This paragraph was self-contradictory:
"The notion to call Jerusalem an Islamic holy city has only come about in modern times, especially after the Arabs lost the city to Israel in the Six-Day War. It now has gained currency by dint of constant repetition. The basis for the claim is that Jerusalem does indeed contain an Islamic holy site, namely the Temple Mount (sacred to both Muslims and Jews) with its two mosques, El Aksa and the Dome of the Rock. It is the place from which Mohammed, who had never set foot in the city, is believed to have ascended to heaven. But aware that it was the holy city of Christians and Jews, and wishing to convert them to his new religion, he commanded his followers to build a mosque in Jerusalem. But never in Muslim history did this mosque or this city compare in significance to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina – cities that no “infidel†may visit."
Flame » in reply to All essentially true
By the same token, Rome has little religious significance to Christians.
The whole thread (43 posts)
- FLAME, meet Flame...
- "This land is mine"
- The solution remains....
- Truman's Folly and Ancient Kool Aid Drinkers
- What about the site itself?
- Jerusalem belonged to the Jews long before there were Christians.
- All essentially true