The Pickering Post
Thursday, 21st February 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


IS JERUSALEM A SACRED ISLAMIC CITY?

Imam Tawhidi

Imam Tawhidi is the Imam of The Islamic Association of South Australia and Former Diplomatic Delegate of The Grand Islamic Jurisdiction of the Holy City of Qum

BLOG



There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city.

Jerusalem is home to around 400,000 Muslims, but is it a sacred city according to Islam?

This is a question the majority of Muslims within the political and academic world try to avoid, simply because it opens a rather uncomfortable discussion. In fact, a Muslim asking such a question could face serious consequences; such as society doubting in his/her faith.

Until 2014, I was an Islamist who abhorred Jewish people and was open to waging war against them. Today, however, I am friends with many Jewish faith leaders.

This transition wasn’t political, it was rather theological. In brief, I started to question certain claims taught to me by my teachers and Muslim community.

I began by asking myself the question, does Jerusalem really belong to Islam and Muslims?


Sacred cities in  Islam

To answer this vitally important question, we need to inquire how cities become sacred according to Islam.

Throughout human history, every religion has been associated with an area that has been sanctified, respected and revered.

Islam is no different. There are tens of sacred cities in Islam, such as Mecca, Medina, Qum, Karbala and Najaf – due to clear verses of the Koran acknowledging their glory or sayings of Prophet Mohammad assuring Muslims of their exaltation.



There is a big difference between a city being sacred in the eyes of God and it being a sacred Islamic city.

For example, all prophetic tombs, birthplaces and areas where miracles took place are considered sacred in Islam, but they are not specifically Islamic locations. A sacred Islamic location is a location wherein a significant Islamic event has taken place by either Allah or Prophet Mohammad.


Jerusalem in Islamic  scripture 

The Holy Koran states very clearly that the Holy Land, Jerusalem, belongs to the Jewish nation of Moses, the Israelites:

“And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah [God] upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the world” (Koran: 5:20 onwards).



The above verse also makes it clear that God “had not given (this land to) anyone among the world” other than the Jewish nation.

From this verse, and others of similar context, we understand that Jerusalem is a sacred city according to God, but it is not a sacred Islamic city, due to the fact that its sacredness was established before the existence of Islam.

After the emergence of Islam, in the year 621 CE, it is believed that Prophet Mohammad took a miraculous and spiritual night journey to Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Farthest Mosque). This event is reported in the Koran in the following verse:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from the Sacred Mosque (Mecca) to al-Masjid al- Aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs…” (Quran 17:1).



Two vital matters need to be addressed regarding the above verse:

1. Prophet Mohammad traveling to a location does not make that location “Islamic.”

2. There is little evidence that “Al-Aqsa Mosque” is actually in Jerusalem, and there are a large number of Muslims who believe that “the Farthest Mosque” is a reference to a mosque in the heavens, not on earth; due to the fact that the current Al-Aqsa Mosque did not exist during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad, making it impossible for him to have visited it.

Messengers of both Judaism and Christianity had arrived in Jerusalem to preach their scriptures centuries before Prophet Mohammad.

Therefore, it cannot be historically accurate to say that Mohammad brought Islam to Jerusalem before them.

Up until the migration of Mohammad to Medina in 622 CE and the official establishment of Islam therein, Islam was a minority religion when compared to the two well-established religions of Judaism and Christianity.

Besides, the citizens of Jerusalem who converted to Islam merely changed their own faith, not the entire history of Jerusalem.

Thus, neither Islamic scripture nor history claim that Jerusalem is a sacred Islamic city.


Jerusalem meets Islam  

In May 632 CE, Prophet Mohammad appointed Usama ibn Zaid as the commander of his army to respond to the Romans in an agreed-upon battle within Palestine.

The next day Usama set out for his expedition, but he then learnt that Mohammad had died and therefore he returned to Medina.

Caliph Abu Bakr then ordered Usama to increase his army to 3,000 men and to attack the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Moab and Byzantine-held Darum, to kill or capture as many as he could and Usama did so.

This event proves that up until the demise of Prophet Mohammad, there were no Muslims in what is today known as Palestine, and that it was inhabited by the Romans of the Byzantine.



Also, Prophet Mohammad would not wage war against a city full of Muslims. In reality, Islam as a religion officially came to Palestine in the year 636 CE, four years after Mohammad’s death and during the reign of the second caliph of Islam, Omar.

The Islamic caliphate conducted an attack on Jerusalem, which was ruled by the Byzantine Romans. The city was placed under a four-month siege commencing in November of that year.

After four months of hardship and butchery, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, surrendered Jerusalem to Caliph Omar in 637 CE.

When Caliph Omar realized that Islam was still a minority religion in the region, he adopted the jizyah system, forcing Christians and Jewish people to pay tax to the Islamic caliphate.

After conducting a massacre of the citizens of Jerusalem, our Caliph Omar came to Jerusalem to appoint his governors.

He then built what is known today as “the Aqsa Mosque,” which many Muslims mistakenly think was built by Prophet Mohammad.


Al Aqsa Mosque pre 1967 under Arab control


The mosque in Jerusalem with its golden dome is known to Muslims as “Qubbat al-Sakhrah” (Dome of the Rock), and it was completed in 691 CE by the Umayyad Dynasty, the following Islamic caliphate.

It is arguably not permissible for Muslims to pray within Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Qubbat al-Sakhrah, as they are built upon occupied and invaded land.


Al Aqsa mosque after 1967 when the Jews recaptured Jerusalem


By the ninth century, the Fatimid Dynasty, a Shia Islamic caliphate, ruled a large area of north Africa. They were also terrorists who invaded Palestine and massacred Christians in Jerusalem for siding with the Romans of the Byzantine, who had attempted to regain their conquered land.

The notorious caliph of the Fatimid Caliphate, Al-Hakim, caused much damage to the entire region, even killing John VII, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, a provocative act that laid the groundwork for the First Crusade. Due to the defeat of the Crusaders, Muslims became the majority, by the sword and not by the pen.



By this time, the entire Mediterranean coast of Palestine had been captured, followed by a series of massacres of the Christian people and a genocide that spread all the way to Damascus and Beirut.

Islam became the established religion of Palestine by the ninth century, and became the majority religion of the region throughout the Mamluk Era, between 1250 and 1516.

Therefore, we Muslims did not enter Palestine as preachers and convert its nation into Muslims. We murdered their leaders and conducted serial massacres led by both Sunni and Shia terrorist Islamic caliphs.

The citizens of Palestine may convert to Islam, but in no way can Palestine be considered Muslim land. Of course, many may dispute this position, but the fact is that the Jews were in this land long before even Christianity arose.

Their ancient cultural links remain unbroken, as in the saying each Passover, “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Our Arab-Muslim ancestors came out of their deserts as conquerors and not as learners, and as guiders who do not seek the guidance of others.

They believed that they had sufficient knowledge and wisdom, and that they did not need to learn anything from others. This delusion of my co-religionists persists to this day, despite the fact that the world has changed.


Disturbing events in  Islamic history

On the other hand, I do not understand the Muslim struggle for Jerusalem. Islamic laws strictly prohibit relieving oneself while facing Mecca, in fact, toilets in all Islamic countries and most Muslim homes do not face Mecca, out of respect to the holy city.

Yet Bukhari reports that our Prophet Mohammad used to deliberately and repeatedly relieve himself while facing Jerusalem, even though he could have faced another direction instead.

Does it make sense that Palestinians are dying for Jerusalem when their own beloved Prophet used to prefer defecating toward it?



Whether Palestine is Jewish land or whether Israel is a state are two completely different debates. A Muslim may reject Israel being a state, but cannot deny the fact that the entire region, including Palestine, is in fact Jewish land. 



Article republished with kind permission of Imam Tawhidi. This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post.

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Jerusalem-a-sacred-Islamic-City-578560



Comments

How can Jerusalem be a Islamic city? It has been there many centuries before a completely mad mass murderer invented this vicious murder cult called Islam.

fucking religion is the bane of society

Most likely a member of The Tribe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyfMiBBWwAA-AVV.jpg

islam = retardation

Thank you Imam for adding more information to answer some of the questions surrounding the history of Jerusalem. As they say, there is always two sides. In depth studies of history will show 2, 3, 4, 5 or more sides. The truth can only be determined when we have enough information from as many sources as possible.

European NATA countries to pour 100s of millions more into funding NATO. Looks like Trump has kicked another goal. The master can stick them through the big sticks from everywhere. Go the Don.

NEW POST, THIS ONE BY HARRY.

Too late for me,have to get my beauty sleep. Usually read 2-3 pages before the book drops on my forehead.Must start to read lighter fiction. Goodnight all --- I wonder what tomorrow will bring.

New article up (beat you to it IE).

O/T...I see the poor young NSW cop minding his business on a Sydney freeway has lost his life after a head-on.I bag these people constantly ,but he didn't deserve this.Wonder if the cell phone angle will be established.

The lights are on with sailor ...BUT..nobody is home!

Trump said it, " The wall is already being built."..................................

Build The Wall: Construction Progress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-f6KkLJF9c

Question: : "Is Zechariah 14:4 a prophecy about the second coming of Christ?"

Answer: Zechariah 14:4 predicts, “On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the Mount moving north and half moving south.” “That day” is a reference to the Day of the Lord, and the One who stands on the mountain is the Lord Himself. So, yes, this passage predicts the second coming of Christ.

The opening of Zechariah 14 speaks of a future day when Jerusalem will be plundered by its enemies. Verse 2 prophesies that all nations will gather against Jerusalem and capture and ransack the city. Half of the citizens of Jerusalem will flee the devastation, but the other half will remain.

They came from ships, much like 'sailor'.

Please explain.

Wait for this.
I really don't expect any epiphany from you, except that you're a deranged quarterwit, (if that), nutter.

The dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on

oliticsFederalFederal election

Scott Morrison rules out Tony Abbott's pre-election return to cabinet
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ruled out replacing the retiring Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion with Tony Abbott ahead of the next election.

Senator Scullion's decision to walk away from politics at the upcoming poll prompted a push from some conservative MPs for Mr Abbott - the special envoy on Indigenous affairs - to take his place in a minor cabinet reshuffle.

During a campaign stop with marginal seat holders in Brisbane on Wednesday, Mr Morrison was asked whether he was contemplating that change and replied, "No".

"Mr Morrison, who as treasurer was critical of a royal commission into the banking sector, has signalled the government will focus on restoring community trust in the sector with its response. He has also warned of the dangers of a credit crunch if the commission's findings go too far."

... duplicitous prick has as much integrity as Bull Shitten. Liberals are rooted.

LIBERALS MUST BRING TONY ABBOTT BACK (Chris Kenny The Australian February 2, 2019)


Rational arguments and factual analysis have become so old fashioned that right-of-centre politicians seem frightened by them. The side of politics that is supposed to eschew ideology in favour of pragmatism now cowers in the face of emotive and ideological arguments for fear of wearing a political backlash.

Earlier this week, I argued that relatively benign economic conditions, progress on fiscal repair, steady tax reductions and strong success on border protection mean the Coalition should be competitive at this year’s election — especially because federal elections are usually closely contested and Labor has opened itself up to attack with a high-risk agenda of tax increases, energy activism and border protection tinkering.

Yet any sniff of campaigning success presupposes that the Coalition may make the most of its opportunities. And Scott Morrison and his team seem almost inexplicably reluctant to do this.

The Prime Minister is taking mediocre, lame-duck cabinet ministers to the election rather than refreshing his team or recalling the country’s best political campaigner, Tony Abbott, to the frontline. If the campaign were a horse race there would be a steward’s inquiry.

If the Liberals wanted to maximise their chances, they would not hobble themselves in this way. There can be only two plausible explanations: either the government is still so riven by internal enmities that Morrison fears the recall of Abbott would foment discontent in his team, or he is fearful of the anti-conservative criticism that the former prime minister would inevitably draw from his opponents, the press gallery and social media.

The idea that Abbott — clearly the most accomplished performer in the parliament when it comes to ministerial experience, campaigning success and policy advocacy — cannot be squeezed into a pedestrian Coalition line-up is laughable and instructive. If the government is allowing its critics to dictate its actions then it could hardly be more foolish.

Yet this fear of the counter attack — a distinguishing feature of so-called Liberal moderates — seems endemic in the Coalition. It seems too implausible to think anyone in government could believe they might win an unlikely and titanic electoral struggle without engaging in battle and drawing return fire. Yet look at the missed opportunity in energy.

When the Australian Energy Market Operator ordered electricity distributors to cut power to 200,000 Victorian households and premises last Friday, it was a manifestation of years of policy failure. This load-shedding followed extensive “demand management”, where AEMO paid high-quantity power users to shut down to reduce demand, and came despite the spot price for electricity ramping up for the second day running to the maximum $14,500 per megawatt hour to suck every spark of available generation on to the grid.

The shambles was brought about by the long-term impact of the renewable energy target and other renewable policies forcing the closure of baseload coal-fired power generation in Victoria and South Australia, while also reducing opportunities for gas-fired generation. Just like the statewide blackout in SA in 2016, it was a predictable outcome from policies that have made the national electricity market more fragile and Victoria and SA more reliant on power from other states.

Despite this experience and numerous warnings, Bill Shorten and Labor are committed to a national 50 per cent renewable energy target. Almost two years ago, I wrote in these pages that SA’s energy disaster would migrate east: “Similar chaos awaits Victoria as it pursues a 40 per cent renewable target and Queensland as it chases 50 per cent. All NEM states are already suffering price and insecurity consequences that will escalate dramatically if Labor’s 50 per cent national target is adopted.”

Subsequently, AEMO has warned about generation shortfalls hitting NSW as well, especially if the Liddell coal-fired power station in the Hunter Valley closes as planned in three years. The pivotal issue that led to the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull last year was the backlash within government ranks against his plan for a bipartisan deal on climate and energy policies.

For all its public inconvenience and economic calamity, last week’s Victorian power crisis was manna from heaven for the Morrison government. Here was hard evidence to prove its claims against Shorten’s reckless energy policy. Here was the chance to point to blacked-out suburbs and plausibly claim they are the portents of more to come under a national renewable energy target of 50 per cent.

Yet the response from the government was muted, to say the least. Resources Minister Matt Canavan made some strong comments and Energy Minister Angus Taylor bought into it a few days later. But where was the prime ministerial amplification? Where was the alarm being rung on the nation’s energy future? Where was the challenge to Shorten and Labor on how their renewable goal could avoid price and reliability dilemmas?

Victorian and federal Labor MPs and the green Left generally were more organised, with risible attempts to blame the fiasco on coal-fired plants that failed or were shut for maintenance. To zealots and partisan advocates, neither the 2017 closure of the massive Hazelwood generator that once supplied 25 per cent of the state’s electricity nor the feeble efforts of wind turbines on the day were significant factors.

If this was a chance for the Coal­ition to shoot fish in a barrel and highlight one of the central policy choices for this year’s election — between the government’s approach of consolidating power supplies and Labor’s plan to redouble its renewables push — why didn’t it take it? Could it be that Morrison and Josh Frydenberg feel compromised, as architects and advocates of Turnbull’s failed national energy guarantee?

Could it be that the Coalition fears the mindless taunts of “climate denier” that come its way on this issue, or pictures of the Prime Minister with a lump of coal in his hand, or questions about how it will meet its Paris commitments?

Such squeamishness must be playing a role. This is a major mistake. The Coalition must embrace this debate, even inflame it, to focus national attention on the choice to be made. Both major parties share the blame for the vandalism of our electricity system — that cannot be denied — so the government should focus on the future and how best to remediate the situation.

With annual global emissions growing by about double Australia’s total emissions, we can afford to get our energy house in order, safe in the knowledge that whatever we do will have no impact on the international project or the earth’s atmosphere. The nation went too hard, too early, on renewable energy and needs to consolidate to protect citizens, businesses and the economy.

No one should pretend these are easy arguments in an age where emotionalism and gesture politics run amok. But the choice is either to take them up or disappear in a fog of ambiguity.

The idea that Tony Abbott cannot be squeezed into a pedestrian Coalition line-up is laughable and instructive.

well,,,,let me see,,,,,,I dont give a shit!

Why did Hitler (of cursed memory) hate the Jews? Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi & Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLqXs9hXsA4