re: islamic claim to the temple mount

[scipio337]

Only in Palestine can you be a refugee in your own country.
Soo we can just shuffle Arabs around (since most, but not all, Palestianians are Arabi) just like we can dump Puerto-Ricans in Mexico, and Guatamalans can go to Nicaragua, because hey, they’re all hispanic.

And now they have perpetual refugee status. The surrounding Arab nations use them as a wedge against Isreal, meanwhile, the Palestinian Arabs suffer, too, at the hands of their fellow Arabs. Depressing, isn’t it?
Isa Almisry:

Not sure what your point is about Homs. In effect it was a guarantee that the Palestines’ right to return would not be sold out, which of course is EXACTLY what the Zionist movement has want since '48, and beyond.

The point is that the surrounding nations care little about the Palestinian people Black September cough, cough.
Isa Almisry:

THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ZIONIST PLANNED, FROM THE BEGINNING TO TAKE ALL OF PALESTINE.

Not the part given to them by the UN. Not what they said they would settle on. All of it.

What is Palestine? Trans Jordan? All of the West Bank? Jerusalem? You’re ranting.
Isa Almisry:

Then what was your point?

Come now, you made an appeal to emotion argument: “What about the Christians??” To which I responded “I didn’t notice any Palestinian Christian organizations like Hamas or Hizbollah”, to which you moved the goal posts again, digging up organizations that no longer exist.
Isa Almisry:

So what, besides US elections, which King Ibn Saud couldn’t care less (Truman actually explicitely cited the Jewish vote later).

Do you include the Samaritans? because the Jews certainly don’t.

Palestine had it’s own Patriarchate, which is as autonomous as it got in the Roman Empire. And then there was the Crusader state.

Samaritans? They have been persecuted historically, but not by Jews. I’m assuming you label Herod as a Palestinian now? Crusader State? You do know the Baldwins weren’t from the region, right?
Isa Almisry:

It was a catastrophe that the Arab uprising had failed during WWI, that the Palestinians uprising was crushed in the '30s. Then they wouldn’t be this problem in the 40’s and beyond.

Right, and if only the Brits would have kept Jews corralled on Cyprus, the world would be hunky-dory, with a Palestinian state autonomous from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, because if anything, history proves that Palestinian Arabs have longed for autonomy for centuries.

[/sarcasm]
Isa Almisry:

No, I’m forcing you to face the root of the problem, which isn’t Lebanon, Jordan and Syria but a colonial scheme from Europe.

With a little help from the last autonmous people in the region returning to their traditional homeland.
Isa Almisry:

The Ayyubids were appanage states, so a fair amount. The Mamluks had three autonomous sanjaks, who were relatively fine, except for being on the frontier against the Mongols. The Ottomans, like the rest of the empire, not much.
Under Jordan? I keep on being told by the Zionists that Jordan is Palestine.

The point was, there was no movement for a separate Palestinian state, so long as it was part of the Ummah, or Pan Arab nationalism, see Nasser. You’re stretching the definition of “autonomy”
Isa Almisry:

Pakistan and India were one region, on the same continent. The former Soviets were one region, on the same continent. The Palestinians and the Ashkanazis dumped on them were NOT from the same region, and NOT from teh same continent.

That’s wrong. A majority of Ashkenazi Jews (“dumped”??? More hyperbole, they immigrated) carry distinct Jewish Y chromosomes and mDNA markers. Which still doesn’t answer the question, why wasn’t there just a poplulation exchange when the (UN estimate) 856,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab/Muslim land and 711,000 (UN estimate) Palestinian refugees reslulted from the creation of Isreal?

By comparison, there were 17.9 million people who immigrated with the creation of Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan (and approx 3.4 million died as a result, more than Jews or Palestinian Arabs combined), and of course, there are no large populations of perpetual Indian or Pakistani refugees.
Isa Almisry:

The difference is in the distance. Like across a major sea.

Which “Major Sea” would Palestinian Arabs had to cross to be with people who spoke the same language, and practiced the same religion? Again, see Pakistan. Post colonialsm. Collapse of Soviet sphere.
Isa Almisry:

yes, they (the Americans) wanted to eliminate Loyalism on the North American continent, and said so. The US’s first constitution envisioned the Canadian provinces to become states.

Which is why they attacked the Loyalist stronghold of Quebec? They wanted the aide of the Franco Canadians, who weren’t British.
Isa Almisry:

Well good, if you can swear that under oath in a court of law, produce documentary evidence (photos, etc.), exhibits, etc. then you have a point. Because I can. If you can’t well,…

What are you saying? You have proof of Swedish ccontrol of the US government, or that there was a secret meeting of Jews trying to control the world?

…continued

 

[scipio337]

…continued
Isa Almisry:

What hyperbole?

“Stolen”. I guess they had to pay the Cannaanites double, too. Let’s not even get started about Islamic conquests in the region.
Isa Almisry:

Faisal represented the Kingdom Hejaz, ie. Mecca, and so signed the Faisal-Weizman agreement.
and he didn’t even get to keep the Hejaz.

And since there was no Arab national identity, the sharif of Mecca was “king of all Arabs” (malik bilad-al-Arab). Faisal was the King of Greater Syria on year later. Yes, there were Arab nationalists asking for autonomy, but it wasn’t for a separate Palestinian Arab state.

Interesting that you mention Faisal-Weizman. What were its terms, in relation to the Balfour Declaration?
Isa Almisry:

I haven’t noticed any invasions that way either.

It would prolly be a good first step if certain elected ruling parties could recognize the existence of a state. IF the PA/Hamas could make similar agreements for peace in exchange for the WB and Gaza…

 

[Muslim_Woman]

Salaam/peace

This traditional tenet is mistaken since it is refuted by the Koran:

Surah 43:44
And lo! it is in truth a Reminder for thee and for thy folk; and ye will be questioned.

Allah says:

"This day,

I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you,

and have chosen for you Islam as your religion"

[al-Maa’idah 5:3 � interpretation of the meaning]

Allah gave this favour to the whole of humanity.

muslimconverts.com/

How come people did not corrupt the Koran?

explained more than once. God promised to keep His last book free from corruption.

He made it easy for believers to remember/ memorise the whole book.

Millions have holy Quran in memory since the beginning of the revealion .

why God failed to preserve His previous books?

it was duty of human being to preserve the holy books .

When they failed , God took the responsibility.

So , we have the same Quran that was recited by the last Prophet in the original language & will have this ( God Willing ) till the last day.

Praise be to God only.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And now they have perpetual refugee status. The surrounding Arab nations use them as a wedge against Isreal, meanwhile, the Palestinian Arabs suffer, too, at the hands of their fellow Arabs. Depressing, isn’t it?

Yes.

The point is that the surrounding nations care little about the Palestinian people Black September cough, cough.

At least they admit the Palestinians exist. And recognize they have their own voice.

What is Palestine? Trans Jordan? All of the West Bank? Jerusalem? You’re ranting.

You talk of borders I haven’t seen on Zionist maps.

Come now, you made an appeal to emotion argument: “What about the Christians??” To which I responded “I didn’t notice any Palestinian Christian organizations like Hamas or Hizbollah”, to which you moved the goal posts again, digging up organizations that no longer exist.

Wasn’t an emotional appeal. Just a statement that no Muslim government is crazy about getting more Christians, and no Christian is crazy about going to an alien, as opposed to familiar, Muslim country.

Btw, you do know that Hamas was started with help of the Zionists? They wanted to divide and rule, and weaken the PLO. Always be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Samaritans? They have been persecuted historically, but not by Jews.

Who destroyed their temple?

I’m assuming you label Herod as a Palestinian now?

I think his Arab roots were from across the Jordan.

Crusader State? You do know the Baldwins weren’t from the region, right?

Neither are the Ashkenazim.
Nor was Abraham. Your point?

Right, and if only the Brits would have kept Jews corralled on Cyprus,

Cyprus has its own problems.

the world would be hunky-dory, with a Palestinian state autonomous from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, because if anything, history proves that Palestinian Arabs have longed for autonomy for centuries.

[/sarcasm]

The Orthodox Arabs have. For at least 5 centuries.
More below.

With a little help from the last autonmous people in the region returning to their traditional homeland.

The Arabs were there, in their homeland, although their autonomy was compromised by the Greeks and Turks.

The point was, there was no movement for a separate Palestinian state, so long as it was part of the Ummah, or Pan Arab nationalism, see Nasser. You’re stretching the definition of “autonomy”

There was no movement for a separate Jewish state until Herzl thought otherwise.

That’s wrong. A majority of Ashkenazi Jews (“dumped”??? More hyperbole, they immigrated)

dumped. They were expelled, displaced or otherwise told to get going in Europe.

carry distinct Jewish Y chromosomes and mDNA markers.

yes, they share them with the Arabs, Palestinians and others, and the Armenians. At least that;s what the geneticists say.

Which still doesn’t answer the question, why wasn’t there just a poplulation exchange when the (UN estimate) 856,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab/Muslim land and 711,000 (UN estimate) Palestinian refugees reslulted from the creation of Isreal?

Was that a question?

What you are asking for is a disintegration of Palestinian identity, not a population exchange.

Lebanon and Jordan didn’t have much in the way of Jews. Nationalization, the Lavon affair and the Suez war, and the Zionists refusal to withdraw until the US threatened did the Egyptian Jews in. Syria won’t let theirs emigrate: does that please you?

By comparison, there were 17.9 million people who immigrated with the creation of Pakistan, India, and East Pakistan (and approx 3.4 million died as a result, more than Jews or Palestinian Arabs combined), and of course, there are no large populations of perpetual Indian or Pakistani refugees.

So you are proposing the Pakistan-India model? What about when the Palestinains get the bomb?

So sure about that last point? Do you know any details, or care to? Look up “muhajir” in Pakistan.

Which “Major Sea” would Palestinian Arabs had to cross to be with people who spoke the same language, and practiced the same religion? Again, see Pakistan. Post colonialsm. Collapse of Soviet sphere.

Your Jews were the ones who had to cross the Mediterranean, not speaking the same langauge (they didn’t speak Hebrew). There were some Jews in Palestine, though.
The first part of the quote shows how superficial the “facts” are to Pakistan,etc. is.

Which is why they attacked the Loyalist stronghold of Quebec? They wanted the aide of the Franco Canadians, who weren’t British.

I’m debating whether I should let a Canadian answer this one.

I’ll answer for Illinois though: a major expedition was launched by Clark to capture the Franco-Amerindian town of Kaskaskia, which would end up being the capital of the Illinois territory (at the time, all French and Amerindian) and the first capital of the state.

What are you saying? You have proof of Swedish ccontrol of the US government, or that there was a secret meeting of Jews trying to control the world?

…continued

You’re the one who claimed to have listened in on the secret meeting of the elders of zion, not I.

 

[Angelos]

Allah says:

"This day,

I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you,

and have chosen for you Islam as your religion"
[al-Maa’idah 5:3 � interpretation of the meaning]

Allah gave this favour to the whole of humanity.

According to this interpretation, Allah supposedly perfected His religion in the whole world through a revelation confined to a nation (Arabs). This makes no sense to me. Since the Koran is stated to be a book for Mohammad and his folk (Arabs), the religion it promotes cannot be universal.

explained more than once. God promised to keep His last book free from corruption.

He made it easy for believers to remember/ memorise the whole book.

Millions have holy Quran in memory since the beginning of the revealion .

This fallacilous argument has been debunked more than once.

First, I have the right to question why God supposedly made His last book easy for memorisation/recital. He could have applied the same principle to His former revelations, which He commands Muslims to consider equal to the Koran.

Second, it is impossible to prove that the Koran recited by millions of Muslims today is the same as the one recited by early Muslims before Mohammad’s death.

Finally, the current textual problems and variations of the modern Koran leads us to the conclusion that the first Muslims reciting the Koran made mistakes, which means the Islamic scripture was not easy to memorise.

it was duty of human being to preserve the holy books .

When they failed , God took the responsibility.

Which verse of the Koran supports this Islamic allegation? Where does God say He had previously imposed on men the responsibility of preserving His Word and truth? Why did God not take the responsibility upon Himself as soon as humans failed to preserve His message the first time (supposedly right after Moses!)??? What made God wait until Mohammad to take the responsibility of preserving His Word?

Answer these questions if you can. Thanks.

So , we have the same Quran that was recited by the last Prophet in the original language & will have this ( God Willing ) till the last day.

Islamic premise 1: God asks Muslims to consider ALL of His revelations equal (Surah 3:84).

Islamic premise 2: Muslims believe that the former revelations are corrupted and not authentic.

Conclusion: The Koran is equal to the former revelations in that it is corrupted and not authentic.

 

[Americanrevert]

Hello and good mornin,

InJesus said,

actually Isa is Islamic for Jesus…Arab Christians call Yesuaa, not Isa.

It is the Arabi name for Jesus…it is his real name and in Islam we don’t change people’s names unless it means something bad. If he isn’t Arab, that doesn’t give a person the right to change his/her name. The names refer to the people and some non muslim people say the Quran isn’t all Arabic, well, the names are as they are. LOL…what gives someone the right to change a name…EVEN IN TRANSLATION???

americanrevert

 

[dzheremi]

Exactly, American Convert! What gives Muslims the right to call Him “Isa” when the Arab Christians, who existed before Islam, call him “Yesuaa”?

 

[Americanrevert]

well, tell me, did they arrive at this conclusion by a translation?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Hello and good mornin,

InJesus said,

It is the Arabi name for Jesus…it is his real name and in Islam we don’t change people’s names unless it means something bad. If he isn’t Arab, that doesn’t give a person the right to change his/her name. The names refer to the people and some non muslim people say the Quran isn’t all Arabic, well, the names are as they are. LOL…what gives someone the right to change a name…EVEN IN TRANSLATION???
Convert, I’m going to get technical with you, so hang on.

In Classical Arabic, all nouns have inflection. The usual ones have an ending -n, like Muhammadun. This is called tanwin (or nunation in English). It shows that the word is a native Arabic one.

There is another set of endings, with -u, i.e. no “n” sound. This is used with foreign words.

Now Isa would be Isan, if it was Arabic. But it’s not, just like IbrahimU, IshaqU, MusA, YahyA, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

well, tell me, did they arrive at this conclusion by a translation?

I, like millions of others, don’t read it in translation.

 

[Americanrevert]

**Hello,

Isa, let me get technical right back. I know the vowels, I know what tanween, dummatayn, fathayn are, etc. I know the haraqat, I know tajweed and I know what is authentic in names.

Then, in Arabi, the name should read ISA. EESAA.

americanrevert**

 

[Isa_Almisry]

**Hello,

Isa, let me get technical right back. I know the vowels, I know what tanween, dummatayn, fathayn are, etc. I know the haraqat, I know tajweed and I know what is authentic in names.

Then, in Arabi, the name should read ISA. EESAA.**

You post was somewhat incomprehesible, but you seem to be claiming that all the Quran is Arabic (btw, its Arabic in English, you don’t say “Inglish” in Arabic do you?). The Arabic inflections show that is not so.

His name in English is Jesus. JEE-SUS.

not jeesh btw.

 

[Americanrevert]

huh??? lol

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his “Christian” name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the “J” nor the second “s” in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply “E S A U” a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”. There was at least one “Jesus” sitting on the “bench” at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus’ in his “Book of Antiquities”. The New Testament speaks of “Bar-Jesus” a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also “Jesus-Justus” a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming “Esau” to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

***Allah says His name is Eesa and we say it is Eesa. (on him peace)

---

americanrevert

 

[dzheremi]

Transforming “Esau” to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique.

“Jesus” comes from the Greek, which comes from the Greek approximation of the original.(source)

This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ.

“Jesus” has gone out of currency among Christians? Are you serious? Tell that to the 500 Mexican kids I grew up with named “Jesus”!

Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry

I have no idea about this one way or another, but it should be pointed out that the name “Yeshua” simply means “Yah (shortened form of YHWH) is salvation” (see the link given above), so there is nothing wrong with it in this regard, unless you want to tell me that Jews hate Jesus more than they love the God of Israel!

and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God.

Once again, “Jesus” is a very, very popular proper name among Latin American Christians. It has certainly not fallen out of use with them, and they are a huge portion of world Christianity (Roman Catholicism in particular, for obvious historical reasons; this is basically why I’m RC, too).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

huh??? lol

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his “Christian” name.

No, His Christian name was Y’shu’ because His stepfather and mother spoke Aramaic.

Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic),

which He never used during His earthly ministry.

or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua,

It’s Joshua, convert.

which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus.

Actually the Hebrews in the East did that with the Septuagint.

Neither the “J” nor the second “s” in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The J comes from I, which comes from yodh, the first letter of the Hebrew name Yashua.
The second S is the inflectional ending, like the tanwiin.

The word is very simply “E S A U” a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”.

It’s not ESAU. The name appears later with Joshua.

There was at least one “Jesus” sitting on the “bench” at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus’ in his “Book of Antiquities”. The New Testament speaks of “Bar-Jesus” a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also “Jesus-Justus” a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming “Esau” to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

***Allah says His name is Eesa and we say it is Eesa. (on him peace)

---

Then Allah should enrole in some ESL classes (English as a Second Language).

Btw, what happened to your script convert?

 

[Angelos]

The Holy Quran refers to Jesus as Eesa, and this name is used more times than any other title, because this was his “Christian” name. Actually, his proper name was Eesa (Arabic), or Esau (Hebrew); classical Yeheshua, which the Christian nations of the West latinised as Jesus. Neither the “J” nor the second “s” in the name Jesus is to be found in the original tongue - they are not found in the Semitic languages.

The word is very simply “E S A U” a very common Jewish name, used more than sixty times in the very first booklet alone of the Bible, in the part called “Genesis”. There was at least one “Jesus” sitting on the “bench” at the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. Josephus the Jewish historian mentions some twenty five Jesus’ in his “Book of Antiquities”. The New Testament speaks of “Bar-Jesus” a magician and a sorcerer, a false prophet (Acts 13:6); and also “Jesus-Justus” a Christian missionary, a contemporary of Paul (Colossians 4:11). These are distinct from Jesus the son of Mary. Transforming “Esau” to (J)esu(s) - Jesus - makes it unique. This unique (?) name has gone out of currency among the Jews and the Christians from the 2nd century after Christ. Among the Jews, because it came to be a name of ill - repute, the name of one who blasphemed in Jewry; and among the Christians because it came to be the proper name of their God. The Muslim will not hesitate to name his son Eesa because it is an honored name, the name of a righteous servant of the Lord.

***Allah says His name is Eesa and we say it is Eesa. (on him peace)

---

americanrevert

Why does the Koran use the word INJEEL rather than BISHRA for Good News (Gospel) in Arabic? Any ideas???

 

[inJESUS]

Hello and good mornin,

InJesus said,