Public opinion is sharply critical of the actions surrounding prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque, predominantly viewing them as provocations that disrespect religious sanctity and escalate tensions between communities. There is a call for accountability and significant sympathy for the Palestinian plight, alongside strong feelings of anger and the desire for peaceful coexistence.

Israeli Government

Ben-Gvir

Palestinian Community

Muslims are safe in Israel.

Jews can't be safe in most Islamic countries.

Hmmmm..

IshtarIsMyNameYeah

You mean to tell me Israel isn’t preventing the use of the mosque and that there’s no apartheid?

RavenclawNatsfan

[deleted]

How do Jews feel about not being allowed to pray here? I assume it must be infuriating considering the entirety of this compound was your holy site in the first place but maybe I'm mistaken.

Wait, Isn't Israel an apartheid state? (Sarcasm)

uncommon-_-name

the_immovable

Religious freedom my ass. Why are Jews forbidden from worshiping at their one and only holy site?


The EU spent billions restoring the Parthenon - a monument to paganism - and Notre Dame - a monument to Church antisemitism, but for a Jew to even wink in the direction of the Temple Mount is somehow a crime against humanity.

benny-powers

Ok_Yam2257

Klutzy-Newspaper2072

Ramadan kareem to my muslim friends and countrymen :)

sad-frogpepe

IsRaHeLl Is An ApArThEiD sTaTe AnD nOtHiNg CaN pRoVe OtHeRwIsE

jaminjamin15

Funny how some media said the Israeli Government restricted access for Muslims to pray at Al-Aqsa during Ramadan, but the real truth is that Jews are forbidden to pray at the Al-Aqsa compound, and non-Muslims are limited to only one gate for access to it. Also, isn't the al-Aqsa compound is administrated by a Jordanian agency?

zeusofnoob

Enjoy, cousins. May your Ramadan be peaceful and meaningful. Ramadan Kareem.

-10-

mezhbizh

Damn, look at all that apartheid.
I mean the one they won't allow JEWS to go to Temple Mountain.

Electronic_Luck8731

I’m glad that they get to pray and everything right now for Ramadan 

There’s a lot of tensions right now but I’m glad to see something peaceful instead of riots etc

Ambitious_wander

All calm and dandy. Haha Hamas folk must be fuming that their little Ramadan plot didn’t work.

Old-Sparky

Is this the same holy site that they were playing soccer in a few weeks ago? So much reverence!

KingofManners

Praise be to Allah that Netanyahu ignored his radical ministers. Each day, over 50,000 peaceful Muslims are making their way to al-Aqsa during Ramadan. Hopefully, it's a reminder how smart policies can bring more security than heavy handed ones.

It's funny how humans work. Your life in this world must be pretty poor if you can't wait for the next. Has anyone actually seen Allah?

Spiritual_Boot3790

Tesla_lord_69

Throwawaymister2

JuliaAstrowsly

sefardita86

Perhaps in an alternate apartheid universe /s

Apt_Tick8526

Walle_Alexander

The sky is beautiful. This looks so much organized than what you see from Mecca lol. But Jerusalem is also much smaller and less crowded.

Are women allowed to participate in this?

88Really

GreeneyedAlbertan

Ok... Why, Still, are the Rich, High Status People are praying with their back to it?

Also, aren't they suppose to be on their Knees?
With Prayer Matts?

I thought they take pride for praying differently from Jews?

I guees this is more respectful for Al-Aqsa their third most important place, I remember seeing pictures of Arafat's time of the prayer...
It looked like they are *mooning* the place.
This is just... *Quite disdain.*

Leading-Chemist672

thiscat129

This is wrong. This mosque should be demolished asap

JordanianZionist

What about the many incidents where IDF storms the place during Muslim holy month?

stormelc

Al Aqsa mosque is safe and Muslims can pray freely. Palestinian extremists like Hamas and PIJ lie about this in order to inflame the rhetoric against Israel. They want escalation at the Temple Mount so they can challenge the status quo. 

&amp;#x200B;

Please check out this Egyptian visitor who is impartial and exposes the truth: [https://twitter.com/DocumentIsrael/status/1670406082756321281?s=20](https://twitter.com/DocumentIsrael/status/1670406082756321281?s=20)

yogilawyer

It’s to ensure that those entering the mosque are respectful, dressed appropriately and coming in peace. when Muslims go to the western wall theyre forced by Israeli security to go through metal detectors, put their belongings through scanners, and get pat down. White people and Jews enter freely. the minimal security protecting the mosque from ill willed people is laughable compared to that. This is first hand experience

karma2460

There's no soldiers, only police there.

And they ask questions because under the agreement with the Jordanian Waqf (and the Muslim world at large) Jews and Christians are not allowed to pray there, and their entrance is restricted.

This is because the Al Aqsa has become a political symbol for Palestinians and for the Muslim world.

Conscious_Spray_5331

Muslim extremists who have the vocal and only voice in the region insist that Jews walking on Al-Aqsa are defiling it which leads to other extremist groups who wants to counter the extremists by taking the extreme other direction and various policies from authorities to minimize friction.

Specifically there's a group that calls to pray/butcher animals on a specific Jewish holiday (The reasoning is that this rinses one from the previous year's sins. Although the practice isn't commonplace).

And there's another Jewish group who poses as Muslim in order to make Jewish prayers.

So the questioning is probably to catch the last group. IF one of those members are caught in the mosque itself, help would be several minutes away from catching hint on what's going on and helping. By that time the person is doomed to the messes mercy...

Shachar2like

End the Islamic waqf apartheid racist regime of the Temple Mount and allow it to be a place of peace for all people who come with reverence just as anyone can go the Western Wall and pray......the Dome of the Rock should be open as an ecumenical site too....

AL Aqsa can remain for Muslim worship only. 

End the Islamic take over of Hagia Sopha too while we're at it.

polari99

Islamic and Arab supremacy, racism and apartheid is the answer.  "Al-Aqsa" is nothing but a monument to Hijazi imperialist conquest.

Gharqad01

The body that governs the complex is the mufti of jordan, they make the rules regarding who enters and they don't allow non Muslims most of the time. But they have no ppl/authority to enforce their rules so the Israeli police and border police enforce it. It's also presumably in the best interest of the Israeli government to prevent more extreme elements from entering and causing an incident.

JacquesShiran

-Original_Name-

Short answer: only muslims are allowed to enter temple mount freely. Christians and jews can enter only 7-10:30 am and 13:30-14:30 sunday-thursday.
On Friday and Satuday Jews cannot enter, also on Muslim holidays Jews cannot enter

LinusSmackTips

Because the Palestinians will lose their shit if Jews enter the Mosque

brother_charmander4

Can someone tell me why non muslimm prayer is banned? Article doesnt really explain

Firecracker048

It’s pretty ridiculous that there are so many spaces in Islam where non-Muslims are not allowed to go (Temple Mount, Mecca, Medina.) However, Itmar Ben Gvir is an utter moron who’s only going to cause more alienation with Arab nations who he needs on his side to pressure Hamas to give up the remaining hostages AND push Hamas towards demilitarization as the Arab League recently called for

SpartanNation053

SS: The Temple Mount, the site of the ancient Jewish Temples and the holiest site in Judaism, has been one of the most volatile flashpoints in the Middle East. 

The site is also home to the Muslim Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque, which were built on the ruins of the destroyed Jewish Temple after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem. 

According to the unwritten agreement, limited amounts of non-Muslims are permitted to visit the site for 2 hours of the day but are completely banned from prayer. 

Access to the Temple Mount and permission to pray is only allowed for Muslims, which sees up to 400,000 Muslims coming to the site to pray on religious holidays. 

Ben Gvir violated this understanding on Sunday while leading aloud the recitation of the “Amida” prayer for dozens of other Jews observing Tisha B’Av, a fast day marking the destruction of both Jewish Temples located atop the Temple Mount in ancient times.

Changes to the Temple Mount’s ban on non-Muslim prayer evoke strong emotions and are frequently cited as a Muslim motivation for religious violence. The site is of central importance to Hamas, which termed its October 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.”

Interesting-Spot8013

Good.  It’s a disgusting thing that they don’t allow non Muslim prayer.  It’s the holiest site in Judaism.  Amazing how they exclude other religions then claim discrimination in western countries.

AnakinSkycocker5726

rockeye13

/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)

DeltaBot

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.

Most-Travel4320

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.

RiemannZetaFunction

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.

spandex-commuter

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

Gamermaper

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"

pilosch

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.

&gt; 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?

JMoc1

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

_geomancer

pariah2000

Just curious, what religion do you think most muslims were before they were Muslim..?

The answer will also resolve your confusion.

yobsta1

&gt;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

MercurianAspirations

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

ibn-al-mtnaka

&gt;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.

&gt;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.

10ebbor10

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

Sea_Entrepreneur6204

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

Wooden-Ad-3382

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.

Ancient-Opinion-5110

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.

Sayakai

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. 

Zestyclose-Ad-9951

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&amp;referringSource=articleShare&amp;sgrp=c-cb. Maybe just something to chew on.

Jazz_Doom_

samoan_ninja

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.

deprivedgolem

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.

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.

Eodbatman

This sub is being flooded with whataboutisms today

MavsGod

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.

veerKg_CSS_Geologist

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

Bourbon-Decay

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.

ClockOfTheLongNow

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

h_lance

It wouldn't be colonization if they didn't threaten to kill you unless 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?)

PsychoSwede557

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.

jabberwockxeno

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.

andr386

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.

Philiatrist

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.**

BlinkReanimated

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

Cacharadon

 &gt; 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.

47ca05e6209a317a8fb3

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.

Severe_Brick_8868

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

Falernum

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.

Johnnadawearsglasses

Al-Aqsa is traditionally the 2nd mosque *ever* built, so beside religious it also has a lot historical significance. 

The entire Temple Mount is referred to “Al-Aqsa Compound” so the Dome of the Rock isn’t a separate holy site from the mosque. 

The spot where the Mosque would later be is where Muhammed met and prayed with all the prophets before him (People like Jesus, Moses, David, etc), [The Rock inside the dome](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone) is where Muhammad ascended to Heaven. (2 separate events in 1 Night Journey)

Professional_Ant_315

When first human Adam aw, descended from heaven, he built two prayer structure Kaaba and Al Aqsa in Mekka and Palestine. The great flood of prophet Nuh aw destroyed both of them. Ibrahim aw rebuilt the Kaaba in Mekka with his son Ismael aw and Al Aqsa in Palestine with Ishaq aw. 

Over time after many prophets, Sulaiman aw rebuilt the Al Aqsa mosque. It was destroyed and rebuilt a few more times with Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus the great, Selukas, Romans etc. Then muslims took control of it under 2nd caliph Umar ra.

dorballom09

The Al-Aqsa Mosque is an old and venerated mosque and Muslims have repect and love for all Mosques but especially the old and famous ones. 

And of course the whole compound is holy for Muhammad's(pbuh) ascension to heaven.

However theologically the Al Aqsa mosque is not significant. There are no special pilgrimages or religious events focused on Al-Aqsa or the temple mount. But Muslims do not want other people trying to take over or destroy any mosques and that is the intent of the Jewish extremists.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir sparked widespread condemnation after publicly praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, raising concerns over religious and political dynamics in the region.

Controversy over Prayer at Al-Aqsa Mosque

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want