside Arabia: either Medina or a town called Ji‘rana, about ten miles from Mecca, which the Prophet visited in 630.

4. The earliest Muslim accounts of Jerusalem, such as the description of Caliph ‘Umar's reported visit to the city just after the Muslims conquest in 638, NOWHERE identify the Temple Mount with the "furthest mosque" of the Qur'an.

5. The Qur'anic inscriptions that make up a 240-meter mosaic frieze inside the Dome of the Rock do Not include Qur'an 17:1 and the story of the Night Journey, suggesting that as late as 692 the idea of Jerusalem as the lift-off for the Night Journey had Not yet been established. (Indeed, the first extant inscriptions of Qur'an 17:1 in Jerusalem date from the 11th century.)

6. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiya (638-700), a close relative of the Prophet Muhammad, is quoted denigrating the notion that the prophet ever set foot on the Rock in Jerusalem; "these damned Syrians," by which he means the Umayyads, "pretend that God put His foot on the Rock in Jerusalem, though [only] one person ever put his foot on the rock, namely Abraham."

Then, in 715, to build up the prestige of their dominions, the Umayyads did a most Clever thing:
they Built a Second mosque in Jerusalem, again on the Temple Mount, and called this one the Furthest Mosque (al-masjid al-aqsa, Al-Aqsa Mosque). With this, the Umayyads Retroactively gave the city a role in Muhammad's life.
This association of Jerusalem with al-masjid al-aqsa fit into a wider Muslim tendency to identify place names found in the Qur'an:
"wherever the Koran mentions a name of an event, stories were invented to give the impression that somehow, somewhere, someone, knew what they were about."

Despite all logic (how can a mosque built nearly a century after the Qur'an was received establish what the Qur'an meant?), building an actual Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian historian A. L. Tibawi writes, "gave reality to the figurative name used in the Koran."
It also had the hugely important effect of inserting Jerusalem post hoc into the Qur'an and making it more central to Islam. -Also, other changes resulted.
Several Qur'anic passages were RE-interpreted to refer to this city...
[............]​

`

 

[Challenger]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

The anti-Semites like Challenger can present what they think is true, and then there is what is actually the truth.

The Freeman Center - Maccabean Online - The Great Refugee Scam

So you are relying on a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the high command of the Irgun as a source of "truth"?

Ok let's look at one of the citations on that page:

"Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

Erskine Childers investigated this often used citation and stated : "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops."

So someone is making things up, either an ex-terrorist politician or a Catholic Archbishop. So who is the most likely do you think?

 

[Phoenall]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

The anti-Semites like Challenger can present what they think is true, and then there is what is actually the truth.

The Freeman Center - Maccabean Online - The Great Refugee Scam

So you are relying on a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the high command of the Irgun as a source of "truth"?

Ok let's look at one of the citations on that page:

"Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

Erskine Childers investigated this often used citation and stated : "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops."

So someone is making things up, either an ex-terrorist politician or a Catholic Archbishop. So who is the most likely do you think?

A third possibility is that the arab muslims have brought pressure to bear on the Arch Bishop to make him say what they want. Just as they did last summer with the press in gaza when they reported the mounting of rocket launchers in schools and hospitals and the use of civilians as human shields.

 

[Challenger]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

The anti-Semites like Challenger can present what they think is true, and then there is what is actually the truth.

The Freeman Center - Maccabean Online - The Great Refugee Scam

So you are relying on a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the high command of the Irgun as a source of "truth"?

Ok let's look at one of the citations on that page:

"Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

Erskine Childers investigated this often used citation and stated : "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops."

So someone is making things up, either an ex-terrorist politician or a Catholic Archbishop. So who is the most likely do you think?

A third possibility is that the arab muslims have brought pressure to bear on the Arch Bishop to make him say what they want...

Prove it.

 

[Phoenall]

When they fled, they fled because they thought the Jews would kill them. When they stayed and fought the Jews, they were killed. When they stayed in peace, they were left alone.

And what about what Jordan did to the Jewish quarter of the Old City after the 1948 war?

The anti-Semites like Challenger can present what they think is true, and then there is what is actually the truth.

The Freeman Center - Maccabean Online - The Great Refugee Scam

So you are relying on a co-founder with Menachem Begin of the Herut Party and member of the high command of the Irgun as a source of "truth"?

Ok let's look at one of the citations on that page:

"Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

Erskine Childers investigated this often used citation and stated : "I wrote to His Grace, asking for his evidence of such orders. I hold signed letters from him, with permission to publish, in which he has categorically denied ever alleging Arab evacuation orders; he states that no such orders were ever given. He says that his name has been abused for years; and that the Arabs fled through panic and forcible eviction by Jewish troops."

So someone is making things up, either an ex-terrorist politician or a Catholic Archbishop. So who is the most likely do you think?

A third possibility is that the arab muslims have brought pressure to bear on the Arch Bishop to make him say what they want...

Prove it.

Prove what, a possibility or that the Palestinians have a record of threatening journalists who report the truth ?