Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

[Topic split from 'Jews can pray in Mosques - Not Churches' thread in Religion forum]


There is certainly a group of jews that consider Christianity more of a religious threat than Islam. Christianity came direct from Judaism and claims to fulfill the messianic promise of the OT.

Muslims go bonkers though when jews dare to pray on their holiest site:

The Arab League reacted with fury on this week to reports that a small group of Jews had prayed on the Temple Mount on Sunday. Secretary-General Amr Moussa termed the spontaneous prayer gathering “a violation of international law.”
The prayer session was “a serious blow to the holiness of the site,” Moussa claimed, adding that Jews should not be allowed to pray at the site "whether it is Ramadan or any other time of year.”
The Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City is the site on which the Temple and Second Temple once stood, and according to Judaism, is the holiest place on earth.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133078

Let's not confuse issues here FD - the Temple was destroyed by Romans after the Jews in Palestine revolted (and before that earlier temples were destroyed by the Babylonians) - and before the Muslims conquered Jerusalem the Christians were in charge and they tore down the small Jewish temple there and turned the area into a rubbish dump (perhaps that is another reason the Rabbis don't like Christians/Churches?).

You know very well that Haram al Sharif is politically charged - and that extremist Jews want to expel Muslims from the site. Ariel Sharon's provocative visit sparked off an intefada.

But the point here is that on religious grounds these Rabbis are saying that it is ok to worship in a Mosque but not a Church.

If you have political points to make FD - you can start a thread in the Politics section.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Let's not confuse issues here FD - the Temple was destroyed by Romans after the Jews in Palestine revolted (and before that earlier temples were destroyed by the Babylonians) - and before the Muslims conquered Jerusalem the Christians were in charge and they tore down the small Jewish temple there and turned the area into a rubbish dump (perhaps that is another reason the Rabbis don't like Christians/Churches?).

You know very well that Haram al Sharif is politically charged - and that extremist Jews want to expel Muslims from the site. Ariel Sharon's provocative visit sparked off an intefada.

Smoke and mirrors trying to hide the fact Muslims go nuts when jews pray on their holy temple mount.

Stating historical facts is not smoke and mirrors.

The Islamic authorities looking after Haram al Sharif have done so since 1187 (some 500 years after the Muslims first took control). The Jewish extremists that want to violate Israeli government ban on non-Muslims praying at the site and also expel Muslims from this holy site are the trouble makers. No smoke. No mirrors.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: The Jewish extremists that want to violate Israeli law and also expel Muslims from this holy site are the trouble makers.

Jews wanting to pray at the temple mount are now jewish extremists.



Nuff said.

Those that violated the Israeli government ban are extremists.

And the same extremists want Muslims removed from the site.

Cheers,
Shafique

Christians were in charge and they tore down the small Jewish temple there

And yet it was the Muslims to build a triumphalist shrine and masjid over Judaism's holiest site.

What was interesting, is that Yassif Arafat seemed to use Sharon's visiting the temple mount as an excuse to launch the Intifada.

Whether the uprising was in response to Sharon or not, what speaks volumes is that Islamic supremacist beliefs are being given as excuses to justify the cause for the Intifada.

You guys really can't handle facts can you?

Christians destroyed the temple remnant, turned the mount into a rubbish dump - and even banned Jews from Jerusalem.. and yet we have to trot out the usual Bible camp nonsense that bears no relation to reality.

It must really annoy you that the Jews welcomed Muslim rule over Jerusalem and that the Christians slaughtered Jews when they captured it from the Muslims (before the Muslims won it back, of course).


Cheers,
Shafique

The last time Muslims ruled over the old city (Transjordan from 1948-1967), all jews were slaughtered or expelled. I havent seen one Muslim being thankfull that they are allowed by Israeli's to have their own rule of the temple mount. Israeli religious freedom and tolerance against a strong Muslim feeling of being a ubermensch.

Now, jews praying at the site are considered extremists. And no, jewish prayer at their holiest site is not banned by the Israeli government. Under police escort they are allowed, as long as they donot move their lips.

All and all not a positive forecast of religious freedom in Jerusalem under possible Muslim rule.

I have to at least commend you for not trying to re-write history like eh did when he claimed the Crusades weren't religious wars!

So, no argument that Christians demolished the last Jewish temple remnant and forbade Jews from the area, and also turned it into a rubbish dump. No denying that the Muslim rulers protected Jews whilst the crusaders slaughtered them. The best you can come up with is that the Jordanians expelled Jews after the 1948 war, at the same time Arab villages like Deir Yassin were purged.

But back to the issue of the extremists who violated Israeli laws:

The extremists Jews who went against the Israeli government ban seem to have your support. Why do you guys only seem to condone criminals when they happen to be Jews? In this case, the extremists went against the ban imposed by the Israeli government.

Extremists breaking Israeli laws are still extremists - even if they blame their religion for breaking the laws. There are other extremists who celebrate the actions of Baruch Goldstein - he too wanted the Muslims expelled from Haram al Sharif - they too use religious excuses for their extremism.

Praying in any overt way is forbidden - and it is this ban that the extremists were violating. The Israeli supreme court has said that if Jews do not show they are praying (i.e. just stand still), then they can't be viewed as breaking this ban (which makes sense):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/no-moving-j ... r-1.236376

When Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967 and imposed military rule over the city, it chose to not cause an international uproar by overturning the Muslim control of Haram al Sharif which has been continuous since 1187. (It did commit war crimes when it demolished and expelled the 100+ families from the Maghreb quarter though - and that war crime, FD has 'sympathy' for! ).

Facts are facts.

Cheers,
Shafique

Christians destroyed the temple remnant

What was destroyed was what was built by the Sassanians during their brief occupation of the region.

and yet we have to trot out the usual Bible camp nonsense that bears no relation to reality.

That Muslims built a triumphalist edifice on the spot of Judaism's holiest site?

I have to admire your excuses, blatant acts of imperialism by the Muslims are no big deal for you. 'Good grief, they're only Jews. Who cares if us Muslims build over their holy land? We have a manifest destiny to take from others.'

I guess the Jews should take it on the chin that their most sacred holy site has been taken over by another religion.

I'm sure Muslims would be just as servile when it came to people of another religion taking over their holy black stone and great mosque and building a wal-mart on top.

No, wait. I have a feeling we'd get excuses to backlash of Muslim terrorism as a result of any expropriation of Muslim sites.

shafique wrote:When Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967 and imposed military rule over the city, it chose to not cause an international uproar by overturning the Muslim control of Haram al Sharif

Many are so used to this kind of statements that it seems to be rational. It completely isnot. Jewish rule over their holiest site should not cause international uproar.

shafique wrote:(It did commit war crimes when it demolished and expelled the 100+ families from the Maghreb quarter though - and that war crime, FD has 'sympathy' for! ).

In sofar it involved the removal of toilets attached to the Western wall, it has my fullest sympathy.

Jewish rule over their holiest site should not cause international uproar.

Jewish rule over their holiest site would cause an international uproar.

Muslims not being able to rule over Judaism's holiest site would cause an international uproar.

Wow.

When will Jews be given a green light to go crazy over their not ruling over their own holy sites?

Well, FD does have a weird logic for sympathising for a war crime - but it again involves the usual name-calling, this time calling the whole Maghreb neighbourhood of over 100 homes 'toilets attached to the Western Wall' - when the homes demolished were separated from the wall by an area where Jews went to pray (and indeed, restored by Ottoman Muslim rulers for Jewish worshippers)!

As for the Israeli government's decision not to bow to extremists and evict Muslims from the Haram-al-Sharif - again we see the fanbois side with criminals who break Israeli law rather than face facts.

Very instructive. Religious extremists do have their supporters on this forum, we see.

Cheers,
Shafique