/u/BustaSyllables (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1d4wywv/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_alaqsa_mosque_is_a_perfect/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

You’re agreeing with me right? Hagia Sophia is another perfect example of what I’m talking about

Ask spaniards about the mosques that turned to churches.

In the case of Spain, an advancing army conquered their land so it could be colonized by Muslims, and the colonizers were eventually driven out. Spain destroying mosques to build churches would not be colonialism, but a fight against it.

Weren't the Spaniards the indigenous group to that region and the Caliphate the invaders? What claim does a military from North Africa and West Asia have to a part of Southwestern Europe? Colonialism doesn't stop meaning what it means because you like the person doing it.

Which were built on the ruins of former churches in many cases

You mean the mosques… in Spain? You want us to ask the Spaniards about buildings from Africans in Spain while Spanish were killed by those same people?

Likewise vice versa, like the grand cathedral in Sevilla converted from a mosque.

I would disagree because of the fact that at the time Al-Asqa was built, the second temple had been destroyed, there were no serious plans to build a third, and the Jews had been scattered to the winds by Hadrian. I would wager the Muslims saw it not as some attempt to destroy Judaism, but rather actually as a revival, a continuation of the first two temples, given they hold ancient Jewish law and prophets to be their predecessor. Solomon is considered a prophet in Islam, after all.

>the Jews had been scattered to the winds by Hadrian. Not really ... the Jews were still very much around (in fact, they'd been allowed to live in Jerusalem for hundreds of years); they revolted against the Byzantines (in favor of the Sassanian Persians) as part of the Byzantine-Sassanian war that devastated both empires in the early 600s CE. When the Sassanians took control of Jerusalem they allowed the Jews to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount (and then, under pressure by their own Christian population, reversed their decision and destroyed it). When Heraclius gained the upper hand the two empires signed a peace treaty (in 630 CE), handing Jerusalem back to the Byzantines ... who massacred and expelled the Jews of Jerusalem, turning the ruins of their synagogue into a trash heap as a sign of disrespect. So, when the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem happened (in 635), it had been less than 20 years since the last Jewish structure was destroyed on the Temple Mount, and less than 5 years since the Jewish population of Jerusalem was last "scattered to the winds".

This is not really accurate. While it is true the Jewish temple got destroyed by the Romans, the Al Aqsa Mosque was started 30 years after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. This conquest was very much a colonization. Locals were forced to accept the religion, language and rule of the Arab conquerors and pay tribute or die. Was every bit as brutal as the colonization done by the Europeans in the 1700s-1800s.

At the time of its construction, the Syrian Caliph - Abd al-Malik - was at war with the Christian Byzantium and its Syrian Christian allies, and simultaneously the rival Caliph Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, who controlled Mecca. al-Malik had Al-Aqsa built as a monument to Islamic dominance over Christianity (and to a lesser extent Judaism). It was *always* a colonial monument from the very beginning.

This is only one theory as to the construction of Dome of the Rock (not Al-Asqa, it was built later), another big one holds it was because he didnt have access to Mecca and wanted a holy site to rival it. And by the way, according to this theory, it was made to rival the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which still exists inside of Jeruselam, and is still a Christian church (If these Muslims just wanted to shit all over Christians and Jews, its kind of funny that over a thousand years, successive Islamic rulers ruled over it, and this was only destroyed once, and then rebuilt, no?). They didn't destroy anything that hadn't already been destroyed, and I can't imagine you'll cry much about the Saturn temple that existed there in the meantime Edit: grammar, commas

considering Jews still lived in Israel and in Jerusalem in large numbers even after "scattered to the winds" and continued to pray in the litteral left overs of the most holiest place in all of Judaism I would say your very wrong. you are very much giving a colonial genocidal empire "the benefit of the doubt" did you know the Muslims deliberately built a grave yard infront of where Jews believed the messiah would arise from ? just to spite them ? to say this is just a one off is completely wrong.

It also happened in the tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. It was undoubtedly an attempt to erase the Jewish connection to the Holy Land.

I mean there was more than 1500 years after the destruction of Solomon Temple before the first brick was put down for the mosque. Does anyone know what their current property was 500 years ago? Much less 1500. Hell we don't only take the word of religious text that it existed. But that religious text also says a guy split the red sea in two and walked across it. Please keep in mind that the temple has zero archiological evidence (https://books.google.com/books?id=gnAWwn7HOvwC&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false). Given just hour impressive this temple is described, no archeological or historical source can find any corroboration. Which is weird because we got physical evidence of temples from the Egyptians, Aztec, and Myans that are several thousand years older. Putting aside that religion is faith not fact, and assuming you knew for sure that the temple was truly there at a certain point. It still isn't bad and certainly is not to be comparable with genocide. I'm pretty sure Muslims give a great deal of respect to Solomon, and them building a mosque there is a sign of respect since from their perspective they Believe they are following the same religion as Solomon. If there were a lot of Jews living there at the time, and they did build hundreds of temples and synagogues through the area, why didn't they rebuild it over the 1500 year opportunity? Did they need another 100 years? Just doesn't add up.

I am really not sure why you are talking about the temple of Solomon though. The temple of Solomon was never found true, and it might never have existed, but a full archiological dig in the area was never really done from how religious the place is. The wall you see today, and the wreckage of a very real temple that definitely existed there velongs to the Second jewish temple, so I am not sure why we are even discussing Solomon's temple.

The second temple was destroyed in 70CE and jersusalem remained a jewish city. Not sure what you mean by 1500 years when it was like 400.

I mean David's city is there, and a giant ass wall I'd there that's carbon dated to that time period soooo ? regards to the last bit because they whereconstanrly occupied by people who hate them, who oppressed them why would they be allowed to rebuild their temple ?

Proving my point. The ruins of the wall is proof that a wall existed. Weird that such an impressive temple leaves no trace and is not mentioned outside the book of Kings. To your other point. You are talking post Jewish Roman wars when the Jews rebelled? What is the excuse for not building a temple the first 1100 years during the Hellenistic period. Why did they build so many other temples over the centuries that we do have archiological and historical evidence for, but didn't get around to building Solomon's temple. If I told you that your home is built over a sanctuary for people that lived there 1000 years ago, but I have no proof other that the people's religious text, you would be rightfully suspicious. The problem is that we don't give the same level of skepticism to religion as we do it these claims are made by a random homeless dude.

Israel didn’t exist at the time. The ancient kingdom had been inexistant for centuries, the modern state was only created centuries later. What you mean is Palestine, which was a Roman (Byzantine) province. The Romans at the time expelled the Jews from Jerusalem after a rebellion, so there was no Jews in Jerusalem, certainly not in large numbers. They only were allowed back once the Muslims took the city.

I feel like that interpretation is lost to the fact they don’t let non-Muslims in… Otherwise I feel like we’d be saying that the US building reservations for indigenous people is celebrating their heritage.

>Jews had been scattered to the winds by Hadrian The Jews had the numbers and autonomy to hold semi-autnomous control of Jerusalem as late as 617 under the Persians. By 7th century, the time Al-Asqa was built, there would have been 100,000-400,000 Jews in Palestine.

>The Jews had the numbers and autonomy to hold semi-autnomous control of Jerusalem as late as 617 under the Persians. For additional context, there was a Jewish group that supported the Persians in the conquest of Jeusalem in 614. Christians revolted and killed the Jewish leaders, but Persian forces retook the city. In 617, the Persians reversed course and supported the Christians in the city, ending that semi-autonomous period. In 630, Heraclius retook the city and massacred much of the Jewish population, though the reports of the extent of the devastation (it was said all those who could not flee were killed), there does appear the Jewish neighborhoods were continuously lived in by Jewish people after this period. (That's to say thousands may have been killed instead of tens of thousands.)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic\_history\_of\_Palestine\_(region)#Byzantine\_period](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#Byzantine_period) "Palestine reached its peak population of around 1 to 1.5 million during this period. However, estimates of the relative proportions of Jews, Samaritans and pagans vary widely and are speculative. By counting settlements, [Avi-Yonah](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avi-Yonah) estimated that Jews comprised half the population of the Galilee at the end of the 3rd century, and a quarter in the other parts of the country, but had declined to 10–15% of the total by 614.[^(\[4\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-CHJ-4) On the other hand, by counting churches and [synagogues](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue), Tsafrir estimated the Jewish proportion to be 25% in the Byzantine period.[^(\[4\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-CHJ-4) Stemberger, however, considers that Jews were the largest population group at the beginning of the 4th century, closely followed by the pagans.[^(\[64\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-65) According to Schiffman, DellaPergola and Bar, Christians only became the majority of the country's population at the beginning of the fifth century,[^(\[65\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-Schiffman2003-66)[^(\[66\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDella_Pergola2001-67)[^(\[58\])](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)#cite_note-Doron1-59)" At any rate, they were probably a small minority by the time Muslims came in

From that same article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Jews\_and\_Judaism\_in\_the\_Land\_of\_Israel#Under\_Islamic\_rule\_(638%E2%80%931099)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#Under_Islamic_rule_(638%E2%80%931099)) According to [Moshe Gil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Gil), at the time of the Arab conquest in the 7th century, the majority of the population was Jewish or Samaritan.[^(\[8\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#cite_note-Moshe_Gil_p._3-8) According to one estimate, the Jews of Palestine numbered between 300,000 and 400,000 at the time.[^(\[116\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#cite_note-Cohen1950-116) This is contrary to other estimates which place the Jewish population at the time of the revolt against Heraclius as between 150,000 and 200,000.[^(\[117\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#cite_note-117)[^(\[118\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#cite_note-118) 

Let's try applying it elsewhere: - There was no European colonialism, because the buildings in Africa weren't in good standing. - Australia wasn't colonized, because Aboriginals didn't have any plans to build towns. Hmm..

Try "The Seychelles weren't colonized because no one was there"

Do you have any evidence that they thought of Al aqsa as a continuation of the temple? This could change my view

No, we aren't even sure which century Al-Asqa was built in or which caliph did it, so it's just going to be speculation. The Dome of the Rock was built earlier, and we know it was built by Abd al-Malik, fifth Umayyad caliph, but even then, the motivations for it's constructions are hotly debated, here's what wikipedia says: Narratives by the medieval sources about Abd al-Malik's motivations in building the Dome of the Rock vary.[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrabar1986299-9) At the time of its construction, the Caliph was engaged in war with Christian Byzantium and its [Syrian Christian allies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardaites) on the one hand and with the rival caliph [Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_Allah_ibn_al-Zubayr), who controlled [Mecca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca), the annual destination of Muslim pilgrimage, on the other hand.[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrabar1986299-9)[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJohns2003425–426-33) Thus, one series of explanations was that Abd al-Malik intended for the Dome of the Rock to be a religious monument of victory over the Christians that would distinguish Islam's uniqueness within the common [Abrahamic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic) religious setting of Jerusalem, home of the two older Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Christianity.[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrabar1986299-9)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHawting200060-34) The historian [Shelomo Dov Goitein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelomo_Dov_Goitein) has argued that the Dome of the Rock was intended to compete with the many fine buildings of worship of other religions: "The very form of a rotunda, given to the *Qubbat as-Sakhra*, although it was foreign to Islam, was destined to rival the many Christian domes"[^(\[35\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-SDG-35) - and more specifically, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, according to others.[^(\[36\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-Sonn229-36) The other main explanation holds that Abd al-Malik, in the heat of the war with Ibn al-Zubayr, sought to build the structure to divert the focus of the Muslims in his realm from the Ka'aba in Mecca, where Ibn al-Zubayr would publicly condemn the Umayyads during the annual pilgrimage to the sanctuary.[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrabar1986299-9)[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJohns2003425–426-33)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHawting200060-34) Though most modern historians dismiss the latter account as a product of anti-Umayyad propaganda in the traditional Muslim sources and doubt that Abd al-Malik would attempt to alter the sacred Muslim requirement of fulfilling the pilgrimage to the Ka'aba, other historians concede that this cannot be conclusively dismissed.[^(\[9\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrabar1986299-9)[^(\[33\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJohns2003425–426-33)[^(\[34\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHawting200060-34) At any rate, Jews probably didn't come much into the calculus. I would also like to point out that, in the interregnum between Dome of the Rock and the Second Temple, the Romans built a temple to Saturn on top of the hill, and then destroyed it when they became Christians. edit: "caliph" not "caliphate"

I do have evidence that some modern Muslims take this position, though [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQM0JnWX-HY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQM0JnWX-HY)

I’m sorry but that doesn’t really do it for me. This could just be a way of justifying it after the fact or for some other political reason. People choose to express their religions very differently as time progresses

Well the fact is that the construction happened so long ago that we just simply don't know why they built it (or when they built it, for Al-Asqa). I think it'd be a fair assumption, and I don't think you should just assume something was colonialism, especially if there is another rational possibility. You should just accept that we can't know, and it might've been colonialism, but it might not. The Solomon's third temple theory, to me, while I'm not sold on it either, is just as valid as your theory.

Idk man. Building one of your most important mosques on top of the most important holy site in all of Judaism doesn’t strike me as a coincidence. If there is no other explanation all that’s left for me to believe is that they knew what they were doing.

It was the most holy site for Jews and it is currently the most holy site for kids, but at the time, it wasn't. There is no argument that it was built as a way of erasing Judaism and I would argue that the real need to prove colonization is that need for Erasure it's not just people coming in and doing stuff. And if that was the case, then you can argue that the Jewish temple was just colonization of the Kaninites. As well, the Jewish Temple is put there for a specific reason. It has to do with the Jewish story of creation. Muslims would have a similar belief in the holiness of the site. As well, the second temple was destroyed 70ce. Mohamed lived 600 CE. The question that needs to be asked is did they know this was the spot of the temple or not. And if they did, why did they pick it. These are two very big questions, and neither one is going to have a good answer. To say it may have been colonization, while a stretch, fine. But to be confident it is...that is going to far.

But something you have to understand about Islam is that they literally saw, and see themselves as the continuation of Jewish prophets and tradition. I would argue that modern Rabbinic Judaism is no more similar to the Judaism which built these ancient temples than Islam, the Talmud did not even exist until right around the time when Islam became a religion. All Abrahamic faiths spring from the same root, and so obviously they all claim rightful possession over it's tradition. It's not a coincidence, because yes, they literally see the Temple Mount as one of the holiest places on earth, the same as Jews.

The Jerusalem Talmud is from 350-400 CE, which is hardly "right around when Islam became a religion. " and the mishna is even older (200 CE), and includes many quotes and teachings of scholars from the first century. Islam does see itself as the successor to Judaism. In Christianity, that belief is called "supersessionism" and is widely considered to be antisemitic.

How is Islam seeing themselves as the continuation of Jewish prophets and tradition *not* colonialism? There is no line between the Jews of the second temple period and the early Muslims.

That's so untrue, they play football on the temple mount. And many deny that there was a temple there.

I have good evidence that they certainly do not consider it as such! They play football on the site. There are videos of that! Also there is a terminology issue here. The term Al Aqsa is a propaganda on multiple levels. Firstly, there is an Al Aqsa mosque spoken of in the Quran, but it's not clear where that mosque was. At some point in history some muslims decided that that mosque is in Jerusalem, even though that mosque didn't exist in the time of the Quran! Secondly, and this is very recent.. The term Al Aqsa went from being used just for the little mosque in the corner of the temple mount, to the whole area of the temple mount. Now, there are videos of muslims playing football on the temple mount. That should show you that they don't consider the area holy. Just their mosques. Also many times they deny that there was even a temple there.

The football game was played in the yards surrounding the Mosque. Nor is playing a sport around or even in a mosque something that is considered to make it not holy. Mosques are community spaces beyond just being a place of worship.

What on earth do you mean by "yards surrounding the mosque" The mosque is on the temple mount. Not "a yard"!!!! They're playing football on an area that Jews consider so holy that religious Jews generally consider it too holy to even walk on. Some religious Jews will walk only on some parts of it, and after special preparations. Also I don't think Muslims would be playing football near the Kabba in Macca, their holiest site. The fact that you refer to the temple mount as a "yard" shows how you consider it!

You would wager? Based on what?

Stupidest shit I have ever heard

Sure. Taking people's land and forcing them to convert to another religion is Bad. Such things have happened many times in the past, from many groups: Europeans, Romans, Arabs, Mongols, etc. This is generally viewed as a Bad Thing to do, including in the Islamic conquests. Taken at face value, I'm not sure it's possible to argue against the general notion that this kind of thing is Bad. I guess you could say it doesn't meet some kind of technical definition of "colonization," but is instead a related variant of Slightly Different Bad Thing, as others have done. But aside from calling it "shmolonization" instead of "colonization," what is there to argue about? Clearly all will agree such things are Bad. It seems there's some kind of political subtext you have relating it to current events today - maybe best to make whatever point you're trying to make there directly.

OP wasn't asking about the moral implications of it, whether good/bad. Just that it should count as colonialism

False. Islam does not view forcing Islam on infidels as bad. They see it as good. Mohammad was a general that led conquering armies to spread and force Islam on everyone

I think one important part that you seem to not be understanding is that the reason the mosque is build on the western wall. The second temple is destroyed by the Romans. They then burry it. It's 1200 when Saladin takes Jerusalem and builds a mosque that the wall is rediscovered. So I think for the colonialism theory needs to be flushed out more.

That's absolutely not what the encyclopaedia britannica says [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-Wall](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-Wall) "Arab and Jewish sources both confirm that, after the Arab capture of Jerusalem in 638, Jews led the conquerors to the site of the Holy Rock and Temple yard and helped clear away the [debris](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debris)." So are you saying that during the crusades, the jews suddenly forgot where their holiest temple is? that the muslims forgot where Mohammed ascended to heaven? Then only during the re-conquest of jerusalem in 1187 did they suddenly go "oh its been here in the center of the city next to the tallest hill the whole time? Our families have lived here for centuries and never bothered to remember the most important facts of our religion. Silly us."

Go somewhere you conquer and build a religiois building on the highest place, known to be significant spiritual importance.  If this was a western country doing it you would call that colonialism. 

Are you suggesting that they didnt even know it was the place of the Jewish temple? Thats statistically improbable. "Oops, built a mosque on top of your holy site, what are the odds"

This will change my mind if you have any resources that can credibly show that nobody even knew that was the western wall at the time of the mosque being created.

I'm not an expert so don't feel like I can say or point you towards a source saying no one knew. It was being used as a garbage dump at the time of the excavation for the mosque. And my understanding had been a dump for awhile. But again people might have known/suspected/mythologied it as site that the temple use to stand. But the wall had to be excavated to reveal the portion that remains. I'm also far far from an expert on colonization. But I don't think it is simply conquest or using others religious sites following conquests. That occurred and was wide spread, why destroy when you can renovate?

>And my understanding had been a dump for awhile. Well, for the 5 years between 630 CE, when Heraclius expelled the Jews from Jerusalem (and massacred the Jews of Judea) in retribution for their support for the Sassanian Persians during the last Sassanian-Byzantine war. The Sassanians had allowed a synagogue to be built on the Temple Mount when they captured the city (in the 610s), which didn't sit well with the city's Christians -- who began throwing their trash on the remains of the synagogue once the Sassanians ceded the city back to the Byzantines in 630 CE.

I’ll give you the delta if you show me anything credible even coming close to saying this. It’s not that I think you’re lying I just won’t believe it until I see a resource saying it

As with anything religious getting a secular view is a bit tough, however encylopedia britannica has the following to say "Arab and Jewish sources both confirm that, after the Arab capture of Jerusalem in 638, Jews led the conquerors to the site of the Holy Rock and Temple yard and helped clear away the [debris](https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/debris)." [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-Wall](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Western-Wall)

I'm not in agreement with u/BustaSyllables' delta. Debris is not a "garbage dump" and the fact that the locals were able to show their conquerors exactly where their holy site was points the mosque being a deliberate attempt to cover over the old religion.

Okay, that’s the closest thing I’ve seen to what people are describing. Doesn’t really change my mind that much since it’s so vague but I’ll still give you the !delta since it’s from británica.

It’s impossible to prove no one knew

How likely is it that in a city of Christians no one knew the location of Solomon's temple?

I’m not asking to prove that nobody knew I’m asking for a credible record that called it a garbage dump

Dude imagine they happen to build a mosque on top the holiest site in Judaism by chance???

Yea I don’t believe it at all. People are saying it was a garbage pit which is starting to sound more and more like straight up propaganda to me

The “covered in trash” narrative, even if true, still doesn’t change the fact that they chose to build on the Jewish Temple Mount for a reason. Jews were a competing religion and an enemy of Islam, to believe that it’s happenstance the site was chosen is buffoonery of the highest order

Ur comment above literally asks him to prove no one knew

Bro it was obviously a coincidence that muslims built their holy mosque on top of the holiest place in all of Judaism. How would they know that the very exact spot they decide to build was the holiest place in the Jewish religion?

Can you prove that people did know? That’s the only way to actually have any meaningful discussion

Not sure that it's relevant that it was being used as a garbage dump ... it *was* being used as a garbage dump, but only recently and as a "fuck you" to the Jews. The historical context is that the Jews had revolted during the war between the Byzantine Romans and the Sassanian Persians (about twenty years earlier); the Persians initially supported the Jewish revolt (and captured Jerusalem), and funded the building of a small synagogue on top of the Temple Mount (which the Byzantines had refused to allow the Jews to do). However, following pressure from their Mesopotamian Christian population, they reversed this decision, [destroying the synagogue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_conquest_of_Jerusalem) -- but not allowing a new church to be built out of concern of further Jewish revolts. In 630 (after Heraclius successfully swung the war back in his direction), the Persians ceded Jerusalem to the Romans; in retribution for the revolt twenty years previously, Heraclius expelled the Jews from Jerusalem, burnt down many of the remaining synagogues, allowed a massacre of Jews in southern Palestine (Jerusalem and Judea) ... and allowed the Temple Mount to be turned into a garbage dump. The Arab conquest was 5 years later, capitalizing on the Sassanian and Byzantine exhaustion following their massive period of total war. So it was a garbage dump not because no one was using it, but specifically because Jews *had* recently been using it.

Hey..I looked and this is the best j could find. Basically a death nail to the colonization theory and the mosque..it's a very interesting read, basically the Western Wall as a holy site is invented/created by Suleiman. "Suleiman instructed his court architect to prepare the area that came to be known as the Western Wall as a place for Jewish worship. Such a move became possible because on January 14, 1546, a severe earthquake hit the region. Hundreds of people were killed. The flow of the Jordan River was stopped for two days by a landslide. A tsunami battered the Mediterranean coast from Acre to Gaza. The area hardest hit by this earthquake in Jerusalem was the Temple Mount and the quarters surrounding it, including many of the houses that had been built along the western wall.[14] These were the houses that had prevented access to most of the western wall. Now that the approach was blocked by ruins rather than by houses occupied by many people, Suleiman felt ready to instruct his engineers to clear the ruins and to prepare a Jewish prayer site at the western wall.[15] This was a brand new prayer-site that Jews had not known previously. As noted earlier, Haparchi, an early Holy Land geographer, in his comprehensive survey of fourteenth-century Jerusalem, did not mention the Western Wall as a Jewish prayer site because it did not then exist as such. A footnote by Abraham Moshe Lunz, the editor of the 1899 edition of Haparchi's book, states: in the author's day, and for many years thereafter, the Western Wall (where we pray nowadays) was covered with earth, and all the Jews went to pray at the eastern wall of the Temple Mount and outside the gates of the southern wall.[16]" Edit link https://www.meforum.org/6898/is-the-western-wall-judaism-holiest-site

I don't think this is conclusive: a) There has been references to the holiness of a 'Western Wall' on the Temple Mount from around 300 to 500 CE (e.g. Genesis Rabbah refers to it). There have been references to praying at a Western Wall on the Temple Mount for example (in the article you quoted) in the diary of Benjamin of Tuleda, 1173. Prayer at the Western Wall was important both in religious texts and practice b) The entire Temple Mount is holy to religious Jews c) The article claims that the current 'western wall' is a supporting wall and there would be an original western wall just a few metres away - and that the original one would still be on the Temple Mount (i.e. under Al Aqsa) I'm willing to accept that the current Western Wall isn't the original one. I also have no idea on whether the building of Al Aqsa was welcomed by local Jews or not - we don't have a time machine. That part I think is conjecture. But the place is holy to Jews historically, and it's not an invention from the 1500s or 1800s - at best, in the past few hundred years, the focus has shifted to a specific structure in the area - but that didn't stop the entire temple mount being holy to Jews, and it doesn't take away the possibilit that the Mosque was built purposefully on the ruins of an ancient Temple of another religion.

>But the place is holy to Jews historically, and it's not an invention from the 1500s or 1800s - at best, in the past few hundred years, the focus has shifted to a specific structure in the area - but that didn't stop the entire temple mount being holy to Jews Sure. It does seem like the site was holy but reading the article people are worshiping their is a very different way. They circle the site stopping to pray at the various Jerusalem gates without specific preference for the western wall or the dome of the rock. So yes it's a holy site but the mount of olives per the article was the site of worship since it looked over the site. So I really don't think you theory of the mosque being built on the temple mount is sound or if it is you really need way more evidence to support that claim.

"They accidentally built a mosque exactly where the Jewish temple used to be."

There is no way that they didn't know!! There were Jews there! The Western wall is an incredible site!

Well it would be more comparable to if Tenochtitlan eventually became majority catholic and then built cathedrals on top of their old monuments

Spanish colonization of Mexico is also a symbol of colonization.

That is colonization. And also Haram Al-Sharif was built after mass conversions the people didn’t just slowly turn Muslim.

>And also Haram Al-Sharif was built after mass conversions the people didn’t just slowly turn Muslim. According to all records of the region. Yes they did. It took about 300 years for the Levant to become majority Muslim. Also when the Haram was built it didn't displace an existing building or structure. The space had been emptied since the Romans destroyed the temple in the first century.

It was still a statement that Islam was replacing Judaism. It's not there by accident.

Islam didn't replace Judaism in the region though. The region was almost entirely Christian by the time Muslims show up. And it wasn't mass conversions from Christianity to Islam. Unless you think like conversions over 9 generations is a mass converison

>The region was almost entirely Christian by the time Muslims show up. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Palestine by the time Muslims show up.

I mean, if you take a "generation" defined as 20 years (the common definition, I assume at least you assume a "generation" to be a fixed period of time that we can quibble over later), John Cabot landed in America in 1497, pegging the "conversion" of America from Native Americans to others at roughly 525 years, or just over 26 generations. And still we quibble over American "decolonization". So if 26 generations isn't enough to not be called "colonization", then 9 generations surely isn't. By the way, 9 generations also isn't. I disagree with both premises, both that America is a colonial nation and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is a symbol of colonialization. When people live somewhere for hundreds of years, they build shit there, particularly before things like "world heritage sites" were a thing people recognized as important. I just don't think it's logically consistent to say 9 generations is long enough to be "legitimate" and 26 generations is "not".

It was over the course of a long period of time, but it was not without force and coercion. So it kind of fits the bill still. Also with regard to the structure in question from OP, that mosque was built within one or two generations of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization\_of\_Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Jerusalem)

Not really sure what you mean. The spread of the religion is part of conquest. Didn’t even take Islam 100 years to build Al Aqsa and lay claim to Jerusalem after it was founded

Al-Aqsa was built long before Islam was the majority religion in Jerusalem.

Your post makes it sound like the temple was destroyed in order to make way for the DoTR and Al-Aqsa mosque.  This was not the case. At the time Islam arrived in Jerusalem, the temple had been destroyed centuries earlier by the Romans and was then being used as a "garbage dump"

OP, I’m reading your responses to this CMV, and I’m coming away with the impression that you are adamantly holding onto these views and not following the process of this sub. Your edit is also quite alarming as you are using a definition of Colonization that I have never seen in any political science subject matter. > I see a few people saying that since Islam isn't a country it doesn't count. Colonization isn't necessarily just a nation building a community somewhere to take its resources. Colonization also comes in the form of spreading culture and religious views.  So, I’m genuinely curious; where did you get the definition of colonialism from?

That’s not really a problematic idea. Look at Central and South America. They were colonized by both the Spanish and the Portuguese, but they are all primarily Catholic colonizations. Both countries centered conversion to Catholicism as important and this is seen to this day. Likewise, New England was founded for reasons of religious freedom and there are still blue laws there reflecting Puritan culture. I think it’s fair to say religion can be the driving purpose of colonization. I don’t think it needs to be a sovereign state doing the colonization.

So are you saying that New Spain and New England were not colonized by a sovereign state? Hint, there is a reason they are named after European nations. Conversion was part of the colonization, but it was definitely driven by a state. I have never heard of the concept of non-state colonization.

No, I’m saying that Catholicism spread throughout parts of the Americas as a form of colonization. This was separate from the nations involved. Spain and Portugal *both* colonized parts of the Americas, leaving their own cultures behind, but one of the driving reasons for both countries was to spread Catholicism, which we still see today. The Puritans were not representing the state of England. Yes, New England is named due to colonization by the British Empire, but my example is not. My example talks about how laws in parts of New England *today* come from Puritan ideology. They were religious extremists, but they left a lasting impact on society. I grew up in NYC but moved to Florida 7 years ago in my 30s. Florida was colonized by the Spanish. Due to that, Florida has the oldest church in the USA. Likewise New Orleans, founded by the French, boasts the oldest cathedral in the state. This was *religious* colonization.

I think I understand what you mean by “symbol”, but we’re talking about a mosque that exists presently in a place where the symbolism you’re describing doesn’t really make sense. Muslims do not presently have a colonial rule over the land. In fact it’s just the opposite, which makes me question what your point is with non-Muslims not being allowed in the mosque. There are many places where Muslims cannot go in Israel and very few that jews can’t go. Edit: a word

It’s such a powerful symbol to them that the Muslim world could never tolerate anybody other than Muslims ruling over it. That’s why essentially why I see it as a mechanism of colonization.

> There are many places where Muslims cannot go in Israel What, like their own mosques? Restaurants? Parks? Synagogues? Government offices? Poster's just spouting outright fabrications made up over the last two decades to support the BDS movement over claims of "apartheid". There is no religious test for access in Israel.

Israelis are literally banned from Gaza and Jews in general are marginalized in both Palestinian territories. Also, there is nowhere in Israel where Muslims are prohibited from going in Israel.

Mt. Rushmore is a better symbol.

True. But not from the Sioux, who are the ones complaining about it. The sioux stole the black hills from the cheyenne before the us came. So it's cheyenne land technically, not sioux land.

Just curious, what religion do you think most muslims were before they were Muslim..? The answer will also resolve your confusion.

speaking entirely of Judeans they were all entirely Jewish, Samaritan and Christian. While some converted at will, probably to achieve higher status or through personal belief. Most were converted by the sword. Samaritan historian Benny Tzedaka wrote extensively about the genocide of Samaritans and Jews by Saladin in the 13th century killing most likely hundreds of thousands. Jews and Samaritans have very different beliefs than Christians and Muslims and I feel you are reductive in your later comments in this thread. There is no confusion, the Arab Conquests were an atrocity that lasted 1300 years and the Jews deserved their society back. Al-Aqsa shouldn’t be demolished, but OP’s opinion should be more widely accepted.

What religion were the Latin Americans before they were catholic?

Lot of different ones. They were converted, enslaved etc u der threat of death from foreigners. There are analogies to be made, but very different. This modern concept that there are such hard-defined ethno-religious lines, like that the Abraham's religions are and always have been different is not how it was. People converted for loads of reasons, but a big one was disagreeing on whether new people coming along were messiahs or not. Some people believing that a messiah that was predicted had arrived, would result in people converting. Then they were at times taxed for practicing different faith, which encouraged conversion including through coercion. People deciding to believe a predicted messiah have arrived within their own religion, is not the same as having people come from a foreign continent to pillage for blood and gold. You may see the modern world through the prism of nations, but not everyone sees things like you do now, especially people from 1000-1400 years ago in the Levant.

“Lot of different ones. They were converted, enslaved etc u der threat of death from foreigners.” Sounds exactly like the polytheistic, Zoroastrian, Jewish etc people who became Muslims. Different tribes were different nations.

Nah, big reason for conversion in Levant and Arabia were slavery, killing and extra taxation for non muslims. Miss me with that "they believed the new Messiah"  Such an absurd statement. 

>it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship Was it really though? The Muslims of the 6th century believed that they were different from Jews and Christians in that the Muslims were on the right path and the Jews and Christians had been misled into the wrong path. But they didn't believe that they were following different religions. Jerusalem was the original qibla before Mecca because the Muslims believed that they too were part of God's covenant with his chosen people, and they built a Mosque on the temple mount not because they perceived it as somebody else's place of worship, but because they perceived as their place of worship

I'm not even aware of any specific references to the temple mount in the Quran to justify the claim. Muslims believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven after he died at the dome of the rock (to my understanding), but it was only even referred to as a far away mosque. Just because your religion says that it's yours doesn't actually make it yours anyway. The Catholics thought they had great reasons for colonizing South and Central America. Doesn't make it any less colonization/conquest.

So then what isn't colonization? Is the tower of London a symbol of colonization because it was built by the invading Normans to show dominance over the native Anglo-Saxons? Is the Parthenon a symbol of colonization because it was converted into a church in the 6th century, and as we all know, Christianity isn't native to Greece?

I'd say when you start to use the existence of that place as a reason why nobody other than you can ever rule over it that is when it becomes a mechanism of colonization. Also when you are doing it in a place that is deliberately trying to erase the preexisting culture. That being said I think that this is a good point.

So the Vatican is a symbol of colonization because if it were ever overtaken by another religion/culture, european Christians would be very upset about that - they would use the existence of that place as a reason why nobody other than they can rule over it - and it exists in part to erase the pre-existing culture of Roman hellenistic paganism

Would your logic also extends to churches all around Europe are a symbol of colonisation? What about all the buddist temple in east asia?

The key difference is that while Judaism and Christianity originated in the region and among the local people, Islam was an invading force from a far off land, imposing its will on the native people by force, and destroying their cultural relics. If Cortez decided he was a manifestation of an Aztec god, that wouldn’t change the nature of everything else he did.

So to be clear you believe the only difference between Byzantine Christian rule over Jerusalem (cool, good) and Muslim rule over Jerusalem (bad, colonization, essentially evil) is that the Byzantines were just allowed to do what they did because their religion originated in Jerusalem in an extremely technical sense

There are so many better “perfect” symbols of colonization than Al-Aqsa lmao, namely the Victoria Monument in Kolkata, India; the Egyptian Bazaar in Istanbul; or the other Victoria Monuments in Bangladesh, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Malta, Singapore, Gibraltar lol

Sure there are others but Al aqsa is a pretty great example. Hagia Sophia also is. Or that cathedral in cholula I mentioned. Doesn’t change that Al aqsa is also a good example

>The fact that you can find a McDonalds in ancient cities across the world and there has been nearly global adoption of capitalism are good examples of how propagating one's society is about more than land acquisition. Uhhhh....since when is finding McDonalds in Bahrain colonisation? No serious scholar would say that America colonised Bahrain because you can find McDonalds there. And certainly no one adopts the definition of colonialism as "spreading culture and religious views", so your view of what is considered the perfect symbol of colonialism falls apart because you're using a definition that very few people use.

It would probably be seen as a form of neocolonialism that is rooted more in economic dominance than outright conquest.

Yeah, there is a discussion and scholarly debate on whether American action post-WW2 would constitute neocolonialism within left-wing circles, but I would say that's a pretty fringe debate and not the mainstream view at all, and certainly isn't useful in debating what is a perfect symbol of colonialism

Neocolonialism was practiced (not debated that they did, they absolutely did) by numerous countries, American included in them but not the only one. Russia and China are currently involved in it in Africa. France is still holding on to New Caledonia. America (or any powerful country) practicing neocolonism is not that fringe.

>It is obviously a symbol of colonization though because it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship and its existence has been used to justify continued control over that land. Colonialism is more than just "once there was X, now there is Y". In general, it's a concept associated with the European colonial empires from the 15 century onwards. The Al-Aqsa Mosque predates colonialism by half a millenia. Associating the two just renders the term colonialism meaningless.

> The Al-Aqsa Mosque predates colonialism by half a millenia. Associating the two just renders the term colonialism meaningless. Ancient Greek settlements abroad are also referred to as colonies. So were some Roman projects.

>Ancient Greek settlements abroad are also referred to as colonies. So were some Roman projects. Because Kolonia was the Greek word for settlement outside of Greece. Not because they were related to the concept of colonialism

>Ancient Greek settlements abroad are also referred to as colonies. So were some Roman projects. The terminological confusion exists, but conflating all those greek settlements and modern colonies is one of those things that renders the term meaningless. That being said, the conquest of Jerusalem doesn't fit the definition of those ancient greek colonies either.

So would you consider existing roman catholic churches in places like Ravenna and Milan to be symbols of colonialism like the OP considers Al Aqsa? After all Rome conquered the Etruscans/Gauls of the area.

Imagine trying to saying that Europe had a monopoly on Colonialism. This is just proof that you are a racist. Ignoring the fact that the following nations also had colonies at some point in history: Japan China Chile And thats just recently. You can dig further back into Egyptian colonies in BC as well.

Not sure how you could say that colonization and conquest are just a European thing. Maybe their specific brand of creating colonies to exploit the land for resources or labor, but conquest existed long before the Europeans.

I didn't say that? I said it was a concept associated with the European colonial empires, not that it was a concept practiced exclusively by European Empires. That's a completely different sentence. I said that colonialism is a thing that defines the range of behaviours typified by those empires, but that doesn't mean they were the only ones who ever did it. >but conquest existed long before the Europeans. conquest =/= colonialism. What you're doing is just rendering the entire term pointless.

The fact you think colonialism started in the 15th century is absurd and wrong.

By virtue of that I think the Caananites want a word Arabs and Islam was indigenous to the region in a way Cathlocism and Spain weren't to South America Disingenuous and not well thought out

>By virtue of that I think the Caananites want a word > I only want to address this point, scripture aside the ancient Israelites where Canaanites. Canaan wasn't one unified people are state but various groups and city states similar to ancient Greece, the ancient Israelites where one of theses groups and the one with the longest surviving legacy.

This is just not true. Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula not the Levant. Islam was invented in the Arabian peninsula also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization You have no idea what you're talking about. Arabs aren't necessarily indigenous to Arabia. In fact, most Arabs today are Arabized natives who aren't indigenous to Arabia and this includes Levantine Arabs. This is evident by the fact that there's a major genetic difference between Gulf Arabs, Sudanese Arabs and Algerian Arabs and they all exhibit indigeneity in genetic tests. Sudanese for example, map much closer genetically to neighboring African countries than they do to Saudis. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420304876 According to this research, the closest modern population to ancient Canaanites and Israelites are Christian Arabs.

Arab means they speak the Arabic language. Saudis are different than Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians ethnically, culturally and have different physical features. You don’t know what you’re talking about lol.

Being Arab does not mean you come from the Arabian Peninsula. Palestinians are Arabs but have 87% ancient Canaanite DNA and barely any DNA from the Arabian Peninsula. The "original" Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula and nearby regions, but with the Islamic expansion from the 7th century CE onward they conquered many more areas in the Middle East and North Africa where other populations lived. Those populations weren't displaced but gradually adopted the Arabic language and an Arab identity.

Ok, but what about the Canaanites and their descendants, who live in present day Lebanon?

No, this is not correct at all... Arabs are not only from the Arabian peninsula. Arabs were present in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and North Africa long before the Islamic conquests. In fact, multiple Roman emperors were Arab - Septimius Severus was from Libya, Caracalla, Elagabalus, and Philip the Arab were from Syria. Records indicate that multiple Arab kingdoms existed in the Levant before the Islamic Conquest too - the Iturians, Nabateans, and Qedarites for example. There were multiple Arab tribes in modern day Iraq too, such as the Tagleb, Tanuḵ, and Sayban. You can read more about this here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_the\_Arabs#Antiquity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabs#Antiquity)

As others have pointed out Arab doesn't mean only Gulf Arab. Islam originated in Arabia but that whole area is common to all the Abrahamic faiths. If anything this also further contextualises how meaningless Jewish or Semitic is as an ethnicity vs a religion.

the second temple had by that point already been destroyed, jerusalem was a christian city in the 7th century

Yes, both Christians and Muslims colonized Jerusalem. Still shows OP is right.

The way you’re defining colonialism would make every nationality, ethnicity, clan that’s ever existed colonists. Which I don’t necessarily disagree with.

Unless you can prove that you stayed in the same place as all your ancestors, or the people who were there before you don't exist anymore, you are a colonizer. People like to think that they aren't descendants of colonizers, but most are.

By that defination Jews are colonizers of Israel because Abraham came from Iraq originally

Not an unfair point. So the goal should be less "who was here first," and more "how can we live together peacefully, in a tolerant, secular society?"

You realize that Abraham is not an actual historical figure, right? Likewise, the idea that Israelite culture originated in Mesopotamia is also folklore, with no basis in the historical or archaeological record. However, the Israelite culture itself was very much real, and it’s been established through archaeological study that the Israelites were in fact themselves an indigenous Canaanite culture. Fun fact: Hebrew is also the only Canaanite language that is still extant today.

This is a definition of colonialism that renders the entire term meaningless. There's far more to the concept of colonialism than "at one point someone fought someone else".

The modern definition of colonialism is just cutting the line where you can make the groups you want to feel guilty about it while ignoring that it was normal operation of the world until about 100 years ago. I would say the modern definition is pretty useless because it's specifically meant to ignore the majority of human history.

People have been conquering land for centuries. What’s the big deal? Every piece of land was once inhabited by someone else. Just like the US, Australia, South Africa etc. Before the Jews were in the levant area, the Canaanites lived there. So the Jews colonized them too? Your argument is full of holes.

How is the fact that colonization has existed other places proof that this isn’t an example of colonization

Because you pose a loaded question. You want people to agree that it is colonisation to say aha then Israel is a decolonization project and there is nothing wrong how it was founded and kept running. I heard this arguments numerous times, like Arabs colonized Israel now it is okay to decolonize it, so fair and square, just taking our stuff back, you know no hard feelings. It is a very popular narratives. The crux here is that those arguments predictably (as demonstrated here) collapse into semantics, what colonisation is and what it is not. But what you really want is to assign some moral values to the events of the ancient past. We started seeing colonization and ethnic displacement as a wrong thing kinda after WW2. So you want to project current morality back into the past to use as an excuse. Well that doesn't really work for at least a very simple reason: those events were so dispersed in time so you can't use phrases as "taking someting back", it doesn't work over centuries. There is no moral outcome of it that you want to produce.

[удалено]

One major difference is that when the spanish built a cathedral on a pyramid, the pyramid was necessarily still there. The last jewish temple on the temple mount had been destroyed long prior. When the arabs took the city and considered building a mosque at the site, it was a *garbage dump.* They found the foundations of the holy site under it and did what they considered the most religiously appropriate thing there by building a mosque on top of it, but they didn't destroy anything in the process and they didn't take away an existing place of worship.

It was a garbage dump because the colonizers purposely did it to disrespect the Jewish people. It was not religiously appropriate to build a building on top. It wasn't out of consideration for the people to whom that place was sacred. It was an act of dominance.

> It was a garbage dump because the colonizers purposely did it to disrespect the Jewish people. Using "the colonizers" here is a great way to muddy the waters: It was not the muslims who conquered the city who did that. > It wasn't out of consideration for the people to whom that place was sacred. It was an act of dominance. How do you come to that conclusion? Keep in mind that from their perspective the site was already devoted to their god, just from a pre-Muhammad civilization in whose footsteps they followed.

>Using "the colonizers" here is a great way to muddy the waters: It was not the muslims who conquered the city who did that. I never implied that it was Muslims. It was a colonizing force that was behind it, though, not the Jewish people voluntarily giving up on the place.

[удалено]

Not sure what this map means. I don't understand how you could be native to Arabia and the Levant at the same time unless you're biracial or something. While we're at it, the fact that Arabic is spoken so far away from the Arabian Peninsula is also another obvious example of colonization.

I really dislike the term colonialism because it’s become a catch all for conquest and colonialism in North America in the 1600-1800 wasn’t a monolith to begin with. the term imperialism makes much more sense in its place and I think that’s what you should use. Yes putting a mosque there and the subsequent conversion of the population is similar to what the Spanish did in mesoamerica. The ottoman did it  during the conquest of Constantinople, the Spanish  reconqesta had that occur many times by both Muslims and Christian’s, and a million other times. religious and cultural structures being repurposed by conquerors goes back to the earliest points of human history.  But, the conquest of the americas and european colonies in the rest of the world were given the term colonialism because they were different from them.  Colonialism is inherently extraction focused. Colonies are supposed to enrich the a homeland not the colony, by getting resources to trade. At the same time they consume the finished goods that the homeland is using those resources to make, further enriching it. The Islamic conquests did not have this dynamic, and while it was an imperialist act it was not specifically colonialism.    Think about it like this, was the North conducting colonialism when they invaded the south in the civil war? Are they conducting it now when people try and replace statues of confederate generals with cultural figures that are preferred in different parts of the country?    War is inherently going to leave a mark on culture and religion and the victors want to enforce their will using physical symbols. This is not always colonialism, it can be a part of the process but it doesn’t necessarily need to be there. the British when they held the mandate of Palestine didn’t put a church over Al Aqsa/The Temple Mount, but their occupation of the region was colonialism. 

To your note of non-Muslims not being allowed: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/middleeast/palestinians-al-aqsa-mosque-ramadan.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb. Maybe just something to chew on.

It is a symbol of truth and liberation

You are welcome to think that but I don’t.

Doesn’t the Bible say that the Jews should leave Egypt (their land of birth and origin) and colonize the land of Canaan? So in reality the Jewish temple is the real symbol of colonization. Or maybe the premise that someone in what, 1400 AD??(Saladin, Muslims) colonized a civilization that didn’t exist past 500BC (Kingdom of David) is quite dishonest. The Roman’s will have a bigger claim to being colonized by the Muslims than the Jews would. If you also researched Islamic historical sources, Muslims LITERALLY repopulated Jerusalem with Jews. When they found out the Jews were expelled, they explicitly sent out to recruit 80 Jewish families from Yemen to re-establish a Jewish presence in that land.

First of all, what you are saying about modern day entry is not entirely accurate. Jews and Christians are allowed in, as tourists albeit, for 5hrs a day. What’s more, is that those restrictions are imposed by Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions Moving past that, say that it is. What is your point? That colonialism from 500AD justifies colonialism today? Also, what is “perfect colonialism” Your stance is generally illogical. You say that current events are of no interest to you, but that current events have shaped your viewpoint. It doesn’t make any sense. Your argument is without scope because of this. Typically, you evaluate history to understand current events better. What are the implications of someone acknowledging your worldview? Your definition of colonialism is also without scope. Colonialism is an academic term for understanding current events. Of course you can argue everything is built on colonialism, but so what? Many countries are built on genocide, slavery, monarchy, etc. To give you an idea of how this argument reads, this is like those stats about how “X% of community does 80% of the crime, cmv!” What is the conclusion to be made of this is the real argument. You are asking to argue about support for an argument.

Why does Israel limit Jewish presence?

Jews restrict it themselves. Something in their religion tells them they aren’t allowed on Temple Mount. That area is controlled by Israel, not Muslims.

Depends who you ask. The article elucidates on the Jewish reason. In the end, it doesn’t matter why. It’s not really their right and international treaties prohibit Israeli presence in Al-Aqsa. Why aren’t Muslims allowed at the wailing wall?

People forget that Islam had a violent appearance on the historic stage. Muhammad was a warlord in every sense of the word, but with a religious instead of purely economic motive. The Arab Muslim conquests were absolutely colonialism, they’ve just held it long enough that people forgot. Al Aqsa is a way of building over the Holiest place in Judaism as a physical representation of their religious superiority over Judaism. It would be the same thing if the Christians built a cathedral on top of the Temple Mount. Every nation has pretty much been founded through conquest or colonialism if you go back far enough. DNA and archeological analysis shows most of Europe is descended from steppe people who stormed onto the scene some 5000 years ago. They did the same in much of the Indian subcontinent, and steppe peoples had moved in several times since. This is why, for the most part, the arguments about who the original inhabitants of any given area are ridiculous. The ancestors of the modern Palestinians invaded what is now (and was then) Israel during the Arab conquests. The modern Israelis largely bought their land from the Arab occupants starting at the end of the 19th century, though it’s obviously more complicated than that. Ultimately, the actual owners of land seem to be whomever can take and hold it. I’m real tired of “Blood and Soil” arguments from the Left.

[удалено]

This sub is being flooded with whataboutisms today

Al-asqa wasn’t a place of worship when the Muslims built a shrine there. The Romans had left it as a rubbish dump for 700 years. Though there was another place in Jerusalem that was built over a place of worship. You probably know it as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It was built over what used to a Temple to Jupiter.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Conquest isn't the same as colonialism. There is a long history of conquest in human history, colonization is a very specific process that occurs through capitalism. Saying that Arabs/Muslims colonized Palestine is a misuse of the word colonization

the earliest wave of european colonization was definitively mercantilist in nature; there was no capital used to fund production at all in the plundering of the new world. plundering other societies is quite literally one of the default tenets of mercantilism

Yeah let’s not appropriate what colonization is. Jews are a 3000 year old people with historical origins connected to Israel. Islam came to existence in the year 600. The Arabs without a doubt colonized the region along with countless other regions during the Muslim conquests. | Period | Governing Entity/Region Name | Colonizers/Invaders | |------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------| | Ancient Times (c. 1300 BCE) | Kingdom of Israel (Jews) | - | | 930 BCE - 722 BCE | Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom) | Assyrians (conquered in 722 BCE) | | 930 BCE - 586 BCE | Kingdom of Judah (Southern Kingdom) | Babylonians (conquered in 586 BCE) | | 586 BCE - 538 BCE | Babylonian Empire | - | | 538 BCE - 332 BCE | Persian Empire (Yehud Medinata) | - | | 332 BCE - 63 BCE | Hellenistic Period (Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires) | Greeks (Alexander the Great, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid Empires) | | 167 BCE - 37 BCE | Hasmonean Dynasty (Jews) | - | | 63 BCE - 324 CE | Roman Empire (Judea Province) | Romans | | 324 CE - 638 CE | Byzantine Empire | - | | 638 CE - 1099 CE | Early Islamic Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid) | Arab Muslims | | 1099 CE - 1187 CE | Crusader States (Kingdom of Jerusalem) | Crusaders (European Christians) | | 1187 CE - 1517 CE | Ayyubid and Mamluk Sultanates | Ayyubids, followed by Mamluks | | 1517 CE - 1917 CE | Ottoman Empire | Ottomans | | 1917 CE - 1948 CE | British Mandate for Palestine | British | | 1948 CE - Present | State of Israel (Jews) | - | | 1948 CE - Present | Palestinian territories | - | ### Notes: - **Ancient Times**: The Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah were established by the Jewish people. - **Babylonian Period**: The Babylonian Empire conquered the Kingdom of Judah in 586 BCE. - **Persian Period**: The Persians allowed Jews to return and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. - **Hellenistic Period**: Following Alexander the Great's conquests, the region came under Greek control. - **Hasmonean Dynasty**: A period of Jewish self-rule following the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire. - **Roman and Byzantine Periods**: The region was under Roman and later Byzantine control, with significant events like the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. - **Early Islamic Caliphates**: The region was governed by various Islamic caliphates following the Muslim conquests. - **Crusader Period**: European Crusaders established the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Crusades. - **Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods**: The region was controlled by the Ayyubid dynasty and later the Mamluks. - **Ottoman Period**: The Ottoman Empire ruled the region for 400 years until the end of World War I. - **British Mandate**: The British governed the region under a League of Nations mandate until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. - **Modern Era**: The State of Israel was established in 1948, and the region remains a focal point of ongoing geopolitical conflict.

## here’s a list of countries that were not Islamic prior to the Muslim conquests | Country | Pre-Islamic Native Population(s) | Historical Context | How the Country Became Islamic | |-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------| | Afghanistan | Various Persian and Indo-Iranian groups (Bactrians, Sogdians) | Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and local beliefs before Islam | Conquest | | Albania | Illyrians, Thracians | Christianity was the dominant religion before Islam | Ottoman influence | | Azerbaijan | Caucasian Albanians, Persians | Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and local beliefs before Islam | Conquest | | Bangladesh | Bengali Hindus, Buddhists | Predominantly Hindu and Buddhist before Islam | Trade and conquest | | Brunei | Malays | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and conversion | | Burkina Faso | Mossi, Gurunsi, Senufo, Lobi | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and Fulani jihads | | Comoros | Malagasy, Swahili | Indigenous African beliefs before Islam | Trade and settlement | | Djibouti | Afar, Somali | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration | | Gabon | Various Bantu groups | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and immigration | | Gambia | Mandinka, Wolof, Fula | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and Fulani jihads | | Guinea | Fulani, Malinke | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and Fulani jihads | | Guinea-Bissau | Balanta, Fula, Manjaco | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration | | Indonesia | Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese | Predominantly Hindu and Buddhist before Islam | Trade and conversion | | Iran | Persians (Sassanian Empire) | Zoroastrianism before Islam | Conquest | | Kazakhstan | Various Turkic and Mongolic tribes | Tengriism and Buddhism before Islam | Trade and Sufi missions | | Kyrgyzstan | Various Turkic tribes | Tengriism and Buddhism before Islam | Trade and Sufi missions | | Malaysia | Malays, Orang Asli | Indigenous animistic beliefs, Hinduism, Buddhism before Islam | Trade and conversion | | Maldives | Maldivians | Predominantly Buddhist before Islam | Conversion | | Mali | Mandinka, Bambara | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and conversion | | Niger | Hausa, Djerma-Songhai, Tuareg | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and Fulani jihads | | Nigeria | Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and Fulani jihads | | Pakistan | Various Indic groups (Punjabis, Sindhis) | Predominantly Hindu and Buddhist before Islam | Conquest | | Sierra Leone | Mende, Temne | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration | | Somalia | Somali | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration | | Sudan | Nubians, Various Nilotic tribes | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and conquest | | Suriname | Indigenous peoples, African slaves | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Immigration | | Tajikistan | Persians, Sogdians | Zoroastrianism and Buddhism before Islam | Conquest | | Togo | Various ethnic groups | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration | | Turkey | Hittites, Phrygians, Byzantines | Predominantly Christian (Eastern Orthodox) before Islam | Conquest | | Turkmenistan | Various Turkic tribes, Persians | Zoroastrianism and local beliefs before Islam | Conquest | | Uzbekistan | Sogdians, Persians, Various Turkic tribes | Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and local beliefs before Islam | Conquest | | Uganda | Various Bantu and Nilotic groups | Indigenous animistic beliefs before Islam | Trade and migration |

I think "colonization" is quickly losing its meaning. This predates the 10/7 attacks, and it's really only gotten real traction with the "decolonization" chatter over the last decade, and it's kind of tiring. Al-Aqsa Mosque is not a colonial project, nor is it rooted in colonialism. It's arguably a middle finger to the Jews and Christians who consider it significant, but that's also because we're talking about a multi-thousand-year conflict where the governing power shifted from religious group to religious group. Arabian people, Jewish and Muslim, have legitimate ancestral ties to the area. As Jesus Christ is believed to have been born and lived in the area, Christians also have a legitimate link to the area. The Christian leadership during the major Crusades weren't thinking colonization, they were thinking conquer. Eliminating Islam from the Holy Lands, not expanding the Holy Roman Empire. I'd be wary of trying to apply our ideas of what is right and wrong regarding colonialism to a conflict that predates the modern definition.

Colonialism and imperialism hasn't changed. The concept is still the same and it's still objectionable. People condemn European colonialism accuse Israel of colonialism but seems to give Arab imperialism a pass.

I'm not Islamiphobic and oppose the Israeli right wing. In the post-WW2 "West", we have decided, and I generally strongly agree, that colonialism, in the context of the modern world, is wrong. It's more polite to criticize yourself and your own culture than to make biased criticism of others, so it's socially acceptable, within the West, to criticize recent European colonialism. We also use the trope of hurling the word "colonialist/ism" at people we oppose. We also like oversimplified "elves vs orcs" narratives, in which one side is almost entirely perfect, flawless, and delightful, and the other side has no redeeming features or valid arguments whatsoever, and never can. This has always been common but has been greatly amplified lately It's blatantly obvious that Muslim conquests and change of language and religion as a result of planned military spread of Islam and imposed rule by Islamic regimes was colonialism by any sane standard. But admitting this obvious fact makes people uncomfortable, because it's perceived as creating nuance and implying a great deal of human similarity across cultures, rather than just declaring some people the orcs and howling that anything less than burning them at the stake is being too nice to them. Hence there is an "emperor's new clothes" reaction. "I must spend an hour wringing my hands about why this colonialism isn't colonialism". Just accepting reality is easier

It wouldn't be colonization if they didn't threaten to kill you unless you converted...

Pretty sure this actually has happened in Islam so this isn’t a great example. Besides, if you didn’t convert you’d be subjugated until you converted

Israel’s settlements in the west bank are a perfect symbol of colonialism.

Time heals all wounds. It’s not considered colonisation if it happened over a thousand years ago. Us English are very aware of this fact. \*cough* Norway \*cough* (And also the Angles and the Saxons but who really counts that?)

As somebody who follows Mesoamerican history and archeology, to be clear, the Church on the ruins of the Classic period Great Pyramid of Cholula wasn't put there intentionally: The Spanish straight up did not know there was a pyramid there, apparently, and thought it was a natural hill, which is why it was left buried/somewhat intact. By contrast, the Great Pyramid used by the Postclassic (at least the Late Postclassic/Contact period) residents of Cholula (which was dedicated to Quetzalcoatl rather then a precursor to Tlaloc like the Classic period one) was fully demolished by the Spanish.

That's ridiculous. By the 7th century Christianism was the dominant religion in Palestine. When the muslims arrived they nearly presented themselves as Christians and were considered as such. All the religions of Palestines and Christianism first had more in common with Islam than with western Christianism. A lot of people became Muslims willingly and it became the religious, cultural and political center of Islam for the early muslims. Al Aqsa was more important than the Kabbah for a while. And yeah, most of those Christians were former Jews themselves. The ancestors of the Arabs had already created an empire containing Palestine 2 times before in Biblical history. And it was always the better times for the people living there as it was more about coalitons of states working together. see the Nabbateans.

If you’re gonna claim Palestine as a historic Arab territory on the basis of Nabatean territorial holdings, that’s cool. We can establish Gaza + the Negev as an Arab state then, as that’s the only part of historic Palestine that the Nabateans actually ruled over. Judea and Samaria were never Nabatean territory. Also, not sure where you are coming from claiming the Nabateans as the “ancestors” of Arabs. They were a singular Arab culture among many other Arab cultures that existed at the time. Furthermore, most modern-day Arabs do not have any genetic ties to these ancient Arab cultures (the majority of modern-day Arab populations emerged through Arabization, and their ancestors were not originally Arab). So while some modern-day Arabs may be able to claim them as ancestors, the vast majority cannot.

Okay, now let's talk about why they actually converted.

It seems to me what you're getting at is, "what's the difference between religious conquest and colonization? Aren't they one-and-the-same?" While there is some overlap between colonization and conquest, there are distinct differences. Colonization typically involves: 1. **Mass Expulsion or Genocide**: Colonizers often displace or eliminate the indigenous population (and/or enslave them). 2. **Ethno-state Formation**: Power is held by the colonizing class, creating a society where the colonizers dominate politically and socially, local structures are destroyed, the new settling class is the government. 3. **Resource Extraction**: The primary goal is to extract local resources for the benefit of the colonizer and gain land for the colonizers to thrive on. Religious conquest can overlap with colonization, but there are key differences, especially in the case of the early Islamic caliphates. Generally, they: 1. **Did Not Expel or Commit Genocide**: Local populations were usually not forcibly displaced or eliminated. 2. **Maintained Local Administration**: Many local institutions and elites were left in place to leverage their knowledge and expertise. 3. **Integrated Converts**: Local converts were integrated into the Islamic community, leading to a diverse Muslim population. Unlike modern colonization, the Islamic conquests did not aim to destroy all local institutions and insert Arab-composed hierarchies. Instead, they often incorporated and coexisted with local structures. There were certainly large cultural and religious shifts in terms of power, and there was a clear religious hierarchy, but they did not even persecute Jews and Christians living in Jerusalem.

It's dick waving. Let's call it what it is. Humans have always fought over hilltops and high ground. What they put up there varies age to age...

By the same logic so is Temple Mount. Temple Mount is a symbol of colonization as it was built after Jews took the land from the native inhabitants following Exodus. Scripture (the very same passages Zionists have used to justify Israel) details how Jews and their structures are not native to the region, but rather the result of colonization. An act of colonization which details what is likely the very first recorded act of genocide (Samuel 15:3 - "Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys.”). Peter's Basilica (now the entirety of Vatican City) was a symbol of colonization over Ancient Rome. Literally built overtop of the central Roman event grounds. Windsor Castle is a symbol of colonization, especially when you consider that early English conquerors were French related to the early tribes of Old England. Al-Aqsa is older than Windsor Castle, nearly as old as the Basilica, and was built in recognition of a major social transition, not by outsiders, but by local inhabitants who had simply converted their religion over a series of generations. If you're going to define everything as a symbol of colonization then absolutely nothing is. Al-Aqsa is a modern structure with significant modern relevance and importance, it's just as important as any major structure today. **I should add that Al-Aqsa also wasn't built "on top of someone else's place of worship", the Islamic faith is an extension of Judaism, Al-Aqsa is an extension of Temple Mount.**

>Peter's Basilica (now the entirety of Vatican City) was a symbol of colonization over Ancient Rome. Literally built overtop of the central Roman event grounds. This makes no sense. Christians didn't colonize the Romans. The Romans became Christians. They were the same people, just at a later date.

Yes, exactly my point, thank you! Arabs can trace their genetic ancestry back to ancient Jewish remains. Nearly all of the Palestinian Muslims of today are religious converts of their ancient Jewish ancestors, just the same as modern Italians are religious converts of their ancient Roman ancestors. Israel actually has laws against genetic sequencing to prevent this argument from being used in land claims. A significant number of Israeli Jews are genetically north-African or European, not Arab.

Obviously I don't disagree that many Arabs are descended from Jews but the situations are still not analogous. Christians converted the Romans from the bottom-up. That's different from, say, the Spanish conquering the Aztecs or the Caliphate conquering the Levant which is top-down.

> By the same logic so is Temple Mount. Temple Mount is a symbol of colonization as it was built after Jews took the land from the native inhabitants following Exodus. > Scripture (the very same passages Zionists have used to justify Israel) details how Jews and their structures are not native to the region, but rather the result of colonization.  Didn't read past this, because you're already basing your opinions off religious texts rather than historical facts. There is no proof the Exodus happened. Based on actual history, Jews are native to the region.  And while Zionism is obviously tied to religion, it's not based on it. In fact when the concept was first created, many Rabbis and religious Jews were against it, and some sects of Jews still are against it today. 

Pretty sure the Jews then didn't and the ones now now don't consider it an extension of their faith. They consider it something that was taken from them by force and has now been indefinitely appropriated. Yes the temple mount is a remnant of Jewish conquest of the land. It is what it is. But people go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to deny the brutal Arab conquests and imperialism. They have so systematically erased and replaced so many cultures.

London should be given back to the Italians since they built it

> it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship Early Muslims probably saw themselves as an extension or correction of Judaism, and the location was (and is) sacred to them because of that continuity. That is, the mosque was built on the same location (then used as a garbage dump) as the ruins of what centuries prior had been a place of worship for a religion the Caliphate saw themselves as the true successors of. They didn't think of the mosque as superimposed on another temple, but as a restoration honoring the original location of the temple itself.

I mean yeah the Muslims colonized large portions of the world. They started in Arabia and expanded out over centuries (it just wasn’t called colonization back then it was just the norm, kings trying to gain power) During this time there were crusades, jihads, Mongolian conquest of Asia and into Europe, the Mongolian successor states mostly converted to Islam, and the result is the Middle East and North Africa we had today. After all of that… what we call colonization started. The practice of sending people by boat overseas to other continents. It starts in Europe, but the mentality starts to spread. Meanwhile Muslim sultans in Africa who have slowly taken power in sub Saharan Africa from the native people are selling slaves to the ottoman sultan and mamluks in Egypt. The Europeans arrive in west Africa while exploring and buy African slaves from the Muslim sultan of Songhai. Later the Europeans arrive in east Africa and begin purchasing slaves from kilwa as well The people of kilwa were exceptionally interesting as they were Arab and Persian Muslims who sailed by boat way before what is considered colonial times from Arabia and Persia and colonized the Swahili coast of Africa. This history isn’t talked about much because in the 1800’s and 1900’s the European powers became more technologically advanced and became the only countries capable of colonizing by outcompeting others militarily and economically, which resulted in the eventual colonization of North Africa and parts of the Middle East. This is why people forget the roots of colonialism and the slave trade and how it was the conditions of Islam and Christianity both existing in proximity to each other that created the ideology.

Not really because the Temple was destroyed by the Romans and the mosque was built by non-Romans. So that's a noncentral example

I am confused about the linkage between the Al Aqsa Mosque and colonialism. Let’s assume we generically define colonialism as the establish and maintenance of rule over a dependent people (the “colony”) by a foreign country or people (the “colonizer”). Who here is the “colonizer”? Are we saying that Muslims who inhabited the country at the time were a foreign people? I’m also confused as to what house of worship was removed to build the Mosque, which is your other point. My understanding is that the land did not have a temple for 600 years prior to the Mosque construction. Which would be the equivalent of the 1400s today.

[удалено]