The Muslim claim to Jerusalem

[teddyearp]

I found this very enlightening article in another thread here. I suggest we all read it in its entirety, and I mean all since it was posted by a pro-Pali poster. Link:

http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem

As usually happens on this forum, threads go far astray. I found this in the "Gaza battle shifts to beauty aisle" thread when it switched to a question on how many times Jerusalem was mentioned in the Koran.

It was not. But poster penelope did give us a history lesson and then furthered it with this artfully cherry picked quote from the above linked article:

According to the Arabic literary sources, Muhammad in A.D. 622 fled his home town of Mecca for Medina, a city with a substantial Jewish population. On arrival in Medina, if not slightly earlier, the Qur'an adopted a number of practices friendly to Jews: a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of prayer, permission to eat kosher food, and approval to marry Jewish women. Most important, the Qur'an repudiated the pre-Islamic practice of the Meccans to pray toward the Ka'ba, the small stone structure at the center of the main mosque in Mecca. Instead, it adopted the Judaic practice of facing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during prayer. (Actually, the Qur'an only mentions the direction as "Syria"; other information makes it clear that Jerusalem is meant.)
This, the first qibla (direction of prayer) of Islam, did not last long. The Jews criticized the new faith and rejected the friendly Islamic gestures; not long after, the Qur'an broke with them, probably in early 624. The explanation of this change comes in a Qur'anic verse instructing the faithful no longer to pray toward Syria but instead toward Mecca. The passage (2:142-52) begins by anticipating questions about this abrupt change:


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 Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

But if you read the article for yourself, that was about it. However since it was posted by a pro-Palestinian poster, it should be good for both sides to read and accept, right? Because right near the beginning of the article it states the true ties of Islam to Jerusalem:

The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement "Next year in Jerusalem," and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms very large in Jewish consciousness; remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman's makeup or jewelry left incomplete, and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. In addition, Jerusalem has had a prominent historical role, is the only capital of a Jewish state, and is the only city with a Jewish majority during the whole of the past century. In the words of its current mayor, Jerusalem represents "the purest expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple."

What about Muslims? Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad's life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.

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.

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting "We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem" and their brethren in Jordan yell "We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa"? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect "the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world"? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth-century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth-century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

There are many, many other quotes I could (or will) make from this excellent article, but here's just one that confirms that Jerusalem is really not considered a 'capital' of 'Palestine':

In a typical put-down, another tenth-century author described the city as "a provincial town attached to Ramla," a reference to the tiny, insignificant town serving as Palestine's administrative center.

I could go on and on, but I'll just see what y'all have to say about this article after reading the whole thing.

 

[Daniyel]

It is obvious that only Jews have an actual claim over Jerusalem, the fact Palestinians and Co. yelling Allah Wacbar in every protest reveal the true nature of religious wars in 21st century.
The automatic annexation to Arabs is Muslims or Islam, and many fall to believe that because the Palestinians (Arabs by majority) claim for Jerusalem-with all the Islamic motives- so Muslims have an actual ground for that claim (religiously)

 

[ForeverYoung436]

I found this very enlightening article in another thread here. I suggest we all read it in its entirety, and I mean all since it was posted by a pro-Pali poster. Link:

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

As usually happens on this forum, threads go far astray. I found this in the "Gaza battle shifts to beauty aisle" thread when it switched to a question on how many times Jerusalem was mentioned in the Koran.

It was not. But poster penelope did give us a history lesson and then furthered it with this artfully cherry picked quote from the above linked article:

According to the Arabic literary sources, Muhammad in A.D. 622 fled his home town of Mecca for Medina, a city with a substantial Jewish population. On arrival in Medina, if not slightly earlier, the Qur'an adopted a number of practices friendly to Jews: a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of prayer, permission to eat kosher food, and approval to marry Jewish women. Most important, the Qur'an repudiated the pre-Islamic practice of the Meccans to pray toward the Ka'ba, the small stone structure at the center of the main mosque in Mecca. Instead, it adopted the Judaic practice of facing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during prayer. (Actually, the Qur'an only mentions the direction as "Syria"; other information makes it clear that Jerusalem is meant.)
This, the first qibla (direction of prayer) of Islam, did not last long. The Jews criticized the new faith and rejected the friendly Islamic gestures; not long after, the Qur'an broke with them, probably in early 624. The explanation of this change comes in a Qur'anic verse instructing the faithful no longer to pray toward Syria but instead toward Mecca. The passage (2:142-52) begins by anticipating questions about this abrupt change:


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 Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

But if you read the article for yourself, that was about it. However since it was posted by a pro-Palestinian poster, it should be good for both sides to read and accept, right? Because right near the beginning of the article it states the true ties of Islam to Jerusalem:

The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is an ancient and powerful one. Judaism made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago and through all that time Jews remained steadfast to it. Jews pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement "Next year in Jerusalem," and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple looms very large in Jewish consciousness; remembrance takes such forms as a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman's makeup or jewelry left incomplete, and a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. In addition, Jerusalem has had a prominent historical role, is the only capital of a Jewish state, and is the only city with a Jewish majority during the whole of the past century. In the words of its current mayor, Jerusalem represents "the purest expression of all that Jews prayed for, dreamed of, cried for, and died for in the two thousand years since the destruction of the Second Temple."

What about Muslims? Where does Jerusalem fit in Islam and Muslim history? It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad's life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.

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.

The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting "We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem" and their brethren in Jordan yell "We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa"? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect "the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world"? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?

Because of politics. An historical survey shows that the stature of the city, and the emotions surrounding it, inevitably rises for Muslims when Jerusalem has political significance. Conversely, when the utility of Jerusalem expires, so does its status and the passions about it. This pattern first emerged during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad in the early seventh century. Since then, it has been repeated on five occasions: in the late seventh century, in the twelfth-century Countercrusade, in the thirteenth-century Crusades, during the era of British rule (1917-48), and since Israel took the city in 1967. The consistency that emerges in such a long period provides an important perspective on the current confrontation.

There are many, many other quotes I could (or will) make from this excellent article, but here's just one that confirms that Jerusalem is really not considered a 'capital' of 'Palestine':

In a typical put-down, another tenth-century author described the city as "a provincial town attached to Ramla," a reference to the tiny, insignificant town serving as Palestine's administrative center.

I could go on and on, but I'll just see what y'all have to say about this article after reading the whole thing.

Yes, it's true that Jerusalem isn't mentioned at all in the Quran. Like "the dog in the manger" fable, it's only important to them because it's important to us. Even today, Arab teens play soccer in the Temple compound. Nowhere is it mentioned in their prayers, and they have no holiday or fast day associated with it. In fact, they turn their asses to the Dome of the Rock, as they pray in the direction of Mecca. That said, all Muslim, Christian/Armenian and Jewish places of worship are protected in the Old City, and there is religious freedom for all.

 

[Lipush]

It is obvious that only Jews have an actual claim over Jerusalem, the fact Palestinians and Co. yelling Allah Wacbar in every protest reveal the true nature of religious wars in 21st century.
The automatic annexation to Arabs is Muslims or Islam, and many fall to believe that because the Palestinians (Arabs by majority) claim for Jerusalem-with all the Islamic motives- so Muslims have an actual ground for that claim (religiously)

 

[Beelzebub]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

 

[Lipush]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

How 'bout I claim a connection to Hong-Kong just because I happened to park my flying horse next to the house of Jackie Chan

 

[ForeverYoung436]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

How 'bout I claim a connection to Hong-Kong just because I happened to park my flying horse next to the house of Jackie Chan

Actually alot of miracles in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are also pretty incredible. But at least they are based on the actual text and not on a Midrash (legend). The "horse" incident is a legend based on a Quranic verse, which scholars believe was actually referring to Medina, and not Jerusalem.

 

[teddyearp]

Yes and there's more:

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:

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

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

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.

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.

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 referring to Jerusalem date from the eleventh century.)

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."

At the end of the day, Islam, the Muslims, the Arabs and the Palestinians do NOT really want Jerusalem or Israel; they just don't want the Jews or anyone else to have it. At least that is what history tells us.

If the Jews did leave right now, in thirty years or less the country would be completely dead.

 

[Lipush]

That. Makes. No. Sense.

How 'bout I claim a connection to Hong-Kong just because I happened to park my flying horse next to the house of Jackie Chan

Actually alot of miracles in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament are also pretty incredible. But at least they are based on the actual text and not on a Midrash (legend). The "horse" incident is a legend based on a Quranic verse, which scholars believe was actually referring to Medina, and not Jerusalem.

You're ruining the story

 

[irosie91]

yup-----no interest whatsoever------not in Jerusalem ---not in
what they call "Palestine" and LEAST OF ALL----the people
they call "Palestinians" It was so clear -----ABSOLUTELY CLEAR way back in 1967-------the diplomats in the UN all but
chanted "we don't want it ----we don't care......but we don't want
DA JOOOOOOS to have it" The whole problem in the MIDDLE EAST------is the fact that muslims cannot BEAR the
fact that jews survived shariah filth

 

[Penelope]

Yes and there's more:



At the end of the day, Islam, the Muslims, the Arabs and the Palestinians do NOT really want Jerusalem or Israel; they just don't want the Jews or anyone else to have it. At least that is what history tells us.

If the Jews did leave right now, in thirty years or less the country would be completely dead.

No I think at the end of the day the Jews left Jerusalem because they no longer had a temple there and moved on to Medina (a substantial Jewish settlement) once again encroaching on someone else's land. The Muslims tried to befriend them but the Jewish did not want to befriend the Muslims, so they fought, and the Jews moved on , to where who knows. Then the Muslims took control of Jerusalem and built a mosque and dome of the rock, which has been standing ever since. So for centuries the Jews didn't care about Jerusalem one bit. Only as a last resort did they think of returning to Palestine in the late 1800's , since in no place were they wanted. Such is the beginning of Zionism and relearning of the spoken Hebrew language. The Israelites never had control of all of Palestine, when the Romans came the land was called Judea which the capital was Jerusalem. They also stole the land in the first place from the Canaanites.

 

[Daniyel]

No I think ...

Unlikely.
You missed the biggest post about the importance of Jerusalem in Judaism and to Jews in general.

 

[teddyearp]

penelope? Ever heard of Emperor Hadrian? Yeah the one that banned the Jews from Jerusalem?

 

[irosie91]

No I think at the end of the day the Jews left Jerusalem because they no longer had a temple there and moved on to Medina (a substantial Jewish settlement) once again encroaching on someone else's land.

(irosie) > Penelope----please avoid the phrase "i think"---
I was eating when I read it and almost CHOKED!. There is
a KNOWN history of jews-----mostly because by the time
there were jews in Arabia----jews had a very HIGH level of
literacy Speaking of literacy-----you know how to read---
instead of INVENTING history in your own head----why not
read a bit There were jews in Arabia for a very long time-
more than 1000 years before the birth of the rapist pig of
mecca. Now that was a start----Arabia was not a country
Your use of the term "ENCROACHING" on the land of
reveals your vile and depraved character. Arabia was
OPENED LAND------and its people generally nomadic tribes
when jews first went there-----and there were no "muslims"
there. As for being "friendly"------well----historically they
were known as DANGEROUS-----criminal, unwashed,
illiterate-----and caravan robbers and slavers. -----they were
the ISHMAELITES mentioned in the biblical literature.
At the time jews developed a town in Arabia Yathrib----
that town was a kind of TRADING outpost on THE
SILK ROAD ---------gee you are dim and also nasty and
vulgar. and where do you squat your encroaching
malodorous posterior?



The Muslims tried to befriend them but the Jewish did not want to befriend the Muslims, so they fought, and the Jews moved on , to where who knows. Then the Muslims took control of Jerusalem and built a mosque and dome of the rock, which has been standing ever since. So for centuries the Jews didn't care about Jerusalem one bit. Only as a last resort did they think of returning to Palestine in the late 1800's , since in no place were they wanted. Such is the beginning of Zionism and relearning of the spoken Hebrew language. The Israelites never had control of all of Palestine, when the Romans came the land was called Judea which the capital was Jerusalem. They also stole the land in the first place from the Canaanites.

penelope? Ever heard of Emperor Hadrian? Yeah the one that banned the Jews from Jerusalem?

 

[Penelope]

penelope? Ever heard of Emperor Hadrian? Yeah the one that banned the Jews from Jerusalem?

I think you both need to read the History of Palestine, yes its a wiki article but it will show that actually the Israelites had very little to do with the History of Palestine. The only right they have is by their OT which says God told Abraham , Isaac and Jacob, well God is not a man nor does he have vocal cords ok. so they were talking to themselves.

If everyone would read the history of Palestine on Wiki you will see the Palestine, Jews, and Christians all have a right to the land, and I might add, Muslims held the land for longer periods than the Jews did. I know its long but try to make it through it.

History of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

I think you both need to read the History of Palestine, yes its a wiki article but it will show that actually the Israelites had very little to do with the History of Palestine. The only right they have is by their OT which says God told Abraham , Isaac and Jacob, well God is not a man nor does he have vocal cords ok. so they were talking to themselves.

If everyone would read the history of Palestine on Wiki you will see the Palestine, Jews, and Christians all have a right to the land, and I might add, Muslims held the land for longer periods than the Jews did. I know its long but try to make it through it.

History of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Penelope----since you know so little----TRY TO ASK ------your attempt to learn history by reading wiki-------is hopeless.
In order to use Wiki as a source-----you have to have a background in reality. Wiki is ok for a name----a date----etc---but you cannot glean an understanding of history from
wiki anymore than you can learn to practice dentistry from
"HEALTH TODAY" articles on aol news. As to "
"TOO LONG TO READ" your statement confirms something
I already ascertained-------You have not read much of anything in your lifetime. BUT you seem to have a bit of
a grasp of the islamo Nazi literature------you may have gleaned that crap from your "social circle"'

HOWEVER you introduce an interesting point----HOW long
do you think a people must RESIDE in a land before they
HAVE RIGHTS TO OWN IT? ----(you did mention TIME as
an issue)

 

[Penelope]

penelope? Ever heard of Emperor Hadrian? Yeah the one that banned the Jews from Jerusalem?

Simon Bar Kokhba took the title Nasi Israel and ruled over a ministate that was virtually independent for two and a half years. The era of the redemption of Israel was announced, contracts were signed and a large quantity of Bar Kochba Revolt coinage was struck over foreign coins.
The Jewish leaders carefully planned the second revolt to avoid the numerous mistakes that had plagued the first Great Jewish Revolt sixty years earlier. In 132, a revolt led by Bar Kokhba quickly spread from Modi'in across the country, cutting off the Roman garrison in Jerusalem....... (read the rest from link below)

Note he took the title NASI ISRAEL, but he didn't turn out to be the Jewish messiah either did he. You know if the Jews had never fought against Rome they would of never been kicked out, but one want to be Messiah after another tried to overrule the Romans, and it never happened.
Bar Kokhba revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penelope]

Unlikely.
You missed the biggest post about the importance of Jerusalem in Judaism and to Jews in general.

since the majority of Zionist in Israel are secular I doubt it.

 

[aris2chat]

No I think at the end of the day the Jews left Jerusalem because they no longer had a temple there and moved on to Medina (a substantial Jewish settlement) once again encroaching on someone else's land. The Muslims tried to befriend them but the Jewish did not want to befriend the Muslims, so they fought, and the Jews moved on , to where who knows. Then the Muslims took control of Jerusalem and built a mosque and dome of the rock, which has been standing ever since. So for centuries the Jews didn't care about Jerusalem one bit. Only as a last resort did they think of returning to Palestine in the late 1800's , since in no place were they wanted. Such is the beginning of Zionism and relearning of the spoken Hebrew language. The Israelites never had control of all of Palestine, when the Romans came the land was called Judea which the capital was Jerusalem. They also stole the land in the first place from the Canaanites.

250000 jews were crucified by the romans. Another 250000 were forced to leave.
Jewish revolt was just one of six wars between the jews and roman.
Coins with the temple on it were made.

The temple was as vital to jews as the kabal is to Muslims. Even when the black stone was broken and later taken away for twenty years, muslims still prayed and traveled to mecca.
Temples have meaning to the faithful.
Jews morned but never forgot their prayer of returning to Jerusalem.

 

[irosie91]

since the majority of Zionist in Israel are secular I doubt it.

Ok----you have AGAIN demonstrated the fact that you
know nothing about either Jews or Judaism or Zionism.
Try to focus-----"SECULAR" in Israel and amongst jews in
general-----does not mean---"not jewish" According to the
way jews use the word SECULAR-----I am secular as are---probably most if not all the jews who post here. Since I post
on Saturday-----I AM SECULAR -- Albert Einstein was VERY SECULAR-------but an ardent Zionist based on HISTORY AND CULTURE . Feel free to ask questions.
You may not be as stupid as your seem----just naive