Muslims Have No Legitimate Religious Claim on Jerusalem

Easter is coming up and I think this is an ideal time to make some important historical points about the city of Jerusalem.

The history of that ancient city gives us yet another important historical note to show that modern Islam is based on a series of sham ideas and lies. The idea that Jerusalem is a “holy Islamic site” because the “Prophet” Muhammad dreamed about going there and being raised up to heaven from that place is simply nonsense.

The fact is, of course, that it is only Muslim tradition that in the Quran Muhammad was talking about Israel’s Jerusalem. In fact, the book only says that Muhammad dreamed of “a distant province” or distant land. The name Jerusalem never appears once in the Quran. Not once. Again, the fact is the so-called Prophet Muhammad never once in his life set foot in Jerusalem.

Muslims have NO legitimate religious claim on Jerusalem or Israel’s lands. None. It is inarguable.

Interestingly, when you get right down to it, the Iranians have as much claim as the Muslims. The Iranians (Persians) had conquered the Jerusalem area before any Muslims ever came to the place. For that matter, even when the Muslims took the land from the Persians, they did so long after Muhammad supposedly died.

Further, after the Muslims took over the area from the Persians, they never treated Jerusalem as an important city. History proves that Muslims never considered Jerusalem an important city until the modern state of Israel was created.

Finally, it should be noted that the modern state of Israel is the first nation in human history to have organized Jerusalem as part of an official, governed nation state. Previous to the modern nation of Israel, the land upon which Jerusalem sits was only considered conquered territory. It was never incorporated as a separate nation of its own. In other words, there was never ever such a place as a Palestinian nation. NEVER.

Twitter Agrees to Allow Vladimir Putin to Censor Russian Content
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • I would like to add a bit of information.

    Way back when I took my college course on Islam (taught by a Muslim professor from Arabia), I learned that during the earliest days of Islam, Muhammad and his followers prayed in the direction of Jerusalem.

    Here is an excerpt from a webpage titled “Does archaeology support the Qur’an?”:

    According to the Quran, the direction of prayer (Qibla) was canonized towards Mecca for all Muslims circa 624 AD, two years after the Hijra (see Sura 2:144, 149-50). Yet the earliest archaeological evidence from mosques built at the beginning of the 8th century suggests their sanctuary was located a long way north of Mecca, closer to the vicinity of Jerusalem.

    The Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, constructed in 670 AD, pointed west instead of due south. Likewise, floor plans from two later Umayyad (650-750 AD) mosques in Iraq, demonstrate their Qiblas were oriented too far north. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, the Baghdad mosque by 30 degrees. The Amr b. al As mosque near Cairo, again pointed too far north and had to be corrected under a later governor.

    Jacob of Odessa, a Christian writer and traveller, was a contemporary eye-witness writing in Egypt around 705 AD. His letter in the British Museum maintains the Mahgraye (Greek term for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east, towards their Kaba, the place of their patriarchal origin- in other words towards Palestine, not Mecca.

    Thus the evidence points to a sanctuary located not in Mecca, but in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem, until the early 8th century. It cannot be that the early Muslims wrongly estimated the direction of Mecca. They were desert traders and caravaners, adept at travelling by the stars. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which was also canonized at this time? There is a serious discrepancy between the Quran and modern archaeology. Crucially, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715, wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of all mosques. Could it be the Qibla only then shifted to Mecca?

    A possible answer as to why early mosques face towards Palestine is found in Jerusalem

    In the city centre lies the Dome of the Rock, an imposing structure built by Abd al-Malik in 691 AD. It is considered the third holiest site in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It seems to have been intended as a sanctuary rather than a mosque, as there is no Qibla and its octagonal design indicates it was used for circumambulation. Muslims believe it commemorates the Miraj, the night Muhammad went up into heaven to speak to Allah and Moses regarding the number of prayers required of believers.

    Yet the inscriptions on the walls of the building say nothing of the Miraj but are polemical quranic quotations, aimed primarily at Christians. Perhaps this imposing building was built instead as the early sanctuary of Islam, before the adoption of Mecca. This is logical given Muhammads intention to reclaim the land of his birthright.

    Certainly Muslim tradition suggests the Dome of the Rock may have been the early religious centre for Islam. The caliph Suleyman, who reigned up to 717 AD, went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the reply, and chose instead to follow Abd al-Malik, travelling to the Dome of the Rock.

    Could it be that the Qiblas of the early mosques were aligned to the Dome of the Rock until the edict of Walid I in the early 8th century?

    So, Jerusalem’s association with the Islamic faith is quite ancient.

    I am not saying that Muslims have a right to Jerusalem. I just want to give a fuller picture of what happened in the Middle East during ancient times.

    Quote Source: Copyright © 1999 by Peter Saunders based on other content from Jay Smith. Originally posted at Re-posted at

    • Paul Hooson

      Excellent comment, David. I love Bible history and used to once host a Bible study group at my home before my own soul grew hard due to so many deaths around me. But, a love of these teachings is still at my core being.

    • warnertoddhuston

      It looks to me that nothing you just wrote contradicts what I wrote. The era you are speaking about is both long after Muhammad’s death and after the Persians were ousted from the area. It also tends to prove that Jerusalem was not considered that important to Muslims until much later.

      • Brucehenry

        Warner, what year do you think Muhammad died? David is writing about events in the very first century after his death.

        By comparison, most of the New Testament wasn’t written in the years immediately following Jesus’s death, either.

        • warnertoddhuston

          I don’t believe he “died” at all. Because he never existed in the first place. There is ZERO contemporary proof that any such person as “the Prophet Muhammad” ever really existed. On the other hand, there is at least SOME contemporary evidence that a Jesus lived (whether he was the son of God or not is a matter of faith). The FACT is there is nothing written about this faux religious icon until many, many years after his death, long after anyone that could have known him would have been dead. As to Jesus, people that knew him wrote of him after his death. So we have enough evidence to say that Jesus was likely to have been a real person. We have ZIPPPO to prove that Muhammad actually existed. None.

          • Brucehenry

            Completely false. Where in the world did you get that? There are detailed records of the first four Caliphs, the third of whom was Muhammad’s son-in-law. Jerusalem was conquered by Arab Muslim armies in 634 AD, two years after Muhammad’s death.

            What crazy blogs have you been reading? Hint: Atlas Shrugs is not a trusted historical source.

          • mikegiles

            Arabic didn’t become a written language until well after the death of Mohammed. Indeed there is a commonly held belief that the Koran – or at least pieces of it – were first written in Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, Hebrew, Persian and Egyptian. Which makes the idea that the Koran was first given to Mohammed in Arabic interesting.

          • Brucehenry

            Says who?

          • jim_m

            The wikipedia entry on the arabic language indicates that the oldest written script dates to 643 AD. That would require that muhammad wrote the koran in a dialect of Aramaic which preceded the arabic written language..

          • Brucehenry

            No, it says the “first surviving document that uses these dots is also the first surviving Arabic papyrus.”

            What you and this mikegiles maroon are saying is akin to saying that because there is no surviving original manuscript of Beowulf, English didn’t exist until Chaucer.

            EDIT: My BYU link makes it clear that the North Arabic script, “The earliest extant examples of which date to the 4th Century BC,” is a cousin of the Nabatean Aramaic script. But claiming that Arabic didn’t exist as a written language “until well after the death of Mohammed” is simply false and is an attempt to delegitimize Arabs as a group and Islam as a religion. It’s ignorant and bigoted, undoubtedly a tidbit borrowed from a hateblog like Geller’s.

          • jim_m

            We are talking about written languages not spoken ones. There is a difference. Since arabic does not make an appearance until several decades after his death it renders his writing in that language unlikely. That’s all.

            Anyway, it isn’t my argument. You asked for information and I obliged. According to tradition he wrote the koran starting in 610. If that is the case he would have had to have been fluent in that language 3 decades before the oldest extant manuscript.

          • Brucehenry


            And see my edit above.

            And because there are no manuscripts extant now doesn’t mean there were no manuscripts extant THEN.

          • jim_m

            Then you should contact Wikipedia and tell them what bigots they are.

            As I said it was not my argument

            Funny how the possibility of earlier manuscripts is always dismissed when talking about Christian manuscripts. Just saying. One more example of how so called science is full of ideological bias.

          • Brucehenry

            It wasn’t Wikipedia’s either. It was this mikegiles dude, and you seemed to be misreading the Wiki article to defend him. The article talks about surviving physical fragments of papyrus, not about whether or not the language itself had a written form by this date or that.

            EDIT: Well, actually it DOES say the Arabic alphabet was in use in pre-Islamic times. And THEN mentions the factoid about papyrus fragments.

          • jim_m

            Fair enough. I interpreted the question as to why it might be that there is doubt that the koran was written in arabic.

            I do find it funny that you have little problem believing in anything that raises doubts about Christianity, but you leap to accusations of biogtry when someone raises questions about the koran. You will be a good dhimmi. Have been saving to pay your jizya?

            By your own standard I would wager you qualify as a bigot toward Christians.

          • Brucehenry

            Sadly, I have no savings from my blue-collar life. Paycheck to paycheck, that’s me. When Al-obama throws off his cloak of mainstream Americanism I’ll probably be the first to be beheaded, but I’m trying to be last by virtue of my writings on Wizbang.

            I doubt all religious origin stories, Jim, but if you’re gonna respect one, you ought to have the courtesy of respecting the others. I’m pretty sure Muhammad didn’t fly on a winged horse to Jerusalem, or for that matter ascend to heaven and drink milk with Moses and Jesus. On the other hand I’m also pretty sure that Noah didn’t collect two of EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH and load ’em onto a big boat, either.

            Look, despite Warner’s, mikegiles’s, and loren’s faith-based dissing of Islam, there is at least as much evidence that Muhammad actually, you know,… existed, as there is for the existence of Jesus. I don’t mind people dissing Islam for it’s built-in misogyny and assbackwardness, but there’s no sense in deliberately blurting out shit that any fool knows is false and falsifiable.

          • jim_m

            Don’t yell at me about it. I agree that he existed. I find the whole denial thing rather silly when you an piss off muslims by pointing out that he was a pedophile instead.

          • Brucehenry

            Who’s yelling? WHO’S YELLING??!!???

          • And despoiler of barnyard animals.

          • Brucehenry

            Took me about 4 clicks to find enough info to call bullshit on your bogus claim. You, sir, have no idea what you’re talking about.


          • jim_m

            I have to disagree. There are non-muslim accounts of muhammad that look to be written by people with first hand knowledge of his existence. There is no point in trying to refute his existence when it is so much more entertaining confronting muslims with the sordid facts of his life.

        • Conservachef

          Actually Bruce, I believe all of the NT was written before the end of the first century- and with one exception, penned by authors who saw Jesus face to face (the one exception being one book whose author is unknown/debated).

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            By your own link the evidence is that most of the NT was written within a generation of the death of Christ and not as you claimed beyond that time. And while authorship is oft debated the actual timing of these documents is not as much.

            Since your link admits that at least 7 of the Pauline letters are generally accepted as authentic that alone places a quarter of the NT as undisputed from within a century of Christ and by a contemporary.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I should have said “much” of the NT, not “most” of the NT. And it means the *authorship* of 7 of the Pauline letters are not in dispute, not their accuracy in recounting history.

          • jim_m

            Well, since they are not really historical documents that is really not an issue is it?

            And still much if not most of it can be dated into the first century AD. The primary reason for refusing this possibility is not evidentiary but an issue of denial of belief.

          • Brucehenry

            Ummm, okay

          • jim_m

            Well, like WTH’s contention that muhammad is fictional, the reason for denying the evidence of the NT dating is not really evidence based but founded in an ideological desire for it not to be so.

          • Brucehenry

            Hey, are you saying I’m like Warner? Them’s fightin’ words!

            But I get your point. I guess I often come off as kind of a contrarian asshole, huh?

          • jim_m

            Not this time at any rate. I was just trying to point out the inconsistency in your argument.

          • Conservachef

            Thanks for the links Bruce. Here’s where I get my info- just a personal pref but for something like this I don’t like wiki.


            You may have to click on “New Testament” to see the books of the NT, but I think the latest one I saw was around the year 95-96.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s fine. I was just contradicting Warner’s assertion that the events David recounted were “many years” after Muhammad “supposedly” died. He was talking of events in the 60-80 years after Muhammad’s death, an analogous period in the New Testament history by your source or mine.

            BTW, in his article, Warner asserts that Muslims took Palestine from the “Persians” (he means the Sassanids) “many years” after Muhammad’s death. That’s true, if by “many years” he means “two years.”

            BTW, I especially recommend my third link, above.

          • Conservachef

            Bruce, I see that, and I don’t want to get into the Muslim history discussion- I don’t know much at all about it. I just wanted to drop that little nugget in; not to provide argument, but just as an aside.

            *Edit to add*

            When I saw that post, you had 2 links. Bart Ehrman is highly controversial and definitely has a narrative that he wants to push. One that is significantly outside of traditional Biblical scholarship.


          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I’m aware of the controversy surrounding his work, but I read “Misquoting Jesus” and found it interesting. Not saying it’s the Gospel Truth, lol.

          • Conservachef

            I see what you did there…

          • Brucehenry

            Disturbing image

          • Conservachef

            Lol I’ve been hooked on those silly meme face images for a while now…

          • Brucehenry

            Looks like the face of an anthropomorphized sentient sperm cell. Creeps me the f**k out.

          • Conservachef

            Haha sorry. I’ll strike it out.


            Sorry looks like I can’t delete the image through edit.

          • Brucehenry

            No no, I’ll get over it. Thanks for the discussion.

  • Paul Hooson

    I certainly strongly agree with your opinion here. The ancient Jewish nation of Judah included the area that became Jerusalem that date back to the old Iron Age kingdom of Levant way back to the 9th century BCE. Islam was a much newer religion founded by followers of Muhammad who lived from 570-632 A.D., or close to a thousand years since the ancient Jewish kingdoms first existed, before this kingdom was routed by invaders. The religious significance of Jerusalem is further complicated by the building of the Muslim Dome Of The Rock, the existence of The Wailing Wall, as well as the Christian claims to the city’s significance as well.

    Unfortunately, Muslim archaeologists have often undertaken digs in the area looking for ancient Jewish artifacts, and then either destroying them or hiding them to conceal the evidence of the ancient Jewish civilization that once controlled the area, as Muslim religious leaders seek to rewrite history that the area was once part of ancient Israel.

    The town is under Palestinian Authority Control, and welcomes the 150,000 or so of Christian tourists each year who visit the Holy Land during Holy Week, although the Palestinian Authority has often been accused of acting as a religious police arresting any Muslim who converts to the Christian faith.

    Strangely, Muslims and Jews once had a close history, where a Muslim holy site once offered protection to Jews in ancient times. But, later frictions tore this once close relationship apart.

    Both faiths have Abraham as their common father, with the Jews having their backgrounds linked to Issac and Jacob and the Muslims to Ismael, both sons of Abraham, but with different mothers. Strangely, Jesus is considered a minor prophet in both the Jewish as well as Muslim faiths, although it was the Christian faith that accepted Jesus as the son of God as a cult of followers after the death of Jesus believed that was more than a mere prophet or teacher.

    • jim_m

      Unfortunately, muslims have a historical tendency toward obliterating the holy sites of other religions in order to maintain a fantasy that islam is the only religion. This extends to building holy sites on top of the holy sites of other religions as they have done so with the Dome of the Rock.

      It is not a stretch to believe the claim that muslims essentially make up these sites as an excuse to cover up their desecration of other people’s religion.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes, only Christians like yourself are capable of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” All others are suspect.

        • jim_m

          Sorry, when your religious belief has a well documented history of desecration of other people’s religious shrines, your beliefs really are suspect.

    • Brucehenry

      The “Kingdom of Levant” is a living history group that celebrates the history of the Crusader kingdoms of the Holy Land that existed between 1099 and 1291 AD. There was no “Kingdom of Levant” in the 9th century BCE. Where the hell did you get that factoid?

  • stan25

    The there the well documented Roman records of the conquest of what is now know as Israel. This happened during the time of Caesar Augustus. These records entirely refute the claim of the Muslims of inhabiting the region.

    • Brucehenry

      What? There WERE no Muslims when the Romans conquered Palestine.

      • jim_m

        All that is necessary for Stan’s claim to be true is that the records indicate that the lands were held by the Jewish population. And your statement is only further evidence of the falsity of the muslim claim to the lands.

        • Commander_Chico

          I expect you to leave your house in favor of members of the group that owned the land under it during the Roman Empire.

          • Brian_R_Allen

            …. I expect you to leave your house in favor of members of the group that owned the land under it during the Roman Empire ….

            O K.

            But only after you leave yours to the criminal aliens upon whose votes your gang depends.

          • jim_m

            Suits me fine dumbass. You able to show me anyone who can trace their roots back to owning land in northern Illinois 2000 years ago? A lack of documentation will make that pretty much impossible. Then again you were never a big one for backing your crap up with factual evidence.

          • Commander_Chico

            Thanks for making a point for me.

            Can you show anyone who can trace their roots to owning land in Jerusalem 2000 years ago? I can show you people who can trace their family title back 150 years who are being evicted in Jerusalem now.

            Anyways, it’s bad for the USA for the Israelis to steal land on the West Bank from Arabs, because we get blamed for it. And we have to put America first.

          • jim_m

            The difference between my examples and yours is that there really is no one that can trace even a distinct people from 0 AD to today in Illinois, whereas the Jewish people really can trace their people back to Jerusalem at that time and there is solid documentary evidence that they were really there.

            If you claim that you can show me why is it that you have posted multiple times already without giving a link to support your claim? My guess is because your claim does not come with any verifiable proof. Most likely more fake pali propaganda. More Mohammad al Dura bullshit.

          • Commander_Chico

            DNA does not lie. The people living there now calling themselves Arabs or Palestinians are more closely related to the Jews that lived here in 1 AD than any Russian taking their land now.

            I’m sure that we could find someone to take your house, too, as a descendant of the aboriginal inhabitants of Illinois, through DNA.

          • jim_m

            Once again a comment making claims with no links. What we have here is nothing but bullshit from Chico. In order to determine that someone is closely related to people from 1AD you have to have DNA from someone alive in 1AD. Since that does not exist your claim is completely bogus.

            Now there are studies showing that today’s palestinians can trace their ancestry back to the 7th century (because you an litterlaly dig up people from the 7th century where you cannot from the 1st). And if Chico were the least bit honest about this (which he is not) he would point out that geneticists believe that palestinians, Bedouins and Jews all likely come from a common ancestry.

            So like all bigoted leftists, chico is giving just the information that supports his ideology and choosing to ignore the closely related evidence that proves he is full of crap.

            Since we can say that genetically, palestinians and Jews come from a remote, common ancestry, if we are going to make a claim to the land of Israel, the Jews have a far better documented claim to that land than today’s palestinians. This is an argument about culture and history not unprovable genetic claims.

          • Commander_Chico

            What are you talking about? They have DNA from graves going back to the Neanderthals.

          • jim_m

            Studies, links. One body does not give you enough data to make assumptions about populations.

            Plus I pointed out that palestinians and Jews can trace their roots back to a common ancestor so the point of the DNA is meaningless.

          • Commander_Chico

            I know it’s wasted on you, you are an ideologue and a racialist, but this has links to several studies:


          • Leave it to a soi disant cognoscenti to hold Wiki to be definitive…


          • jim_m

            Yeah, I read that one dumbass. and it doesn’t prove that the palis have been in Israel longer than the Jews. Nor does it prove anything but that the peoples of the region are all related to one another.

            You are the racialist claiming that the palis are somehow genetically entitled to the land. What you are grasping for is the same kind of eugenic “evidence” that the Germans tried to fabricate in the 20th century. Keep on working it I am sure you will find the Jews deficient somehow,

          • Commander_Chico

            It links to a study that shows the people who have the highest proportion of the haplogroup originating in the Palestine area are the Negev Bedouins, with lesser proportions among other groups, ranging from present day Palestinian Arabs to Ashkenazi an Sephardic Jews.

          • All hear the soi dissant cognoscenti…

        • Brucehenry

          And a few hundred years before that it was held by the Canaanites or Philistines or whoever. What of it?

          • jim_m

            I was merely pointing out that when you complained that there were no muslims during Roman times that if that was your objection (easily assumed since you made no other to Stan’s comment) then the conditions I specified were operative. You have now changed your objection. The issue is that you need to demonstrate that the people living in Israel are indeed descended from those who lived there prior to the creation of ancient Israel.

            But really it is a moot point. It matters nothing about who conquered who. The Palestinian Mandate was partitioned. Arabs did in fact sell their lands at inflated prices. Arabs did in fact abandon many of their homes due to conflicts started by arab nations. Arab nations did in fact bar palestinians from entering their country in order to create a refugee crisis. Egypt has in fact closed its border with Gaza creating the blockade crisis that could have been avoided.

            Arabs are largely responsible for the problems in Israel today. Only bigotry and ignorance support the bogus claims of an apartheid state or extensive Jewish land theft. Even their own people have admitted as much if you bother looking at the historical record (and I supplied such a quote for your edification).

          • Brucehenry

            Some of your “facts” are incorrect.

            “Arabs” didn’t sell their land so much as absentee Ottoman-appointed landlords, who might be Kurds, Turks, or others, sold it out from under their Arab tenants who had lived on it for hundreds of years. And not always at “inflated” prices, but often, especially later, at bargain basement rates.

            And Arabs didn’t “abandon” their homes so much as they “fled” them. Arab countries kept Palestinians out, that is true, but the refugee crisis wasn’t so much the intent as the result, your anti-Arab propaganda notwithstanding.

            In any case, Warner’s assertion that it is “inarguable” Muslims have no religious claim on Jerusalem is silly. If it’s so inarguable, why is it still being argued after 1400 years?

          • jim_m

            I posted three references(John Hope Simpson and Lewis French as well as the Quote from Kind Abdullah) to the fact that muslims over charged for their lands. I do not dispute the fact that muslim landowners turned out their tenants in favor of Jewish immigrants, but I think it is bigoted to blame only the Jews and to ignore the historical facts.

            I have also admitted that many arabs fled their lands but not in response to Israeli oppression but to avoid wars started by the surrounding arab nations. But then again all the left can do is blame the Jews. I can’t help but think that there is a prejudice driving the blame and the willful ignorance of the actions of arabs, They are for from victims.

            And of course the muslims have religious claims. They will make religious claims to ground zero in NYC too. Do you believe that they should have rights to that ground?

          • Brucehenry

            I agree, there is plenty of blame to apportion for the mess that is the modern Middle East.

            Just for grins, and to open up your worldview a little, try reading “Kingmakers: The Making of the Modern Middle East,” by Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac. Some Westerners had a hand in fucking everything up there, too.

          • jim_m

            No doubt that the west and particularly the British and the fledgling UN screwed this up royally.

          • Brucehenry

            Why are you forever editing your comment after it has been replied to?

          • jim_m

            Sorry. My Firefox does not always come up with an alert that there is a response. I do try to avoid changes after a response

          • Brucehenry

            It’s no big deal unless I say something like, “I agree, but…” and then look to find that you’ve said something Jimtastic in the interim, lol.

          • Loren Griffith

            Because Muslims are thieves. They have stolen more territory than the British did at their highest point of their Empire

          • Brucehenry

            What an enlightened view of history. Tell us more.

          • jim_m

            I think historically it is far more accurate to describe islam as a religion of armed conquest.

          • …religion of armed conquest, rape, murder, pederasty, and bestiality.


          • Commander_Chico

            What I like about Islam are those ass-hoses they have in toilets, they get you clean after a big messy shit.

          • Loren Griffith

            Actually about 1400 years

      • Loren Griffith

        Correct – there were no Muslims anywhere for another 7 centuries. Islam didn’t exist yet

  • Commander_Chico

    Another strawman from Warner.

    The fact is that the Israelis are kicking out Arab families who have lived in Jerusalem for generations, stealing their land, and settling it with Russians right off the plane from Moscow.

    These images are broadcast throughout the Arab world, and the USA gets blamed for Israeli land-grabbing.

    That is the reality; any and all religious arguments – ,Muslims, the Crusaders and Jewish settlers now – are bunk, anyways. “God says I own this land . . . .” is the ultimate BS. What matters is who is living there and who has the title. Israeli courts are notorious for invalidating Arab titles to land.

    Think about it. How would you like it if some Chinese authorities said the title to your house was no good, and you had to leave to make way for people from Shanghai, or if they walled off your house so you could not get to it?

    • jim_m

      What matters is who is living there and who has the title

      Chico shows his affinity for totalitarianism by making an argument that might makes right.

      That and he spews a bunch of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli claims without bothering to give us one link to establish that he has got anything but bigotry behind his statements.

      In most cases, people evicted in the days of the Mandate and in the early days of the Israeli state were not land owners but were tenants who were evicted by arab landowners who sold their land at inflated prices.

      When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: “They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.”

      In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.

      Or perhaps you would take the word of an arab leader

      “It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping”.

      — Transjordan’s King Abdullah

      • Commander_Chico

        I am talking about people being displaced today and since 1967, so you are talking about something else.

        Glad to see you could throw the “anti-Semitic” in though. Like “Carl” using RAAAACIST.

        • jim_m

          You provide no actual facts just accusations. It seems that the proof of your assertions is the same as the assertion itself. It seems that to you the guilt of the Jews is their existence and nothing you can show that they have actually done.

    • Behold the opinion of the soi dissant cognoscenti, and snicker.

  • Loren Griffith

    Jerusalem because a Muslim “holy site” for the first time in the 1920s. Yes the 20th century was the first time that it was ever considered “holy” by Muslims.

    The person that claimed it to be the 3rd most “holy” Islamic city was none other than Yassur Arafat’s uncle Haj Amin al-Husseini – Hitler’s Imam. The Mosque of Al-Aqsa was falling down and to raise money it suddenly was declared Islam’s “3rd most Holy City”. Only problem with that is Islam only has two “Holy Cities” Mecca and Medina. There is no 3rd city

    • jim_m

      My understanding was that historically, when Jerusalem has been in muslim hands that its significance is approximately zero. When it was taken in the crusades and now as part of Israel it becomes the holiest of muslim cities outside of Mecca. It only has religious significance when it is occupied by the infidels. Otherwise they don’t give a damn about it.

    • Brucehenry

      More Gelleresque made-up nonsense.

  • JWH

    This kind of thing makes my head hurt. Seems to me that the most legitimate claim on Jerusalem is who has political and military control over it NOW, not whoever lived there a thousand years ago.

  • Wild_Willie

    Abraham was promised a son in he and his wifes old age. Sarah, his wife thought for sure she could not get pregnant so she convinced Abraham to have sex with a concubine which he did. The concubine became pregnant and gave birth to Ishmael. Abraham loved this boy, But after some years God spoke to Sarah and Abraham about being blessed by a son. Sarah, in her older years became pregnant and gave birth to Isaac. God had told Abraham to banish Ishmael from his kingdom which was ‘as far as the eye can see’ which he did. The bloodline of the Israelites started through Isaac all the way to Jesus.
    Meanwhile, Ismael taught his people about the promises of God. Probably somewhere in the Persian area. Islam became the faith.
    Now we have Jews and Arabs fighting over the same birthright given to Abraham. But since Ismael is a bastard child, his claim cannot be fully accepted. It has been a family war ever since. But Islam is a religious/political faith while Hebrew is a religious faith only. ww

    • Commander_Chico

      Hey ww, I found a store with your handle.

      If anyone can guess where it is, I’ll be impressed and donate $30 to their favorite charity.

  • The corrupted gene pool Muzz have no rights period in Israel, the USA or anywhere else for that matter. Who cares when or where it happened. They need to return to where ever they came from, which includes the Muzz in the WH and his nasty brother-HOODS. ASAP

  • Pingback: Muslims Have No Legitimate Religious Claim on Jerusalem – Wizbang (blog) | kb1()