Muhammad and Jerusalem
David / Amicus22
merchant before his mission began did Muhammad in any of his caravan
trips visit Jerusalem? Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem
besides the "night journey"?
JiÐan
> Before his famous "night journey" in his younger days when he was a
> merchant before his mission began did Muhammad in any of his caravan
> trips visit Jerusalem?
no
> Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem
> besides the "night journey"?
are you attempting to suggest Muslims should't hold Jerusalem as holy?
--JiÐan
--
Oderint, dum metuant
If you want to email me, post in alt.fan.jidan, and I'll contact you
Her urgent need for a brain surgery doesn't make me love this country
any less
NUKE 32°04'N 34°46'E
Albert B. Bach
Muhammad probably did visit during his travels as a merchant.
The Dome of the Rock was built in 687 by the Caliph, fifty years after
Muhammad's death.
The Qur'an mentions the Journey:
Surah 17. Isra', The Night Journey, Children Of Israel
1. Glory to ((Allah)) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night
>from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did
bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is
the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).
But the center of Islam was Arabia. It should not be assumed that
Muhammad would travel to far away Jerusalem before ascending to
heaven, but did so from a Mosque in Arabia.
The Qur'an says he left from a mosque. I'm not sure how Islamic
scholars can place the departure point of Muhammad's journy to heaven
in Jerusalem, a city that didn't have a mosque in it until after 638,
given he was dead in 632.
That means Jerusalem was "captured by assignation." The Caliph
captured and made Jerusalem a city holy in the eyes of Muslims by
creating the story that Jerusalem was where the story in the Qur'an
happened. (This happens in every religion.)
Of course, Jerusalem has long been a Holy place in the
Judeao-Christian world. King David ruled there in 1000 BCE, he's
probably NOT buried there, despite tradition, and Jesus died there a
thousand years later, some two thousand years ago.
If the Muslims felt they were the successors of the True Faith, then
they would have to take Jerusalem and make it their own.
If you go to the Palestinian History website, it states that in 638,
1000 years of religious persecution was brought to an end by Caliph
Omar when he entered al-Quds, and the Jews, related to the Arabs
through Ishmael, and due to the reputation of the Muslims for mercy
and compassion, handed the city to over to him.
Amic...@webtv.net (David / Amicus22) wrote in message news:<9u9mqf$cs4$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
M.S.M. Saifullah
> The Qur'an says he left from a mosque. I'm not sure how Islamic
> scholars can place the departure point of Muhammad's journy to heaven
> in Jerusalem, a city that didn't have a mosque in it until after 638,
> given he was dead in 632.
To sort out your thoughts please visit:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
Wassalam
Saifullah
Denis Giron
If Mr. Albert B. Bach is not aware of Dr. Saifullah's wonderful
article cited above, he is also probably not aware of the discussion
that has taken place on usenet with regard to that article as well as
the concept he has in mind. Some relevant usenet discussions from the
past are:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9mb4ji%24mda%241%40samba.rahul.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9nel92%249bd%241%40samba.rahul.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9p4eop%247d8%241%40samba.rahul.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9s70pk%246ec%241%40samba.rahul.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9u9mqh%24cs5%241%40samba.rahul.net
In all five posts (posted over a range of roughly four months), the
issue regarding the al-Aqsa Masjid's existence at the time
traditionally given for Muhammad's trip is discussed more towards the
bottom (as part of a much larger debate). The discussion on the masjid
erupted after I wrote a quick post that attempted to give some loose
thoughts on Dr. John Wansbrough's writings on this issue:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=3fad66b0f4c4887c,30
Regardless, the gist of the discussion is with regard to evidence to
the claims found in Islamic literature outside the Qur'an. Dr.
Saifullah's article above demonstrates how, via etymology, one can
reduce the meaning of "masjid" quite a bit, thus al-masjid al-Aqsa
*COULD'VE* been anywhere and anything. With that in mind, this is
still not any sort of evidence. Dr. Saifullah's article banishes the
story of Muhammad's night journey to the realm of the unfalsifiable,
thus very little can be said for or against this claim.
In my own opinion, the lack of evidence to back up this story makes it
seem like a sort of Islamic midrash. Now, this does not mean some
Muslims sat down with yarmulkes on and said "let's write some
midrash." Rather, I mean it in the sense of what midrash is to the
Torah: a rather complex narrative that uses a very small and vague
portion of the holy text as its foundation. The whole elaborate story
about the israa' and miraaj stems almost exclusively from the first
aya of soorat al-Israa' (which could easily be called soorat Bani
Isra'il if we understood the first aya in light of the next few
verses). Such sentiments on my part do not prove, in any shape or
form, that the event did not happen; rather, these are merely my
opinions in light of the deafening silence created by a want for
evidence.
I'm of the opinion that exegesis is always chaotic, and express this
view in a recent article on my site:
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/philolit.html
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Regardless, the gist of the discussion is with regard to evidence to
> the claims found in Islamic literature outside the Qur'an. Dr.
> Saifullah's article above demonstrates how, via etymology, one can
> reduce the meaning of "masjid" quite a bit, thus al-masjid al-Aqsa
> *COULD'VE* been anywhere and anything. With that in mind, this is
> still not any sort of evidence. Dr. Saifullah's article banishes the
> story of Muhammad's night journey to the realm of the unfalsifiable,
> thus very little can be said for or against this claim.
The argument of Dajjal here is that al-masjid al-Aqsa could have been
anywhere and anything. Well, what is Dajjal's evidence to back up his
claim. None so far! As usual, he is good in creating arguments for which
he has no evidence to show. The definitive "al" before Masjid and Aqsa is
good enough to show that this is not something which can be anywhere or
anything. Simple basics! Furthermore, the Muslim and non-Muslim scholars
say clearly that it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Denis Giron
> The argument of Dajjal here is that al-masjid al-Aqsa could have been
> anywhere and anything.
Actually, not quite. My argument was that when one approaches the word
"masjid" in the fashion that you do, it makes it rather arbitrary
where the masjid al-Aqsa was precisely. You yourself have tried to say
that this could mean the temple, or somewhere outside it, and you have
even implied that it could be aoutside Jerusalem! Last November 13th,
you wrote:
*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*
"The Qur'an mentions the the Prophet, SAW was taken to al-Masjid
al-Aqsa and that its surrounding are blessed. The question now is what
constitutes the boundaries of al-Masjid al-Aqsa? Does it include only
the Temple Mount? Or is it Temple Mount and its surrounding? Honestly,
I do not know the answer. But I can say for sure that the boundaries
of al-Masjid al-Haraam does constitute the whole of Makkah and is
dilineated by well-known places outside it."
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9srhuj%24bec%241%40samba.rahul.net
]
*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*-+-*
So, while I concede that I may have misunderstood you, it seemed that
your analogy concerning al-Masjid al-Haraam was designed to imply the
possibility that the boundries of al-Masjid al-Aqsa could be outside
Jerusalem. This makes the precise spot rather vague, hence my point
that your argument reduces the discussion to the point where
"al-masjid al-Aqsa *COULD'VE* been anywhere and anything." You may
want to claim this is an exaggeration on my part, as your arguments do
not necessarily permit it to be in Alaska, and I would agree in that
respect. The point still stands: you've banished the discussion to the
realm of the unfalsifiable.
> The definitive "al" before Masjid and Aqsa is
> good enough to show that this is not something which can be
> anywhere or anything.
>From the above snippet, I think it is clear that you argued in the
past that al-Masjid al-Aqsa could've been on the temple mount,
slightly off the temple mount, elsewhere in Jerusalem, and maybe, just
maybe, even outside of Jerusalem! Not quite anywhere, but a pretty
wide swath of land there... As for "anything," your own arguments
point out that a masjid is simply a point of prostration, thus it
could've been a 3,000 foot structure with towering minarets, or just
any old spot in the refuse, or anything else (as long as people are
prostrating there).
> Furthermore, the Muslim and non-Muslim scholars
> say clearly that it refers to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Fine, so what is there evidence that Muhammad actually went? This has
been the question from the beginning, and you have attempted to skirt
the issue by arguing how the term "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" could even imply
a spot outside Jerusalem (or any spot in the city). So are you now
settling down with the claim that it was in Jerusalem? If so, what is
the evidence to back up the claim that Muhammad went to Jerusalem
(particularly if you believe he went there on a flying horse)?
By the way, there will be no need to again point out that a lack of
evidence does not necessarily justify an argumentum ex-silentio. I
agree with you on that respect. The question is if you have any
evidence. Furthermore, let me say upfront that hearsay accounts of
anecdotal evidence is not really reliable ("I heard from someone else
that he told a guy who had been to the city what it looked like, and
the guy said he was telling the truth...").
So, what is your evidence?
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Actually, not quite. My argument was that when one approaches the word
> "masjid" in the fashion that you do, it makes it rather arbitrary
> where the masjid al-Aqsa was precisely. You yourself have tried to say
> that this could mean the temple, or somewhere outside it, and you have
> even implied that it could be aoutside Jerusalem! Last November 13th,
> you wrote:
I said that Masjid al-Aqsa is at the place where the Jewish Temple once
stood. This is confirmed in the later verses of Surah al-Isra' where the
Jews and their "masjid" or the place of prostration is mentioned. Muslims
and non-Muslim scholars have said a similar thing.
Now the issue of what are the boundaries of Masjid al-Aqsa is something
that I have no clue about. The Qur'an does refer to the fact that the
surroundings of Masjid al-Aqsa are blessed. I have been trying to find out
information about what constitutes the boundaries of Masjid al-Aqsa but
without any success.
> So, while I concede that I may have misunderstood you, it seemed that
> your analogy concerning al-Masjid al-Haraam was designed to imply the
> possibility that the boundries of al-Masjid al-Aqsa could be outside
> Jerusalem. This makes the precise spot rather vague, hence my point
> that your argument reduces the discussion to the point where
> "al-masjid al-Aqsa *COULD'VE* been anywhere and anything." You may
No, what I said is that the location of Masjid al-Aqsa is known but not
its boundaries. Masjid al-Aqsa is not really a forbidden sanctuary like
Masjid al-Haraam or the Haram in Madinah. So, Masjid al-Aqsa is definite
inside Jerusalem as we have already said. Drawing an analogy, the location
of Masjid al-Haraam is known and so are its boundaries. I think under
"Makkah" in Encyclopaedia of Islam one can see the boundaries of Masjid
al-Haraam. So much for this discussion.
> Fine, so what is there evidence that Muhammad actually went? This has
> been the question from the beginning, and you have attempted to skirt
> the issue by arguing how the term "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" could even imply
> a spot outside Jerusalem (or any spot in the city). So are you now
> settling down with the claim that it was in Jerusalem? If so, what is
> the evidence to back up the claim that Muhammad went to Jerusalem
> (particularly if you believe he went there on a flying horse)?
Now that we have already clarified the confusion of Mr. Dajjal about
location of Masjid al-Aqsa, we now get into the issue of evidence that he
went to Jerusalem in his night journey. This issue had been raised by
Makkan pagans and the Prophet, SAW, described the caravans among other
things that he saw during the journey. I do not have references handy at
work.
> So, what is your evidence?
So, what is your evidence that the journey did not happen? I would assume
another argumentum e silento...
Wassalam
Saifullah
Denis Giron
>
> I said that Masjid al-Aqsa is at the place where the Jewish Temple once
> stood.
And now the debate goes back to where it originally was. Do you accept
the claim that this spot was covered in huge amounts of refuse and
human waste? It seems that the stories that relate his going to this
spot are not aware of this fact (or am I wrong?).
> This is confirmed in the later verses of Surah al-Isra' where the
> Jews and their "masjid" or the place of prostration is mentioned.
Could you be more specific?
> No, what I said is that the location of Masjid al-Aqsa is known but not
> its boundaries.
So then, you're saying that its location is known to be Jerusalem, but
its boundries within Jerusalem are not known? Is this to imply that it
could've been in the refuse pile, or somewhere doen the street from
it? Let's be clear here, as every time I think I get your point, you
seem to be somewhere else, and I'm not sure whose fault this is. :)
> we now get into the issue of evidence that he [Muhammad]
> went to Jerusalem in his night journey. This issue had been raised by
> Makkan pagans and the Prophet, SAW, described the caravans among other
> things that he saw during the journey. I do not have references handy at
> work.
As I wrote in my previous post, "hearsay accounts of anecdotal
evidence is not really reliable[.]" This is basically a type of
anecdotal evidence. Yes, I am familiar with the story (as I saw it in
Ibn Ishaaq's version). There is a tale that Muhammad flew in, drank
some water that was on the caravan, and then flew back to Makkah. He
then told people about it, and when the caravan rolled into Makkah,
people asked them about the water and they mentioned how some of it
(or all of it?) was gone. There's also the story that he told one of
his companions something about Jerusalem (i.e. a description, but it
is not stated what he said), and the companion says that this is true.
So, is this all the evidence Dr. Saifullah has?
What he mentioned can't be considered evidence, as such anecdotes are
used for every legend, even those present today. Everyone who believes
in psychics has a story about how "when I was there, the psychic said
things that she couldn't possibly have known..." And then, even more
related are those who have the friend who related the anecdote, "my
friend went to an astrologer and he said things he could not have
known, thus..." The same goes for a plethora of other myths, such as
big foot, aliens, et cetera. I saw David Copperfield make the statue
of liberty disappear... Some are sincere accounts, some have been
affected by hyperbole, none can be considered evidence.
Just barely relevant: http://skepdic.com/testimon.html
> So, what is your evidence that the journey did not happen?
The question was what evidence do you have. I'm not trying to send off
any argumentum ex-silentio... I'm just seeing if you have any
evidence. Despite four months of debating, you haven't offered any,
and have insted asked if I can disprove it. From what you told me, he
landed somewhere in Jerusalem at a place of prostration, which could
be anything (i.e. an actual building or just an open space). With such
vague claims, I'm still not sure what it is that you want me to
disprove.
No, I can't disprove that Muhammad rode a flying horse to Jerusalem
and landed SOMEWHERE in there before taking off into space to meet
Moses and ask God to lower the number of prayers. I have no evidence
that this did not happen. I also have no evidence for the
non-happening of a myriad of other fantastic claims. I cannot prove
that Zeus did not father Hercules. I cannot prove Hannuman did not
jump over the ocean. I cannot prove that Kunti did not become pregnant
while still a virgin after meeting Surya.
That being conceded, MAYBE, just MAYBE, I could argue that Muhammad
didn't really fly up into space from Jerusalem onwards into the
different heavens. I would argue that if Muhammad took off on a flying
horse from Jerusalem into space 1400 years ago, he still would have
not yet left our galaxy! But then, this is where Dr. Saifullah can
come in and say "anything is possible for God," so maybe that's not
even good enough.
Anyway, again, what is the evidence that any of this actually
happened?
-Denis Giron
Saqib Virk
news:9u9mqf$cs4$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem besides
> the "night journey"?
SV
Many of the prophets mentioned in the Quran lived there not to mention the
fact that Muslims ruled the land for well over a thousand years up until
very recently.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Thotful560
>news:9u9mqf$cs4$1...@samba.rahul.net...
>
>> Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem besides
>> the "night journey"?
>
If I am not mistaken the first *qibla*, or direction for facing in prayer, was
initially towards Jerusalem.
It was later amended to be the direction of al-kaaba.
It's in the qur'an.
WaSalaam,
Teresa
Eric
> > Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem
besides
> > the "night journey"?
>
> SV
> Many of the prophets mentioned in the Quran
lived there not to mention the
> fact that Muslims ruled the land for well over a
thousand years up until
> very recently.
I don't think this is the sort of connection we're
looking for here. I believe all the prophets
residing in Jerusalem and mentioned in the Qur'an
belonged to the nation of Israel (or Judah). And
if the basis for the Muslim claim to Jerusalem
that brought the first Islamic conquest of
Jerusalem was founded on the residency of these
prophets, then it appears to lack any real
validity. On the contrary it would seem to
support Israel's claim. So we find ourselves back
to the old argument -- basing the Muslim claim to
Jerusalem entirely on Muhammad's night vision
visit there, which, as Denis Giron is so carefully
and eloquently demonstrating, was really nothing
more than a flight of fantasy.
God bless you.
Eric
Saqib Virk
news:a1b5it$5cs$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I believe all the prophets residing in Jerusalem and mentioned
> in the Qur'an belonged to the nation of Israel (or Judah). And
> if the basis for the Muslim claim to Jerusalem that brought the
> first Islamic conquest of Jerusalem was founded on the residency
> of these prophets, then it appears to lack any real validity.
SV
Muslims did not take Jerusalem because they thought many of the prophets
lived in or around the area. The Jews lived on the land, for the most part,
>from just
after the time of Moses to around the time of Jesus. A period of around
1200-1300 years. The land was in Muslim hands, for the most part, from just
after the time of Muhammad until recently. A period of around 1200-1300
years. Coincidence? Both groups have ruled over the land for almost exactly
the same amount of time. The Jews are in the position of power now but the
Muslim claim that the land is theirs is stronger based on the fact that they
have been its residents for the
last 1300 or so years.
> On the contrary it would seem to support Israel's
> claim.
What claim is that? Do you imagine some Jewish Rabbi held up the Torah in
the UN and declared God gave Jerusalem to them and even though they haven't
had the land for 2000 years they ought to have it back? How is it that so
many people fail to see the very simple facts? The Jews, as a people, were
kicked out of Israel about 2000 years ago, about 600 years before the
Muslims came on the scene. The Jews lived there for the most part of 1300
years until they rejected the Messiah and were kicked out. The Muslims also
held the land for the most part of 1300 years until very recently. You don't
get booted out of a land by conquers and then pretend to have a claim on
that land 2000 years later. The Native Americans have only had their land
taken from them in the last 500 years and are hardly taken seriously. There
are hundreds of examples of peoples with more right than the Jews to get
back land they owned in the past.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Eric
Middle East history.
> SV
> Muslims did not take Jerusalem because they thought many of the prophets
> lived in or around the area.
Why then, did they take it? You answered an essay question with a simple
no, and then launched into a discussion of an entirely different question.
Namely, what is the Arabs' claim to Palestine based on TODAY. But that is
not what we were discussing here. The question is, what was the original
claim that justifed taking Jerusalem from the previous owners around the
middle of the 7th century?
And it was not my suggestion that it was based on the many prophets living
in and around Jerusalem. A Muslim contributor to this newsgroup made that
suggestion after someone else completely discredited the notion that
Muhammad's night vision could provide a valid claim.
Saqib Virk
news:a1mp1p$g17$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I am not going to discuss Middle East politics here. The topic was
> really Middle East history.
SV
Why was that topic brought up? Isn't it more likely that now since the plain
facts are laid before you, you wish to avoid the topic? Do you see that the
Jews had no claim on the land of Israel after their rejection of the Messiah
and their subsequent absence from the land for almost 2000 years?
> The question is, what was the original claim that justifed taking
> Jerusalem from the previous owners around the middle of the 7th
> century?
SV
The Jews lived under Roman rule and began to revolt against that rule around
66AD. The Romans destroyed the city almost completely and early in the 2nd
century they built a Roman city on the spot, Aelia. Jews were not allowed to
enter the city and Christianity was a forbidden faith(I think). With the
conversion of the Roman ruler Constantine to Christianity in the early 4th
century the city became important and many shrines and churches were built.
In the early 7th century the Persians invaded the city, slaughtering
thousands out of the population and destroying many of the churches. In
620AD Roman(Byzantine) rule was restored.
Now we come upon the time of the Muslims. The Muslims were at war with both
the Romans(Byzantines) and Persians; wars that had begun with Roman and
Persian aggression against the fledgling Muslim community. The Muslims
entered Aelia(Jerusalem) around 636AD and took it out of Roman hands without
bloodshed. The Patriarch Sophronios surrendered the city to Umar, the second
successor of the Holy Prophet.The Patriarch and the city obtained the
following treaty from Umar when he entered Jerusalem:
Pact with Jerusalem (year 636)
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
This is the safe-conduct accorded by the servant of God, Umar the Commander
of the Faithful, to the people of Aelia(Jerusalem).
He accords them safe conduct for their persons, their property, their
churches, their crosses, their sound and their sick, and the rest of their
worship. Their churches shall neither be used as dwellings nor destroyed.
They shall not suffer any impairment, nor shall their dependencies, their
crosses, nor any of their property. No constraint shall be exercised against
them in religion nor shall any harm be done to any among them.
No Jew shall live with them in Aelia.
The people of Aelia must pay the jizya in the same way as people of other
cities. They must expel the Romans and brigands from the city. Those who
leave shall have safe conduct for their persons and property until they
reach safety. Those who stay shall have safe conduct and must pay the jizya
like the people of Aelia. Those of the people of Aelia who wish to remove
their persons and effects and depart with the Romans and abandon their
churches and their crosses shall have safe conduct until they reach safety.
The country people who were already in the city before the killing of
so-and-so may as they wish remain and pay the jizya
the same way as the people of Aelia or leave with the Romans or return to
their families. Nothing shall be taken from them until they have gathered
their harvest.
This document is placed under the surety of God and the protection of the
Prophet, the Caliphs and the believers, on condition that the inhabitants of
Aelia pay the jizya that is due from them.
Witnessed by Khalid ibn-Walid, Amr ibn al-As, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, Muawiya
ibn abi Sufyan, the last of whom wrote this document in the year 15(636).
[Al-Tabari, i, 2405-2406]
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
GF Haddad
news:9u9mqf$cs4$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> Is there any Islamic connection to Jerusalem besides
> the "night journey"?
In the Qur'an, the following eleven verses refer to
"the Holy Land" in the sense of Jerusalem in
particular and Syro-Palestine in general:
17:1 (the Night Journey), 5:21, 7:137, 10:93, 21:71,
21:81, 34:18, 95:1-2 (meaning by "the fig" and "the
olive" Jerusalem and Syro-Palestine, which includes
Sinai), 59:2 (an allusion to the second and final
gathering, both of which take place in Syro-Palestine),
and 23:50.
In the Hadith, there are about forty references to
the superlative excellence of Syro-Palestine and
Jerusalem, most of which I've translated and included
in my volume on the narrative of the Night Journey and
Heavenly Ascension, _The Hadith of Isra' and Mi`raj_
published by As-Sunna Foundation of America and available
at http://www.sunnah.org/publication/index.htm
Hajj Gibril
Qas...@ziplip.com