Jerusalem is an Arabic City?

[Ysa7al1Masih]

My point exactly. Thanks.

I have learned better.

Well you say that...

But clearly you don't know much TO know better and as usual rely on meaningless rhetoric to sooth your bruised ego rather than just admit that you are an irrational bigot who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting a specific religion without the knowledge to back it up.

Because that, had you said it, would be the truth.

Your idea of learning better is clearly the exact opposite of mine and includes defending to the very end your disgusting opinions and attitudes, remaining in denial of your own bigotry.

Not what I consider "learning better", more like searching for anything negative to convince yourself your bigotry is justified.

Which is just impossible and foolish of you. You don't even seem willing or capable of learning.

Did you peruse my links, read the book I recommended? Do you read anything but propaganda at all?

My guess is, no, you don't. You need someone to look down on because you are very low and know it, Islam is the target of convenience, the easiest thing to insult and relieve your misery.

Which is just plain cowardice. You are too scared to learn about Islam because you know if you do you will KNOW that it is not what your ridiculous idea of it is, and you don't want to be wrong because you don't want to admit you are a bigot.

Had I requested proof that you were unwilling to learn better, meaning the truth, I could ask for no more than this statement of yours, which though I didn't ask as I didn't need proof as I already have plenty, I thank you nonetheless, be though your idea of learning better is a farce and the opposite of the truth and of my idea of learning better, your confession that you did learn better and this being your justification for bigotry, happens to be a confession of your bigotry and the fact that you have no intentions of studying Islam or meeting any Muslims, because you are afraid of the truth that you, deep down, know is true...

You only 'learn' what you want to be true, and ignore what is, in reality, true, by avoiding all information that does not appear to you to justify bigotry.

 

[Augustus]

You realize that Semitic means a descendant of Shem, which includes the descendants of Assyria, all Ishmaelites, and not just Israelites, right?

Yes, but scientific evidence doesn't really support that theory.

Arabic is a Semitic language from a Semitic culture, and are, factually speaking, Semitic, a fact that I have never heard anyone educated deny.

Here you are calling it ridiculous based on some chart. It's simply a fact and not something any reasonable person debates,that Arabs are Semites.

As I said, Semitic is a linguistic marker not a genetic one.

"Some chart" = a scientific comparison of the actual genetic markers of actual people (peer-reviewed scientific article is linked to).

Whatever an ME Jew is, I don't know, but if you are talking about Ashkenazi it is ridiculous to assume they are Semitic, though logically some have to have some Semitic blood, largely they do not and treat the Sephardic, Mizrahi Semitic Jews as second class citizens, as well as Ethiopian.

ME Jew = Middle Eastern Jew.

Given that a Semite is anyone from a culture that speaks a Semitic Language, they are factually speaking, Semitic. Scientifically, there is no such thing as 'Semitic blood'.

Hijazi Arabs and ME Jews are not particularly closely related genetically. ME Jews are more closely related to Greeks and Levantines than they are to Arabs.

Modern genetic studies can tell us these things after all.

What is your reasoning for dismissing them out of hand?

They are infiltrators of powerful organizations, and do it regularly, it's how they acquired so much power and wealth. And continue to do so.

Hehe sneaky cabals of wealthy Jews pulling the strings eh? How original...

They probably fakes the genetic studies I suppose? The 21st century heirs of those devious scribes...

Svi's conversion led to a large false conversation to Islam by many in Turkey who are called Donmeh, Ataturk himself claimed to be a descendant of Svi, and this is how the Ottoman Empire was taken down, Ataturk was a general for the Ottomans who secretly worked for Britain vis Masonic networks, Masonry being the factor that unites all these crazies and plagues the Middle East so.

Good grief. Jews and Freemasons. Are the lizard people next?

What's fascinating is that the Prophet (saw) predicted this would happen, that false converts would conquer Constantinople in the Last Days by saying "There is no god but God" and do so without a fight, which is exactly how Ataturk became a player in the Ottoman Empire, and the Donmeh, who were secretly running the show before WW1.

He also predicted that 70,000 "sons of Isaac (Jacob and Esau/Edom)" would come to power at the same time, fascinating because the Jews used to call Byzantium, Turkey today, "Edom" and many people today call Ashkenazi Edom its.

Give me a minute to find the Hadith. Please.

What is fascinating is that these end of days hadiths feature the long defunct Byzantine Empire and medieval armies. Now, I suppose these could return, but until we see the rise of the Byzantines, and massed ranks of soldiers fighting with swords, we can probably sleep pretty easily.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well you say that...

That I do. It is about time, too.

But clearly you don't know much TO know better and as usual rely on meaningless rhetoric to sooth your bruised ego rather than just admit that you are an irrational bigot who spends an inordinate amount of time insulting a specific religion without the knowledge to back it up.

Because that, had you said it, would be the truth.

Uh, no. It would be quite the lie, as a matter of fact.

Spare me of your bigotry, will you?

Your idea of learning better is clearly the exact opposite of mine and includes defending to the very end your disgusting opinions and attitudes, remaining in denial of your own bigotry.

Physician, heal thyself.

Not what I consider "learning better", more like searching for anything negative to convince yourself your bigotry is justified.

Which is just impossible and foolish of you. You don't even seem willing or capable of learning.

Did you peruse my links, read the book I recommended? Do you read anything but propaganda at all?

Did you miss my post asking what you recommend those links for?

I have wasted quite a fair chunk of my life already listening to substanceless Muslim apologetics, much of it incredibly naive and redundant, when not all-out misinformed.

At some point I have to ask people to go directly to the point, if they have any.

My guess is, no, you don't. You need someone to look down on because you are very low and know it, Islam is the target of convenience, the easiest thing to insult and relieve your misery.

Which is just plain cowardice. You are too scared to learn about Islam because you know if you do you will KNOW that it is not what your ridiculous idea of it is, and you don't want to be wrong because you don't want to admit you are a bigot.

Fortunately for us both, I am well aware of how unqualified to opine about me you are.

Take care.

 

[rosends]

You proud of yourself for saying that?

No. Do you impute emotions often?

That's actually an idiom that applies to television shows, originally Happy Days, because Fonzy literally jumped a shark.

Gosh! Really? I had no idea. I'm so glad I have you to explain things to me. You see, without you, I have no idea what I am talking about and you are so clearly an expert on everything.

It has no use in this instance, and my statement is still true, cornball rhetoric is not going to change reality or alter history.

Actually, it does. Your constant blather had skirted the realm of the ridiculous but with that stupid claim, it crossed the line, went off the rails, jumped the shark and a few other idioms as it descended into uselessness. Are you proud of that?

You proud of yourself for saying that? I don't think you had a real point to make and all you wanted to do was comment so rather than quote me you manually typed what I said and then said the equivalent of saying, "durrr, I make fun of people who know facts and repeat them and pretend they are not relevant, are played out."

Not exactly -- I was only pointing out a particular thing and it was more efficient to copy and paste than to quote and delete everything around it. And since you are so clearly lacking in the ability to hold a coherent conversation, the reply function seemed overkill. But lo and behold you seem insistent on ranting directly to me so I'm responding in no uncertain terms about how wrong you are. And I doubt that you were thinking about anything.

Ridiculous much?

No Buffy. I'm five by five. Go look that one up.

Tell me how history, always important (those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it, I believe is true)

Do you often poorly paraphrase Santayana? It is a bad habit to have. You should try and stop.

You equate real life with sitcoms? How odd.

You think that using a figure of speech equates two things? How bizarre.

I guess it's not facts of history season for you and despite the fact you don't like what I said you do know it's true and deep down how ridiculous you are for saying what you did.

No, I was so shocked at your hatred and stupidity. You can reassure yourself that I must feel a certain way so as to self-validate if that works for you. Pathetic, but your choice.

And if you aren't aware of the history of which I speak, or think it isn't true, I feel sorry for you because Judah HaLevi wrote a legendary account of the conversion of King Bulon, which you should learn, and can on YouTube from the Jews themselves, and Muslim history also has recorded history referring to the Khazars converting to Judaism as well.

You can choose your conspiracy theories. You can also learn about the Kuzari and what it actually was instead of misrepresenting it so poorly. The fact that you write of it this way means you know nothing about it. I can wait while you look it up in an actual book...or you could just rely on youtube videos to educate you.

What are you a Zionist sympathizer?

Yes and no.

Due to the tremendous wealth and power of influence by these Sabbateans and Frankists, Donmeh, having grown since the 1600's, your statement deserves ridicule as being so removed from reality I have to wonder if you are even aware of the difference between up and down, as more, not less, people are interested in this than ever and more people know than ever, I also wonder what makes you utter the foolish, non applicable and if was factually untrue anyway, statement that you did.

You might want to learn English before you try writing stuff.

Others like information and don't attempt to ridicule others for saying truly relevant facts, and this IS relevant and you not enjoying it being said is just your worthless opinion, as it is far from being "canceled", to borrow from your genre of idioms and metaphors, and a subject of interest to a huge amount of people.

Except you provide no information. You made a claim and then devolved into a conspiracy theory. You invoke the idea of false messiah-claimants and then turn that into normative and mainstream Judaism. Next you connect the religion to standard medieval stereotypes.

Facts do not jump sharks, the begin as facts and stay that way, the truth does not go 'out of style' or get 'canceled' because people are no longer interested.

No, but conversations do, especially when they move from being remotely on point to completely ridiculous. The fact that you can't see how a phrase in English works and how it is applied provides perfect context for the rest of your inaccuracies. Your repetition and uninformed vitriol are mildly amusing (which explains why I have stuck around this long) but they grow tiresome as you fail to say anything meaningful and simply keep spinning your wheels..

And who but a Zionist or sympathizer would say that history is not popular or relevant or whatever you intended to convey when you thought,

So you admit you didn't understand what I was saying. This means that any conclusion you drew from it would be based in ignorance. Well proven.

When you grow up and start to think, reconsider what you have read and written. You'll be amazed at how your ignorance and poorly structured language make you look foolish.

 

[whitemulberries]

I presumed it to be roughly comparable to Christianity, but somewhat harder to learn and understand due to cultural and linguistic differences.

I also assumed it to be divided into many movements, some of which would be very difficult to compare with others (because such is the case with Christianity).

For the same reason, I also assumed it to be taken with wildly varying degrees of commitment even inside specific families.

While none of those assumptions proved exactly wrong, all turned out to be severe underestimations of the particularity of Islaam.

Okay, so in what ways do you feel that Islam differs from Christianity in relation to each of your above points?

 

[YmirGF]

Not just the Qur'an, every Prophet ever sent gave clear warnings to unbelievers, and what awaits them in the hereafter.

I believe you already accept there are Samsaric beings that communicate from the Heavens, (Jinn) but think after death, Billions of people have been reborn in a ongoing cycle, as you think this life is purely something we experience to better ourselves when we are reborn. I've shown there is little to no evidence of anyone being reborn, let alone Billions of people, so then the Abrahamic narrative of this life being a test, at the end of which Judgement awaits leading to heaven or hell must be something to consider, whether you like the prospect or not.

You don't seem to understand the things I believe very well. When have I said that Samsaric beings communicate from the heavens? As to the ideas of reincarnation. I do not subscribe to the reincarnation you can read about in a book. Mine is quite different, in that all lives are lived simultaneously in the spacious present of a larger multidimensional reality. You are talking about the linear variant that I do not subscribe to and agree that it is unreasonable.

Last, I dismiss the idea of life being a test, rather, I see it more as an experiment, of a grand "what if" scenario we willingly put ourselves into to see if we will sink or swim. The only judgment I perceive is that of the self examining how well they did against the odds while playing in the field of all probabilities. There is no downside to this. There is no hell for failures. In reality, failure is actually the greatest teacher, as we tend to learn from our mistakes. Islam robs one of this because everything is fixed and left in the hands of a fickle god who may or many not approve of your actions - regardless of your intent.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, so in what ways do you feel that Islam differs from Christianity in relation to each of your above points?

Thanks for asking.

Islaam is quite unlike Christianity in that it is indeed rather imersive ("a complete way of life", as often pointed out) to an extent that is unusual for Christianity in the current times. Theocracy is simply not very often a goal among most current Christians - and we are all better off for that.

It is also rather, shall I say, inimical to true questioning. Muslims tend to have a lot of reluctance to show actual interpretations of their doctrine and to defer almost automatically to their religious authorities or to the Qur'an itself. Even Christians don't really have so much of that habit in these days.



As for divisions, there are of course dozens of subgroups among Muslims, the most obvious division being that of Sunnis and Shias. But while those divisions are often bitter and have led to a lot of rudeness, disregard, political and military confrontation through the centuries, their actual basis of disagreement are remarkably feeble to the point of practical irrelevance. Except that Muslim communities crave well-defined values and parameters at all times, and very often end up rising passions for frankly risible reasons.

If Muslims don't always see each other eye to eye, it is far less due to any significant matters of difference of interpretation of doctrine as such (which are far as I can tell consistently minor) than because the doctrine itself is so insistently judgmental and divisive, always telling people what is worth and what is not, in terms whose enlightment and discernment are rather unimpressive today, and apparently not too good even 1400 years ago (if the known history of the Fitnas is any indication).



As for levels of dedication, they sure vary a lot... but Muslim culture seems to be utterly unprepared to even acknowledge that, let alone deal with it constructively. The insistence on lazy, simplistic, unperceptive directives causes a number of impossible dilemmas.

Muslims "must always side with each other" and "are not entitled to judge who counts as a true Muslim (presumably because only God would have that authority)", therefore they doom themselves to unnecessary, destructive guilts, covert intrigue and hipocrisy for fear of actually exposing and resolving their differences of doctrine and practice.

That leads to a very poor form of piety, if it is piety at all. And then there is the direct refusal to even acknowledge that god-beliefs are both optional and multiple in valid forms.

All things told, Islaam is a rather impressive doctrine, in all the wrong ways. It almost seems to have been specifically designed to hinder people's ability to understand or practice religion.

 

[Muslim-UK]

You don't seem to understand the things I believe very well.

That's because you've never fully explained to me what you actually believe. All I understand is, it's a form of Hinduism, hence assumptions on my part of Samsaric beings and reincarnation. Thanks for explaining that your beliefs are even more complex than linear existence.

You state that all reincarnated lives are lived simultaneously, (which is a paradox as reincarnation is not the same as simultaneous existence by the very definition). Where's the evidence for that and what is the goal? What that also naturally does, is make me ask you 'Why? Why is it necessary to constrain the time frame? What purpose is served that you live simultaneous lives, that you remain unconscious of the lessons learned, therefore, not benefiting from the learned experience, which in turn means, you do not enhance or grow, or adapt and become 'more'? What purpose do those further lives serve? That resembles Groundhog Day, except without the benefit of the hindsight experience. You've acknowledged the conventional idea of being reincarnated time and time again to live life as a experience is unreasonable and makes little sense, yet, this is the exact same premise served in a different time format .

We are clearly swimming in a sea of hypothesis, 'what ifs' and have to reflect on how well we handled the situations. I am asking, for what purpose??? Everything you have described alludes to a purpose, then that must by defninition also suggest a conclusion. so what is the purpose of existence according to you? What brings any meaning, purpose, or increase, to your ideas? In fact, they have less credibility than the linear model of reincarnation, which we already acknowledge is inherently flawed due to the lack of benefit from having gone through any part of the process, repetitively... Isn't it reasonable to state, the only life that makes sense, is the linear life lived in the singular, which enables the person to grow, change, and become better, more informed, and reach a significant reason for being. this path literally changes the lives of people and impacts not only on self, but also society as a whole, with people investing in each other, caring for each other, and helping each other reach the intended goal. This is not only possible, but what we see actually, actively, happening in the actual world we live in. People do have the ability to think, to change, and to discover themselves, and the life purpose, there is also reward for recognition of God and the purpose of life, which is to worship Him, to submit to Him and to receive upon resurrection, reward or punishment, mercy or condemnation according to that life lived. And that necessitates that involved in the weighing of that life must be every facet including intentions, actions, extenuating circumstances, and recognition that life serves a meaningful purpose and carried a meaningful conclusion, with a meaningful outcome.

What you propose does not make sense. To me, I can see the beginnings of a meaningful scientific experiment, but it is flawed and incomplete. The actual reason, the point, the purpose, the focus, the intended outcome are all missing. So, that means, there is no reason for it to take place at all. You have to concede, there must be a purpose behind it in order for it to be necessary or to take place? Especially the way you describe.

Islam robs one of this because everything is fixed and left in the hands of a fickle god who may or many not approve of your actions - regardless of your intent.

Earlier you stated, "I've read the Qur'an many times, read countless dissertations about what it all means, endless fatwa's as well as innumerable hadiths and have engaged Muslims since 9/11/2001."
Yet you seem to know very little of even the basics of the Religion...
Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab radhiAllahu ‘anhu:

I heard Allah’s Messenger salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying,

“The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for.”

Buhkari Vol 1, Book 1, Hadeeth 1

I sincerely want you to have a good life, and I would suggest, not for me, but for you, to actually do what you claim to have done already.

 

[YmirGF]

That's because you've never fully explained to me what you actually believe. All I understand is, it's a form of Hinduism, hence assumptions on my part of Samsaric beings and reincarnation. Thanks for explaining that your beliefs are even more complex than linear existence.

You state that all reincarnated lives are lived simultaneously, (which is a paradox as reincarnation is not the same as simultaneous existence by the very definition). Where's the evidence for that and what is the goal? What that also naturally does, is make me ask you 'Why? Why is it necessary to constrain the time frame? What purpose is served that you live simultaneous lives, that you remain unconscious of the lessons learned, therefore, not benefiting from the learned experience, which in turn means, you do not enhance or grow, or adapt and become 'more'? What purpose do those further lives serve? That resembles Groundhog Day, except without the benefit of the hindsight experience. You've acknowledged the conventional idea of being reincarnated time and time again to live life as a experience is unreasonable and makes little sense, yet, this is the exact same premise served in a different time format .

We are clearly swimming in a sea of hypothesis, 'what ifs' and have to reflect on how well we handled the situations. I am asking, for what purpose??? Everything you have described alludes to a purpose, then that must by defninition also suggest a conclusion. so what is the purpose of existence according to you? What brings any meaning, purpose, or increase, to your ideas? In fact, they have less credibility than the linear model of reincarnation, which we already acknowledge is inherently flawed due to the lack of benefit from having gone through any part of the process, repetitively... Isn't it reasonable to state, the only life that makes sense, is the linear life lived in the singular, which enables the person to grow, change, and become better, more informed, and reach a significant reason for being. this path literally changes the lives of people and impacts not only on self, but also society as a whole, with people investing in each other, caring for each other, and helping each other reach the intended goal. This is not only possible, but what we see actually, actively, happening in the actual world we live in. People do have the ability to think, to change, and to discover themselves, and the life purpose, there is also reward for recognition of God and the purpose of life, which is to worship Him, to submit to Him and to receive upon resurrection, reward or punishment, mercy or condemnation according to that life lived. And that necessitates that involved in the weighing of that life must be every facet including intentions, actions, extenuating circumstances, and recognition that life serves a meaningful purpose and carried a meaningful conclusion, with a meaningful outcome.

What you propose does not make sense. To me, I can see the beginnings of a meaningful scientific experiment, but it is flawed and incomplete. The actual reason, the point, the purpose, the focus, the intended outcome are all missing. So, that means, there is no reason for it to take place at all. You have to concede, there must be a purpose behind it in order for it to be necessary or to take place? Especially the way you describe.


Earlier you stated, "I've read the Qur'an many times, read countless dissertations about what it all means, endless fatwa's as well as innumerable hadiths and have engaged Muslims since 9/11/2001."
Yet you seem to know very little of even the basics of the Religion...
Narrated ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab radhiAllahu ‘anhu:

I heard Allah’s Messenger salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam saying,

“The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for.”

Buhkari Vol 1, Book 1, Hadeeth 1

I sincerely want you to have a good life, and I would suggest, not for me, but for you, to actually do what you claim to have done already.

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. Our new friend, @Ysa7al1Masih would do well to take pointers from you on how to converse.

That said, due to my answers being seriously off-topic, you could post this as a new thread in the General Discussions forum. Then others could kick the living crap out of me too. I'm such a glut for punishment.

If you create a new thread, and tag me @YmirGF I will respond in detail with answers to your quite thoughtful comments and questions.

 

[whitemulberries]

Thanks for asking.

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Islaam is quite unlike Christianity in that it is indeed rather imersive ("a complete way of life", as often pointed out)

Not every Muslim subscribes to this point of view (I happen to).

to an extent that is unusual for Christianity in the current times. Theocracy is simply not very often a goal among most current Christians - and we are all better off for that.

But Christianity has had these features in the past. So these apparent differences between Christianity and Islam are not inherent to Christianity.

Muslims tend to have a lot of reluctance to show actual interpretations of their doctrine and to defer almost automatically to their religious authorities or to the Qur'an itself.

Sad but true, I'll give you this one.

But while those divisions are often bitter and have led to a lot of rudeness, disregard, political and military confrontation through the centuries, their actual basis of disagreement are remarkably feeble to the point of practical irrelevance.

Which disagreements in particular are you referring to here?

Muslims "must always side with each other"

Nope. As history has shown.

"are not entitled to judge who counts as a true Muslim (presumably because only God would have that authority)",

We are, just we must be cautious because we could be wrong (we are not God, as you say) and should be even more cautious about how we treat people who appear not to be true Muslims to us.

And then there is the direct refusal to even acknowledge that god-beliefs are both optional and multiple in valid forms.

I'm not completely sure what you mean here. My position is this: for me, my belief in God is absolutely fundamental and I cannot conceive of an alternative (though I have tried). It certainly doesn't feel optional to me. But I can, in a more abstract, theoretical kind of way, see how there are in principle alternatives that have a certain validity to them, not least in that others can hold to these alternative positions in just as strong a way as I hold to mine. And I cannot absolutely say that I have access to the Ultimate Truth (if there is such a thing), so I could be wrong.

 

[Flankerl]

Whatever an ME Jew is, I don't know, but if you are talking about Ashkenazi it is ridiculous to assume they are Semitic, though logically some have to have some Semitic blood, largely they do not and treat the Sephardic, Mizrahi Semitic Jews as second class citizens, as well as Ethiopian.

I love how Muslims act as if Israeli society didn't change since the 80s.

You are trying to set them as an example for your side, there is only one problem. While it is true that Mizrahim were discriminated against they still preferred that over living under Muslim rule.
Mizrahim hate Muslims more than any other group in Israel, with the exception of perhaps the Beta Israel. They hate you because they suffered under your rule.
Meanwhile you Muslims hate the evil "white" Ashkenazim while they largely make up any group that is sympathetic to your cause.

Absolutely hilarious.

Oh and time has moved on. From my relatives in Israel every single one from my families side has married either a Sephardim, Mizrahim and one from the Beta Israel. Though we usually call them by their names.

New That taken care of I do wish to make clear that Ashkenazi Jews who are sincere in their religion, are legitimate Jews as Judaism does accept converts, and used to proselytize.

That's not up for you to decide. As a matter of fact none of your opinions matter.

I don't have a problem with Dhimmi Jews

Fixed that for you.

"A lot of so called Jews are not actually religious Jews, most often they are Ashkenazi, and Sabbateans or Frankist, a sect that believes that sin is a Mitzvah started by pseudo Messiah Sabbatai Svi in the 1600's. Later lead by Jacob Frank who led his followers to convert to Catholicism.

They are infiltrators of powerful organizations, and do it regularly, it's how they acquired so much power and wealth. And continue to do so. "

As if the shark hadn't been jumped already.

TIL Sabbateans and Frankists were still around.
And of course the evil fake Jews, the Ashkenazim! It even has Nazi in it!

Why are new Muslim members always like this?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Example :Your ignorant statement suggesting that Muslims have any control over the Palestinians to, and are, use them as "a political football" which is not a thing, and only someone who has no clue of reality would say,works perfectly.

That was me that said that, smart one, not Luis. I hope you don't think I'm going to read all that hatefilled, ridiculous ranting.

 

[74x12]

In this BBC video the Arabic man says "Jerusalem is an Arabic City and will remain one forever" and goes on to say "you cannot erase history" as if he thinks the city has always been an Arabic city and always will be forever. So if that's not calling the kettle black and rewriting the history of the Jews. By this poll do you believe Jerusalem has always been an Arabic City and will forever be, answer the poll true. If you believe Jerusalem was once a Jewish city and will be again answer false to the poll.

Iranians rally against Trump's Jerusalem move, burn US flags

It was a Jebusite city(they were a tribe of Canaanites) and before that probably a Shemite city. (Shem was probably Melchizedek king of "Salem" which is Jerusalem in the time of Abraham.) Then it became a Shemite city again when David made it his capital. David called the city "Jerusalem" which means foundation of peace. This likely means that David knew of the city Salem(peace) and so when he took it; he simply called it what it was. The old foundation of the original city Salem. Hence the name Jerusalem. The Jebusites themselves did not call it Jerusalem. They called it Jebus after one of their most prominent ancestors. I don't see at all the argument that it was always an Arabic city. It's no more an Arabic city than it is a Byzantine city. In fact the Byzantines/Romans ruled the city longer than the Arabs. So much for it being an Arabic city. The Arabs only took the city in the so called middle ages. The city has been there a lot longer than that.