The word "raid" is typically used to refer to a small, violent attack with the purpose of wounding, capturing, killing, or stealing from the person raided, or temporarily or permanently taking violent possession of a place.
Given how highly fraught the situation regarding Al-Aqsa is, with (as Gershom Gorenberg notes) three major religions having eschatological interests in the site, not to mention the numerous political stakeholders, local and via proxies, it seems important to keep our language clear and accurate.
Were the settlers on the Noble Sanctuary / Temple Mount armed? Did they inflict any physical wounds? Attempt to physically remove anything from the site, or remain there for any period of time? Did they make threatening gestures? Use threatening speech?
I understand that from the POV of a growing number of Israeli Jews, they should have the right to pray at a Jewish holy site within their own country, that from the POV of the senior rabbinate, at least thus far, this would be inappropriate for reasons of Jewish purity, that from the Muslim POV and that of the Waqf the site is sacred to Islam and under Waqf control, and that this control was probably originally, politically and perhaps wisely ceded to avoid a conflagration over the disputed site after the Israeli capture of 1967.
Acknowledging all of these factors, is it still accurate in your opinion to call the event a "raid" -- or is that perhaps a bit of a stretch?
In your concluding paras you write "The only way for this to turn out well is for the Shiites to treat the Tikritis as liberated compatriots, not as collaborators with Daesh or as Saddams’s kinsmen."
I am in search of a justification in Quran or ahadith for such an attitude. Would, for instance, Shia jurisprudence be able to cover the Tikiritis as among "those whose hearts are to be reconciled" and who are therefore able from a Qur'anic perspective to be supported by zakat (9:60)? I'm thinking of the Sunni discussion of this point and its continuing relevance in Jonathan Brown's book, Misquoting Muhammad, pp. 96-97:
The cryptic last group of Zakat recipients refers to the Meccan elite and the nobility of nearby tribes that had opposed the 'Prophet to the bitter end, embracing Islam only when its triumph became a foregone conclusion. In a decision that proved controversial even among his loyal followers, Muhammad decided to direct much of the spoils of war and charity collected to this group to help them retain their wealth, standing and thus their loyalty to their new community. It was a decision justified by the strategic fragility of the Muslims' situation.
Winning the loyalty of the defeated would seem to be a powerful approach. Could it be applied in the circumstances you describe?
Hello again, Dr. Cole:
The word "raid" is typically used to refer to a small, violent attack with the purpose of wounding, capturing, killing, or stealing from the person raided, or temporarily or permanently taking violent possession of a place.
Given how highly fraught the situation regarding Al-Aqsa is, with (as Gershom Gorenberg notes) three major religions having eschatological interests in the site, not to mention the numerous political stakeholders, local and via proxies, it seems important to keep our language clear and accurate.
Were the settlers on the Noble Sanctuary / Temple Mount armed? Did they inflict any physical wounds? Attempt to physically remove anything from the site, or remain there for any period of time? Did they make threatening gestures? Use threatening speech?
I understand that from the POV of a growing number of Israeli Jews, they should have the right to pray at a Jewish holy site within their own country, that from the POV of the senior rabbinate, at least thus far, this would be inappropriate for reasons of Jewish purity, that from the Muslim POV and that of the Waqf the site is sacred to Islam and under Waqf control, and that this control was probably originally, politically and perhaps wisely ceded to avoid a conflagration over the disputed site after the Israeli capture of 1967.
Acknowledging all of these factors, is it still accurate in your opinion to call the event a "raid" -- or is that perhaps a bit of a stretch?
Dr Cole, thank you for a most informative post:
In your concluding paras you write "The only way for this to turn out well is for the Shiites to treat the Tikritis as liberated compatriots, not as collaborators with Daesh or as Saddams’s kinsmen."
I am in search of a justification in Quran or ahadith for such an attitude. Would, for instance, Shia jurisprudence be able to cover the Tikiritis as among "those whose hearts are to be reconciled" and who are therefore able from a Qur'anic perspective to be supported by zakat (9:60)? I'm thinking of the Sunni discussion of this point and its continuing relevance in Jonathan Brown's book, Misquoting Muhammad, pp. 96-97:
The cryptic last group of Zakat recipients refers to the Meccan elite and the nobility of nearby tribes that had opposed the 'Prophet to the bitter end, embracing Islam only when its triumph became a foregone conclusion. In a decision that proved controversial even among his loyal followers, Muhammad decided to direct much of the spoils of war and charity collected to this group to help them retain their wealth, standing and thus their loyalty to their new community. It was a decision justified by the strategic fragility of the Muslims' situation.
Winning the loyalty of the defeated would seem to be a powerful approach. Could it be applied in the circumstances you describe?
With thanks and in peace.
If I'm hearing the voice over in that video clip correcttly, at 3.54 it says "It takes years to master the sixty-one chapters of the holy book..."
Aren't there 114 suras.