"The occupation of Jerusalem" (Burak Bekdil, Hurriyet)

In the Hurriyet Daily News, in an op-ed that starts off criticizing Israel for its reaction to Günter Grass’ poem, Burak Bekdil notes something very important:

Hardly a day passes in the Islamic world (or in the western intellectual world) without people standing up against and decrying the occupation of “al-Quds” (otherwise known as Jerusalem). In this column I have often argued otherwise: A counter-occupation is no occupation.

Now, dear Islamists, I have a “witness” whom I guess you could hardly refute. Forget my words and listen to what Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, had to say just last week: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds he was invited to pray at a church (since there were no mosques in Jerusalem). But he politely refused because he was worried that the (conquering) Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there.”

Now, read that line once again, or a thousand times if you wish to: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds…” And think about why there were no mosques in Jerusalem at the time of the conquest. Still no clue? Allow me to explain: Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. And now you claim it back because it is under “Jewish occupation!”

The refusal to pray at the church was very noble of the Prophet Omar. I personally do not expect you, dear Islamists, to behave as virtuously and gallantly as the prophet, but at least you can do something easier: Stop fighting for a city that belonged to other faiths before your ancestors conquered it. And please recall my witness when you flood my inbox with more hate-mail tomorrow. Or is Professor Görmez, too, an infidel like me?

Notice that this shows that even Islamists know that there was no "farthest mosque" ("Al Aqsa") in Jerusalem when Mohammed had his flying horse dream. They just say that there was to justify their own occupation of the city.

(h/t Simone)