“Palestinian” leader Mahmoud Abbas’ advisor on religion, one Mahmoud Al-Habbash, has declared that a move of the American embassy to Jerusalem by the Trump administration would constitute “a declaration of war on all Muslims,” and then threatened: “This will not pass in silence.” He was not alone. A half-dozen other “Palestinian” leaders chimed in with similar threats, claiming that if “America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews,” then America will have declared “a new war against the Palestinians and also against the Arabs and the Muslims.”
Many American officials, including several former ambassadors to Israel, are also against the move. They claim it will cause “instability” (as if the Muslim Middle East were not already the most unstable region in the world today), and “harm” Israel’s budding relations behind-the-scenes with some in the Arab world (as if Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia would deprive themselves of the covert help Israel gives them against common enemies, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran). More interesting is that “Palestinians” in East Jerusalem, some reports suggest, appear to be “apathetic” about the possible U.S. Embassy move. Of course, the “Palestinian” leaders need to show they are doing something, earning their corrupt keep, and one way is to whip up sentiment against the move, even if locally it hardly matters to many “Palestinians,” who have other, more basic concerns, to worry about.
At this point, for Trump to back down from what he repeatedly said he would do, both during the campaign and after his election, would be taken by many Arabs and Muslims as a sign that their threats work, even with someone like Trump, who prides himself on his toughness. And such a victory would embolden the Arabs and Muslims to attempt more such victories through threat, and not only on matters involving Israel, but within Western Europe, too. Imagine, for example, that flush with victory on the Jerusalem issue (and one can almost hear the cries and ululations of triumph if Trump yields, and announces that he’s “putting off” indefinitely the Embassy move), Muslims decided to threaten Dutch voters that “if you elect Geert Wilders we will boycott Dutch goods” (just like the boycott of Danish products in 2006, to punish Denmark for publication of the Muhammad cartoons), or to make a similar threat to French voters about electing Marine Le Pen: “we’ll boycott French goods, we won’t visit Paris.” Or Muslim threats against any European country that passes measures deemed “anti-Islam” — everything from banning the niqab to serving pork in school lunches, to requiring Muslim girls to attend swimming classes with boys. Could, would European politicians and voters allow themselves to be bullied in such a manner? Of course they could; pusillanimity is a universal problem.
But if Trump stands firm, that should help stiffen the backbone of those Europeans who are rightly alarmed about Islam but – with so much surrender in the air — need encouragement. Trump’s refusal to kowtow will give them something to emulate. But if he gives in on the Jerusalem embassy move, it makes more likely both that other threats will be made by Muslims, their appetites whetted, against the West, and that the demoralization of the Western world – already evident in such craven leaders as Theresa May and Angela Merkel — will increase. The Embassy move may seem to be a matter only about Jerusalem, but it has become much more: a test of wills between the West (as represented by the United States) and a hostile Muslim world which, maddeningly, threatens even as it relies on the West for its economic and, in some cases, political survival. Furthermore, if Trump were to declare that he needed a “waiver on national security grounds” to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, just like his three predecessors, that would no doubt mean more than just a reversal of his policy; it would make it unlikely that any of his successors would try to move the Embassy. Following such a humiliating retreat by Trump, what future president would expend political capital trying to reverse course yet again? The American Embassy would remain in Tel Aviv, with any hope of its being moved to Jerusalem permanently extinguished.
A lot, then, is at stake.
In the first, and obvious, place, such a retreat would do violence to history and the truth. The connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, as their “eternal capital,” is not to be undone by votes in that most corrupt and corrupting of institutions, the U.N., where a powerful Muslim bloc holds sway. The Muslim connection to Jerusalem is a matter of faith, not history: Jerusalem is “holy” to Muslims because Muhammad supposedly ascended into Heaven on his winged steed Al-Buraq, from the “farthest mosque” (Al-Masjid al-Aqsa) located on the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount). You have to be a Muslim to believe the story about Muhammad’s Night Journey. You do not have to be Jewish, however, to know that Jerusalem was the capital of the Jews for thousands of years, that King David and King Solomon really did exist, that the Western Wall and Temple Mount and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives all testify to the ancient Jewish presence, that there is considerable archeological evidence for both the First and Second Temples, and that Jerusalem is mentioned 349 times in the Jewish Bible (but not mentioned once in the Qur’an). The Jewish connection to Jerusalem is a matter, then, of history, not of faith. Nor should the threats of Arabs and Muslims be allowed to sever that connection simply because they have become past masters at rewriting history, as recently demonstrated at UNESCO, in a resolution where the Muslim connection to Jerusalem was emphasized and the Jewish link to the Temple Mount was not even mentioned.
When Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all invoked considerations of national security to claim a waiver from implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, they were demonstrating their fear of what they assumed might happen, without closely examining what the Arabs could actually do; none was willing to call what can reasonably be seen as the Muslim Arab bluff. And those who now counsel Trump not to fulfill his campaign pledge on the Embassy move — he should be cautious, he should be prudent, he should rock no boats, he should worry more about the Arab and Muslim reaction — are guilty of the same.
For what exactly could Muslims do to the United States, as a response to the Embassy being moved, that they are not already doing, or are trying to do? There have been more than 30,000 separate terrorist attacks by Muslims since 2001, all over the world. The only reason that total is not even higher is that Western security services have grown in their effectiveness, not because Muslims have decided they need to wait for a specific “reason” to attack. No particular act by Infidels is necessary to provoke such attacks; it is enough that Infidels remain Infidels.
If Trump were to do what he promised to do, it would give the world of cautious diplomacy a salutary shock. It would show up the cowardice of previous presidents. It would be a declaration of independence from, and well-deserved expression of contempt for, the U.N. Of course, such a move would be met with plenty of outrage, both real and feigned, but also with support from such anti-Islamic leaders in Europe as Geert Wilders and even, possibly, Marine Le Pen, by way of demonstrating that they, too, will not be subject to Muslim blackmail. Should Wilders win, in particular, and if Trump has moved the Embassy to Jerusalem by then, it would not be surprising if the Dutch leader were to follow suit. Then one hopes — “first a little, thence to more” – others will find out it isn’t so dangerous a move after all. And having one’s embassy in Jerusalem will take on symbolic significance, a way of demonstrating not just a respect for history, but that the West will no longer allow itself to be cowed by Muslims – either in foreign or domestic policy.
What dire threats can the “Palestinians” follow through on? Will they refuse to accept the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive each year in American aid? Let them. Can they punish our European allies, by refusing the billions they receive from them? That should be fine with us and the Europeans. The “Palestinians” can huff and they can puff, but the only house they will blow down is their own. They are at this point no longer the center of Arab interest; many Arab leaders have had their fill of the “whining Palestinians,” and having become weary of their “cause,” are more concerned with all the serious threats – such as the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and, especially, Iran – to their own security.
What about the other Arabs? That means, above all, Saudi Arabia. Will the Saudis cease to pay for the tens of thousands of students they have enrolled in American colleges? Those student numbers have already been steadily reduced over the last few years due to a huge budget deficit, and if the Saudi government reduces those numbers still further, that will reflect budget belt-tightening, not an attempt to punish the United States, which for Saudi Arabia remains the one indispensable country. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, American airmen promptly arrived in Saudi Arabia to reassure the Saudis. The Americans are still there, the ultimate guarantor of Saudi security. There have been many reports, too, about a covert alliance with Israel, that supplies Saudi Arabia with intelligence on Iran. The Saudis now fear most an aggressive Iran threatening them through proxy wars, as it helps the Shi’as in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon. Iran might even, the Saudis fear, sow open revolt among the Shi’a in the oil-bearing Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. While the “Palestinians” like to think that they will forever remain the focus of Arab foreign policy (as it undoubtedly once was), the permanent cynosure of all Muslim eyes, and assume their cause will always come first, there is reason to believe they have an exaggerated sense of their importance, for the Arabs are now preoccupied with many other conflicts and threats to their well-being. How important is this Embassy move for Saudi Arabia (with Israel now an ally in the war against Iran), compared to the Iranian presence that appears to encircle it? Or the threats from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, not just to the Saudis but to many of their neighbors in the cauldron of the Middle East?
And what about the threat that the Saudis might sell off $750 billion in American assets if the Embassy is moved, a threat that has been made before to halt other initiatives, but never carried out? The Saudis said, for example, they would sell those assets if Congress passed a bill giving the families of 9/11 victims the ability to sue Saudi Arabia. Congress not only passed the bill, but when Obama vetoed it, passed it a second time by overriding the veto.
And what did Saudi Arabia do? It did nothing at all; it kept its American investments; its bluff was called. And if it were to make the same threat over the Embassy move, and even if it made good on the threat, many economists now believe, even if it did sell off those American assets, such a move would now have scarcely any effect on the U.S. economy, with its 18 trillion-dollar GDP, with $500 billion traded daily in the bond market alone, but might well devastate the Saudis. As one economist summed up the Saudi quandary:
They can sell the liquid assets fairly quickly – however moving large volumes will imply they will get a haircut, and someone else will make a nice profit. There would be a blip or two in the various indices but no real impact. The more real concern for the Saudis would be where to put that money – euros? rubles? rupees? gold?
For the not so liquid assets – they would need to have a massive firesale. A lot of people will make a killing. And there will be a supply glut in that market. But it would be fairly localized. And they probably won’t be able to liquidate completely.
So net result – they might be able to pull out some portion. Some portion will be frozen. And another portion will end up as someone else’s profit.
None of the economists appear to believe that any economic damage would be inflicted on the American economy. The consensus is that Saudi Arabia would be inflicting economic damage only on itself. That the Saudis refused to go through with their threatened sale of assets when Congress passed – twice – a bill allowing 9/11 families to sue the Saudis shows that they understand this, but hope that those they threaten do not.
The final worry is, of course, about oil. Could the Saudis start cutting off oil supplies, as in 1973? No, they could not. In the first place, in 1973 the oil market was the tightest it had ever been, so tight that OPEC managed to make the quadrupling of oil prices stick. Now market conditions are completely different. There is plenty of oil worldwide, including shale oil, for which effective new methods of extraction have been found. And there are plenty of non-oil sources of energy, which is even more worrisome for oil producers. We hear constantly of new advances in the efficiency of electric cars, and of solar collectors, and other technical achievements that put the oil market under constant downward pressure. The Saudis cannot be cavalier with customers; they must hold on to any part of the American oil market they can. And since oil is fungible, were hotter heads to prevail, and the Saudis decided to strike back at the U.S. for its embassy move by ceasing to sell to the Americans, they would then have to sell that oil elsewhere. To win a customer away from its current supplier would require the Saudis to offer a lower oil price. Should they succeed, that other supplier whom they have replaced will now be eager to sell its oil in the market that has just lost its Saudi supplier – that is, the United States. Lower revenues for the Saudis, no change for the Americans.
A production cut, on the other hand, would cause the price of oil to rise. More American shale oil would become economic to extract, the price of alternative sources of energy – wind and solar and nuclear – would become steadily more competitive following the oil price rise. The Saudis would bear the total brunt if they were the only ones to cut production. And Saudi Arabia is not quite as fabulously rich as it was in the past. Saudi Arabia has been burning through its cash, at a rate close to $100 billion in each of the last two years, because of the oil glut (the Saudis derive 92% of their income from oil); it needs all the revenue it can get. It’s not likely to cut production, given its current needs, in order to make a doubtful political point. Iran is much more on its mind, and the Saudis need both money for armaments, and American security guarantees against Iran that cannot any longer be counted on as a given.
Donald Trump’s words about Saudi Arabia during the campaign must have given Riyadh pause. He said that if elected, he might halt purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies unless they commit ground troops to the fight against the Islamic State or “substantially reimburse” the United States for combating the militant group, which threatens their stability. And he showed his keen awareness of just who needs whom in the relationship: “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around.”
That must have disturbed the Saudis, who have been able to push their weight around Washington ever since OPEC’s rise in 1973, by acting as if it is the United States that is in desperate need of Saudi Arabia. And now, following Congressional passage of the bill to allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis that the Kingdom (and the Obama administration) had tried hard to stop, comes Donald Trump, with words that rattled Riyadh. This is no time for the Saudis to annoy the Americans. The Saudis are not fools, and they will not sacrifice themselves, economically or in security matters, to make a point for the tiresome “Palestinians.”
Other Muslim states might wish to punish the American government for recognizing a historical truth in moving its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. But would they really do something beyond verbal menacing? What else can they do? Sever relations? Not accept our surplus wheat? Refuse the weapons we supply to so many of them? Would Jordan want to forgo the $1.6 billion this year in American aid, without which the country would stagger, if not collapse? Or Egypt its $1.5 billion, or Afghanistan its $1.1 billion, or Pakistan its nearly $1 billion? What threats could they carry out, without fearing American retaliation? For Trump, as we all know, is no fan either of foreign aid, or of Islam, and would be delighted to see a half dozen Muslim countries “punish” us by breaking off relations, thereby giving him all the excuse he needs to end that aid. The leaders of those countries know perfectly well how much they need American aid, and how eager Trump is to cut it off. They won’t be taking any chances on their own well-being, just to please the likes of Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat.
Trump should call the bluff of the assorted “Palestinians” threatening all manner of mayhem. The fearful and the faint have had their moment in the sun. Now it’s time to try the truth: Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. The rewriters of history must not prevail. The American Embassy belongs in Jerusalem. Just make the move, announcing it laconically and after the fact, without fanfare and without deigning to take notice either of the threats from all those mahmoud-dabbashes or of the feelgood fantasies of Pope Francis. After the expected period of Muslim agitation and even, from Gaza and Ramallah, fabricated hysteria, once the Embassy is moved things will quiet down, and with none of those dire Muslim threats having come to pass, the world will go on pretty much as before, except that those who in Europe want a stronger campaign against the Muslim invasion of their countries – and their numbers are growing — will be heartened by, and no doubt wish to emulate, the no-nonsense approach taken in Washington. The mixture as before just hasn’t been working. It is time to try something new, time to kiss the lips of unacquainted change.

Milad Meah says
when was islam not at war with christians and the jews?
dumbledoresarmy says
EXACTLY.
And the thing to do would be, having made the move, after waiting a little while, to throw down the gauntlet to a number of other Infidel powers, encouraging and inviting them to do the same. Modi’s India, for example. And put the UK on the spot. And… Russia. And it would entirely right for Australia and Canada to join their longtime friend and ally, the USA: side by side, in Jerusalem.
“*This* year in Jerusalem”….
Aavspatti says
These people are bullies. Just ignore them.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes.
And it’s time they got slammed.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Unfortunately, history’s graveyards are teeming with people and entire civilizations that ignored Islam.
Guest says
True. Don’t ignore but know them and take the appropriate defense measures. But never give in to a bully.
LeeZee says
Until they were thrown out of Andalucía and the Ottoman Empire was crushed and the Barbary Pirates were sunk. It can be done. And since the Jews have survived all calamities, how deliciously perfect and symmetrical will it be when they are vanquished forever by Israel and her firm friend, the USA.
John Galt III says
If Trump does not move the embassy, no one will believe he will build “The Wall” or do anything else he promised. He will lose 1/2 his voters in a heartbeat and will be a lame duck for the next 4 years.
Prediction: He will move the embassy.
dumbledoresarmy says
Write to him. Tell him that this is *important*.
it must be done.
He must *begin* as he means to go on.
**This year** in Jerusalem.
ed cox says
The only connection to Jerusalem I see for muslims is that the pedophile mohammad flew there on a jackass in a dream .
JMB says
You know that, I know that and so do most readers of this website. This is the big problem in the age of the “new” media, we tend to read or view news that agrees with our outlook. Unfortunately when most people read news where there is any mention of Jerusalem the news item will be prefaced by “Occupied Jerusalem”. For most people the Palestinian Cause” has now been elevated to a similar status to the anti-apartheid struggle. Expect riots and protests as soon as the embassy move begins, it will be a real test of Trump’s resolve.
Guest says
Some of what we read and believe is ‘our outlook’, but in this case it really is just history and we need to push that fact in the MSM. I hope Trump’s staff do that, and Jewish organisations.
no_one says
They may bomb airplanes and airports.
dumbledoresarmy says
Well, they’ve done that *already* – Brussels – to a country that has cravenly grovelled to them.
So they can’t do anything more, really, than they’ve *already* been doing.
Appeasement has gained us *nothing* but… a whole lot of lost ground.
Time to seize the *moral* – which, in psy-ops terms, in this case, is also the *military* – high ground.
Take a stand on Zion. Let that be the mountain from which the Infidel pushback against the Death Cult, the Religion of Blood and War, of Murder, Rape, Robbery and Slavery, to wit, ISLAM, begins.
dumbledoresarmy says
American jihadwatchers: tweet, write, phone, email. Especially if not Jewish. *strongly* encourage Mr Trump to *make that move*, the *moment* he is inaugurated. Not a second to lose. No delay. DO IT.
And… send Mr Fitzgerald’s article to Mr Trump’s team, especially to those handling Foreign Affairs. They need to know exactly what’s at stake.
Hell, print off the article, highlight the most important points, and send it to Trump himself, just on spec. And to his son-in-law, Kushner.
BTW, if Walid Phares were to be seen to squelch or attempt to squelch this promised move, then he is not the man to handle or advise upon US relations with the Ummah; such action would expose in him a very dangerous hangover of Dhimmitude.
Angemon says
Great article. And since member’s of Trump’s inner circle are aware of the CJ movement, including Jihad Watch, chances are that the essence of this article will find its way to him.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
hugh fitzgerald,can you cite any reference leading to those archeological and cogent historical evidence apart from your mithraist evil bible containing biased and one story about jerussalem to favor evil jews’ vogus claim of monopoly over the city to the exclusion of palestinians?the question still remains,could such vogus claim by evil jews override numerous un resolutions dividing the city between palestinians and israel with holy aqsa mosque falling under palestinian territory?mad devil trump can move anything to jerussalem,including his bedroom.but he cannot change the partition treaty giving the portion where aqsa mosque is located to palestinian territory.forget about zionist saudi royal family,they are already inside the pocket of the united states and israel.other muslims worldwide will do the job.we will bring mad devil trump to kneel down.he will be taken by suprise,he and evil jews.wait and see.we are wiser than you think,mr fitzgerald.
Jules says
Fuck you moslem asswipe and your goat fucking pedophile mohammed, may piss be upon him. Islam must be wiped off the face of this planet or there will never be peace on this earth. moslems worship the devil and why every single moslem country is a complete shithole.
Guest says
Give up, Ibby – you can’t write comprehensible English.
don vito says
itace, you have been eating the meat of dead kufr long enough, the time of your suppose supremacy is ending. How shall a kufr protect blood and property from the grasping bloody hands of your lying, thieving, filthy prophet?
gravenimage says
Blithering idiot ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
hugh (sic) fitzgerald,can (sic) you cite any reference leading to those archeological and cogent historical evidence apart from your mithraist (sic) evil bible (sic) containing biased and one story about jerussalem (sic) to favor evil jews’ (sic) vogus (sic) claim of monopoly over the city to the exclusion of palestinians?the (sic) question still remains,could (sic) such vogus (sic) claim by evil jews (sic) override numerous un (sic) resolutions dividing the city between palestinians (sic) and israel (sic) with holy aqsa mosque falling under palestinian (sic) territory?
……………………………….
Does muhammed not understand what archaeology is? This has to do with physical evidence, not Bible study.
And there are many other historical sources for the long presence of Jews in the Levant, including from the Romans and from Muslim sources.
And how can muhammed have forgotten that the “holy aqsa mosque” was built on the Jewish Temple mount? That’s the whole point of its being there.
More:
mad (sic) devil trump (sic) can move anything to jerussalem,including (sic) his bedroom.but (sic) he cannot change the partition treaty giving the portion where aqsa (sic) mosque is located to palestinian (sic) territory.
……………………………….
muhammed’s sudden supposed respect for the UN is just hilarious, given his disdain for human rights. It is clear that he only respects the UN when it is bowing to Muslim demands.
More:
forget (sic) about zionist (sic) saudi (sic) royal family,they (sic) are already inside the pocket of the united (sic) states (sic) and israel (sic).
……………………………….
Well, it isn’t difficult to forget the “Zionist Saudi royal family”, since it does not exist. You’d think that muhammed would love a place that bars Jews and and regularly beheads its victims, but this is just more proof that no place can really be Islamic enough for pious Muslims.
More:
other (sic) muslims (sic) worldwide will do the job.
……………………………….
What “job” might that be? I’m sure it will involve a great deal of bloodshed, whatever muhammed has in mind. Really, this is the only sort of “work” Muslims relish.
Yet more:
we (sic) will bring mad devil trump (sic) to kneel down.
……………………………….
Does muhammed envision Donald Trump in an orange jumpsuit with a knife at this throat while he is kneeling? I’m sure that’s what he has in mind…
More:
he (sic) will be taken by suprise,he (sic) and evil jews.wait (sic) and see.we are wiser than you think,mr (sic) fitzgerald (sic).
……………………………….
Notable that muhammed considers all these threats to be “wisdom”–very telling, in fact.
Golem2 says
Another comment from the low I.Q. inbred self deluded Arab World. They repeat lies so many times that they start to believe them
pandainc says
Goebbels did. It worked. What stopped it? Force of arms.
IQ al Rassooli says
Night Journey/ Laylat al Isra
Abbas, so called Palestinians and Muslims claim for Jerusalem as their third holiest place is founded on the interpretation of the following ambiguous verse.
Why should this imaginary ‘third holiest place’ supersede the FACT that Jerusalem is the first and only holiest place for Jews and most Christians?
Are these interpretations true? Factual? Historical?
The story of the Night Journey is copied – like most of the important stories in the Quran – from the traditions of the Jews regarding the Ascent of Moses to the Seven Heavens and visiting Paradise and Hell from Midrash Gedullat Mosheh.
There is in fact an Arabic translation of this Midrash in the Berlin library.
Muhammad in his Quran changed several items to suit the Arabian mind.
Isra is the name of Surah 17 which is also called Bani Isra’il, (The Children of Israel). It is the alleged Nocturnal Journey from Mecca to the Farthest Mosque mentioned in:
Bani Israil 17:1 “Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for journey [Asra/Travel] by night from the Sacred Mosque [Masjid al Haram] to the Farthest Mosque [Masjid al Aqsa] whose precincts We did Bless in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the one Who heareth and seeth (all things)”
Even the obvious should be pointed out to the readers, that the name of JERUSALEM is NOT EVEN ONCE mentioned anywhere in the Quran.
Jerusalem, on the other hand, is mentioned 667 times in the Bible.
This alleged ‘event’, is described in
Bukhari Hadith 1:345 “[Gabriel took Muhammad by hand to the first Heaven]” where there is no mention of Jerusalem.
Bukhari Hadith 5:227 & 4:429 “[Gabriel & Buraq go to first Heaven]” again, there is no mention of Jerusalem.
Bukhari Hadith 9:608 “[Gabriel took Muhammad by hand to first Heaven]” yet once more, there is no mention of Jerusalem.
The explanation of this Aya/Verse is found first and foremost in the ONLY biography of Muhammad written by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq in his book Sirat Rassool Allah.
He informs us with great honesty, on the authority of Muhammad’s premier wife Aisha, that his body never left her side and that he was only transported spiritually.
This is corroborated by the Qarawiyun Library Manuscript in Fez, Morocco, where it repeats that Aisha the Prophet’s wife and most intimate companion of his later years, declared emphatically that
“he was transported in his spirit (bi-ruhihi), while his body did not leave its place”
Also, the great Al-Hasan al-Basri, who belonged to the next generation, held uncompromisingly to the same view.
In another version in (section 267 p 184), it is Hind, Umm Hani d. of Abu Talib, Muhammad’s cousin and sister of Ali that relates concerning the Night Journey:
“The apostle went on NO Night Journey except while he was in my house. He slept that night in my house. He prayed the final night prayer and he slept and we slept there. ….”
A few traditions assert that this may have been a PHYSICAL ascent, as affirmed by:
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 5.228 Narrated by Ibn Abbas
The sights which Allah’s Apostle was shown on the Night Journey when he was taken to Bait-ul-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem) were actual sights, (not dreams). And the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur’an is the tree of Zaqqum (itself).
Whose version should one trust, that of the wife who slept with him or of his companions who were not present?
Neither the Quran – which did not allow for a single miracle to be performed – nor Muhammad, ever declared that it was a miracle.
The most damning and damaging evidence against this concocted story is the historical and incontrovertible fact, that there was no Masjid (Mosque) or Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem at the time of Muhammad, since this Temple had already been destroyed by the Romans at least 580 years earlier; hence the verse could not possibly and realistically have meant Jerusalem.
It was the companions of Muhammad who, after his death, expressed the erroneous, falsified and unsubstantiated opinion, and later the dogma by creating a MYTHOLOGY assuming a real physical transport to Jerusalem, in spite of the fact, that not one of the Ahadith above, mentions any intermediate ‘landing’ at Jerusalem but a direct ‘flight’ from Mecca to the first Heaven only.
This ‘tradition’ too, would have been a copy from the Jewish traditions regarding Jacob and Moses visiting the Seven Heavens.
Why is not a single person asking these questions from
Abbas, so called Palestinians and Muslims?
Any challengers?
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Dov Berrol says
I’d also like an answer to this mystery: how could Mohammed have risen to heaven from the Al Aqsa Mosque or the Mosque of Omar if these structures were only built many years after his death? Not sure exactly when, but the Arab hordes did not begin their illegal occupation of the Land of Israel and Yerushalayim until many decades after his death. How Muslims can actually rationally believe the Quran refers to Jerusalem in this legend is beyond me….
gravenimage says
Yes–Aisha herself confirms that at best this was a dream–and at least just a fabrication.
davej says
Their “we’ll declare war on you” threats are laughable.
You only get to do that once and it’s been a while already.
On the other hand maybe the West will actually hear it this time.
Guest says
I’ve just been seeing how Haaretz treats this topic. I understand Haaretz is pretty left wing? Doesn’t seem to be in the least supportive of Trump or of a Jerusalem embassy.
Yet a large majority of Israelis support Jerusalem being capital in this poll: https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/17/poll-92-percent-of-israeli-jews-say-jerusalem-is-israels-eternal-capital/
Jerusalem Post is timid about what may happen: “But if Trump does decide to push forward with the move, what awaits is a potentially dangerous situation for Israel, the Palestinians and the United States in regard to their diplomatic standing in the already volatile Middle East.
It won’t only be Israel that will see chaos if Trumps follows through on his promise – it is very likely riots will break out across Muslim-majority countries targeting the US and Israel.”
“By moving the embassy, the United States risks losing any hope to portray itself an as honest broker or negotiator between Israel and Palestinians, and risks sending a message to the Palestinians that Washington is no longer interested in a twostate solution, despite Trump saying that he would work to bring forth a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.”
To balance, the article goes on:
“But while there may be an increase in lone wolf attacks, according to Shlomo Brom, senior research fellow and head of the Program on Israeli-Palestinian Relations at the Institute for National Security Studies, there “is no real motivation” by any real serious organization, be it Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO or the Palestinian Authority, to want to start a full-blown intifada over the move.
‘Hezbollah and Hamas are not looking for any incidents with Israel, as they are too preoccupied,’ he told the Post.”
Then he calls it “It is a symbolic, insignificant move. We are in 2017, Israel does not suffer from a problem of recognition – Jerusalem is recognized. When ambassadors come to Israel to meet the prime minister, they go to Jerusalem.”
So take your pick: disaster or nothing much. Can even Israelis not be bothered supporting this and seeing it as important?
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Analysis-If-the-US-Embassy-moves-to-Jerusalem-are-we-looking-at-a-new-intifada-478535?spotim_referrer=recirculation&spot_im_comment_id=sp_jpost_478535_c_62mFO3
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
If the U.S. embassy in Israel is moved to Jerusalem, what will the OIC-dominated UN do in retaliation? Answer: It will move the UN out of the home town of the U.S. president who took this action. The only question is, Where to? A prime candidate will be https://www.britannica.com/place/Qom . “Lovely and lively” is the slogan of this city, with a lovely location and climate, and the kind of lively, vibrant nightlife that will attract fun-loving international diplomats. Moreover, thanks to the forward-looking financial planning of President Obama, the host country has plenty of cash on hand to finance the UN’s change of venue, instead of spending it on weapons of war. For this peace-promoting foresight, our President deserves another Nobel Peace Prize.
B Deplored says
“what exactly could Muslims do to the United States, as a response to the Embassy being moved, that they are not already doing, or are trying to do?”
!!!!
Trump’s brilliance!!!!!!
!!!!
The Arabs/ Muslims/ EU could do NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
Except NEGOTIATE a FINAL settlement, once for all!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
The Arabs/ Muslims are too absorbed with their own problems to resist/ incite.
!!!!!
The Arabs/ Muslims will come running to Trump begging for a peace treaty on any price. They’ll guarantee/ force the Palestinians to except at any cost!!!!!!!
!!!!!
Otherwise they run the risk of upheaval within their countries!!!!!!
!!!!
CheckMate!!!!!!!!!
ibrahim itace muhammed says
low iq alrasooli,apart from lies in your filthy bible and evil talmud is there any other historical proof that jerussalem was inhabited by jews alone to the exclusion of palestinians since time immemorial?if there is such historical proof cite it.your scriptures are not reliable historical document to form the material source of international law.low iq,if you are a christian, under the talmud,you are a pig.if you are a jew,you are the son of the devil breeding all evils.one miracle performed by prophet muhammad overshadowed all the myths inserted in jews and christian scriptures inspired by the devil the father of liars.
gravenimage says
Witless Muslim supremacist ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
low (sic) iq (sic) alrasooli,apart (sic) from lies in your filthy bible (sic) and evil talmud (sic) is there any other historical proof that jerussalem (sic) was inhabited by jews (sic) alone to the exclusion of palestinians (sic) since time immemorial?if (sic) there is such historical proof cite it.your (sic) scriptures are not reliable historical document to form the material source of international law.
…………………………….
muhammed appears incapable of answering a single one of IQ al Rassooli’s questions–this should not surprise.
He also shows, once again, that he assumes that everyone who takes issue with the savagery of Islam is Christian, though apostate from Islam IQ al Rassooli has never said that he is Christian to my knowledge.
This is a backhanded compliment of sorts to Christians, but also more proof that muhammed is just not very bright.
More:
low (sic) iq,if (sic) you are a christian (sic), under the talmud,you (sic) are a pig.if (sic) you are a jew,you (sic) are the son of the devil breeding all evils.one (sic) miracle performed by prophet muhammad (sic) overshadowed all the myths inserted in jews (sic) and christian (sic) scriptures inspired by the devil the father of liars.
…………………………….
What “miracle” might that have been? Raping a nine-year-old child? Enslaving Infidels? Beheading unarmed victims? Inquiring minds want to know…
Golem2 says
There were no palestinians until 1967
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: The Insubmissive Infidel, Or, Just A Jot About Jerusalem
……………………..
Another fine article, Hugh. Thank you.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hugh’s peroration reads, “It is time to try something new, time to kiss the lips of unacquainted change.”
Sounds kind of poetic. It is: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/john/john.3.4.html
ibrahim itace muhammed says
gravenimage, you have no inquiring mind.you are empty headed.whatever you say is rubbish.among all commentaters in this forum you are the most ignorant and stupid.you have to search for ideas before commenting .you are too lazy with low iq.ya hamajiyyatil hayawan(the most savage among animals)
ibrahim itace muhammed says
gravenimage, you have no inquiring mind.you are empty headed.whatever you say is rubbish.among all commentaters in this forum you are the most ignorant and stupid.you have to search for ideas before commenting .you are too lazy with low iq.ya hamajiyyatal hayawan(the most savage among animals).many are not happy with your madness as fanatical christian.you are similar to evangelist sam shamoun;when he runs short of ideas he resorts to insults.
commonsense says
Ib, your repellent and minimally coherent posts are actually quite useful. They serve to illustrate the insanity of allowing Muslims to enter and reside in civilized countries. Keep posting! …And thanks for the service you are unwittingly providing!
gravenimage says
Very true, commonsense!
Kay says
btw, gravenimage, yours was a fine response to the Jesuit yesterday
gravenimage says
Thank you, Kay. I appreciate your kind words.
Champ says
ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
“…when he runs short of ideas he resorts to insults.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If ever a *Projection Alert* was to be made …it’s now!
gravenimage says
🙂
gravenimage says
Muslim supremacist ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
gravenimage, you have no inquiring mind.you are empty headed.whatever (sic) you say is rubbish.among (sic) all commentaters in this forum you are the most ignorant and stupid.you (sic) have to search for ideas before commenting .you (sic) are too lazy with low iq (sic).
……………………………………
Did muhammed forget that he posted these comments virtually word for word just seven minutes earlier? He really is unraveling even further…
As for my having “no inquiring mind”, muhammed likely means that I am not considering “reverting” to the religion of blood and death.
Note that he is incapable of answering any of my points, just as he is incapable of answering any of IQ al Rassooli’s questions–this should not surprise. Islam is not long on reason…
More:
ya (sic) hamajiyyatal hayawan(the (sic) most savage among animals).
……………………………………
Actually, even if I truly were ignorant and stupid, this would not automatically make me savage–it would just make me ignorant and stupid.
Is muhammed so untethered from any moral bearings that he has no idea what actual savagery is? It seems so.
I can help him out here: “marrying” a nine year girl is savage. Sending death threats to a person who says “God is dead”–which muhammed has condoned–is savage. Throwing a gay person off a tall building is savage. Murdering someone who leaves Islam–which muhammed has personally advocated–is savage. Stoning a woman to death is savage.
Of course, there is much more Islamic savagery.
More:
many (sic) are not happy with your madness as fanatical christian (sic).you are similar to evangelist sam (sic) shamoun;when (sic) he runs short of ideas he resorts to insults.
……………………………………
This is grimly hilarious from someone who has called me “filthy” and a “prostitute”, and has repeatedly made the bizarre claim that I and most Americans were born in “baby factories”. He has also claimed that all uncircumcised men have maggots in their foreskins, of course.
And, actually, I have never once proselytized here–but muhammed may not have noticed that. In fact, he regards *anyone* who has not converted to Islam as a “filthy christian”–even those who make it clear that they are agnostic or atheist.
I have also never gratuitously insulted muhammed; if I have said anything unflattering, it is always salient to the issue at hand, such as my opposing his enthusiastic call for apostates from Islam to be murdered.
As for Sam Shamoun, some here might be interested in reading his pieces on the brutal violence of the “Prophet” Muhammed:
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/prophet_terror1.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/prophet_terror2.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/prophet_terror3.html
He has other pieces at “Answering Islam” on the terrible pedophilic rape of little Aisha, and on Muslim wife beating. One need not be Christian to find his work on Islam very enlightening.
Yorkshire Kufir says
Palestine ought to be aware that when the western democracies fight a war in full commitment, then that war will destroy the opponent. So stand up Palestine, you have no resources, you have no land and you have proved you think your people are expendable. So spend your people, then the west will send their lawyers to take the money you robbed from your people. And then die knowing you were faithful to muhammed. ROFL