The United Nations has no right to change a religion's Holy Sites based on Politics
Debate Rounds (4)
I absolutely believe that the idea of a religious Holy Site comes from the history of that Holy Site. Since the changing of a Jewish Holy Site into a Muslim one, it seems that a lot more religious tension and violence will rise from this issue (http://www.israelnationalnews.com...). The reason why Rachel's Tomb is so important to the Jewish faith is because she was considered the wife of Abraham and is also known to be the Eve of the Jewish Ethnicity.
The idea of a holy site to be changed based on current events and geopolitics has no right to be that way. First of all I believe a holy site should be opened to anyone who wishes to gain a cultural experience but due to the political and religious hatreds throughout the Middle East, it seems everyone wants to claim each holy site like as if it was a piece of property that anyone can claim. The basic foundation of a "Holy Site" is that it is holy to a particular group who has had a long history with it.
Just like how Mecca, the city itself, is considered a "Holy Site" to all Muslims throughout the world. However if there was a proposal passed by the United Nations to make it an Christian Evangelical Holy Site, you would see outrage throughout the Muslim World. The idea of having the Western Wall, the Cave of Patriarchs, and the Tomb of Sarah is much more complicated then just politics. There are millions of Jews throughout the whole world who go to these Holy Sites wishing for Peace of Mind. Changing these rights not only damages a religious belief but is also infringes on human rights.
As for the Al Aqsa Mosque is very much an Islamic Holy Site. In Fact, Al Aqsa Mosque is under the guard of Jordan and has declared they will not allow Israel to interfere (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com...).
However, this small part of human history can not be the whole justification to identify 6,000 years of history with Judaism to say it is part of Islam now. Islam's claim to the Western Wall is this, the Prophet Muhammad rode a winged animal known as the Buraq through the night (http://www.islamiclandmarks.com...).
My question though is this, besides the idea of a spiritual presence, when has Muhammad physically stepped foot near the Western Wall? Not by the Caliph Omar but Muhammad himself. Not only that but from the website I have found not once does it ever give a specific date of Muhammad ever going to the Western Wall. Although it clearly tells of the Caliph Omar going there in 638 AD, it has no date for Muhammad's ascension with the Winged Animal known as the Buraq (http://www.templemount.org...).
From the website the passage states:
"According to the received account, Muhammad was on this occasion mounted on the winged steed called Al Burak "the Lightning" and, with the angel Gabriel for escort, was carried from Makkah (Mecca), first to Sinai, and then to Bethlehem, after which they came to Jerusalem. "And when we reached Bait al Makdis, the Holy City," so runs the tradition, "we came to the gate of the mosque (which is the Haram Area), and here Jibrail (Gabriel) caused me to dismount. And he tied up Al Burak to a ring, to which the prophets of old had also tied their steeds." (Ibn al Athir's Chronicle, ii. 37.) Entering the Haram Area by the gateway, afterwards known as the Gate of the Prophet, Muhammad and Gabriel went up to the Sacred Rock, which of old times had stood in the centre of Solomon's Temple; and in its neighbourhood meeting the company of the prophets, Muhammad proceeded to perform his prayer-prostrations in the assembly of his predecessors in the prophetic office Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others of God's ancient apostles.
From the Sacred Rock Muhammad, accompanied by Gabriel, next ascended, by a ladder of light, up into heaven; and, in anticipation, was vouchsafed the sight of the delights of Paradise. Passing through the seven heavens, Muhammad ultimately stood in the presence of Allah, from whom he received injunctions as to the prayers his followers were to perform. Thence, after a while, he descended again to earth; and, alighting at the foot of the ladder of light, stood again on the Sacred Rock at Jerusalem. The return journey homeward was made after the same fashion - on the back of the steed Al Burak and the Prophet reached Makkah again before the night had waned. Such, in outline, is the tradition of the Prophet's Night Journey, which especially sanctifies the Rock and the Haram Area in the sight of all true believers."
That is not the only evidence but there is actually more evidence to say that it is a lot more likely to be a Christian Holy site then a Muslim one from another passage:
"Omar is said to have been shocked at the filth and rubble that lay strewn about the Temple Mount. Because the holy site had been neglected, he made the Christian Patriarch Sophronius grovel in the muck. Afterward Omar set about clearing the site. He built a wooden mosque on the compound. Most scholars believe the mosque was built on the foundations of an early Christian church."
Now the Justification of the Tomb of Sarah is actually a more confusing one, Islam believes that Sarah was the wife of Ebrahim (http://www.islamiclandmarks.com...) while the Jewish Faith believes Sarah to be the wife of Abraham
(https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...). The psychotic part of this is that they are the exact same story but with a little different spelling. In Arabic Ebrahim is actually Abraham, which means that the Jewish story has to be true because Abraham, within the Jewish religion, is the founder of Judaism. So the question for Islam is this, how can the Tomb of Sarah be considered an Islamic Holy Site if their religion points out that the founder of Judaism's wife was buried there?
Muhammad has never once stepped foot in Jerusalem and yet muslims claim holiness over the area. They claim Muhammad rode a pterodactyl over the wall, also known as a Buraq. In reality though, the United Nations doesn't even have a real army, they have a joke called the Peacekeeping troops who rarely even hold light weaponry (http://www.un.org...).
"UN peacekeepers cannot impose peace where there is no peace to keep. However, where the parties to a conflict are committed to solving their differences peacefully, a UN peacekeeping operation can be a catalyst for peace and help create a "breathing space": a more stable and secure environment in which lasting political solutions can be found and implemented."
This then makes another statement that they're more like news stations such as NBC or CBS which means they only report what they see. They're more like world news casters. Not only that but if 2 out of the 5 countries on the security council that voted against it, USA and Britain and 1 abstention, France, then 3 out of 5 members of the Security council either have no interest or oppose the idea at all.
I'd like to point out that in 2008, Muslims had urinate on and marked the area with Palestinian flags all over it. Clearly if they found it holy they would have respect but they don't (http://www.wnd.com...). It is all a matter of perspective and if you don't believe the UN does not have any power then it does not and any law they make is null and void.
AimToLose forfeited this round.
When you simplify the reason for why we have the United Nations that's when foreign policy can go back to the barbaric times. Clearly my opponent has not thought through any of this. Instead, my opponent has begun with an arrogant argument that makes no sense in the first place.
"The nations are United in wanting this since it is the United Nations! If the nations are united then it must be alright! :)"
In fact the United Nations are not all in Unity on this one idea, there were many abstentions where they could not decide or felt it wasn't the nation's place to do so.
AimToLose forfeited this round.
danonspark21 forfeited this round.
AimToLose forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.