The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Ilana Mercer ArchiveBlogview
Make Jerusalem Safe Again

RELOCATING the American Embassy to Jerusalem, as President Donald Trump has pledged to do, is more than symbolic. It’s what Christians should be praying for if they value celebrating future Easter Holy Weeks, in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in Jerusalem’s Old City. With such a forceful gesture, the Trump Administration will be affirming, for once and for all, the undivided Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish State.

There’s a reason Muslims living in Israel proper—1.5 million of them—don’t migrate to the adjacent Palestinian Authority. They’re better off in Israel. Should Jerusalem, East and West, be recognized formally as the capital of Israel only, under Jewish control alone; Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off. Judaism’s holy sites will be safer. And so will Islam’s.

Jerusalem is no settlement to be haggled over; it’s the capital of the Jewish State. King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era. “Yerushalaim,” and not Al Quds, is the name of the city that was sacred to Jews for nearly two thousand years before Muhammad. Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran. And while Muhammad was said to have departed to the heavens from the Al Aksa Mosque, there was no mosque in Jerusalem. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque were built upon the Jewish Temple Mount. Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.

Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.

It’s bad enough that Bethlehem—the burial site of the matriarch Rachel, birthplace to King David and Jesus and site of the Church of the Nativity—is controlled by the Palestinians. But, as one wag wondered, “How would Christians react if the Muslim theologians aforementioned had chosen to appropriate the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, rename it and declare it Muslim property?”

There is nothing Solomonic about splitting up Jerusalem, which—it bears repeating—was sacred to Jews for nearly two millennia before Muhammad and is not in the Quran. “The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem,” notes Dr. Daniel Pipes, is political, not religious or historic. As such, it’s also a recent project. “Centuries of neglect came to an abrupt end after June 1967, when the Old City came under Israeli control,” explains Pipes. “Palestinians [then] again made Jerusalem the centerpiece of their political program, [when, in fact] Mecca is the eternal city of Islam, the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden. Very roughly speaking, [Mecca is to Islam] what Jerusalem is to Judaism.”

East Jerusalem was not annexed in June of 1967. Rather, Jerusalem was unified.

Loose paraphrasing of U.N. resolution 242 requires Israel to give the Golan Heights to Syria (which is tantamount to returning land to the aggressors) and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in East Jerusalem. For their concessions, this “peace initiative” entitles Israelis to “an effective veto” on the national suicide pact known as the right of return: the imperative to absorb millions of self-styled Palestinian “refugees” into Israel proper. (A similar mystical right—call it a global right of return to the US for citizens of the world—was discovered in the US Constitution by Trump-hating, Gold Star father Khizr Khan.)

A quick quiz: What does “unoccupied” or “liberated” Palestinian land look like? Answer: Like Gaza.

Gaza serves as a sufficiently strong precedent against the folly of ceding territory to Islam. (With the exception of the long-suffering Kurds, what Muslim nation has recently made good on territorial gains or on self-determination won?) Gaza was “returned” to the Palestinians, who promptly destroyed the hothouses Israelis had built there, and planted in the ground Qassam rocket launchers, instead. Gaza now hothouses Hamasniks.

In all, granting statehood to their nihilistic neighbors has, hitherto, been pretty thankless for Israelis.

History and the “unequal civilizing potential” (in James Burnham’s coinage), notwithstanding, what of Palestinian families who’ve resided in The City for generations? This the libertarian must address.

The question of generational attachment to place and title in property is a simple one to solve if intentions are good. Naturally, Palestinians should retain their properties. An historical, national Jewish right to the city of Jerusalem does not extinguish the property rights of individual Arab homesteaders acquired over the years. Muslims residing in East Jerusalem must just learn to extend to their Jewish neighbors the courtesy their Muslim brethren receive from their Jewish neighbors, in Israel proper.

In other words, allow Jews to live in peace. Or, just to live.

Fat chance.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Israel/Palestine 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. The phrase ‘Property rights’ means different things in the Middle East and in other parts of the world. There is some likely misapprehension among partisans that will be very difficult to overcome. Conflict remains inevitable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/imercer/make-jerusalem-safe-again/#comment-1741018
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. I wonder, how does the author feel about returning the land back to the Native Americans? Their land was stolen from them by the European White man just as the Arab land was stolen by the European Jews.

    • Replies: @anon
    Kind of a ridiculous oranges and apples comparison sport. Both for historical time periods and for demographics and spatiality too.
  3. A quick quiz: What does “unoccupied” or “liberated” Palestinian land look like? Answer: Like Gaza.

    You call Gaza “unoccupied” or “liberated?” The land is under siege by Israel which controls everything on land or sea. Nothing and/or nobody can come in or go out of Gaza without Israel’s permission.

  4. Undivided Jerusalem could be the capital of Palestine. But to achieve that, Zionism would probably need to be banned there, like Nazism in Germany.

  5. I hope that President Trump doesn’t allow himself to be unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Israel is a big problem, both for itself and the U.S., and religiously hyperbolic references to Jerusalem as its ‘eternal capital’ are worrisome.
    The best thing for people who identify as Jews is to emigrate and assimilate into western civilization, as the religious and political climate in the mideast will only bring continued danger and conflict for themselves and for the entire world.
    The U.S. does not need an ‘ally’ in the mideast which is dedicated to people of one religion and is thus a lightning rod for religious and ethnic hatred by the benighted cultures surrounding it. We need to stay out of the mideast – except for a robust diplomatic and intelligence network, in conjunction with a strong military here at home capable of protecting us from any aggression that may be directed toward our country.
    Israel has done a wonderful job solving the technical problems encountered in carving a country out of a desert, but the idea of a nation dedicated to a religion was flawed from the start. What they defend militarily, and would like the U.S. to as well, is doomed. Not only dangerous, wasteful and ultimately unwinnable in a practical sense, the fight to establish and preserve this kind of state is ethically indefensible.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "The best thing for people who identify as Jews is to emigrate and assimilate into western civilization"

    If history is any judge, that's far from the best thing for Western Civilization.

    Let them have their shitty little country: within the boundaries of the original UN land theft, and ignore them.
    , @Anonymous

    I hope that President Trump doesn’t allow himself to be unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Israel is a big problem, both for itself and the U.S., and religiously hyperbolic references to Jerusalem as its ‘eternal capital’ are worrisome.
     
    It won't happen. He's hard to influence. But they don't need to because Trump has a long history of being a big Zionist. It probably comes from growing up in a very Jewish neighborhood of Queens. But his hardcore Zionism shouldn't shock anyone if they've followed his campaign over the past year.
  6. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Jews regularly urinate on, and vandalize these Christian holy sites, and the Christian Arabs risk their lives guarding them. You cannot be serious.

  7. Jooies have utter contempt for Christians, possibly well deserved, as summarized in the old jooie joke: “Why did God invent Christians? So there would be someone to pay retail at the furniture store”.

  8. Leave it in Tel Aviv. Putin was asked about it and said he’d be inclined to do the same except for the defense of it.

  9. Wow – what a doozy! Let’s take it from the top…

    It’s what Christians should be praying for

    Which Christians? You mean the ones that live in that area, let’s see what they think:

    “During the 2014 war, the Church of St. Porphyrius was opened up by the Christian community as a shelter for hundreds of Muslims. In addition, many Christians said they feel respected under Hamas’ rule, and that the militant group regards them as an important religious minority. ‘The government here has helped us, and we can go to them if we have problems,’ Jilder said.’We face the same problems, the same bombs.’”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/20/after-2000-years-christians-gaza-disappearing/77503936/):

    Oh – but they don’t really count since they are insufficiently pro-Zionist.

    They’re better off in Israel.

    Uh yeah – hmmm, live in a normal country or occupied territory pock-marked with hundreds of checkpoints – I just cannot decide…

    Since you care so much, how about you invite the rest of them to live in Israel proper – they will also not want to go back to the West Bank – then you can say “4 million Muslims…” it’ll give your statement more gravitas!

    King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era.

    Uh no – the ‘Muslim period’ started with him. The prophet-king David (pbuh) and Solomon (pbuh) are our prophets too – learn to share.

    Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off.

    This is possibly true, from a material sense Israel taking control of those areas may lead to a . Of course one could also argue that the Swiss could run the Hajj far better logistically than the Saudis, but should they? Again, will you ask the Palestinian Christians what they think? Or hell, even the Catholics regarding their presence:

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/christians-in-palestine-life-defined-by-borders-walls-and-expropriation

    Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran.

    Correct, and you won’t find ‘Jerusalem’ in hadith either because it’s referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis or some other term.

    Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.

    No, Jerusalem was our first qiblah before it became Mecca – the fondness was quite apparent from the get go. This, ahem, ‘usurpation’ was a result of kicking out the Byzantines which was applauded by your folks from the start:
    “In that same vein, Sahl b. Masliah writes that when the kingdom of Islam arrived ‘God opened the gates of his compassion to His people [the Jews] and brought them to His Holy City and they settled there and they built places to read and to interpret and to pray at all times and to keep watchers therein at night.’ Similar words come from the tenth-century Jewish biblical scholar, Slaman ben Ueruham, in his Arabic comentary to Pslam 30. When the Romans left Jeruslam, by the mercy of God ‘the kingdom of Ishmael was victorious, [and] Israel was permitted to come and to live.’ A Jewish chronicle from the Cairo Geniza states that it was Umar who gave permission for the Jews to settle in Jerusalem…”
    The Crescent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary

    So, sorry, you don’t get to retcon this. The place is and has been sacred to us often for the same reasons it is sacred to you – the blessed footsteps of our prophets (all of them). Deal with it.

    Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.

    LOL! “Cultural Misappropriation” ™…tell it to the SJWs – maybe they’ll get you some t-shirts to hand out.

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as ‘Muslim’ but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” – Genesis 17:20

    At the crossroads of theological prophecy and historical fact – is there even a doubt as to who constitutes this ‘great nation’ descended from Ishmael (pbuh)? So yeah, Bani Ishmael (the sons of Abraham [pbuh]) and their confederates from Senegal to Malaysia laugh at your attempts at “historical identity theft”.

    Now some UNZ readers brought to my attention that Jews are not allowed to properly pray at the Temple Mount by the PA – now that is uncalled for and should be corrected. We have no right to block others from worshiping at these sacred sites.

    Dr. Daniel Pipes

    See, that’s your problem right there.

    There is nothing Solomonic about splitting up Jerusalem

    No, so can we have the West side back?

    the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden

    Not according to the Hanafi school – Dr. Saheb.

    Rather, Jerusalem was unified.

    Says you.

    A quick quiz: What does ‘an open air prison’ look like?
    Answer: Like Gaza.

    Fixed it for you. Now if the question is, what does a normal Arab city look like, well…Marakesh and Amman are pretty nice.

    the long-suffering Kurds

    Wow! Let’s hit all of the Zionist talking points shall we. The Kurds meant nothing to you and wouldn’t until their leadership sold their souls to become a despised fifth-column Israeli intelligence asset in the area – they have managed to make enemies out of everybody in the region except outsiders. In the long term, their association with Israel will likely go as well as the Christian Phalangists.

    This the libertarian must address.

    Indeed, but as far as I’m concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt. Why is Israel an exception – or is this just posturing?

    In other words, allow Palestinians to live in peace. Or, just to live. Oh – and stop taking more of their land by internationally recognized illegal settlements…Fat chance.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji
    • Replies: @iffen
    This the libertarian must address.

    Indeed, but as far as I’m concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt.

    Libertarianism for me, regimentation for you.

    Good comment by you as usual, Talha, but her Biblical claim is as valid as yours.

    , @mtn cur
    Hi Talha!

    You forgot to mention that there are some 80 or 90 different versions of Abraham; I especially enjoy the one where he actually did sacrifice his son and God resurrected him on the third day, which surprised his mother so bad that she fell off of her camel.
    , @Anon

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as ‘Muslim’ but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
     
    I'd be interested in your sources for this; I hadn't heard of it. From what little I can tell with my awful Greek, Theophanes among others refers to Saracens (Sarachenoi), which could possibly be a Biblical reference at great remove but meaning precisely the opposite.
  10. @john cronk
    I hope that President Trump doesn't allow himself to be unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Israel is a big problem, both for itself and the U.S., and religiously hyperbolic references to Jerusalem as its 'eternal capital' are worrisome.
    The best thing for people who identify as Jews is to emigrate and assimilate into western civilization, as the religious and political climate in the mideast will only bring continued danger and conflict for themselves and for the entire world.
    The U.S. does not need an 'ally' in the mideast which is dedicated to people of one religion and is thus a lightning rod for religious and ethnic hatred by the benighted cultures surrounding it. We need to stay out of the mideast - except for a robust diplomatic and intelligence network, in conjunction with a strong military here at home capable of protecting us from any aggression that may be directed toward our country.
    Israel has done a wonderful job solving the technical problems encountered in carving a country out of a desert, but the idea of a nation dedicated to a religion was flawed from the start. What they defend militarily, and would like the U.S. to as well, is doomed. Not only dangerous, wasteful and ultimately unwinnable in a practical sense, the fight to establish and preserve this kind of state is ethically indefensible.

    “The best thing for people who identify as Jews is to emigrate and assimilate into western civilization”

    If history is any judge, that’s far from the best thing for Western Civilization.

    Let them have their shitty little country: within the boundaries of the original UN land theft, and ignore them.

  11. Typical Zionist mentality: what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine. Whether Palestine itself, Southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights or the West Bank. Always thievery and deception, as if religious rituals.

  12. @Talha
    Wow - what a doozy! Let's take it from the top...

    It’s what Christians should be praying for
     
    Which Christians? You mean the ones that live in that area, let's see what they think:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHO77XX-hiE

    “During the 2014 war, the Church of St. Porphyrius was opened up by the Christian community as a shelter for hundreds of Muslims. In addition, many Christians said they feel respected under Hamas’ rule, and that the militant group regards them as an important religious minority. 'The government here has helped us, and we can go to them if we have problems,' Jilder said.'We face the same problems, the same bombs.'”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/20/after-2000-years-christians-gaza-disappearing/77503936/):

    Oh - but they don't really count since they are insufficiently pro-Zionist.

    They’re better off in Israel.
     
    Uh yeah - hmmm, live in a normal country or occupied territory pock-marked with hundreds of checkpoints - I just cannot decide...

    Since you care so much, how about you invite the rest of them to live in Israel proper - they will also not want to go back to the West Bank - then you can say "4 million Muslims..." it'll give your statement more gravitas!

    King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era.
     
    Uh no - the 'Muslim period' started with him. The prophet-king David (pbuh) and Solomon (pbuh) are our prophets too - learn to share.

    Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off.
     
    This is possibly true, from a material sense Israel taking control of those areas may lead to a . Of course one could also argue that the Swiss could run the Hajj far better logistically than the Saudis, but should they? Again, will you ask the Palestinian Christians what they think? Or hell, even the Catholics regarding their presence:
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/christians-in-palestine-life-defined-by-borders-walls-and-expropriation

    Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran.
     
    Correct, and you won't find 'Jerusalem' in hadith either because it's referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis or some other term.

    Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.
     
    No, Jerusalem was our first qiblah before it became Mecca - the fondness was quite apparent from the get go. This, ahem, 'usurpation' was a result of kicking out the Byzantines which was applauded by your folks from the start:
    "In that same vein, Sahl b. Masliah writes that when the kingdom of Islam arrived 'God opened the gates of his compassion to His people [the Jews] and brought them to His Holy City and they settled there and they built places to read and to interpret and to pray at all times and to keep watchers therein at night.' Similar words come from the tenth-century Jewish biblical scholar, Slaman ben Ueruham, in his Arabic comentary to Pslam 30. When the Romans left Jeruslam, by the mercy of God 'the kingdom of Ishmael was victorious, [and] Israel was permitted to come and to live.' A Jewish chronicle from the Cairo Geniza states that it was Umar who gave permission for the Jews to settle in Jerusalem..."
    The Crescent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary

    So, sorry, you don't get to retcon this. The place is and has been sacred to us often for the same reasons it is sacred to you - the blessed footsteps of our prophets (all of them). Deal with it.

    Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.
     
    LOL! "Cultural Misappropriation" (tm)...tell it to the SJWs - maybe they'll get you some t-shirts to hand out.

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as 'Muslim' but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” - Genesis 17:20

    At the crossroads of theological prophecy and historical fact - is there even a doubt as to who constitutes this 'great nation' descended from Ishmael (pbuh)? So yeah, Bani Ishmael (the sons of Abraham [pbuh]) and their confederates from Senegal to Malaysia laugh at your attempts at "historical identity theft".

    Now some UNZ readers brought to my attention that Jews are not allowed to properly pray at the Temple Mount by the PA - now that is uncalled for and should be corrected. We have no right to block others from worshiping at these sacred sites.

    Dr. Daniel Pipes
     
    See, that's your problem right there.

    There is nothing Solomonic about splitting up Jerusalem
     
    No, so can we have the West side back?

    the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden
     
    Not according to the Hanafi school - Dr. Saheb.

    Rather, Jerusalem was unified.
     
    Says you.

    A quick quiz: What does 'an open air prison' look like?
    Answer: Like Gaza.
     
    Fixed it for you. Now if the question is, what does a normal Arab city look like, well...Marakesh and Amman are pretty nice.

    the long-suffering Kurds
     
    Wow! Let's hit all of the Zionist talking points shall we. The Kurds meant nothing to you and wouldn't until their leadership sold their souls to become a despised fifth-column Israeli intelligence asset in the area - they have managed to make enemies out of everybody in the region except outsiders. In the long term, their association with Israel will likely go as well as the Christian Phalangists.

    This the libertarian must address.
     
    Indeed, but as far as I'm concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt. Why is Israel an exception - or is this just posturing?

    In other words, allow Palestinians to live in peace. Or, just to live. Oh - and stop taking more of their land by internationally recognized illegal settlements...Fat chance.

    Peace.

    This the libertarian must address.

    Indeed, but as far as I’m concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt.

    Libertarianism for me, regimentation for you.

    Good comment by you as usual, Talha, but her Biblical claim is as valid as yours.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    her Biblical claim is as valid as yours
     
    So we agree! ;)

    Kidding aside, I know - as a Pakistani descended from original Arab stock, I have no more relationship to Jerusalem than some random Polish Jew other than through some religious narrative. If one uses "King David conquered it..." 3000 years ago, well "The Righteous Caliph Umar conquered it..." 1400 years ago. The nonsense I can't stand is the idiotic; our theological claim is greater than yours.

    What, who says? God? Well, He spoke to us too - and to fix that which you messed up on - see how that works? :)

    Peace.
  13. @iffen
    This the libertarian must address.

    Indeed, but as far as I’m concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt.

    Libertarianism for me, regimentation for you.

    Good comment by you as usual, Talha, but her Biblical claim is as valid as yours.

    Hey iffen,

    her Biblical claim is as valid as yours

    So we agree! ;)

    Kidding aside, I know – as a Pakistani descended from original Arab stock, I have no more relationship to Jerusalem than some random Polish Jew other than through some religious narrative. If one uses “King David conquered it…” 3000 years ago, well “The Righteous Caliph Umar conquered it…” 1400 years ago. The nonsense I can’t stand is the idiotic; our theological claim is greater than yours.

    What, who says? God? Well, He spoke to us too – and to fix that which you messed up on – see how that works? :)

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Right.

    If the land was given to Abraham's descendants, then Hagar's descendants qualify.

    I know she was sent away, but was there any right of return? I would need to do a little Bible study on that question.

    Is the claim to be validated by a genetic test? We could do that these days. :)

    I know you hate the concept, but might makes right, and that's what describes this conflict, just like any other.
  14. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert
    I wonder, how does the author feel about returning the land back to the Native Americans? Their land was stolen from them by the European White man just as the Arab land was stolen by the European Jews.

    Kind of a ridiculous oranges and apples comparison sport. Both for historical time periods and for demographics and spatiality too.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Not at all. Study what was done to the American Indians by the marauding white man and what the Jews/Zionists are doing to the Palestinians. The white man killed the buffalo, the main source of food and income for the American Indians. Jews are burning and cutting down the olive trees the main source of income for the Palestinians. White man killed the Indians and burned down their Tepees. Jews are killing the Palestinians and burning down their homes. Neither the children nor the women were spared in both cases.

    Is there any difference between Gaza and old Indian Reservations? Jews are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to the American Indians. That is why US has no moral grounds to do anything to Israel. Israel tells US, "Hey, you did it, so don't lecture us."
  15. when Ilana Issacsohn-alias-Mercer moves her lovely carcass – currently camped out in Seattle, USA – to Jerusalem, I’ll take her sad apologetics for Zionist imperialism a bit more seriously. At present 2/3 of the world’s Jews (including the Issacsohn) don’t even bother to live in the “Jewish state”. And what a parasitic blood-beast it is. If the entire ‘Murkan political class weren’t owned by a kaballah of Wall Street, Las Vegas, and Hollywood-Silicon Valley billionaire$, Zion-in-Palestine would have dried up and blown away decades ago. Let it go, Ilana. Before it kills us all.

  16. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    her Biblical claim is as valid as yours
     
    So we agree! ;)

    Kidding aside, I know - as a Pakistani descended from original Arab stock, I have no more relationship to Jerusalem than some random Polish Jew other than through some religious narrative. If one uses "King David conquered it..." 3000 years ago, well "The Righteous Caliph Umar conquered it..." 1400 years ago. The nonsense I can't stand is the idiotic; our theological claim is greater than yours.

    What, who says? God? Well, He spoke to us too - and to fix that which you messed up on - see how that works? :)

    Peace.

    Right.

    If the land was given to Abraham’s descendants, then Hagar’s descendants qualify.

    I know she was sent away, but was there any right of return? I would need to do a little Bible study on that question.

    Is the claim to be validated by a genetic test? We could do that these days. :)

    I know you hate the concept, but might makes right, and that’s what describes this conflict, just like any other.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    then Hagar’s descendants qualify
     
    Not necessarily - this is where theological arguments get real tricky. They can simply say, well she was a concubine and not a full wife, therefore...

    I mean from our side it is pretty clear - nothing in the Qur'an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture. If there was something solid, the Companions would have handed it over to Bani Israel after booting out the Byzantine garrisons. I can't think of even one Companion that felt that was necessary (much less a consensus ruling that would have given any clear guidance). From our perspective, Bani Israel was favored (past tense) in a particular stage of history (specifically with hitting the lottery jackpot with Divinely sent emissaries - I don't think any people surpasses them on that front) - now that's all over, no one has a special status anymore. In fact, thinking one's people to be some kind of gift to the world is refuted:
    "...and God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    But again, you have to take this on faith - not much we can present in court...not in this life anyway. :)

    Peace.

  17. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @john cronk
    I hope that President Trump doesn't allow himself to be unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Israel is a big problem, both for itself and the U.S., and religiously hyperbolic references to Jerusalem as its 'eternal capital' are worrisome.
    The best thing for people who identify as Jews is to emigrate and assimilate into western civilization, as the religious and political climate in the mideast will only bring continued danger and conflict for themselves and for the entire world.
    The U.S. does not need an 'ally' in the mideast which is dedicated to people of one religion and is thus a lightning rod for religious and ethnic hatred by the benighted cultures surrounding it. We need to stay out of the mideast - except for a robust diplomatic and intelligence network, in conjunction with a strong military here at home capable of protecting us from any aggression that may be directed toward our country.
    Israel has done a wonderful job solving the technical problems encountered in carving a country out of a desert, but the idea of a nation dedicated to a religion was flawed from the start. What they defend militarily, and would like the U.S. to as well, is doomed. Not only dangerous, wasteful and ultimately unwinnable in a practical sense, the fight to establish and preserve this kind of state is ethically indefensible.

    I hope that President Trump doesn’t allow himself to be unduly influenced by Israel and its supporters. Israel is a big problem, both for itself and the U.S., and religiously hyperbolic references to Jerusalem as its ‘eternal capital’ are worrisome.

    It won’t happen. He’s hard to influence. But they don’t need to because Trump has a long history of being a big Zionist. It probably comes from growing up in a very Jewish neighborhood of Queens. But his hardcore Zionism shouldn’t shock anyone if they’ve followed his campaign over the past year.

  18. @anon
    Kind of a ridiculous oranges and apples comparison sport. Both for historical time periods and for demographics and spatiality too.

    Not at all. Study what was done to the American Indians by the marauding white man and what the Jews/Zionists are doing to the Palestinians. The white man killed the buffalo, the main source of food and income for the American Indians. Jews are burning and cutting down the olive trees the main source of income for the Palestinians. White man killed the Indians and burned down their Tepees. Jews are killing the Palestinians and burning down their homes. Neither the children nor the women were spared in both cases.

    Is there any difference between Gaza and old Indian Reservations? Jews are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to the American Indians. That is why US has no moral grounds to do anything to Israel. Israel tells US, “Hey, you did it, so don’t lecture us.”

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    That is why US has no moral grounds to do anything to Israel.
     
    Nonsense. The US is not a person. The US is 300+ million people, neither of whom has done anything to the Indians. It'd happened in the past, long time ago, and those who are alive today are perfectly entitled to object to what's happening in Israel.
  19. @MEexpert
    Not at all. Study what was done to the American Indians by the marauding white man and what the Jews/Zionists are doing to the Palestinians. The white man killed the buffalo, the main source of food and income for the American Indians. Jews are burning and cutting down the olive trees the main source of income for the Palestinians. White man killed the Indians and burned down their Tepees. Jews are killing the Palestinians and burning down their homes. Neither the children nor the women were spared in both cases.

    Is there any difference between Gaza and old Indian Reservations? Jews are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to the American Indians. That is why US has no moral grounds to do anything to Israel. Israel tells US, "Hey, you did it, so don't lecture us."

    That is why US has no moral grounds to do anything to Israel.

    Nonsense. The US is not a person. The US is 300+ million people, neither of whom has done anything to the Indians. It’d happened in the past, long time ago, and those who are alive today are perfectly entitled to object to what’s happening in Israel.

  20. @Talha
    Wow - what a doozy! Let's take it from the top...

    It’s what Christians should be praying for
     
    Which Christians? You mean the ones that live in that area, let's see what they think:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHO77XX-hiE

    “During the 2014 war, the Church of St. Porphyrius was opened up by the Christian community as a shelter for hundreds of Muslims. In addition, many Christians said they feel respected under Hamas’ rule, and that the militant group regards them as an important religious minority. 'The government here has helped us, and we can go to them if we have problems,' Jilder said.'We face the same problems, the same bombs.'”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/20/after-2000-years-christians-gaza-disappearing/77503936/):

    Oh - but they don't really count since they are insufficiently pro-Zionist.

    They’re better off in Israel.
     
    Uh yeah - hmmm, live in a normal country or occupied territory pock-marked with hundreds of checkpoints - I just cannot decide...

    Since you care so much, how about you invite the rest of them to live in Israel proper - they will also not want to go back to the West Bank - then you can say "4 million Muslims..." it'll give your statement more gravitas!

    King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era.
     
    Uh no - the 'Muslim period' started with him. The prophet-king David (pbuh) and Solomon (pbuh) are our prophets too - learn to share.

    Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off.
     
    This is possibly true, from a material sense Israel taking control of those areas may lead to a . Of course one could also argue that the Swiss could run the Hajj far better logistically than the Saudis, but should they? Again, will you ask the Palestinian Christians what they think? Or hell, even the Catholics regarding their presence:
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/christians-in-palestine-life-defined-by-borders-walls-and-expropriation

    Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran.
     
    Correct, and you won't find 'Jerusalem' in hadith either because it's referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis or some other term.

    Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.
     
    No, Jerusalem was our first qiblah before it became Mecca - the fondness was quite apparent from the get go. This, ahem, 'usurpation' was a result of kicking out the Byzantines which was applauded by your folks from the start:
    "In that same vein, Sahl b. Masliah writes that when the kingdom of Islam arrived 'God opened the gates of his compassion to His people [the Jews] and brought them to His Holy City and they settled there and they built places to read and to interpret and to pray at all times and to keep watchers therein at night.' Similar words come from the tenth-century Jewish biblical scholar, Slaman ben Ueruham, in his Arabic comentary to Pslam 30. When the Romans left Jeruslam, by the mercy of God 'the kingdom of Ishmael was victorious, [and] Israel was permitted to come and to live.' A Jewish chronicle from the Cairo Geniza states that it was Umar who gave permission for the Jews to settle in Jerusalem..."
    The Crescent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary

    So, sorry, you don't get to retcon this. The place is and has been sacred to us often for the same reasons it is sacred to you - the blessed footsteps of our prophets (all of them). Deal with it.

    Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.
     
    LOL! "Cultural Misappropriation" (tm)...tell it to the SJWs - maybe they'll get you some t-shirts to hand out.

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as 'Muslim' but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” - Genesis 17:20

    At the crossroads of theological prophecy and historical fact - is there even a doubt as to who constitutes this 'great nation' descended from Ishmael (pbuh)? So yeah, Bani Ishmael (the sons of Abraham [pbuh]) and their confederates from Senegal to Malaysia laugh at your attempts at "historical identity theft".

    Now some UNZ readers brought to my attention that Jews are not allowed to properly pray at the Temple Mount by the PA - now that is uncalled for and should be corrected. We have no right to block others from worshiping at these sacred sites.

    Dr. Daniel Pipes
     
    See, that's your problem right there.

    There is nothing Solomonic about splitting up Jerusalem
     
    No, so can we have the West side back?

    the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden
     
    Not according to the Hanafi school - Dr. Saheb.

    Rather, Jerusalem was unified.
     
    Says you.

    A quick quiz: What does 'an open air prison' look like?
    Answer: Like Gaza.
     
    Fixed it for you. Now if the question is, what does a normal Arab city look like, well...Marakesh and Amman are pretty nice.

    the long-suffering Kurds
     
    Wow! Let's hit all of the Zionist talking points shall we. The Kurds meant nothing to you and wouldn't until their leadership sold their souls to become a despised fifth-column Israeli intelligence asset in the area - they have managed to make enemies out of everybody in the region except outsiders. In the long term, their association with Israel will likely go as well as the Christian Phalangists.

    This the libertarian must address.
     
    Indeed, but as far as I'm concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt. Why is Israel an exception - or is this just posturing?

    In other words, allow Palestinians to live in peace. Or, just to live. Oh - and stop taking more of their land by internationally recognized illegal settlements...Fat chance.

    Peace.

    Hi Talha!

    You forgot to mention that there are some 80 or 90 different versions of Abraham; I especially enjoy the one where he actually did sacrifice his son and God resurrected him on the third day, which surprised his mother so bad that she fell off of her camel.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey mtncur,

    Good stuff - never heard of than one before.

    Of course, in our tradition, the majority believe it was Ishmael (pbuh) that was asked to be sacrificed. That it was Isaac (pbuh), is a minority position.

    So maybe that's one more version to add to the list!

    Peace.
  21. Jerusalem is 40% Arab. The future looks bleak.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    The future looks bleak.
     
    Or quite sunny - depending on who is being asked.

    Peace.

    , @iffen
    Jerusalem is 40% Arab. The future looks bleak.

    For Jerusalem or the Arabs?
    , @RadicalCenter
    Who cares one way or the other?
  22. @iffen
    Right.

    If the land was given to Abraham's descendants, then Hagar's descendants qualify.

    I know she was sent away, but was there any right of return? I would need to do a little Bible study on that question.

    Is the claim to be validated by a genetic test? We could do that these days. :)

    I know you hate the concept, but might makes right, and that's what describes this conflict, just like any other.

    Hey iffen,

    then Hagar’s descendants qualify

    Not necessarily – this is where theological arguments get real tricky. They can simply say, well she was a concubine and not a full wife, therefore…

    I mean from our side it is pretty clear – nothing in the Qur’an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture. If there was something solid, the Companions would have handed it over to Bani Israel after booting out the Byzantine garrisons. I can’t think of even one Companion that felt that was necessary (much less a consensus ruling that would have given any clear guidance). From our perspective, Bani Israel was favored (past tense) in a particular stage of history (specifically with hitting the lottery jackpot with Divinely sent emissaries – I don’t think any people surpasses them on that front) – now that’s all over, no one has a special status anymore. In fact, thinking one’s people to be some kind of gift to the world is refuted:
    “…and God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you.” (47:38)

    But again, you have to take this on faith – not much we can present in court…not in this life anyway. :)

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Well, my Bible says:

    And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
     
    Now, if God didn’t take time out to mention the marital status, it is safe to assume that He didn’t think that there was any reason to get into that, unless you want to argue that God left out crucial information. If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.

    nothing in the Qur’an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture.

    This is just not kosher. You can’t claim to defeat the claim in their scripture by overriding it with yours. You have to find something internal in their scripture to defeat their claim, otherwise you are just arguing over who has good title but you recognize different issuing authorities and that is not a proper argument.

    thinking one’s people to be some kind of gift to the world

    Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
     
  23. @Sean
    Jerusalem is 40% Arab. The future looks bleak.

    Hey Sean,

    The future looks bleak.

    Or quite sunny – depending on who is being asked.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Peace means neither side wants to change its fate. "Only the dead have seen the end of war". (Santayana)
  24. @mtn cur
    Hi Talha!

    You forgot to mention that there are some 80 or 90 different versions of Abraham; I especially enjoy the one where he actually did sacrifice his son and God resurrected him on the third day, which surprised his mother so bad that she fell off of her camel.

    Hey mtncur,

    Good stuff – never heard of than one before.

    Of course, in our tradition, the majority believe it was Ishmael (pbuh) that was asked to be sacrificed. That it was Isaac (pbuh), is a minority position.

    So maybe that’s one more version to add to the list!

    Peace.

  25. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Wow - what a doozy! Let's take it from the top...

    It’s what Christians should be praying for
     
    Which Christians? You mean the ones that live in that area, let's see what they think:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHO77XX-hiE

    “During the 2014 war, the Church of St. Porphyrius was opened up by the Christian community as a shelter for hundreds of Muslims. In addition, many Christians said they feel respected under Hamas’ rule, and that the militant group regards them as an important religious minority. 'The government here has helped us, and we can go to them if we have problems,' Jilder said.'We face the same problems, the same bombs.'”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/20/after-2000-years-christians-gaza-disappearing/77503936/):

    Oh - but they don't really count since they are insufficiently pro-Zionist.

    They’re better off in Israel.
     
    Uh yeah - hmmm, live in a normal country or occupied territory pock-marked with hundreds of checkpoints - I just cannot decide...

    Since you care so much, how about you invite the rest of them to live in Israel proper - they will also not want to go back to the West Bank - then you can say "4 million Muslims..." it'll give your statement more gravitas!

    King David conquered it 1000 years Before Christ. The city’s “Muslim Period” began only in the year 638 of the Common Era.
     
    Uh no - the 'Muslim period' started with him. The prophet-king David (pbuh) and Solomon (pbuh) are our prophets too - learn to share.

    Christianity’s holiest sites will be better off.
     
    This is possibly true, from a material sense Israel taking control of those areas may lead to a . Of course one could also argue that the Swiss could run the Hajj far better logistically than the Saudis, but should they? Again, will you ask the Palestinian Christians what they think? Or hell, even the Catholics regarding their presence:
    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/christians-in-palestine-life-defined-by-borders-walls-and-expropriation

    Not once is Jerusalem mentioned in the Quran.
     
    Correct, and you won't find 'Jerusalem' in hadith either because it's referred to as Bayt al-Maqdis or some other term.

    Muslim theologians subsequently justified this usurpation by superimposing their own chronology—and relatively recent fondness for Jerusalem—upon the existing, ancient sanctity of the place to Jews.
     
    No, Jerusalem was our first qiblah before it became Mecca - the fondness was quite apparent from the get go. This, ahem, 'usurpation' was a result of kicking out the Byzantines which was applauded by your folks from the start:
    "In that same vein, Sahl b. Masliah writes that when the kingdom of Islam arrived 'God opened the gates of his compassion to His people [the Jews] and brought them to His Holy City and they settled there and they built places to read and to interpret and to pray at all times and to keep watchers therein at night.' Similar words come from the tenth-century Jewish biblical scholar, Slaman ben Ueruham, in his Arabic comentary to Pslam 30. When the Romans left Jeruslam, by the mercy of God 'the kingdom of Ishmael was victorious, [and] Israel was permitted to come and to live.' A Jewish chronicle from the Cairo Geniza states that it was Umar who gave permission for the Jews to settle in Jerusalem..."
    The Crescent on the Temple: The Dome of the Rock as Image of the Ancient Jewish Sanctuary

    So, sorry, you don't get to retcon this. The place is and has been sacred to us often for the same reasons it is sacred to you - the blessed footsteps of our prophets (all of them). Deal with it.

    Essentially, this amounts to historical identity theft.
     
    LOL! "Cultural Misappropriation" (tm)...tell it to the SJWs - maybe they'll get you some t-shirts to hand out.

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as 'Muslim' but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
    “And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.” - Genesis 17:20

    At the crossroads of theological prophecy and historical fact - is there even a doubt as to who constitutes this 'great nation' descended from Ishmael (pbuh)? So yeah, Bani Ishmael (the sons of Abraham [pbuh]) and their confederates from Senegal to Malaysia laugh at your attempts at "historical identity theft".

    Now some UNZ readers brought to my attention that Jews are not allowed to properly pray at the Temple Mount by the PA - now that is uncalled for and should be corrected. We have no right to block others from worshiping at these sacred sites.

    Dr. Daniel Pipes
     
    See, that's your problem right there.

    There is nothing Solomonic about splitting up Jerusalem
     
    No, so can we have the West side back?

    the place from which non-Muslims are strictly forbidden
     
    Not according to the Hanafi school - Dr. Saheb.

    Rather, Jerusalem was unified.
     
    Says you.

    A quick quiz: What does 'an open air prison' look like?
    Answer: Like Gaza.
     
    Fixed it for you. Now if the question is, what does a normal Arab city look like, well...Marakesh and Amman are pretty nice.

    the long-suffering Kurds
     
    Wow! Let's hit all of the Zionist talking points shall we. The Kurds meant nothing to you and wouldn't until their leadership sold their souls to become a despised fifth-column Israeli intelligence asset in the area - they have managed to make enemies out of everybody in the region except outsiders. In the long term, their association with Israel will likely go as well as the Christian Phalangists.

    This the libertarian must address.
     
    Indeed, but as far as I'm concerned, you hung up your credentials at the door of making a massive exception to your anti-government philosophy by backing up Israel to the hilt. Why is Israel an exception - or is this just posturing?

    In other words, allow Palestinians to live in peace. Or, just to live. Oh - and stop taking more of their land by internationally recognized illegal settlements...Fat chance.

    Peace.

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as ‘Muslim’ but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:

    I’d be interested in your sources for this; I hadn’t heard of it. From what little I can tell with my awful Greek, Theophanes among others refers to Saracens (Sarachenoi), which could possibly be a Biblical reference at great remove but meaning precisely the opposite.

    • Replies: @Talha
    No problem Senor,

    Greek may not be the best sources to look at, exclusively anyway. As Robert Hoyland mentions in his excellent work (a compendium of translated sources from late antiquity) the Greek-speaking Byzantines just had their backsides handed to them on multiple battlefronts and were extremely hostile to the new conquerors:
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    Non-Chalcedonian Christians that wrote in Syriac or other languages tended to be more neutral.

    All that aside, even the word 'Saracen' has biblical connotations - can you guess what it is? What if we say 'Sarah-cen'? Let's look to what John of Damascus says in the very first polemic criticism of Islam titled 'The Heresy of the Ishmaelites':
    "They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’"
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    Here's another source mentioning how the terms were often interchangeable within a given work:
    "Instead of depicting Muslims as completely other, they frequently argued that Islam was more a derivative and inferior form of Christianity than an independent religious tradition. John bar Penkaye's 'Book of Main Points' represents a first step in this direction. Writing in the midst of the second fitna, John interchangeably used the terms tayyaye, Sons of Hagar and Ishmaelites. John, however, seemed to know more about his conquerors' beliefs and practices than previous authors had."
    Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World

    Hope that helps.

    Peace.

  26. @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    The future looks bleak.
     
    Or quite sunny - depending on who is being asked.

    Peace.

    Peace means neither side wants to change its fate. “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. (Santayana)

  27. @Anon

    I find it funny that there is historical identity denial at play. Currently, we are simply referred to as ‘Muslim’ but the very first writings of Christians and Jews referred to us as either Bani Ishmael or Sons of Hagar (pbuh) or some other biblical moniker. Because it was simply obvious given the statement in the Bible:
     
    I'd be interested in your sources for this; I hadn't heard of it. From what little I can tell with my awful Greek, Theophanes among others refers to Saracens (Sarachenoi), which could possibly be a Biblical reference at great remove but meaning precisely the opposite.

    No problem Senor,

    Greek may not be the best sources to look at, exclusively anyway. As Robert Hoyland mentions in his excellent work (a compendium of translated sources from late antiquity) the Greek-speaking Byzantines just had their backsides handed to them on multiple battlefronts and were extremely hostile to the new conquerors:

    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    Non-Chalcedonian Christians that wrote in Syriac or other languages tended to be more neutral.

    All that aside, even the word ‘Saracen’ has biblical connotations – can you guess what it is? What if we say ‘Sarah-cen’? Let’s look to what John of Damascus says in the very first polemic criticism of Islam titled ‘The Heresy of the Ishmaelites‘:
    “They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’”

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    Here’s another source mentioning how the terms were often interchangeable within a given work:
    “Instead of depicting Muslims as completely other, they frequently argued that Islam was more a derivative and inferior form of Christianity than an independent religious tradition. John bar Penkaye’s ‘Book of Main Points’ represents a first step in this direction. Writing in the midst of the second fitna, John interchangeably used the terms tayyaye, Sons of Hagar and Ishmaelites. John, however, seemed to know more about his conquerors’ beliefs and practices than previous authors had.”
    Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World

    Hope that helps.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Yes, that was quite informative.

    I hadn't read John Damascene on the subject; his etymology is unfortunately rather far-fetched, but really not much more far-fetched than that of St. Jerome (in Ezechialem), of which I had heard, and to which I was referring, according to which it designated (mistakenly) descendants of Sarah! Apparently Sozomen, whom I hadn't read either, says the same in his Ecclesiastical History (6.38).

    I quite agree that it would be nice to hear from non-Greeks, writing in Syriac or Arabic or what have you; that's largely why I asked my initial question, since my knowledge of these languages and their literature is unfortunately about nil. Though I don't think any enmity they bore towards the Arabs could have much bearing on this specific question.

    Of course one might say that those living under Arab dominion are also "not the best sources to look at, exclusively, anyway", but, again, I don't think it has much bearing here, on this question.

    And of course the claim of the Arabs to be descended from Ishmael was always fairly well known.

    This books says they were variously known (in fifteenth-century Spain but citing an author writing about the ninth century) as Chaldeans (?), Arabs, Agarenes, Ishmaelites, Moors, Saracens, infidels, pagans, and enemies (last three for obvious reasons, which can be discounted).

    https://books.google.com/books?id=E_527dcgvBoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 103)


    Instead of depicting Muslims as completely other, they frequently argued that Islam was more a derivative and inferior form of Christianity than an independent religious tradition
     
    Yes, this is the logical view (for a Christian).
  28. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    No problem Senor,

    Greek may not be the best sources to look at, exclusively anyway. As Robert Hoyland mentions in his excellent work (a compendium of translated sources from late antiquity) the Greek-speaking Byzantines just had their backsides handed to them on multiple battlefronts and were extremely hostile to the new conquerors:
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Islam-Others-Saw-Zoroastrian/dp/0878501258

    Non-Chalcedonian Christians that wrote in Syriac or other languages tended to be more neutral.

    All that aside, even the word 'Saracen' has biblical connotations - can you guess what it is? What if we say 'Sarah-cen'? Let's look to what John of Damascus says in the very first polemic criticism of Islam titled 'The Heresy of the Ishmaelites':
    "They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’"
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    Here's another source mentioning how the terms were often interchangeable within a given work:
    "Instead of depicting Muslims as completely other, they frequently argued that Islam was more a derivative and inferior form of Christianity than an independent religious tradition. John bar Penkaye's 'Book of Main Points' represents a first step in this direction. Writing in the midst of the second fitna, John interchangeably used the terms tayyaye, Sons of Hagar and Ishmaelites. John, however, seemed to know more about his conquerors' beliefs and practices than previous authors had."
    Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World

    Hope that helps.

    Peace.

    Yes, that was quite informative.

    I hadn’t read John Damascene on the subject; his etymology is unfortunately rather far-fetched, but really not much more far-fetched than that of St. Jerome (in Ezechialem), of which I had heard, and to which I was referring, according to which it designated (mistakenly) descendants of Sarah! Apparently Sozomen, whom I hadn’t read either, says the same in his Ecclesiastical History (6.38).

    I quite agree that it would be nice to hear from non-Greeks, writing in Syriac or Arabic or what have you; that’s largely why I asked my initial question, since my knowledge of these languages and their literature is unfortunately about nil. Though I don’t think any enmity they bore towards the Arabs could have much bearing on this specific question.

    Of course one might say that those living under Arab dominion are also “not the best sources to look at, exclusively, anyway”, but, again, I don’t think it has much bearing here, on this question.

    And of course the claim of the Arabs to be descended from Ishmael was always fairly well known.

    This books says they were variously known (in fifteenth-century Spain but citing an author writing about the ninth century) as Chaldeans (?), Arabs, Agarenes, Ishmaelites, Moors, Saracens, infidels, pagans, and enemies (last three for obvious reasons, which can be discounted).

    https://books.google.com/books?id=E_527dcgvBoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (page 103)

    Instead of depicting Muslims as completely other, they frequently argued that Islam was more a derivative and inferior form of Christianity than an independent religious tradition

    Yes, this is the logical view (for a Christian).

  29. @Sean
    Jerusalem is 40% Arab. The future looks bleak.

    Jerusalem is 40% Arab. The future looks bleak.

    For Jerusalem or the Arabs?

  30. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    then Hagar’s descendants qualify
     
    Not necessarily - this is where theological arguments get real tricky. They can simply say, well she was a concubine and not a full wife, therefore...

    I mean from our side it is pretty clear - nothing in the Qur'an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture. If there was something solid, the Companions would have handed it over to Bani Israel after booting out the Byzantine garrisons. I can't think of even one Companion that felt that was necessary (much less a consensus ruling that would have given any clear guidance). From our perspective, Bani Israel was favored (past tense) in a particular stage of history (specifically with hitting the lottery jackpot with Divinely sent emissaries - I don't think any people surpasses them on that front) - now that's all over, no one has a special status anymore. In fact, thinking one's people to be some kind of gift to the world is refuted:
    "...and God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

    But again, you have to take this on faith - not much we can present in court...not in this life anyway. :)

    Peace.

    Well, my Bible says:

    And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

    Now, if God didn’t take time out to mention the marital status, it is safe to assume that He didn’t think that there was any reason to get into that, unless you want to argue that God left out crucial information. If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.

    nothing in the Qur’an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture.

    This is just not kosher. You can’t claim to defeat the claim in their scripture by overriding it with yours. You have to find something internal in their scripture to defeat their claim, otherwise you are just arguing over who has good title but you recognize different issuing authorities and that is not a proper argument.

    thinking one’s people to be some kind of gift to the world

    Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.
     
    It's not my argument, I was just saying, I've heard that counter-argument from the other side before. As far as we are concerned, both sons were full sons.

    that is not a proper argument
     
    Nope, it isn't - that was my point. Belief is necessary to formulating the argument. For instance, if the person holds up the Bible and says; "Well, the Bible says this..."

    It's really not going to work on someone who believes the text's veracity is questionable in the first place...and vice versa.

    Keep in mind, I'm not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here (or the Qur'an) - it is fact that the Muslims simply took control from the Byzantines (blood and steel - though this was through a negotiated surrender) and have held it ever since with certain exceptions during the Crusades. The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers - barely an Arab in uniform. I was simply citing the quote from the Bible to mention how propagandists make it sound as if we have no connection to area whatsoever - when their own texts and early scholars attest to the fact that we obviously have reason to feel a connection to the prophets from Bani Israel and their graves and their heritage.

    Peace.
  31. I don’t care whether Jerusalem is Israel’s undivided capital, or even whether Jerusalem continues to belong to Israel or Jews at all. I am an American and care first and foremost about Americans, our rights and interests, and the future of our people, our culture, our language, and our mores and way of life.

    I voted for Trump very much DESPITE his obsession with Israel and his insistence on continuing our interference in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, not because of it.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    I voted for Trump very much DESPITE his obsession with Israel and his insistence on continuing our interference in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, not because of it.
     
    I, a Jew, did the same.
  32. @iffen
    Well, my Bible says:

    And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
     
    Now, if God didn’t take time out to mention the marital status, it is safe to assume that He didn’t think that there was any reason to get into that, unless you want to argue that God left out crucial information. If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.

    nothing in the Qur’an states some kind of a land grant in perpetuity. And. from our perspective, it corrects all previous scripture.

    This is just not kosher. You can’t claim to defeat the claim in their scripture by overriding it with yours. You have to find something internal in their scripture to defeat their claim, otherwise you are just arguing over who has good title but you recognize different issuing authorities and that is not a proper argument.

    thinking one’s people to be some kind of gift to the world

    Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
     

    Hey iffen,

    If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.

    It’s not my argument, I was just saying, I’ve heard that counter-argument from the other side before. As far as we are concerned, both sons were full sons.

    that is not a proper argument

    Nope, it isn’t – that was my point. Belief is necessary to formulating the argument. For instance, if the person holds up the Bible and says; “Well, the Bible says this…”

    It’s really not going to work on someone who believes the text’s veracity is questionable in the first place…and vice versa.

    Keep in mind, I’m not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here (or the Qur’an) – it is fact that the Muslims simply took control from the Byzantines (blood and steel – though this was through a negotiated surrender) and have held it ever since with certain exceptions during the Crusades. The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers – barely an Arab in uniform. I was simply citing the quote from the Bible to mention how propagandists make it sound as if we have no connection to area whatsoever – when their own texts and early scholars attest to the fact that we obviously have reason to feel a connection to the prophets from Bani Israel and their graves and their heritage.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Anon

    The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers – barely an Arab in uniform.
     
    You forget the kingdom of Jordan (not that it's that important a point). It's an interesting sidelight on history though. This is the period, for instance, when Evelyn Waugh visited the city and described it so admirably.
    , @iffen
    I’m not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here

    Okay, but I see the claim and to me it is rational. The land was given to Abraham’s descendants. Who are the descendants? To a considerable extent European Jews are descended from the inhabitants of the Levant so they would qualify. Who are Ishmael’s descendants?

  33. More wars bring more money to Israel Keeps the´country afloat .

    “No I don’t think there’s a divorce. As long as Israel is under threat, as long as Israel is not secure, there’s not a divorce. Halevai [would that it were so] we come to the day when there is peace– and if there is peace– that’s when you are going to deal with the issue of divorce. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/permanent-divorce-israel/#sthash.G3qYTh7y.dpuf FOXMAN

    The telepathy between Israel and ADL Its not even telepathy It is in the consciousness So you find the confirmation in each and every effective Jewish voice .

    “The idea that Israel needs conflict in order to bind American Jews to it ties in with something the Israeli centrist politician Yair Lapid said at the same security conference at which Foxman spoke: Israel is now in a permanent war. “In this new world, in which we live, there is no longer any separation between days of peace and days of war.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/permanent-divorce-israel/#sthash.G3qYTh7y.dpuf

    Moving the embassy will bring more free money ,dole ,and more free gifts. Yes move the embassy and tell the Americans that it will make America great again . Tell Americans how this move will conform essential American values ,protect its liberty, keep the vandals outside the gate, and bring prosperity to America.

  34. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.
     
    It's not my argument, I was just saying, I've heard that counter-argument from the other side before. As far as we are concerned, both sons were full sons.

    that is not a proper argument
     
    Nope, it isn't - that was my point. Belief is necessary to formulating the argument. For instance, if the person holds up the Bible and says; "Well, the Bible says this..."

    It's really not going to work on someone who believes the text's veracity is questionable in the first place...and vice versa.

    Keep in mind, I'm not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here (or the Qur'an) - it is fact that the Muslims simply took control from the Byzantines (blood and steel - though this was through a negotiated surrender) and have held it ever since with certain exceptions during the Crusades. The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers - barely an Arab in uniform. I was simply citing the quote from the Bible to mention how propagandists make it sound as if we have no connection to area whatsoever - when their own texts and early scholars attest to the fact that we obviously have reason to feel a connection to the prophets from Bani Israel and their graves and their heritage.

    Peace.

    The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers – barely an Arab in uniform.

    You forget the kingdom of Jordan (not that it’s that important a point). It’s an interesting sidelight on history though. This is the period, for instance, when Evelyn Waugh visited the city and described it so admirably.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Did Jordan ever have full control? I thought they only had part - just like PA does now.
  35. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    If God wasn’t worried about it, I am not going to second guess Him.
     
    It's not my argument, I was just saying, I've heard that counter-argument from the other side before. As far as we are concerned, both sons were full sons.

    that is not a proper argument
     
    Nope, it isn't - that was my point. Belief is necessary to formulating the argument. For instance, if the person holds up the Bible and says; "Well, the Bible says this..."

    It's really not going to work on someone who believes the text's veracity is questionable in the first place...and vice versa.

    Keep in mind, I'm not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here (or the Qur'an) - it is fact that the Muslims simply took control from the Byzantines (blood and steel - though this was through a negotiated surrender) and have held it ever since with certain exceptions during the Crusades. The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers - barely an Arab in uniform. I was simply citing the quote from the Bible to mention how propagandists make it sound as if we have no connection to area whatsoever - when their own texts and early scholars attest to the fact that we obviously have reason to feel a connection to the prophets from Bani Israel and their graves and their heritage.

    Peace.

    I’m not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here

    Okay, but I see the claim and to me it is rational. The land was given to Abraham’s descendants. Who are the descendants? To a considerable extent European Jews are descended from the inhabitants of the Levant so they would qualify. Who are Ishmael’s descendants?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Who are Ishmael’s descendants?
     
    We are quite a lot actually. Since ours is defined as a patrilineal heritage - we are all over the place. The original tribes of the Hijaz (admixed with the Yemenis) who spread out in the initial expansions are found everywhere. You have the Prophet's descendants of course like the rulers of Morocco and Jordan, but you also have lines like those of Abu Bakr (ra) - like people with last names like Siddiqui, Umar (ra) - Faruqi, Uthman (ra) - Uthmani, Ibn Masud (ra) - Masudi, etc. And that's just the more famous ones, not including the lines from all the other thousands that mixed in with the local populations - literally from Senegal to Malaysia.

    "...make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly..."

    No joke - I would say, most aren't even aware.

    Peace.
  36. @Anon

    The last ones of us to hold it were Turks often using Albanian soldiers and officers – barely an Arab in uniform.
     
    You forget the kingdom of Jordan (not that it's that important a point). It's an interesting sidelight on history though. This is the period, for instance, when Evelyn Waugh visited the city and described it so admirably.

    Did Jordan ever have full control? I thought they only had part – just like PA does now.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Sort of. The Old City was completely under Jordanian control, while some of the newer sections of the city and suburbs were under Israeli control (whereas whatever control the PA has -and is it really the PA in charge of Temple Mount?- is at the sufferance of the Israeli government of the city).
  37. @iffen
    I’m not trying to lay out a Divine counter claim to the Jerusalem using the Bible here

    Okay, but I see the claim and to me it is rational. The land was given to Abraham’s descendants. Who are the descendants? To a considerable extent European Jews are descended from the inhabitants of the Levant so they would qualify. Who are Ishmael’s descendants?

    Hey iffen,

    Who are Ishmael’s descendants?

    We are quite a lot actually. Since ours is defined as a patrilineal heritage – we are all over the place. The original tribes of the Hijaz (admixed with the Yemenis) who spread out in the initial expansions are found everywhere. You have the Prophet’s descendants of course like the rulers of Morocco and Jordan, but you also have lines like those of Abu Bakr (ra) – like people with last names like Siddiqui, Umar (ra) – Faruqi, Uthman (ra) – Uthmani, Ibn Masud (ra) – Masudi, etc. And that’s just the more famous ones, not including the lines from all the other thousands that mixed in with the local populations – literally from Senegal to Malaysia.

    “…make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly…”

    No joke – I would say, most aren’t even aware.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    No joke – I would say, most aren’t even aware.

    Are there any genetic studies on this? What is the genetic profile of the current Muslim residents of the West Bank?

  38. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Talha
    Did Jordan ever have full control? I thought they only had part - just like PA does now.

    Sort of. The Old City was completely under Jordanian control, while some of the newer sections of the city and suburbs were under Israeli control (whereas whatever control the PA has -and is it really the PA in charge of Temple Mount?- is at the sufferance of the Israeli government of the city).

  39. @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Who are Ishmael’s descendants?
     
    We are quite a lot actually. Since ours is defined as a patrilineal heritage - we are all over the place. The original tribes of the Hijaz (admixed with the Yemenis) who spread out in the initial expansions are found everywhere. You have the Prophet's descendants of course like the rulers of Morocco and Jordan, but you also have lines like those of Abu Bakr (ra) - like people with last names like Siddiqui, Umar (ra) - Faruqi, Uthman (ra) - Uthmani, Ibn Masud (ra) - Masudi, etc. And that's just the more famous ones, not including the lines from all the other thousands that mixed in with the local populations - literally from Senegal to Malaysia.

    "...make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly..."

    No joke - I would say, most aren't even aware.

    Peace.

    No joke – I would say, most aren’t even aware.

    Are there any genetic studies on this? What is the genetic profile of the current Muslim residents of the West Bank?

    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    Not my area of expertise. Too bad Razib isn't around. Though, if you recall, he did write an entry related to this subject:
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/was-the-prophet-muhammad-a-jew/

    Again, we probably haven't paid much attention because, outside of the direct line of the Prophet (pbuh) through his daughter Fatima (ra), most people don't pay a whole lot of attention since the religion is not linked, by necessity, to any genetic legacy.
    "O mankind, indeed We have created you from a male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted." (49:13)

    On Palestinians, I found this:
    "'The closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish groups were the Palestinians, Israeli Bedouins, and Druze in addition to the Southern Europeans, including Cypriots,' as Ostrer and Skorecki wrote in a review of their findings that they co-authored in the journal Human Genetics in October 2012."
    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

    Peace.

  40. her Biblical claim is as valid as yours

    On the basis of the “first come, first served” common practice to avoid conflicts, I would give a certain advantage to the Jews on this particular issue.

    Besides, it is not the Jews’ or anyone elses’ fault that Allah decided to speak in secret inside a cave to Mohammad and change the rules of the game. That was most unreasonable and created lots of problems, Jerusalem’s status being a tiny one in comparison. Think of this: if, instead of choosing an exotic messenger from far away in the desert, He had decided to reveal himself to all parties involved (pretty much all of us humans), poor Mohammad would not have been charged with the daunting task of converting or killing untold amounts of unbelievers. The task remains desperately incomplete to this day and continues to cause all sorts of conflicts. Come on, that’s not the way to handle this type of things.

    • Replies: @iffen
    My Bible says:

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
     
    God didn't give Canaan to "the Jews." He gave it to the descendants of Abraham.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant. You are free to believe in the revisions or not. What you can't do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original, and that includes amending God's Word to cut some of Abraham's descendants out of the inheritance.

    , @MEexpert
    Well, what do you expect from the descendants of a thief (who stole his brother's birth rights)? They have made him proud by stealing anything and everything from its rightful owners and continue to carry on his legacy in Palestine today.
  41. @Mikel

    her Biblical claim is as valid as yours

     

    On the basis of the "first come, first served" common practice to avoid conflicts, I would give a certain advantage to the Jews on this particular issue.

    Besides, it is not the Jews' or anyone elses' fault that Allah decided to speak in secret inside a cave to Mohammad and change the rules of the game. That was most unreasonable and created lots of problems, Jerusalem's status being a tiny one in comparison. Think of this: if, instead of choosing an exotic messenger from far away in the desert, He had decided to reveal himself to all parties involved (pretty much all of us humans), poor Mohammad would not have been charged with the daunting task of converting or killing untold amounts of unbelievers. The task remains desperately incomplete to this day and continues to cause all sorts of conflicts. Come on, that's not the way to handle this type of things.

    My Bible says:

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    God didn’t give Canaan to “the Jews.” He gave it to the descendants of Abraham.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant. You are free to believe in the revisions or not. What you can’t do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original, and that includes amending God’s Word to cut some of Abraham’s descendants out of the inheritance.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, verse 21 goes:

    But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year.
     
    for those who look for divine charters.
    , @Mikel

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant.
     
    I don´t know about that but surely that habit of giving periodic updates to assorted characters has created a big mess. Jerusalem is just a case in point. We wouldn't be discussing it otherwise, would we?

    What you can’t do is deny the original covenant
     
    Well, I won´t deny that I´m extremely skeptical that that conversation in your Bible ever took place to begin with.
    , @MEexpert

    What you can’t do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original,
     
    The original covenant was with Abraham and his seed for generations (Genesis 17:9). Seed---> Ishmael and Isaac.
  42. @Mikel

    her Biblical claim is as valid as yours

     

    On the basis of the "first come, first served" common practice to avoid conflicts, I would give a certain advantage to the Jews on this particular issue.

    Besides, it is not the Jews' or anyone elses' fault that Allah decided to speak in secret inside a cave to Mohammad and change the rules of the game. That was most unreasonable and created lots of problems, Jerusalem's status being a tiny one in comparison. Think of this: if, instead of choosing an exotic messenger from far away in the desert, He had decided to reveal himself to all parties involved (pretty much all of us humans), poor Mohammad would not have been charged with the daunting task of converting or killing untold amounts of unbelievers. The task remains desperately incomplete to this day and continues to cause all sorts of conflicts. Come on, that's not the way to handle this type of things.

    Well, what do you expect from the descendants of a thief (who stole his brother’s birth rights)? They have made him proud by stealing anything and everything from its rightful owners and continue to carry on his legacy in Palestine today.

  43. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    My Bible says:

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
     
    God didn't give Canaan to "the Jews." He gave it to the descendants of Abraham.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant. You are free to believe in the revisions or not. What you can't do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original, and that includes amending God's Word to cut some of Abraham's descendants out of the inheritance.

    Well, verse 21 goes:

    But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year.

    for those who look for divine charters.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    Genesis 17:9

    And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
     
    If I remember Ishmael was also Abraham's seed. So the covenant was with both of them. As far as the updates are concerned the Jews have their own updates to suit their need. Consider for example.

    Genesis 22:2

    And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
     
    How could Isaac be his only son when he was born thirteen years after Ishmael. Also, isn't it odd that supposing Isaac was the only son that God will go to all that trouble to say "thy son," "thine only son Isaac," "whom thou lovest." If he was the only son God could have said take your son and sacrifice. The term only son applies to Ishmael only. Even if Ishmael was not present there, Isaac could never have been Abraham's only son.

    The bible does not leave any doubt for Ishmael being Abraham's seed. God calls Hagar Abraham's wife and Ishmael as Abraham's son. There are several verses confirming that the covenant was with Abraham and his seeds.
    , @iffen
    2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

    4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

    7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    I suppose that you can disregard and replace these with what appears to be an affirmation of the covenant with a completely unexpected 2nd born.
  44. @iffen
    My Bible says:

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
     
    God didn't give Canaan to "the Jews." He gave it to the descendants of Abraham.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant. You are free to believe in the revisions or not. What you can't do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original, and that includes amending God's Word to cut some of Abraham's descendants out of the inheritance.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant.

    I don´t know about that but surely that habit of giving periodic updates to assorted characters has created a big mess. Jerusalem is just a case in point. We wouldn’t be discussing it otherwise, would we?

    What you can’t do is deny the original covenant

    Well, I won´t deny that I´m extremely skeptical that that conversation in your Bible ever took place to begin with.

    • Replies: @iffen
    giving periodic updates to assorted characters has created a big mess

    Only because people start listening and believing. If you don't believe he has given any updates you are not responsible for the actions of those that believe in 2.0 through x.0.

    I´m extremely skeptical that that conversation in your Bible ever took place to begin with.

    Well, I am too, but if you are going to use it in 2017 as justification for a territorial claim , you should at least try to use it correctly, fairly and in line with original intent.

  45. @Anon
    Well, verse 21 goes:

    But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year.
     
    for those who look for divine charters.

    Genesis 17:9

    And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

    If I remember Ishmael was also Abraham’s seed. So the covenant was with both of them. As far as the updates are concerned the Jews have their own updates to suit their need. Consider for example.

    Genesis 22:2

    And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

    How could Isaac be his only son when he was born thirteen years after Ishmael. Also, isn’t it odd that supposing Isaac was the only son that God will go to all that trouble to say “thy son,” “thine only son Isaac,” “whom thou lovest.” If he was the only son God could have said take your son and sacrifice. The term only son applies to Ishmael only. Even if Ishmael was not present there, Isaac could never have been Abraham’s only son.

    The bible does not leave any doubt for Ishmael being Abraham’s seed. God calls Hagar Abraham’s wife and Ishmael as Abraham’s son. There are several verses confirming that the covenant was with Abraham and his seeds.

    • Replies: @Anon

    How could Isaac be his only son
     
    Yeah, it's a confusing and apparently nonsensical point, something of which the Bible is full. Here's Haydock's commentary, for what it's worth:

    Thy only begotten, or thy most beloved, as if he had been an only child; in which sense the word is often taken, 1 Paralipomenon xxix. 1. Ismael was still living; but Isaac was the only son of Sara, the most dignified wife. --- Lovest. Hebrew, "hast loved" hitherto; now thou must consider him as dead. He has been to thee a source of joy, but now he will be one of tears and mourning.
     
  46. @iffen
    My Bible says:

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
     
    God didn't give Canaan to "the Jews." He gave it to the descendants of Abraham.

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant. You are free to believe in the revisions or not. What you can't do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original, and that includes amending God's Word to cut some of Abraham's descendants out of the inheritance.

    What you can’t do is deny the original covenant within the context of the original,

    The original covenant was with Abraham and his seed for generations (Genesis 17:9). Seed—> Ishmael and Isaac.

  47. @Anon
    Well, verse 21 goes:

    But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year.
     
    for those who look for divine charters.

    2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

    4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

    7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    I suppose that you can disregard and replace these with what appears to be an affirmation of the covenant with a completely unexpected 2nd born.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Like I said to the other fellow, the Bible is often confusing or apparently contradictory. Here's yet another interpretation.

    Genesis 28:2

    And give the blessings of Abrabam to thee [that is, Jacob], and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather.
     
    and Haydock's commentary:

    Grandfather. Isaac, out of modesty, does not mention that the same promises had been made to himself. He determines the right over Chanaan to belong solely to Jacob, and to his posterity. (Haydock)
     
  48. @Mikel

    Whether God decided to give updates to Mohammed or John Smith or anyone else does not change the original covenant.
     
    I don´t know about that but surely that habit of giving periodic updates to assorted characters has created a big mess. Jerusalem is just a case in point. We wouldn't be discussing it otherwise, would we?

    What you can’t do is deny the original covenant
     
    Well, I won´t deny that I´m extremely skeptical that that conversation in your Bible ever took place to begin with.

    giving periodic updates to assorted characters has created a big mess

    Only because people start listening and believing. If you don’t believe he has given any updates you are not responsible for the actions of those that believe in 2.0 through x.0.

    I´m extremely skeptical that that conversation in your Bible ever took place to begin with.

    Well, I am too, but if you are going to use it in 2017 as justification for a territorial claim , you should at least try to use it correctly, fairly and in line with original intent.

  49. @iffen
    No joke – I would say, most aren’t even aware.

    Are there any genetic studies on this? What is the genetic profile of the current Muslim residents of the West Bank?

    Hey iffen,

    Not my area of expertise. Too bad Razib isn’t around. Though, if you recall, he did write an entry related to this subject:

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/was-the-prophet-muhammad-a-jew/

    Again, we probably haven’t paid much attention because, outside of the direct line of the Prophet (pbuh) through his daughter Fatima (ra), most people don’t pay a whole lot of attention since the religion is not linked, by necessity, to any genetic legacy.
    “O mankind, indeed We have created you from a male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you. Indeed, God is Knowing and Acquainted.” (49:13)

    On Palestinians, I found this:
    “‘The closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish groups were the Palestinians, Israeli Bedouins, and Druze in addition to the Southern Europeans, including Cypriots,’ as Ostrer and Skorecki wrote in a review of their findings that they co-authored in the journal Human Genetics in October 2012.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

    Peace.

  50. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MEexpert
    Genesis 17:9

    And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
     
    If I remember Ishmael was also Abraham's seed. So the covenant was with both of them. As far as the updates are concerned the Jews have their own updates to suit their need. Consider for example.

    Genesis 22:2

    And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
     
    How could Isaac be his only son when he was born thirteen years after Ishmael. Also, isn't it odd that supposing Isaac was the only son that God will go to all that trouble to say "thy son," "thine only son Isaac," "whom thou lovest." If he was the only son God could have said take your son and sacrifice. The term only son applies to Ishmael only. Even if Ishmael was not present there, Isaac could never have been Abraham's only son.

    The bible does not leave any doubt for Ishmael being Abraham's seed. God calls Hagar Abraham's wife and Ishmael as Abraham's son. There are several verses confirming that the covenant was with Abraham and his seeds.

    How could Isaac be his only son

    Yeah, it’s a confusing and apparently nonsensical point, something of which the Bible is full. Here’s Haydock’s commentary, for what it’s worth:

    Thy only begotten, or thy most beloved, as if he had been an only child; in which sense the word is often taken, 1 Paralipomenon xxix. 1. Ismael was still living; but Isaac was the only son of Sara, the most dignified wife. — Lovest. Hebrew, “hast loved” hitherto; now thou must consider him as dead. He has been to thee a source of joy, but now he will be one of tears and mourning.

    • Replies: @MEexpert
    From Haydock's commentary

    Ismael was still living; but Isaac was the only son of Sara, the most dignified wife.
     
    Yes, Isaac was Sara's only son but God was talking to Abraham not to Sara. Also, God didn't say anything about Sara being the most dignified wife.
  51. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

    4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

    7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    I suppose that you can disregard and replace these with what appears to be an affirmation of the covenant with a completely unexpected 2nd born.

    Like I said to the other fellow, the Bible is often confusing or apparently contradictory. Here’s yet another interpretation.

    Genesis 28:2

    And give the blessings of Abrabam to thee [that is, Jacob], and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather.

    and Haydock’s commentary:

    Grandfather. Isaac, out of modesty, does not mention that the same promises had been made to himself. He determines the right over Chanaan to belong solely to Jacob, and to his posterity. (Haydock)

  52. @Anon

    How could Isaac be his only son
     
    Yeah, it's a confusing and apparently nonsensical point, something of which the Bible is full. Here's Haydock's commentary, for what it's worth:

    Thy only begotten, or thy most beloved, as if he had been an only child; in which sense the word is often taken, 1 Paralipomenon xxix. 1. Ismael was still living; but Isaac was the only son of Sara, the most dignified wife. --- Lovest. Hebrew, "hast loved" hitherto; now thou must consider him as dead. He has been to thee a source of joy, but now he will be one of tears and mourning.
     

    From Haydock’s commentary

    Ismael was still living; but Isaac was the only son of Sara, the most dignified wife.

    Yes, Isaac was Sara’s only son but God was talking to Abraham not to Sara. Also, God didn’t say anything about Sara being the most dignified wife.

  53. @RadicalCenter
    I don't care whether Jerusalem is Israel's undivided capital, or even whether Jerusalem continues to belong to Israel or Jews at all. I am an American and care first and foremost about Americans, our rights and interests, and the future of our people, our culture, our language, and our mores and way of life.

    I voted for Trump very much DESPITE his obsession with Israel and his insistence on continuing our interference in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, not because of it.

    I voted for Trump very much DESPITE his obsession with Israel and his insistence on continuing our interference in the Middle East on behalf of Israel, not because of it.

    I, a Jew, did the same.

  54. I don’t care one bit about Jews, Israel or Jerusalem. I don’t know where Mrs. Mercer lives, but she should live in Israel and write for an Israeli audience.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.