Alsalam alaikoum brother, it's obviously and undoubtedly bad because it's misleading, it give them a sense of legitimacy and adl is mislead although all the warnings even from prominent rabbis. The west (uk then us) are using Jews by antagonizing zionist for their own strategic interests of not having to deal with a unified Muslim entity ( Khilafa).
The west was kicked out of the Arab world after the second World War because they couldn't keep it (the resistance and the two new super powers), they change their strategy by having vassal states and israel as a watchdog/class bully but they knew back then that it will not hold for long as did experienced analysts.
Jews are being used as cheap soldiers ( biden speech "best spent 3 billion dollars ") and we suffer from it with the atrocities and the induced backwardness.
Even worse, doing it in the uae, which share a single common with the saudi, which is that, contrary to Arab traditions, there is no tracing of lineage of both al nahian nor al saud.
Luckily, bizn Allah, that will definitely change soon. If we read Quran 17:7, we'll understand that right after "the saddening of their faces, we will enter the Masjid Al Aqsa in chaa Allah".
The good thing, subhan Allah, that nowadays, all masks are off and we, MUSLIMS, see our path clearly.
Yes, it evokes and insures me that the type of "normalizer" he's aiming at is that of vassal to his superior.
There can be no "normalizer" relation possible, the Quran teaches us that and on top of that their ideology has alienated all and anywhere they settled. Although the Quran affirm that but also verified historical records too. الزلة و المسكنة
With all due respect sir, it's pretty nonsensical for people to behave as if it's an open question whether it's acceptable for muslim community leaders to attend conciliatory talks with the ADL. The ADL has been such a vigorous lobbier for the Israeli security apparatus and has engaged in information campaigning for decades on behalf of Israeli crimes with such fervor as to be a parastatal organization de facto, if not de jure. The ADL exercises tremendous pull with the Jewish diaspora in America in favor of Israel's interests, the same diaspora that Israel spends so much money and man-hours trying to sway because of the enormous importance it has for them both economically and politically. So no, I do not at all hold it within the confines of acceptable conduct for someone billing themself as an islamic community leader to go and sit down to tea with these people who have and continue to do everything in their power to see our people in palestine killed in the tens of thousands and expelled from our homes in the millions.
Last time someone called a ‘normalizer’ by an appropriate term, they were condemned, threatened with a lawsuit, thrown out of the Whatsapp group for conduct unbecoming for a Muslim social media platform. I think normalizer can be safely used for people on the ADL A-list, those who do business with the Mosad, and Muslim Zionists in general. Your Muslim brothers cannot threaten to drag you into court for this.
Personally I don't use the word normalizer on this specific question because I've not given much thought to the implications of it, but there is potent enough evil in the world that cozying up to it instead of drawing a clear line and taking a principled position against it is both sufficiently repulsive and blameworthy
So my purpose with the tread was understanding the language used here. SHY used the term but seemed confused about what it meant. He never normalized anything? You can normalize good things too no?
You surely understand that broadening the word to any subject nullifies that usage of the word in the first place. What he is doing is objectively furthering normalization according to the obvious drfinition and if he were to deny believing that, I don't know of another word in response but gross negligence
Anti-Defamation League purports itself to be a combatant of antisemitism. We know they have a checkered history with some questionable decisions but nonetheless simply talking to them does not make you a "normalizer". Normalizer should only specifically mean those completely in favor of Muslim countries (UAE, KSA, etc) normalizing relations with the State of Israel. So unless he's been vocally pushing that, he's not one. Simple as that. If you dislike him or even hate him for other reasons, that's fine and your right, but also a separate discussion.
So say hypothetically a Muslim leader (not SHY), in the US goes to an interfaith event and sings the Israeli national anthem and gives a speech about the importance of Zionism to the Jewish people. He does not advocate for anyone opening diplomatic relations with Israel. How would you describe such a leader?
We should not be talking about hating anyone here if that would not be acceptable. We may have disagreements with people regarding the words they speak, the positions they take and the language they use in order to present their positions, but we should try not to hate others and even curb dislike as much as a humanly possible. I personally do not have any animosity toward anyone as far as I know, but that does not mean that I agree with everyone either. Ultimately, none of us have all of the answers and thus this should keep us in a state of humility. I think I am right but I may be wrong and I am open to being corrected is the attitude that we should have.
I guess my question is, well respected by who? He seems to be more of a showman than anything. I think is high level of eloquence and intellect blinds people to his many problems. We cannot overlook the fact that he is white and that many people think that because one is white then they are right. If he were a person of color he would not get off with many of the things that he says. But Muslims don't like to talk like this because it makes them uncomfortable.
Do you think he gets away with more than other Imams would get away with because he is white?
I wonder about this, since there are many white Imams who have nothing like the public platform of a SHY.
Then there is Imam Muhamad Magid, who has views nearly identical to SHY and appears in the same meetings (he is pictured in the ADL tweet), seems to have a similar philosophy. He seems to have lots of support from his community.
Mine is a generalized statement, of course, and one could always find exceptions. I'm not familiar with Muhammad Magid. We are most certainly a very diverse bunch and will never agree on several issues. It has a lot to do with when one came into Islam, as well as the teachers they were exposed to. I have been Muslim for 30 years whereas many of these newer Muslims may have altogether different views than mine.
Thks S. Your comment is gentle. For me, all what’s happening on UAE soil (2nd Israel) is questionable. Unfortunately HY represents the new Sufi that accept any normalization without any resistance. Shame. Free free Palestine from the river to the sea ;)
Not only should we not normalize the Zionist Entity, we should not normalize monarchies like UAE & KSA & dictatorships like Egypt & mass black incarceration in USA & denial of rights to migrants & ecological destruction & poverty - ok, you get the idea.
I was never really into these conferences, but I used to think, 'there may be a problem with "Sidi culture."' Is going to weekend conferences and talking about Sidi Amr & Sidi Zayd still a thing?
Mr. Yusuf's talks are mostly about himself, mostly defensive. He comes off as narcissistic.
The younger Muslim generation are hungry for a legit firm Muslim leadership, not just "good speakers" and fancy preachers.
Actions speak louder than words. Practice what you preach.
Instead of engaging the hecklers, he starts a rant defending himself quoting hadith and ayaat we've heard a million times, diverting from the main issue: CHILDREN ARE DYING IN GAZA!
Sitting down with even the worst of the enemies should not be taken as a sign of acceptance of the enemy's ideologies and beliefs. Normalizing, in my extremely limited scope of knowledge, would be to accept the current state of the Palestinians and not working towards safeguarding the fundamental rights of our Muslim brethren, wherever they may be, be it Palestine, Rohingya or China. Simply meeting with the ADL, and not having any information about the content of their discussion, would not make one a normalizer. Overall, I would like to have good thoughts of all of my Muslim brethren, especially someone who is a highly respected scholar of Islam [by his contemporaries] and I would not change this opinion unless I came across proof which would make me think otherwise and I would actively not go out of my way looking for such proof.
Thank you for your comment. Normalizing is a term that seems to be adopted from state to state diplomatic relations. The photo was when SHY had an official position with the UAE government, which would later open diplomatic relations with Israel. I know the story is a bit more complex but the meeting has that historical context.
Also, what do you think of his position giving away part of the waqf (what he called “the Temple Mount” for a synagogue, and his repeated opposition to any Palestinian resistance?
Again, I admit ignorance to the circumstances of that picture and to most of how SHY has led his life or what his views are on various things. I only know of good from him.
If that is truly his position to give away part of the waqf to build a synagogue and if that building does NOT involve demolishing any part of the Masjid and it will lead to peaceful cohabitation between the Jews & the Muslims, it is a fair call. But it is my understanding that it is within the Jewish tradition to rebuild the Temple of Solomon and the proposed boundaries of the Temple include almost the entire al-Aqsa complex. So they can not build the third temple without demolishing al-Aqsa and that should never be acceptable to Muslims.
For the second question: if that is truly his position that Palestinians should not resist against the Israeli occupation, I would say that he is entitled to that opinion. I am sure he is trying to look at it from a position of wisdom than rights. Palestinians have the right to fight back and claim what is theirs. But, if they were to be patient upon the oppression done against them, surely that would be immensely rewarded as well. And there are numerous verses advocating for patience over and over again. And certainly, the Prophet and his companions showed patience, rather than resistance, in much of the Makkan period when they were clearly at a disadvantage. So if we were to compare the life of the Prophet and the companions in the Makkan era with the Palestinian situation today, one can easily see why being patient might be the better option.
If you take a look at below book, you will note that the shaykh has historically had somewhat quietest tendencies. That does not mean though he does not advocate for domestic political priorities. See chapter 2 where there's a interesting reference to his online discussion with Jordan Peterson.
I agree with the original commentator that we do not know what transpired at the meeting. Also we should sometimes expect our community leaders to participate in these discussions (and to respectfully disagree with their viewpoints). If they don't others who may not necessarily represent our community (see Zuhdi Jasser) will
Muslims should always be wise. We assume the best of our Muslim brothers and leaders but never blindly trust them with everything. Because everyone can slip and fall. Muslims should privately admonish the leaders whenever they slip. That is part of our faith to admonish evil, wherever we see it.
This article is an epitome of decontextualization & misrepresentation!! In that picture Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, our very own Imam Mohamed Magid(Adams, Sterling VA) & an older sheikh are meeting with Jews. NOT every Jew is a Zionist. I don’t see a single flag of Israel.
If you have doubts - then look up the position of Rabbi Weiss of the Neturei Karta. They stand against the state of Israel & believe in peaceful deconstruction of the state of Israel. They show up at every single Pro-Palestinian demonstration, including the largest rally in DC & promote the cause of Palestinians. In Israel they work to free unjustly prisoned Palestinian. They all ARE Jews and NOT every Jew is a Zionist!!
Jews are NOT our enemy!! Zionists are the true enemy of Islam & Palestine! There are far more Jews standing up for Palestinian rights than Muslims.
It is out of sheer ignorance, people are spreading this misinformation. There is no excuse for Ignorance. Allah gave us the faculties to read, learn & become educated. Ignorance will surely lead to the doom of Muslims.
Brother - educate yourself before you spread misinformation!
Ahh so you missed the tweet the photo was attached to. It was from the ADL, that was the ADL team. That is a Zionist organization that has done much to support the oppression of Palestinians and curtail civil liberties for Muslims in the United States in service of that oppression. Hope that helps you!
A "normalizer," in our context, is one who endorses or advocates for normal, friendly, economic and/or political or defense relations with Israel. It may or may not include recognizing the Israel as a state. Sh. Hamza is clearly a normalizer in this case because his view is Islamically we should do whatever the ruler of UAE says to do, and the ruler of UAE wants and has normalized relations with the Israeli regime.
The next issue is whether normalization is good or bad Islamically, but I take it that is a separate discussion than the question you raise here.
I find Sh. Hamza's views on Masjid Al Aqsa completely outrageous and dangerous, and that may affect the issue of whether he should be classified as a normalizer. The alim at the alislam productions youtube channel provide a good discussion re the matter.
I think they are distinct conceptually. A Zionist is anyone that agrees with the political project of Zionism, which is that Palestine belongs to the Jews, or at least that Jews should control it. The borders of "Israel" include at the very least all of Jerusalem to the sea, and might extend all the way to "Greater Israel" including parts of present-day Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, etc. At the absolute minimum, Zionism is the belief that nonJews are second-class citizens, politically at least, in "Israel". There's also views about the coming of their Messiah, but I won't go into that here.
Normalization is a view about (external) relations with Israel or the Israeli regime by nonIsraeli actors. Whereas Zionism is a view about internal political relations within "Israel", so to speak, with supplemental views perhaps about the borders of "Israel."
Alsalam alaikoum brother, it's obviously and undoubtedly bad because it's misleading, it give them a sense of legitimacy and adl is mislead although all the warnings even from prominent rabbis. The west (uk then us) are using Jews by antagonizing zionist for their own strategic interests of not having to deal with a unified Muslim entity ( Khilafa).
The west was kicked out of the Arab world after the second World War because they couldn't keep it (the resistance and the two new super powers), they change their strategy by having vassal states and israel as a watchdog/class bully but they knew back then that it will not hold for long as did experienced analysts.
Jews are being used as cheap soldiers ( biden speech "best spent 3 billion dollars ") and we suffer from it with the atrocities and the induced backwardness.
Even worse, doing it in the uae, which share a single common with the saudi, which is that, contrary to Arab traditions, there is no tracing of lineage of both al nahian nor al saud.
Luckily, bizn Allah, that will definitely change soon. If we read Quran 17:7, we'll understand that right after "the saddening of their faces, we will enter the Masjid Al Aqsa in chaa Allah".
The good thing, subhan Allah, that nowadays, all masks are off and we, MUSLIMS, see our path clearly.
What about the use of language. Is “normalizer” something that properly evokes what you are saying?
Yes, it evokes and insures me that the type of "normalizer" he's aiming at is that of vassal to his superior.
There can be no "normalizer" relation possible, the Quran teaches us that and on top of that their ideology has alienated all and anywhere they settled. Although the Quran affirm that but also verified historical records too. الزلة و المسكنة
With all due respect sir, it's pretty nonsensical for people to behave as if it's an open question whether it's acceptable for muslim community leaders to attend conciliatory talks with the ADL. The ADL has been such a vigorous lobbier for the Israeli security apparatus and has engaged in information campaigning for decades on behalf of Israeli crimes with such fervor as to be a parastatal organization de facto, if not de jure. The ADL exercises tremendous pull with the Jewish diaspora in America in favor of Israel's interests, the same diaspora that Israel spends so much money and man-hours trying to sway because of the enormous importance it has for them both economically and politically. So no, I do not at all hold it within the confines of acceptable conduct for someone billing themself as an islamic community leader to go and sit down to tea with these people who have and continue to do everything in their power to see our people in palestine killed in the tens of thousands and expelled from our homes in the millions.
Is there a different word you would use to express your outrage and feelings of betrayal? Normalizing seems almost neutral no?
Last time someone called a ‘normalizer’ by an appropriate term, they were condemned, threatened with a lawsuit, thrown out of the Whatsapp group for conduct unbecoming for a Muslim social media platform. I think normalizer can be safely used for people on the ADL A-list, those who do business with the Mosad, and Muslim Zionists in general. Your Muslim brothers cannot threaten to drag you into court for this.
Personally I don't use the word normalizer on this specific question because I've not given much thought to the implications of it, but there is potent enough evil in the world that cozying up to it instead of drawing a clear line and taking a principled position against it is both sufficiently repulsive and blameworthy
So my purpose with the tread was understanding the language used here. SHY used the term but seemed confused about what it meant. He never normalized anything? You can normalize good things too no?
You surely understand that broadening the word to any subject nullifies that usage of the word in the first place. What he is doing is objectively furthering normalization according to the obvious drfinition and if he were to deny believing that, I don't know of another word in response but gross negligence
The word is already broad and not especially stinging, though its clear the term has had enough an effect on SHY that he commented on it.
Anti-Defamation League purports itself to be a combatant of antisemitism. We know they have a checkered history with some questionable decisions but nonetheless simply talking to them does not make you a "normalizer". Normalizer should only specifically mean those completely in favor of Muslim countries (UAE, KSA, etc) normalizing relations with the State of Israel. So unless he's been vocally pushing that, he's not one. Simple as that. If you dislike him or even hate him for other reasons, that's fine and your right, but also a separate discussion.
So say hypothetically a Muslim leader (not SHY), in the US goes to an interfaith event and sings the Israeli national anthem and gives a speech about the importance of Zionism to the Jewish people. He does not advocate for anyone opening diplomatic relations with Israel. How would you describe such a leader?
We should not be talking about hating anyone here if that would not be acceptable. We may have disagreements with people regarding the words they speak, the positions they take and the language they use in order to present their positions, but we should try not to hate others and even curb dislike as much as a humanly possible. I personally do not have any animosity toward anyone as far as I know, but that does not mean that I agree with everyone either. Ultimately, none of us have all of the answers and thus this should keep us in a state of humility. I think I am right but I may be wrong and I am open to being corrected is the attitude that we should have.
I guess my question is, well respected by who? He seems to be more of a showman than anything. I think is high level of eloquence and intellect blinds people to his many problems. We cannot overlook the fact that he is white and that many people think that because one is white then they are right. If he were a person of color he would not get off with many of the things that he says. But Muslims don't like to talk like this because it makes them uncomfortable.
Do you think he gets away with more than other Imams would get away with because he is white?
I wonder about this, since there are many white Imams who have nothing like the public platform of a SHY.
Then there is Imam Muhamad Magid, who has views nearly identical to SHY and appears in the same meetings (he is pictured in the ADL tweet), seems to have a similar philosophy. He seems to have lots of support from his community.
Mine is a generalized statement, of course, and one could always find exceptions. I'm not familiar with Muhammad Magid. We are most certainly a very diverse bunch and will never agree on several issues. It has a lot to do with when one came into Islam, as well as the teachers they were exposed to. I have been Muslim for 30 years whereas many of these newer Muslims may have altogether different views than mine.
Thks S. Your comment is gentle. For me, all what’s happening on UAE soil (2nd Israel) is questionable. Unfortunately HY represents the new Sufi that accept any normalization without any resistance. Shame. Free free Palestine from the river to the sea ;)
Normalization is exactly the right term.
Not only should we not normalize the Zionist Entity, we should not normalize monarchies like UAE & KSA & dictatorships like Egypt & mass black incarceration in USA & denial of rights to migrants & ecological destruction & poverty - ok, you get the idea.
I was never really into these conferences, but I used to think, 'there may be a problem with "Sidi culture."' Is going to weekend conferences and talking about Sidi Amr & Sidi Zayd still a thing?
If someone is engaging in betrayal, normalizer seems like a pretty mild term no?
Can you elaborate how one can avoid normalizing those things?
Sh Hamza Yusuf is a very influential scholar in the west
Mr. Yusuf's talks are mostly about himself, mostly defensive. He comes off as narcissistic.
The younger Muslim generation are hungry for a legit firm Muslim leadership, not just "good speakers" and fancy preachers.
Actions speak louder than words. Practice what you preach.
Instead of engaging the hecklers, he starts a rant defending himself quoting hadith and ayaat we've heard a million times, diverting from the main issue: CHILDREN ARE DYING IN GAZA!
Sitting down with even the worst of the enemies should not be taken as a sign of acceptance of the enemy's ideologies and beliefs. Normalizing, in my extremely limited scope of knowledge, would be to accept the current state of the Palestinians and not working towards safeguarding the fundamental rights of our Muslim brethren, wherever they may be, be it Palestine, Rohingya or China. Simply meeting with the ADL, and not having any information about the content of their discussion, would not make one a normalizer. Overall, I would like to have good thoughts of all of my Muslim brethren, especially someone who is a highly respected scholar of Islam [by his contemporaries] and I would not change this opinion unless I came across proof which would make me think otherwise and I would actively not go out of my way looking for such proof.
Thank you for your comment. Normalizing is a term that seems to be adopted from state to state diplomatic relations. The photo was when SHY had an official position with the UAE government, which would later open diplomatic relations with Israel. I know the story is a bit more complex but the meeting has that historical context.
Also, what do you think of his position giving away part of the waqf (what he called “the Temple Mount” for a synagogue, and his repeated opposition to any Palestinian resistance?
Again, I admit ignorance to the circumstances of that picture and to most of how SHY has led his life or what his views are on various things. I only know of good from him.
If that is truly his position to give away part of the waqf to build a synagogue and if that building does NOT involve demolishing any part of the Masjid and it will lead to peaceful cohabitation between the Jews & the Muslims, it is a fair call. But it is my understanding that it is within the Jewish tradition to rebuild the Temple of Solomon and the proposed boundaries of the Temple include almost the entire al-Aqsa complex. So they can not build the third temple without demolishing al-Aqsa and that should never be acceptable to Muslims.
For the second question: if that is truly his position that Palestinians should not resist against the Israeli occupation, I would say that he is entitled to that opinion. I am sure he is trying to look at it from a position of wisdom than rights. Palestinians have the right to fight back and claim what is theirs. But, if they were to be patient upon the oppression done against them, surely that would be immensely rewarded as well. And there are numerous verses advocating for patience over and over again. And certainly, the Prophet and his companions showed patience, rather than resistance, in much of the Makkan period when they were clearly at a disadvantage. So if we were to compare the life of the Prophet and the companions in the Makkan era with the Palestinian situation today, one can easily see why being patient might be the better option.
If you take a look at below book, you will note that the shaykh has historically had somewhat quietest tendencies. That does not mean though he does not advocate for domestic political priorities. See chapter 2 where there's a interesting reference to his online discussion with Jordan Peterson.
edinburghuniversitypress.com/pub/media/ebooks/9781399502795.pdf
I agree with the original commentator that we do not know what transpired at the meeting. Also we should sometimes expect our community leaders to participate in these discussions (and to respectfully disagree with their viewpoints). If they don't others who may not necessarily represent our community (see Zuhdi Jasser) will
Should Muslims be concerned about treachery by Muslim leaders at all? Or just ignore such concerns?
Muslims should always be wise. We assume the best of our Muslim brothers and leaders but never blindly trust them with everything. Because everyone can slip and fall. Muslims should privately admonish the leaders whenever they slip. That is part of our faith to admonish evil, wherever we see it.
Privately is unlikely for distant public figures. If you wanted to privatily admonish Muhammad Bin Salman, how would you go about accomplishing this?
normalisation with zionists is an UAE objective
question is who does HY serve?
The below book (esp. chapters 7 & 8) highlight the history and philosophy behind the shaykh's worldview.
edinburghuniversitypress.com/pub/media/ebooks/9781399502795.pdf
This article is an epitome of decontextualization & misrepresentation!! In that picture Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, our very own Imam Mohamed Magid(Adams, Sterling VA) & an older sheikh are meeting with Jews. NOT every Jew is a Zionist. I don’t see a single flag of Israel.
If you have doubts - then look up the position of Rabbi Weiss of the Neturei Karta. They stand against the state of Israel & believe in peaceful deconstruction of the state of Israel. They show up at every single Pro-Palestinian demonstration, including the largest rally in DC & promote the cause of Palestinians. In Israel they work to free unjustly prisoned Palestinian. They all ARE Jews and NOT every Jew is a Zionist!!
Jews are NOT our enemy!! Zionists are the true enemy of Islam & Palestine! There are far more Jews standing up for Palestinian rights than Muslims.
It is out of sheer ignorance, people are spreading this misinformation. There is no excuse for Ignorance. Allah gave us the faculties to read, learn & become educated. Ignorance will surely lead to the doom of Muslims.
Brother - educate yourself before you spread misinformation!
You know who they were sitting with? You know it was opponents of Israel?
Is it your position that every man wearing a Kippah is out destroy Palestine or promote the destruction of Palestine?
Do you know who the other attendees were - the ones wearing Kippah? Do you know what was discussed at this meeting? Where/when this meeting was held?
The questions I am asking are to provide context! Without context, I can take a picture of you and make it out to be something its not.
Ahh so you missed the tweet the photo was attached to. It was from the ADL, that was the ADL team. That is a Zionist organization that has done much to support the oppression of Palestinians and curtail civil liberties for Muslims in the United States in service of that oppression. Hope that helps you!
I share your sentiment of ADL and thank you for the context. Correct me if I am wrong, but the tweet seems to be from 2018(December 16, 2018)?
https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1070773889704312833?lang=en
Is this the same tweet/image or a different, on your post?
Yes it is from 2018.
A "normalizer," in our context, is one who endorses or advocates for normal, friendly, economic and/or political or defense relations with Israel. It may or may not include recognizing the Israel as a state. Sh. Hamza is clearly a normalizer in this case because his view is Islamically we should do whatever the ruler of UAE says to do, and the ruler of UAE wants and has normalized relations with the Israeli regime.
The next issue is whether normalization is good or bad Islamically, but I take it that is a separate discussion than the question you raise here.
I find Sh. Hamza's views on Masjid Al Aqsa completely outrageous and dangerous, and that may affect the issue of whether he should be classified as a normalizer. The alim at the alislam productions youtube channel provide a good discussion re the matter.
At what point is someone not a normalizer and simply a Zionist?
I think they are distinct conceptually. A Zionist is anyone that agrees with the political project of Zionism, which is that Palestine belongs to the Jews, or at least that Jews should control it. The borders of "Israel" include at the very least all of Jerusalem to the sea, and might extend all the way to "Greater Israel" including parts of present-day Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, etc. At the absolute minimum, Zionism is the belief that nonJews are second-class citizens, politically at least, in "Israel". There's also views about the coming of their Messiah, but I won't go into that here.
Normalization is a view about (external) relations with Israel or the Israeli regime by nonIsraeli actors. Whereas Zionism is a view about internal political relations within "Israel", so to speak, with supplemental views perhaps about the borders of "Israel."
So if a Sheykh refers to the “Temple Mount”what does that signify to you?
https://youtube.com/shorts/yPczdZwwBbo?feature=shared