Beyond the Cusp

March 20, 2016

Kamil al-Khatib and Another Absurdly Ludicrous Accusation

 

Kamil al-Khatib, the deputy head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, has made an accusation which has managed to target Israel; an Israeli activist, Yehuda Glick; Arab Authorities in general; and likely inferring every power on earth which has not rushed to prevent what he calls the “Judaizing actions” to the al-Aqsa Mosque. We further quote Kamil al-Khatib from his interview with the Hamas newspaper ‘Falastin’ with his most vicious claim of all, “His (Yehuda Glick’s) settlers hold Talmudic ceremonies and settler weddings around the al-Aqsa Mosque, and these are dangerous signs that they see their imaginary Temple in the al-Aqsa Mosque. This is in spite of the agreements the Jordanian regime made to prevent any Talmudic ceremonies within the area of the al-Aqsa Mosque.” His final jab hits a bullseye pointing to the presumed agreement between Israel and Jordan to enforce a status quo which forbids Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount. This status quo referred to came into the lexicon after the attempted assassination of Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick who barely survived four shots into his chest at point blank range on October 29, 2015. A terrorist pulled up in a scooter or motorcycle and shot him before fleeing the scene (aftermath video coverage below showing response but not actual attack). Yehuda Glick had just departed the Begin Center where he had just spoken at an event and was shot by Mu’taz Hijazi who was employed at the Begin Center despite former criminal arrests and known links with terrorism. There has been a sliding status quo placing ever increasing limitations on Jews and other non-Muslims as time progresses and after any meetings and demanded concessions forced on Israel and the World in efforts to ever enforce the strength and power of Arab Palestinian claims to more and more areas still demanding the formation of their rule over all of the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, that means all of Israel.

 

 

 

 

Kamil al-Khatib and the Islamic Movement in Israel have been banned from organized events or actions after they issued threats against the lives of Israelis, both officials and Jews in general. It took a build-up of threats including that Muslims would “eliminate the Jews from history: and further stated in that interview, “This will be the final nail in the coffin of the Oslo Accords, because the Palestinian people are tired of all the false promises and visions and its volcano is exploding.” Kamil al-Khatib was also calling for Israeli Arabs to take part in the “intifada” against Israel. A full-blown war between Israeli Arabs and the Netanyahu government is “just a matter of time,” He also held that a statement by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people was simply reflective of the feelings of most Israelis, and as such were statements which “merely highlight the religious nature of the dispute.

 

He gave an interesting and revealing sermon equating the holy warriors who had attacked infidel in Paris with the purification of France during the Protestant wars with the Catholics of France and the Inquisition in Spain from starting in 1492 when the Christians (Catholics) rallied to retake the lands of southern Spain (Andalusia) which had been conquered by largely Moorish Muslims from northwestern Africa which had stormed across the Straights of Gibraltar almost a millennia earlier and had imposed restrictive laws on Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims which were fought back by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella who persecuted the Muslims and Jews and non-Catholics. These were the religious wars which plagued the years responding to the encroachment and explosive breakout of Islam and the Arab tribes from their original homelands in the Arabian Peninsula and swallowed-up lands and peoples across North Africa, Persian Middle East, the remains of the Byzantine Empire and Egypt as well as the Holy Lands. The Crusades were an answer to the persecution of Christians in the Holy Lands which brought the conquest by Salah al-Din (Saladin) all of which dates back an average of half a millennia to a modern terrorist attack in a modern western capital because it has not fallen under the Islamic sword. Below is his sermon from November 29, 2015, in Kafr Kana, Israel, the very nation he declares must be brought under the sword through an internal Intifada yet it took his actual calls for violence before he was denounced but is still free and inciting.

 

 

 

 

Those calling for the murder and conquest of Israel are protected, which is not necessarily an evil thing to allow opposing views, but not when Yehuda Glick is denied entry to the Temple Mount simply because he argues that the Jews and other non-Muslims have religious freedom and under such should have free access to the Temple Mount. He is not calling for anybody to enter a single Mosque, Church, Cathedral, the al-Aqsa or the Dome of the Rock but the freedom to visit one of the holiest locations in Christianity and the holiest place in Judaism. In Israel a foreign element is granted control and restricts movement and worship in open locations in the holiest site in all of a presumed free Israel where every religion is presumed to have equality and freedom of worship, well, except where Islam is granted any sway. Israel does not restrict Islamic visitation to the holy places in Damascus, Muslim warfare does. Israel does not limit Islamic worship in Mecca or Medina nor does Israel desire to but through Jordan the Islamic world is limiting religious freedom in Israel. There is one word for that situation, ‘Wrong,’ just plain and simple wrong. The Temple Mount should be a place of reverence and free worship and open tourism with each faith responsible for the buildings they own, plain and simple. Further building on the Temple Mount might present a different subject where a board with members of each faith having advisory weight but it should be the government of Israel with full understanding of the sensibility of every faith represented and holding the site as holy as the main criteria for all decisions. Extremism of any sort should be avoided, especially calls to violence.

 

Temple Mount with Proposed Options to include Third Temple Without Destroying or Interfering Other Religious Structures

Temple Mount with Proposed
Options to include Third Temple
Without Destroying or Interfering
Other Religious Structures

 

And about the envisioned threat of the building of the Third Temple, well, the picture below depicts a placement which is one potential resolution but there are endless possibilities which include the erection of the Third Temple in an alternate location all together. There are always alternatives except when, apparently, Islam has found anything that might be a slight to their sensibilities or their perception of losing face as pride is apparently a very important foundation in modern Islam and their pride apparently is deeply rooted in possessions and a fact that enough is never enough when Islam is involved. One needs to wonder what would be the reaction if the World’s Jews with Israeli support decided to build the Third Temple as a towering edifice atop the Mount of Olives overlooking the great Mount of Olives Cemetery, an ancient and still used burial grounds which holds the graves of numerous greats of Jewish history, a Temple which would stand out all but unrivaled in the Jerusalem skyline towering above even the tallest of structures. One can only imagine the howlings of foul play and detracting from the holy places already in existence and claims galore that the lands of such plans was holy to every religion other than Judaism. We have already heard claims that the First Temple and Second Temple were simply figments of Jews’ imaginations having had two too many machinations for claiming Jerusalem from the rightful and original builders of the Western Wall and the city walls which were constructed for Muhammad to tie off his magical steed to climb aboard another magical steed before his ascent into Heaven where he met with all the ancient Islamic prophets such as Moses and Abraham and who knows who else, perhaps Daniel and Ezekiel; Deborah and Ruth, Kings David and Solomon and who knew these were Islamic Prophets who predated Islam by an average of two-thousand years.

 

 

Jewish Prophets from 800 to 400 of the Biblical Era

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

November 27, 2012

Can Marriage be Retrieved Once Voters Change the Legal Definition?

There is one thing that crusaders for causes rarely worry about, future generations and how they might reflect upon changes these crusaders transform. They do not worry about what the lasting effects of any revolutionary redefinition of once stable essential structures that have been basic building-blocks for our society since we first formed clans and tribes. This is likely one of the missing considerations which are finally being broken down as the crusaders for a progressive society have apparently reached the critical tipping point in the campaign to transform the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. After thirty-two states had voted their refusal in past referendum to redefine marriage, this past election may be the initial indication that the change has begun as four states voted to redefine marriage from one man to one woman to the “enlightened” two people with no gender restrictions which were so stringently restrictive. Now that the initial eggs have been broken, we can expect over the next few election cycles for sufficient eggs to break to make a few omelets and before a decade has passed we will witness soufflés being made with so many eggs breaking. As the Dylan refrain goes, the times they are a changin’.

Future generations will have a new definition provided from birth where the normative definition of a marriage will be between two people who desire to enter a contractual relationship to face the future together hopefully in some form of nurturing environment. They will have a second definition provided in some religious publications, especially traditional editions and literal translations. There will be some more progressive, liberal, new-age translations where marriage will match the new legal definition at some time in the future, but in the near time there will be two very different definitions in much of society. This will lead to some degrees of discomfort, confusion and discord within the different factions in our society. This will work itself out with time and within a short period the new legal definition for what constitutes a marriage will become dominant and those who hold opinions counter to the new definition will take a more subdued position in expressing their views publically. There will always be a hardcore group which will take an active approach to their expressing the then dated view of marriage being between a man and a woman and they will then receive treatment similar to the treatment of those who first presented the more universal and less restrictive definition of marriage being between two people regardless of genders. The next question is obviously the one where we want to know where this change will lead.

With time will there be a call for marriage to be redefined even further? If so, what other traditional restrictions will be challenged? The first and most obvious restriction that might be challenged is the age of consent for marriage. There have already been studies which have shown that children are sexually maturing at a younger age. Should this biological change also force a change in our laws to allow marriage to reflect the change in the age of sexual maturity? Then there is the obvious number restriction on marriage. If we no longer restrict marriage to gender, then why restrict the number of people who can be held within a single marriage? This might begin with allowing marriage to include a third individual or we may simply jump all the way to a universal community marriage allowance where as many people as wish can be included in what we would likely today call a commune but in the future allow such entities to declare they are unilaterally married as a whole. I doubt that the term marriage would ever go to the more ridiculous extremes some people have claimed would result from allowing a more universal definition such as allowing people to marry an animal.

The only item that has not been addressed is what will happen should in the future a majority desire to return to the current traditional definition of a marriage. Once the laws have been changed they will be the ones who will be forced to accept the more open definition of marriage. They will join the religious conservatives who will likely still be resisting the new definition and only surrender to the extent that the law requires of them. Will those who wish to return to marriage being defined once again as between a man and a woman face the initial scorn and rejections that those proposing gay marriage initially faced? The reality is they very likely will be placed in a very similar position facing similar treatment. The whole argument will have been turned upside-down and those who claim now to be the tolerant ones pushing the borders of society further will be the ones defending the normative status-quo and being defined as the conservative ones refusing to change with the times. Once again marriage will be a topic of debate with the tables turned and all the definitions switched. I guess the more things change the more the opportunity for a future campaign to restore and unchange. The only question is will we go so far in our current changes that no return can ever be attained no matter how much we try to unchange.

Beyond the Cusp

February 21, 2012

A Question for the Catholic Hierarchy

The idea that the Catholic Church in particular and religious people and institutions in general have come under direct assault by institutions within and outside governments by Secular Humanists throughout the public sphere is not an illusion but a truism. There have been those, including Glenn Beck, who have claimed that we all need to back the Catholic Church in this fight as this assault needs to be halted before it spreads on to the religious generally. I agree with the urgency to stand against threats to religious freedoms especially in the relatively few countries where it exists as a universal and guaranteed governing principle, as they are in truth a small minority. Where I stand in support of religious freedoms and will oppose any and all attempts to squelch the vitality and lifeblood of freedoms for religious observances and practices, I do have one simple question, or is it a request, to ask of the Catholic Church which I would like to announce and share on this space.

 

I will begin by offering thanks to the Catholic Church for their liberalization and reset of their relationship with the Jewish people. In an edict issued from the Vatican during the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 through 1965, the Catholic Church changed its definitions of relations and definition of Judaism from Replacement Theology to a friendlier acceptance along with forgiveness of what had been defined as cultural and actual guilt and sins for endless centuries. There have been claims of backsliding on this decision, especially when it comes to matters concerning Israel. My challenge to the Catholic Church is whether they will support Israel in their struggle for survival against the forces which aim to erase Judaism, not only from the face of the Earth, but from all of history as well. One would expect the Catholic Church to have stood with Israel and the Jewish People against those forces who have declared war against all religions other than their own which eventually will include the Catholic Church. These forces include the Islamists and the Secular Humanists which have formed an informal alliance, each intending to discard the other when they are no longer useful or necessary. One of these two is grossly underestimating the power of the other and it really does not matter for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Mormon or other religious groups who will all have been marginalized or destroyed by that time. Will the Catholic Church recognize their need to ally with the Jewish People and with Israel or will they continue to be lukewarm fair-weather-friends picking and choosing when to smile and when to cast aspersions when the mood and subject suits their ends.

 

I fully understand the Catholic Church is in an unenviable position when it comes to the Islam-Israel conflict as many Catholics live within the Muslim World and the Catholic Church believes supporting Israel will cause great harms to befall their members living within the influences of Islam. I have a little piece of news for the Catholic Church, if the Muslims and Islamic forces which make up the radical Islamist forces win out, after they rid themselves of Israel the Catholics are very likely next on their target list. Feeding this alligator the Jews will serve only to whet its appetite for a continued feeding frenzy feasting upon the World’s Christians. If you have doubts about this, remember Spain from the period of the early 700s until 1492 when King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella initiated the Spanish Inquisition after the war to liberate Spain from Islam to rid themselves of the Islamic Moorish remnants, oh, and of their Jewish population as well. Ask those who have studied the history of Vienna which was twice barely saved from the relentless spread of Islam. Search your modern World map and find Constantinople, a once great Christian city which is now named Istanbul and once held a grand monument called the Hagia Sophia which was transformed into a Mosque and all of the beautiful mosaics were plastered over as their subject was an insult to Allah and his Prophet. Do you really need prompting to remember your own early history of the last two times Islam turned to their goal of World conquest, the same style of conquest that many feel they have rediscovered with their third attempt is currently beginning.

 

We are on the cusp of two World movements which are both making their push for dominance. As mentioned earlier in this article, one is Islam and the other is State promoting and deifying Secular Humanism. Both of these forces are antithetical to Catholics just as much as they abhor Judaism. Both influences will spell the end for all Catholics just as they will Jews and those of many other religions as well. Plain and simple, putting this in the most basic terms I am able, both of these ideologies detest Catholicism almost equally as they do Judaism and the difference will not matter if in the end either one is allowed to become dominant. This is a war of civilizations and of ideologies. Trust when I say that Catholics and Jews have more in common with each other than with either of these destructive forces which are now ascendant. Christians and Jews will be stronger together than separate, let alone in opposition. So, I ask the Catholic Church, where do you stand in this critical time and day, with the Jews and Israel or on the sidelines or with those who wish the end of the Jews and Israel, and do not pretend there is a difference. Should Israel fall and half of the World’s Jews face extinction, rest assured the rest will wither and die the slow death of assimilation. Israel and the Jewish faith are one and the same for all intents and purposes. Choose carefully, our Father watches.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.