http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546446423&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull This was said by the head of the Israeli-Arab Islamic Movement's northern branch. This view, I believe, is held by most Muslims. Some are apathetic, some are annoyed by it but keep quiet, some are quiet vociferous, and some are spearheading this campaign of propaganda to deny Jews of their holiest site on earth, and supported by the typical wild-eyed mobs that the world is by now too familiar with. By now the world is pretty familiar with Islam's third holiest site. What the world probably does NOT know is that the al-Aqsa mosque / shrine stands on top of the ruins of 2 Jewish temples, which are the first holiest site in Judaism. The Western Wall shrine is literally the western wall of the 2nd temple - the last standing structure from that holy structure which was not destroyed by legions of occupiers - Christian or Muslim. The 1st one was completely destroyed, but the 2nd one still has a wall standing. This Muslim denial of Jewish holy sites is not the only instance, but is the biggest and most disturbing one by far. Here's a question with an obvious answer: why do Muslims reject Jewish claims to these religious sites despite overwhelming archeological evidence (not that any of it is needed... Muhammad is respected with out any)? Another question: why hasn't the world shown more support towards Jewish claims to the site?
What's that got to do with anything? EDIT: And to answer that question, they prayed to Jerusalem every day. ("Be shana ha ba'a be Yerushalaim" - next year in Jerusalem).
Well they kept going back to Europe, even after the Calipahte extended an open invitation to come back to Jerusalem, much like Israelis who prefer to live in the US. Makes no sense.
That's something a few of us atheistic types have pondered, watching the clearcuts of the old growth redwoods and the drowning of Glen Canyon to power Las Vegas, coupled with the worldwide reverence toward memorials to prophecy and bigotry and the evils that men did in dusty corners of dark ages long wept and gone. If there were a safe amnesia drug, the water supplies of the Vatican, Mecca, and Jerusalem could be made into the healing draughts of legend.
I don't think Mecca the city per se should be a focal point anyway. All it says is to make Hajj, which is a way of saying that history and preservation of history is important. I don't see how a jazzy black sheet and a brand new mosque are reminiscent of history anyway. I went for umrah several times because of time limitations and saw as much of the city as I could. I was disappointed by the lack of preservation of antiquity. All the newness was very jarring. Perhaps I've been spoiled by our thousand year old stuff in India, but when you go to Mecca to see where it all began, you really do not want to see marble tiling and malls, surrounded by hotels
My my, iceaura, there has been an improvement in your rhetoric. My work here is done!. You've included the other 2... or should I say the other one in your criticism of religion. But what about the freedom of conscience for every person without another person (government or private) interfering with it? It's one thing to say "religion in general sucks", but here you say it in the context of a discussion about protecting Jews' (ok, let's make it more general -- a religious group's) right to believe in something, against a violent and murderous pack of zealot savages who came straight from the midevil times who want to deny them of that right by very violent means (or even non-violent). Funny that you mention "all religions suck" in this context, is all I'm saying. Actually not funny.
Why not? It's not just about that structure, right? It's where everything has begun. This is where your prophet lived and where some battles occured. I can understand how Mecca the city, as opposed to just the structure with the marble floor, is holy.
Its about the history, the city itself could be swallowed tomorrow, but the history would still live on. Mecca today is not what it was then, worse perhaps as it was a thriving trade center at the time and is now merely marble and malls. And Mecca is not "holy". Whatever their faults, the Saudis are strict about that! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you have to leave this one alone, otheadp. When Sharon visited al-Aqsa, the reaction was the second intifada. The Jews have a holy wall to worship at, the Muslims have an actual historic temple, and they are just as fanatical about it as any Jew. What is your religion about? Is it worshipping some building like an idol? I don't think so.
Personally I don't see any reason why the Masjid al Aqsa could not be combined with the Wall to have Mosque/Synagogue. Its not like God has objections to worship of any kind. It would certainly be very nice to resurrect the Temple as it used to be. Historical sites are not a dime a dozen and Jews deserve that much for their fidelity to it.
Is it over the Temple? Perhaps they could move the mosque? Or build it to a side? Does the exact location matter?
The Aqsa intifada was planned for a long time before Sharon came to the Temple Mount. Him coming was the spark. As for your "worshipping 'some building' like an idol" comment... Just because Jews are more sensible and don't go burning embassies over cartoons does not mean they are not entitled to their 3 millenia old holy places. Plus, it's a slippery slope. Why have shrines? Why have religious clothes or ceremonies? Why have books or prayers? Fuck, why call ourselves a separate name? It's so divisive... /sarc Even the words you used: "like an idol", comparing the 2 temples that stood for a combined time of 1000 years and held the Arc of the Covenant, to the golden calf. If there is anything antithetical to worshipping idols is worshipping that holy site.
I think al-Aqsa is indeed directly over the former site of the Temple, and doing anything with it is firmly non-negotiable among the Muslims there. The exact location does seem to matter to people.
Wow SAM I had to read that twice Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you realize that saying what you just wrote out loud in most parts of the Middle East, hyperboles aside, will get you violently murdered? I wouldn't mind your idea at all. It's a compromise to which Jews aren't even dreaming of. You can't rebuild the temple. It would be a modern structure that in my mind would be soulless. All Jews want to do is to be able to go up to the mount and pray to whatever ruins that are left. The Israeli police now physically prevent any "troublesome" Jewish worshippers who try to reach the temple mount. I don't think a Jew has been up there ever since Sharon came to visit in 2000.
This is like Solomans baby isn't it? I have no attachment to bricks myself, so if it were up to me I would say, let the Israelis have it, if only because the mosque was built over the temple. Didn't Mohammed move the qibla to Mecca for the same reason? It should not be impossible to move the mosque, though I suppose some damage is inevitable. But hey, theres a military base on Babylon and no one cares about that. Historically that is so much more valuable and irreplaceable. But with the current climate in Palestine, its not my call to make.
