Behind the Mosque
Here's some food for thought: Does the famous "night journey" sura actually involve a journey to Jerusalem? Egyptian columnist Ahmad Muhammad 'Arafa, writing in Al-Qahira and translated by MEMRI, says the Prophet was just taking a little jaunt over to Medina:
This text tells us that Allah took His Prophet from the Al-Haram Mosque [in Mecca] to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Thus, two mosques are [referred to] here, the first of which is the Al-Haram Mosque, and the second of which is the Al-Aqsa Mosque. 'Al-Aqsa' is a form of superlative which means 'the most distant.' Therefore, the place to which the Prophet was taken must be a mosque, and not a place where a mosque was to be established later, nor a place where a mosque had once stood. This place must be very far from the Al-Haram Mosque. It need not be [actually] built, as the Al-Haram Mosque [itself] was at that time merely an open space around the Ka'ba [and not a building].
But in Palestine during that time, there was no mosque at all that could have been the mosque 'most distant' from the Al-Haram Mosque. During that time, there were no people in [Palestine] who believed in Muhammad and would gather to pray in a specific place that served as a mosque. Most of the inhabitants of Palestine were Christians, and there was among them a Jewish minority. Although the Koran refers respectfully to Jewish and Christian houses of worship, it does not call any of them a mosque, rather 'churches and synagogues' (Surat Al-Hajj [22]:40). The construction of the mosque situated today in Jerusalem and known as the Al-Aqsa Mosque began only in the year 66 of the Hijra of the Prophet - that is, during the era of the Omayyad state, not during the time of the Prophet nor that of any of the Righteous Caliphs. So much for the mosque.
There's more. The argument seems so simple and straightforward that there must be something wrong with it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm not a scholar of Islam, so I can't speak to whether this is a new insight, an old one that fell by the wayside with the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism in 20th-century Egypt, or something else entirely. The venue for its publication - a journal of the Ministry of Culture - is interesting, though.
Is Egypt's (secular) government signaling a willingness to stand up to the fundamentalists? Could they be trying to soften the public to the idea of a shared Jerusalem in a two-state settlement by ratcheting down the sanctity accorded to it in contemporary Islam?
Bill:
THIRD PARTY? Those nation-states instigated the war then screwed the Palistinians by using them as political pawns and treating them like animals in cages. While also expelling an equal number of Jewish refugees, many who have lived in those areas thousands of years.
Many of Palistinians left due to pressure from the Arab States. They were promised the whole of Palistine in return (which would include slaughtering the Jews) and in their greed many took the deal. To this day they continue to act as "useful idiots" for the powerful. Pathetic and sad.
i often look out over brooklyn and think about how nice it would have been if someone had pushed robert moses in front of one of his many cement trucks.
killing someone over real estate is a lot more sensible than killing someone over your imaginary friend.
"How does he enjoy living in house formerlly owned by Jews? After all 5 million Jews were expelled from Arab nations post-Independence"
5 million??? are you serious? would you enlight us on where did they go if the Jewish population of Israel today is under 5 million after more than 50 years of population growth (births, immigration)?
"Personally I think we should put the Palistinians to the test and give them free land and money here in the US. If a house is all they want, it would be cheaper to just give them one in New Jersey or Michigan."
It might be a lot easier and more economically to ask the jews to stay where they are (whether in the US or Russia) instread of immigrating to and settling in the west bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, etc.
I'm joe. You're Bill.
And I'm not excluding Arab countries from this list of villians, just trying to include everyone who belongs.
It's strange that Israelis themselves are a lot more willing to admit to their nation's sins than their cheerleaders on this side of the ocean. To admit to them, and to want to do something to make things right.
Bill,
1) If a previous Jewish owner was driven from any refugee camp in which Palestinians are now living, they should by all means vacate the premises and return them to the rightful owner.
2) When someone is driven from their family home, do you really think the issue is just about being given room to stow their gear and hang their hat, one place being just as good as another?
To quote a group of people in a similar predicament: "May my right hand lose her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I forget thee, O Jerusalem."
Hmmm .... more background would be helpful.
I am not clear on why this is interesting
or important - can you expand the introductory
text?
Jeff
People working on resolving intractible, long-term mass displacements like Israel and Palestine, or Bosnia, Kosovo and the Krajina should look at one of the relative successes: an instance in the last century in which millions of people were displaced from their longtime homes and lands and yet there aren't boiling movements for return.
It's a pretty unlikely place to look for such a thing, at least through present-day Western eyes: Poland, Ukraine and Germany following WWII. The mostly-Polish city of Lwow, largely intact after the war, was cleansed of almost all of its Poles (the Jews--the next-largest of the multiethnic city's groups--were shipped off and killed during the war). The city was resettled mostly by Ukrainian villagers and Russians. The Poles were moved en masse to the new, westward-shifted Poland, mostly to the city of Wroclaw. Wroclaw had previously been known as the German city of Breslau, and the city's German populace in turn was forcibly moved to the new, truncated Germany and quickly resettled during the postwar reconstruction.
It was awful. It was inhuman. And yet old Breslauers invade Wroclaw with camcorders. Old Poles visit today's L'viv on tour buses. They may gripe, but hardly anyone is asking for their homes back, and the extent to which it happens, it happens through the courts.
I suspect it has something to do with a concerted effort by everyone--the Soviets, the Poles and the postwar German governments--to resettle everyone permanently and workably. By the 1950s, these people weren't in refugee camps. They were in long-term apartments and houses and woven into the economic and civic mainstream of their new homelands.
No one thing is going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but you can be sure it will remain unsovable as long as Palestinian towns continue to feel provisional, remain reliant on cross-border employment and are vulnerable to the policies of an occupying army--whether that army is acting justifiably or not in light of a local government bent on prolonging the conflict for its own political and economic gain. Nor does it help when their presumed negotiated state always seems to be shrinking as the occupiers continue to build Mediterranean-style gated townhome communities on its presumed territory.
The point isn't who's wrong and should be held responsible, or who was wrong 25, 35 and 55 years ago. The goal should be to make the grievances fade from everyday life, and that's only going to be possible when people are well-fed, securely employed, feel like they control their own lives and are safe in their homes, and maybe stop worrying quite so much about who lives in great-grandma's house or on the sacred hill. It's worked before elsewhere in places that you'd think were just as intractable. Apart from Cyprus, not many Greeks are champing at the bit to return to their families' old villages in Turkey, or vice-versa.
Am I right in believing that this reading would destroy one of the primary religious drivers for the violence against Israel?
s.m. koppelman,
I'm glad that no Sudetenlanders are walking into cafes in Budjovice with dynamite strapped to their chests. But to the extent that dispossessed inhabitants can be returned to their original homes without injustice to innocent current occupants, it should be attempted. One big step in the right direction would be an immediate cession of quit-claim in cases where the property is currently owned by the State; that doesn't involve dispossessing any current occupant. For example, federal land in North Dakota should be open to homesteading, without restriction, by the Sioux; likewise any state-owned land in Izmir for Greeks, etc.
RC, only if you believe that the Palestinian resistance is primarily motivated by religious, and not nationalist, drives. There seems little reason to believe this, however. As in N. Ireland, the world has chosen to use the image of religious war to describe what is basically "my tribe vs. your tribe."
Clearly, there is an element that is motivated to reclaim "rightfully Muslim lands" in Israel. But then, there is an element that is motivated to reclaim "rightfully Muslim lands" in Chechnya, and there are no famous mosques there.
Fundamentalists believe in literal interpretations except when they don't. In America, I see very few of that ilk giving away all their money, turning the other cheek multiples-of-seventy times, or hating their mothers and fathers...and these are direct commands from God Himself.
The power of "how it has traditionally been interpreted" is very strong. In some ways, this is good, since as an atheist with strong conservative tendencies I see the interpretations as the products of an evolutionary process that means that their use hasn't killed _all_ those who have to live with them, or their neighbors, yet---I distrust Reason, which might not notice when it has ceased to be Reasonable, though should not be reduced to simple algorithm. In other ways, this is bad, since as someone interested in belief with strong liberal tendencies I see the need to throw away the kruft accretant to formal systems and adapt the same to the persons who actually have to live with them.
Duh.
That should have been
"[...]_thought_ should not be reduced to simple algorithm"
which was my attempt at expressing distaste adopting a few assumptions and then just cranking the logic through without ever saying, "Hey, this result is barbaric, maybe my assumptions are off somehow." (Augustine's arguments for infant damnation comes to mind.)
Back to the original topic of the thread. I?m no scholar of Islam but I?ll poke a few holes in the ridiculous argument made by the author of the article. (Caution: I'm relying on MEMRI's translation, I looked up the original article on the Web but with no luck). Here it goes:
1. The author says: ?Therefore, the place to which the Prophet was taken must be a mosque, and not a place where a mosque was to be established later, nor a place where a mosque had once stood.?
This is wrong, because the sura in question (Isra) was revealed to the prophet during his time in Mecca (long before his immigration to Medina), so there was no mosque in Medina. It was established AFTER the prophet immigrated to Medina.
2. The author says: ?The construction of the mosque situated today in Jerusalem and known as the Al-Aqsa Mosque began only in the year 66 of the Hijra of the Prophet - that is, during the era of the Omayyad state?
The author is dead wrong again. He is confusing ?the Dome of the Rock? Mosque (the mosque with the golden dome) with ?Al-Aqsa? Mosque. The latter is at the edge of the so-called Noble Sanctuary, right above the Wailing Wall. He is also wrong about the date. The Dome of the Rock mosque was built right after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem during Omar bin al-Khattab (the second Caliph) rule and around 20 Hijra. It finished (it was originally built with no roof).
3. Al-Aqsa Mosque was repeatedly mentioned in the teachings of the prophet (Hadith). One such hadith clearly shows that Al-Aqsa Mosque is not the Mosque in Medina. Here is the hadith:
?Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported it directly from Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) that he said: Do not undertake journey but to three mosques: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram and the Mosque of Aqsa (Bait al-Maqdis).? [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html#007.3218]
This hadith, by the way, is classified by the scholars of hadith as ?authentic? (i.e., the chain of narration has been authenticated).
joe - you will note that I referred to "primary RELIGIOUS drivers" in my post, to distinguish the religious component of the ongoing Palestinian war against Israel from the other components that you identify. The tribalists have harnessed, as they generally do, religious symbolims and energies to their cause in this war as in so many others.
It is foolish, I believe, to discount the major religious component of the Palestinian war against Israel - the critical "martyrdom" and "jihad" lanuguage that is absolutely central to their ideology is purely religious, and many of the flashpoints, including the al Aqsa mosque, are religious.
Not to mention the religious underpinnings of a war to eradicate the Jews.
Kevin--
I'll play. How far back can we go in this homesteading spree? Can Mormons homestead in upstate New York? Gypsies in India? Hugarians, Finns, Estonians and Tatars in Mongolia, as long as they descend from conscripted soldier's in the Khan's armies? North African Muslims (and Sephardic Jews) in Spain and Portugal? Old-line Australian families in the English countryside?
I'm with you--and it is fun, but at some point settling these scores might be more attainable with a Plan B. Go back far enough and most everyone can trace back to someone who was rousted or exiled from someplace. People move, and people get moved around, and it's been at the tip of a bayonet more than I'd like. Take your proposal far enough and we'll all be staking claims in East Central Africa once those prime scrublands in South Dakota are dotted with tract homes surrounded by razor wire.
religion is what you use to move the rubes. no us president gets elected without mentioning god, and no good conflict over real estate gets decided without a good tribal call to arms. religion is an excellent motivator - it has absolutely no physical demonstratory force outside of being able to motivate emotional and territorial energy from the group, which helps keep people in line and gives them the extra oomph needed to murder the fuck out of each other.
i live in a neighborhood where i can patronize businesses which ask for donations for both palestinian refugees or to buy guard dogs for west bank settlements. anyone who takes these claims at face value without supporting evidence is as much a sucker as the guy from brooklyn with the uzi and 18 kids in the desert partying like it's 1859 or the guy with visions of naked chicks dancing in his head and dynamite strapped to his chest.
If there's any state-owned land in Olduvai Gorge, it's worth considering. I've always resented that my Cro Magnon ancestors were driven from Africa by population pressure. And if enough land is vacated in Central Europe, the Neanderthals in Crawford, Tx can finally return to their ancestral home.
From the conversations I've had with Palestinians, I think their attitudes toward Israel are much more nationalistic than religious.
There are indeed a lot of people who talk about liberating "al Quds" from "the Jews." But they are mostly Iranians, or at least non-Palestinian Arabs.
Most of the Palestinians I've known were motivated by something more along the lines of: "My dad still has the key to the house he was driven out of in 1948."
RC,
Fair enough. But my point was that removing this motivation probably wouldn't have much of an effect, since religion isn't the primary factor for most anti-Israel actors, and that there is a strong belief system dedicated to recovering any land that was once ruled by Muslims to motivate those for whom religion is the prime mover. Remember, they talk about jihads and martyrs in relation to Chechnya and Kasmir, as well.
"My dad still has the key to the house he was driven out of in 1948"
How does he enjoy living in house formerlly owned by Jews? After all 5 million Jews were expelled from Arab nations post-Independence.
Of course Dad didn't get any house, he was put into a camp like an animal by the States of Egypt, Syria and Lebbanon. They are the real villians in this tragedy.
Personally I think we should put the Palistinians to the test and give them free land and money here in the US. If a house is all they want, it would be cheaper to just give them one in New Jersey or Michigan.
But somehow I don't think they are blowing up themselves and children for a house.
"But somehow I don't think they are blowing up themselves and children for a house."
Bill, I'm a practicing urban planner. Let me tell you, the idea of someone committing murder because they can't use or own a piece of real estate is 100% believable for me. There were Americans who assaulted engineers and police officers during urban renewal and the construction of the highway system. Don't ever underestimate the vehemence of people's reactions to losing their homes.
And complaining about how a third party treats refugees, while giving a free pass to the people who MADE THEM REFUGEES is pretty sleazy.
sm,
This is not a popular thing to say around here, but that never stopped me before: the Finns, Mormons, and Australians are not living in poverty as a result of the displacement of their ancestors. The unsustainable, unjust existences of Palestinians and American Indians justifies the creation of re-homesteading opportunties, in a way that the relative prosperity of the other groups does not.
And don't come back at me with per capita income figures for Estonians and Sephardim. The modern day suffering of Palestinians is the direct result of their past displacement. This is not true of the other groups you mention.
i someone can tell me what they think about who should own the land we call palistine,because i really cant figure it out
can i get some help
i think what jason was trying to ask was if someone could tell him who should be the rightful owners of palistine,and i can tell you because i have the same question.so can someone post a comment for both of us?
Wear sexy Lingerie or just buy some online for your partner, g-strings etc. Perhaps get a poster for all those walls and pictures plus art prints and framing Posters for more home decoration ideas treadmills to work out and get into shape, running and more plus exercise. Do not forget golf as a good way to stay in shape get out on the green and putt more leisure wear and exercise fitness Golf Clubs
http://www.american-single-dating.com http://www.capital-credit-cards.com http://www.dating-choice.com http://www.dating-harmony.com http://www.lavalifedating.com http://www.match-me-up.com http://www.pc-choices.com http://www.the-date.com http://www.you-date.com http://www.american-single-dating.com http://www.capital-credit-cards.com http://www.dating-choice.com http://www.dating-harmony.com http://www.lavalifedating.com http://www.match-me-up.com http://www.pc-choices.com http://www.the-date.com http://www.you-date.com
There *is* a lot wrong with the claim about al-Aqsa. First of all, the claim that there was no 'mosque' in Jerusalem at the time of the 'Night Journey' applies equally well to Medina (then called Yathrib) - Muhammad and his followers didn't take refuge in Yathrib until later, and only then was a 'mosque' in the form of Muhammad's house, built there.
The fact that Jerusalem was under control of non-Muslims also applies to Mecca at the time - but the author doesn't try to claim the Kabba (which was not a 'mosque' at the time and still is not truly a mosque, but a shrine) wasn't the starting point of the Journey.
Second, the site of the Temple Mount is the Mount Moriah where Jews and Muslims both believe Abraham brought his son to sacrifice him to God(the Jews say the son was Isaac, Arabs say it was Ishmael). The Temple Mount was sacred to Arabs, as the descendents of Abraham, even before the rise of Islam, as was the Kaba - both being shrines originally built by the Patriarch Abraham.
The common Arab name for Jerusalem 'al-Quds,' comes from the term originally meaning the Temple Mount: 'Bayt al-maqdis', which is identical to the Hebrew 'Beth ha-mikdash' - both meaning 'The Sanctified House.' This name for Jerusalem was in common use by Arabs even in Muhammad's time.
Third, the context of the Sura (chapter) in which the 'Night Journe' is mentioned is titled 'The Children of Israel,' and is about the Hebrews wandering from God's covenant and this leading to destruction of their Temple - so we have to believe the first verse is a non-sequitur, has nothing to do with the subject of the rest of the chapter, and that Muhammad traveled to a place with (at that time) no particular importance to Muslims to meet with Abraham, Jesus, Moses and a bunch of other Hebrew prophets (who had no connection to Medina). In the immediate wake of the 'Night Journey,' Muhammad commanded his followers to pray facing Jerusalem, and only later changed that direction to Mecca. The importance of this is dismissed by some historians, but the fact it happened at all supports the understanding that Jerusalem was where Muhammad had traveled.
Fourth, the talk about the construction dates of the *current* al-Aqsa mosque building and the Dome of the Rock is just downright misleading - historical records indicate that the Arab conquerer of of Jerusalem almost immediately built a mosque adjacent to the site (the Temple Mount itself was a trash dump at the time the Arabs arrived) - the current buildings are later constructions, but the site was recognized and treated as sacred from the moment the second Caliph (Omar, brother-in-law of Muhammad) arrived in the city.
There *is* a lot wrong with the claim about al-Aqsa. First of all, the claim that there was no 'mosque' in Jerusalem at the time of the 'Night Journey' applies equally well to Medina (then called Yathrib) - Muhammad and his followers didn't take refuge in Yathrib until later, and only then was a 'mosque' in the form of Muhammad's house, built there.
The fact that Jerusalem was under control of non-Muslims also applies to Mecca at the time - but the author doesn't try to claim the Kabba (which was not a 'mosque' at the time and still is not truly a mosque, but a shrine) wasn't the starting point of the Journey.
Second, the site of the Temple Mount is the Mount Moriah where Jews and Muslims both believe Abraham brought his son to sacrifice him to God(the Jews say the son was Isaac, Arabs say it was Ishmael). The Temple Mount was sacred to Arabs, as the descendents of Abraham, even before the rise of Islam, as was the Kaba - both being shrines originally built by the Patriarch Abraham.
The common Arab name for Jerusalem 'al-Quds,' comes from the term originally meaning the Temple Mount: 'Bayt al-maqdis', which is identical to the Hebrew 'Beth ha-mikdash' - both meaning 'The Sanctified House.' This name for Jerusalem was in common use by Arabs even in Muhammad's time.
Third, the context of the Sura (chapter) in which the 'Night Journe' is mentioned is titled 'The Children of Israel,' and is about the Hebrews wandering from God's covenant and this leading to destruction of their Temple - so we have to believe the first verse is a non-sequitur, has nothing to do with the subject of the rest of the chapter, and that Muhammad traveled to a place with (at that time) no particular importance to Muslims to meet with Abraham, Jesus, Moses and a bunch of other Hebrew prophets (who had no connection to Medina). In the immediate wake of the 'Night Journey,' Muhammad commanded his followers to pray facing Jerusalem, and only later changed that direction to Mecca. The importance of this is dismissed by some historians, but the fact it happened at all supports the understanding that Jerusalem was where Muhammad had traveled.
Fourth, the talk about the construction dates of the *current* al-Aqsa mosque building and the Dome of the Rock is just downright misleading - historical records indicate that the Arab conquerer of of Jerusalem almost immediately built a mosque adjacent to the site (the Temple Mount itself was a trash dump at the time the Arabs arrived) - the current buildings are later constructions, but the site was recognized and treated as sacred from the moment the second Caliph (Omar, brother-in-law of Muhammad) arrived in the city.
EMAIL: draime_2000@yahoo.com
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.pills-for-penis.com
DATE: 01/25/2004 10:18:40
The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.