Turkey's Erdogan says Israel will suffer most from Aqsa dispute

[Muhammad10]

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday Israel would pay a price for a dispute over security measures it imposed at the entrance to Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

"Israel, which shows no respect for the Aqsa mosque and Dome of the Rock, will see itself suffer the most damage," Erdogan said, referring to Muslim sacred sites in the elevated compound holy to both Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem's walled Old City.

Israel installed metal detectors at entrances to the compound after two police officers on guard there were fatally shot on July 14. The security move touched off the bloodiest clashes between Israelis and Palestinians for years.

The strife, including the deaths of three Israelis and four Palestinians in violence on Friday and Saturday, have raised international alarm and prompted the U.N. Security Council to convene a meeting to seek ways of calming the situation.

Israel decided early on Tuesday to remove metal detectors and replace them with "smart", less obtrusive surveillance means, an Israeli cabinet statement said.

Palestinians rejected the new measures, calling for a return to the status quo before July 14.

"I have heard of Israel's decision to remove the metal detectors, and I hope the rest will follow," Erdogan told parliamentarians from his AK Party. "...We expect Israel to take steps for the peace of the region."

Al-Aqsa, one of Islam's holiest sites and a nationalist symbol for Palestinians seeking their own state, is built on a compound revered by Jews as the vestige of their two ancient temples. The site lies in East Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in a 1967 war and annexed to form part of its "eternal, indivisible" capital - a move not recognized internationally.

The tensions in Jerusalem have kindled protests in Turkey. Turkish media said some protesters kicked the doors and threw stones at a synagogue in Istanbul. Erdogan called for calm and said attacking places of worship was "a big mistake".

"We have no issues with the houses of worship of Christians or Jews. We have taken the necessary measures against the attacks planned on synagogues and temples in our country," he told the parliamentarians.

Erdogan said he spoke to Israeli President Reuven Rivlin and told him that Muslims going to al-Aqsa mosque could not be treated as terrorists. "We can also not accept Jews going to synagogues and temples being treated as terrorists," he said.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1AA1A5-OCATP

 

[s28]

Respect to Erdogan. More Muslim leaders need to stand up to the fash Israelis

 

[PakLFC]

Don't know how Israel will suffer when they are backed by the American's and Europe. Even most Arab countries like Saudi are with Israel as well!!. The Palestinians are on their own, likes of Iran and Turkey can only give them moral support.

 

[troodon]

Why would a Mosque be built on a Jewish Temple? Clearly the builders knew it would cause trouble for centuries.

 

[Suleiman]

Why would a Mosque be built on a Jewish Temple? Clearly the builders knew it would cause trouble for centuries.

The site is holy to both Muslims and Jews. When the Muslims came into power they built the mosque.

 

[troodon]

The site is holy to both Muslims and Jews. When the Muslims came into power they built the mosque.

If there was an already existing temple there which is very sacred to Jews, then the builders of Aqaba Mosque could have built it a bit far away. Why build it at the exact same location other than to troll Jews? Muslim builders could have shown some respect to Jews.

 

[Suleiman]

If there was an already existing temple there which is very sacred to Jews, then the builders of Aqaba Mosque could have built it a bit far away. Why build it at the exact same location other than to troll Jews? Muslim builders could have shown some respect to Jews.

It's not about trolling anyone. If you want to blame anyone blame the Romans who demolished the temple in the first place and then built their own temple there to honor one of their own Gods.

The important thing about the demolished temple and mosque is the site of the rock. This is the site where Muslims believe prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from. The place the mosque is built is the highest point I suppose and closest to the site, has nothing to do with disrespecting the jews. It's a matter for both religious folk to build their place of worship as close as possible to the site.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Erdogan urges Muslims to 'visit' and 'protect' Jerusalem <a href="https://t.co/ity3q6ey8j">https://t.co/ity3q6ey8j</a> <a href="https://t.co/h0xCkqrqDz">pic.twitter.com/h0xCkqrqDz</a></p>— Dunya News (@DunyaNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/DunyaNews/status/890048479694815234">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Slog]

If there was an already existing temple there which is very sacred to Jews, then the builders of Aqaba Mosque could have built it a bit far away. Why build it at the exact same location other than to troll Jews? Muslim builders could have shown some respect to Jews.

i think it was 'rebuilt' since it was destroyed under roman rule

 

[khan-92]

If there was an already existing temple there which is very sacred to Jews, then the builders of Aqaba Mosque could have built it a bit far away. Why build it at the exact same location other than to troll Jews? Muslim builders could have shown some respect to Jews.

Al Aqsa Moques according to Islam is the 2nd Mosque built on earth after the Mosque in Makkah.
The Mosque according to tradition was first built by Prophet Adam then rebuilt by Prophet Abraham peace be upon them.

This mosque then was rebuilt by Prophet Suliman (as) after it was destroyed.
It became a rubbish dump during the time of the Romans.
During the miraculous night journey Prophet Muhammad (saw) lead all the Prophet's in prayer there and was taken to heaven from there.

During the time of Caliph Omar (ra) bloodless Conquest of Jerusalem it was made again a place of worship and mosque.

It is and has always been a Mosque, as Muslim are inheritors of the Prophet's they have fulfilled the right of this place.

It is a place of worship and many Prophets have prayed in there.

They we're no Jews or Christians at the time of Abraham and he rebuilt it after rebuilding the Kaabah in Makkah.

So it is and always will be a Mosque for Muslims.
When Jews left the true teachings of the Prophet's they we're expelled and the Mosque was destroyed by the conqurers of Jerusalem.

Only under Muslim rule it has been reestablished as place of worship.
Under strict orthodox Jewish teachings they are forbidden to enter Al Aqsa compound.
They believe only when the Messiah returns they can enter and pray.
Only the Zionist Jews want to destroy and take over Al Aqsa now.

 

[troodon]

The temple may have been destroyed under Romans. It may have become a rubble. But it was still a Jewish temple. Judaism existed severa centuries before Islam. Whatever Quran says about Prophet Muhammad leading other prophets to prayers is all according to Muslims. Jews do not really care what Quran says. It was their temple before it became a Mosque.

Tomorrow if some other Abrahamic faith comes and claims exactly what Quran said and builds another holy site, will it b okay?

The builders of the Al Aqsa mosque knew it would mean trouble for centuries to come with both Jews and Muslims fighting over the temple compound.

They could have easily built the Mosque like 50 Meters away and shown bigger hearts.

 

[czar]

The Jews are right on this one, if there was a Jewish Temple on that location before all the demolition took place, then the Land certainly belongs to the Jews.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The Jews are right on this one, if there was a Jewish Temple on that location before all the demolition took place, then the Land certainly belongs to the Jews.

Babri Mosque demolition logic on view from the usual Hindutva brigade on PP.

 

[czar]

Babri Mosque demolition logic on view from the usual Hindutva brigade on PP.

I had the Babri Mosque demolition in mind too, just didnt bother to mention. The only people responsible for the current mess were the Muslims of that era who destroyed sacred places of worship belonging to other religions and established Mosques on disputed areas.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I had the Babri Mosque demolition in mind too, just didnt bother to mention. The only people responsible for the current mess were the Muslims of that era who destroyed sacred places of worship belonging to other religions and established Mosques on disputed areas.

I know you had it on your mind, that's why I filled in the gaps for you.

 

[khan-92]

The temple may have been destroyed under Romans. It may have become a rubble. But it was still a Jewish temple. Judaism existed severa centuries before Islam. Whatever Quran says about Prophet Muhammad leading other prophets to prayers is all according to Muslims. Jews do not really care what Quran says. It was their temple before it became a Mosque.

Tomorrow if some other Abrahamic faith comes and claims exactly what Quran said and builds another holy site, will it b okay?

The builders of the Al Aqsa mosque knew it would mean trouble for centuries to come with both Jews and Muslims fighting over the temple compound.

They could have easily built the Mosque like 50 Meters away and shown bigger hearts.

The Al aqsa mosque was built before Jews it has been a Mosque all the time.
All the Prophet's are Muslims and when Jews believed in true teachings God gave them control over the Mosque.
This place is always has been a Mosque and was given to those who truly believed in the Prophet's.

Jewish laws prohibits anyone from entering the Al Aqsa compound.
They only believe when Messiah returns then all religions will become one true religion and temple will be rebuilt.
So it's not matter of building it 50 meters away it has been always a Mosque.

 

[khan-92]

This is brilliant lecture if anyone want to know history of Al Aqsa
https://youtu.be/921tnwDomeE

 

[troodon]

The Al aqsa mosque was built before Jews it has been a Mosque all the time.
All the Prophet's are Muslims and when Jews believed in true teachings God gave them control over the Mosque.
This place is always has been a Mosque and was given to those who truly believed in the Prophet's.

Jewish laws prohibits anyone from entering the Al Aqsa compound.
They only believe when Messiah returns then all religions will become one true religion and temple will be rebuilt.
So it's not matter of building it 50 meters away it has been always a Mosque.

There were no Muslims before Prophet Muhammad. What you are saying is according to Quran. Jews, Christians do not care what Islam says.


Tomorrow if a new faith comes and claims that Jews and Muslims and Christians have always been so and so and builds another temple there on top of the Mosque, will you be ok with it?

 

[khan-92]

There were no Muslims before Prophet Muhammad. What you are saying is according to Quran. Jews, Christians do not care what Islam says.


Tomorrow if a new faith comes and claims that Jews and Muslims and Christians have always been so and so and builds another temple there on top of the Mosque, will you be ok with it?

Really what religion was Prophet Adam or Abraham?
There was no Jews or Christians before Abraham so what religion did he follow?

 

[khan-92]

God says in the Qur'an:

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
This verse clearly proves Islam has been religion of all the Prophet's.
Jews come from the son of Prophet Jacob who was grandson of Abraham and Christians after Jesus peace be upon them all.
So all Prophet's are Muslims those who submit to God.
Those true Christian and Jews who followed their religion when Prophet Muhammad (saw) came believed in him.
All Prophet taught one religion and belief.

 

[Varun]

God says in the Qur'an:

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
This verse clearly proves Islam has been religion of all the Prophet's.

I think the point troodon was trying to make was that it doesn't matter what the Quran says or doesn't say - if one ain't a Muslim.

 

[hussain.r97]

God says in the Qur'an:

Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah's (Which is Islam), and he joined not gods with Allah.
This verse clearly proves Islam has been religion of all the Prophet's.
Jews come from the son of Prophet Jacob who was grandson of Abraham and Christians after Jesus peace be upon them all.
So all Prophet's are Muslims those who submit to God.
Those true Christian and Jews who followed their religion when Prophet Muhammad (saw) came believed in him.
All Prophet taught one religion and belief.

People who translate the Quran rather conveniently leave the words 'Muslim' and 'Islam' untranslated. If you translate those words, they come out to mean something along the lines of 'one who submits to Allah', and 'submission to Allah'. Taking that into account, anyone who worships Allah are considered to be 'Muslims', meaning that Jews and Christians are all 'Muslims'.

In this verse, God saying that Abraham was a 'Muslim' does not mean he was a follower of the religion of Prophet Muhammad. God means that Abraham was simply a man who submitted to Allah, as the definition of Muslim suggests.

If you read through the Quran, it becomes very clear that God is against people dividing themselves into many groups. In fact, in many instances it truly seems like God condemns organised religion as a whole. Allah wants mankind to simply come together and be united on one common ground while keeping their own personal beliefs separate. Allah does not like people saying 'We are Christian, Muslim, or Jew' and then creating their own exclusive club and calling everyone else wrong.

A good example is here

3:64 - Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).

This verse makes it very clear that anyone who worships Allah, and associates no partners to Allah may be classified as 'Muslim'.

So, no. Al Aqsa mosque was not always a 'mosque'. It was at some point a Jewish temple, which also happens to be a house of Allah.....

 

[khan-92]

People who translate the Quran rather conveniently leave the words 'Muslim' and 'Islam' untranslated. If you translate those words, they come out to mean something along the lines of 'one who submits to Allah', and 'submission to Allah'. Taking that into account, anyone who worships Allah are considered to be 'Muslims', meaning that Jews and Christians are all 'Muslims'.

In this verse, God saying that Abraham was a 'Muslim' does not mean he was a follower of the religion of Prophet Muhammad. God means that Abraham was simply a man who submitted to Allah, as the definition of Muslim suggests.

If you read through the Quran, it becomes very clear that God is against people dividing themselves into many groups. In fact, in many instances it truly seems like God condemns organised religion as a whole. Allah wants mankind to simply come together and be united on one common ground while keeping their own personal beliefs separate. Allah does not like people saying 'We are Christian, Muslim, or Jew' and then creating their own exclusive club and calling everyone else wrong.

A good example is here


This verse makes it very clear that anyone who worships Allah, and associates no partners to Allah may be classified as 'Muslim'.

So, no. Al Aqsa mosque was not always a 'mosque'. It was at some point a Jewish temple, which also happens to be a house of Allah.....

Every Prophet was a Muslim one who submits his will to God. I did not say Abraham was a follower of Muhammad (saw).
Only some aspects of laws were different for Prophet's but basic belief they taught was same.

You are misinformed about Al Aqsa it has great importance in Islam & is mentioned in the Qur'an & hadeeth of its virtues and importance, and has always been a Mosque.

Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Second House of Allah on Earth

1, Abu Dharr (ra) reported that he asked the Prophet (saw), "O Messenger of Allah, which Masjid was built first on earth"? The Prophet (saw) replied, "The Sacred Masjid of Makkah". Abu Dharr (ra) again asked, "Which was next"? The Prophet (saw) said, "Masjid Al-Aqsa". Abu Dharr (ra) further asked, "How long was the period between the building of the two Masjids"? The Prophet (saw) said, "Forty years". Apart from these, offer your prayer anywhere when it is time to pray, although excellence is in praying in these Masjids". (Bukhari)

The Importance of Visiting Masjid Al-Aqsa.

2, Abu Hurayrah (ra) relates that the Prophet (saw) said, "You should not undertake a special journey to visit any place other than the following three Masjids with the expectations of getting greater reward: the Sacred Masjid of Makkah (Ka'bah), this Masjid of mine (the Prophet's Masjid in Madinah), and Masjid Al-Aqsa (of Jerusalem)". In another narration the words are, "For three Masjids a special journey may be undertaken: The Sacred Masjid (Ka'bah), my Masjid and Masjid of Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa). (Muslim, Bukhari, Abu Dawud)

 

[Slog]

Every Prophet was a Muslim one who submits his will to God. I did not say Abraham was a follower of Muhammad (saw).
Only some aspects of laws were different for Prophet's but basic belief they taught was same.

You are misinformed about Al Aqsa it has great importance in Islam & is mentioned in the Qur'an & hadeeth of its virtues and importance, and has always been a Mosque.

Masjid Al-Aqsa - The Second House of Allah on Earth

1, Abu Dharr (ra) reported that he asked the Prophet (saw), "O Messenger of Allah, which Masjid was built first on earth"? The Prophet (saw) replied, "The Sacred Masjid of Makkah". Abu Dharr (ra) again asked, "Which was next"? The Prophet (saw) said, "Masjid Al-Aqsa". Abu Dharr (ra) further asked, "How long was the period between the building of the two Masjids"? The Prophet (saw) said, "Forty years". Apart from these, offer your prayer anywhere when it is time to pray, although excellence is in praying in these Masjids". (Bukhari)

The Importance of Visiting Masjid Al-Aqsa.

2, Abu Hurayrah (ra) relates that the Prophet (saw) said, "You should not undertake a special journey to visit any place other than the following three Masjids with the expectations of getting greater reward: the Sacred Masjid of Makkah (Ka'bah), this Masjid of mine (the Prophet's Masjid in Madinah), and Masjid Al-Aqsa (of Jerusalem)". In another narration the words are, "For three Masjids a special journey may be undertaken: The Sacred Masjid (Ka'bah), my Masjid and Masjid of Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa). (Muslim, Bukhari, Abu Dawud)

But the views you are putting forward are according to Islam and will only be accepted by followers of Islam. In this situation, followers of other religions are involved so Islamic beliefs are not a strong argument to make a case. Otherwise accordingto Judaic belief, the lands are for Jews. However that means squat.

Quoting Islamic scripture or traditions is a pointless exercise here and doesnt have any merit for any non Muslim

 

[Markhor]

Meanwhile Turkey continues trading and buying weapons from Israel. This is for domestic consumption.

In any event, the metal detectors have gone down.

 

[Yossarian]

The Jews are right on this one, if there was a Jewish Temple on that location before all the demolition took place, then the Land certainly belongs to the Jews.

There were no Muslims before Prophet Muhammad. What you are saying is according to Quran. Jews, Christians do not care what Islam says.


Tomorrow if a new faith comes and claims that Jews and Muslims and Christians have always been so and so and builds another temple there on top of the Mosque, will you be ok with it?

I think the point troodon was trying to make was that it doesn't matter what the Quran says or doesn't say - if one ain't a Muslim.

Since the site already contained a place of worship long before the Jews arrived and built their temple on it (presumably by destroying the place of worship that was already there), then going by your logic, the site doesn't belong to Jews, or Muslims, or Christians. Hence if the Muslims have no right to claim ownership, then the same applies to Jews, they too don't have any right to claim ownership. Digest that.

 

[sshakir411]

Why would a Mosque be built on a Jewish Temple? Clearly the builders knew it would cause trouble for centuries.

you need a lesson in history..and also a class in world religion.

 

[sshakir411]

The temple may have been destroyed under Romans. It may have become a rubble. But it was still a Jewish temple. Judaism existed severa centuries before Islam. Whatever Quran says about Prophet Muhammad leading other prophets to prayers is all according to Muslims. Jews do not really care what Quran says. It was their temple before it became a Mosque.

Tomorrow if some other Abrahamic faith comes and claims exactly what Quran said and builds another holy site, will it b okay?

The builders of the Al Aqsa mosque knew it would mean trouble for centuries to come with both Jews and Muslims fighting over the temple compound.

They could have easily built the Mosque like 50 Meters away and shown bigger hearts.

Go read up the Old Testament and the Bible on what was built after the Jewish temple was demolished and when the Jews were expelled from the region for hundreds of years. What do you think the Romans did with the site? You sound terribly dumb.

Also Muslims and Christians don't care what the Old Testament says yet Israelis use "God promised us this land" as a reason to build homes in the occupied territories of West Bank.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Meanwhile Turkey continues trading and buying weapons from Israel. This is for domestic consumption.

In any event, the metal detectors have gone down.

It could also be for foreign consumption in that Erdogan is trying to place himself as the defender of Islamic nations by making such speeches. In any case he's right to play the pragmatic game with Israel. Turkey are part of NATO, they have to act accordingly. It's not their job to play the Caliphate, they can leave that to the small fry who like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

 

[Yossarian]

Go read up the Old Testament and the Bible on what was built after the Jewish temple was demolished and when the Jews were expelled from the region for hundreds of years. What do you think the Romans did with the site? You sound terribly dumb.

Also Muslims and Christians don't care what the Old Testament says yet Israelis use "God promised us this land" as a reason to build homes in the occupied territories of West Bank.

All those who go around justifying the grabbing of land, where the recent owners/dwellers and their ancestors have been living for centuries, on the basis that they have historical links with those that lived there thousands of years ago (eg the Jewish justification for the right to create Israel on that particular piece of land) are hypocrites of the first order.

There are two reasons for this:
1. If that logic is/can be applied to the creation of Israel, then the same logic can be applied to virtually any piece of territory anywhere in the world. Eg Returning most of the continent of North America back to the descendants of the various Indian tribes that lived there before the arrival of the Europeans.
2. How far back do you go? Eg In the case of the land on which Israel is created upon, what about giving it back to the descendants of those who lived there before the Jews, or the descendants of those who lived there before even them?

There needs to be a cut-off point that is applicable everywhere. Say the last couple of hundred years or so.

 

[Suleiman]

1. If that logic is/can be applied to the creation of Israel, then the same logic can be applied to virtually any piece of territory anywhere in the world. Eg Returning most of the continent of North America back to the descendants of the various Indian tribes that lived there before the arrival of the Europeans.
2. How far back do you go? Eg In the case of the land on which Israel is created upon, what about giving it back to the descendants of those who lived there before the Jews, or the descendants of those who lived there before even them?

There needs to be a cut-off point that is applicable everywhere. Say the last couple of hundred years or so.

Perfect. Summed it up better than I could've.

 

[Adil_94]

nice rhetoric from Erdogan to play to the gallery at home and abroad.

He restored ties with Israel a few months ago saying that Israel was an important ally n trading partner for Turkey.

He knows which side his bread is buttered. But got to keep these statements up to keep the new Sultan and saviour of the middle east gimmick up to his global fanbase.

 

[Tommo]

..All prophets submitted their will to God and by definition are a Muslim. There's plenty of Jewish commentators themselves that agree with this notion (easily found on YouTube). This way of life that started with Prophet Abraham (AS) in particular was finally given the name 'Islam' when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) came.

Furthermore, all prophets are related by blood, same family since Prophet Adam (AS) ... If you consider that Abraham had two wives, from one came Prophet Isaac (AS), and from there many many prophets inc ISA (AS) aka 'Jesus'...and from the second wife 'Hager', Prophet Ismail (AS) came about and eventually our beloved Prophet, Muhammad (SAW).

As for the peeps rambling pointlessly about whether only Jews lived in the land, you are wrong, there were other people always living there too, those are Arabs. Palestine is a word that came about much later, but that still doesn't detract away from the fact that Arabs were always in the vicninty too.

Finally, for those whom disagree with Arabs always being there, well the member 'Yossarian' summed up the alternative, perfectly. Catch 22 for you naysayers I'm afraid.

 

[Adil_94]

The fact Al Aqsa was built on the ruins of the second temple is neither here nor there.it was ruined already 600 years before by the Romans. And Under the Byzantines Jerusalem was turned into a rubbish tip with pig sacrifice on the temple site and Jews were banned from entering there.



The Ummayad Caliph Abd al Malik never envisaged that 1300 years later that the state of Israel would be created and Jews for the first time in 2500 years would control Jerusalem again.

yes ideally u would have a situation where u have al aqsa next to the temple. For Muslims that area has its own spiritual significance as where the miraj journey took place from. so both sides will continue to be at loggerheads over al aqsa.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=144996]Tommo[/MENTION] these religious arguments dont hold much sway to people who dont follow those faiths.
this whole the abraham was a muslim is just a quranic claim and theres no real evidence that he was or whether the guy was a real historical figure. Its totally based on the accounts of the Torah n Quran.

archaeologically yes there is evidence that a temple was built around 1000 BC the time of King David and Solomon and that was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586.

Then rebuilt after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. To be destroyed again during the Jewish revolt against the romans in 70AD.

then the ummayads built al aqsa at the end of the 7th century.

this whole god gave us the land thing from is just like talking to two brick walls.

up until 1948 the area that is Israel and Palestine today was majority Arab. the British censuses in Mandate Palestine prove that and majority of the Jews who arrived in Palestine in 20s and 30s n 40s had lived in europe for centuries.

So what right they had to make a country where others were already living based on what an old mythical book says is the main argument.

abraham moses adam these are all figures that no one knows if they exist its purely faith that makes one believe in them.

plenty of rational ways to critique israel and its creation than relying on faith based arguments.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The fact Al Aqsa was built on the ruins of the second temple is neither here nor there.it was ruined already 600 years before by the Romans. And Under the Byzantines Jerusalem was turned into a rubbish tip with pig sacrifice on the temple site and Jews were banned from entering there.



The Ummayad Caliph Abd al Malik never envisaged that 1300 years later that the state of Israel would be created and Jews for the first time in 2500 years would control Jerusalem again.

yes ideally u would have a situation where u have al aqsa next to the temple. For Muslims that area has its own spiritual significance as where the miraj journey took place from. so both sides will continue to be at loggerheads over al aqsa.

It's not a fact. Why do you claim it is?

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] majority of archaeologists and historians of Palestine region agree that part of the first and second temple were built on the temple mount same site that al aqsa is today.




But the temple itself was in ruins and had been demolished about 600 years before al aqsa was built. the wailing wall the Jews pray at is a remnant of the 2nd temple.

the actual temple complex itself was a lot bigger and it would have incorporated what makes up al aqsa and the dome of the rock today.

 

[Tommo]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] majority of archaeologists and historians of Palestine region agree that part of the first and second temple were built on the temple mount same site that al aqsa is today.



But the temple itself was in ruins and had been demolished about 600 years before al aqsa was built. the wailing wall the Jews pray at is a remnant of the 2nd temple.

the actual temple complex itself was a lot bigger and it would have incorporated what makes up al aqsa and the dome of the rock today.

A Mosque was built on top of a Mosque. That's how we see it. Others see it differently, the bottom line is the Al Aqsa mosque is going nowhere, the Hadith makes mention of the fact that when Jesus returns he'll pray behind Imam Mahdi there, which insinuates the mosque will be there and fully in-tact. As far as the dome of the Rock is concerned.. We aren't sure about it's future.

What's more, even if you follow the Jewish narrative, you can't just say because a 'temple' was once there we will take the area and rebuild it forcefully. Why doesn't America give natives their land back? Why doesn't Australia give aboriginal people their land back? The list is endless. Point being if you're trying to justify the destruction of the Al Aqsa mosque; you're totally going in the wrong direcrion, unless I've missed your point.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

I think the point troodon was trying to make was that it doesn't matter what the Quran says or doesn't say - if one ain't a Muslim.

That works both ways(or three ways) though. So his point is moot.

 

[Tommo]

That works both ways(or three ways) though. So his point is moot.

Exactly. If they don't care about the Islamic narrative, then we also don't care for their narrative. Status quo remains. It's as simple as that.

Also varun and troodon are both likely Indian, they're neither Muslim or Jewish.. Their opinions are disqualified and not required.

 

[ShadabFakhar]

Exactly. If they don't care about the Islamic narrative, then we also don't care for their narrative. Status quo remains. It's as simple as that.

It's not their narrative vs ours, it's about the premise on which they acknowledge the existence of the temple, namely that of the scriptures. If they're saying the temple did exist and had no historical connection to Islam, they're acknowledging only the Jewish Scriptures and not the Islamic ones. If one is to observe some semblance of sequentiality we must ask why they believe that to be the case.

Also varun and troodon are both likely Indian, they're neither Muslim or Jewish.. Their opinions are disqualified and not required.

Being Indian doesn't necessitate them being non-Muslim nor does it 'disqualify' them. I don't personally hold troodon's views in high regard, Varun, however, you can reason with.

 

[KingKhanWC]

[MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION] majority of archaeologists and historians of Palestine region agree that part of the first and second temple were built on the temple mount same site that al aqsa is today.




But the temple itself was in ruins and had been demolished about 600 years before al aqsa was built. the wailing wall the Jews pray at is a remnant of the 2nd temple.

the actual temple complex itself was a lot bigger and it would have incorporated what makes up al aqsa and the dome of the rock today.

Muslim and Christian Perspectives on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” says the reference has been widely interpreted to mean the high point on the hill above the City of David — the rock now under the Dome of the Rock.

Many historians have said independent scientific verification of such a reference is problematic.

“The sources for the first temple are solely biblical, and no substantial archaeological remains have been verified,” said Wendy Pullan, senior lecturer in the history and philosophy of architecture at the University of Cambridge, in the book “The Struggle for Jerusalem’s Holy Places.”

Mr. Adams said, “We just don’t have enough primary source data, textual or archaeological, to say where it was with any confidence.”

Many historical texts say that Cyrus the Great of Persia, who conquered the Babylonians, let Jews rebuild the temple around 516 B.C., that King Herod added retaining walls about 37 B.C., and that Romans destroyed the rebuilt temple about 100 years afterward.

Photo

Israeli border police stop Palestinians form entering the Noble Sanctuary, or the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem on Friday. Credit Jim Hollander/European Pressphoto Agency
The Dome of the Rock, a shrine that is one of Islam’s holiest sites, was built at the highest point of the site around 691, which would be about 600 years after the second temple’s demise and 60 years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, when Jerusalem was ruled by the Umayyad Dynasty during Islam’s Golden Age.

Many archaeologists agree that the religious body of evidence, corroborated by other historical accounts and artifacts that have been recovered from the site or nearby, supports the narrative that the Dome of the Rock was built on or close to the place where the Jewish temples once stood.

Nonetheless, the Waqf has never permitted invasive archaeological work that could possibly yield proof.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
The Interpreter Newsletter
Understand the world with sharp insight and commentary on the major news stories of the week.


Enter your email address
Sign Up

You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
“That’s where you get to the Catch-22,” said Jodi Magness, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who was the consulting archaeologist in “Jerusalem,” a 2013 documentary film.

“The logical thing would be to dig,” Professor Magness said. “If you did that, you’d probably cause World War III to break out. It’s not even in the realm of possibility.”

Jane Cahill, an expert on Jerusalem’s early history who was a senior staff archaeologist for Hebrew University’s City of David Archaeological Project, said “nobody knows exactly” where the temples once stood, although “pretty powerful circumstantial evidence” suggests that they were on the site.

“Because there have been no organized excavations there, and not likely to be, circumstantial evidence is probably all we’re going to have,” she said.

Archaeologists agree that far more information is known that corroborates the existence of the second temple at the site than the first.

The historian Flavius Josephus, an eyewitness to Jerusalem in the first century, described the temple’s expansion under King Herod, surrounded by partition walls that were meant to separate gentiles and Jews. He also wrote about the temple’s destruction under the Romans.

An important piece of physical evidence supporting Josephus’s descriptions is a warning stone, written in Greek, admonishing visitors not to trespass into the partitioned area reserved for Jews. The stone, discovered in 1871 when Jerusalem was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, is on display at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum. It says any intruder “will invite death for himself.”

Further corroboration of the second temple’s existence on the site is in the New Testament, based on its account of anger at Paul by Jews who accused him of having violated the trespass restriction: “He has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place,” reads a passage from Acts 21:28.

The most direct physical evidence of the temple’s existence on the site is the Western Wall, an outer wall spared by Roman destruction. The wall has become a holy site in itself, drawing millions of Jews for prayer.

Kent Bramlett, a professor of archaeology and history of antiquity at La Sierra University in Riverside, Calif., said historical records of the destruction committed by the Romans, just by themselves, are “pretty overwhelming” in supporting the existence of the second temple in the immediate vicinity of the Dome of the Rock.

Still, he said, “I think one has to be careful about saying it stood where the Dome of the Rock stood.”

Ms. Cahill, who is also a practicing lawyer, said the answer to temple’s location depends partly on what constitutes proof. “The answer might be yes, if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence, but no if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt,” she said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/...oves-elusive-at-jerusalems-holiest-place.html

There are even Jews who believe this wasn't the site of the first temple.

 

[Tommo]

..Actually the original temple was smaller in size it was extended much later and not by Solomon.. Hence the wall now extends to the Al-Aqsa mosque. It's not the site of the original temple, you are correct [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION].

 

[Shutdown Corner]

If there was an already existing temple there which is very sacred to Jews, then the builders of Aqaba Mosque could have built it a bit far away. Why build it at the exact same location other than to troll Jews? Muslim builders could have shown some respect to Jews.

There was no existing temple at that time. The Romans destroyed the 2nd temple in the 1st century AD and most of the Jews fled that area for Europe, Middle East, Russia, etc.

when Umar (ra) took the Keys of Jerusalem, the city had been under Christian control. as far as I remember.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

The temple may have been destroyed under Romans. It may have become a rubble. But it was still a Jewish temple. Judaism existed severa centuries before Islam. Whatever Quran says about Prophet Muhammad leading other prophets to prayers is all according to Muslims. Jews do not really care what Quran says. It was their temple before it became a Mosque.

Tomorrow if some other Abrahamic faith comes and claims exactly what Quran said and builds another holy site, will it b okay?

The builders of the Al Aqsa mosque knew it would mean trouble for centuries to come with both Jews and Muslims fighting over the temple compound.

They could have easily built the Mosque like 50 Meters away and shown bigger hearts.

Well by that argument the entire area belongs to pagan Caananites who lived there before the Israelites - Abraham was from Chaldea in Iraq.

if someone today takes Mecca by force, muslims have no option but to accept it just like Jews have regained control of Jerusalem today.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=144996]Tommo[/MENTION] all i am saying is that there was a larger temple on the temple mount or haram sharif.


my point isnt on the religious narrative oh god promised us this land so we have a right to it thats stupid.



just because there was a temple on the temple mount 2000 years ago u should demolish al aqsa.

of course not al aqsa is here to stay now and should be accepted.

if u go back 2000 years to justify demolishing a building.

then all whites better leave the americas and oceania as this isnt their land either.

agree with u on that point.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Why would Israel want to destroy Al Aqsa?

I’m seeing a lot of propaganda from Muslims on social media saying that Israeli government want to destroy Al Aqsa. My question is why would they do it because a) it’s the holiest site for Jews and Christians b) it’s a holy site for Muslims too and there are a lot of Muslims in Israel too who are well represented unlike non-Muslims in Muslim countries

 

[mazkhan]

They don't want to destroy the complex.

Where the old aqsa mosque is the original structure not the dome of the rock which is in the al aqsa complex.

They believe there are artefacts under the alqsa mosque they say it is the original temple of hazrat suleiman. one with the black dome and they want to build their temple there for the coming of their messiah the dajjal.

It is against zionist mindset too share the complex with other religions since they believe the Jews are God's chosen people.

Whether they destroy it who knows but it will lead to massive bloodshed across the region.

 

[Varun]

They don't want to destroy the mosque.

It's like a horror movie. They want to show that they "want to" destroy the mosque.

That's enough for them to get the mileage they are looking for.

 

[guna]

Jerusalem has been Israel's holy city even before the birth of Lord Jesus Christ.

As per Christians, Jesus was crucified there and his tomb can be found in Jerusalem.

I believe that Muslims have no claim to Jerusalem as they were placed hundreds of miles away from Hejaj, Saudi Arabia back in 7th century. Their only claim is that they believe that Prophet PBUH ascended to heaven on a winged Horse from there. Until Muslims conquered Jerusalem, you do not see any traces of Islam there. It was only until Caliph Abd Al Malik built and expanded the Al Aqsa mosque Islam started staking their claim on Jerusalem.

 

[silentkiller187]

Jerusalem has been Israel's holy city even before the birth of Lord Jesus Christ.

As per Christians, Jesus was crucified there and his tomb can be found in Jerusalem.

I believe that Muslims have no claim to Jerusalem as they were placed hundreds of miles away from Hejaj, Saudi Arabia back in 7th century. Their only claim is that they believe that Prophet PBUH ascended to heaven on a winged Horse from there. Until Muslims conquered Jerusalem, you do not see any traces of Islam there. It was only until Caliph Abd Al Malik built and expanded the Al Aqsa mosque Islam started staking their claim on Jerusalem.

Thats like saying Hindus have no right to claim india as there were aryans and Dravidians there before? with your logic that means the english were right to colonize india and should have stayed?

 

[guna]

Thats like saying Hindus have no right to claim india as there were aryans and Dravidians there before? with your logic that means the english were right to colonize india and should have stayed?

You need to get educated a bit more about Indian religions. Hinduism existed even before Aryans showed up in India. Dravidians worshipped Lord Shiva. There is evidence of a Proto Shiva worshipped by Indus Valley civilization people.

When Aryans showed up in India, they brought their own ideas and mixed it with the existing beliefs and that is the religion you see in India as Hindusim.

English had no right to India. They are thousands of miles away from India and nothing to do with India or Hinduism.

 

[khan-92]

Jerusalem has been Israel's holy city even before the birth of Lord Jesus Christ.

As per Christians, Jesus was crucified there and his tomb can be found in Jerusalem.

I believe that Muslims have no claim to Jerusalem as they were placed hundreds of miles away from Hejaj, Saudi Arabia back in 7th century. Their only claim is that they believe that Prophet PBUH ascended to heaven on a winged Horse from there. Until Muslims conquered Jerusalem, you do not see any traces of Islam there. It was only until Caliph Abd Al Malik built and expanded the Al Aqsa mosque Islam started staking their claim on Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is holy to Muslims & according to our Traditions is 2nd Masjid established after Kabah in Makkah.
And we believe in all the Prophets they all are Muslims so we have every right over Jerusalem & it was peacefully conquered by Hazrat Omar (ra) not by Caliph Abdal Malik.

 

[silentkiller187]

You need to get educated a bit more about Indian religions. Hinduism existed even before Aryans showed up in India. Dravidians worshipped Lord Shiva. There is evidence of a Proto Shiva worshipped by Indus Valley civilization people.

When Aryans showed up in India, they brought their own ideas and mixed it with the existing beliefs and that is the religion you see in India as Hindusim.

English had no right to India. They are thousands of miles away from India and nothing to do with India or Hinduism.

I think you need some education to.

Do you know how abrahamic religions work? Christianity , Islam and Judaism all cam from one, just like you mentioned aryans and dravidians mixed beliefs to come up with hinudism as it is today one could use the same logic for Judaism and islam. This is all mentioned in the quran.

Does the Baghvad Gita cover Dravidians and Aryans history, genuinely curious to know.

 

[guna]

Jerusalem is holy to Muslims & according to our Traditions is 2nd Masjid established after Kabah in Makkah.
And we believe in all the Prophets they all are Muslims so we have every right over Jerusalem & it was peacefully conquered by Hazrat Omar (ra) not by Caliph Abdal Malik.

The first evidence of Muslims in Jerusalem is with Caliph Abdul Malik conquers when he ordered his men to build Al Aqsa Mosque and made inscriptions of holy Quran on the dome of the rock. Until then nobody knew what Islam was in Jerusalem.

 

[guna]

I think you need some education to.

Do you know how abrahamic religions work? Christianity , Islam and Judaism all cam from one, just like you mentioned aryans and dravidians mixed beliefs to come up with hinudism as it is today one could use the same logic for Judaism and islam. This is all mentioned in the quran.

Does the Baghvad Gita cover Dravidians and Aryans history, genuinely curious to know.

You are wrong again.

Islam did not mix its ideas with Judaism. It borrowed a bunch of ideas and Prophets from Judaism and made it their own by giving them Arabic names. Nobody knew about Allah SWT in Jerusalem. They called their God Elohim, Yahweh and Hashem. It was not until Arabs conquered Jerusalem that Arabic was introduced in the holy land and people came to know about Allah too.

I am not a Hindu. But Bhagavad Gita is not about Aryan and Dravidian history. It is about a doubting Warrior Arjuna who was about to chicken out from fighting his own cousins for what rightfully belongs to him. Krishna teaches him about Karma and the dutifulness of a Warrior who should fight for Dharma.

 

[silentkiller187]

You are wrong again.

Islam did not mix its ideas with Judaism. It borrowed a bunch of ideas and Prophets from Judaism and made it their own by giving them Arabic names. Nobody knew about Allah SWT in Jerusalem. They called their God Elohim, Yahweh and Hashem. It was not until Arabs conquered Jerusalem that Arabic was introduced in the holy land and people came to know about Allah too.

I am not a Hindu. But Bhagavad Gita is not about Aryan and Dravidian history. It is about a doubting Warrior Arjuna who was about to chicken out from fighting his own cousins for what rightfully belongs to him. Krishna teaches him about Karma and the dutifulness of a Warrior who should fight for Dharma.

This is all open for debate, Muslims will claim Isiah 42 prophesized their prophets even before the Quran so either Muslims who came after copied the torah or old testament or all books are interlinked somehow.

FYI Aryans are mentioned in the Bhagvad Gita, i just was curious how you interpreted it.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is all open for debate, Muslims will claim Isiah 42 prophesized their prophets even before the Quran so either Muslims who came after copied the torah or old testament or all books are interlinked somehow.

FYI Aryans are mentioned in the Bhagvad Gita, i just was curious how you interpreted it.

Aryans are mentioned in Bhagwat Gita? In what context?

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Jerusalem is holy to Muslims & according to our Traditions is 2nd Masjid established after Kabah in Makkah.
And we believe in all the Prophets they all are Muslims so we have every right over Jerusalem & it was peacefully conquered by Hazrat Omar (ra) not by Caliph Abdal Malik.

I thought Kuba Mosque in Madinah was the first mosque built in Islamic history

 

[khan-92]

The first evidence of Muslims in Jerusalem is with Caliph Abdul Malik conquers when he ordered his men to build Al Aqsa Mosque and made inscriptions of holy Quran on the dome of the rock. Until then nobody knew what Islam was in Jerusalem.

Excuse me get your facts right Al Aqsa Mosque is not a building it is the whole compound within the walls.
Jerusalem was conquered by 2nd Caliph Omar (ra) peacefully without bloodshed keys was given to him & he laid the foundation for Qibli Masjid.
Caliph Abdal Malik built the Dome of the Rock Mosque in Al Aqsa Compound after him.
They are 5 Masjids in Al Aqsa Compound none of them are called Al Aqsa.
The whole compound is called Al Aqsa Mosque not a particular building.

Muslims every right to Al Aqsa they are 2 successor of the Prophet’s of Bani Israeel.

 

[cricket4all]

Jerusalem has been Israel's holy city even before the birth of Lord Jesus Christ.

As per Christians, Jesus was crucified there and his tomb can be found in Jerusalem.

I believe that Muslims have no claim to Jerusalem as they were placed hundreds of miles away from Hejaj, Saudi Arabia back in 7th century. Their only claim is that they believe that Prophet PBUH ascended to heaven on a winged Horse from there. Until Muslims conquered Jerusalem, you do not see any traces of Islam there. It was only until Caliph Abd Al Malik built and expanded the Al Aqsa mosque Islam started staking their claim on Jerusalem.

By your thinking then Jews and Christians have for example no claim to Europe or anywhere else in the world but Jerusalem or Bethlehem only? That didn’t justify Hitlers crimes towards them as does it not justify Israel’s brutality towards Palestinians.

 

[khan-92]

I thought Kuba Mosque in Madinah was the first mosque built in Islamic history

Kabah is 1st Masjid then Masjid al Aqsa, Masjid Quba is 1st Masjid built after Hijrah in Madinah.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So muslim armies conquered Jerusalem.Fair enough. Now if a jewish army has conquered it back, isn't it the same situation?

There has to be a two state solution with borders as they exist today. All steps must be taken to make sure religious sanctity of all religions are preserved in Jerusalem, under the israeli control.

 

[IAJ]

So muslim armies conquered Jerusalem.Fair enough. Now if a jewish army has conquered it back, isn't it the same situation?

There has to be a two state solution with borders as they exist today. All steps must be taken to make sure religious sanctity of all religions are preserved in Jerusalem, under the israeli control.

In your dreams

 

[cricketjoshila]

In your dreams

Jerusalem is under israeli control right now. They conquered Jerusalem and took control of it. But they have to maintain the sanctity of all religions there.

 

[Zaz]

Jerusalem is under israeli control right now. They conquered Jerusalem and took control of it. But they have to maintain the sanctity of all religions there.

This isnt year 500ad anymore You cant conquer places and get away with it Theyre occupiers and have no business under intnl law in east jerusalem

If they look to erase to al aqsa complex trust me there will be hell to pay

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

This isnt year 500ad anymore You cant conquer places and get away with it Theyre occupiers and have no business under intnl law in east jerusalem

If they look to erase to al aqsa complex trust me there will be hell to pay

Jerusalem should become a free capital under UN supervision as per the 1948 UN resolution. That still remains the best solution.
Also all of Muslims, jews & christians should be allowed to enter the holy compound. The rock under the Dome of the rock happens to be the most sacred of places for the jews but currently they're not allowed to visit the place. It should be open to people of all Abrahamic religions.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This isnt year 500ad anymore You cant conquer places and get away with it Theyre occupiers and have no business under intnl law in east jerusalem

If they look to erase to al aqsa complex trust me there will be hell to pay

You are wrong. You can always conquer territory. Chinese took Tibet. Russians took Crimea etc.Arabs tried to oust Israelis but failed and lost territory. Territory will always change hands, with the powerful expanding. That has been the constant law.

Dont think anyone should look to erase the holy mosque at Al Aqsa, but the control will remain with Israelis. Its better that a international commission frames the rule regards to how the three religions get access to the holy compound and how it remains inviolable.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This isnt year 500ad anymore You cant conquer places and get away with it Theyre occupiers and have no business under intnl law in east jerusalem

If they look to erase to al aqsa complex trust me there will be hell to pay

No one is going to war against Israel. The west and most other nations are their supporters, barring a few muslim nations. Those nations dont have the military wherewithal to take on the west backed military.

Its better that rules be framed at how each religion gets access to the holy compound and how its protected. Rather than trying to start a futile war and try to gain territory, which is impossible.