Posted on 06/29/2008 7:20:44 AM PDT by SJackson
The Myth of Al-Aqsa
No more than a politically motivated holiness.
When the Prophet Mohammad established Islam, he introduced a minimum of innovations. He employed the hallowed personages, historic legends and sacred sites of Judaism and Christianity, and even paganism, by Islamizing them. Thus, according to Islam, Abraham was the first Muslim and Jesus and St. John were prophets and guardians of the second heaven. Many Biblical legends (asatir al-awwalin), which were familiar to the pagan Arabs before the dawn of Islam, underwent an Islamic conversion and the Koran, as well as the Hadith (the Islamic oral tradition), are replete with them.
Islamization was practiced on places as well as persons. Mecca and the holy stone - al-Ka'bah - were holy sites of the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Istanbul were erected on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches - two of the better known examples of how Islam treats sanctuaries of other faiths.
Jerusalem, too, underwent the process of Islamization: at first Mohammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community and, by way of persuasion, established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, in keeping with Jewish practice; but after he failed in this attempt, he turned against the Jews, killed many of them and directed the kiblah southward, towards Mecca.
Mohammad's abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned even once in the Koran. After Palestine was occupied by the Muslims, its capital was Ramleh, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, signifying that Jerusalem meant nothing to them.
Islam rediscovered Jerusalem 50 years after Mohammad's death. In 682 CE, 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr rebelled against the Islamic rulers in Damascus, conquered Mecca and prevented pilgrims from reaching Mecca for the Hajj. 'Abd al-Malik, the Umayyad Caliph, needed an alternative site for the pilgrimage and settled on Jerusalem, which was then under his control. In order to justify this choice, a verse from the Koran was chosen (sura 17, verse 1) which states (as translated by Majid Fakhri): "Glory to Him who caused His servant to travel by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs, He is indeed the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing."
The meaning ascribed to this verse (see the commentary in al-Jallalayn) is that "the furthest mosque" (al-masgid al-aqsa) is in Jerusalem and that Mohammad was conveyed there one night (although at that time the journey took three days by camel) on the back of al-Buraq, a magical horse with the head of a woman, wings of an eagle, the tail of a peacock, and hoofs reaching to the horizon. He tethered the horse to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and from there ascended to the seventh heaven together with the angel Gabriel. On his way, he met the prophets of other religions who are the guardians of heaven - Adam, Jesus, St. John, Joseph, Idris (Seth?), Aaron, Moses and Abraham - who accompanied him on his way to Allah and who accepted him as their master. Thus, Islam tries to gain legitimacy over other, older religions, by creating a scene in which the former prophets agree to Mohammad's mastery, thus making him Khatam al-Anbiya' ("the Seal of the Prophets").
Not surprisingly, this miraculous account contradicts a number of the tenets of Islam. How can a living man of flesh and blood ascend to heaven? How can a mythical creature carry a mortal to a real destination? Questions such as these have caused orthodox Muslim thinkers to conclude that the nocturnal journey was a dream of Mohammad's. The journey and the ascent serves Islam to "go one better" than the Bible: Moses "only" went up to Mt. Sinai, in the middle of nowhere, and drew close to heaven; whereas, Mohammad went all the way up to Allah, and from Jerusalem itself.
What are the difficulties with the belief that the al-Aqsa mosque described in Islamic tradition is located in Jerusalem? For one, the people of Mecca, who knew Mohammad well, did not believe this story. Only Abu Bakr, (later the first Calif), believed him and thus was called al-Siddiq ("the believer"). The second difficulty is that Islamic tradition tells us that al-Aqsa mosque is near Mecca on the Arabian peninsula. This was unequivocally stated in Kitab al-Maghazi (Oxford UP, 1966, vol. 3, pp. 958-9), a book by the Muslim historian and geographer al-Waqidi. According to al-Waqidi, there were two masjeds (places of prayer) in al-Gi'ranah, a village between Mecca and Ta'if, one was "the closer mosque" (al-masjid al-adana) and the other was "the further mosque" (al-masjid al-aqsa), and Mohammad would pray there when he went out of town. This description by al-Waqidi, which is supported by a chain of authorities (isnad), was not "convenient" for the Islamic propaganda of the 7th century.
In order to establish a basis for the awareness of the "holiness" of Jerusalem in Islam, the Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty invented many "traditions" upholding the value of Jerusalem (known as fadha'il bayt al-Maqdis), which would justify pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the faithful Muslims. Thus was al-Masjid al-Aqsa "transported" to Jerusalem. It should be noted that Saladin also adopted the myth of al-Aqsa and those "traditions" in order to recruit and inflame the Muslim warriors against the Crusaders in the 12th century.
Another aim of the Islamization of Jerusalem was to undermine the legitimacy of the older religions, Judaism and Christianity, which consider Jerusalem to be a holy city. Islam is presented as the only legitimate religion, destined to replace the other two, because they had changed and distorted the Word of God, each in its turn. (ghyyarou wa-baddalou; on the alleged forgeries of the Holy Scriptures, made by Jews and Christians, see the third chapter of M. J. Kister, Haddithu 'an Bani Isra'il wa-l-Haraja, IOS 2 [1972], pp. 215-239. Kister quotes dozens of Islamic sources).
Though Judaism and Christianity can exist side by side in Jerusalem, Islam regards both of them as betrayals of Allah and his teachings; and it has always done, and will continue to do, all in its power to expel both of them from this city. It is interesting to note that this expulsion is retroactive. The Islamic broadcasters of the Palestinian Authority radio stations consistently make it a point to claim that the Jews never had a temple on the Temple Mount and certainly not two temples. (Where, then, according to them, did Jesus preach?)
Read their lips. For them, Christianity is no better than Judaism, since both "forfeited" their right to rule over Jerusalem. Only Islam - Din al-Haqq ("the Religion of Truth") has this right, and forever (e.g., according to Shaykh 'Ikrima Sabri, the mufti of Jerusalem, in a Friday khutbah on Sawt Falastin, the PA official radio).
Since the holiness of Jerusalem to Islam has always been, and still is, no more than a politically motivated holiness, PA leaders would be putting their political heads on the block should they give it up. Must Judaism and Christianity defer to myths related in Islamic texts or envisioned in Mohammad's dreams, long after Jerusalem was established as the ancient, true center of these two religions, which preceded Islam? Should United Nations forces be sent to the Middle East just because the PA decided to recycle the political problems of the Umayyads 1,250 years after the curtain came down on their role in history?
Click here to see Dr. Kedar making similar points during an Al-Jazeera TV interview.
I see a Fatwa in his future...
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
ping
This statement is historically inaccurate. For 80% of the last 1400 years Jerusalem has been under Muslim rule. With relatively minor exceptions, Jews and Christians have been allowed access to Jerusalem as pilgrims. Christian sects have had almost continuous control of the holy sites, though sometimes harassed and mistreated.
The attempts to eradicate the two other religions from the Holy City have been since 1948. This is not all of time, regardless of what moderns with their extremely limited knowledge of history believe.
If this is intended as criticism, it falls pretty flat. Christians have always done exactly the same.
Well, up till the Enlightenment, anyway, when religious freedom began to become popular.
“The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and the Great Mosque of Istanbul were erected on the sites of Christian-Byzantine churches - two of the better known examples of how Islam treats sanctuaries of other faiths.”
Don’t forget all the former Hindu Temples.
True. Not to mention Zoroastrian temples in Iran and Buddhist buildings in Central Asia and Afghanistan.
Not sure which mosque the author is referencing, as this is not a standard term. Presumably he means the former Hagia Sophia.
This mosque was not built on the site of a church, it is the original church built by Justinian converted for use as a mosque.
I’m no scholar, but even I would not believe such a slanted and one-sided recitation at the issue. A brief reminder:
-There hasn’t been a Jewish Temple on the Mount for 2000 years and the Dome of the Rock (Al-Aqsa) has stood on the Temple Mount for 1250 of them. It’s not going anywhere, and there will never be a Third Temple on the Mount without a ridiculous and apocalyptic war that would destroy Jerusalem UTTERLY.
-Jerusalem may not be mentioned in the Koran (though what this fact has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me, since it was only captured and subjugated in 638 by Caliph Omar - after Muhammed purportedly wrote the Koran, then died in 632), but Al-Aqsa (as a Muslim Holy Site) certainly is:
Surah 17 - “Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Mecca) to the further mosque (al-masjid al-Aqsa), the precincts of which we have blessed.”
Al-Aqsa was a Holy Site to the Muslims long before the Dome was built, apparently.
Each of the “Peoples of the Book” have occupied Jerusalem for periods of varying lengths of time at some point since the time of Jesus. I think it is simply foolish to believe that any of them have any greater claim than any other, at this point in time...
btt
“Jerusalem, too, underwent the process of Islamization: at first Mohammad attempted to convince the Jews near Medina to join his young community and, by way of persuasion, established the direction of prayer (kiblah) to be to the north, towards Jerusalem, in keeping with Jewish practice; but after he failed in this attempt, he turned against the Jews, killed many of them and directed the kiblah southward, towards Mecca.
Mohammad’s abandonment of Jerusalem explains the fact that this city is not mentioned even once in the Koran. ****After Palestine was occupied by the Muslims, its capital was Ramleh, 30 miles to the west of Jerusalem, signifying that Jerusalem meant nothing to them.”***
I don’t know this history that well. But the above seems pretty strong evidence for the writers claim. The asterisked part at the end seems particularly strong evidence in that it seems more like political expedience and lack of intensity to worship in Jerusalem.
Like I said, I don’t know this history well but that is the part of the reading that looks convincing to me.
Among them, killing, maiming, and destroying in the name of allah.
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter of non-believers...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared,"Kill any Jew who falls under your power."
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Dr. Mordechai Kedar was on Al Jazeera and made the Muslims look like jackasses on their own turf. LOL
bookmark
Ultimately pointless. You’re never going to convince the Muslims that al-aqsa is not a holy site to them & that they should just give it up & go away. Islamist recruitment ads call out “Come fight for the holy mosque,” not “Come fight for an independent state of Palestine”.
This is not a debate. Whoever wants Jerusalem must fight for it.
Each of the “Peoples of the Book” have occupied Jerusalem for periods of varying lengths of time at some point since the time of Jesus. I think it is simply foolish to believe that any of them have any greater claim than any other, at this point in time...
Only one of these religions is tied to the land. Go read the Bible and look up "Israel". It is a land and a people.
The point of this is not to convince the followers of the brigand pedophile. It is to convice Westerners and especially JEws to fight the PC relativism that allows Muslims to dominate.
I’ve read the Bible, and in your own words, “That is a pathetic basis of anything.”
Believe whatever you will - I much prefer to read and know HISTORY. You may wish to equate the Bible with History, but there is absolutely no validity to the argument.
All religions of the Book are tied to Jerusalem. Each of the three “Peoples of the Book” have their holiest shrines and most precious relics therein. Each have occupied it and exercised control over it. Each has fought wars to secure and preserve their authority over it. To deny this is to deny basic historic FACTS.
You may believe whatever you choose, but HISTORY shows that Israel, and by extension, the Jews, has no greater claim to Jerusalem or the Temple Mount than anyone else. As it has ALWAYS been in the Past, it will be in the Future: There will be no lasting Peace without a shared Jerusalem.
There is obviously no legitimate question of the significance of the Dome of the Rock. It is the religious “seat” (if you will) of one of Islam’s three holiest places of worship. That it is built over a Jewish Temple destroyed by the Romans in 70AD is equally undeniable. That it was built to architectural specifications equaling the Church of the Holy Sepulcre (built by Hadrian with some of what was left of the Jewish Temple) is undeniable, as well.
I can find no historical evidence to suggest that it was two centuries before al-masjid al-Aqsa was believed to be Jerusalem. Historical accounts I have read shows it was built in 658 - only 26 years after Mohammed’s death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.