Australian Politics Forum - al-Aqsa Mosque

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #210 - Apr 26^th, 2026 at 11:25am

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 11:02am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:10am:

Modern Jewish claims to title over these ancient lands are based on probable historical fact: that their ancestors, removed by 100 generations, lived in those lands...

That, combined with the religious tradition that those lands were given to them by a god, is their sole argument for the legitimacy of their exclusive possession, and the modern rhetoric of Israel's 'right' to exist.

From the Palestinian perspective, probable historical fact indicates that their ancestors, for up to 100 generations, to 1948 when they were expelled, lived in and possesed those lands...

Who is right? Jews? Arabs? Neither? Both?

Abos.

They claim to own this continent from the beginning of time.

Since the Dreamtime, according to spiritual tradition, with each tribe claiming tribal lands, as is universal in tribal cultures.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #211 - Apr 26^th, 2026 at 6:08pm

From another thread, a great example of secular tradition and historical fact...

That of Richard III, whom Shakespeare characterises as an ugly, deformed and, by that, weakened ruler...

The recent discovery of his remains has dispelled that myth. He suffered from adolescent-onset scoliosis, a sideways curvature of the spine. While this caused a slight shoulder height imbalance and a shorter torso, it did not create a "hunchback" or a major limp, nor would it have prevented him from wearing armour or fighting in battle.

The dimensions of his skull and the model of his head sculpted from it indicate that he was not ugly, and not even Shakespeare refers to any facial disfigurement.

Since his remains' discovery was only in 2012, it is yet to be seen whether this new information will ultimately trump the Shakespearean legend... It likely ultimately will, as Richard III has no religious significance.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57968
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #212 - Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:23pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 11:25am:

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 11:02am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:10am:

Modern Jewish claims to title over these ancient lands are based on probable historical fact: that their ancestors, removed by 100 generations, lived in those lands...

That, combined with the religious tradition that those lands were given to them by a god, is their sole argument for the legitimacy of their exclusive possession, and the modern rhetoric of Israel's 'right' to exist.

From the Palestinian perspective, probable historical fact indicates that their ancestors, for up to 100 generations, to 1948 when they were expelled, lived in and possesed those lands...

Who is right? Jews? Arabs? Neither? Both?

Abos.

They claim to own this continent from the beginning of time.

Since the Dreamtime, according to spiritual tradition, with each tribe claiming tribal lands, as is universal in tribal cultures.

Everyone has some claim. Abos, Irish, Greeks, Jews, everyone. Some are more ludicrous than others.

The Jews have a much older claim to Israel than the Mohammedans. If the Abo claim of precedence is treated as valid then so must the Jewish claim. The Jews can and do say that they have never ceded sovereignty over Israel, not to the Romans, not the Ottomans, the British or the PLO.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #213 - Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:38pm

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:23pm:

Everyone has some claim. Abos, Irish, Greeks, Jews, everyone. Some are more ludicrous than others.

The Jews have a much older claim to Israel than the Mohammedans. If the Abo claim of precedence is treated as valid then so must the Jewish claim. The Jews can and do say that they have never ceded sovereignty over Israel, not to the Romans, not the Ottomans, the British or the PLO.

Nearly all displaced peoples can and do make that claim.

The Aboriginal claim of title by continuous habitation is exponentially closer to today than modern Jewish claims, which cannot be sovereignty by continuous habitation.

Arabs have inhabited the region for most of the last 2000 years... That would be almost immeasurably more than enough time to claim sovereignty by continuous habitation in any other context around the world. Even the early Zionists respected that Arab claim.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52908
At my desk.

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #214 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:01am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:50am:

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:29am:

What exactly do you think I am arguing?

This:
freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2026 at 10:09am:

Muhammad never made any reference at all to a mosque in modern day Israel. Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. Muhammad never actually travelled to Jerusalem, or anywhere near Israel, other than in his mystical "night journey" referred to in Surah 17. Scholars immediately after his death debated whether Surah 17 (now taken to be a reference to the mosque) was a place in heaven or somewhere near Mecca.

Later Caliphs built a wooden mosque somewhere in the area, but no-one knows where.

Eventually Muslims started to link Surah 17 with a mosque at the current location, but this is more a reflection of the effective propaganda by Muslim leaders who wanted to promote the mosque rather than a basis in Islam's founding.

Can you find a single reference that identifies the location in Jerusalem from either before Muhammad died or before a later leader decided to build a mosque there and claim the link?

The legitimacy of the Muslim claim that al Aqsa is located at the Temple Mount is based on religious tradition, not historical fact.

Parallels in Christianity:

Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

The site of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

The site of Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem.

Where you go off the rails appears to be your presumption that, even with religion, historical fact should trump religious tradition.

In reality, where the two contradict each other, to believers, religious tradition is the greater source of truth.

As with Christianity and Islam, so with Judaism.

It is via religious tradition that Jews rely on when claiming descent from Abraham, the existence of Moses, the Exodus from Egypt, the granting of land possession by a god... not verifiable historical fact.

There is no evidence that Moses existed.

There is no evidence that the Exodus occurred under Ramses II

There is no evidence that Moses was promised land...

I am not asking you to quote me. I am asking you to put it in your own words, so I can figure out why you are so confused. Do you understand what I am saying?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57968
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #215 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:30am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:38pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:23pm:

Everyone has some claim. Abos, Irish, Greeks, Jews, everyone. Some are more ludicrous than others.

The Jews have a much older claim to Israel than the Mohammedans. If the Abo claim of precedence is treated as valid then so must the Jewish claim. The Jews can and do say that they have never ceded sovereignty over Israel, not to the Romans, not the Ottomans, the British or the PLO.

Nearly all displaced peoples can and do make that claim.

The Aboriginal claim of title by continuous habitation is exponentially closer to today than modern Jewish claims, which cannot be sovereignty by continuous habitation.

Arabs have inhabited the region for most of the last 2000 years... That would be almost immeasurably more than enough time to claim sovereignty by continuous habitation in any other context around the world. Even the early Zionists respected that Arab claim.

Habitation and sovereignty.

Well, the Jews also can claim continuous habitation. The Jews never completely disappeaed from the ME.

The Palestinian cannot claim continuous sovereignty, or any sovereignty, as they never had it. (nor the Abos in Australiam for that matter.)

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #216 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:45am

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:30am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:38pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:23pm:

Everyone has some claim. Abos, Irish, Greeks, Jews, everyone. Some are more ludicrous than others.

The Jews have a much older claim to Israel than the Mohammedans. If the Abo claim of precedence is treated as valid then so must the Jewish claim. The Jews can and do say that they have never ceded sovereignty over Israel, not to the Romans, not the Ottomans, the British or the PLO.

Nearly all displaced peoples can and do make that claim.

The Aboriginal claim of title by continuous habitation is exponentially closer to today than modern Jewish claims, which cannot be sovereignty by continuous habitation.

Arabs have inhabited the region for most of the last 2000 years... That would be almost immeasurably more than enough time to claim sovereignty by continuous habitation in any other context around the world. Even the early Zionists respected that Arab claim.

Habitation and sovereignty.

Well, the Jews also can claim continuous habitation. The Jews never completely disappeaed from the ME.

The Palestinian cannot claim continuous sovereignty, or any sovereignty, as they never had it. (nor the Abos in Australiam for that matter.)

That is an argument sometimes used today in Israel, but it is a weak argument that founders.

Numbers matter when legitimately claiming continuous habitation.

That less than 10% of the original Jewish population remained in the Middle East for nearly 2000 years is not a valid claim towards continuous habitation... an argument that would not work anywhere else in the world.

The argument most used is that Jews have maintained a traditional and religious connection to the land... and that this connection is crucial to their religious and cultural identity... although Orthodox Jews deny this without-which-not connection.

Many of their Rabbis, ancient and modern, have instructed their followers that it was an act of god that drove them from the land, and only an act of god can reverse it.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #217 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:54am

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:01am:

I am not asking you to quote me. I am asking you to put it in your own words, so I can figure out why you are so confused. Do you understand what I am saying?

This:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:50am:

The legitimacy of the Muslim claim that al Aqsa is located at the Temple Mount is based on religious tradition, not historical fact.

But you already know that's my point... I've stated it multiple times in this thread...

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57968
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #218 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:00am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:45am:

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 10:30am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 9:38pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 26^th, 2026 at 8:23pm:

Everyone has some claim. Abos, Irish, Greeks, Jews, everyone. Some are more ludicrous than others.

The Jews have a much older claim to Israel than the Mohammedans. If the Abo claim of precedence is treated as valid then so must the Jewish claim. The Jews can and do say that they have never ceded sovereignty over Israel, not to the Romans, not the Ottomans, the British or the PLO.

Nearly all displaced peoples can and do make that claim.

The Aboriginal claim of title by continuous habitation is exponentially closer to today than modern Jewish claims, which cannot be sovereignty by continuous habitation.

Arabs have inhabited the region for most of the last 2000 years... That would be almost immeasurably more than enough time to claim sovereignty by continuous habitation in any other context around the world. Even the early Zionists respected that Arab claim.

Habitation and sovereignty.

Well, the Jews also can claim continuous habitation. The Jews never completely disappeaed from the ME.

The Palestinian cannot claim continuous sovereignty, or any sovereignty, as they never had it. (nor the Abos in Australiam for that matter.)

That is an argument sometimes used today in Israel, but it is a weak argument that founders.

Numbers matter when legitimately claiming continuous habitation.

That less than 10% of the original Jewish population remained in the Middle East for nearly 2000 years is not a valid claim towards continuous habitation... an argument that would not work anywhere else in the world.

The argument most used is that Jews have maintained a traditional and religious connection to the land... and that this connection is crucial to their religious and cultural identity... although Orthodox Jews deny this without-which-not connection.

Many of their Rabbis, ancient and modern, have instructed their followers that it was an act of god that drove them from the land, and only an act of god can reverse it.

You raised the issue of continuous habitation as an Abo claim. It also applies to the Jews.

The Jews are ineluctably bound up with Israel, historically and currently. A Jew is someone who is linked to, bound to, historic Israel. You cannot define a Jew otherwise. That's what Jewishness IS. There is no Jewishness without Israel.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #219 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:21am

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:00am:

You raised the issue of continuous habitation as an Abo claim. It also applies to the Jews.

The Jews are ineluctably bound up with Israel, historically and currently. A Jew is someone who is linked to, bound to, historic Israel. You cannot define a Jew otherwise. That's what Jewishness IS. There is no Jewishness without Israel.

I referred to the recency of their habitation - the entire ethnicity - not a small number with a larger number in foreign lands, now claiming sovereignty.

That is what Zionists insist... and the Revisionist-cum-Likud leaning Zionists insist it can only be achieved by military force.

Orthodox Jews insist that Jewishness does not depend on land, any more than Catholics need to be born in Italy or in the former Papal States to be Catholic... You can be fully Catholic anywhere in the world.

Evidently, the same applies to Jews, who remained Jews for thousands of years outside modern Israel.

What most people are unaware of is that ancient Judaism was predominantly Temple Judaism, which became extinct after the destruction of the Second Temple, to be replaced by Rabbinic Judaism, which grew from Pharisaic Judaism and was opposed to Temple Judaism.

The Orthodox maintain the original Pharisaic-Rabbinic attitude to Judaism and separate it from the land and a Temple.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57968
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #220 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:07pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:21am:

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:00am:

You raised the issue of continuous habitation as an Abo claim. It also applies to the Jews.

The Jews are ineluctably bound up with Israel, historically and currently. A Jew is someone who is linked to, bound to, historic Israel. You cannot define a Jew otherwise. That's what Jewishness IS. There is no Jewishness without Israel.

Orthodox Jews insist that Jewishness does not depend on land, any more than Catholics need to be born in Italy or in the former Papal States to be Catholic... You can be fully Catholic anywhere in the world.

Evidently, the same applies to Jews, who remained Jews for thousands of years outside modern Israel.

What most people are unaware of is that ancient Judaism was predominantly Temple Judaism, which became extinct after the destruction of the Second Temple, to be replaced by Rabbinic Judaism, which grew from Pharisaic Judaism and was opposed to Temple Judaism.

The Orthodox maintain the original Pharisaic-Rabbinic attitude to Judaism and separate it from the land and a Temple.

Your analogy with Catholicism does not work.

Catholic means Universal. Israelite means of Israel. There cannot be Jewishness without reference to Israel. Every variety of it starts with historic Israel. How a nomadic people conquered nd settled it and ho they were scattered from it and then how they reconquered it. Ultimately it is all about Zion, whether you are a Jew in Sydney, Berlin or LA.

The remnant of the Temple is still a holy site.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #221 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:25pm

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:07pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:21am:

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 11:00am:

You raised the issue of continuous habitation as an Abo claim. It also applies to the Jews.

The Jews are ineluctably bound up with Israel, historically and currently. A Jew is someone who is linked to, bound to, historic Israel. You cannot define a Jew otherwise. That's what Jewishness IS. There is no Jewishness without Israel.

Orthodox Jews insist that Jewishness does not depend on land, any more than Catholics need to be born in Italy or in the former Papal States to be Catholic... You can be fully Catholic anywhere in the world.

Evidently, the same applies to Jews, who remained Jews for thousands of years outside modern Israel.

What most people are unaware of is that ancient Judaism was predominantly Temple Judaism, which became extinct after the destruction of the Second Temple, to be replaced by Rabbinic Judaism, which grew from Pharisaic Judaism and was opposed to Temple Judaism.

The Orthodox maintain the original Pharisaic-Rabbinic attitude to Judaism and separate it from the land and a Temple.

Your analogy with Catholicism does not work.

Catholic means Universal. Israelite means of Israel. There cannot be Jewishness without reference to Israel. Every variety of it starts with historic Israel. How a nomadic people conquered nd settled it and ho they were scattered from it and then how they reconquered it. Ultimately it is all about Zion, whether you are a Jew in Sydney, Berlin or LA.

The remnant of the Temple is still a holy site.

Actually, it works well.

Israel means 'we who wrestle with god'... it refers to their covenant with god - to obey his law, letter and spirit and to worship him alone. There is no reference to land in being Jewish, or one of the people of Israel.

Jews lived across the Roman, Parthian and Sasanian Empires, in Egypt, across the Middle East and North Africa and as far east as India and north east in the stans... many of whom had never been to the Temple or, if they had, where they lived closeby, then maybe once in their lives.

In other words, there was no requirement to practise Temple Judaism in Jerusalem to be a Jew.

To be sure, practitioners of Temple Judaism in and around Jerusalem would likely have considered themselves a cut above all others, which would have irritated diaspora Jews, and why Rabbinic and Messianic Judaism (Christianity) gained popularity/

That, and of course, the popularly held belief that Temple Judaism had been corrupted by the priestly castes.

Back to top

IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Online Израиль Навсегда Posts: 7704 Gender:	Re: al-Aqsa Mosque Reply #222 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:50pm "Next Year in Jerusalem" - timeless expression of Jewish identity.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:57pm by tallowood » עַם יִשְרָאֵל חַי IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16921
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #223 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 2:02pm

tallowood wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:50pm:

"Next Year in Jerusalem" - timeless expression of Jewish identity.

[]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIobl8Hltmw[]

Yes... A lament that became a tradition in the 12th to 15th centuries, hundreds of years after the destruction of Jerusalem... and after hundreds of years of European pogroms, murder and persecutions of Jews.

Back to top

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Online

Израиль Навсегда

Posts: 7704
Gender: male

Re: al-Aqsa Mosque
Reply #224 - Apr 27^th, 2026 at 2:48pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 2:02pm:

tallowood wrote on Apr 27^th, 2026 at 12:50pm:

"Next Year in Jerusalem" - timeless expression of Jewish identity.

[]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIobl8Hltmw[]

Yes... A lament that became a tradition in the 12th to 15th centuries, hundreds of years after the destruction of Jerusalem... and after hundreds of years of European pogroms, murder and persecutions of Jews.

It was used as an oral expression before appearing in written form in a 10th-century poem by rabbi Joseph ibn Abitur.

In any case Arabia is for Arabs as the name suggests.

Back to top

עַם יִשְרָאֵל חַי

IP Logged