reply to post by SpeachM1litant
No... I'm saying, if Israel did attempt to destroy the mosque (which as argued above, they have a moral position for doing) then they could use the
nuke option as a viable deterrent to an Arab reprisal.
If the Arabs respond, then they are just as 'God crazy' as the Israelis for removing it.
You are much too shallow minded/ignorant of religion/philosophy/metaphysics to understand why the consequences of such a clearly provocative action
would be worth the risk.
As a person educated in western philosophy, Judaism/Kabbalah and Islam/Sufism, I understand this situation from three different angles; the former
obviously beckons us not to do anything - to accept the status quo, which means, accept the fact that the Muslims control the most holy site in
Judaism - a site they relegate to 3rd, AND, a site which possesses no real metaphysical import to the Islamic imagination.
For Judaism, the situation is much more difficult: why should Jews have to accept that they're most holy site, the metaphysical center of their
ideology - tantamount to Islams Mecca/Ka'aba, has to be dominated by another religion, which accords to the site only marginal significance (Mohommad
went up to heaven here, indicating, mind you, a metaphysic of Jewish origin: the God of being (YHVH) being localized to this spot, as opposed to
Allah, which has no appropriate setting aside from a desert) ...............I can totally understand the frustration of the Jew.
And, from the perspective of Islam, I believe there should be concession on their part. Why must they insist on holding a place which isn't even
central to their ideology? It seems to be for no other purpose then to spite the Jews - to deny them their share in either land or their own unique
connection with God.
I have great respect for Islam's esoteric tradition. If it as good as I hope it is, I pray that a solution will be had that doesn't make recourse to
blowing up the mosques; ideally, (though, probably very unlikely, since the dome of the Rock has such symbolical power - not central to islamic
ideology, per se, but as a microcosmic 'transmitter' that attunes the energies of creation to foster a Islamic-Gnostic spirituality) they will accept
relocation of the mosques to some place else.
I see it most clearly as this: Israel/Judaism has a moral obligation to remove the mosque; secularism doesn't want to accept the consequences, so it
fulminates against any action that will cause a destabalization in regional affairs (a logical position, albeit, one which only takes into
consideration feelings that only they
harbor) and Islam, profiting from the dispassionate approach of the secularists, seeks to sustain the
status quo with them.
From a larger perspective, one which takes all 3 into account, Islam, out of religious solidarity with fellow monotheists, Jews, should let them
assume control of the site....But, again, since the building of the dome of the rock and Al Aqsa has such symbolical (and not ritual, or ideological,
for the muslim, who pilgrimages to Mecca in confirmation of his faith, and not Jerusalem, which is more a cool place to visit) value to Islam, I
really don't see that happening. So, I accept whatever. My heart wants the 3rd temple, my mind probably understands that it would be best to do just
leave things as they are.......
generally, the heart wins out.
edit on 30-3-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)