What Israel and ISIL’s spin-off “Ansar Bait al-Maqdis” have in common

So Brother Rashid is right: ISIL does represent Islam – not least because it recognizes Jerusalem’s Jewish past. In Israel, there is also a movement called “The Temple Mount Faithful,” an organization that militates for Jewish freedom of worship on the Temple Mount – a freedom that is denied today by the Israeli government but that was respected in the 7th century by Muslim rulers. On the question of the Temple Mount, the gap is wider between Israel and the PLO than between Israel and ISIL. Too bad they would behead us before giving us a chance to explain this to them.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
10 September '14..

As America commemorates the 13th anniversary of 9/11, a paradox emerges from the tragic opening act of the 21st century. On the one hand, Osama Bin-Laden was eliminated and al-Qaida is mostly on the run. On the other hand, Bin-Laden’s dream of re-establishing the Caliphate is still alive and lethal – as recently proven by the progress and barbarism of ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The fact that America is trying to build an international coalition to defeat ISIL is in itself a reminder that Bin-Laden has not been defeated.

Like his predecessor, George W. Bush, President Obama keeps repeating that America is not at war with Islam. Obama even added that ISIL “is not what Islam is about.”

President Obama’s attempts to distinguish between ISIL and Islam were recently challenged by Brother Rachid, a Moroccan Muslim who spent 20 years studying Islam and eventually converted to Christianity. Rebuking Obama’s declaration that ISIL does not speak on behalf of Islam because its members behead American journalists, Rachid said: “Beheading is commanded in the Quran in Surah 47, verse 4 … Ironically, this Surah is called the Surah of Mohamed.” Telling Obama about his own Muslim education, Rachid explained: “We have been brainwashed to hate all of you … and to make Islam the religion of the whole world, as the Quran says … ISIL is just one symptom; if it disappears other ISILs will appear under a different name … If Islam is not the problem, then why is it that there are millions of Christians in the Middle East, and yet none of them has ever blown himself up to become a martyr, even though they live under the same economic and political circumstances? Why have new converts to Islam become terrorists? I am imploring you to take a stand … for the future of democracy: speak the truth about the real threat that is facing all of us.”

The European converts to Islam mentioned by Brother Rachid enter Syria and Iraq via Turkey’s “jihadist highway.” Turkey is a member of NATO, the organization around which Obama is trying to build to anti-ISIL strategy. The irony does not end here.

ISIL’s spin-off in Sinai calls itself “Ansar Bait al-Maqdis.” Literally, this means “The Faithful of the [Jerusalem] Temple.” “Bait al-Maqdis” is the Arabic pronunciation of the Hebrew “Beit Ha-Mikdash,” whose meaning is “The Holy Temple [of Jerusalem].”

Jerusalem was conquered by Muslims in 638. The modern Arabic name of Jerusalem, al-Quds, can be traced to the 9th century, but it only became widely used in the 11th century. “Al-Quds” derives from “Bait al-Muqaddas” which is a different pronunciation of “Bait al-Maqdis.” ISIL’s branch in Sinai is using the original Arab word for Jerusalem, a word that in itself testified to the fact that the Arabs used to recognize Jerusalem as the site of Solomon’s Temple. Indeed, after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to pray freely on the Temple Mount because the Arabs recognized that this is where their Temple once stood. A tourist guidebook published by the Supreme Muslim Council in 1924 says the Temple Mount “is among the oldest in the world. It is, beyond any doubt, where King Solomon’s Temple once stood.”

The media, threats of violence and the Temple Mount

...As long as the media depict Muslim violence in the name of Islam as an inevitable reaction to any perceived provocation and give a free pass to the Muslim leaders who never tire to threaten such violence, we can regard the OIC definition of “Islamophobia” as no more than a cynical political tool that allows Muslim leaders to incite violence with impunity – and we can expect that the Temple Mount will remain a dangerous symbol of Muslim fanaticism.

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
21 December 13..

In recent weeks, there have been numerous media reports warning about escalating tensions and possible violence on the Temple Mount. Even if you just read the headlines and leads, the situation sounds pretty dire, as this selection from Al Monitor, Sky News and the Washington Post illustrates:

“Israeli Restrictions at Al-Aqsa Mosque Could Spark Violence: Israel is imposing tighter restrictions on Palestinian Muslims wishing to access Al-Aqsa Mosque while allowing more Jewish visits that disrespect Islamic customs.”

“Sacred Shrines Become ‘Ticking Time Bomb: ‘The chief cleric at one of the world’s holiest mosques tells Sky News that acts of Jewish prayer could spark a regional war.”

“Jewish activists want to pray on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, raising alarm in Muslim world.”

These headlines and leads also tell us already who is to blame for this potentially explosive situation: Jews who want to visit the Temple Mount and maybe even pray there. Well, who could imagine a greater outrage than Jews wanting to visit and perhaps pray at the historic site of the Jewish Temples? And who would dispute that followers of the “religion of peace” have every right to react to such an outrage with threats of massive violence? After all, Muslims are used to having their holiest sites off-limits to “infidels.” True, frustrated journalists who don’t make it into Mecca and Medina may point out that “You don’t have to be a Catholic to go to the Vatican. You don’t have to be Jewish to go to the Western Wall… You don’t have to be Buddhist to hear the Dalai Lama speak” – but there is obviously no reason to expect similar openness from Islam. Indeed, as a Guardian contributor casually remarked: “a billion Muslims worldwide would go ballistic” if Jews were allowed to freely visit the Temple Mount and pray there. And of course, in the Guardian as elsewhere, it’s the Jews who are the extremists.

However, this kind of reporting and commentary isn’t as biased as it may seem, because it unfortunately reflects the view of the Israeli authorities. As a recent Jerusalem Post report about violent attacks by Muslims explains:

“Although the [Israeli] Supreme Court has upheld Jewish prayer rights at the Temple Mount – which is overseen by the Wakf Muslim religious trust – the court also allows police to prevent any form of worship there if they believe such activities will incite a ‘disturbance to the public order.’ […] Asked what has precipitated the pronounced uptick in violence, Police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said Arabs are growing increasingly incensed by religious Jews who increasingly illegally pray there in an act of civil disobedience. ‘The Arabs don’t like Jews coming there to pray, and an extreme group of Jews is going there to provoke them,’ he said.”

In other words, Israel’s Supreme Court has acknowledged that Jews have the right to pray on the Temple Mount, but it has also given Muslims a veto right: if they don’t like it and become violent, then they’ll get their way and Jews who exercise their supposed right are accused of engaging in a provocative “act of civil disobedience.” In practice that means that the Saudi policy of treating “infidels” like dogs who have to be kept off Muslim holy grounds is all too often also enforced on the Temple Mount.