A question about access to holy sites

[Don Corleone]

I want to begin by saying that I am not attempting the opening of yet another 'bash Islam' thread. If this degrades into 'what do you expect', then I would like to ask the moderators to close the thread immediately. Likewise, the first person who mentions the crusades or Saladin's reconquest of Jersualem gets :tomato: Let's stick to a rational discussion of present day events.

That being said, it would appear that muslims have recently decided to not allow Christians or Jews access to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is a site that is holy to all 3 of the monotheistic relgions.... it was the site of the Temple of Solomon, it was where Jesus was tried and convicted, and it was where Mohammed ascended into heaven.

I would find it deeply offensive for Christians or Jews to deny access to Al Aqsa to Muslims. My question is why the Waqf, the Muslim caretakers of the Temple Mount, feel entitled to deny access to the rest of us?

Is there something in Islam that demands that when Islam shares a holy site with other religions, the other religions not be allowed to practice their faith or worship there? I'm not trying to inflame passions, I'd really like to know if this is an aspect of Islam, or is it a question of misapplied faith (ala Rev Fred Phelps out in Kansas, lest we Christians get to be too sanctimonious). What can we as Christians, and the Jews out there, do to be allowed to pray and worship at sites that you as Muslims control? If I wanted to go and say a rosary on the Temple Mount, what would it take?

In case you're all scratching your heads, I'm referring to this...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49454


The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It still is open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount.

During "open" days, Jews and Christian are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without permission of the Wafq. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

[Proletariat]

Your link takes me to microsoft.com

Edit: Read the excerpt, removed my question

[KukriKhan]

To be clear Don, you are asking if there is some Qu'ranic prohibition to the very presence of non-believers in designated Muslim holy sites?

Or something else?

[Don Corleone]

Well, both really. Under the best of circumstances, it would appear that the Muslim caretakers of the Temple Mount, the Waqf, only allow limited access to the holy site... it must be treated as an attraction... no prayers or religious objects such as crosses or prayer scrolls allowed. Also, access to non-Muslims is only granted at times the Waqf feel appropriate: Monday through Thursday, and never on a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish holy day. Why?

But now, apparently, all access to non-Muslims has been cut off. Why?

[KukriKhan]

Those are much broader questions, then. Just looking at your word "Now", seems to imply that the access is variable, historically, depending on who is politically/militarily in charge.

I think I remember some Jewish restrictions on who may enter temple, especially inner-sanctums. I don't recall specific Christian prohibitions against non-believers being present in churches. And I confess woeful ignorance of Qu'ranic injunctions... so I guess I'll sit this one out as a reader, with the parting thought that it seems to be political, not religeous - and all tied up in the Jerusalem/East Jerusalem - capital of Israel/capital of Palestine imbroglio.

[master of the puppets]

i know little of the quaran but i have to agree with KukriKhan, its probably nothing relgious, just pompous and self-rightious jerks doing what they want under the guise of religion.

[Dâriûsh]

That being said, it would appear that muslims have recently decided to not allow Christians or Jews access to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is a site that is holy to all 3 of the monotheistic relgions.... it was the site of the Temple of Solomon, it was where Jesus was tried and convicted, and it was where Mohammed ascended into heaven. Your quote left out this part:


The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.


:book:


But I know what you meant, so I'll comment further after I shower. ~:)

[Don Corleone]

Your quote left out this part:



:book:


But I know what you meant, so I'll comment further after I shower. ~:)

Oh, I don't argue. The Wafq has no capability to enforce their rules directly. The article makes it clear that it's the Israeli army, acting on behalf of the Wafq, that keeps non-Muslims from entering the checkpoints and confiscating non-Muslim religious articles.

But they do that to keep the Wafq from inciting a riot. So the Israeli army is the club, not the arm that wields, it in this case.

My question is why Muslims find religious expressions from Christians and Jews, at a site that was holy to Christians for hundreds and Jews for thousands of year before Muhammed was born, so gosh-darned offensive? If the dhimini truly receive equal treatment, and if Islam does call for respect for the other peoples of the book, wouldn't this be an ideal place to prove it? Think of the PR you could get out of that...

<Speaking as a Hamas spokesman>: Folks, we are not terrorists. We welcome Jews to come visit the tomb of the patriarch. Christians are welcome to come and pray in Nazareth or Bethlemhem any time they like. All are welcome to the great holy site of brotherhood, the Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount compound. We will guarantee their safety, and we hope that through this mutual respect of beliefs, Jews and Christians alike can come to see that what is going on in Palestine and Israel is a question of politics and mutual respect, not religious hatred. <end spokestalk>.

If nothing else, you're allowing those on my side of the fence, with whom I do disagree (publicly in this forum, as a matter of fact) to paint you in a very dark light indeed. It's stories like this that generate that 'intolerant' stereotype that Muslims take such offense to.

By the way, my apologies for the broken status of the original link. I fixed it, so it should take you there. Apparently the ghost in the machine didn't care for my choice of link text, so I took it out of URL tags.

[Al Khalifah]

I believe (although I am not sure) that since the site was captured during the Six-Day War that it was the Government of Israeli which decided that only Muslims should be allowed to pray on the site.

[Dâriûsh]

I think both Jews and Christians should have a place of worship on the Temple Mount, if they so desire. Assuming, of course, the Chief Rabbis could agree on whether or not Jews are allowed prayer, let alone access, on the Mount (some prominent members of the Chief Rabbinate banned Jewish access to the mount a long time ago).

However, the main problem is in the last few decades these Wafq guys have managed to claim the entire Mount as a sacred zone, not just the Dome and the Al-Aqsa, and the Israeli government has unfortunately agreed. And as usual neither group cares about the Arab Christians.


Edit:


I believe (although I am not sure) that since the site was captured during the Six-Day War that it was the Government of Israeli which decided that only Muslims should be allowed to pray on the site.

Indeed they did. I guess it was a necessary political decision at the time.

Edit2: Salam Al Khalifah, are you Muslim?

[rory_20_uk]

Out of all the hills in all of Palestine the same one get used for those three events??? What are the odds?:dizzy2:

I imagine that the restriction of people can be construed as allowed or forbidden depending on what you read where - and if that's not enough just interperet something and say who wrote it meant the site youhad in mind.

Look at that Christian who was nearly killed in Afghanastan. They got himoff saying he was medically ill which is a cop out really, but since there was no other solution it was the best one could hope for. I've read scholars who have taken views that he should die and that he did nothing wrong - based on different sources.

As usal, God isn't the problem. He just needs to take more time and effort choosing the people who speak on his behalf. IMO he needs to "kick upstairs" those that have misunderstood the message.

~:smoking:

[Kanamori]

some prominent members of the Chief Rabbinate banned Jewish access to the mount a long time ago

I didn't think that any sort of Judaism was this centralised. I wonder what is keeping any sort of Jew from saying, "I disagree, it's this way." Does anyone know if reform/reconstructionist Jews are free to enter as they please? Because they have thrown out most of the Talmud and all of the rules that go along with it, following the end of the Temple and Rabbinic period.

[English assassin]

Treading carefully here, (not least because I am about to put my Navaros hat on) I don't see this as all that surprising. I can't speak with any knowledge for muslims, but from what I remember of the bible its pretty clear that there is one god (ie, "God", conveniently for those of us with poor memories for names) that believing in Jesus as the son of God is not an optional part of going to heaven, and that God wants us to behave in certain ways (basically, to be nice to each other, which in fairness to God is not a bad idea, and we really ought to try it at some point.)

My point is if you rock up and announce you believe in "Allah" or "Yahweh" and not "God" then you might be a very nice person but its pretty clear from the bible, not that you are going to hell exactly (since the bible points out that men do not know who is going to hell which certain reverends might do well to remember) but that you've made some pretty serious wrong choices. Its all very unfortunate but then we don't make the rules etc etc....

For all his drawbacks I always felt Navaros couldn't be faulted either for insisting that this really was what following a religion meant, or for taking it to the logical conclusion. You can temper that with a bit of Christian compassion but that's about it.

On that basis the wonder is that anyone was ever allowed in to worship their "false" gods, not that the authorities are now banning Christians and jews.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

My point is if you rock up and announce you believe in "Allah" or "Yahweh" and not "God"

I thought that Middle Eastern Christians tended to call God, Allah too.

[English assassin]

I thought that Middle Eastern Christians tended to call God, Allah too.


Very wise of them...

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Very wise of them...

:laugh4:

:2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

For all his drawbacks I always felt Navaros couldn't be faulted either for insisting that this really was what following a religion meant, or for taking it to the logical conclusion. You can temper that with a bit of Christian compassion but that's about it.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you really knew me, you would now my Father also.
John 14:6-7

Sounds clear to me, so I'll have to agree. Frankly I don't see how you can believe that only parts of the Bible are right, instead of the whole book being entirely fiction, or entirely true.

Except that I clearly recall Navaros saying that "torah believing" jews and "quran believing" muslims also go to heaven, and he has frequently defended muslim fundamentalists.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Treading carefully here, (not least because I am about to put my Navaros hat on) I don't see this as all that surprising. I can't speak with any knowledge for muslims, but from what I remember of the bible its pretty clear that there is one god (ie, "God", conveniently for those of us with poor memories for names) that believing in Jesus as the son of God is not an optional part of going to heaven, and that God wants us to behave in certain ways (basically, to be nice to each other, which in fairness to God is not a bad idea, and we really ought to try it at some point.)

My point is if you rock up and announce you believe in "Allah" or "Yahweh" and not "God" then you might be a very nice person but its pretty clear from the bible, not that you are going to hell exactly (since the bible points out that men do not know who is going to hell which certain reverends might do well to remember) but that you've made some pretty serious wrong choices. Its all very unfortunate but then we don't make the rules etc etc....

For all his drawbacks I always felt Navaros couldn't be faulted either for insisting that this really was what following a religion meant, or for taking it to the logical conclusion. You can temper that with a bit of Christian compassion but that's about it.

On that basis the wonder is that anyone was ever allowed in to worship their "false" gods, not that the authorities are now banning Christians and jews.
well, god is god is god, Allah is the arabic for god so i may refer to god as Allah if i so wish, we (muslims jews and christians) all worship the god of Abraham with the same name ''God'' in our respective languages, this is the one area that i find Navros correct as i too think that good muslims and Jews will proably go to heaven (but as you so rightly said i can say nothing for sure) this is a different matter to other religions, Islam has fought polytheistic religions as cristianity did, from the beggining and indeed it was not the christians that were refered to as unbelieveing infidels but those of polytheistic religions. Now there will be some christians who will say that i won't go to heaven im sure, but that does not mean that we do not worship the same god! :laugh4:

I don't think god is looking for a reason to send you to hell i think he is looking for reasons to bring you to heaven, im sure that there are muslims that have served god better then me! :laugh4:

i always remember what CS Lewis wrote in the last of the Narnia books as the world ended and a worshiper of the ''devil'' character in the book came to Aslan (the christ figure) Aslan said that the good this man had done was not in service of the devil but actually in service of him and all the Evil that was done in the service of Aslan was actually in service of the Devil character. This reflects how i feel on the matter and jesus did say what ever you do for the least of your brothers you do for him.

[Reenk Roink]

Except that I clearly recall Navaros saying that "torah believing" jews and "quran believing" muslims also go to heaven, and he has frequently defended muslim fundamentalists.

Quotes? Really?

I knew Navaros supported the Danish cartoon protesters because of their "conviction" but never saw him say anything along those lines...


Very wise of them...

Well, it's more of just following proper Arabic vocabulary...

[Kralizec]

I know Nav longer then most of you, from a totally different forum in fact, where he did say something along those lines ~;)

[Don Corleone]

So, back to my original question... why?

Dairush basically said "well, you should be allowed but you're not, get over it".

Let me put the question another way... if this is the way Islam views 'getting along with others', is there any reason we shouldn't take you at the word of the Waqf types that your true mission is spreading Sharia by any means necessary?

I asked what it would take to say a Christian prayer at the place Jesus was condemened to die. I got told, 'Tough luck, buddy, it's the way it is". Yet, I'm a bigot if I suggest that Islam isn't as tolerant as Christianity or Judiasm... both of which allow Muslims to worship in areas they control, as the Muslims see fit. Hmmm.....:juggle2:

[Papewaio]

All Israel Will Be Saved
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this is[f] my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[g]
28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. 32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Same God as the Christians... Paul also refers to the Jews as the Roots and the Gentiles as the newly grafted on branches...

BTW who can prepare Halal food?

[Sjakihata]

Well, Christians, at least catholic ones, do a lot of things that's not necessarily in the bible - they do them for political reasons, I believe the same would be true for any religion. That's why securalism is so biip important

[English assassin]

I asked what it would take to say a Christian prayer at the place Jesus was condemened to die. I got told, 'Tough luck, buddy, it's the way it is". Yet, I'm a bigot if I suggest that Islam isn't as tolerant as Christianity or Judiasm... both of which allow Muslims to worship in areas they control, as the Muslims see fit. Hmmm.....

Aha, well, if that's your point DC, then may I comment that "by their fruits ye shall know them"? (Well, they say the devil can quote scripture).

In other words, my humble advice is to stop asking about what the Koran says, stop worrying about all these protestations that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and observe that when we look at deeds and actions we find that Islam is indeed largely an intolerate and militant faith.

Put in secular terms, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

Of course as a Christian you are duty bound to turn the other cheek and remain tolerate yourself but hey, who said religion was going to be easy?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

It is only to sad that Islam is now seen as an intolerant faith, up until recently it had a better track record then christianity, but i can only hope that there are still enough peaceful muslims out there, that calling the religion intollerant would be incorrect. But things as they are now you are probably right.

[Al Khalifah]

To blame all Islam for the intollerance of its leaders and to say that all Muslims are intollerant people because of their preachings is harsh in the extreme. I fear that the people of Islam recieve an unfair press because it is only the extremists and radical clerics who are given any serious air-time at all, because nobody really cares about the opinions of a liberal Muslim, since it doesn't sell papers unless it's being used to 'present a balanced argument.' Is it fair to say that all the people of North Korea are ruthless, militant, anti-Western maniacs? No it is not. I have been to Damascus, I have been to P'yŏngyang - the normal people there are much as you and I, except poorer.

We are so used to seeing Western people on television behaving normally and writing in the papers in a fair and balanced manor that we accept this as the norm. Yet, when it comes to Islam, we choose to highlight the outrageous and the inciteful. In addition, because of the under-representation of Arabs in the western media we take this as being their sole view point and we tar them all with the same brush. The equivalent would be if Al Jazeera only presented the teachings of Robert Killroy Silk.

The fact on this issue is that it is the Government of Israel who has stated that Jews should not be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount - not the Waqf. They took this action, which although I believe was the wrong one, for the right reasons. There is a history of hate violence there and the majority of it has been directed against the Muslims and the buildings of the Islamic faith. In 1969 Michael Dennis Rohan set the Al-Aqsa mosque on fire, believing that it would need to be removed before the temple could be rebuilt and so allowing the return of the Messiah. Alan Goodman shot two Palestinians there. These are the actions of individuals, but until we can resolve our differences, we need to safeguard against such actions. As usual, Israel is in a no win situation.


Salam Al Khalifah, are you Muslim?
Wa alaikum assalam Dâriûsh. Well not exactly no, I'm a Christian, but I'm a believer in the one family theory so wherever possible I try not to draw such distinctions. In the line of the tangent from this thread, I would rather my heaven were filled with the greatest Muslims than those who would do evil in the name of Christ.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

To blame all Islam for the intollerance of its leaders and to say that all Muslims are intollerant people because of their preachings is harsh in the extreme. I fear that the people of Islam recieve an unfair press because it is only the extremists and radical clerics who are given any serious air-time at all, because nobody really cares about the opinions of a liberal Muslim, since it doesn't sell papers unless it's being used to 'present a balanced argument.' Is it fair to say that all the people of North Korea are ruthless, militant, anti-Western maniacs? No it is not. I have been to Damascus, I have been to P'yŏngyang - the normal people there are much as you and I, except poorer.

We are so used to seeing Western people on television behaving normally and writing in the papers in a fair and balanced manor that we accept this as the norm. Yet, when it comes to Islam, we choose to highlight the outrageous and the inciteful. In addition, because of the under-representation of Arabs in the western media we take this as being their sole view point and we tar them all with the same brush. The equivalent would be if Al Jazeera only presented the teachings of Robert Killroy Silk.

The fact on this issue is that it is the Government of Israel who has stated that Jews should not be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount - not the Waqf. They took this action, which although I believe was the wrong one, for the right reasons. There is a history of hate violence there and the majority of it has been directed against the Muslims and the buildings of the Islamic faith. In 1969 Michael Dennis Rohan set the Al-Aqsa mosque on fire, believing that it would need to be removed before the temple could be rebuilt and so allowing the return of the Messiah. Alan Goodman shot two Palestinians there. These are the actions of individuals, but until we can resolve our differences, we need to safeguard against such actions. As usual, Israel is in a no win situation.
very true but the west needs to see more moderate muslims opposing extreme views, just the same as moderate christians should oppose madmen like phelps, muslims need to speak up against the extremists (the many muslims that have lobbied for the reliese of hostages is a very good start)


Wa alaikum assalam Dâriûsh. Well not exactly no, I'm a Christian, but I'm a believer in the one family theory so wherever possible I try not to draw such distinctions. In the line of the tangent from this thread, I would rather my heaven were filled with the greatest Muslims than those who would do evil in the name of Christ.
I agree with your sentiment but i must point out that there is a difference between Islam and christianity Jesus said there would be no more genuine prophets. Both religions worship the same god so of course i can see the argument for no distinctions to be made, but as a christian if i believe in the bible, i must believe that muhammed was not a genuine prophet.

Also muslims do not preach forgiveness as much or seem to place as much importance in it (perhaps this is an extremist smokescreen as well).

[Al Khalifah]

It's a case of interpretation I suppose. Muhammed's message (in its undoctored form) was a positive message - therefore, his 'genuineness' is of secondary concern to me. As I said, if all Muslims followed the actual teaching of Muhammed then the world would be a better place. I know for a fact that the merchants of hatred who portray themselves as Islamic (or Christian) preachers are nothing more than false and deserve the harshest punishment in this life and the next.

Also muslims do not preach forgiveness as much or seem to place as much importance in it (perhaps this is an extremist smokescreen as well).
Yes.
"Forgive our brothers who came before us in faith" 59:10

[Byzantine Mercenary]

It's a case of interpretation I suppose. Muhammed's message (in its undoctored form) was a positive message - therefore, his 'genuineness' is of secondary concern to me. As I said, if all Muslims followed the actual teaching of Muhammed then the world would be a better place. I know for a fact that the merchants of hatred who portray themselves as Islamic (or Christian) preachers are nothing more than false and deserve the harshest punishment in this life and the next.oh i don't doubt the positivity of the message, and agree with your sentiments but that is a different issue then saying that there is no great distinction, as a christian i must believe muhammed to be a false prophet and all muslims must believe jesus to have not been the messiah, these differences are probably unreconcilable


Yes.
"Forgive our brothers who came before us in faith" 59:10
thats not quite what i meant, i was more talking about forgiveness for all those who truly repent, rather then by forfilling requirments or just following religious laws. Indeed the very idea that by following jesus i need forgiveness is a little condecending