We should not confuse politics with religion"… But "visiting Al-Aqsa is a religious and political duty"…Hmmm, doesn't something seem off here? Well this is what Abu Mazen, Al-Habbash (Minister of Waqf and Religious Affairs in Palestinian Authority), and others who defend visiting Al-Quds are saying to Arabs. But let's put this riddle aside and pose this question to Abu Mazen and his campaigners: What makes it a must? Make no mistake, they have an answer, and it's based on the following:

1. A Hadith; 2. Historical incidents; 3. A call to support Al-Quds and its native Palestinian population.

The Hadith? Well it's an authenticated one urging Muslims to visit the three Holy Mosques (the Prophet's Mosque, the Grand Mosque in Makkah and the Al-Aqsa Mosque).

No Muslim can ever deny the importance of Al-Aqsa Mosque for the Muslims, and that is certainly not the point of contention here. However, the portrayal of "journeying to Al-Aqsa" as a (wajib) or an Islamic duty is rather misleading. A common sense examination of the "Arabic" wording of the Hadith clearly translates into: (The only three physical places that a Muslim may set out to visit with a religious intent to worship are these three mosques).This is apparent by means of the exclusion of any other site (such as graves of pious personalities) from this type of religious journey.

It is also essential to point out the superficial (or manipulative) understanding of specific Islamic texts out of context. A comprehensive understanding demands an examination of political, economic, and social realities as well as a careful study of the advantages and disadvantages of a certain decision.

Claiming that one Hadith is an argument for a primarily political and modern issue such as the Israeli occupation does not follow this holistic understanding of Islam. In fact this type of reasoning that quotes texts as a rationalization for a predetermined conclusion is akin to Kharijite mentality which greatly informs religious extremists' line of reasoning — for instance, believing that certain verses in the Qur'an justify unprovoked violence against non-Muslim noncombatants.

Along the same lines lies the argument that contends that there are no texts that clearly say :"Do not visit Jerusalem while it's under Israeli occupation".

Similarly, are we supposed to look for texts that explicitly state: "Thou shalt not use heroin recreationally" or 'Thou shalt not engage in virtual sex"?

But back to Abu Mazen and Al-Habbash, it surely wouldn't be out of context to ask them why they themselves don't set out on a journey to Al-Aqsa; could it be that PA figures are prohibited from entering Jerusalem by the Israeli authorities? It is a matter of record, for instance, that Mahmud Abbas' wife was banned

in March 2010 from accompanying the Chechnyan President's mother to Jerusalem under the pretext that this might be construed as recognition of Palestinian sovereignty over Al- Aqsa mosque.

More importantly, why are Jerusalem's native Palestinians, belonging to a certain age group, banned from Al-Aqsa? It is curious that these calls from PA leaders to visit Al-Quds coincide with Nir Barkat's (Mayor of Jerusalem) declared plan earlier this year to attract 10 million tourists annually to the Holy city. Who knows, perhaps Barkat is advocating support for the Palestinian people as well, which leads us to the other claim by supporters of these visits: that we should stand by Al- Quds and not abandon it to the Israelis, and of course that's only achievable by going there in a sort of "the trick's on them" rationale. It becomes irresistible to ask these campaigners: Where was your avid support for Gaza's people? Why weren't you calling on people to go break its criminal siege? Is Mahmud Abbas doing anything to truly defend Al-Quds from the rabid Israeli policies, other than calling Arabs to visit ? The fact remains that Israelis carefully calculate their interests.

Certain visits are allowed, portraying them as the trustworthy guardians of the Holy City and advocates of tolerance and religious freedom. Contrarily, allowing Sheikh Ekrama Sabri or even foreign activists that come from countries friendly to Israel obviously doesn't help their strategy. It is worth noting that Israel is adamant about ensuring Jerusalem's status as its capital which is still not recognized internationally. Perhaps such Arab visits would pave the way.

In a nutshell, only people who pose no danger whatsoever and in fact serve Israeli interests (however unknowingly) are welcomed with open arms. Would the occupation of Jerusalem still be an issue if Arabs acknowledge its sovereignty by going there? Why would it be? They "allow" us to pray in Al-Aqsa don't they? Has it come to this: that our only issue with the Zionist state is whether we pray in Al-Aqsa or not? But wait, who's the trick on again?

Next week we will take a look at the most astonishing argument for visiting Jerusalem yet…stay tuned.

Arwa Al-Rikabi is a Saudi writer. ([email protected])