As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof

Go down

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof Empty As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof

Post  Admin on Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:18 pm

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof
Muslims continue to steal and destroy property of others and here is incontrovertible proof of this charge.   Islam is nothing but a criminal thieving false religion.
See the proof:
Christendom's Greatest Cathedral to Become a Mosque
by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
June 18, 2013
While unrest in Turkey continues to capture attention, more subtle and more telling events concerning the Islamification of Turkey — and not just at the hands of Prime Minister Erdogan but majorities of Turks — are quietly transpiring. These include the fact that Turkey's Hagia Sophia museum is on its way to becoming a mosque.
Why does the fate of an old building matter?
Because Hagia Sophia — Greek for "Holy Wisdom" — was for some thousand years Christianity's greatest cathedral. Built in 537 A.D. in Constantinople, the heart of the Christian empire, it was also a stalwart symbol of defiance against an ever encroaching Islam from the east.
After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts, Constantinople was finally sacked by Ottoman Turks in 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, Hagia Sophia — as well as thousands of other churches — was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph.
Then, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, as part of several reforms, secularist Ataturk transformed Hagia Sophia into a "neutral" museum in 1934 — a gesture of goodwill to a then-triumphant West from a then-crestfallen Turkey.
Thus the fate of this ancient building is full of portents. And according to Hurriyet Daily News, "A parliamentary commission is considering an application by citizens to turn the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul into a mosque…. A survey conducted with 401 people was attached to the application, in which more than 97 percent of interviewees requested the transformation of the ancient building into a mosque and afterwards for it to be reopened for Muslim worship."
Even lesser known is the fact that other historic churches are currently being transformed into mosques, such as a 13thcentury church building — also named Hagia Sophia — in Trabzon. After the Islamic conquest, it was turned into a mosque. But because of its "great historical and cultural significance" for Christians, it too, during Turkey's secular age, was turned into a museum and its frescoes restored. Yet local authorities recently decreed that its Christian frescoes would again be covered and the church/museum turned into a mosque.
Similarly, the 5th century Studios Monastery, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, is set to become an active mosque. And the existence of the oldest functioning Christian monastery in the world, 5th century Mor Gabriel Monastery, is at risk. Inhabited today by only a few dozen Christians dedicated to learning the monastery's teachings, the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, and the Orthodox Syriac tradition, neighboring Muslims filed a lawsuit accusing the monks of practicing "anti-Turkish activities" and of illegally occupying land which belongs to Muslim villagers. The highest appeals court in Ankara ruled in favor of the Muslim villagers, saying the land that had been part of the monastery for 1,600 years is not its property, absurdly claiming that the monastery was built over the ruins of a mosque — even though Muhammad was born 170 years after the monastery was built.
Turkey's Christian minority, including the Orthodox Patriarch, are naturally protesting this renewed Islamic onslaught against what remains of their cultural heritage — to deaf ears.
The Muslim populace's role in transforming once Christian sites into mosques is a reminder of all those other Turks notprotesting the Islamization of Turkey, and who if anything consider Erdogan's government too "secular."
Their numbers are telling. In May 2012, Reuters reported that:
Thousands of devout Muslims prayed outside Turkey's historic Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday [May 23] to protest a 1934 law that bars religious services at the former church and mosque. Worshippers shouted, "Break the chains, let Hagia Sophia Mosque open," and "God is great" [the notorious "Allahu Akbar"] before kneeling in prayer as tourists looked on. Turkey's secular laws prevent Muslims and Christians from formal worship within the 6th-century monument, the world's greatest cathedral for almost a millennium before invading Ottomans converted it into a mosque in the 15th century.
The desire to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque is not about Muslims wanting a place to pray — as of 2010, there were 3,000 active mosques in Istanbul alone. Rather, it's about their reveling, and trying to revivify, the glory days of Islamic jihad and conquest: Reuters added that Muslims "staged the prayers ahead of celebrations next week marking the 559th anniversary of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet's conquest of Byzantine Constantinople." According to Salih Turhan, a spokesman quoted by Reuters, "As the grandchildren of Mehmet the Conqueror, seeking the re-opening Hagia Sophia as a mosque is our legitimate right."
Sultan Mehmet was the scourge of European Christendom, whose Islamic hordes seized and ravished Constantinople, forcibly turning it Islamic. Openly idolizing him, as many Turks do, is tantamount to their saying, "We are proud of our ancestors who killed and stole the lands of European Christians." And yet, despite such militant overtones, Turhan, whose position is echoed by many Turks, still manages to blame the West: "Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million. It symbolizes our ill-treatment by the West."
So keeping a historically Christian/Western building — that was stolen by Islamic jihad — as a neutral museum is seen as "ill-treatment by the West," even as Turks continue destroying the nation's original Christian heritage.
And the historical revisions continue. Last May 29th, when Turks celebrate the Fall of Constantinople, Erdogan himself declared that the jihadi invasion — which saw countless Christians enslaved, raped, or slaughtered — was the true "time of enlightenment." After showing how Erdogan got it upside down, Ralph Sidway, an Orthodox Christian author, wrote:
Erdogan and Turkey celebrate the Fall of Constantinople, and the West congratulates them. "We are continuing to write history today," says Erdogan, and write it – or re-write it – they do, under the somnambulant gaze of craven Western leaders too ignorant, or too fearful, to challenge Islam's claim to moral superiority, historical righteousness and eventual world domination. By their policies, posture and pronouncements, Western European nations, and the United States, are conceding the future to a rapidly re-Islamicizing Turkey, and are aiding in Islam's stated goal of a new, global caliphate determined to conquer us, just as it conquered Constantinople 560 years ago. Every Turkish celebration of 29 May 1453 is a gauntlet flung down in challenge to the West. Each such event which goes unanswered and unchallenged by the West is another nail in the coffin of Christian culture, human rights, and free people everywhere.
Indeed, at a time when Turkey is openly reclaiming its jihadi heritage, Europeans are actively erasing their Christian heritage which for centuries kept the Islamic jihad at bay. Among other capitulations, Europeans are currently betraying church buildings to Muslims to convert to mosques and scrubbing references of the historic Turkish jihads on Europe from classroom textbooks, lest Muslim students be offended.
Meanwhile, here are neighboring Turkey's Muslims openly praising the same jihadi warlords who brutally conquered a portion of Europe centuries ago, converting thousands of churches into mosques, even as they openly prepare to finish the job — which may not even require force, as Europe actively sells its own soul.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of the new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (Regnery Publishing in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, 2013). A Middle East and Islam specialist, he is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Now to know the truth, go to:
Your Friend in Christ Iris89
Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!



Posts : 3092
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof Empty Islam Stole The Temple Mount From The Jews And Should Now Give It Back And Remove Their Mosque

Post  Admin on Wed Jul 17, 2013 10:55 am

Islam Stole The Temple Mount From The Jews And Should Now Give It Back And Remove Their Mosque

Learn the truth about the Temple Mount, read the following

Did Jews Abandon the Temple Mount?
by F.M. Loewenberg
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2013, pp. 37-48 (view PDF)
The claim that no Jewish temple ever existed in Jerusalem and that Jews have no rights whatsoever on the Temple Mount is part of the "temple denial" doctrine that has been increasingly internalized in Palestinian academic, religious, and political circles since the 1967 Six-Day War.[1] Others, both Jews and non-Jews, believe that a temple did exist but indicate that the Jews abandoned the area soon after the destruction of the Second Temple nearly two thousand years ago. From that time onward, Jews lost all direct contact with the Temple Mount and relocated their central worship site to other locations, such as the Mount of Olives and later the Western Wall.[2]
The facts do not support either of these claims. The destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. did not spell the end of Jewish activities on the Temple Mount. For many centuries, Jews continued their attachment to the site by maintaining a physical presence on the mountain. And when they were prevented from doing so, they prayed three times a day for the speedy renewal of the sacrificial service in a restored temple. Both the first and second temples were located in a mountainous portion of Jerusalem that Jewish tradition identified with the biblical Mount Moriah, site of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac.[3] Over time, the site was referred to as the Temple Mount (Har Habayit), and it was here that Herod (r. 37-4 B.C.E.) transformed a relatively small structure into a wonder of the ancient world. However, the magnificent edifice he built stood for less than a hundred years; it was destroyed in 70 C.E., three years after a Jewish rebellion against Roman rule broke out.
The Jewish people's response to this cataclysmic event is in some sense the entire post-70 history of the Jews as they built institutions and created an entire culture that kept the people alive for millennia. But what role did the actual Temple Mount play in their lives after its physical destruction? Despite the conventional wisdom that the Jewish people were banished from this holy site, the evidence suggests that Jews continued to maintain a strong connection to and frequently even a presence on the Temple Mount for the next two thousand years. Even when they were physically prevented from ascending the site, their attachment to Har Habayit remained strong and vibrant.
Roman Rule (70-300)
Once the Jewish revolt had been put down, Jews were again permitted to visit the site of the former temple since the Romans generally did not object to the worship of local gods. As far as they were concerned, once the rebellion was suppressed, there was no longer any impediment to Jewish worship on the mount. Many stories in the Talmud testify to the fact that leading rabbis continued to pray on the now desolate Temple Mount.[4]
Ascent to the Temple Mount was not limited to rabbis; the people's attachment to the former sanctuary also remained very strong. One story relates that "Ben Zoma once saw a [large] crowd on one of the steps of the Temple Mount."[5]
The people continued to bring sacrifices that were offered on a Temple Mount altar that had survived the destructive fire by the Romans. The Mishnah, a central code of Jewish law codified in the early third century C.E., states that "one may offer sacrifices [on the place where the temple used to stand] even though there is no house [i.e., temple]."[6] Some rabbis held that the sacrificial services continued almost without interruption for sixty-five years following the temple's destruction while others suggest that sacrificial services ceased in 70 C.E. but were resumed for the 3-year period when Bar Kochba controlled Jerusalem.[7]
Not only did the Jews continue to offer sacrifices and prayer on the mount, but at least once in the half-century following the temple's destruction, they began to build a new edifice for a third temple. Emperor Hadrian (76-138), eager to gain the cooperation of the Jews, granted them permission to rebuild their temple. The Jews started to make the necessary preparations, but before long, Hadrian, at the instigation of the Samaritans, went back on his word and the project was stopped.[8]
Following the defeat of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., Jews were barred for the first time from the Temple Mount. The victorious and vindictive Emperor Hadrian ordered that the Temple Mount be ploughed under and issued strict orders prohibiting Jews from living in Jerusalem and from praying on the Temple Mount. As an alternative, Jews assembled for prayer on the Mount of Olives from whence they had an unobstructed view of the temple ruins. While this prohibition was strictly enforced during Hadrian's lifetime, Jews did pray on the Temple Mount at various times during the second and the third centuries because the prohibition was not always fully enforced. Some scholars question whether Hadrian's decree was ever legally formulated, but all agree that a policy of prohibiting Jews in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount was in effect.[9]
Byzantine Period (300-618)
The transformation of the pagan Roman Empire into a Christian realm early in the fourth century marked a decisive turning point in the history of the Western world. Under pagan rule, Jerusalem had become a relatively insignificant provincial city, but now it attracted many pilgrims who came to worship at Christian holy sites. A new church, the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher, was built on the purported site of Jesus' crucifixion and became the city's central religious site. Until the Crusader conquest of the city eight centuries later, the importance of the Temple Mount was deliberately de-emphasized. Though many churches and other religious buildings were erected throughout the city at sites associated with the life of Jesus, only one or two were built on the Temple Mount. Until recently, it was widely believed that in the Byzantine period the Temple Mount was deliberately abandoned by Christians and turned into the local garbage dump[10] in order to fulfill the New Testament prediction that the temple would be totally destroyed and "not one stone will be left here upon another."[11] These views were challenged by the recent publication of suppressed archeological findings. The excavations, the only ones ever permitted on the Temple Mount by the Muslim waqf in modern times, were conducted by British archeologists in the 1930s. Under al-Aqsa mosque, they found evidence of a mosaic floor, dated to the fifth to seventh centuries, that was quite similar to floors of churches found in Bethlehem. Most likely they are remnants of a Byzantine church that was built on the Temple Mount—contrary to the accepted theories.[12]
Emperor Constantine (272-357) renewed the laws that prohibited Jews from living in or even visiting Christian Jerusalem, allowing access to the Temple Mount once a year on Tisha b'Av (the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av, the anniversary of the day the temples were destroyed).[13] In 333, the anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux described in some detail the desolate Temple Mount, noting a "perforated stone" (perhaps today's Foundation Stone found in the Dome of the Rock), which the Jews anointed with oil once a year on Tisha b'Av. On this day, he heard the Jews recite the Book of Lamentations on the Temple Mount and saw them tear their clothes as a sign of mourning.[14] Later Byzantine writers, including Jerome, corroborate that Jews continued these mourning practices on the actual Temple Mount.[15]
Constantine's nephew Julian, who became emperor in 361 C.E., turned his back on Christianity and issued an edict of universal religious toleration for all—pagans, Jews, and Christians. He reversed the ban against Jews in Jerusalem early in his reign.
In 363 C.E., Julian promised to help rebuild the temple in Jerusalem; among Diaspora Jews, his pledge was greeted with great enthusiasm[16] although some rabbis were apprehensive about the undertaking, hesitating to engage in building the Third Temple prior to the arrival of the messiah.[17] Julian, nonetheless, went ahead with the project and ordered the imperial treasury to make available large sums of money and building materials. Many Jews came to Jerusalem to assist the skilled craftsmen and masons in the removal of the existing foundation, the first step in the rebuilding project.
Christian residents of the city were vigorous in their opposition to any attempt to rebuild the temple. Many gathered in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to pray for the termination of the project. It would seem their prayers were answered since all work halted abruptly in the summer of 363; whether this was due to arson, an earthquake, or merely Julian's death on the Persian front is a matter of some dispute. Julian's successor, a devout Christian, immediately canceled the temple-rebuilding effort.[18]
By the latter part of the fourth century, the Temple Mount had disappeared completely from the landscape of Christian Jerusalem. The pilgrim Egeria who visited Jerusalem in the early 380s provided a detailed description of the city in letters to her friends, but she made no mention of the Temple Mount.[19] Similarly, the mosaic world map of Medaba from the mid-sixth century depicts Jerusalem in great detail but omits the Temple Mount altogether as does a seventh-century Armenian account of the city's holy places.[20]
Jews, on the other hand, never forgot the Temple Mount even when none of the original temple buildings remained standing. Wherever they lived, they faced Jerusalem three times every day and prayed for the restoration of the temple and the renewal of the sacrificial service.[21] Furthermore, there are indications that despite imperial bans, some Jews continued to pray on the Temple Mount. The late fourth-century sage Rabbi Bibi offered instructions to those who went to the Temple Mount to ensure their behavior would not degrade the holiness of the place.[22] A sixth-century aggadic work, Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba, includes an instruction for Jews everywhere to face in the direction of the Temple Mount when praying, adding that "and those who pray on the Temple Mount should turn to the Holy of Holies,"[23] an injunction that only makes sense if the ban was not strictly enforced.
The Jewish people's continued attachment to the Temple Mount is exemplified by an event that occurred during the reign of the Roman Empress Eudocia (401-60). When she went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 438, she was greeted warmly by Jews everywhere, probably as a result of her policy of supporting non-Christians. When the leading rabbis asked her for permission to once again ascend the Temple Mount, she immediately agreed. Great excitement gripped the local Jewish leaders who sent letters to other communities throughout the world informing them of the good news and asking them to come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the coming Sukkot festival. More than 100,000 Jews came to Jerusalem that year, but once again, Jerusalem's Christians launched a violent protest and blocked access to the mountain.[24]
For almost two centuries after this incident, Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem. Until the Persian conquest in 618, Jerusalem was officially a city without Jews. This would change dramatically under the brief period of Persian rule and the subsequent, and far lengthier, era of Muslim hegemony.
For centuries, Persian and Roman (later Byzantine) armies had battled each other over the fringes of their respective empires. The invasion of Palestine by King Khosru II of Persia in 613-14 C.E. succeeded in briefly wresting control of Jerusalem from Constantinople. Khosru was aided by Babylonian Jewry who supplied 30,000 Jewish soldiers in return for a promise that they would participate in the capture of Jerusalem and that a Jewish governor would be appointed to rule over the city.[25] Once the city was captured, the Persians appointed Nehemiah ben Hushiel as governor, and the new governor lost no time in reestablishing the sacrificial service on the Temple Mount.
Rabbi Elazer Kalir, one of the earliest and most prolific of Jewish liturgical poets, confirms the restoration:
When Assyria [Persia] came to the city … and pitched his tents there / the holy people [Jews] were a bit relieved / because he permitted the reestablishment of the Temple / and they built there the holy altar / and offered upon it holy sacrifices / but they did not manage to build the Temple / because the Messiah had not yet come.[26]
But once again, this return to the Temple Mount was short-lived. Nehemiah was soon executed either out of fear of his messianic pretensions or because the support of the city's larger Christian population was preferred over that of the smaller number of Jews. In any event, in 629, only ten years after the conquest, the Persians lost control of the city to the Byzantines who were subsequently defeated by victorious Arab forces sweeping out of the desert.
Early Muslim Rule (638-1099)
Jerusalem was conquered by Arab forces in May 638, an accomplishment ascribed by Muslim sources to the Caliph Umar. In return for assistance in the taking of the city, the Jews received the right to reside in Jerusalem and to pray on the Temple Mount without interference.[27]
In 680, fifty years after Umar's conquest of Jerusalem, the Damascus-based Umayyad dynasty engaged in a struggle for control of the Muslim world with a rebel dynasty based in Mecca. The Umayyads opted to fight the rebels by damaging Mecca's economy, which was based almost entirely on revenues from Muslim pilgrims. Their secret weapon was to create a competing pilgrimage site by building a magnificent edifice, the Dome of the Rock, on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple and hoping that this mosque would weaken Mecca's economy by siphoning off pilgrims from Mecca. Thus, a political strategy designed to fight mutineers in far-off Mecca transformed Jerusalem's Temple Mount into a Muslim holy site with far-reaching implications to this day.
But the metamorphosis of the Temple Mount into Islam's third holiest site did not result in a total exclusion of Jews from the location. Soon after the Muslim conquest, Jews received permission to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount. Perhaps the wooden structure that was built over the Foundation Stone was first intended for a synagogue, but even before it was completed, the site was expropriated by the city's rulers. The Jews received another site on the mount for a synagogue in compensation for the expropriated building.[28]Most probably there was an active synagogue on the Temple Mount during most of the early Muslim period.[29] Solomon ben Jeroham, a Karaite (a medieval Jewish sectarian) exegete who lived in Jerusalem between 940 and 960, affirmed that Jews were permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, noting that "the courtyards of the Temple were turned over to them and they prayed there [on the Temple Mount] for many years."[30]
Al-Aqsa Mosque (the Furthest Mosque), the second mosque on the Temple Mount, was built in 715 and was linked to a Muslim legend, based on an ambiguous verse in the Qur'an concerning Muhammad's night journey to heaven.[31] In this way, the Umayyads cleverly associated Muhammad's life with Jerusalem even though the prophet died years before the city's capture by the Muslims. This construction further cemented the site's holiness to Islam. Nonetheless, during this first phase of Islamic governance, Muslim rulers were generally tolerant of Jewish activities on the mountain. Whenever a more intolerant ruler assumed control of the city, Jews were forbidden from praying on the mount but instead worshipped at one of the many Temple Mount gates; an eleventh-century document found in the geniza or storeroom of a Cairo synagogue describes the circuit followed by the pilgrims and the prayers they recited at each of the gates.[32]
After the conquest of Jerusalem by the army of the Fatimid dynasty (969), a Temple Mount synagogue was rebuilt and used until the Jews were banished by Caliph al-Hakim in 1015. When a subsequent ruler canceled Hakim's eviction order, the Jews again returned to this synagogue on the Temple Mount and worshipped there until the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. Hebrew writings found on the internal walls of the Golden Gate are believed to have been written by Jewish pilgrims at least one thousand years ago,[33] thus testifying once again to the continued Jewish attachment to and presence on the Temple Mount in this era.
Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1187)
The early Arab rulers of Jerusalem for the most part did not destroy or confiscate any of the city's churches. Although charged an entrance toll, Christian pilgrims continued to visit their sacred shrines. This religious tolerance came to an end when the Seljuk Turks swarmed out of Central Asia in the latter part of the eleventh century and captured Jerusalem in 1071. Assaults on pilgrims and attacks on churches became commonplace. As reports of these anti-Christian activities reached Europe, Pope Urban II in 1095 demanded that Christians rescue the Holy Land from the "infidel," an appeal that resulted in the First Crusade.
Within hours of breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, the victorious Crusaders had massacred almost all of the city's Jewish and Muslim inhabitants.[34] The Crusaders ascended the Temple Mount and after giving thanks to God for their victory, converted the mosques into churches, renaming the Dome of the Rock the Temple of God (Templum Domini) and al-Aqsa Mosque, the Temple of Solomon (Templum Solomnis). The mount was declared off-limits to all non-Christians and became the center of religious and civil life in Crusader Jerusalem.[35]
Despite the prohibition, Jews continued to ascend the mount even during the Crusader period. The prominent medieval Jewish commentator and leader Maimonides (1135-1204) wrote in a letter in 1165 that he "entered the Great and Holy House [and] prayed there."[36] The Jewish traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Jerusalem sometime between 1159 and 1172, also recorded Jews praying "in front of the Western Wall [of the Dome of the Rock],[37] one of the [remaining] walls of what was once the Holy of Holies."[38] Thus, even in one of the darkest and most intolerant periods of Jewish history, the faithful did not abandon the Temple Mount.
A Medieval Dispute
Less than a century later, the Kurdish Muslim warrior Saladin regained control of the city, thus putting an end to the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in October 1187. Even though the Temple Mount was re-consecrated as a Muslim sanctuary, Saladin permitted both Jews and Muslims to settle in Jerusalem and to worship on the Temple Mount. The Muslim authorities permitted Jews to erect a synagogue on the site[39] although the situation vacillated over the next few centuries. For example, Saladin, who at first had urged Jews to come back to Jerusalem, a few years later forbade them to go on the Temple Mount. From the late thirteenth century to the mid-nineteenth, the mountain was, for the most part, off-limits to Jews with occasional interludes of access.
During the first millennium following the destruction of the Second Temple, Jews did not hesitate to ascend the mount, but by the Middle Ages, two distinct halakhic (Jewish religious law) views on the permissibility of doing so had crystallized. The dispute centered largely on issues of the degrees of holiness associated with the areas where the temple once stood and on whether Jews who could no longer attain ritual purity might inadvertently enter the location of the former temple. According to most rabbinic authorities, in the first centuries after the temple's destruction, it was permissible to walk on the Temple Mount because the ashes of the Red Heifer, which were necessary for attaining ritual purity, were still available.[40] But by the medieval period, these ashes were no longer available, and thus prevented Jews from achieving ritual purity. Under these circumstances, Maimonides taught, "Even though the Temple is in ruins today due to our sins, everyone is obligated to revere it like when it was standing … one is not permitted to enter any place that is forbidden."[41] On the other hand, Rabbi Avraham ben David of Provence [Raavad] (c.1125-98), the author of critical glosses on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, concluded that "one who enters [the Temple Mount] nowadays does not receive the penalty of karet[literally, cutting off]."[42] Though there are various interpretations of the meaning of Raavad's gloss, he probably held that the Temple Mount without a temple no longer had its original holiness.
In the subsequent halakhic literature, the vast majority of rabbinical authorities "built a fence around" Maimonides' conclusion and forbade entering any part of the Temple Mount, fearing that some might inadvertently enter a forbidden area. Of the classical authorities, only Rabbi Menachem Meiri (1249-1316), a noted French Talmudic scholar, expressed the view that in his days it was permissible for Jews to enter the Temple Mount.[43]
And yet Jewish attachment to this ruined site persisted. In 1211, three hundred European rabbis, mostly from England and France, embarked for the Holy Land. One, Rabbi Shmuel ben R. Shimshon, wrote about his visit to the Temple Mount.[44] Early in the fourteenth century, Rabbi Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1366) wrote in his halakhic and geographic book Kaftor ve-Ferah about an earlier rabbinic ruling that urged people to come to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices on the Temple Mount.[45] While nothing apparently came of these plans, it is significant that a noted authority of the period could contemplate such an act, despite the self-imposed rabbinic ban. Toward the end of the Mamluk period, there is evidence from the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, David ben Shlomo Ibn Zimra (1479-1573), who wrote that the city's Jews regularly went to the Temple Mount in order to view the entire temple ruins and pray there. He added that "we have not heard or seen anyone object to this."[46]
The Ottoman Empire (1516-1856)
With the Ottoman conquest of Jerusalem in 1516, the relationship between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount entered a new phase. Sultan Suleiman I (the Magnificent, 1494-1566) ordered the rebuilding of the city's walls and encouraged many European Jews, especially those who had been expelled from Spain and Portugal a generation earlier, to settle in the Holy City. Suleiman also instructed his court architect to prepare a place for Jewish prayer in an alley at the bottom of the Western retaining wall of the Temple Mount because he had prohibited all non-Muslims from entering any part of the Temple Mount. A royal decree was issued that guaranteed for all times the right of Jews to pray at this Western Wall in compensation for the Jews' relinquishing their legal rights to pray on the mount itself.[47]
Subsequent Ottoman rulers invested little effort in the upkeep of the Dome of the Rock or al-Aqsa Mosque. There are no records of important Muslim clerics or kings or even large crowds of ordinary Muslims praying on the Temple Mount.[48] Even those rabbinical authorities, who agreed in theory with the precedents that permitted ascent, hedged their rulings in view of the actual situation on the ground. Rabbi Yosef Di'Trani, who visited Jerusalem during the 1590s, noted that there were locations on the southern and eastern sides of the Temple Mount where Jews could walk freely without any concern of entering a prohibited area, but he ruled that Jews should, nonetheless, avoid going there because they were not ritually clean. In the nineteenth century, students of the rabbinical giant, the Vilna Gaon, arrived in Jerusalem and became the prototype of today's ultra-Orthodox haredi community. The leader of this group, Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (d. 1839), held that though there were areas on the Temple Mount that they were allowed to enter, Jews were, nevertheless, forbidden to ascend as the exact location of these permitted areas was in some doubt.[49] This ruling became the normative position of the Orthodox world for the next 150 years. Despite rabbinical decrees prohibiting access to the mountain and the death penalty threat for any Jew caught on the mountain, the deep-seated Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount remained strong. An unknown number of Jews ascended the mountain surreptitiously during these centuries. No records were kept of these visits because of their clandestine nature, but occasional references in Muslim court records and travelers' accounts give evidence of their occurrence.[50]
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
In the aftermath of the Crimean War (1853-56), the Temple Mount was opened daily (except on Fridays) to all visitors, regardless of their religion—a concession demanded by the victorious British. Nevertheless, the Jerusalem rabbis again issued a decree prohibiting Jews from going up, threatening to put any Jew who ignored their ruling under the ban, a form of rabbinical excommunication from the community. While the vast majority of Jews abided by the decree, many ignored it, including prominent visitors, such as Sir Moses Montefiore and Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Many of the new secular settlers also disregarded the rabbinical instructions and visited the site.[51]
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine, repeatedly prohibited entering any part of the Temple Mount, a position also reiterated by his successor Rabbi Isaac Herzog (1888-1959). Herzog testified in 1938 before the British Partition Committee that Jews were not allowed to go onto the Temple Mount until the coming of the messiah.
Just before the outbreak of the 1948 War of Independence, Herzog instructed Gen. David Shaltiel, the Jerusalem sector commander of the Jewish underground forces, that should his forces capture the Temple Mount, they should make every effort to expel all enemy soldiers, but once they had accomplished this task they were to leave the Temple Mount as quickly as possible because of the holiness of the place. These instructions became moot since the Jordanian army succeeded in occupying all of the Old City, including the Temple Mount. For the next nineteen years, no Jew was allowed to approach the Western Wall or the Temple Mount despite provisions in the Jordan-Israel armistice agreement that called for free access to all holy places.
In June 1967, on the second day of the Six-Day War, Israeli paratroopers entered Jerusalem's Old City and made their way to the Temple Mount; Col. Mordechai Gur, the brigade's commander, soon broadcast a momentous message to the Israeli nation: "The Temple Mount is [again] in our hands." For the first time in almost two thousand years, the Temple Mount was under the control of a sovereign Jewish people.
Gur ordered three paratroopers to climb to the top of the Dome of the Rock and unfurl an Israeli flag over it; four hours later Defense Minister Moshe Dayan ordered the flag taken down. This order initiated a schizophrenic diplomatic and political state of affairs that continues to this day.
Dayan proclaimed that, henceforth, there would be unrestricted Jewish access to the Temple Mount.
This compound was our Temple Mount. Here stood our Temple during ancient time, and it would be inconceivable for Jews not to be able freely to visit this holy place now that Jerusalem is under our rule.[52]
Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Israel Defense Forces chief rabbi at that time, was among the first soldiers to appear on the Temple Mount and described his activities on that historic day:
When we arrived on the Temple Mount, I blew the shofar, fell on the ground and prostrated myself in the direction of the Holy of Holies, as was customary in the days when the Temple still stood. … [Later] I found General Moti Gur sitting in front of the Omar Mosque. He asked me if I wanted to enter, and I answered him that today I had issued a ruling permitting all soldiers to enter because soldiers are obligated to do so on the day when they conquer the Temple Mount in order to clear it of enemy soldiers and to make certain that no booby traps were left behind. … I took along a Torah scroll and a shofar and we entered the building. I think that this was the first time since the destruction of the Temple almost two thousand years ago that a Torah scroll had been brought into the holy site which is where the Temple was located. Inside I read Psalm 49, blew the shofar, and encircled the Foundation Stone with a Torah in my hand. Then we exited.[53]
Some weeks later Rabbi Goren established a synagogue and study hall, as well as his office, on the Temple Mount and held organized study and prayers on the site. But within days, Goren's efforts were brought to a halt. At the behest of Dayan, the Israeli government prohibited Rabbi Goren from undertaking any further activities on the mount.[54]
As a result of another government decision that same year, the general public, including Jews and Christians, was allowed to visit the Temple Mount without hindrance but not to pray there. Many visitors have taken advantage of this permission, but most observant Jews continued to follow the instructions of the chief rabbinate, which prohibit Jews from entering the mount because of the issue of ritual impurity. A small number of rabbis have followed Rabbi Goren's plea to permit and encourage Jews to visit those areas on the Temple Mount that do not require complete ritual purity.
At the outbreak of "al-Aqsa intifada" in September 2000, the Temple Mount was closed to all non-Muslims because it was feared that the area might become a tinderbox of clashes with Palestinians. The mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003, but visiting hours were severely curtailed with the authority of the waqf (Islamic religious endowment), the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount, increasing in significance. During certain hours, Jews and Christians are allowed to go up to the mount but only if they conform to a strict set of guidelines, including a ban on prayer and bringing any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are forbidden from entering any of the mosques without direct waqf permission; rules are enforced by waqf agents, who watch tourists closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any infractions. Thus despite the fact that the Israeli parliament passed laws ensuring freedom of worship to all at every holy site, Jewish prayer on any part of the Temple Mount continues to be prohibited.
Even after the Roman armies destroyed the temple in 70 C.E., the Jews never abandoned the site. No matter what obstacles or decrees others placed in their way, Jews continued to ascend and pray at or near the area where their temple once stood.
Whenever their physical presence on the mountain was outlawed, they selected alternate prayer sites, such as the Mount of Olives from where the Temple Mount could be seen. In more recent times, the Western Wall served as such an alternative. But even during those periods, Jews attempted, legally or otherwise, to go up unto the mountain to pray. In recent decades, despite the opposition of the Muslim waqf and the Jewish chief rabbinate, the number of Jews going up on the Temple Mount in order to pray has increased year-by-year.[55]
Against this backdrop, the continued denial that Jews have any connection with the Temple Mount cannot but pose a formidable obstacle to a settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.
F. M. Loewenberg is a professor emeritus at Bar-Ilan-University and lives in Efrat, Israel.
[1] David Barnett, "The Mounting Problem of Temple Denial," Meria Journal, June 2011.
[2] Eli Schiller, Kipat ha-Sela Even Hash'tiya (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1976), pp. 19-28.
[3] Rashi's comment on the Babylonian Talmud (hereafter, BT), Pesachim 88a.
[4] See BT, Makkot 24b; BT, Shabbat 15a; BT, Rosh Hashanah 31a; BT, Sanhedrin 11b; BT, Avoda Zara 20a.
[5] BT, Berakhot 58a; see, also, Mordechai Fogelman, Beit Mordechai (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2009), p. 205.
[6] Mishnah (M) Eduyot 8.6; see also Maimonides, Hilkhot Bet Ha-bechira 6.15.
[7] M Eduyot 8.6; Maimonides, Hilkhot Bet Ha-bechira 6.15; Ha'emek Davar commentary on Leviticus 26.31.
[8] Genesis Rabba 64.10.
[9] Oded Irshai, "Ha-issur shehetil Konstantinus Hagadol al k'nissat Yehudim Lirushalayim," Zion, 60 (1996), pp. 129-78; J. Rendel Harris, "Hadrian's decree of expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem," Harvard Theological Review, 19 (1926), pp. 199-206.
[10] Galyn Wiemers, "Jerusalem 101: An introduction to the city of Jerusalem," Generation Word, West Des Moines, Iowa., accessed Apr. 24, 2013.
[11] Matthew 24:2, Mark 13:2, Luke 21:6.
[12] Etgar Lefkovits, "Was the Aksa Mosque built over the remains of a Byzantine church?" Jerusalem Post, Nov. 16, 2008; Leen Ritmeyer, "Third Jewish Mikveh and a Byzantine Mosaic Floor Discovered on the Temple Mount," Ritmeyer Archeological Design, Nov. 17, 2008; Israel Hayom (Tel Aviv), June 29, 2012.
[13] Irshai, "Ha-issur shehetil Konstantinus Hagadol al k'nissat Yehudim Lirushalayim," pp. 129-78.
[14] Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), p. 81; Menachem Elon, Temple Mount Faithful-Amutah et al v. Attorney-General, et al., in the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice, Sept. 23, 1993, inCatholic University Law Review, Spring 1996, pp. 890-2.
[15] Jerome's commentary on Zephaniah 1.6.
[16] Ephraem the Syrian, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, A. Rücker, trans., 20 (1919), First Song, p. 16; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio V contra Julianum, 4 (GCS 35), c. 668.
[17] Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica, Joseph Bidez, ed. (Berlin: Winkelman and Friedhelm, 1972), p. 297.
[18] Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine, pp. 196-200; Gunter Stemberger, Jews and Christians in the Holy Land—Palestine in the Fourth Century (Edinburgh: Clark, 2000), p. 208; Robert Panella, "The Emperor Julian and the God of the Jews," Koinonia, 23 (1999), pp. 15-31; Kenneth W. Russell, "The Earthquake of May 19, AD 363," The Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Spring 1980, pp. 47-64; David B. Levenson, "The ancient and medieval sources for the Emperor Julian's attempt to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple," The Journal for the Study of Judaism, 4 (2004), pp. 409-60.
[19] M. L. McClure and C. L. Feltoe, ed. and trans., The Pilgrimage of Etheria (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919).
[20] E. W. Brooks, "An Armenian Visitor to Jerusalem in the Seventh Century," English Historical Review, 11(1896), pp. 93-7.
[21] JT, Berakhot 2.4(17a), Midrash Tanchuma Ki Tavo 1.
[22] BT, Berakhot 62b.
[23] Midrash Shir Hashirim Rabba 4.
[24] Michael Gaddis, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), p. 246; Kenneth Holum, Theodosian Empresses (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 217.
[25] Some scholars question the existence of this treaty. See, Elisabeth Campagner, "Eine jüdische Apokalypse des 7. Jahrhunderts? Kaiser Heraklius als Antichrist?" Internet Zeitschrift fur Kulturwissenschaft, Sept. 5, 2002, pp. 1-43.
[26] Ezra Fleischer, "L'pitaron sh'elat z'mano u'makom p'ulato shel R' Elazar Biribi Kilir," Tarbiz, 54 (1985), p. 401.
[27] Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphate (Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 1920), vol. 2, pp. 188-9; Ben-Zion Dinor (Dinaburg), "Bet Tefila u'midrash l'yehudim al har habayit bi'mey ha'aravim," Zion, 3 (1929), pp. 54-87.
[28] "The riddle of the Dome of the Rock: Was it built as a Jewish place of prayer?" The Voice of the Temple Mount Faithful (Jerusalem), Summer 2001; Abraham Benisch, trans., Travels of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon (London: The Jewish Chronicle Office, 1856); Robert Bedrosian, trans., Sebeos' History of Armenia (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985), chap. 31.
[29] Dinor, "Bet Tefila u'midrash l'yehudim al har habayit bi'mey ha'aravim," pp. 54-87; for another view, see Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature (New York: Ktav Publisher, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 313-5.
[30] Solomon ben Jeroham, comment on Psalm 30, cited by Shlomo Goren, Sefer Har Habayit, rev. ed. (Jerusalem: Ha-idra Rabba, 2004), p. 314.
[31] Qur. 17.1.
[32] Dan Bahat, "Identification of the Gates of the Temple Mount and the 'Cave' in the Early Muslim Period," Catedra, 106 (2002), pp. 61-86; Abraham Ya'ari, ed., Igarot Eretz Yisrael (Tel Aviv: Gazit, 1943), pp. 48-53.
[33] Shulamit Gera, "Ha-ketuvot b'otiot ivri'ot b'sha'ar harahamim," Catedra, 61 (1991), pp. 176-81.
[34] Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1957), vol. 4, p. 109; Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades: Extracted and Translated from the Chronicle of Ibn Al-Qalanisi (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover, 2003), p. 48.
[35] Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), p. 212; Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, p. 109.
[36] R. Elazar Ezkari, Sefer Haredim (Mitzvah 83); Yitzhak Shilat, "B'niyat Bet Knesset b'Har Habayit B'yameinu," Tehumin 7, 1986, pp. 489-512.
[37] The Western Wall Benjamin described was not the present Western Wall (which did not become a site for prayer until the sixteenth century) but the ruins of the western wall of the Second Temple building on the Temple Mount.
[38] Benjamin of Tudela, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1960), pp. 20-4.
[39] Emil Offenbacher, "Prayer on the Temple Mount," Jerusalem Quarterly, 36 (1985), p. 134.
[40] Eliezer Brodt, "Eimatai paska taharat afar para aduma," Tradition Seforim Blog, 2009.
[41] Maimonides, Hilchot Beit Habechira 7:7.
[42] Raavad's gloss on Maimonides, Hilchot Beit Habechira 6:14.
[43] Menachem Meiri, Beit Habechira on BT, Shavuot 16a.
[44] Ya'ari, Igarot Eretz Yisrael, p. 78.
[45] Ishtori Haparchi, Kaftor v'Ferah, J. Blumenfeld, ed. (New York: Beit Hillel, 1958), p. 214, n. 17.
[46] Responsa of the Radbaz, vol. 2, no. 691; Tuvya Sagiv, "Ha-knissa l'Har Habayit—T'shuvat Haradbaz," in Yehuda Shaviv, ed., Kumo v'Na'aleh (Alon Shvut: Machon Tzomet, 2003), pp. 46-81.
[47] Joseph Schwartz, Geography of Palestine, I. Leeser, trans. (Philadelphia: A. Hart, 1850), p. 260.
[48] Manfred R. Lehmann, "The Moslem Claim to Jerusalem Is False," Algemeiner Journal, Aug. 19, 1994.
[49] Israel of Shklov, P'at Hashulchan, H. Eretz Yisrael (Ramat Gan: Re'ut, 2000), sect. 3:11-12; idem, Bet Yisrael commentary (Safed: n.p., 1836), subsec. 26.
[50] Amnon Cohen, Jews in Moslem Religious Courts: 16th Century (Jerusalem: Ben Tzvi, 1993), doc. 104, May 4, 1551, pp. 114-5, doc 107, May 19, 1554, p. 117; Schwartz, Geography of Palestine, pp. 417-8.
[51] Dotan Goren, "Ha-aliya l'Har habayit ul'Makom ha-Mikdash b'tram ha-medina," E-mago, 2007.
[52] Moshe Dayan, Story of My Life (New York: Morrow and Company, 1976), p. 390.
[53] Shlomo Goren, "Selection from Personal Diary on the Conquest of Jerusalem," cited in Shabbaton, no. 422, May 29, 2009.
[54] Yoel Cohen, "The Political Role of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in the Temple Mount Question," Jewish Political Studies Review, Spring 1999, p. 108; Goren, Sefer Har Habayit, pp. 30-3.
[55] Matti Friedman, "On the Temple Mount, a battle brews over Jewish prayer," Times of Israel, Mar. 12, 2013.
Related Topics: Israel & Zionism, Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism | Summer 2013 MEQThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Now to know the truth, go to:








To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!


Posts : 3092
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof Empty Re: As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof

Post  Admin on Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:53 pm

FIRST, He has reposted the same misleading nonsense with respect Israel:
He said,
<<[[ How about Balfour declaration and creation of Zionist Israel, which is the main cause of blood bath in ME]]>>
Now let’s consider reality; to wit, all of Palestine belongs to the Jews and NOT to the Muslims. How so? Many Muslims have been wrongly occupying Palestine and it is high time for them to go back to where they belong.
Let’s look at reality:
Whose Land Is It? A Study of The Land of Palestine


Land title research in many areas is a very difficult task. In Mexico, the titles to farm land are so clouded it can take years to adequately search them. In some places the granting of title to land by a legitimate granter can go back over 3,500 years. One such place is the land of Palestine where current occupancy has no relationship to whom holds title.

Even some of the most famous buildings in the land of Palestine are actually squatters on land to which others hold title. The most famous instance of this is the Temple Mount and its squatter mosque that sits on the site of the ancient temple of ancient Hebrew kingdom and belongs to the Hebrews. This mess with many occupying land as squatters for which others hold title makes for an untenable position when the rightful title holder takes back his/her land, especially so when it is centuries later.

The present situation in much of Palestine is like the battle between the squatters and the owners, titleholders of land in the old west in the United States; to wit, squatters wanting to continue to squat and land owners wanting their land back. However, some additional situations enter the picture since many of the land owners - their ancestors - were forced off the their land by the Romans and by later Caliphs. Now of course the rule of law should be applied and the squatters finally brought to their day of reckoning with reality, they have no title to the land they are on.


What title is:

Now let's look at what land title is from an encyclopedia, <<" Title is a legal term for an owner's interest in a piece of property. It may also refer to a formal document that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, both possession and title may be transferred independently of each other. [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>

Now note, one may be in possession of land, but not title as they are two distinct things as will shortly be shown.

Possession and title are NOT the same thing:

Let's show this fact that possession and title are not the same thing with illustrattion example provided by an encyclopedia, << The three elements of title are possession, the right of possession, and the right of property. Possession is the actual holding of a thing, with or without any right thereto. The right of possession is the right to legitimacy of possession (with or without actual possession), the evidence for which is such that the law will uphold it unless a better claim is proven. The right of property is that right which, if all relevant facts were known (and allowed), would defeat all other claims. Each of these may be in a different person.

For example, suppose A steals from B, what B had previously bought in good faith from C, which C had earlier stolen from D, which had been a heirloom of D's family for generations, but had originally been stolen centuries earlier (though this fact is now forgotten by all) from E. Here A has the possession, B has an apparent right of possession (as evidenced by the purchase), D has the absolute right of possession (being the best claim that can be proven), and the heirs of E, if they knew it, have the right of property, which they cannot prove. Good title consists in uniting these three (possession, right of possession, and right of property) in the same person(s).[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].">>

Now note, something could have been stolen, squatted on, centuries earlier but that does NOT give the person in charge title in any way.

Soundness of title - what it depends on:

The soundness of title depends on several factors or conditions precedent:

First, the higher the position of the granter the more legitimate the title is with the highest granter being, of course, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, the supreme being. This followed by Emperors, Kings or Caliphs, and Presidents or Sultans in that order.

Second, the earliest granting of title takes precedence over later grants of title.


Now let's look at who was the granter of title to land in Palestine and to whom:

Genesis 15:18 records the conferring of legitimate title to the Promise Land to the Hebrews (Jews) by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael as follows for a record to all men for all of time, "In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (American Standard Version; ASV). That this was to be their land per the promise of the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael is also made clear in Deuteronomy 10:11, "And Jehovah said unto me, Arise, take thy journey before the people; and they shall go in and possess the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give unto them.." (ASV). And, this fact is even shown in the New Testament at Hebrews 11:9, "By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:" (ASV).

Now the "Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish" says this of the inheritance of the Hebrews, the promised land, <<"The land of promise is constantly spoken of as the inheritance of Israel: the land flowing with milk and honey was given to them by God. #De 4:21 Ps 105:11, &c. So when Israel returns to take possession of the land in a future day, it is still called their inheritance. #Eze 45:1, &c. This all shews that they were and will be an earthly people, but God blessed them on earth in relationship with Himself as Jehovah, and will again bless them on earth when they own the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. In connection with this God calls Israel His inheritance: He hath chosen them for His own inheritance. #Ps 33:12 78:62, &c.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish]">>

In fact the true God (YHWH) of Abraham had very specific instructions with respect the land in the area he had given them in lawful perpetuity as the supreme being, the maker of all there is as shown at Deuteronomy 19:14, "Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it." (ASV); and Job 24:1-2, "Why, seeing times are not hidden from the Almighty, do they that know him not see his days? 2 Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof." (ASV); and Proverbs 22:28, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (ASV); and Proverbs 23:10, "Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:" (ASV). But squatters have violated all these righteous commands of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham. And as shown by Easton's Bible Dictionary, <<" Landmarks could not be removed without incurring the severe displeasure of God." [source - Easton's Revised Bible Dictionary]>>.

In fact, the Eclectic Notes on the Bible on Deuteronomy 19:14 notes, <<" Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark "Thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance," shows that there is a divine apportionment which is not to be interfered with. The inheritance is common to all; all are sons, children, brethren, and have a common portion in Christ and in the Spirit. But in detail each has an assigned portion, and it is to be our care, according to Deuteronomy, that our neighbour has his full portion. This is in keeping with the spirit of grace and consideration for the good of others which marks the book. We have no daughters of Zelophehad here desiring inheritance for themselves; our care here is that our neighbour's inheritance shall not be infringed upon. The inheritance is enjoyed in a neighbourly way; I can only enjoy your bit of it as you enjoy it, and therefore if I remove your landmark I really defraud myself! It is our interest to see that our neighbours enjoy their full assigned portion. In great part we enjoy the inheritance through our brethren; it is blessed to see them enjoying their portion; no one moving spiritually would wish to curtail it in the least degree. This stands in marked contrast with slaying our neighbour, even though such a thing should be done unwittingly. It emphasises the neighbourly character in which the inheritance is taken up. We get on together by fully recognising the portion assigned to each.

If any one's landmark is removed it is not only a wrong done to him, but it tends to impoverish all by interfering with the way in which God has given things. The clerical principle has greatly tended to remove landmarks, and has deprived the people of God of what divine favour would have made available in the brethren generally. The arrangements of men, and human order, are simply a removal of landmarks "which they of old time have fixed in thine inheritance." The commandments of the Lord #1Co 14:37 are fixed landmarks, and are not to be disregarded; they would give to each one his true spiritual place amongst the brethren for the benefit of all. Many of our neighbours have had their landmarks removed, and we all suffer from it, but our care should be to give full place to what is assigned by God to each. The inheritance will only be truly and spiritually enjoyed as we are set together in affection, and each holds his portion in relation to the common joy. To be self-centred, or to move independently of one's brethren, is really to lose the good of what God has given to others for our benefit as joint-heirs with them." [source - Eclectic Notes - eclectic Notes on the Bible]>>.

Another Bible dictionary says, <<"<<"Promised Land held in trust. Even the people Israel, to whom God had given the land for them to enjoy as landowners, were told by Jehovah that they were not actually owners of it but only held it in trust. He said concerning the sale of a family land estate: "So the land should not be sold in perpetuity, because the land is mine. For you are alien residents and settlers from my standpoint." (Le 25:23) God had ousted the Canaanites from the land for their disgusting practices. He warned he would also take away all title from Israel and drive them out of the land if they followed such practices, and when they later did, they were sent into exile. (Le 18:24-30; 25:18, 19; 26:27-33; Jer 52:27) After 70 years of desolation of their land, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., God mercifully reestablished them, but this time under Gentile domination. Eventually, in 70 C.E., the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and scattered its people.

Within the nation, tribes were assigned sections of the land or cities inside the boundaries of other tribes. Priests and Levites had cities with pasture grounds. (Jos 15-21) In turn, within the tribes families were allotted inheritances. These divisions became smaller as families subdivided their own allotments because of increase in numbers. This resulted in thorough cultivation and use of the land. Inheritances were not allowed to circulate from one tribe to another. To prevent this, women who inherited land (because there were no living brothers) had to marry within the tribe to hold their inheritance.-Nu 36:1-12." [source - Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>.

Earliest grant of title takes precedence over later grants:

Now, how does this apply to the granting of title to the land of Palestine? Well the grant of title to Palestine is the oldest recorded grant of title in all human history and occurred about 1,500 B.C., by the creator of all there is, and was in fulfillment of an earlier promise that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael had made to Abraham. Therefore, with respect the land of Palestine, the land was granted to the Hebrews, the descendents of Abraham through Isaac, and it was granted before any other land was granted to anyone. So title to the land of Palestine was granted by the highest possible authority and was the first grant of legitimate title ever made; therefore, the grantees, the Hebrews, have the strongest possible title due to the fact the grantor was the highest possible authority and it was granted at the earliest time.

Of course some try to deny that by questioning the Bible, but their objection is without standing. Let's look at the facts. Of course many members of Islam reject what the Bible says, but is this reasonable considering that their Quran like the Book of Mormon is nothing but a knockoff of the Bible? Now the well known rule of precedence is that the earlier document shall have precedence over the later that used information from it just as the earlier granting of land title takes precedence in any title search or action at law over the later. Many overlook the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman as was the Quran and the Book of Mormon. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.


FIRST, One Muslim actually posted an article on Jews in Yemen that contained the following account proving that the land belongs to the Hebrews,
<<" Perhaps this is a moment to be less visionary and more historical. Perhaps also we need to re-focus from how the Middle East problem looks from the perspective of top-down peace-making efforts in distant Oslo or even Camp David to a closer look at the fabric of coexistence of Sephardic and Oriental Jewries with Muslim and Arab societies during the 13 centuries before the re-founding of Israel. In this way, we may be able to discover threads of understanding that might lead us at least part of the way through the maze of current perplexities. In particular, might yet the Yemeni Jewish historical trajectory, from the Arab World to Israel, provide unexplored avenues for narrowing the Muslim-Jewish divide?" [source - ]>>.

Now notice this clearly shows that the Hebrews had occupied the land that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael and established a nation that existed for over 1,000 years when it says, <<" the 13 centuries before the re-founding of Israel.">>, so those saying Israel is a new nation clearly do NOT know what they are speaking about, actually it is the oldest operating government on earth that just took a hiatus for some centuries. Now where was this kingdom? It is in the land called Palestine.

SECOND, The New Compact Bible Dictionary published by Zondervan Books says this with respect the site where the squatting Dome of the Rock Mosque sits, <<"Temple, the name given to complex of buildings in Jerusalem which was the center of the sacrifical cult for the Hebrews. Three temples stood successively on Mt. Moriah (II Chron. 3:1) in Jerusalem: Solomon's, Zerubbabel's, and Herod the Great's....the Dome of the Rock Mosque which stands on the site of the Temples of Solomon and Herod.">> so clearly this land belongs to the Hebrews even though it was swiped from them by <<" Islamic tradition holds that when Muslims first entered the city of Jerusalem under the leadership of Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (also known as Umar or Omar) in 637, the ruins of the Temple were being used as a rubbish dump by the Christian inhabitants, perhaps in order to humiliate the Jews and fulfill Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another there; Caliph Omar (contemporary of Muhammad, who had died a few years earlier), ordered it cleaned and performed prayer there. According to some sources, he also ordered a mosque to be constructed at the spot, upon which site the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built several decades later." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on Temple Mount]>>. However, no where did Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab ever buy the land and/or obtain title from the Hebrews who held rightful title and ownership.

The modern government of the Hebrews has been most graceful in permitting the continued squatting of the Al-Aqsa Mosque on property to which they hold title and have not even requested rent from the land so illegally occupied. Now some may question, WRONGLY, the Hebrews ownership, but the restrictions placed on Jews visiting this area solidify the point beyond doubt as follows, <<" The Rabbis have ruled that Jews may not enter specific areas (approximately 15%) of the Temple Mount [3] because of the danger of entering the area of the Temple courtyard and the difficulty of fulfilling the ritual requirement of cleansing oneself with the ashes of a red heifer (see Numbers 19), and declared it punishable with kareth, or death by heavenly decree [4]. The boundaries of the areas to be avoided, while having large portions in common, are delineated differently by various rabbinic authorities.
Many Rabbis have "imposed a blanket ban on access for Jews to the entire Temple Mount"[5], given the uncertainty about the location of the permitted areas, an opinion still supported by Rabbis such as Ovadia Yosef, Avraham Shapiro, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, and Israel Lau. In August 1967, the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim, in concert with other leading rabbis, asserted that "For generations we have warned against and refrained from entering any part of the Temple Mount."

However, many other rabbis, including Shlomo Goren, former Chief rabbi of Israel, Chaim David Halevi, Dov Lior, Yosef Elboim, Ysrael Ariel, Shar Yeshuv Hacoen and Yuval Sharlo have "strongly encouraged" Jews to visit the permitted sections of the Temple Mount. [6]. During Maimonides' residence in Jerusalem, a synagogue stood on the Temple Mount alongside other structures; Maimonides prayed there. The law committee of the Masorti movement (Conservative Judaism in Israel) has issued two responsa on the subject, both holding that Jews may visit the permitted sections of the Temple Mount. One responsa allows such visits, another encourages them." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on Temple Mount]>>.

Even Muslim's have acknowledged that the Al-Aqsa Mosque sits on the site of the Temple of Solomon, property of the Hebrew nation as follows, <<"The main reason that the Temple Mount is holy in Judaism is that it was the site of the Temple. This fact provides a reason for its holiness in Islam; it is still considered to be the orthodox Islamic position. A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council", a body established by the British government to administer waqfs and headed by Hajj Amin al-Husayni during the British Mandate period, states:

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings." A footnote refers the reader to 2 Samuel 26:25.

More recent examples include a fatwa issued by the Saudi Sheikh M. S. al-Munajjid, quoted on IslamOnline, 18 March 2001, stating that: Al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) was the first of the two qiblahs (prayer direction), and is one of the three mosques to which people may travel for the purpose of worship. And it was said that it was built by Sulayman (Solomon), as stated in Sunan an-Nasa'i and classed as authentic by al-Albani." [source - - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on Temple Mount]>>.

So there can be NO disputing that a great Hebrew nation existed and had title given by the highest authority possible, the creator of all there is, the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, and that they built cities and grand temples on this land granted to them.

THIRD, Another Bible dictionary with a more amplified account of the Temple of Solomon says, <<"A divine habitation, sacred place or sanctuary, either physical or spiritual, that is employed for worship. The Hebrew word heh•khal', translated "temple," also means "palace." The Greek hi•e•ron' and na•os' are both rendered "temple" and may refer to the entire temple complex or to its central edifice; na•os', meaning "sanctuary" or "divine habitation (dwelling)," at times refers specifically to the sacred inner rooms of the temple.

Solomon's Temple. King David entertained a strong desire to build a house for Jehovah, to contain the ark of the covenant, which was "dwelling in the middle of tent cloths." Jehovah was pleased with David's proposal but told him that, because he had shed much blood in warfare, his son (Solomon) would be privileged to do the building. This was not to say that God did not approve David's wars fought in behalf of Jehovah's name and His people. But the temple was to be built in peace by a man of peace.-2Sa 7:1-16; 1Ki 5:3-5; 8:17; 1Ch 17:1-14; 22:6-10.

Cost. Later David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan (Araunah) the Jebusite on Mount Moriah as the temple site. (2Sa 24:24, 25; 1Ch 21:24, 25)[[Note, King David purchased the land from his subject to build the temple and did not swipe it as Muslim Calips later did; therefore, he had good title.]] He amassed 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver, and copper and iron in great abundance, besides contributing from his personal fortune 3,000 talents of gold and 7,000 talents of silver. He also received as contributions from the princes, gold worth 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics and silver worth 10,000 talents, as well as much iron and copper. (1Ch 22:14; 29:3-7) This total, amounting to 108,000 talents and 10,000 darics of gold and 1,017,000 talents of silver, would be worth $48,337,047,000 at current values. His son Solomon did not spend the entire amount in building the temple; the remainder he put in the temple treasury.-1Ki 7:51; 2Ch 5:1.

Workmen. King Solomon began building the temple for Jehovah in the fourth year of his reign (1034 B.C.E.), in the second month, Ziv, following the architectural plan that David had received by inspiration. (1Ki 6:1; 1Ch 28:11-19) The work continued over a seven-year period. (1Ki 6:37, 38) In exchange for wheat, barley, oil, and wine, Hiram king of Tyre supplied timbers from Lebanon along with skilled workers in wood and stone, and one special expert, also named Hiram, whose father was a Tyrian and his mother an Israelitess of the tribe of Naphtali. This man was a fine workman in gold, silver, copper, iron, wood, stones, and fabrics.-1Ki 5:8-11, 18; 7:13, 14, 40, 45; 2Ch 2:13-16.

In organizing the work, Solomon conscripted 30,000 men out of Israel, sending them to Lebanon in shifts of 10,000 for a month, with a two-month stay at home between shifts. (1Ki 5:13, 14) As burden bearers, he conscripted 70,000 from among the "alien residents" in the land, and as cutters, 80,000. (1Ki 5:15; 9:20, 21; 2Ch 2:2) As foremen over the work, Solomon appointed 550 men and apparently 3,300 as assistants. (1Ki 5:16; 9:22, 23) It appears that, of these, 250 were Israelites and 3,600 were "alien residents" in Israel.-2Ch 2:17, 18...

History. This temple existed until 607 B.C.E., when it was destroyed by the Babylonian army under King Nebuchadnezzar. (2Ki 25:9; 2Ch 36:19; Jer 52:13) Because of the falling away of Israel to false religion, God permitted the nations to harass Judah and Jerusalem, at times stripping the temple of its treasures. The temple also suffered periods of neglect. King Shishak of Egypt robbed it of its treasures (993 B.C.E.) in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, only about 33 years after its inauguration. (1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:9) King Asa (977-937 B.C.E.) had respect for Jehovah's house, but to protect Jerusalem he foolishly bribed King Ben-hadad I of Syria, with silver and gold from the treasures of the temple, to break his covenant with Baasha king of Israel.-1Ki 15:18, 19; 2Ch 15:17, 18; 16:2, 3.

After a period of turbulence and neglect of the temple, King Jehoash of Judah (898-859 B.C.E.) oversaw its repair. (2Ki 12:4-12; 2Ch 24:4-14) In the days of his son Amaziah, Jehoash king of Israel robbed it. (2Ki 14:13, 14) King Jotham (777-762 B.C.E.) did some construction work on the temple area, building "the upper gate." (2Ki 15:32, 35; 2Ch 27:1, 3) King Ahaz of Judah (761-746 B.C.E.) not only sent the treasures of the temple to Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, as a bribe but he also polluted the temple by building an altar patterned after one in Damascus and by replacing the copper altar of the temple with it. (2Ki 16:5-16) Finally he closed the doors of Jehovah's house.-2Ch 28:24.

Ahaz' son Hezekiah (745-717 B.C.E.) did what he could to undo the bad works of his father. At the very beginning of his reign, he reopened the temple and had it cleaned up. (2Ch 29:3, 15, 16) However, later on, for fear of Sennacherib king of Assyria, he cut off the doors and the doorposts of the temple that he himself had caused to be overlaid with gold and sent them to Sennacherib.-2Ki 18:15, 16.

But when Hezekiah died, the temple entered a half century of desecration and disrepair. His son Manasseh (716-662 B.C.E.) went beyond any of Judah's previous kings in wickedness, setting up altars "to all the army of the heavens in two courtyards of the house of Jehovah." (2Ki 21:1-5; 2Ch 33:1-4) By the time of Manasseh's grandson Josiah (659-629 B.C.E.), the formerly magnificent edifice was in a state of disrepair. Evidently it was in a disorganized or cluttered condition, for High Priest Hilkiah's finding the book of the Law (likely an original scroll written by Moses) was an exciting discovery. (2Ki 22:3-13; 2Ch 34:8-21) After the temple's repair and cleansing, the greatest Passover since the days of Samuel the prophet was celebrated. (2Ki 23:21-23; 2Ch 35:17-19) This was during the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah. (Jer 1:1-3) From this time until the temple's destruction, it remained open and in use by the priesthood, though many of the priests were corrupt.

The Temple Built by Zerubbabel. As foretold by Jehovah's prophet Isaiah, God raised up Cyrus king of Persia as a liberator of Israel from the power of Babylon. (Isa 45:1) Jehovah also stirred up his own people under the leadership of Zerubbabel of the tribe of Judah to return to Jerusalem. This they did in 537 B.C.E., after 70 years of desolation, as Jeremiah had foretold, for the purpose of rebuilding the temple. (Ezr 1:1-6; 2:1, 2; Jer 29:10) This structure, though not nearly so glorious as Solomon's temple, endured longer, standing for nearly 500 years, from 515 B.C.E. to very late in the first century B.C.E. (The temple built by Solomon had served about 420 years, from 1027 to 607 B.C.E.)

In Cyrus' decree he ordered: "As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the true God, which was in Jerusalem." (Ezr 1:1-4) Cyrus also returned 5,400 vessels of gold and silver that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Solomon's temple.-Ezr 1:7-11.

In the seventh month (Ethanim, or Tishri) of the year 537 B.C.E., the altar was set up; and in the following year, the foundation of the new temple was laid. As Solomon had done, the builders hired Sidonians and Tyrians to bring cedar timbers from Lebanon. (Ezr 3:7) Opposition, particularly from the Samaritans, disheartened the builders, and after about 15 years those opposers even incited the king of Persia to ban the work.-Ezr 4...

The Temple Rebuilt by Herod. This temple is not described in any detail in the Scriptures. The primary source is Josephus, who personally saw the structure and who reports on its construction in The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. The Jewish Mishnah supplies some information, and a little is gained from archaeology. Therefore the description set forth here is from these sources, which in some instances may be open to question.-PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 543.

In The Jewish War (I, 401 [xxi, 1]), Josephus says that Herod rebuilt the temple in the 15th year of his reign, but in Jewish Antiquities (XV, 380 [xi, 1]), he says it was in the 18th year. This latter date is generally accepted by scholars, although the beginning of Herod's reign, or how Josephus calculated it, is not established with certainty. The sanctuary itself took 18 months to build, but the courtyards, and so forth, were under construction for eight years. When certain Jews approached Jesus Christ in 30 C.E., saying, "This temple was built in forty-six years" (Joh 2:20), these Jews were apparently talking about the work that continued on the complex of courts and buildings up until then. The work was not finished until about six years before the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.

Because of hatred and distrust of Herod, the Jews would not permit him to rebuild the temple, as he proposed, until he had everything prepared for the new building. For the same reason they did not consider this temple as a third one, but only as a rebuilt one, speaking only of the first and second temples (Solomon's and Zerubbabel's).

As to Josephus' measurements, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (1889, Vol. IV, p. 3203) says: "His horizontal dimensions are so minutely accurate that we almost suspect he had before his eyes, when writing, some ground-plan of the building prepared in the quartermaster-general's department of Titus's army. They form a strange contrast with his dimensions in height, which, with scarcely an exception, can be shown to be exaggerated, generally doubled. As the buildings were all thrown down during the siege, it was impossible to convict him of error in respect to elevations." [source - Insight to the Scripture, Vol. 2]>>.


So those who claim that the modern nation of Israel is a new nation are without any foundation. The modern nation of Israel is just the RETURN of the ancient nation of Israel after a long hiatus; to wit, it is just the Hebrews reclaiming their land and nation that belongs to them.

Even the unholy Quran clearly shows Palestine belongs to the Jews (Hebrews):
The Quran Testifies to The Kingdom of the Hebrews:


Today greed is a major driving force in the present system of things, and this research report will be discussing the greed of the sons of Abraham through Ishmael for that which was given to the sons of Abraham through Isaac. In ancient and modern times, the sons of Abraham through Ishmael held possession to most of the middle east, but as in ancient times, they want all of it even though it in no way belongs to them. They even want the small area of Palestine that the true God (YHWH) of Abraham gave to the sons of Abraham through Isaac, the Hebrews, to perpetuity. The Bible clearly shows that the land was promised to the sons of Isaac by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael at Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 9:27-28, and Hebrews 11:9, and an encyclopedia says the following regarding it, <<"The common Biblical phrase used to refer to the territories actually settled by Israelites (as opposed to theoretical promises) is "from Dan to Beersheba" (or its variant "from Beersheba to Dan"), which occurs in the Biblical verses Judges 20:1, 1 Samuel 3:20, 2 Samuel 3:10, 2 Samuel 17:11, 2 Samuel 24:2, 2 Samuel 24:15, 1 Kings 4:25, 1 Chronicles 21:2, and 2 Chronicles 30:5." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.

Now the "Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish" says this of the inheritance of the Hebrews, the promised land, <<"The land of promise is constantly spoken of as the inheritance of Israel: the land flowing with milk and honey was given to them by God. #De 4:21 Ps 105:11, &c. So when Israel returns to take possession of the land in a future day, it is still called their inheritance. #Eze 45:1, &c. This all shews that they were and will be an earthly people, but God blessed them on earth in relationship with Himself as Jehovah, and will again bless them on earth when they own the Lord Jesus as their Messiah. In connection with this God calls Israel His inheritance: He hath chosen them for His own inheritance. #Ps 33:12 78:62, &c.[source - Concise Bible Dictionary by George Morrish]">>

Another Bible dictionary says, <<"Promised Land held in trust. Even the people Israel, to whom God had given the land for them to enjoy as landowners, were told by Jehovah that they were not actually owners of it but only held it in trust. He said concerning the sale of a family land estate: "So the land should not be sold in perpetuity, because the land is mine. For you are alien residents and settlers from my standpoint." (Le 25:23) God had ousted the Canaanites from the land for their disgusting practices. He warned he would also take away all title from Israel and drive them out of the land if they followed such practices, and when they later did, they were sent into exile. (Le 18:24-30; 25:18, 19; 26:27-33; Jer 52:27) After 70 years of desolation of their land, from 607 to 537 B.C.E., God mercifully reestablished them, but this time under Gentile domination. Eventually, in 70 C.E., the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and scattered its people.

Within the nation, tribes were assigned sections of the land or cities inside the boundaries of other tribes. Priests and Levites had cities with pasture grounds. (Jos 15-21) In turn, within the tribes families were allotted inheritances. These divisions became smaller as families subdivided their own allotments because of increase in numbers. This resulted in thorough cultivation and use of the land. Inheritances were not allowed to circulate from one tribe to another. To prevent this, women who inherited land (because there were no living brothers) had to marry within the tribe to hold their inheritance.-Nu 36:1-12." [source - Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2]>>.

Now how do the sons of Abraham through Ishmael claim it is their land, why by saying that the land was given to all the sons of Abraham, but that is an outright lie as Joshua was given the task of taking possession of it only for the Israelites (Hebrews) the sons of Abraham through Isaac. Why? Because it was through their line that the promised seed would come per Isaiah 9:6-7.


Sarah was informed that through her son, Isaac, would come the promised heir as shown at Genesis 17:7- 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. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 15 ¶ And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. 16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. 17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear? 18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. 20 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. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

So as can be seen the covenant that was established with Abraham was with respect his son, Isaac, by his wife Sarah (Sarai), and NOT with respect his son, Ishmael so the land of Palestine then would only belong to the sons of Abraham through Isaac and NOT Ishmael. This was later shown by the ancient kingdom of the Hebrews that at some times existed as two kings and the history made by the Hebrew kings of these kings.

And Numbers 26:52-56, makes if very clear that Palestine belonged exclusively to the Hebrews as follows, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 53 Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. 54 To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. 55 Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. 56 According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few." (AV) so it is clear that those falsely alleging that the promise also applies to Ishmael are untruth tellers who do NOT know what they are talking about. Numbers 33:54 further makes this clear, "And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit." (AV). Ad does Numbers 36:1-2, "And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel: 2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters." (AV).

And the actual dividing up of the land by the Hebrews is as follows. And Joshua 13:6 makes this clear when Joshua is ordered to drive out the squatters as follows, "All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon unto Misrephothmaim, and all the Sidonians, them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only divide thou it by lot unto the Israelites for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee." (AV); and Joshua 14:1-2, "And these are the countries which the children of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance to them. 2 By lot was their inheritance, as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half tribe." (AV); and Joshua 15:1, "This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast." (AV); and Joshua 17:1-2, "There was also a lot for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the firstborn of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gilead and Bashan. 2 There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families." (AV); and Joshua 17:14-17, "And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?
15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. 16 And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel. 17 And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only:" (AV); and Joshua 18:6-11, "Ye shall therefore describe the land into seven parts, and bring the description hither to me, that I may cast lots for you here before the LORD our God. 7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance: and Gad, and Reuben, and half the tribe of Manasseh, have received their inheritance beyond Jordan on the east, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave them. 8 And the men arose, and went away: and Joshua charged them that went to describe the land, saying, Go and walk through the land, and describe it, and come again to me, that I may here cast lots for you before the LORD in Shiloh. 9 And the men went and passed through the land, and described it by cities into seven parts in a book, and came again to Joshua to the host at Shiloh. 10 And Joshua cast lots for them in Shiloh before the LORD: and there Joshua divided the land unto the children of Israel according to their divisions. 11 ¶ And the lot of the tribe of the children of Benjamin came up according to their families: and the coast of their lot came forth between the children of Judah and the children of Joseph." (AV).

So it is quite clear that the promise of the land, Palestine, and the granting of it was exclusively to the Hebrews, the descendents of Abraham through Isaac, and that it in no way applied to Ishmael.


Of course many members of Islam reject what the Bible says, but is this reasonable considering that their Quran like the Book of Mormon is nothing but a knockoff of the Bible? Now the well known rule of precedence is that the earlier document shall have precedence over the later that used information from it just as the earlier granting of land title takes precedence in any title search or action at law over the later. Many overlook the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman as was the Quran and the Book of Mormon. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

Now we will look at proof from the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, to its testimony that the Hebrews had a great kingdom under King Solomon.


The distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, gives abundant testimony to the existence to the ancient kingdom of the Hebrews that has recently come out of a long hiatus. This will now be shown from three different versions of the Quran that testify to this kingdom under King Solomon and a visit by the Queen of Sheba.


YUSUFALI: And he took a muster of the Birds; and he said: "Why is it I see not the Hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees?
PICKTHAL: And he sought among the birds and said: How is it that I see not the hoopoe, or is he among the absent?
SHAKIR: And he reviewed the birds, then said: How is it I see not the hoopoe or is it that he is of the absentees?

YUSUFALI: "I will certainly punish him with a severe penalty, or execute him, unless he bring me a clear reason (for absence)."
PICKTHAL: I verily will punish him with hard punishment or I verily will slay him, or he verily shall bring me a plain excuse.
SHAKIR: I will most certainly punish him with a severe punishment, or kill him, or he shall bring to me a clear plea.

See Part 2


Posts : 3092
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof Empty Re: As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof

Post  Admin on Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:54 pm

Part 2

YUSUFALI: But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: "I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.
PICKTHAL: But he was not long in coming, and he said: I have found out (a thing) that thou apprehendest not, and I come unto thee from Sheba with sure tidings.
SHAKIR: And he tarried not long, then said: I comprehend that which you do not comprehend and I have brought to you a sure information from Sheba.

YUSUFALI: "I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne.
PICKTHAL: Lo! I found a woman ruling over them, and she hath been given (abundance) of all things, and hers is a mighty throne.
SHAKIR: Surely I found a woman ruling over them, and she has been given abundance and she has a mighty throne:

YUSUFALI: "I found her and her people worshipping the sun besides Allah: Satan has made their deeds seem pleasing in their eyes, and has kept them away from the Path,- so they receive no guidance,-
PICKTHAL: I found her and her people worshipping the sun instead of Allah; and Satan maketh their works fairseeming unto them, and debarreth them from the way (of Truth), so that they go not aright;
SHAKIR: I found her and her people adoring the sun instead of Allah, and the Shaitan has made their deeds fair-seeming to them and thus turned them from the way, so they do not go aright

YUSUFALI: "(Kept them away from the Path), that they should not worship Allah, Who brings to light what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knows what ye hide and what ye reveal.
PICKTHAL: So that they worship not Allah, Who bringeth forth the hidden in the heavens and the earth, and knoweth what ye hide and what ye proclaim,
SHAKIR: That they do not make obeisance to Allah, Who brings forth what is hidden in the heavens and the earth and knows what you hide and what you make manifest:

YUSUFALI: "Allah!- there is no god but He!- Lord of the Throne Supreme!"
PICKTHAL: Allah; there is no Allah save Him, the Lord of the Tremendous Throne.
SHAKIR: Allah, there is no god but He: He is the Lord of mighty power.

YUSUFALI: (Solomon) said: "Soon shall we see whether thou hast told the truth or lied!
PICKTHAL: (Solomon) said: We shall see whether thou speakest truth or whether thou art of the liars.
SHAKIR: He said: We will see whether you have told the truth or whether you are of the liars:

YUSUFALI: "Go thou, with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them: then draw back from them, and (wait to) see what answer they return"...
PICKTHAL: Go with this my letter and throw it down unto them; then turn away and see what (answer) they return,
SHAKIR: Take this my letter and hand it over to them, then turn away from them and see what (answer) they return.

YUSUFALI: (The queen) said: "Ye chiefs! here is delivered to me - a letter worthy of respect.
PICKTHAL: (The Queen of Sheba) said (when she received the letter): O chieftains! Lo! there hath been thrown unto me a noble letter.
SHAKIR: She said: O chief! surely an honorable letter has been delivered to me

YUSUFALI: "It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): 'In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful:
PICKTHAL: Lo! it is from Solomon, and lo! it is: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;

SHAKIR: Surely it is from Sulaiman, and surely it is in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful;

YUSUFALI: "'Be ye not arrogant against me, but come to me in submission (to the true Religion).'"
PICKTHAL: Exalt not yourselves against me, but come unto me as those who surrender.
SHAKIR: Saying: exalt not yourselves against me and come to me in submission.

YUSUFALI: She said: "Ye chiefs! advise me in (this) my affair: no affair have I decided except in your presence."
PICKTHAL: She said: O chieftains! Pronounce for me in my case. I decide no case till ye are present with me.
SHAKIR: She said: O chiefs! give me advice respecting my affair: I never decide an affair until you are in my presence.

YUSUFALI: They said: "We are endued with strength, and given to vehement war: but the command is with thee; so consider what thou wilt command."
PICKTHAL: They said: We are lords of might and lords of great prowess, but it is for thee to command; so consider what thou wilt command.
SHAKIR: They said: We are possessors of strength and possessors of mighty prowess, and the command is yours, therefore see what you will command.

YUSUFALI: She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.
PICKTHAL: She said: Lo! kings, when they enter a township, ruin it and make the honour of its people shame. Thus will they do.
SHAKIR: She said: Surely the kings, when they enter a town, ruin it and make the noblest of its people to be low, and thus they (always) do;

YUSUFALI: "But I am going to send him a present, and (wait) to see with what (answer) return (my) ambassadors."
PICKTHAL: But lo! I am going to send a present unto them, and to see with what (answer) the messengers return.
SHAKIR: And surely I am going to send a present to them, and shall wait to see what (answer) do the messengers bring back.

YUSUFALI: Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: "Will ye give me abundance in wealth? But that which Allah has given me is better than that which He has given you! Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!
PICKTHAL: So when (the envoy) came unto Solomon, (the King) said: What! Would ye help me with wealth? But that which Allah hath given me is better than that which He hath given you. Nay it is ye (and not I) who exult in your gift.
SHAKIR: So when he came to Sulaiman, he said: What! will you help me with wealth? But what Allah has given me is better than what He has given you. Nay, you are exultant because of your present;

YUSUFALI: "Go back to them, and be sure we shall come to them with such hosts as they will never be able to meet: We shall expel them from there in disgrace, and they will feel humbled (indeed)."
PICKTHAL: Return unto them. We verily shall come unto them with hosts that they cannot resist, and we shall drive them out from thence with shame, and they will be abased.
SHAKIR: Go back to them, so we will most certainly come to them with hosts which they shall have no power to oppose, and we will most certainly expel them therefrom in abasement, and they shall be in a state of ignominy.

YUSUFALI: He said (to his own men): "Ye chiefs! which of you can bring me her throne before they come to me in submission?"
PICKTHAL: He said: O chiefs! Which of you will bring me her throne before they come unto me, surrendering?
SHAKIR: He said: O chiefs! which of you can bring to me her throne before they come to me in submission?

YUSUFALI: Said an 'Ifrit, of the Jinns: "I will bring it to thee before thou rise from thy council: indeed I have full strength for the purpose, and may be trusted."
PICKTHAL: A stalwart of the jinn said: I will bring it thee before thou canst rise from thy place. Lo! I verily am strong and trusty for such work.
SHAKIR: One audacious among the jinn said: I will bring it to you before you rise up from your place; and most surely I am strong (and) trusty for it.

YUSUFALI: Said one who had knowledge of the Book: "I will bring it to thee within the twinkling of an eye!" Then when (Solomon) saw it placed firmly before him, he said: "This is by the Grace of my Lord!- to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! and if any is grateful, truly his gratitude is (a gain) for his own soul; but if any is ungrateful, truly my Lord is Free of all Needs, Supreme in Honour !"
PICKTHAL: One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said: I will bring it thee before thy gaze returneth unto thee. And when he saw it set in his presence, (Solomon) said: This is of the bounty of my Lord, that He may try me whether I give thanks or am ungrateful. Whosoever giveth thanks he only giveth thanks for (the good of) his own soul; and whosoever is ungrateful (is ungrateful only to his own soul's hurt). For lo! my Lord is Absolute in independence, Bountiful.
SHAKIR: One who had the knowledge of the Book said: I will bring it to you in the twinkling of an eye. Then when he saw it settled beside him, he said: This is of the grace of my Lord that He may try me whether I am grateful or ungrateful; and whoever is grateful, he is grateful only for his own soul, and whoever is ungrateful, then surely my Lord is Self-sufficient, Honored.

YUSUFALI: He said: "Transform her throne out of all recognition by her: let us see whether she is guided (to the truth) or is one of those who receive no guidance."
PICKTHAL: He said: Disguise her throne for her that we may see whether she will go aright or be of those not rightly guided.
SHAKIR: He said: Alter her throne for her, we will see whether she follows the right way or is of those who do not go aright.

YUSUFALI: So when she arrived, she was asked, "Is this thy throne?" She said, "It was just like this; and knowledge was bestowed on us in advance of this, and we have submitted to Allah (in Islam)."
PICKTHAL: So, when she came, it was said (unto her): Is thy throne like this? She said: (It is) as though it were the very one. And (Solomon said): We were given the knowledge before her and we had surrendered (to Allah).
SHAKIR: So when she came, it was said: Is your throne like this? She said: It is as it were the same, and we were given the knowledge before it, and we were submissive.

YUSUFALI: And he diverted her from the worship of others besides Allah: for she was (sprung) of a people that had no faith.
PICKTHAL: And (all) that she was wont to worship instead of Allah hindered her, for she came of disbelieving folk.
SHAKIR: And what she worshipped besides Allah prevented her, surely she was of an unbelieving people.

YUSUFALI: She was asked to enter the lofty Palace: but when she saw it, she thought it was a lake of water, and she (tucked up her skirts), uncovering her legs. He said: "This is but a palace paved smooth with slabs of glass." She said: "O my Lord! I have indeed wronged my soul: I do (now) submit (in Islam), with Solomon, to the Lord of the Worlds."
PICKTHAL: It was said unto her: Enter the hall. And when she saw it she deemed it a pool and bared her legs. (Solomon) said: Lo! it is a hall, made smooth, of glass. She said: My Lord! Lo! I have wronged myself, and I surrender with Solomon unto Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR: It was said to her: Enter the palace; but when she saw it she deemed it to be a great expanse of water, and bared her legs. He said: Surely it is a palace made smooth with glass. She said: My Lord! surely I have been unjust to myself, and I submit with Sulaiman to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

YUSUFALI: We sent (aforetime), to the Thamud, their brother Salih, saying, "Serve Allah": But behold, they became two factions quarrelling with each other.
PICKTHAL: And We verily sent unto Thamud their brother Salih, saying: Worship Allah. And lo! they (then became two parties quarrelling.
SHAKIR: And certainly We sent to Samood their brother Salih, saying: Serve Allah; and lo! they became two sects quarrelling with each other.

So as we can see, that while some members try to falsely assert that the Hebrews ever had a nation, the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, they claim to believe even testifies to the existence of this nation in ancient times.

Of course the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, is full of distortions, and here is one example, How can little worm eat away Solomans staff? Was Solomon standing there for months and waited for the little worm to finish until it fell apart? Solomon is amused at the speech of an ant? (27:19) How could Solomon keep his sanity if he heard all the voices of all the insects around him? He must have been drowned in constant chatter. It is high time that all accept the fact that the Quran is nothing but a distorted knockoff of the Bible, and that the Bible truly is the word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael.



YUSUFALI: And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient): Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.
PICKTHAL: And unto Solomon (We gave) the wind, whereof the morning course was a month's journey and the evening course a month's journey, and We caused the fount of copper to gush forth for him, and (We gave him) certain of the jinn who worked before him by permission of his Lord. And such of them as deviated from Our command, them We caused to taste the punishment of flaming Fire.
SHAKIR: And (We made) the wind (subservient) to Sulaiman, which made a month's journey in the morning and a month's journey m the evening, and We made a fountain of molten copper to flow out for him, and of the jinn there were those who worked before him by the command of his Lord; and whoever turned aside from Our command from among them, We made him taste of the punishment of burning.

YUSUFALI: They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!"
PICKTHAL: They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful.
SHAKIR: They made for him what he pleased of fortresses and images, and bowls (large) as watering-troughs and cooking-pots that will not move from their place; give thanks, O family of Dawood! and very few of My servants are grateful.

YUSUFALI: Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task).
PICKTHAL: And when We decreed death for him, nothing showed his death to them save a creeping creature of the earth which gnawed away his staff. And when he fell the jinn saw clearly how, if they had known the Unseen, they would not have continued in despised toil.
SHAKIR: But when We decreed death for him, naught showed them his death but a creature of the earth that ate away his staff; and when it fell down, the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment.

And, still more:


YUSUFALI: (It was Our power that made) the violent (unruly) wind flow (tamely) for Solomon, to his order, to the land which We had blessed: for We do know all things.
PICKTHAL: And unto Solomon (We subdued) the wind in its raging. It set by his command toward the land which We had blessed. And of everything We are Aware.
SHAKIR: And (We made subservient) to Sulaiman the wind blowing violent, pursuing its course by his command to the land which We had blessed, and We are knower of ail things.

YUSUFALI: And of the evil ones, were some who dived for him, and did other work besides; and it was We Who guarded them.
PICKTHAL: And of the evil ones (subdued We unto him) some who dived (for pearls) for him and did other work, and We were warders unto them.
SHAKIR: And of the rebellious people there were those who dived for him and did other work besides that, and We kept guard over them;


From an encyclopedia, <<" Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea.pngUnited Monarchy under Solomon
Solomon (Latin name) or Shlomo is a figure described in Middle Eastern scriptures as a wise ruler of an empire, living perhaps around 1000 BCE.
The names "Shlomo" and "Solomon" are usually associated with the Biblical account of his life.

His father was named David (Hebrew). In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) he is also called Jedidiah and described as the third king of the united Kingdom of Israel, prior to the split between the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Following the split, the kings of Judah were descended patrilinealy from Solomon.

Solomon was the builder of the first Temple in Jerusalem, also known as Solomon's Temple. He was renowned for his great wisdom, wealth, and power, but also blamed for his later pacifism toward his converted wives in their worship of other gods. He is the subject of many later legends. Some Kabbalah masters claim[citation needed] to be his descendents.

The name Solomon (Shlomo) means "peaceful," or "complete", from the Hebrew Shelomoh. The name given by God to Solomon in the Bible is Jedidiah, meaning "friend of God", (2 Samuel 12:25), and some scholars have conjectured that Solomon is a "king name" taken either when he assumed the throne or upon his death.

Solomon's case is one of the few in the Bible where the name given by God does not stay with the character. Solomon's birth is considered a grace from God, after the death of the previous child between David and Bathsheba.

Solomon was David's second son by Bathsheba [1], and his declared heir to the throne. Solomon's history is recorded in 1 Kings 1-11 and 2 Chronicles 1-9. He succeeded his father (reigned circa 1011/1010 BCE to 971/970 BCE) on the throne in about 971 or 970 BCE, not 1037 BCE (1 Kings 6:1), according to E. R. Thiele. His father chose him as his successor, passing over the claims of his elder sons, by women other than Bathsheba. His elevation to the throne took place before his father's death, and is hastened on mainly by Nathan and Bathsheba, in consequence of the rebellion of Adonijah.

During his long reign of 40 years the Hebrew monarchy gained its highest splendor. This period has well been called the "Augustan Age" of the Jewish annals. In a single year he collected tribute amounting to 666 talents of gold, according to 1 Kings 10:14.

The first half of his reign was, however, by far the brighter and more prosperous; the latter half was clouded by the idolatries into which he fell, mainly, according to the scribes, from his intermarriages. According to 1 Kings 11:3, he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. As soon as he had settled himself in his kingdom, and arranged the affairs of his extensive empire, he entered into an alliance with Egypt by a marriage with the daughter of the Pharaoh. ...

Islamic view of Solomon
Main article: Islamic view of Solomon
See Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an
Solomon also appears in the Qur'an, where he is called Sulayman, which is Solomon in Arabic (Sulaiman or Suleiman)(Arabic: ??????). The Qur'an refers to Solomon as the son of David, as a prophet and as a great ruler imparted by God with tremendous wisdom, favor, and special powers just like his father, David. The Quran states that Solomon had under his rule not only people, but also hosts of hidden beings (i.e., jinn). It also states that Solomon was able to understand the language of the birds and ants, and to see some of the hidden glory in the world that was not accessible to common human beings. The Islamic view on Solomon is based entirely on revelation's to Muhammed which comprise part of the Qur'an." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.


Let's look at the differences between the two men:

First, a question, Can the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael command one to commit adultery or sin?

The true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael is Holy and so would not give an unholy command. But this is what is wrongly claimed in the Quran with respect the unholy marriage of Muhammad (pbuh) and Zainab the wife of his adopted son.We also looked at the unholy marriage between Muhammed and Zainab the wife of his adopted son.

History documents that once Zainab was tanning leather and Muhammed (pbuh) saw her and desired her for his own. When his adopted son found out that Muhammed (pbuh) wanted his wife, he divorced her per Shara 33:36-40,


YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
PICKTHAL: And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.
SHAKIR: And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.

YUSUFALI: Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.
PICKTHAL: And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled.
SHAKIR: And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed.

YUSUFALI: There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty. It was the practice (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have passed away. And the command of Allah is a decree determined.
PICKTHAL: There is no reproach for the Prophet in that which Allah maketh his due. That was Allah's way with those who passed away of old - and the commandment of Allah is certain destiny -
SHAKIR: There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and the command of Allah is a decree that is made absolute:

YUSUFALI: (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And enough is Allah to call (men) to account.
PICKTHAL: Who delivered the messages of Allah and feared Him, and feared none save Allah. Allah keepeth good account.
SHAKIR: Those who deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and do not fear any one but Allah; and Allah is sufficient to take account.

YUSUFALI: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things.
SHAKIR: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.

As can be seen, the distorted Bible knockoff, the Quran, gave permission to Muhammad (pbuh) to do what was wrong, and definitely would NOT be sanctioned by the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael; thereby, showing the Quran as nothing more than a book written by a strongman who borrowed from the Bible without giving credit.

Now let's look at the case of King David who committed a similar wrong and the reactions of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael as recorded at 2 Samuel 11:27 through 12:1-13, "And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD. 1 ¶ And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. 2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: 3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. 4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. 5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: 6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." (AV), a real difference between the two men.


The descendents of Ishmael in their wrong doing try to deny that the Jews of Europe are the descendents of Isaac, but let's see what DNA evidence shows.
<<" How can you prove that todays European Jews are real Jews - descendants of the original Jews and heirs to the Land of Israel, and not just converts from the lands in which they lived during the last few centuries?
? "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
- M.F. Hammer, Proc. Nat'l Academy of Science, May 9, 2000
? In addition to oral tradition and copious historical evidence, the genetic evidence stands firmly behind the common ancestry of both Ashkenazim and Sephardim in the Near East, and against any non-Jewish origin for either of these groups. Below are a collection of scientific journal articles including abstracts available worldwide on Pubmed and Medline.
Jewish and middle eastern non-jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.

Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, Bonner MR, Jarjanazi H, Karafet T, Santachiara-Benerecetti S, Oppenheim A, Jobling MA, Jenkins T, Ostrer H, Bonne-Tamir B

Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; Department of Genetics, Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy; Hadassah Medical School, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91120, Israel.

[Medline record in process]

Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.

PMID: 10801975, UI: 20300976
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74
? The common, Near-Eastern origin of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews supported by Y-chromosome similarity.

Santachiara Benerecetti AS, Semino O, Passarino G, Torroni A, Brdicka R, Fellous M, Modiano G

Dipartimento di Biologia Cellulare, Universita della Calabria, Cosenza, Italy.

About 80 Sephardim, 80 Ashkenazim and 100 Czechoslovaks were examined for the Y-specific RFLPs revealed by the probes p12f2 and p49a,f on TaqI DNA digests. The aim of the study was to investigate the origin of the Ashkenazi gene pool through the analysis of markers which, having an exclusively holoandric transmission, are useful to estimate paternal gene flow. The comparison of the two groups of Jews with each other and with Czechoslovaks (which have been taken as a representative source of foreign Y-chromosomes for Ashkenazim) shows a great similarity between Sephardim and Ashkenazim who are very different from Czechoslovaks. On the other hand both groups of Jews appear to be closely related to Lebanese. A preliminary evaluation suggests that the contribution of foreign males to the Ashkenazi gene pool has been very low (1% or less per generation).

Ann Hum Genet 1993 Jan;57 ( Pt 1):55-64
PMID: 8101437, UI: 93325982" [source - The Peace Encyclopedia]>>.

So it is plain that the Ishmaelites of today that make this false claim are just plain wrong as shown by DNA.


The facts are that the Hebrews are the rightful owners of the land of Palestine, and that anyone else claiming otherwise is just a dishonest as has been shown by the facts in this article.

Islam wrongly believes what ever they stole should belong to them and not to the rightful owners. See the evidence:
Islam Believes What Ever It Stole Should Always Belong To Islam;

Islam believes that if it steals land or other items from others that it should always belong to them and the rightful owners should NOT get it back. But before we delve into the current attempt to steal back land they stole in the past, but was re-conquered by its rightful owners, let’s look at the background so as to have a better understanding.

1. Here is the background. Many members of Islam throughout the ages have been lustful for violence and stealing what belongs to others (greedy). One example of both of these evils perpetrated by members of Islam was the evil wrong committed against the people of Spain starting in the Seventh Century. As one historical account, actually written by a member of Islam stated, <<<" When the Moslems settled in the island, they found no other inhabitants there, than vinedressers. They made them prisoners. After that they took one of the vinedressers, slaughtered him, cut him in pieces, and boiled him, while the rest of his companions looked on.">>> [source - retrieved from Ibn Abd-el-Hakem: The Islamic Conquest of Spain as found at on 9/1/2011]

So as can be seen from this, the so called "Golden Age" was really an age of land stealing and sadistic murder by members of Islam that they have never payed reparation for until today.

Now let's look at the historic account of their land stealing and sadistic murders as told by one of their own:

The Islamic Conquest of Spain, Medieval Sourcebook: Ibn Abd-el-Hakem: The Islamic Conquest of Spain.

The Muslim expansion continued throughout the sixth and into the seventh century. In 711 the Berber Tarik invaded and rapidly conquered Visigothic Spain. Famously by 733 the Muslims reached Poitiers in France. There a battle, more significant to westerners than Muslims, halted the Muslim advance. In truth by that stage Islam was at its limits of military expansion. Tarik gave his name to "Jabal (mount of) Tarik" or, as we say, Gibraltar. In 712 Tarik's lord, Musa ibn-Mosseyr, joined the attack. Within seven years the conquest of the peninsula was complete. It became one of the centers of Moslem civilization, and the Umayyad caliphate of Cordova reached a peak of glory in the tenth century. Spain, called "al-Andulus" by Muslims remained was at least partially under Muslim control until 1492 when Granada was conquered by [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella.

Now evil Islam is trying to re-steal Spain through a slow infiltration that the Spanish have so far not taken steps against. Too bad the Spanish do not have rulers like [King] Ferdinand and [Queen] Isabella would take effective steps to protect Spain. The present rulers do not appear either to recognize the danger and/or have the ‘backbone’ to do something about it, but have given into appeasement which has always proved disastrous as shown by Europe’s appeasement of Hitler in 1939. Now let’s look at evil Islam’s insidious undercover re-attack on Spain:

Spanish Town Becoming "New Mecca of the Most Radical Islamism"
by Soeren Kern
September 1, 2011 at 5:00 am
The municipality of Salt, a town near Barcelona where Muslim immigrants now make up 40% of the population, has approved a one-year ban on the construction of new mosques. It is the first ban of its kind in Spain.
The moratorium follows public outrage over plans to build a massive Salafi mosque that is being financed by Saudi Arabia. Salafism is a branch of revivalist Islam that calls for restoring past Muslim glory by forcibly re-establishing an Islamic empire (Caliphate) across the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe such as Spain, which Salafists view as a Muslim state that must be reconquered for Islam.
Much of Spain was ruled by Muslim conquerors from 711 and 1492; Salafists believe that the territories the Muslims lost during the Spanish Reconquista still belong to them, and that they have a right to return and establish their rule there – a belief based on the Islamic precept that territories once occupied by Muslims must forever remain under Muslim domination.
Sacrificing common sense on the altar of multiculturalism, the previous Socialist government in Salt secretly gave permission to the Salafi Muslims to build the mega-mosque, which, with four stories comprising 1,000 square meters (11,000 square feet) accompanied by towering minarets, would be the largest Salafi mosque in Europe.
The secret deal was only discovered after the Socialists were ejected from power in May 2011. Angry natives began pressuring the new town council – now ruled by the center-right Convergència i Unió (CiU) party – to prevent the mosque from being built. On August 24, the council approved the one-year ban on the building of new mosques in order to provide "some time for reflection."
The Salafi mega-mosque may still be built, however, because the construction permit was issued before the non-retroactive moratorium took effect. The building permit, which is valid for a period of six months, expires at the end of September 2011.
Muslim radicals associated with two Spain-based Salafi groups, Al Hilal Islamic Cultural Association and Magrebins per la Pau Association, are now asking groups in Saudi Arabia to advance the funds needed to begin construction of the mosque within the next few weeks, before the building permit expires.
The Catalan nationalist party Plataforma per Catalunya (PxC) – which opposes not only the mosques but also Muslim immigration – attempted to hold an anti-mosque protest in Salt on August 27. PxC spokeswoman María Osuna said the party, which has some 70,000 active members, did not want Salt to become "the new Mecca of the most radical Islamism."
But provincial law enforcement authorities banned the PxC demonstration after learning that Muslims from across Spain were organizing a counter-demonstration in the town on the same day. Fearing the risk of violence, the provincial interior ministry issued a statement saying that the anti-mosque demonstration would be banned because it could "hurt the religious feelings of the majority of Muslims in Salt." Around 12,000 of Salt's 30,000 inhabitants are Muslim immigrants.
Salt and other towns in the north-eastern region of Catalonia have become ground zero for Salafi Islam in Spain. The movement is based in the Catalonian city of Tarragona, but Salafi Islam also has a major presence in the municipalities of Badalona, Calafell, Cunit, El Vendrel, Lleida, Mataró, Reus, Roda de Bara, Rubí, Salt, Santa Coloma de Gramenet, Sant Boi, Torredembarra, Valls, and Vilanova, not to mention Barcelona, which hosts five Salafi mosques.
Salafi preachers in Catalonia teach that Islamic Sharia law is above Spanish civil law. They also promote the establishment of a parallel Muslim society in Spain. Salafi imams have set up Sharia tribunals to judge the conduct of both practicing and non-practicing Muslims in Spain and to punish those who fail to comply.
The leaders of Salafi Islam in Salt are the "Caliph" Mohammed Attaouil and his right hand man, the cleric Rachid Menda. They are two of the most effective anti-Western propagandists in Spain, and have been able to create a Salafi stronghold in Catalonia by employing the twin strategies of spreading fear and proselytizing.
In December 2009, for example, nine Salafists kidnapped a woman, tried her for adultery based on Sharia law, and condemned her to death. The woman just barely escaped execution by fleeing to a local police station.
In January 2010, a Salafi imam in Tarragona was arrested for forcing a 31-year-old Moroccan woman to wear a hijab head covering. The imam had threatened to burn down the woman's house for being and "infidel" because she works outside of the home, drives an automobile and has non-Muslim friends. Bowing to political pressure to prevent "a social conflict," a court in Tarragona on August 2 absolved the imam of all wrongdoing.
Much of the Salafi proselytizing occurs by means of conferences which are attended by thousands of followers, many of whom also provide the movement with an important source of financial support. Speakers at the conferences often include Salafi luminaries from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. As many of the latter have European passports, they do not require visas to enter Spain and are free to move about the country as they please.
Salafi conferences in Spain are almost always scheduled during Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter with the objective of directly challenging the majority culture. Conference attendees are warned that Muslims should not integrate into the "corrupt" Western society.
The Madrid-based ABC newspaper estimates that there are more than 100 Salafi mosques in Spain where radical imams preach to the faithful each Friday. The newspaper says some imams have established religious police that harass and attack those who do not comply with Islamic law. ABC also reports that during 2010, more than 10 Salafi conferences were held in Spain, compared to only one in 2008.
From Catalonia, Salafists are planting roots in other parts of Spain, including the Basque Country, Madrid, and Valladolid as well as all along the Mediterranean coast. In Guadalajara in central Spain, hooded Salafists have assaulted at least six native Spaniards with rocks since July. Local citizens' groups are protesting the opening of a Salafi mosque in the city.
The mayor of Salt, Jaume Torramadé, says Muslim immigrants in his town have become noticeably more radicalized in recent years. In an interview with RAC1 radio, Torramadé told listeners: "A few years ago, the Maghreb women were more westernized, but nowadays one sees much less of that. The large numbers of Muslim immigrants in Salt have attracted imams who are enforcing conduct and dress codes. Muslim women used to wear blue jeans, but now they cover their hair. These imams are not promoting coexistence."

Now to know the truth, go to:








To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to!


Posts : 3092
Join date : 2012-11-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof Empty Re: As Usual, Islam Steals Others Property, Here is Proof

Post  Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum