Praying at the temple mount

[Coyote]

Once you start labeling a religion as "peaceful" and exempting it from it's own history then you start making excuses for it. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and in ancient times - Jews, were pretty damn bloody and intolerant. All it takes is a little power and a sense of "rightousness", some literally interpreted scripture...and there you have it.

Once again, you are broad stroking EVERY religion.

No...I'm basing it on history. None of the major religions are truly peaceful. It's all in what their followers choose to extract from it.

Patronize me; link to some history.

Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide
Religiously based civil unrest and warfare
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9566.pdf
The Sentinel Project

That's what you got on the Jews?
A defensive war in 2014 where Israel only targeted Hamas?
The math or moral equivalency still doesn't pan out.
Atheists kill also; bog time.

Israel's Occupation, gradual stealing of Occupied territory and displacing non-Jewish inhabitant? That's not "peaceful" nor is it totally defensive. Neither were the actions of the Sterns Gang and Irgun. You're not going to get the same math as you do with Christians and Muslims because you dealing with a very very small group of people. If they became a world power political religion - what would their world look like and how much tolerance do you think there would be?

Athesists kill to - I think hardcore athiesm is as much a "religion" as any other.

 

[Indeependent]

Once again, you are broad stroking EVERY religion.

No...I'm basing it on history. None of the major religions are truly peaceful. It's all in what their followers choose to extract from it.

Patronize me; link to some history.

Religion, Violence, Crime and Mass Suicide
Religiously based civil unrest and warfare
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9566.pdf
The Sentinel Project

That's what you got on the Jews?
A defensive war in 2014 where Israel only targeted Hamas?
The math or moral equivalency still doesn't pan out.
Atheists kill also; bog time.

Israel's Occupation, gradual stealing of Occupied territory and displacing non-Jewish inhabitant? That's not "peaceful" nor is it totally defensive. Neither were the actions of the Sterns Gang and Irgun. You're not going to get the same math as you do with Christians and Muslims because you dealing with a very very small group of people. If they became a world power political religion - what would their world look like and how much tolerance do you think there would be?

Athesists kill to - I think hardcore athiesm is as much a "religion" as any other.

Can you provide a list of, let's say, 5 history books, that have provided you with this history?
Title, Author, Publisher.

 

[Billo_Really]

None of it is true.

None? Well lets just see, shall we?


You illegally migrate into the area;

Illegal immigration was not a wartime phenomenon. The Hope-Simpson Report of 1930 had recorded that "some thousands each year" of unauthorized immigrants settled in Palestine, either having evaded frontier controls or having arrived as "pseudo travellers" and then staying on.

​

drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism;

...violence continued to spread in Palestine as Zionist terrorist groups, now on the offensive, stepped up their attacks and sabotage.

Illegal immigration into Palestine increased sharply.

The number of Palestinian refugees resulting from these hostilities were estimated to number 726,000 by the end of 1949 - half the indigenous population of Palestine.

​

declare yourself a Jewish State;

Israel declared its independence on 14 May 1948

​

then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor;

"Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only

"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."
​

stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own;

Illegal Israeli Settlements​

One of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence – and continuing growth – of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called "settlements") on land long recognized by the United Nations as part of Palestine. Despite a repeated international condemnation, including a UN General Assembly resolution and a ruling by the International Court of Justice, the population of these settlements, which currently number 121, has grown by an average of 5% annually since 2001.

​

then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

You might have me here Mike, Zionists probably don't want to share?
​

None of its true?

Back to you...

 

[Billo_Really]

That's what you got on the Jews?
A defensive war in 2014 where Israel only targeted Hamas?
The math or moral equivalency still doesn't pan out.
Atheists kill also; bog time.

70% of the targets were innocent civilians, you asshole!

And an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

 

[Billo_Really]

Everyone is one youtube.

Please cite an example where muslims where harassed just for praying.

I already posted the video.

 

[Kondor3]

...Actually...if a religious site is sacred to only one religion then I don't know why the entity that owns the site would need to accommodate other religions, do you?...

In the example of Mecca, specifically, or Saudi Arabia, more broadly, it becomes a question of freedom of religious expression and practice, rather than sites themselves.

...If a site is sacred to multiple religions they they should all be accommodated...

Agreed.

...If Muslims control a site that is sacred to Jews, Jews should be allowed to safely travel there...

Agreed.

It should cut both ways.

...But as you yourself said - Mecca has no value to Jews...

True.

Because the Muslims drove them out, centuries ago.

...Each country is an individual entity with it's own laws and practices...

Yes. And that holds as true for Israel as it does for Saudi Arabia.

If the Saudis are allowed to prohibit Jewish or Christian or Buddhist or other non-Muslim public worship in area(s) they deem appropriate, then the Jews have the same right.

...It doesn't matter if it predates it - it is sacred to both. Both should have a right to worship there, as long as they behave. We're not talking about something being sacred for just a few years - it goes back over a thousand years. People need to grow up and start treating like the holy place it is...

Yes. That has been tried. Time and again, for 1300 years or more, and the arrangement always and eventually falls apart; mostly attributable to Muslim fundamentalism over time.

When you add concerns over State security into the mix, such concerns tend to catalyze and/or accelerate the dissolution of such arrangements.

...No merit - the comparison is apples and oranges...

Disagree.

...You are comparing freedom to worship (in general) with access to religious holy sites...

By Jove, I think you've got it.

The issue of reciprocal accommodation for freedom of worship is a far broader and loftier and more important concept, and the mixing of 'levels' in such an example has merit as an illustration and object lesson; i.e.: "Why should we allow you to worship as you wish in our capital when you prohibit us from worshipping as we wish in yours?"

...Ideally - all religions should be free to build houses of worship in any country, but they aren't and it's not just Muslim countries.

True. But, in todays' world, it's mostly Muslim countries, and you know that as well as I do, don't you?

I'm quite confident that if you and I established defining parameters, then constructed a list of countries with restrictions on freedom of worship, that Muslim countries with such restrictions would outnumber non-Muslim countries with such restrictions, by a considerable margin.

I have no prior knowledge nor certainty that this is what we would find, but confidence is quite high, that this is what our research would indicate.

You probably share that very same intuitive observation.

All of which speaks to 'reciprocity' in this context.

Without reciprocity, when the more accommodating 'side' decides to begin restricting access, then they may conveniently hold-out the even more draconian restrictions on the other side of the fence, as an adequate defense for acting in their own best interests.

No tickee... no washee...

No reciprocity? Then stop bitching about restrictions, or plans to impose such restrictions. You(r advocacy-beneficiaries) have no room to talk.

And, in the journey to that ultimate conclusion, the original Temple Mount--Mecca comparison does, indeed, have merit, despite its seeming 'disconnectedness', at first glance.

 

[Kondor3]

...70% of the targets were innocent civilians, you asshole!...

You have proof that all these civilians were 'intentional' targets?

More like mostly collateral casualties, as Israel pounded Hamas military assets that they embedded amongst their civilian population, hiding behind the skirts of their women and children like the scumbags and pussies that they are.

...And an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

Fine. Have it your way.

Let's just cut through all the bullshit and call it an Israeli Ass-Kicking Force, instead...

Bitch-slapping the dumb-ass Neanderthal Hamas types, when they dare provoke The Big Beast next door...

There... all fixed.

Fun, ain't it?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I chuckle ever time I hear this.

...And an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

(PHILOSOPHY)

THE right to defend --- your life and the lives of your loved ones when faced with a deadly threat --- is not bestowed on upon anyone, it is a BASIC INSTINCT --- and extension of the "fight or flight" reflex; a natural species behavior that contribute to survival. It is not really a "human right" that represents a socially adopted imperative and taught to the population. It is not a learned reaction from watching demonstrations communicated by other species. It is a mandatory choice that one is faced with when the consequence is either one survives --- or --- does not survive --- preservation is lost.

The techniques of effective self-defense and the employment of countermeasure to a threat are learned skills sets; but the nature process to the decision to either "fight or flight" (hold, defend or attack --- versus --- retreat, withdraw or hide) is the natural and inherent impulse or reaction to an external stimuli.

While the effective ability of "fight or flight" responses clearly can be learned; it is an innate reaction that operates largely outside consciousness. Most societies and cultures have, imbedded within it, the "Code of Honor" and the initiation of "bravery · courage · valor · intrepidity · boldness and daring" that recognize that special quality to fight in defense of others --- or to fight for a cause greater than themselves. But in the end, it is a matter of preservation.

The second rung Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, (after: air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep) is comprised of the set of Safety Needs (protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear).

(COMMENT)

Relative to the Species of Human, there is no such thing as a situation in which "self defense" cannot be claimed. Fault, legality, purpose and reason simply does not enter into the equation when faced with the choice: "fight or flight."

The choice is no the inverse side of the equation: "attack or not attack." (Aggression or Peacefulness)

Form the Justice side of the house: One must remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which deal with the PUNISHMENT for (in this case Palestinian) actions intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case Israel); or the PENALTY on those protected persons (in this case Palestinian) in cases of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons of the Occupying Power.

(SUMMATION --- ∑---)

Not only do the Israelis have the right to self-defense, but they have the right to punish or exact justice upon those that attack them.

No matter which Palestinian entity frames the argument,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco would have been a great SS officer during the Nazi occupation but afterwards, he would have had trouble.. German military that punished and exacted justice on the local population that attacked them were hung or served lifetime sentences. One of the last to be caught was Erich Priebke, who as a German officer exacted justice and punished Italian partisans that attacked German soldiers, was pursued by the Italian authorities for 50 years and was extradited to Italy after 50 years where he was found guilty of murder and crimes against humanity. He claimed he was simply following the law and orders.

No matter how you try to justify the actions of an occupation force, you will be proven wrong Rocco.

 

[Phoenall]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

try looking at the facts first dumbo The Jews lived there before the muslims were invented and they built the mount the carbuncles are built on. They were invited back by the lands legal owners in 1850 and then again in 1923 when they were given the land. They declared them selves Israel and the UN said it was the Jewish state. Why shouldn't they state that the farms could only be worked by Jews, don't the Americans do the same thing.
THE JEWS DO OWN THE LAND AND YOU KNOW IT AS FOR THE MOSQUE IT IS BUILT ON THE SITE OD THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE JEWS DONT WANT TO SHARE IT AT ALL, THEY JUST WANT ACCESS TO THE 10% OF THE MOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE ON OCASION

ANY OTHER NATION WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE PALESTINIANS BY NOW AND YOU WOULD HOT SAY A WORD

The site is extremely Holy to two major religions - neither have a right over the other to it and their behavior - both sides - is far from Holy. I read Israel is preventing people under 45 from entering as they are most likely to agitate. That seems like a better solution than banning one or the other - if they can't behave, they don't get entry. I think the idea of cameras, 24 surviellance is a good one too, at least until things calm and people treat it the way it should be treated, although neither side likes the idea.

The only two religions that it is really holy for are Christianity and Judasim, the muslims are only interested when they can cause other some distress and hardship. The mosque is not mentioned in the koran or hadiths and the only mention of Jerusalem ( Al quds ) is to say that it is holy to the Jews and Christians. So it seems that Palestinians ignore their prophet and god when it comes to inflicting harm on the Jews and Christians

 

[Coyote]

...Actually...if a religious site is sacred to only one religion then I don't know why the entity that owns the site would need to accommodate other religions, do you?...

In the example of Mecca, specifically, or Saudi Arabia, more broadly, it becomes a question of freedom of religious expression and practice, rather than sites themselves.

...If a site is sacred to multiple religions they they should all be accommodated...

Agreed.

...If Muslims control a site that is sacred to Jews, Jews should be allowed to safely travel there...

Agreed.

It should cut both ways.

...But as you yourself said - Mecca has no value to Jews...

True.

Because the Muslims drove them out, centuries ago.

...Each country is an individual entity with it's own laws and practices...

Yes. And that holds as true for Israel as it does for Saudi Arabia.

If the Saudis are allowed to prohibit Jewish or Christian or Buddhist or other non-Muslim public worship in area(s) they deem appropriate, then the Jews have the same right.

...It doesn't matter if it predates it - it is sacred to both. Both should have a right to worship there, as long as they behave. We're not talking about something being sacred for just a few years - it goes back over a thousand years. People need to grow up and start treating like the holy place it is...

Yes. That has been tried. Time and again, for 1300 years or more, and the arrangement always and eventually falls apart; mostly attributable to Muslim fundamentalism over time.

When you add concerns over State security into the mix, such concerns tend to catalyze and/or accelerate the dissolution of such arrangements.

...No merit - the comparison is apples and oranges...

Disagree.

...You are comparing freedom to worship (in general) with access to religious holy sites...

By Jove, I think you've got it.

The issue of reciprocal accommodation for freedom of worship is a far broader and loftier and more important concept, and the mixing of 'levels' in such an example has merit as an illustration and object lesson; i.e.: "Why should we allow you to worship as you wish in our capital when you prohibit us from worshipping as we wish in yours?"

...Ideally - all religions should be free to build houses of worship in any country, but they aren't and it's not just Muslim countries.

True. But, in todays' world, it's mostly Muslim countries, and you know that as well as I do, don't you?

I'm quite confident that if you and I established defining parameters, then constructed a list of countries with restrictions on freedom of worship, that Muslim countries with such restrictions would outnumber non-Muslim countries with such restrictions, by a considerable margin.

I have no prior knowledge nor certainty that this is what we would find, but confidence is quite high, that this is what our research would indicate.

You probably share that very same intuitive observation.

All of which speaks to 'reciprocity' in this context.

Without reciprocity, when the more accommodating 'side' decides to begin restricting access, then they may conveniently hold-out the even more draconian restrictions on the other side of the fence, as an adequate defense for acting in their own best interests.

No tickee... no washee...

No reciprocity? Then stop bitching about restrictions, or plans to impose such restrictions. You(r advocacy-beneficiaries) have no room to talk.

And, in the journey to that ultimate conclusion, the original Temple Mount--Mecca comparison does, indeed, have merit, despite its seeming 'disconnectedness', at first glance.

Nope, I disagree - it's still two different things. Access to holy sites is, in my opinion, a right to those who believe (as long as they behave). Freedom to worship - a plurality of religion and associated tolerance is a different right and not comparable. If the Jews had a holy site in Mecca (and I find no evidence of that) then should have to right travel there and worship. Holy sites should be above politics and international squabbles.

 

[Phoenall]

...You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you! Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Ahhhhhh... the teenage angst is strong in this one...

The Temple Mount was sacred ground for the Jews long before the Muslims invaded and stole it...

The Jews are merely in the process of setting right, an old wrong done against them...

And - with respect to reciprocity - how's that synagogue in Mecca comin' along?

Is Mecca a Jewish holy site?

o but it was owned by the Jews who built it and then had it forcibly taken from them by mo'mad in the 7C. Shortly after he took Medina from them as well.

 

[Coyote]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

try looking at the facts first dumbo The Jews lived there before the muslims were invented and they built the mount the carbuncles are built on. They were invited back by the lands legal owners in 1850 and then again in 1923 when they were given the land. They declared them selves Israel and the UN said it was the Jewish state. Why shouldn't they state that the farms could only be worked by Jews, don't the Americans do the same thing.
THE JEWS DO OWN THE LAND AND YOU KNOW IT AS FOR THE MOSQUE IT IS BUILT ON THE SITE OD THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE JEWS DONT WANT TO SHARE IT AT ALL, THEY JUST WANT ACCESS TO THE 10% OF THE MOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE ON OCASION

ANY OTHER NATION WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE PALESTINIANS BY NOW AND YOU WOULD HOT SAY A WORD

The site is extremely Holy to two major religions - neither have a right over the other to it and their behavior - both sides - is far from Holy. I read Israel is preventing people under 45 from entering as they are most likely to agitate. That seems like a better solution than banning one or the other - if they can't behave, they don't get entry. I think the idea of cameras, 24 surviellance is a good one too, at least until things calm and people treat it the way it should be treated, although neither side likes the idea.

The only two religions that it is really holy for are Christianity and Judasim, the muslims are only interested when they can cause other some distress and hardship. The mosque is not mentioned in the koran or hadiths and the only mention of Jerusalem ( Al quds ) is to say that it is holy to the Jews and Christians. So it seems that Palestinians ignore their prophet and god when it comes to inflicting harm on the Jews and Christians

The Temple Mount is not one of Christianity's holy sites - it is for Islam and Judaiasm and has been for over a thousand years.

 

[Phoenall]

And yet the farthest mosque of the time was on the road between Mecca and Medina. So he could have walked it in one night from the sacred mosque.

The history of the al aqsa mosque is well known and was written down by muslim scholars as follows


The earliest mosque that was certainly built here was constructed by the Umayyads around 710 AD, only a few decades after the Dome of the Rock. Under Abbasid rule, it reached its greatest extent by the end of the 8th century with 15 aisles.

Unfortunately nothing of the ancient mosque survives today: it was destroyed by earthquakes twice in its first 60 years of existence and has been rebuilt at least five times. The last major rebuild was in 1035 by Caliph az-Zahir.




Al-Aqsa Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. After an earthquake in 746, the mosque was completely destroyed and rebuilt by the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur in 754, and again rebuilt by his successor al-Mahdi in 780. Another earthquake destroyed most of al-Aqsa in 1033, but two years later the Fatimid caliph Ali az-Zahir built another mosque which has stood to the present day.



And even the muslims say that the al aqsa mosque was not holy in islam


Religious significance in Islam[edit]
In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the entire Noble Sanctuary. The mosque is believed to be the second house of prayer constructed after the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Post-Rashidun-era Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Quranic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey"). This specific verse in the Quran cemented the significant religious importance of al-Aqsa in Islam.[60] The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims traditionally identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque, even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.[citation needed] Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.[61][clarification needed]

Face it numbnuts.

99.99% of muslims believe the Farthest Mosque is in Jerusalem and was visited by Muhammad during his Night Journey as told in the Quran.

And that fact isn't going to change no matter how many times you dispute it with your inane posts. .......

Not according to Islamic scholars

even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.

They were better positioned in time and geography to say what was what than you are who believes any islamonazi propaganda that is spread.

 

[Coyote]

...You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you! Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Ahhhhhh... the teenage angst is strong in this one...

The Temple Mount was sacred ground for the Jews long before the Muslims invaded and stole it...

The Jews are merely in the process of setting right, an old wrong done against them...

And - with respect to reciprocity - how's that synagogue in Mecca comin' along?

Is Mecca a Jewish holy site?

o but it was owned by the Jews who built it and then had it forcibly taken from them by mo'mad in the 7C. Shortly after he took Medina from them as well.

So? How many Christian Churches and Cathedrals have been built on conquered Pagan sites or even conquered Mosques? That's the way of the victor - they impose their religion. You are talking about events over a thousand years ago. It's Holy to both religions and that is just the way it is. People - both Muslims, Jews and Christians need to understand that they no longer have sole claim to some of those places.

 

[Coyote]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

try looking at the facts first dumbo The Jews lived there before the muslims were invented and they built the mount the carbuncles are built on. They were invited back by the lands legal owners in 1850 and then again in 1923 when they were given the land. They declared them selves Israel and the UN said it was the Jewish state. Why shouldn't they state that the farms could only be worked by Jews, don't the Americans do the same thing.
THE JEWS DO OWN THE LAND AND YOU KNOW IT AS FOR THE MOSQUE IT IS BUILT ON THE SITE OD THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE JEWS DONT WANT TO SHARE IT AT ALL, THEY JUST WANT ACCESS TO THE 10% OF THE MOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE ON OCASION

ANY OTHER NATION WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE PALESTINIANS BY NOW AND YOU WOULD HOT SAY A WORD

The site is extremely Holy to two major religions - neither have a right over the other to it and their behavior - both sides - is far from Holy. I read Israel is preventing people under 45 from entering as they are most likely to agitate. That seems like a better solution than banning one or the other - if they can't behave, they don't get entry. I think the idea of cameras, 24 surviellance is a good one too, at least until things calm and people treat it the way it should be treated, although neither side likes the idea.

The only two religions that it is really holy for are Christianity and Judasim, the muslims are only interested when they can cause other some distress and hardship. The mosque is not mentioned in the koran or hadiths and the only mention of Jerusalem ( Al quds ) is to say that it is holy to the Jews and Christians. So it seems that Palestinians ignore their prophet and god when it comes to inflicting harm on the Jews and Christians

The Temple Mount is not one of Christianity's holy sites - it is for Islam and Judaiasm and has been for over a thousand years.

Apologies - wrong about that, found this interesting bit in Wiki:Temple Mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Temple Mount (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת‎, Har HaBáyit), also known as the Haram (Arabic: الحرم الشريف‎, al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf, "Noble Sanctuary", or الحرم القدسي الشريف, al-Ḥaram al-Qudsī al-Šarīf, "Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem"), is one of the most important religious sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. It has been used as a religious site for thousands of years. At least four religious traditions are known to have made use of the Temple Mount: Judaism, Greco-Roman paganism, Christianity, and Islam. The present site is dominated by three monumental structures from the early Umayyad period: the al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock and the Dome of the Chain. Herodian walls and gates with additions dating back to the late Byzantine and early Islamic periods cut through the flanks of the Mount. Currently it can be accessed via eleven gates, ten reserved for Muslims and one for non-Muslims, with guard posts of Israeli police in the vicinity of each.

Multiple religions have a valid claim to the site. They all need to be respected, not demeaned.

 

[Coyote]

And yet the farthest mosque of the time was on the road between Mecca and Medina. So he could have walked it in one night from the sacred mosque.

The history of the al aqsa mosque is well known and was written down by muslim scholars as follows


The earliest mosque that was certainly built here was constructed by the Umayyads around 710 AD, only a few decades after the Dome of the Rock. Under Abbasid rule, it reached its greatest extent by the end of the 8th century with 15 aisles.

Unfortunately nothing of the ancient mosque survives today: it was destroyed by earthquakes twice in its first 60 years of existence and has been rebuilt at least five times. The last major rebuild was in 1035 by Caliph az-Zahir.




Al-Aqsa Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. After an earthquake in 746, the mosque was completely destroyed and rebuilt by the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur in 754, and again rebuilt by his successor al-Mahdi in 780. Another earthquake destroyed most of al-Aqsa in 1033, but two years later the Fatimid caliph Ali az-Zahir built another mosque which has stood to the present day.



And even the muslims say that the al aqsa mosque was not holy in islam


Religious significance in Islam[edit]
In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the entire Noble Sanctuary. The mosque is believed to be the second house of prayer constructed after the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Post-Rashidun-era Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Quranic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey"). This specific verse in the Quran cemented the significant religious importance of al-Aqsa in Islam.[60] The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims traditionally identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque, even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.[citation needed] Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.[61][clarification needed]

Face it numbnuts.

99.99% of muslims believe the Farthest Mosque is in Jerusalem and was visited by Muhammad during his Night Journey as told in the Quran.

And that fact isn't going to change no matter how many times you dispute it with your inane posts. .......

Not according to Islamic scholars

even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.

They were better positioned in time and geography to say what was what than you are who believes any islamonazi propaganda that is spread.

From Wikipedia, on the highlighted who:

Unsupported attributions
Shortcuts:

• WP:WEASEL
• WP:AWW

... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ...


Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[4]

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{weasel}} or {{by whom}} or similar templates so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

 

[Phoenall]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

try looking at the facts first dumbo The Jews lived there before the muslims were invented and they built the mount the carbuncles are built on. They were invited back by the lands legal owners in 1850 and then again in 1923 when they were given the land. They declared them selves Israel and the UN said it was the Jewish state. Why shouldn't they state that the farms could only be worked by Jews, don't the Americans do the same thing.
THE JEWS DO OWN THE LAND AND YOU KNOW IT AS FOR THE MOSQUE IT IS BUILT ON THE SITE OD THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE JEWS DONT WANT TO SHARE IT AT ALL, THEY JUST WANT ACCESS TO THE 10% OF THE MOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE ON OCASION

ANY OTHER NATION WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE PALESTINIANS BY NOW AND YOU WOULD HOT SAY A WORD

The site is extremely Holy to two major religions - neither have a right over the other to it and their behavior - both sides - is far from Holy. I read Israel is preventing people under 45 from entering as they are most likely to agitate. That seems like a better solution than banning one or the other - if they can't behave, they don't get entry. I think the idea of cameras, 24 surviellance is a good one too, at least until things calm and people treat it the way it should be treated, although neither side likes the idea.

The only two religions that it is really holy for are Christianity and Judasim, the muslims are only interested when they can cause other some distress and hardship. The mosque is not mentioned in the koran or hadiths and the only mention of Jerusalem ( Al quds ) is to say that it is holy to the Jews and Christians. So it seems that Palestinians ignore their prophet and god when it comes to inflicting harm on the Jews and Christians

The Temple Mount is not one of Christianity's holy sites - it is for Islam and Judaiasm and has been for over a thousand years.

Nope as the muslims themselves have said

even though initially, Rashidun-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.

So you see that between 632 and 1031 the muslims believed that the mosque was located near mecca, and not in Jerusalem. The first Islamic structure on the temple mount was not built until 35 years after the death of mo'mad by Umar, and this was a wooden hut.

 

[Coyote]

If the Mosque was first built in 705, you are talking about 1300 years of religious belief. I think that's more than enough time to authenticate it as a holy site for Islam, along with the other religions. Geez what a stupid argument this is.

 

[Coyote]

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

try looking at the facts first dumbo The Jews lived there before the muslims were invented and they built the mount the carbuncles are built on. They were invited back by the lands legal owners in 1850 and then again in 1923 when they were given the land. They declared them selves Israel and the UN said it was the Jewish state. Why shouldn't they state that the farms could only be worked by Jews, don't the Americans do the same thing.
THE JEWS DO OWN THE LAND AND YOU KNOW IT AS FOR THE MOSQUE IT IS BUILT ON THE SITE OD THE JEWISH TEMPLE AND THE JEWS DONT WANT TO SHARE IT AT ALL, THEY JUST WANT ACCESS TO THE 10% OF THE MOUNT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE ON OCASION

ANY OTHER NATION WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THE PALESTINIANS BY NOW AND YOU WOULD HOT SAY A WORD

The site is extremely Holy to two major religions - neither have a right over the other to it and their behavior - both sides - is far from Holy. I read Israel is preventing people under 45 from entering as they are most likely to agitate. That seems like a better solution than banning one or the other - if they can't behave, they don't get entry. I think the idea of cameras, 24 surviellance is a good one too, at least until things calm and people treat it the way it should be treated, although neither side likes the idea.

The only two religions that it is really holy for are Christianity and Judasim, the muslims are only interested when they can cause other some distress and hardship. The mosque is not mentioned in the koran or hadiths and the only mention of Jerusalem ( Al quds ) is to say that it is holy to the Jews and Christians. So it seems that Palestinians ignore their prophet and god when it comes to inflicting harm on the Jews and Christians

The Temple Mount is not one of Christianity's holy sites - it is for Islam and Judaiasm and has been for over a thousand years.

Nope as the muslims themselves have said

even though initially, Rashidun-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.

So you see that between 632 and 1031 the muslims believed that the mosque was located near mecca, and not in Jerusalem. The first Islamic structure on the temple mount was not built until 35 years after the death of mo'mad by Umar, and this was a wooden hut.

Again - your quote from Wiki has problems (click the who).

This is not good evidence - I'd quietly bury it while you still can.