NPR Report from Jerusalem

[Marc Peterson]

"Rumors that Orthodox Jews planned to march on the most sacred Muslim and Jewish shrine in the Holy Land apparently fueled the unrest in Jerusalem, the city at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The low-level violence has inflamed political passions, stoked breathless reports in the Israeli and Arab media and laid bare once again just how much of a tinderbox Jerusalem is."

So ... a Jewish Holy place, where the conquering Muslims tore down a Jewish temple, built a mosque and claimed as their own "holy place", in contradiction of the Koran which makes no mention of or claim on the city of Jerusalem, and which place is now closed to Jews, is a "tinderbox of conflict" because Jews, wishing to exercise their right to worship, are trying to enter this place?

It does not serve justice or peace to merely "be nice" and give in to extremists within the Muslim faith who are much more imperialistic than any religious/ political group today.

[Micah Schuurman]

The Muslims did NOT tear down the temple. The Romans destroyed it when they leveled Jerusalem in 70 AD.

In fact, I do not know of a single instance where they tore down a religious building belonging to Jews or Christians. The Qoran tells Muslims to protect the "People of the Book." When the Muslims got there and began to construct the Dome of the Rock, the mount was little more than a trash heap.

As far as the importance of Jerusalem in Islam:
Muslims began praying towards Jerusalem. It was only after Mohammed had been in Medina for a few years that he received the revelation that they should pray towards Mecca.
Also, Mohammed made a midnight trip to the temple mount (the place where Abraham went with the purpose of sacrificing his son) and from there, he ascended to heaven.

There is no doubt that Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam.

Regarding Jewish rights to go onto the temple mount, the national rabbis of Israel have forbidden Jews from setting foot on the temple mount for fear that they might inadvertently walk through the Holy of Holies.

You must view the Muslim reaction in the light of their feeling of marginalization. They are being pushed out of the city by racially based distribution of building permits, bulldozing of homes and general intimidation. Broadly speaking, Israeli policies in the Old City amount to nothing short of ethnic cleansing. The mosques on the Temple Mount are the last bastion for many of these people. It is the one thing that they feel in control of. Can you blame them if they respond negatively when religious nuts threaten their shrine? There have been more than one attempt to blow up the site for the rebuilding of the temple.

I've personally seen how the ultra-orthodox Jews behave in Jerusalem. It is about intimidation. They want the Palestinians to remember how precarious their plight is. It is evil.

I would like it if the Palestinians felt secure enough to not feel threatened by the idea of Jews visiting the Temple Mount. But, the truth is that they have good reason to feel threatened. If the Jews want to gain access to the mount without angering Palestinians, they should start by promising that they have no intentions of destroying the mosque and rebuilding the temple.

[Micah Schuurman]

I want to make one quick clarification.
I wrote that I did not know of a single instance where Muslims tore down a religious building belonging to Christians or Jews. I need to clarify that. I was speaking of the first dozen centuries of Muslim rule. Recent history however IS filled with stories of radical Muslims burning down churches. But, to be honest, I hardly think of these radicals as Muslims at all. Calling them Muslim is like calling Timothy McVeigh a Christian. Strictly speaking, McVeigh claimed to follow Christ, but his way of living that out is hardly recognizable as the Christianity that I love. In the same way, many Muslims are upset by the bad name that the radicals give to Islam.
I just thought that I would try to make that clear.

[Marc Peterson]

Well, I've got to get some sleep but to respond to one minor detail quickly; I understand the difference between Jihadists and Muslims but your metaphor is wrong. Timothy McVeigh did not claim to follow Christ. As far as I have read, he was an agnostic with some Aryan-cult beliefs. Jihadists get their messages straight from their imams in hundreds of mosques every week.

[Micah Schuurman]

You can't separate McVeigh from the Branch Davidians.

Also, McVeigh talks about his religious roots in this interview.

Most "jihadists" do what they do for what you and I would call "secular" reasons. A number of the men who made the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11 frequented bars! A Muslim who drinks would be like a Christian abortion doctor. Most of the mainline people within the religion would seriously question their salvation.

All in all, I think that the analogy is wonderfully appropriate. They are quasi-religious people who do acts of violence for the sake of radical political beliefs, often expressed through religious language.

[Marc Peterson]

Micah, moral equivalence is not a Christian trait. All people are sinful but that doesn't mean we have no differences here between these groups. Jews have not seen the true path to salvation yet, but they are worshiping Yahweh. Islam is from Satan so we should expect it to be deceitful, correct? Yet you are giving a narrative above that sounds kind of oddly literal. I think you are just stating these events as they say they happened, but you seem to give all your sympathy and benefit of the doubt to one group only. You say, when prodded, that the Arab world is using the palestinians, but you don't seem to write many angry posts here about that enormous obstacle to peace and you get kind of peeved when someone suggests that it might not be mostly Israel's fault.

Now, When Mohammed wanted to convert the Jews in the 620s C.E., he adopted several Jewish-style practices - a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of worship, kosher-style food restrictions - and also tachanun-like prayers while facing Jerusalem. But when most Jews rejected Mohammed's overtures, there was yet another "revelation" that changed the prayer direction to Mecca and Jerusalem lost importance for Moslems.

Jerusalem regained stature a few decades later when rulers of the Umayyad dynasty sought ways to enhance the importance of their territories. One way was by building two monumental religious structures in Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock in 691 and Al-Aqsa Mosque in 715.

Then they did something tricky: The Koran states that God took Mohammed "by night from the sacred mosque in Mecca to the furthest (al-aqsa) place of worship." When this passage was revealed (about 621), "furthest place of worship" was a turn of phrase, not a specific place. Decades later, the Umayyads built a mosque in Jerusalem and called it Al-Aqsa. Moslems since then understand the passage about the "furthest place of worship" as referring to Jerusalem.

Then, with the crusades, we have Jerusalem used as a rallying cry again and it re-gained importance until they captured it in 1187. Once it was in Muslim hands again, it became obscure. The muslim population dwindled and the walls even fell and it stayed non-important for 700-some years until the British captured it in 1917. Then, the arab people in palestine shifted their focus from Amman to Jerusalem until it was under their control again in 1948. No Arab leader (except King Hussein a couple of times) even visited the city. The PLO charter of 1964 doesn't even mention Jerusalem. Strangely enough, the PLO charter of 1968 (one year after Israel took control of it does mention it prominently. Iran suddenly declared Jerusalem vital and put a picture of it on their money.

What I am trying to show you is that Islam is a complete ideology and politics is a huge part of it. It seems obvious that since the Koran does not mention its importance, any actions since then should be seen in the light of territory-legitimizing and some of their leaders' hatred of Jews. The "People of the Book" gentleness that you mention is really a series of laws limiting non-muslim behavior. If a Jewish or Christian living in muslim-controlled land does not attempt to proselytize and pays due tribute to their betters, they are usually left alone under the pact of Dhimma.

If we closely follow the Bible's teachings, we would be of no danger to anyone. If a Muslim followed the letter of the Koran (which, thankfully most do not) they would be a danger to any non-muslim.

[Micah Schuurman]

We seem to be talking in circles around each other. I would really like to meet you and talk to you in person. Perhaps that would help us to come to a better understanding.
I recently began studying at Calvin Seminary, so I am in the area. My email address is [e-mail]. Lets try to set up a time where we can meet and get to the heart of this issue. Talking past each other online does not seem to have led us to any sort of resolution.