Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Al Haram al Sharif

Showing posts with label Al Haram al Sharif. Show all posts

Sunday, February 26, 2023

Jordan trying to change the status quo on the Temple Mount

There was a brief international incident at the Temple Mount on Tuesday:

Jordan’s ambassador to Israel visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on Tuesday after earlier leaving the holy site in protest at being held up by police at the entrance, prompting a diplomatic protest from Amman.

The Jordanian foreign ministry said it summoned Israel’s envoy Eitan Surkis after Ghassan Majali was allegedly “refused entry” to the Temple Mount. A statement from the ministry said Surkis was handed a letter of condemnation.

But Israeli police — and also Jordanian reports — indicated that rather than refusing him entry, cops briefly held him up since he hadn’t coordinated the visit with them.

The Jordanian Foreign Ministry issued a statement rejecting that visits of Jordanians to the site need to be coordinated with Israel:

The political advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Ambassador Ahmed Al-Deek, considered the statements of the Israeli spokesman a flagrant violation of the existing historical, political and legal situation in the mosque.

He noted that the attempt to justify the Jordanian Ambassador Ghassan Majali's objection to the reason for the absence of "prior coordination" is also a change in the legal status of the mosque.

Ambassador Al-Deek confirmed that the Islamic Endowments Department is exclusively responsible for organizing entry and exit to the mosque, and is also responsible for all mosque affairs and its courtyards, and that Muslims do not need any prior coordination or permission from the occupation police to enter the mosque.

So Jordan claims that Israeli demands for prior coordination is a new demand, and a violation of the status quo on the holy site.

Is that true? Of course not.

In 2012, Director of the Jordanian Public Security Lieutenant General Hussein Majali visited the site "under strict Israeli guard," Arab media reported. No one complained about that - the controversy about that visit is that one of the Israeli police was a woman whose hair was uncovered.

In 2013, Prince Hashem bin Al-Hussein, King Abdullah's brother, visited the Temple Mount, also "under the escort of Israeli security and police," entering through the Mughrabi Gate that visitors use. No one said a word about any violation of the status quo.

Because it was, and is, the status quo.

In 2021, however, Jordan started signaling they wanted to change the status quo. Crown Prince Hussein bin Abdullah canceled his planned visit to the Mount at the last minute because Israeli police were going to accompany him as he entered, and he felt that this was an insult.

They didn't say at the time that Israel was violating the status quo, but that the existing status quo was unacceptable to them. (You may recall that Jordan briefly blocked Bibi Netanyahu from visiting the UAE by not giving his flight permission to cross their airspace, in a diplomatic temper tantrum.)

This week's incident must be seen in that context. Jordan wants to change the status quo, and how better to do that than to insist that Israel is violating the status quo?

That's how gaslighting works, after all.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

By calling the Temple Mount "Al Aqsa," Palestinians actually diminish its sanctity in Islam

What is the Arabic name for the Temple Mount?

The answer is political.

I was somewhat surprised to find out that calling the entire esplanade "Al Aqsa Mosque" (al-Masjid al-'Aqṣā) is not a new phenomenon. Some noted Muslim geographers and scholars used that term as early as the tenth century, as the word "masjid" is not a direct translation of "mosque."

E. H. Palmer noted this in an 1871 article for the Palestine Exploration Quarterly:

However, during the Mamluk and Ottoman periods, some people decided to elevate the sanctity of the esplanade even more.

"Haram" means "forbidden" in Arabic, meaning a place of the highest sanctity where certain activities like cutting down trees or killing animals are forbidden. Up until the Crusades the term referred exclusively to the mosques in Mecca and Medina. But after the Muslims regained Jerusalem from the Crusaders, there were some who wanted to elevate the area's sanctity even more to counter Christian claims on the site, and over time, they renamed the area the Haram al-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary.

Not all Muslim scholars agreed. Yitzhak Reiter writes in Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity:

Although, as noted before, Ibn-Taymiyya refuted the haram status of the Jerusalem mosque, al-Aqsa's upgrading to haram status was successful and has prevailed. It became a commonly accepted idea and one referred to in international forums and documents.

It was, therefore, surprising that during the 1980s the Palestinians gradually abandoned the name that had been given to the Haram/Temple Mount compound in apparent honor of Jerusalem's status as third in sanctity - al-Haram al-Sharif - in favor of its more traditional name-al-Aqsa. An examination of relevant religious texts clarifies the situation: since the name al-Aqsa appears in the Quran, all Muslims around the world should be familiar with it; thus it is easier to market the al-Aqsa brand-name.

The increased use of the name al-Aqsa is particularly striking against the background of what is written on the Web site of the Jerusalem Waqf, under the leadership of (former) Palestinian mufti Sheikh Ikrima Sabri. There it is asserted that "al Masjid al-Aqsa was erroneously called by the name al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif," and that the site's correct name is al-Aqsa. ... Sabri quotes Ibn-Taymiyya, who denied the existence of haram in Jerusalem, a claim that actually serves those seeking to undermine the city's sacred status. Sabri also states that Arab historians such as Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali, author of the famed fifteenth-century work on Jerusalem, do not make use of the term "haram" in connection with the al-Aqsa site.

Both Ibn-Taymiyya and Mujir al-Din were affiliated with the Hanbali School of law-the relatively more puritan stream in Islam that prevailed in Saudi Arabia. The Hanbalies rejected innovations, such as the idea of a third haram. One cannot exclude the possibility that the Saudis, who during the 1980s and 1990s donated significant funds to Islamic institutions in Jerusalem, exerted pressure on Palestinian-Muslim figures to abandon the term "haram" in favor of "al-Aqsa".

The entire claim that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam is based on the idea that the Temple Mount is the third haram. By changing the name back to Al Aqsa, the Palestinians are diminishing its sanctity in Islam!

But they do it for marketing purposes - Al Aqsa is mentioned in the Quran (although almost certainly not referring to Jerusalem) and the Palestinian position is that the Quranic association with the name is a better means to incite Muslims against Jewish claims than the designation "haram."

It is all political.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

01/11 Links Pt2: Col Kemp: Jew-Hate at American Universities; Caroline Glick: The ‘woke’ West is assaulting Jews for embracing their heritage with Richard Landes

From Ian:

Col Kemp: Jew-Hate at American Universities

[The Amcha] report paints a stark picture of an increasing, intensifying and carefully coordinated campaign of attacks on Jewish identity at over 60% of the colleges and universities that are popular with Jews, including 2,000 incidents intended to harm Jewish students since 2015.

[T]hese activists demand an end to Zionism, which... means just one thing: an end to the democratic State of Israel. This itself is antisemitism in any book and is spelt out as such in the US State Department definition of antisemitism.

Despite expending so much energy against their fellow students, German Gentiles had plenty left for their Jewish professors. Unsatisfied with Nazi race regulations restricting Jewish faculty, students boycotted the classes of those who were exempt under the race laws and pressured university authorities to dismiss them. The result was that every Jewish professor who was still legally allowed to teach had resigned by 1935.

The Amcha report characterises the situation on US campuses today as a crisis for American Jews. It is much more than that. It is a crisis for us all that one section of our student body is bullied, abused, intimidated and cast down by their fellow students and often abandoned by their professors and faculty authorities.

It is high time for the federal government, under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to withdraw its funding from all universities that participate in bigotry such as that.

Jonathan Tobin: Ilhan Omar is the Democrats’ problem, not Kevin McCarthy’s

By standing with Omar, Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have effectively normalized antisemitism. And McCarthy’s effort to punish her will again test whether they mean what they say when they speak of their opposition to hate.

As was the case with Greene and Gosar last year, it will take a vote by the majority of the House to remove Omar from her perch on the Foreign Relations Committee. Given the GOP’s narrow majority, the fate of Schiff (who repeatedly lied about the hoax he helped promote that former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election) and Swalwell (who had an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy) will also be part of the same debate.

Democrats will also answer the list of Omar’s antisemitic statements and actions with their own brand of “whataboutism,” which will involve McCarthy’s recent embrace of Greene, who was an ally during his fight for the speaker’s chair. They’ll bring up other Republicans for censure, as well. One is Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), who lied about just about everything during his campaign for election, including whether he was Jewish.

If every member of Congress or the executive branch had to be censured for lying, however, Washington would soon be emptied of politicians, including Biden, who takes second place to no one when it comes to being a serial fabulist. Moreover, there is an argument to be made that neither party should be engaging in this kind of tit-for-tat punishment.

If the voters think they deserve nothing better than to be represented by such scoundrels, perhaps it’s best if we leave it to them to decide at the ballot box who should sit in Congress or on committees. As the great cynic, journalist H.L. Mencken wrote, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

Nevertheless, if the Democrats are going to play this game, then McCarthy can hardly be blamed for answering in kind. And if House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) isn’t prepared to agree to remove Omar, then the speaker is justified in seeking to oust her.

At stake here is not the broader question of how much extremism or bad behavior Congress should be willing to tolerate in its members. Rather, it is specifically one that will force Democrats to decide what is more important to them.

Is it the fight against antisemitism at a time when Jew-hatred is on the rise throughout the globe? Or is their true allegiance to identity politics and the toxic intersectional myths that allow Omar to paint herself as an oppressed victim, rather than a hatemonger, simply because of the color of her skin?

Caroline Glick: The ‘woke’ West is assaulting Jews for embracing their heritage

As Israel is being pilloried at the U.N. Security Council by friend and foe alike for daring to allow Jews to visit the Temple Mount, professor Richard Landes joins Caroline Glick on this week’s episode of the “Caroline Glick Show” to discuss the contemporary roots of the demonization of Jews and the Jewish state.

Landes recently published “Can the Whole World Be Wrong: Lethal Journalism, Anti-Semitism and the Global Jihad,” the product of 22 years of work.

He began his study of the subject in the aftermath of the first modern blood libel, the alleged killing of Muhammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, by IDF forces in Gaza on Sept. 30, 2000.

The false allegation that the boy was killed by IDF forces that day, and that they murdered him deliberately, formed the basis of a massive propaganda effort. Its product has been the legitimization of the mass murder of Jews in Israel and worldwide by Palestinians and other jihadists.

Landes argues that the West’s embrace of the al-Dura blood libel was the foundation not only of the antisemitism assaulting the Jewish people worldwide today, but also of the West’s inability to acknowledge, let alone defeat, the forces of global jihad, whether in the United States or Europe or in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and beyond.

Glick and Landes examine the current pathologies of the “woke” West—including the assault on Jews for embracing their heritage, by among other things, visiting the Temple Mount—through the prism of the al-Dura incident. Their conversation traverses space and time and ends with vital insights into what needs to happen for the West to survive the ravages of the Red-Green alliance which was born with the al-Dura blood libel.

Listen to the horrifying sounds of "Talmudic rituals at Al Aqsa"

Shehab News Agency last week published video of "Settlers performing Talmudic rituals during their storming of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque."

Turn up your sound to hear how disruptive they are to the sanctity of Al Haram al Sharif:

Starting at 0:12, you can hear the birds who are clearly in distress at the desecration they are witnessing.

Even worse, here we see the extremist usurping Jewish settlers provoking Muslims by smiling during their storming.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

US State Department Religious Freedom Report seems to OPPOSE religious freedom for Jews on the Temple Mount

The US State Department's 2021 Report on International Religious Freedom was recently released. It has quite a large section on Israel, much of it about religious coercion by Orthodox in Israel towards other denominations.

But one theme on that and the West Bank/Gaza page was seemingly against religious freedom.

When it discusses Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, the tone of the report is decidedly negative, which is quite strange for a report that is supposed to support freedom and rights for religion:

According to local media, some Jewish groups performed religious acts such as prayers and prostration on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount despite the ban on non-Islamic prayer. The Israeli government reiterated that overt non-Islamic prayer was not allowed on the grounds of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. NGOs, media, and Jewish Temple Mount advocacy groups continued to report that in practice, police generally allowed discreet non-Muslim prayer on the site. The news website Al-Monitor reported in October that although the country’s two chief rabbis repeatedly said Jews were not to set foot in the Temple Mount out of concern they could inadvertently step into an area which, in Jewish law, it was forbidden to enter unless one was ritually pure. In recent years, some Jews had entered the mosque and tried to offer prayers.

No Jews entered the mosque. The State Department is adopting the absurd recent Palestinian claim that the entire Temple Mount is a mosque. (If it was, then no Muslim would be allowed to wear shoes on the entire complex!)

In August, the New York Times reported that Rabbi Yehuda Glick, whom the newspaper described as a “right-wing former lawmaker,” led “efforts to change the status quo for years” and said that Glick livestreamed his prayers from the site. The report said that although the government officially allowed non-Muslims to visit the site each morning on the condition that they did not pray there, “In reality, dozens of Jews now openly pray every day [at the site]… and their Israeli police escorts no longer attempt stop them.” The New York Times reported that Glick and activists ultimately sought to build a third Jewish Temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock, an idea that Azzam Khatib, the deputy chairman of the Waqf council, said “will lead to a civil war.”

The same article said that Glick only wanted to build the Third Temple in dialogue with Muslims, not above their objections, and it would be open to all religions. Both of those facts should be relevant but the report seems to want to paint the Jews as extremists who want to forcibly take over the Mount.

According to the Religion News Service, one group known as the Temple Institute hoped to build a third temple where one of the al-Aqsa complex’s three mosques now stands and to reinstate ritual animal sacrifices. The group’s website reported that it was working with an architect on a design. In September, al-Monitor reported, “In the past, doing so [praying out loud or making movements of genuflection], could lead to the person being detained and ejected from the site, as Jews are not allowed to pray there. But more recently, a warning is reportedly more common. Last July Israel’s Channel 12 filmed Jews praying silently at the site while police officers watched.” Police continued to screen non-Muslims for religious articles. Police allowed Jewish male visitors who were visibly wearing a kippah and tzitzit (fringes), and those who wished to enter the site barefoot (in accordance with interpretations of halacha, Jewish religious law) to enter with a police escort.

On October 5, the Jerusalem Magistrate Court ruled that “silent Jewish prayer” on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount did not violate existing police rules on the site. The ruling was in response to a case involving a 15-day administrative restraining order against a man whom police had removed from the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount on September 29 on grounds that he disturbed public order by engaging in Jewish prayer. The judge ruled that silent prayer “does not in itself violate police instructions” that prohibit “external and overt” non-Muslim prayer on the site. Al-Monitor said the Magistrate’s Court’s ruling was “unprecedented” and “seem[ed] to question the status quo that has prevailed over the site.” The Jerusalem District Court overturned the lower court’s ruling on October 8, ruling that the INP had acted “within reason,” and “the fact that there was someone who observed [him] pray is evidence that his prayer was overt.” Minister of Public Security Bar-Lev supported the appeal, saying “a change in the status quo will endanger public security and could cause a flare-up.” The Waqf said the lower court’s ruling was “a flagrant violation” of the complex’s sanctity and a “clear provocation” for Muslims.

This report is framing the Jews who want true religious freedom as fanatics who are somehow limiting Muslim religious freedom. The supposed "status quo," which was by definition antisemitic in that it forbade Jews from prayer, is held up as an ideal.

(h/t Irene)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!