Whose Jerusalem? (Moses, beliefs, mission, eternal, pagan)

[BUDDY]

I think that it is very interesting that Jerusalem and the surrounding area that is now Israel was not even on the minds of most arab states until the UN established the Jewish nation of Israel. This makes me believe that muslim claims to the land and to Jerusalem itself have more to do with politics and race than anything else. OF course that is my personal opinion and I don't think it can be totally proven. Excellent article Deut, I appreciate it.

[jewscout]

Originally Posted by anders

Jerusalem is a holy city to three religions. It should "belong" exclusively to none of them, but be open to and jointly managed by all of them.

is this why muslims face away from the Temple Mount when they pray in Jerusalem, because it is a holy city?


i'm not saying denying peoples of other religion entry into Jerusalem like it is in Mecca, what i'm saying is that Jerusalem holds a central role in the Jewish faith greater, in contrast, than that's cities position in Islam
and the article seems shows that Jerusalem's importance to Islam appears to fluxuate with it's political importance at the time.

[alowyn]

Thanks for the article, Deut - i was always wondering, why exactly are the Muslims so after Jerusalem - it's only their third holiest city. It seems to me politics are playing the major role, not religion. The whole Israel conflict going on has to be the most bizarre thing i've ever heard of. Originally it was a fight for religion... which doesn't completely strike me as right, but given that at the time this was common practise, i'll ignore that. Now nobody's really fighting for anything - they say it's all about land and revenge, but i think if we were to get an honest answer from an ordinary person of either side, of why they are fighting, (s)he'll just say, "I don't know. It's just always been that way."
Eventually, we're all going to wake up and realise that of all the major wars in the world, we have to have fought the longest and hardest to achieve absolutely nothing. Maybe then we'll shrug our shoulders, toss our weapons aside and settle down for a nice bowl of chumus.

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

If you ask me, Muslim, Christian and Jew all have legitamate claim, and things are not going to get any better until all of these can accept the other as their brothers under God.

Originally Posted by anders

Jerusalem is a holy city to three religions. It should "belong" exclusively to none of them, but be open to and jointly managed by all of them.

Originally, that was the plan - Jerusalem was to be a neutral city due to the multi-religious claims. What happened to that? As much of an idealist as i am, this always drains my faith in humanity - a holy site for three religions, and we turn it into a hellish battlefield. As the band, TACT says "We were all created equal in following God's ways..." I'm no expert in the bible, but i'm pretty sure that "Thou shalt war amongst yourselves" is not one of the commandments.

Originally Posted by Jocose

Well, we (the US and the British) gave Jerusalem to the Jews with the United Nations' permission. Of course, it isn't theirs by right. But, now that they have it, I say, if they can defend it, it's theirs.

The British controlled Jerusalem at the time. They gave it to the Jews - what do you mean "it isn't theirs by right"? We might as well say that America doesn't really belong to the European descendants "by right."

Originally Posted by anders

Tolerance is no Utopia.

Sorry, can you explain exactly what you mean by this?

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Which, of course, I didn't. But, if I did, I would ask you to consider arguing against the article rather than your strawman caricature. The point is not that God is on the side of the Jews. The point is that the religious centrality of Jerusalem to Islam is recent and self-serving revisionist history. You have every right to disagree with that position. You have no right to distort it.

Words carry implications. And the notion expressed by these words-- that the faith of muslims in the holiness of this city is the result of lies and revisionism-- carries some very heavy, very regretable ones. I would never question the holiness that Jeruselem holds for the Jews, nor question their right to worship there, nor would I deny that it is their city. I would say the exact same of the Muslims.
I would take just as much issue with an article that attempted to assert that the Jewish claims to the city were not as holy as the Muslim ones. The whole line of thinking is divisionary, archaic and counter-productive to say the least. It would be one thing to look into and the reasons that the city is holy to the muslims (and for whatever reasons, it is, only a fool would question that) and even to question them, but it is another thing entirely to entirely depreciate either group's reasons for their reverence, and then (as this thread does) attempt to assert to which group Jeruselem truly belongs as a result.