Feature Article: Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources – A Response to Sam Shamoun

Al-Isra and the “Temple” in the Islamic Sources: A Response to Sam Shamoun

Originally Posted on the “Quran and Bible Blog

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

– The Quran, Surah Al-Isra, 17:1[1]

            This article is a response to the claim of a historical “error” in the Islamic sources concerning Prophet Muhammad’s night journey to the city of Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis). The Christian apologist Sam Shamoun has claimed that the Quran and Ahadith claim that the Prophet visited the “temple” in Jerusalem when he was taken on his miraculous journey to the holy city (the “Night Journey” or “al-Isra”).[2] His confusion mainly revolves around the meaning of the word “masjid” in Islamic sources, but there is also some confusion regarding certain ahadith and commentaries of Islamic scholars which seem to suggest (at least to Shamoun) that the temple was still standing at the time Muhammad (peace be upon him) went to Jerusalem. This article will refute this claim by appealing to evidence from the Islamic sources as well as secular ones, inshaAllah.

Background – AlIsra and Al-Miraj

            Before we begin, providing a brief background of the Prophet’s journey to Jerusalem (“al-Isra”) is worthwhile. It is said to have occurred in the year 619 CE, during a particularly difficult time in the Prophet’s life. It was in that year that his wife Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her) and his uncle Abu Talib both passed away.[3] The Prophet was still in Mecca at this time; the emigration to Medina was still a few years away.

            The “Miraj” occurred after the “Isra”; the Prophet ascended to heaven after leading some of the previous prophets in prayer in Jerusalem, at the site of the Temple Mount, known to Muslims as the “Noble Sanctuary” or “Haram Al-Shareef”. All of this happened in one night, which is what made many people in Mecca, including some Muslims, question the Prophet’s claim. As a result, many Muslims actually became apostates at the time because they could not believe such an incredible story.[4]

            Information about the Night Journey is found in the Quran and Ahadith, although more in the latter. The Quran briefly alludes to this miraculous journey in Surah Al-Isra, 17:1:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

The majority of the details, however, come from the Ahadith. Here are a few examples. These have been numbered since we will discuss them again later.

[1]. “It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to Bayt al-Maqdis, then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing. Then he took me to heaven.”[5]

[2]. “Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah: That he heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) saying, “When the people of Quraish did not believe me (i.e. the story of my Night Journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Bayt al-Maqdis in front of me, and I began describing it to them while I was looking at it.””[6]

[3]. “Anas bin Malik narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “I was brought an animal that was larger than a donkey and smaller than a mule, whose stride could reach as far as it could see. I mounted it, and Jibril was with me, and I set off. Then he said: ‘Dismount and pray,’ so I did that. He said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Taibah, which will be the place of the emigration.’ Then he said: ‘Dismount and pray,’ so I prayed. He said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Mount Sinai, where Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, spoke to Musa, peace be upon him.’ So I dismounted and prayed, and he said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Bethlehem, where ‘Eisa, peace be upon him, was born.’ Then I entered Bayt al-Maqdis where the Prophets, peace be upon them, were assembled for me, and Jibril brought me forward to lead them in prayer.”[7]

As we can see, these ahadith show that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was miraculously taken from Mecca to “Bayt al-Maqdis”, where he led the other prophets (peace be upon them all) in prayer before ascending to heaven with Gabriel (peace be upon him). Let us now examine Shamoun’s specific argument.

Shamoun’s Argument

            The bulk of Shamoun’s argument is built upon commentaries from Islamic scholars, which relate some narrations, and one specific hadith from the Kitab al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir by Ibn Sa’d.[8] The specific hadith states that some people asked Muhammad (peace be upon him) about the “doors” of the mosque in Jerusalem which, in Shamoun’s view, seems to imply that a mosque (or the temple itself) already existed there despite the fact that the temple had long been destroyed and the two future mosques (the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque) had yet to be built (emphasis ours):

“The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: How many doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related.”

            In addition to this narration, Shamoun also quotes from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat, which states that the Night Journey was to the “temple” in Jerusalem:

“Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa which is the temple of Aelia [Jerusalem], when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes. […]

His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem’s temple. […]

In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived at the temple in Jerusalem.”

Next, Shamoun appealed to Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Surah 17:1, which states that “Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa”:

“…means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibrahim Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them.”

In addition, the commentary also states that:

“[t]he truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached the door of the sanctuary, he tied up his animal by the door and entered, where he prayed two Rakahs to ‘greet the Masjid.”

Finally, Shamoun quotes the commentary of Yusuf Ali, which states that:

“[t]he Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history.”

Based on these sources, Shamoun makes the following assertions:

“[a]ccording to the Islamic literature the farthest Mosque is actually the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called Bayt ul-Muqaddas in Arabic… […]

The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it).”[9]

Or to put it more succinctly, Shamoun victoriously states [in all caps]:

“THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!”

Important Definitions

            Before we analyze Shamoun’s arguments to see if he can really claim victory, it is important to clarify certain phrases and terms:

  1. Masjid – The Arabic word “masjid”, translated as “mosque” in English, has a complex meaning. It does not simply denote a building (although that is certainly one meaning), but any place of “sujood” (prostration). In other words, it can refer to any place a Muslim can pray, whether indoors or outdoors. The authoritative Lane’s Lexicon states this clearly:

Lane - masjid

Moreover, it is a well-established Islamic concept that the whole earth is a “masjid” and can be used for making one’s prayers, with the exception of any filthy places, such as restrooms, or graveyards. Ironically, Shamoun hilariously questioned my affiliation with Sunni Islam, and even claimed that I was “basically arguing like a Quran only Muslim…” even though it is an established Sunni belief that a masjid does not necessarily have to be a literal building! A hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) clearly says so:

“Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri narrated that: Allah’s Messenger said: “All of the earth is a Masjid except for the graveyard and the washroom.””[10]

So it is irrefutable that, according to Sunni Islam, a masjid can be any place where one performs prostration as an act of worship to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). In other words, with the exception of graveyards and restrooms, a Muslim may pray anywhere, even if it is not inside a literal mosque. For example, when I am at work, I regularly make my prayers in a small space in the office. The prayers are not made in a mosque, but they are still valid. Indeed, Muslims from all over the world pray wherever they can when a mosque is not available. These “places of prostration” include parks, office buildings, beaches and parking lots. Praying outdoors is very common, because the whole earth has been made into a masjid for Muslims.[11]

  1. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa – Mentioned in Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, it means “the Farthest Mosque”.[12] It is better known as the Al-Aqsa Mosque in modern times. In the ahadith, it is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “Bayt al-Maqdis” (see below), but was also differentiated from it (e.g. it was also called the “mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis”).[13] However, that it refers to the holy site in the city of Jerusalem is firmly established and unanimously agreed upon by Islamic scholars.[14] Indeed, the mosque is also known as “the Noble Sanctuary” (Haram Al-Shareef).[15] In this regard, the entire site, known either as “the Noble Sanctuary” to Muslims and the “Temple Mount” to Jews, is actually “Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa”.[16] This, of course, makes sense, as there was no building on the site when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) visited it during Al-Isra, and everyone in his time would have known that. Thus, when they heard that he had travelled to “Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa”, it was implied that he traveled to the site. This view is further strengthened by the fact that the Arabic word masjid simply means “any place in which one performs the act of [sujood]”. This concept is elaborated upon by Professor Uri Rubin (Tel Aviv University), who explains that to Muslims, the site remains holy despite the fact that the former temple is no longer there. He states (emphasis ours):

“[e]ven after the destruction of the temporal Temple House, the masjid as a sacred locality has not disappeared; it has survived the Israelite Temple, and this post-Israelite sanctuary is the one referred to in the isra verse. Here it is not a specific building but rather the entire city as a holy unity which has survived the old and sinful city. This abstract sense of the sanctuary is inherent in the Arabic word masjid, a place of worship.[17]

Interestingly, “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” is mentioned in Surah 17:1 only a few verses before the chapter discusses the destruction of the original temple built by Solomon (peace be upon him). This further establishes that the masjid is not simply referring to any specific building, but to the site itself. As Rubin explains (emphasis ours):

“[t]he fact that the night journey is mentioned in close juxtaposition with the destruction of the Israelite Temple (al-masjid) seems to indicate that al-Masjid al-Aqsa stands for a sacred locality that survived the punitive destruction of the Temple…”[18]

  1. Bayt al-Maqdis – Also known as “Bayt al-Muqaddas”, it means “Sacred/Holy House”.[19] Another form of it is “al-Ard al-Muqaddasah”, which means “Sacred/Holy Land”,[20] a term that is used in the Quran in Surah Al-Maeda, 5:21, which relates to when Moses (peace be upon him) told the Israelites to “enter the Holy Land”:

“O my people, enter the Holy Land (الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ) which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back [from fighting in Allah’s cause] and [thus] become losers.”

As we saw above, Bayt al-Maqdis was used numerous times in the ahadith which mention al-Isra, but the English translations were inconsistent (see notes 5 and 6). Sometimes the English rendition was “temple” and sometimes it was “Jerusalem”. This actually makes sense since, as Khalid El-Awaisi (Al-Maktoum Institute Scotland) explains:

“…names carry different connotations and they are either general or specific and each must be read in context to understand to what it refers.”[21]

El-Awaisi provides a detailed discussion of the ahadith that mention Bayt al-Maqdis, and concludes on this basis that it was used by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “interchangeably to refer to the mosque, the city, and the region”.[22] However, El-Awaisi explains that in most of the ahadith which mention Al-Isra, “Bayt al-Maqdis comes with reference to the city, within which lies the mosque.”[23]

Similarly, Professor Hatem Bazian (UC-Berkeley) explains that:

“[during the prophetic period, Bayt al-Maqdis was used in reference to Palestine on a number of occasions by the Prophet; it also seems that his contemporaries understood the term to refer to the land in Palestine because there are no reports of his companions inquiring about it.”[24]

Interestingly, different terms were used by the Prophet compared to his companions, although they did use the same terms. As discussed below (see the section on “Ilia/Ilya”, another Arabic name for Jerusalem was “Ilya” (from the Roman name Aelia), but this term was more commonly used by the companions and rarely by the Prophet himself.[25]

So, to understand what the ahadith quoted above meant when they referred to “Bayt al-Maqdis”, we need to:

  1. Examine whether it was the Prophet’s statement or of his companions, and
  2. Examine the context of the hadith.

When we use these criteria, we find that in those ahadith which directly quoted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) verbatim and most others, Bayt al-Maqdis referred in most cases to either the Holy Land in Palestine, which of course includes Jerusalem, or Jerusalem itself, and only on a few occasions to the masjid itself (the site of the Temple Mount). Thus, Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, mentions “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” and its “surroundings” which have been “blessed” by God:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

To demonstrate the importance of determining the two points above, let us look at three examples, as provided by El-Awaisi:

  1. A hadith reported by Al-Hakim:

“Al-Arqam Ibn ‘Abd-Manaf (d. 55AH/675CE) came to the Prophet and told him that he was leaving for Bayt al-Maqdis. Prophet Muhammad asked him the reason for going, was it for business? Al-Arqam replied no, he was going for worship; so the Prophet commanded him to stay put and pray in Makkah as the reward for the prayer was far more in Makkah…”[26]

Based on the above two criteria, El-Awaisi explains that when the term Bayt al-Maqdis was used in this narration by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it meant the city and not the mosque. The context makes this clear since, as El-Awaisi points out:

“…when al-Arqam told the Prophet that he was going to Bayt al-Maqdis, the Prophet asked if this was for business. Therefore the Prophet thought that he was referring to the markets in Bayt al-Maqdis and not the Mosque, until al-Arqam explained that he wished to go to Bayt al-Maqdis to pray.”[27]

  1. A hadith reported in Sahih Muslim:

“…the Prophet narrated to his companions in Madinah what had happened on the night of al-Isra. He states “I was brought al-Buraq … and rode it until I got to Bayt al-Maqdis, then I tied it to the same ring which the Prophets tie into, then I entered the masjid where I prayed … “”[28]

Again, when interpreting the hadith with the above two criteria, El-Awaisi rightly concludes that (emphasis ours):

“…it is clear from the saying of the Prophet that he reached Bayt al-Maqdis the city, and then entered the Mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis. Thus it refers to two different entities…”[29]

It should be noted that hadith #1 quoted in the above section titled “Background: Al-Isra and Al-Miraj”, is a version of the present hadith quoted by El-Awaisi. The context shows that when referring to Bayt al-Maqdis, the Prophet was referring to the city and not Masjid Al-Aqsa itself since he stated that he arrived in Bayt al-Maqdis and only entered the “mosque” after tying al-Buraq.

  1. A hadith reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

“Jabir narrates that he heard the Prophet say… When Quraysh rejected what I said, I stood in al-Hijir (within the al­-Haram Mosque in Makkah) and God [s]howed me Bayt al-Maqdis so I started telling them about its signs (Ayatih) while looking at it (ilayh)…”[30]

Another version, from Al-Tabarani, includes a dialogue between the Prophet and the pagans of Quraysh. When they asked him where he had been during the night of Isra, he replied “Bayt al-Maqdis”, to which they replied “Aelia”. The Prophet replied in the affirmative.[31] So here, coupled with another narration, the context of the report from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim seems to suggest that Bayt al-Maqdis meant the city of Jerusalem, and not specifically the mosque. However, according to the report from Al-Tabarani, when the Prophet replied in the affirmative to the question about Bayt al-Maqdis being Aelia, the Quraysh then asked him to describe the mosque itself. Similar to the report from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the report from Al-Tabarani then states that the Prophet was miraculously shown a vision which allowed him to describe the mosque. The only difference is that in the former narration, Bayt al-Maqdis was specifically mentioned, while in the latter, the “mosque” was mentioned (i.e. in the first narration, the Prophet said that he was shown Bayt al-Maqdis, whereas the second narration specifically mentions the mosque itself). So, it is possible that the report from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim referred to the “mosque” as Bayt al-Maqdis, although it is possible that both the city and the mosque were implied.

Regardless, in most cases, when Bayt al-Maqdis was mentioned by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), he was clearly referring to the city of Jerusalem and not to the mosque.[32] Rubin concurs on this point (emphasis ours):

“[a]s for Jerusalem, the earliest isra versions do not specify any particular destination within the city, and only say that the Prophet arrived in Bayt al-Maqdis, i.e. Jerusalem.”[33]

As for the multiple meanings of Bayt al-Maqdis (i.e. the region, the city or the mosque), Jacob Lassner notes that this was common among Jewish sources as well, suggesting perhaps “a possible path of influence and common understanding.”[34] So, it was not unusual that the term meant different things in different contexts.     

  1. Ilia/Ilya – This is the Arabicized form of the name given to the city of Jerusalem by its inhabitants (originating from the name given to the city by the Romans),[35] and was also known to the Arabs during the prophetic period and afterward as well.[36] For example, when the Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made a treaty with the Christians after conquering Jerusalem, the city’s name was written as “Ilia”.[37] This proper name for Jerusalem is also found in the ahadith literature, as seen in the following example:

“Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) wrote to Caesar and invited him to Islam and sent him his letter with Dihya Al-Kalbi whom Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) ordered to hand it over to the Governor of Busra who would forward it to Caesar. Caesar as a sign of gratitude to Allah, had walked from Hims to Ilya…”[38]

According to Bazian, in the post-prophetic period, both Ilia/Ilya and Bayt al-Maqdis were used interchangeably by the Muslims to refer to the city of Jerusalem.[39] However, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) rarely ever used the term “Ilya” to refer to Jerusalem,[40] and instead referred to the city as “Bayt al-Maqdis”.

Analysis of Shamoun’s Argument

            Now that we have defined these important terms, we can now finally examine Shamoun’s argument. We will examine the narration by Ibn Sa’d last. First, let us examine the other sources Shamoun quotes from.

  1. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat

As shown above, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat states that the Prophet went to the “temple” in Jerusalem. But how could this be when the temple had been destroyed more than 500 years before?

To answer this question, it should be noted that Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, states that the Prophet was taken from the “al-Masjid al-Haram” (in Mecca) to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (in Jerusalem). Ibn Ishaq’s narration from Ziyad bin Abdullah also states this:

“…the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the temple of Aelia…”

This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building. As we will see later (see the Addendum), even to the Jews living under Persian rule (during the brief period in the early 7th century when the Sassanid Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines), to whom rebuilding the temple was of paramount importance, the sacred status of the site itself was all that was needed for the temple sacrifices to restart.

  1. Ibn Kathir’s Commentary

Shamoun quoted from Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Surah 17:1, which referenced to some narrations about Al-Isra as well. To begin, Ibn Kathir stated that “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” refers to:

“…the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibrahim Al-Khalil.”[41]

Based on this, Shamoun argues that there must have been a building there even though the building was destroyed centuries before. But as Dr. Mustafa Abu Sway (Al-Quds University) explains:

“Muslim scholars understood that the name ‘Al-Aqsa Mosque’ predates the structures, and that no one building could be called as such.”[42]

Abu Sway also quotes the 10th-century AH scholar Mujir Al-Din Al-Hanbali to define what “Al-Aqsa” really means. Al-Hanbali stated that (emphasis ours):

“…‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for the whole mosque which is surrounded by the wall…for the building that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel…”[43]

So we have a clear precedent among Islamic scholars that the Quran’s reference to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” is to the entire Temple Mount area, known to Muslims as “Haram Al-Shareef”.

Shamoun then quoted a narration from Jabir bin Abdullah as mentioned in Ibn Kathir’s commentary. Ironically though, the very narration that Shamoun focuses on disproves his point! Here is the narration (notice the part in bold):

“Some people from Quraish went to Abu Bakr and said, “Have you heard what your companion is saying? He is claiming that he went to Bayt Al-Maqdis and came back to Makkah in one night!” Abu Bakr said, “Did he say that?” They said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “Then I bear witness that if he said that, he is speaking the truth.” They said, “You believe that he went to Ash-Sham (Greater Syria) in one night and came back to Makkah before morning” He said, “Yes, I believe him with regard to something even more than that. I believe him with regard to the revelation that comes to him from heaven.” Abu Salamah said, from then on Abu Bakr was known as As-Siddiq (the true believer).”[44]

So, in this narration the skeptics among the Quraish first mentioned “Bayt al-Maqdis”, and then referred to it as “Ash-Sham” (Greater Syria)! In other words, in this case, Bayt al-Maqdis referred to the land of Palestine and Syria, which includes Jerusalem, and not specifically to the mosque/temple!

Finally, Shamoun quoted Ibn Kathir to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “entered the Sanctuary” to pray and later “came out of” Bayt-Maqdis:

“The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached the door of the sanctuary, he tied up his animal by the door and entered, where he prayed two Rak`ahs to `greet the Masjid’. […]

Some people claim that he led them [the prophets] in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first entered (i.e., before ascending into the heavens)…” […]

Then he came out of Bayt Al-Maqdis and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. And Allah knows best. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in both places…”[45]

But as we have already seen, “Bayt al-Maqdis” could refer to the land of Palestine or Jerusalem or the Temple Mount (depending on the context). Later on, it was also used interchangeably with “Ilia” to refer to Jerusalem itself. In addition, once again, Shamoun shoots himself in the foot with his own so-called “proof”. Notice that Ibn Kathir specifically referred to the Prophet “entering” the “sanctuary”, and not Bayt al-Maqdis. He then says that the Prophet “came out of” the latter. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon) “entered” the Temple Mount sanctuary (Haram Al-Shareef), not the temple, and then exited the holy land afterward.  This proves that Bayt al-Maqdis was the city of Jerusalem itself. 

As for the “door of the sanctuary”, this is very clearly referring to one of the gates which allowed people to enter the Temple Mount sanctuary. Some of these entrances have survived to modern times, such as “Barclay’s Gate”. The others are “Warren’s Gate”, “Wilson’s Arch” and “Robinson’s Arch” (named for the archaeologists who discovered them).[46] It is through one of these gates that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) most likely entered the Temple Mount sanctuary. Indeed, there is a gate known as the “Gate of the Prophet” which is thought to be the gate through which he entered. Here is how Andreas Kaplony (University of Zurich) describes the itinerary of the Night Journey (emphasis ours):

“When Muhammad came here on his Night Journey he tied his fabulous riding animal al-Buraq to a stone ring in the wall; then, as the earlier prophets had done, he entered the Temple at the Gate of the Prophet (as, much later, did ‘Umar and the patrikios/patriarch of Jerusalem), walked from the Aqsa Mosque to the Dome of the Rock, climbed the platform at the Ascent of the Prophet, saw the virgins of Paradise at the Dome of the Chain, led the ritual prayer of all prophets at the Dome of the Prophet while the archangel Gabriel took part in the prayer at the Standing-place of Gabriel. Muhammad mounted al-Buraq at the Dome of Gabriel, put his hand on the Rock, and ascended to heaven from the Dome of the Ascension, if not from the Rock.”[47]

According to the British scholar Guy Le Strange (d. 1933), the “Gate of the Prophet” is synonymous with the “Double Gate”,[48] which can still be seen even in modern times. However, the “Moroccan Gate” is also believed to be the gate through which the Prophet entered the sanctuary.[49]

  1. Yusuf Ali’s Commentary

To finish off his “victory”, Shamoun quoted the Muslim exegete Yusuf Ali:

“The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history.”

Yet Shamoun once again shot himself in the foot. Notice that Ali clearly stated that the “Farthest Mosque” (emphasis ours):

“…must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon…”

So, it is referring to the “site”, not the temple itself. Moreover, Shamoun ignored what Ali stated just before mentioning the “Farthest Mosque”, in reference to the definition of the word masjid. Referring to the “Sacred Mosque” (al-Masjid al-Haram) in Mecca, Ali explained that:

“[m]asjid is a place of prayer: here it refers to the Ka’bah at Makkah. It had not yet been cleared of its idols and rededicated exclusively to the One True God.”[50]

Just as the Kaaba was referred to as a “masjid”, so to was “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, since both are sacred places for worshipping Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). So once again, there is nothing here to prove any so-called “gross historical blunder”, as Shamoun claims.

  1. Ibn Sa’d

Finally, let us discuss the interesting narration from Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, which should now make more sense in light of the detailed discussion above. As mentioned above, the narration describes how some people asked the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) about the “doors” of the “mosque”, after which he miraculously described them. According to Shamoun, this somehow proves that there is an “error” because Muhammad (peace be upon him) thought that the temple still existed. We have already seen why this is a false attribution.

First of all, we have already established that a “masjid” is any place of “prostration” and does not necessarily denote a literal building. Second, we have also established that the Prophet “entered” the Temple Mount sanctuary through one of its “gates”. Having established these two important points, we can now see that Ibn Sa’d’s narration makes perfect sense. The Prophet was describing the gates of the Noble Sanctuary! Thus, there is no “error” on the part of the Prophet, but rather the error is on the part of the missionaries and their poor research. Here endeth the lesson!  

Conclusion

            We have thoroughly analyzed Shamoun’s claim of an alleged “error” in the Islamic sources regarding Al-Isra. He claimed that the ahadith indicate that the “mosque/temple” still existed as a literal building at the time of Prophet Muhammad’s miraculous visit to Jerusalem. But upon analysis, Shamoun’s argument fell apart. This was the result of a failure to consider the linguistic complexity of the Arabic word “masjid”, as well as the proper context of the ahadith in question. Moreover, he failed to carefully examine the commentaries of prominent Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir and Yusuf Ali. We can thus conclude that there is no “error” in the Islamic sources at all.

            And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!

Addendum: The Temple Mount During the Sasanian Occupation – A (Partially) Rebuilt Temple?

            Even though we have conclusively refuted Shamoun using the Islamic sources to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) visited Jerusalem and “entered” the “masjid” (“a place of prostration”) through one of its gates (“doors”), it is still worthwhile to examine another possible explanation.

            It is well-known that the Sasanian Empire (Persia) conquered Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis) in 614 CE.[51] This was during the long and brutal war between the Sasanians and the Byzantines, which ultimately culminated in the latter recapturing Jerusalem in the year 628.[52] But what is not as well-known is the wave of excitement among the Jews caused by the fall of Jerusalem in 614, and how close they came to actually rebuilding the temple. The hated Byzantines had been overthrown. But more importantly, the Jews had found a potential benefactor, very much like Cyrus the Great (who ruled the Achaemenid Empire, the older Persian empire), to support their aspirations to rebuild the ruined temple.

            In his account of the fall of Jerusalem to the Sasanians, the Christian chronicler Antiochus Strategos (or Strategius) described how the Jews delighted in the mass slaughter of the Christian population as well as the destruction of their churches.  According to Strategos:

“And when the unclean Jews saw the steadfast uprightness of the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively ire, like evil beasts, and thereupon imagined another plot. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep. The Christians however rejoiced because they were being slain for Christ’s sake and shed their blood for His blood, and took on themselves death in return for His death. . .

When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing. . .”[53]

            The hatred of Byzantine-Christian rule explains the Jewish euphoria at the Sasanian victory (although Strategos’ description of the mass slaughter and destruction of Christian buildings may have been exaggerated).

            Now with the Byzantines gone, the Jews could finally take control of the Temple Mount and perhaps start rebuilding the temple. And this is what seems to have happened. According to Jewish piyyut (synagogal poetry),[54] following the collapse of Byzantine rule, the Jews were apparently given permission by the Sasanians to rebuild the temple! As Professor Hagith Sivan (University of Kansas) explains (emphasis ours):

“[h]opes of revival focused on the resettlement of Jerusalem, the reconstruction of the Temple, and the recognition of Jewish autonomous leadership. The piyyut appears to indicate that steps were taken to ensure precisely that. An altar was constructed on the site of the Temple, sacrifices resumed, and the community bestowed its recognition on an unnamed man who appeared ex nihilo to claim the mantle of leadership.”[55]

Interestingly, even though the temple was not rebuilt just yet, the Jews had already begun offering sacrifices! And of course, in modern times, Jews still pray at the “Wailing Wall”. This illustrates the same concept as we have seen with the Muslim concept of a “masjid”. Despite the fact that there was no temple, sacrifices were still offered and prayers could still be made. Thus, a sacred area is sacred no matter if a building is literally there or not. Nevertheless, plans to eventually rebuild the temple may have been made by the Jews shortly after the Sasanians captured Jerusalem.

            So what does this have to do with the topic of this article? Well, perhaps there was some form of a building, even if only partially completed, by the time the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) visited Jerusalem in 619? Of course, proving the existence of a partially rebuilt temple is not necessary to make sense of the Islamic accounts of the Prophet Muhammad’s visit to Jerusalem, based on the evidence shown above, but it is still an intriguing possibility.

            Of course, the Jewish euphoria came to a sudden halt when the Sasanians apparently had a change of heart around the year 617. The Jewish leader, who was apparently being seen in an increasingly messianic way, was executed by the Persians and the Christians were once again in control, albeit as Sasanian clients.[56] So if construction had begun on the temple, it was probably destroyed by the Christians and left in ruins. Jerusalem would remain under Christian control and was fully regained when the Byzantines, led by Heraclius, recaptured it in 628. This would be the status quo until the Muslims conquered the holy city.       

            Nevertheless, the possibility of a partially-rebuilt temple is an interesting one. Even though it is certainly not necessary in order to refute Shamoun, it could shed further light on some of the descriptions of Al-Isra in the Islamic sources.


[1] This is from the Saheeh International translation.

[2] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/25/introducing-the-new-feature-article-on-blogging-theology/#comment-4562

[3] The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), p. 693.

[4] For more information, see The Study Quran, pp. 694-695.

[5] Sahih Muslim, 1:318, https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/318. The English translation renders the Arabic phrase “بَيْتَ الْمَقْدِسِ” as “temple” but for now, we will leave it as “Bayt al-Maqdis”. Later on, we will discuss the meaning of this phrase, as there is some confusion as to its meaning in early Islamic history.

[6] Sahih Bukhari, 63:112, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/112. Here, the translation renders the same Arabic phrase as “Jerusalem”. The confusion will be cleared up when we examine the historical meaning of بَيْتَ الْمَقْدِسِ in early Islam, inshaAllah.

[7] Sunan An-Nasa’i, 5:3, https://sunnah.com/nasai/5/3.

[8] This book is available online: http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html

[9] https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/25/introducing-the-new-feature-article-on-blogging-theology/#comment-4562

[10] Jami at-Tirmidhi, 2:169, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/2/169.

[11] https://www.placesyoullpray.com/

[12] Mustafa Abu Sway, “The Holy Land, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Qur’an, Sunnah and other Islamic Literary Sources”, p. 1, https://www.academia.edu/6338726/The_Holy_Land_Jerusalem_and_Al-Aqsa_Mosque_in_the_Quran_Sunnah_and_other_Islamic_Literary_Sources_i.

[13] Khalid El-Awaisi, “The Names of IslamicJerusalem in the Prophet Period,” Journal of IslamicJerusalem Studies 8, no. 1 (Summer 2007): 40, http://dergipark.gov.tr/download/article-file/294441

[14] Uri Rubin, “Muhammad’s Night Journey (isra’) to al-Masjid al-Aqsa: Aspects of the Earliest Origins of the Islamic Sanctity of Jerusalem,” al-Qantara 29 (2008): 157, https://www.academia.edu/5617249/_Muhammad_s_Night_Journey_isra_to_al-Masjid_al-Aqsa_Aspects_of_the_Earliest_Origins_of_the_Islamic_Sanctity_of_Jerusalem_

[15] Ibid., p. 5.

[16] Ibid., pp. 5-6.

[17] Rubin, op. cit., p. 155.

[18] Ibid., p. 164.

[19] Hatem Bazian, “Al-Quds or Jerusalem: What’s in a Name?”, Seasons 4, no. 1 (Autumn 2007): 62, https://www.academia.edu/7196546/Jerusalems_Al-Quds_Name_in_Islamic_Sources.

See also El-Awaisi, op. cit., p. 22.

El-Awaisi notes that al-maqdis is a noun, whereas al-Muqaddas is an adjective. Thus, when the word bayt is combined with the former, it means “the Holy House,” and with the latter, it means “the House of Holiness”.

[20] Ibid.

[21] El-Awaisi, op. cit., p. 50.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., pp. 49-50.

[24] Bazian, op. cit., p. 62.

[25] El-Awaisi, op. cit., p. 50.

[26] Ibid., p. 29.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., pp. 31-32.

[29] Ibid., p. 32.

[30] Ibid., p. 33.

[31] Ibid., p. 34.

[32] Ibid., p. 35.

[33] Rubin, op. cit., p. 158.

[34] Jacob Lassner, Medieval Jerusalem: Forging an Islamic City in Spaces Sacred to Christians and Jews (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Univesity of Michigan Press, 2017), p. 7.

[35] Bazian, op. cit., p. 73; El-Awaisi, op. cit., p. 22. The Roman name was “Aelia Capitolina”.

[36] Ibid., p. 60.

[37] Ibid., p. 64.

[38] Sahih Bukhari, 56:153, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/153.

Here, Ibn Abbas referred to the city as “Ilya”.

[39] Bazian, op. cit., p. 64.

[40] El-Awaisi, p. 50.

[41] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2865&Itemid=72

[42] Abu Sway, op. cit., p. 5.

[43] Ibid.

[44] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2861&Itemid=72

[45] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2857&Itemid=72

[46] http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/43-barclays-gate.html

[47] Andreas Kaplony, “[Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade] 635/638-1099: The Mosque of Jerusalem (Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis),” in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, Jerusalem und Austin, eds. Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), p. 108, https://www.academia.edu/11220347/_Jerusalem_s_Sacred_Esplanade_635_638-1099_The_Mosque_of_Jerusalem_Masjid_Bayt_al-Maqdis_

Of course, when Kaplony refers to the “Dome of the Rock” and “Aqsa Mosque”, he is merely referring to the sites before the actual buildings were constructed.

Kaplony also provides a useful diagram of the Temple Mount after the Umayyad construction of the mosques (p. 105). The “Gate of the Prophet” can be clearly seen in the diagram.

Also of interest is the fact that there is also a small mosque in a corner of the modern Al-Aqsa compound, on the opposite side of the “Wailing Wall” (for Jews), that is known as “Masjid al-Buraq”. It got this name because it is thought be the place where Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) tied the heavenly creature Buraq before entering the compound (https://www.islamiclandmarks.com/palestine-masjid-al-aqsa/buraq-masjid).

[48] https://archive.org/details/palestineundermo00lest/page/182

[49]

https://www.islamiclandmarks.com/palestine-masjid-al-aqsa/masjid-al-aqsa

[50] See the commentary here: https://archive.org/details/TheHolyQuranAbdullahYusufAliEnglishCommentaryWithTafsir/page/n1227

[51] Hagith Sivan, “From Byzantine to Persian Jerusalem: Jewish Perspectives and Jewish/Christian Polemics,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 41 (2000): 283, https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/2081/6085

[52] Gideon Avni, “The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem (614 c.e.)—An Archaeological Assessment,” Bulletine of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 357, no. 1 (2010): 35, https://www.academia.edu/7363427/Avni_Persian_Conquest_BASOR_357_1_.

[53] http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/antiochus_strategos_capture.htm

However, modern archaeologists have found no evidence to suggest such destruction.  According to Gideon Avni:

“…a careful survey of the available archaeological finds from Jerusalem reveals no clear evidence of destruction layers that can be associated with the Persian conquest. In many sites, evidence for destruction is ambiguous…” (Avni, op. cit., p. 36).

Interestingly, Strategos also described how some Christians attempted to flee the violence and hid on the Temple Mount, and more specifically, in the “Holy of Holies”:

“[s]ome had fled into the Holy of Holies, where they lay cut up like grass. And some were found of the slain who had in their hands the glorious and life-giving body of Christ, and in the act of receiving it had been butchered like sheep. Others were clasping the horns of the altars; others the holy Cross, and the slain were heaped on them.”

This is strange given that the “Holy of Holies” was the innermost and most sacred part of the temple, separated by a veil which only the high priest could enter once every year. Yet there was no temple there at the time! This illustrates the same concept found in Islam regarding a “masjid”. It doesn’t have to be a literal building. What matters is the sacred status of the land and not whether it has a roof, walls, and doors.

It is also strange that Strategos claimed that some Christians were found clinging the “horns of the altar”. Perhaps this was a confusion on his part due to the fact that the Jews did build the altar shortly after the Sasanians captured Jerusalem, whereas he thought it already existed before.

[54] Sivan, op. cit.,, p. 278.

[55] Ibid., p. 291.

[56] Ibid., p. 303.

 



Categories: Archaeology, Feature Article, Hadith, History, Islam, Jerusalem, Muhammad, Palestine, Qur'an, Sam Shamoun

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

63 replies

  1. Excellent MaShaAllah – a duly diligent point-by-point repudiation as well as a masterful assertion of the orthodox, classical perspective on this fascinating topic, with scrupulously cited scriptural references and sources.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Williams, you still let this guy post here after this nonsense? Anyway, before I decimate his arguments, let me first post my response to Sami Zaatari who was also foolish enough to defend this. So enjoy!

    Muhammad Alleged Night Journey

    Further proof for the incoherence and incompleteness of the Quran

    The Quran claims to be a scripture whose verses are fully detail

    A Book where of the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know. S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan

    A Book, the verses of which have been expounded in detail and which will be repeatedly read, couched in clear, eloquent language, for a people who have knowledge, Sher Ali

    A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know. Rashad Khalifa

    However a careful examination of the Quran shows that such is not the case since the Islamic writ fails to provide adequate information and details for many of its stories and injunctions. The following text which is used to establish Muhammad’s miraculous ascent by night is a case in point:

    Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), 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). S. 17:1

    Here are some of the many problems which this passage raises against the Quran’s assertion that its verses are fully detailed.

    The verse fails to identify who this servant is. Is this referring to Muhammad or to Moses who is actually mentioned later on in the context? Or is it referring to some other messenger or prophet?
    In fact, how do we even know that the servant in question was actually a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was devout believer who saw a vision or dream.
    Where exactly are these mosques located? Where can we find Masjid al-Aqsa? Where is the exact location of the Sacred Mosque?

    Can any Muslim answer these questions from the text of the Quran alone? If they are incapable of doing so wouldn’t this falsify the Quran’s assertion that all of its verses are fully detailed?

    In light of this our challenge to Zaatari at this point is very simple. We want him to prove that the Quran is correct in claiming that its verses are fully detailed by using only the Islamic writ to answer all of the above questions. If he appeals to other sources then he will only be proving that the Quran is mistaken since it does not provide a thoroughly adequate explanation for all of its passages.

    But these are the least of Zaatari’s problems.

    Muhammad’s journey to the Temple of Jerusalem

    The only way that Zaatari (or any other dawagandist) can even answer these questions is by turning to the sirah and/or hadith literature. However, these sources actually prove that the Quran is grossly mistaken and that Muhammad was a false prophet who deceived people by his false dreams and visions which he claimed were from God.

    According to the Islamic literature the farthest Mosque is actually the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called Bayt ul-Muqaddas in Arabic:

    Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Aslami informed us; he said: Usamah Ibn Zayd al-Laythi related to me on the authority of ‘Amr Ibn Shu’ayb, he on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (‘Amr’s) grand-father; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: Musa Ibn Ya’qub al-Zam’i related to me on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (Musa’s) grandfather, he on the authority of Umm Salamah; (third chain) Musa said: Abu al-Aswad related to me on the authority of ‘Urwah, he on the authority of ‘Ayishah; (fourth chain) Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar said: Ishaq Ibn Hazim related to me on the authority of Wahb Ibn Kaysan, he on the authority of Abu Murrah the mawla of ‘Aqil, he on the authority of Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib (fifth chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far related to me on the authority of Zakariya Ibn ‘Amr, he on the authority of Abu Mulaykah, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas and others; their consolidated narrations are: The Apostle of Allah, was taken by night on the seventeenth night of First Rabi’ before Hijrah, and one year before the blockade in the mountain pass of Abu Talib, to Bayt al-Muqaddas. The Apostle of Allah said: I was mounted on a beast whose size was between a donkey and a mule, with two wings in its thighs, which came up to its hoofs and were set in them. When I went near it to ride, it became restive. Thereupon Gabriel placed his hand on its head and said: O Buraq! are you not ashamed of what you are doing? By Allah no servant of Allah has ridden you before Muhammad, more honoured in the sight of Allah. It felt ashamed till it was covered with sweat, and became calm; then I mounted it. It moved its ears, and the earth shrank to such an extent that its hoofs (seemed to touch its surface) at the end of the range of our sight. It had a long back and long ears. Gabriel accompanied me and he never lost touch with me nor did I till we reached Bayt al-Muqaddas; and al-Buraq reached its halting place. It was tied there and it was the place where the beasts… of the Prophets were tied before the Apostle of Allah. He (the Prophet) said: I saw the Prophets who had assembled there for me. I saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus and, I thought there must be some one to lead them (in prayers); Gabriel made me go forward till I offered prayers in front of them and inquired from them (about their mission). They said: We were commissioned with Unity (of Allah).

    Some of them (narrators) said: The Prophet had disappeared that night, so the members of family of ‘Abd al-Muttalib went out to search him. Al-‘Abbas went to Dhu Tuwa and began to shout: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The Apostle of Allah said: I am here. He said: O my brother’s son! You have worried the people since the (beginning of the) night, where had you been? He said: I am coming from Bayt al-Muqaddas. He said: In one night? He said: Yes. He said: Did you experience anything which was not good? He said: I did not experience anything but good. Umm Hani said: He was taken on this journey from our house. He slept that night with us; he offered al-‘Isha prayers, and then he slept. When it was pre-dawn we awoke him (to offer) morning (prayers). He got up and when he offered morning prayers he said: O Umm Hani! I offered al’Isha prayers with you as you witnessed, then I reached Bayt Al-Muqaddas and offered prayers there; then I offered morning prayers before you. After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: “We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind”. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], Volume I, pp. 246-248; capital emphasis ours)

    And:

    Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; capital emphasis ours)

    The renowned Muslim commentator Ibn Kathir writes:

    means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1)

    Ibn Kathir narrates some hadiths to confirm this point:

    The Report of Jabir bin `Abdullah

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say…

    <> This was also reported in the Two Sahihs with different chains of narration. According to Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Shihab said: Abu Salamah bin `Abdur-Rahman said: Some people from Quraish went to Abu Bakr and said, “Have you heard what your companion is saying He is claiming that he went to Bayt Al-Maqdis and came back to Makkah in one night!” Abu Bakr said, “Did he say that?” They said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “Then I bear witness that if he said that, he is speaking the truth.” They said, “You believe that he went to Ash-Sham [Greater Syria] in one night and came back to Makkah before morning” He said, “Yes, I believe him with regard to something even more than that. I believe him with regard to the revelation that comes to him from heaven.” Abu Salamah said, from then on Abu Bakr was known as As-Siddiq (the true believer).

    And:

    I remember being in Al-Hijr, and the Quraysh were asking me about my Night Journey. They asked me things about Bayt Al-Maqdis that I was not sure of, and I felt more anxious and stressed then than I have ever felt. Then Allah raised up Bayt Al-Maqdis for me to see, and there was nothing they asked me about but I told them about it. And I remember being in a gathering of the Prophets. Musa was standing there praying, and he was a man with curly hair, as if he were one of the men of Shanu’ah. I saw ‘Isa ibn Maryam standing there praying, and the one who most resembles him is ‘Urwah bin Mas’ud Ath-Thaqafi. And I saw Ibrahim standing there praying, and for the one who most resembles him is your companion (meaning himself). Then the time for prayer came, and I led them in prayer. When I finished, a voice said, ‘O Muhammad, this is Malik, the keeper of Hell,’ so I turned to him, and he greeted me first.

    Finally,

    “… The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached THE DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY, he tied up his animal by THE DOOR AND ENTERED, where he prayed two Rakahs to ‘greet the Masjid’…

    “Then he came back down to Bayt Al-Maqdis, and the Prophets came down with him and he led them in prayer there when the time for prayer came. Some claim that he led them in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first ENTERED…

    “Then he came OUT OF BAYT AL-MAQDIS and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in BOTH places, because it is like offering food or drink to a guest when he arrives, and Allah knows best.” (Capital emphasis ours)

    The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,

    The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693)

    In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!

    Zaatari sees the problem and therefore asks:

    There is a very easy way to reconcile this problem, if THE temple of Jerusalem was there no more, then obviously the prophet visited ANOTHER temple!

    Who says that the temple he went to has to be the same exact Jewish holy temple which was revered by the Jews?

    The very same sources which Zaatari appeals to say that the Temple that Muhammad went to is the same exact one which the Jews revered!

    Zaatari then asks:

    Secondly, what’s to say that God could not reconstruct the main Jewish temple for the prophet Muhammad on this specific event? The whole night journey is a miraculous event; hence it would not be a problem at all for God to reconstruct the temple for a short period so the prophet could go inside it and pray. Does Shamoun doubt God’s powerful abilities?

    The reason why this ad hoc explanation doesn’t work is because the Islamic sources testify that Muhammad described the Temple in order to convince the disbelievers that he had actually visited there:

    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

    The Prophet said, “When the Quraish disbelieved me (concerning my night journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka’ba) and Allah displayed Bait-ul-Maqdis before me, and I started to inform them (Quraish) about its signs while looking at it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 233)

    And:

    “… After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers WENT ASTRAY. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. SOME OF THEM SAID: How man doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: ‘We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind’. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye.” (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir Volume I, p. 248 capital emphasis ours)

    The only way to make sense out of these reports is if we assume that the disbelievers were suppose to know what the Temple looked like since they would have seen it in their alleged travels to Jerusalem. Otherwise, Muhammad’s description of the Temple would make no sense and would fail to establish his case if the people he was speaking to had no idea what it looked like.

    Zaatari himself indirectly sees this point since he later writes:

    Moving on, if anyone does continue with the story one will find that the people around the prophet Muhammad who knew Jerusalem ADMITTED that his description of Jerusalem was accurate as well.

    The only way they could admit that what Muhammad had said concerning the Temple was accurate is if they supposedly had gone to it and seen it for themselves.

    Thus, how can a Temple which only appeared in Muhammad’s imagination be verified by people who knew Jerusalem when this Temple no longer existed in real time and space? If Zaatari is correct that Allah only reconstructed the Temple simply in Muhammad’s fantasy-laden mind then how could such information be used to establish his prophethood or confirm that he actually traveled to Jerusalem?

    The only way to make sense out of all of these stories is if we assume that their compilers actually thought that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing during Muhammad’s time. However, they were grossly mistaken since no such Temple existed.

    This leaves Zaatari with the troubling fact that his false prophet never visited Jerusalem nor did he ever see the Temple, let alone enter there to pray with God’s true prophets and messengers.(1)

    But there is more to the story and there are other problems which Muslims such as Zaatari are faced with because of what these reports and the Quran say.

    Like

    • There’s more.

      Which Temple did Muhammad actually visit?

      According to the Islamic scripture Allah told the Israelites that they would spread corruption in the land twice. As a result of their mischief Allah sent people to punish them:

      And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Book: ‘You shall do corruption in the earth twice, and you shall ascend exceeding high.’ So, when the promise of the first of these came to pass, We sent against you servants of Ours, men of great might, and they went through the habitations, and it was a promise performed. Then We gave back to you the turn to prevail over them, and We succoured you with wealth and children, and We made you a greater host. ‘If you do good, it is your own souls you do good to, and if you do evil it is to them likewise.’ Then, when the promise of THE SECOND came to pass, We sent against you Our servants to discountenance you, and to enter the Temple, AS THEY ENTERED IT THE FIRST TIME, and to destroy utterly that which they ascended to. Perchance your Lord will have mercy upon you; but if you return, We shall return; and We have made Gehenna a prison for the unbelievers. S. 17:4-8

      Needless to say, this particular surah raises a host of difficulties.

      First off, the passage claims that when the Israelites committed mischief the second time Allah sent his servants to enter the Temple much like the people that Allah had sent previously entered it the first time the Israelites had acted corruptly. This assumes that the Temple wasn’t destroyed the first time around since if it was then the people who attacked the Israelites the second time could not have entered it, which raises a serious problem.

      As we had previously noted, according to both Biblical and secular history the first time anyone came up against the Temple in Jerusalem was when the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar sent his armies to destroy it in 586 BC. The second time this happened was in 70 AD when the army of the Roman general Titus ransacked the second Temple. Moreover, the construction on this second Temple began only when the Jews returned to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon.

      Thus, the people who attacked Jerusalem the second time around never saw the Temple which the first group that came up against the Israelites had seen! How, then, could the Quran claim that this second group of people entered the very same Temple which the first group that attacked the Israelites entered?

      Or is the Islamic scripture actually referring to Antiochus Epiphanes IV or perhaps even Pompey, both of whom laid siege and entered the Temple without destroying it? If so then the same problem remains since neither ruler ever entered the first Temple since that had been destroyed by the Babylonians.

      This also means that the Quran is mistaken on the number of times Israel’s enemies entered into their Temple since this happened at least four times by four different rulers.

      Secondly, if the Muslim scripture is referring to either Pompey or Antiochus then does this imply that the author(s) of the Quran actually thought that Solomon’s Temple remained standing and was never destroyed? If so then would this not prove that the author(s) actually believed that the Temple which Allah took his servant to is none other than the very same Temple which Solomon built?

      Yet this interpretation seems unlikely since the Quran seems to suggest that the Temple was destroyed by the second group that Allah had sent against the Israelites:

      (And We said): “If you do good, you do good for your ownselves, and if you do evil (you do it) against yourselves.” Then, when the second promise came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to make your faces sorrowful and to enter the mosque (of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that fell in their hands. S. 17:7 Hilali-Khan

      If this is the meaning of the verse then this neither refers to Pompey nor Antiochus but must be speaking of Titus.

      However, one cannot be too dogmatic since the verse doesn’t come out and say that Allah’s servants destroyed the Temple. It merely states that they destroyed whatever fell into their hands which may imply that they destroyed the land and the homes of the Israelites but left the Temple standing much like the first group did.

      Or, is the Quran actually asserting that there weren’t two different groups that attacked the Temple but one and the same group did? Notice the text once again,

      So when the time for the first of the two came, We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might who ravaged (your) country, and it was a threat performed. Then we gave you once again your turn against them, and We aided you with wealth and children and made you more in soldiery. (Saying): If ye do good, ye do good for your own souls, and if ye do evil, it is for them (in like manner). So, when the time for the second (of the judgments) came (We roused against you others of Our slaves) to ravage you, and to enter the Temple even AS THEY entered it the first time, and to lay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting. S. 17:5-7 Pickthall

      The statement, “even as they entered it the first time,” makes it sound as if the same servants or people came back again. At least there is no indication that the author of the Qur’an understood this to mean that DIFFERENT nations were sent to punish Israel.

      This leads us to the other major difficulty with Muhammad’s supposed night journey.

      Who actually built the Kabah?

      Muhammad is reported to have believed that the first mosque that was built was the one in Mecca and that the “mosque” in Jerusalem was built forty years later:

      Narrated Abu Dhar:

      I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?” He said, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca).” I said, “Which was built next?” He replied “The mosque of Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).” I said, “What was the period of construction between the two?” He said, “Forty years.” He added, “Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 585)

      And:

      Chapter 6. The Virtue Of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa And Praying Therein

      694. It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr that the Messenger of Allah said: “When Sulaiman bin Dawud finished building Bait Al-Maqdis, he asked Allah for three things: Judgment that was in harmony with His judgment, and he was given that. And he asked Allah for a dominion that no one after him would have, and he was given that. And when he finished building the Masjid, he asked Allah the Mighty and Sublime, that no one should come to it, intending only to pray there, but he would emerge free of sin as day his mother bore him.” (Sahih) (English Translation of Sunan An-Nasa’i – Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu Abdur Rahman Ahmad bin Shu‘aib bin ‘Ali An-Nasa’i, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: December 2007], Volume 1. From Hadith No. 01 to 876, 8. The Book of Masjids, p. 409)

      The main difficulty with this assertion is that it places the erection of the Kabah at approximately 998 BC., since the construction of the first Temple was not completed by Solomon until BC. 951 (c.f. 1 Kings 6:1-7:51). However, the Quran implies that the Kabah was built by Abraham and Ishmael (we say imply because the Islamic scripture never identifies the place where Ishmael settled as Mecca):

      Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma’il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). And remember Abraham said: “My Lord, make this a City of Peace, and feed its people with fruits, – such of them as believe in God and the Last Day.” He said: “(Yea), and such as reject Faith, – for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire, – an evil destination (indeed)!” And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): “Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. “Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. Our Lord! send amongst them an Apostle of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” S. 2:125-129

      This means that Abraham, Ishmael, David and Solomon were all contemporaries who lived around the same time!

      In order to get around this blatant mistake of Muhammad’s Muslims have come up with a rather disingenuous explanation that neither Abraham nor Solomon initially built these places of worship. Rather, these prophets simply rebuilt them!

      Chapter 7. Which Mosque Was Built First?

      753. It was narrated that Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari said: “I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Which mosque was built first?’ He said: ‘Al-Masjid Al-Haram (in Makkah).’ I said: ‘Then which?’ He said: ‘Then Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).’ I said: ‘How many years between them?’ He said: ‘Forty years, but the whole earth is a mosque for you, so pray wherever you are when the time for prayer comes.'” (Sahih)

      Comments:

      a. The reference here is to the building of the first mosque ever built in history, which was accomplished at the hands of Adam. As for the prophets Ibrahim and Isma’il they rebuilt after old marks had been erased. Similarly, Sulaiman was also not the first to build Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 1. From Hadith No. 01 to 802, (4) The Chapters On The Mosques And The Congregations, pp. 492-493)

      There is not a single shred of historical or archaeological proof that Solomon wasn’t the first person to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In case Zaatari disagrees we challenge him (or any other dawagandist for that matter) to provide some evidence to the contrary.

      There is also absolutely no evidence that the Kabah was built by Adam. In fact, the Quran itself expressly affirms that it was Abraham and Ishmael who built the original structure of the Kabah.

      Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): “Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).” S. 22:26

      Here is what Ibn Kathir says concerning this text:

      Building of the Ka’bah and the Proclamation of the Hajj

      This is a rebuke to those among Quraysh who worshipped others than Allah and joined partners with Him in the place which from the outset had been established on the basis of Tawhid and the worship of Allah Alone, with no partner or associate. Allah tells us that He showed Ibrahim the site of the `Atiq House, i.e., He guided him to it, entrusted it to him and granted him permission to build it. Many scholars take this as evidence to support the view that Ibrahim WAS THE FIRST ONE to build the House and that IT WAS NOT BUILT BEFORE HIS TIME… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital emphasis ours)

      But even this assertion is wrong since there is no proof whatsoever that Ishmael settled in Mecca or that Abraham ever visited there. As the following scholar explains:

      “… Ishmael is considered the progenitor of the Arabs. Dagon (1981) has shown that this idea is an Islamic construction AND THAT NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND THE ARABS HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD. Already in the first Islamic century, however, Ishmael came to symbolize the Islamic Umma, and biblical passages about Ishmael were taken to refer to Muhammad, the Arabs, or the Muslim community.” (Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm [E.J. Brill Academic Publishers; August 1997 ISBN: 9004100342], p. 147, fn. 37; capital emphasis ours)

      Noted Islamicist Alfred Guillaume agrees,

      “… there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62)

      Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim turned atheist, quotes specific authorities who also deny that Abraham or Ishmael were ever in Mecca,

      We are told that [Abraham] was born in Chaldea, and that he was the son of a poor potter who earned his living by making little clay idols. It is scarcely credible that the son of this potter went to Mecca, 300 leagues away in the tropics, by way of impassable deserts. If he was a conqueror he no doubt aimed at the fine country of Assyria; and if he was only a poor man, as he is depicted, he founded no kingdoms in foreign parts. — Voltaire

      For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson

      It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca. — Montgomery Watt

      The essential point … is that, where objective fact has been established by sound historical methods, it must be accepted. — Montgomery Watt

      According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the cube-like structure in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But outside these traditions there is absolutely no evidence for this claim – whether epigraphic, archaeological, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Muhammad invented the story to give his religion an Arabian origin and setting; with this brilliant improvisation Muhammad established the independence of his religion, at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs. (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 1995], p. 131)

      The story is far from over since it gets even worse.

      Like

      • Not through just yet.

        Muhammad worships his god on top of refuse and garbage?

        The readers may not be aware that at the time that Muhammad’s night journey allegedly took place the Temple site had been turned into a dump site, a fact which both Muslim scholars and apologists admit!

        “… The site of the mosque in Jerusalem is where the Jewish Temple stood. At that time it was a rubbish heap. ‘Umar told the people to follow his example in clearing the rubbish away…” (The History of al-Tabari – The Battle of al-Qadsiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, translated by Yohanan Friedmann [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, September 1991], Volume XII (12), pp. 195-196)

        And:

        Let’s now deal with some side issues. The Christian missionaries tell us that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount filled with garbage:

        “When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. … `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. The sanctuary [the Dome of the Rock] … was built by Caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan around 72/691.”

        Two question now arise, who abandoned the Temple Mount and why was it filled it with rubbish? The facts become clearer when we actually fill in the blanks “…” in the Christian missionaries’ quotation:

        When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. The abandonment of the Temple site was in accordance with Jesus’ prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another. `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there.[20]

        So, it was the Christians who abandoned the Temple some 600 years before the Muslims entered it. But who used the Holy place a rubbish dump?

        Ever since the Persian occupation, when the Jews had resumed worship on the platform, the Christians had used the place as the city rubbish dump. When `Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth, “which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up the ceiling of the gateway.” The only way to get up to the platform was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod’s platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage.[21]

        It was the Christians! …

        [20] “Dome Of The Rock” in C. Glassé, The Concise Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1989, Stacey International: London, p. 102.

        [21] K. Armstrong, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, 1997, Ballantine Books: New York, p. 229. (Muhammad Ghoniem, Mansur Ahmed, Elias Karim, `Abd al-Rahman Robert Squires & M S M Saifullah, Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa – The Farthest Mosque, Appendix: Who Turned The Temple Mount Into A Garbage Dump?; bold emphasis ours)

        In light of this are we to seriously believe that Muhammad visited a dump site and led all of the true prophets of God in worship? Does Zaatari really want us to accept that God’s true prophets prayed on top of a rubbish heap? Even Umar had enough common sense to cleanse the site before offering prayers to his god!

        Endnotes

        (1) This whole story might actually support the theory of the radical revisionists who say that Islam itself only came into existence much later, and that Muhammad never existed. For instance, there was a mosque built in Jerusalem called Masjid al-Aqsa. However, it is believed that this mosque may have been constructed during the Umayyad period and that it was later reconstructed and expanded by ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan in 690-692 AD.

        This suggests that at the very least this particular Quranic verse was inserted later and the story which was written around it must have been concocted at a time when the people knew of such a mosque in that location. In light of this it seems reasonably certain that later generations of Muslims projected the existence of this building back into the imaginary life of Muhammad and in so doing ended up providing even more incriminating evidence that he was a false prophet and that the Quran is not from the true God.

        Like

  3. Now that I posted my thorough refutation to Zaatari, which deals with many of this neophyte’s “rebuttal,” time for me to begin my decimation of his “response.”

    First, note how he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He argues tooth and nail that masjid doesn’t have to refer to a temple, but simply a place or site, in order to salvage his profit from his gross blunder. But then he wants to have his cake and eat it too, since he basically concedes that there may have been a building of some kind, which the Quran may actually be referring to!

    BEGIN
    So what does this have to do with the topic of this article? Well, PERHAPS THERE WAS SOME FORM OF A BUILDING, even if only partially completed, by the time the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) visited Jerusalem in 619? Of course, proving the existence of a partially rebuilt temple is not necessary to make sense of the Islamic accounts of the Prophet Muhammad’s visit to Jerusalem, based on the evidence shown above, but it is still an intriguing possibility.
    END

    So now which is it? Does masjid refer to a place/site, or a partially completed building? The greenhorn is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t working. And contrary to his assertion, proving the existence of the temple during Muhammad’s time IS NECESSARY to salvage Muhammad’s gross blunder.

    This leads me to my next point. He admits that masjid al-haram refers to AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah:

    BEGIN
    Just as the Kaaba was referred to as a “masjid”, so to was “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, since both are sacred places for worshipping Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). So once again, there is nothing here to prove any so-called “gross historical blunder”, as Shamoun claims.
    END

    Therefore, since masjid al-haram refers to an actual building, AND NOT MERELY A SITE OR PLACE, this means the neophyte has pretty much destroyed his own argument since this proves that masjid al-aqsa must also refer to an actual building, and not merely a site or place. As if he couldn’t embarrass himself any further, notice what one of his own sources says concerning masjid al-aqsa:

    BEGIN
    Abu Sway also quotes the 10th-century AH scholar Mujir Al-Din Al-Hanbali to define what “Al-Aqsa” really means. Al-Hanbali stated that (emphasis ours):

    “…‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE which is surrounded by the wall…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel…”[43]
    END

    His own source admits that al-aqsa REALLY REFERS TO THE MOSQUE AND THE BUILDING, and not just to a site or place! OUCH!

    Lord willing, I will hunt down more quotes proving that masjid al-aqsa refers to a building, namely, the temple of Solomon, and not merely its location in my upcoming posts.

    This now brings me to my challenge, which he avoided like the plague. I want him to prove to us from the Quran the location of masjid al-haram and masjid al-aqsa, and the identity of the servant, especially since it claims to be a book that is a scripture which explains all things in detail.

    In my next post I am going to highlight the utter dishonesty and shameless misinterpretation of this neophyte, which only further confirms that no one should ever waste time with him again. He truly is a disgrace to this site.

    Like

    • “So now which is it? Does masjid refer to a place/site, or a partially completed building? The greenhorn is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t working. And contrary to his assertion, proving the existence of the temple during Muhammad’s time IS NECESSARY to salvage Muhammad’s gross blunder.”

      It has been sufficiently proven that the word “masjid” refers to ANY “place of prostration”, whether a building or not. You seem to be very confused about. It’s not a “one or the other” issue. A masjid can be a building or it can refer to the land.

      Discussing the attempted rebuilding of the temple by the Jews after the Persian conquest is simply to add another possibility. But as I said, the Islamic sources are sufficient to prove that a literal building was not necessary.

      “This leads me to my next point. He admits that masjid al-haram refers to AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah:”

      LOL! Read again what I said:

      “This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building.”

      The al-Masjid al-Haram refers to the Kaaba, even though the Kaaba was under the control of the pagans and there was no actual “mosque” there. It was just the Kaaba. Did Muslims pray inside the Kaaba? Does anyone actually go inside to pray? No, they pray in the compound facing the Kaaba. So, it is a “masjid” in that regard.

      “His own source admits that al-aqsa REALLY REFERS TO THE MOSQUE AND THE BUILDING, and not just to a site or place! OUCH!”

      WOW!! Are you really paying attention? The source clearly states that the ENTIRE COMPOUND is the mosque!

      “‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY THE WALL…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel…”

      He specifically said that the two mosques known as “Al-Aqsa” and “Dome of the Rock” are “novel”. In other words, those names refer to specific parts of the compound, but before they were even built, the ENTIRE COMPOUND was called “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • wordpress.com “So now which is it? Does masjid refer to a place/site, or a partially completed building? The greenhorn is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t working. And contrary to his assertion, proving the existence of the temple during Muhammad’s time IS NECESSARY to salvage Muhammad’s gross blunder.”
        The greenhorn’s reply here shows why he needs to return to selling cars for a living. Note what he says to my assertion to hos confused and contradictory position where he tries to prove that masjid doesn’t have to refer to building, but merely a place of prostration, while then arguing that Q. 17:1 may in fact be referencing an actual building, albeit a partially built one:
        “It has been sufficiently proven that the word “masjid” refers to ANY ‘place of prostration’, whether a building or not. You seem to be very confused about. It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue. A masjid can be a building or it can refer to the land. Discussing the attempted rebuilding of the temple by the Jews after the Persian conquest is simply to add another possibility. But as I said, the Islamic sources are sufficient to prove that a literal building was not necessary.”
        If anyone is confused it’s the neophyte due to the incoherent babble he produced. In the first place, either masjid in Q. 17:1 refers to a building or it doesn’t. The greenhorn still wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t going to happen.
        Second, here are all the Quranic references to masjid: 2:114, 2:144, 2:149-150, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:217; 5:2; 7:29, 7:31, 8:34, 9:7, 9:17-19, 9:28, 9:107-108; 17:1, 17:7; 18:21, 22:25; 22:40; 48:25; 48:27; 72:18.
        I challenge the greenhorn to quote a single verse where the Quran employs the term masjid to reference something other than an actual building where people gather to worship his god. The problem is that he can’t show that and the fact that he candidly admitted that masjid al-haram in Q. 17:1 (despite all of his incoherent about the Kabah and the masjid which was built later) means that is merely question begging on his part to argue that the second occurrence of the word masjid in the very same verse doesn’t refer to a building but to a place.
        And I hope he isn’t stupid enough to go to the hadiths, since the ahadith prove that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, not merely a place or site!
        And this is the incoherent babble that his fellow Muhammadans lauded! This only shows that you Muslims could care less about truth, since what matters to you is defending the nonsense and fables of your profit. Lord willing, I have more in response to this neophyte’s fluff which I will post shortly.
        Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)
        Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle 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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)
        Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)
        Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this greenhorn will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.

        Like

  4. I don’t know why Williams hasn’t p[ublished my last lengthy refutation, which exposes the lies and distortions of quranbibleblog. I hope he posts it a.s.a.p. In the meantime here are some more references proving that masjid al-aqsa refers to an actual BUILDING, and not merely site:

    Glory be to Him — an affirmation of God’s transcendence — Who carried His servant Muhammad (s) by night laylan is in the accusative as an adverbial qualification; isrā’ means ‘to travel by night’; what is instructive about this mention of laylan ‘by night’ is that through its being indefinite there is an indication of the brevity of its duration from the Sacred Mosque that is Mecca to the Farthest Mosque THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM so called because of its distance from the former; the environs of which We have blessed with fruits and rivers that We might show him some of Our signs the marvels of Our power. Indeed He is the Hearing the Seeing that is to say the Knower of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds. Thus He God was gracious to him by way of carrying him on the night journey which comprised his encountering the other prophets his ascension to heaven and the sight of the marvels of the Divine Realm and His communion exalted be He with him. For he the Prophet said ‘I was brought al-Burāq a white animal larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule; it was able to place its hoof back towards its extremity and so I mounted it. It set off carrying me until I reached THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM. There I fastened the animal to the ring where the prophets fasten their animals. I then WENT IN and prayed two units INSIDE IT. As I CAME OUT Gabriel came to me with a jug of wine and a jug of milk and so I chose the milk. Gabriel said to me “You have made the right choice by choosing the primordial nature fitra”.’ He the Prophet continued the narration ‘We then ascended to the heaven of this world whereat Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. “Has he been sent for?”. “Yes he has been sent for”. Then it was opened for us and lo! Adam stood before me; he greeted me and prayed for well-being for me. We then ascended to the second heaven and Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 17:1; capital emphasis mine)

    And from his own narration on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said regarding the interpretation of Allah’s saying (Glorified be): ‘(Glorified be) He says: He is far exalted above and exonerated from having a son or partner (He Who carried His servant) He Who took His servant Muhammad (by night) at the beginning of the night (from the Inviolable Place of Worship) from the Sacred Precinct, from the house of Umm Hani’ the daughter of Abu Talib (to the Far Distant Place of Worship) far in distance, but close to heaven, i.e. THE MOSQUE OF JERUSALEM (the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed) with water, trees and fruits, (that We might show him) that We might show Muhammad (of Our tokens!) of Our marvels, for all the things He saw that night were marvels of Allah. (Lo! He, only He, is the Nearer) of what the Quraysh say, (the Seer) He sees them just as He sees His servant Muhammad. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; capital emphasis ours)

    Like

    • Even more proof that masjid al-aqsa refers to a mosque/building:

      “It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to THE TEMPLE (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I ENTERED THE MOSQUE and prayed two rak’ahs IN IT, and then CAME OUT and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing…” (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309)

      Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)

      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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)

      Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)

      Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this neophyte would be so dishonest as deny the plain and obvious meaning of this narration, one which refutes his entire shame piece and exposes Muhammad as a false prophet.

      Like

      • This one is a doozy!

        Jami` at-Tirmidhi

        Chapters on Tafsir

        Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
        “I said to Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman: ‘Did the Messenger of Allah perform Salat IN BAIT AL-MAQDIS?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘But he did.’ He said: ‘You say that, O bald one! Based upon what do you say that?’ I said: ‘BASED UPON THE QUR’AN, (the Judge) between you and I is the Qur’an.’ So Hudhaifah said: ‘Whoever argues using the Qur’an, then he has indeed succeeded.'” (One of the narrators) Sufyan said: “He means: ‘He has indeed proven'” – and perhaps he (Sufyan) said: “He triumphed.” He (Zirr) said: “Glorified is He Who took His slave for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (17:1).’ He (Hudhaifah) said: ‘DO YOU SEE (this proves that) HE PERFORMED SALAT IN IT?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘If he had performed Salat in it, then it would have been required upon you that you perform Salat in it, just as it is required that you perform Salat in Al-Masjid Al-Haram.’ Hudhaifah said: ‘The Messenger of Allah was brought a beast with a long back – stretching out like this – one stride of it, is as far as his vision. So, the two of them remained upon the back of Al-Buraq until they saw Paradise and the Fire, and all of what has been prepared for the Hereafter, then they returned back to where they began.’ He said: ‘They say that he was fettered, but for what? Because he might flee? The Knower of the unseen and the witness subdued him.'”

        Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
        English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3147
        Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3440 (sunna.com)

        Here we find Muslims using Q. 17:1 to prove that Muhammad entered in bait al-maqdis to perform prayer. The disputant doesn’t deny that Muhammad visited and/or entered an actual building. He simply rejects the notion of Muhammad praying inside there. OUCH!

        Like

  5. The purpose of the Feature Article is to stimulate respectful dialogue and debate.

    However the response to this article appears to be a series of cut and paste jobs.

    Unless actual comments appear engaging in real discussion, I will close this post.

    I have deleted Sam’s comments which began:

    Time for me to expose quranbibleblog’s utter dishonesty and shameless perversion of his own sources.

    The greenhorn must really be feeling sad for even trying to defend the indefensible with his garbage.

    This language is inconsistent with “articles intended for serious theological discussion and all participants will be deemed to agree in advance to be respectful. A zero-tolerance policy on insults, purposeful irrelevance and trolling will result in such comments being deleted, the person warned and then blocked if they repeat this behaviour.”

    https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/25/introducing-the-new-feature-article-on-blogging-theology/

    Liked by 4 people

  6. @ Everyone

    You gotta love when someone doesn’t read the article.

    Liked by 3 people

    • LOL, yes brother Stew, it seems Shamoun did not read the article and is just repeating the same nonsense which I already refuted.

      Shamoun, you need to use the two criteria I mentioned in the article when reading the Islamic sources:

      1. Examine whether it was the Prophet’s statement or of his companions, and
      2. Examine the context of the hadith.

      When I get time, I might write a formal rebuttal to further refute you. For now, try to pay attention and read my article carefully.

      Like

  7. Fighting over the historical location of a myth – that’s what religious fanaticism leads to.

    Like

  8. When you going to post my reply for all to read? I already posted it on my blog: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/refuting-a-muslim-greenhorn-on-q-171/

    If you are going to keep censoring me then I won’t waste my time decimating the deception and distortions of this greenhorn on your blog anymore. This is the problem with comments section. It allows s vile thug like this neophyte to get away with 50,000 word posts that refute nothing, and you’re aiding him in his Jihad.

    In the meantime I call the greenhorn to debate me on his rebuttal in a back and forth exchange. We can do it on zoom, Skype, google hangouts, or any other platform that allows for live interaction. If the neophyte really believes god garbage then he has nothing to lose by accepting my challenge he and putting me in my place.

    Like

    • “…and putting me in my place.”
      He already did you dumbass. And the fact your trash got removed is because you cannot go without ONE comment of trashtalking. You’re complaining even when most of what you posted is still here including the ones where you just can’t seem yo shut that venomous mouth of yours. You got humiliated and bitchslapped as always now you want to run to your online band of misfits to hide behind their pitchforks where you feel safe cus even if you went on a skype debate and got humiliated those losers together with you would still act as if you have won. Anyone with two braincells sees you got humiliated AGAIN. Machinegunning red herrings like ALWAYS is all you can do and not to mention the amount of false equavalence fallacies you commit like a bitch on heat.

      Go loser. Go run to your pagan little losers with you tale between your fat legs.
      And never forget it’s MUSLIMS that humiliated you.

      Liked by 2 people

      • In your dream you braying ass. The rebuttal that Williams refused to publish here, but which I posted on my blog, exposes your taghut for the wicked vile lying thug that he truly is, even worse than your profit. Now instead of being jihadists behind a key board, why don’t you join your boyfriend and debate me so you can “decimate” me. But we all know you guys are not men enough to defend the filth, lies and errors of your profit. I don’t blame you. Now keep barking along with your keyboard warrior.

        Like

      • Fatty your trashticles whether the ones on this blog or your blog is not a refutation you idiot. Have you even read the article?
        Talking about boyfriend, how is yours doing? You know, your crossdressing psychopath with a hammer. I don’t think I want to know the filthy stuff he does to you with that hammer. But then again you probably enjoy it, espessialy since your wife abandoned you.

        And the only religion where there is filth is your pornreligion written by horny men. You got HUMILIATED again and you got nothing to show for like a loser.
        Sad fatty shamoun.
        And now that everyone can see you got bitchslapped by pretty much everyone I’ll give you an advice: when you take pictures of yourself and simultaneously lie to yourself that you have even an iota of appeal, at least don’t suck your guts in while doing it. It makes your two rocketlaunchers stick out like Paul’s nose when he constantly lied to honer the law in front of the desciples and trashtalked it in his letter.

        And to end this comment with a bang and to get you all horny for your visit with crossdressing Dave make sure YOUR nanoscopic hammer is up and ready to tango.
        Here let me help you achieve that by quoting the prequel to fifty shades of gray:

        While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof. A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts. – Song of Solomon a : 12 – 13.

        Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. – Song of Solomon 4 : 5.

        I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour. – Song of Solomon 8 : 10.

        But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. – Numbers 31 : 18.

        This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples; – Song of Solomon 7 : 7 – 8.

        And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. – 2 Samuel 11 : 4.

        Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins. – Song of Solomon 7 : 3.

        Now go visit your lover. Let your two hammers unite.
        Disgusting!

        Liked by 1 person

      • “In your dream you braying ass. The rebuttal that Williams refused to publish here, but which I posted on my blog, exposes your taghut for the wicked vile lying thug that he truly is, even worse than your profit. Now instead of being jihadists behind a key board, why don’t you join your boyfriend and debate me so you can “decimate” me. But we all know you guys are not men enough to defend the filth, lies and errors of your profit. I don’t blame you. Now keep barking along with your keyboard warrior.”

        Your “rebuttal” didn’t refute anything. You just repeated the same nonsense using the same poorly-devised methodology which I had already refuted in the article. So once again I say: go back and read the article carefully and use the two criteria for determining the meaning of “Bayt al-Maqdis”. Then you might see the light.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Greenhorn writes:
    “Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat
    As shown above, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat states that the Prophet went to the “temple” in Jerusalem. But how could this be when the temple had been destroyed more than 500 years before?
    “To answer this question, it should be noted that Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, states that the Prophet was taken from the “al-Masjid al-Haram” (in Mecca) to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (in Jerusalem). Ibn Ishaq’s narration from Ziyad bin Abdullah also states this:
    ‘…the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the temple of Aelia…’
    “This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building. As we will see later (see the Addendum), even to the Jews living under Persian rule (during the brief period in the early 7th century when the Sassanid Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines), to whom rebuilding the temple was of paramount importance, the sacred status of the site itself was all that was needed for the temple sacrifices to restart.”
    I have rarely met a Muslim who could so disgracefully pervert what his own citations say, especially one who thinks he can get away with it. Even though Ibn Ishaq CLEARLY IDENTIFIES masjid al-haram AS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES masjid al-aqsa AS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM, the neophyte shamelessly claims that Ibn Ishaq’s statements do not prove that he was referring to an actual temple or masjid, but may have been speaking of the site where the temple once stood! This is why this greenhorn will never debate me in a live exchange, but chooses to hide behind comments sections or articles where he can get away with writing 50,000 word posts full of lies, distortions and nonsense like this.
    What makes this all the more laughable is that the neophyte argues that the word masjid has a complex range of meaning in order to argue that Q. 17:1 is referring to the site of the Temple, but not the actual building. And yet here he changes this tactic and argues for a more nuanced meaning, namely, mosque. Notice how he argues that, since masjid al-aqsa refers to the Kabah, the word masjid cannot mean mosque since there was no literal mosque in Mecca at the time! Talk about question begging and wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If we keep in mind that the word masjid refers to ANY BUILDING that is taken as a place of worship, this means that the Kabah can be called a masjid since Muhammadans took that building as their prayer direction and the place to visit in order to perform their pagan rituals. This again highlights the neophyte’s circular reasoning, as well as the post hoc nature of his rebuttal, since he erroneously assumes that the Kabah does not qualify as a masjid since it isn’t a mosque, even though a mosque is nothing more than a building erected for the worship of Allah, which is exactly what Muslims claim the Kabah was!

    Like

    • “I have rarely met a Muslim who could so disgracefully pervert what his own citations say, especially one who thinks he can get away with it. Even though Ibn Ishaq CLEARLY IDENTIFIES masjid al-haram AS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES masjid al-aqsa AS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM, the neophyte shamelessly claims that Ibn Ishaq’s statements do not prove that he was referring to an actual temple or masjid, but may have been speaking of the site where the temple once stood! This is why this greenhorn will never debate me in a live exchange, but chooses to hide behind comments sections or articles where he can get away with writing 50,000 word posts full of lies, distortions and nonsense like this.”

      My goodness! Shamoun rants and raves and STILL has yet to make a coherent argument!

      Ibn Ishaq referred to al-Masjid al-Haram as a mosque because Muslims prayed in its direction eventually. However, up to that point, they were still praying in the direction of Jerusalem! It was not until more than a year after the Hijra that the Qiblah was changed to the Kaaba, and YET it was still called a masjid! And again, there was no literal mosque there yet. It was just the Kaaba. No one prays inside the Kaaba. In the same way, there was no mosque on the Haram Al-Shareef. The reason they are called mosques is because they are places of prostration.

      Liked by 2 people

      • wordpress.com “So now which is it? Does masjid refer to a place/site, or a partially completed building? The greenhorn is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t working. And contrary to his assertion, proving the existence of the temple during Muhammad’s time IS NECESSARY to salvage Muhammad’s gross blunder.”

        The greenhorn’s reply here shows why he needs to return to selling cars for a living. Note what he says to my assertion to hos confused and contradictory position where he tries to prove that masjid doesn’t have to refer to building, but merely a place of prostration, while then arguing that Q. 17:1 may in fact be referencing an actual building, albeit a partially built one:

        “It has been sufficiently proven that the word “masjid” refers to ANY ‘place of prostration’, whether a building or not. You seem to be very confused about. It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue. A masjid can be a building or it can refer to the land. Discussing the attempted rebuilding of the temple by the Jews after the Persian conquest is simply to add another possibility. But as I said, the Islamic sources are sufficient to prove that a literal building was not necessary.”

        If anyone is confused it’s the neophyte due to the incoherent babble he produced. In the first place, either masjid in Q. 17:1 refers to a building or it doesn’t. The greenhorn still wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t going to happen.

        Second, here are all the Quranic references to masjid: 2:114, 2:144, 2:149-150, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:217; 5:2; 7:29, 7:31, 8:34, 9:7, 9:17-19, 9:28, 9:107-108; 17:1, 17:7; 18:21, 22:25; 22:40; 48:25; 48:27; 72:18.

        I challenge the greenhorn to quote a single verse where the Quran employs the term masjid to reference something other than an actual building where people gather to worship his god. The problem is that he can’t show that and the fact that he candidly admitted that masjid al-haram in Q. 17:1 (despite all of his incoherent about the Kabah and the masjid which was built later) means that is merely question begging on his part to argue that the second occurrence of the word masjid in the very same verse doesn’t refer to a building but to a place.

        And I hope he isn’t stupid enough to go to the hadiths, since the ahadith prove that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, not merely a place or site!

        And this is the incoherent babble that his fellow Muhammadans lauded! This only shows that you Muslims could care less about truth, since what matters to you is defending the nonsense and fables of your profit. Lord willing, I have more in response to this neophyte’s fluff which I will post shortly.

        Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)

        Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle 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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)
        Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)

        Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this greenhorn will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.

        Like

      • Now now brother, stop bitchslapping fatty shamoun that much. Have some mercy for this moron.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “If anyone is confused it’s the neophyte due to the incoherent babble he produced. In the first place, either masjid in Q. 17:1 refers to a building or it doesn’t. The greenhorn still wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t going to happen.”

        Poor Shamoun is still not getting it. Now he is resorting to non-sequiturs!

        Um no, we do not have to interpret 17:1 that it “refers to a building or it doesn’t”. Once again, a “masjid” can be ANY place of prostration, whether a building or not. So 17:1 does not have to mean that a building was present in Jerusalem. This same concept is found in the Bible. Let’s see if this will make Shamoun see the light:

        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.” (Ezra 2:68)

        Hmmm, now that’s interesting. In the book of Ezra, the yet-to-be-rebuilt temple is called “the house of the Lord in Jerusalem”. OUCH!!

        If you are still not getting it, then you are hopeless.

        “Second, here are all the Quranic references to masjid: 2:114, 2:144, 2:149-150, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:217; 5:2; 7:29, 7:31, 8:34, 9:7, 9:17-19, 9:28, 9:107-108; 17:1, 17:7; 18:21, 22:25; 22:40; 48:25; 48:27; 72:18.

        I challenge the greenhorn to quote a single verse where the Quran employs the term masjid to reference something other than an actual building where people gather to worship his god. The problem is that he can’t show that and the fact that he candidly admitted that masjid al-haram in Q. 17:1 (despite all of his incoherent about the Kabah and the masjid which was built later) means that is merely question begging on his part to argue that the second occurrence of the word masjid in the very same verse doesn’t refer to a building but to a place.”

        There he goes, making silly challenges based on his own ignorance. The fact is that we have a clear hadith which explains that the whole earth is a mosque, except for restrooms and graveyards. Isn’t it ironic that Shamoun was originally accusing me of being a “Quran only” Muslim? And now that he has been utterly refuted, he wants to ignore the evidence from the hadiths and only wants to look at the Quran?

        In any case, the Quran clearly states that all things in heaven and earth bow down to Allah (i.e. prostrate to him):

        “Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates – for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills.” (22:18)

        And what word is used for “prostrates”? It is يَسْجُدُ which also has the same root as masjid (a place of prostration).

        “And I hope he isn’t stupid enough to go to the hadiths, since the ahadith prove that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, not merely a place or site!”

        LOL!! Still not getting it! Shamoun has now committed two fallacies back to back: a non-sequitur and then a circular argument. Yikes!

        “Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)”

        STILL NOT GETTING IT?

        First of all, the Arabic text does not say “Bayt al-Maqdis”. It simply says “Masjid al-Aqsa”. So that refutes Shamoun already. Second, let me say it for like the 10th time now: a masjid can be ANY place of prostration and does NOT have to be a building as it states in Tirmidhi:

        جُعِلَتْ لِيَ الأَرْضُ مَسْجِدًا وَطَهُورًا

        You notice the word “masjid” in there?

        “Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle 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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)
        Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)”

        STILL NOT GETTING IT?

        Here is the Arabic again:

        نَّمَا يُسَافَرُ إِلَى ثَلاَثَةِ مَسَاجِدَ مَسْجِدِ الْكَعْبَةِ وَمَسْجِدِي وَمَسْجِدِ إِيلِيَاءَ

        Do you see “Bayt al-Maqdis” in there? It only says “masjid” and “Ilya” (Jerusalem).

        And again, as I have already proven, “Bayt al-Maqdis” was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in most cases to refer to Jerusalem. It was used interchangeably for the region, the city and the mosque.

        Did anyone notice that Shamoun is simply jumping from hadith to hadith every time he gets refuted? He hasn’t dared come back to the original sources he used (Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Kathir etc.) after getting trounced. So now he is just jumping around, taking hadiths out of context or looking at them in isolation. Typical behavior from an ignorant and dishonest apologist.

        “Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this greenhorn will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.”

        And he ends his diatribe with another non-sequitur! Oy vei!

        Like

      • Time to make the clown and his profit cry again. I am going to omit all his fluff since all the neophyte did was repeat himself without refuting my actual points.

        This is the jihadi’s response to my schooling him on his misuse of Ezra 2:68 and how it backfired against him.

        “ROTFL!! So just because the temple WILL EVENTUALLY be rebuilt (but is still just ruins), somehow that means that the “House of the Lord” is already present there? Notice Shamoun’s double standards. He knows he’s stuck.

        “And here we go. Shamoun’s humiliation begins. We know the phrase ‘house of the Lord’ means the temple and NOT the “location” because Ezra 1:5 says:

        ‘Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites—everyone whose heart God had moved—prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.’
        DOUBLE OUCH!! The “house of the Lord” is in Jerusalem and has to be built. Therefore, it CANNOT be just the location, but rather the TEMPLE ITSELF! Poor Shamoun keeps getting trounced!”

        Being so stupid he doesn’t realize that he just buried his profit further down the hole. If the phrase “the house of the Lord” does mean the actual temple itself, THEN HE JUST PROVED MY POINT THAT MASJID AL-AQSA CANNOT REFER TO A PLACE, BUT TO AN IMAGINARY BUILDING THAT HIS PROFIT FOOLISHLY THOUGHT WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE! The illiterate jihadi is simply committing the tu quoque fallacy, i.e. the “you too” fallacy. He assumes that if the Bible contains a similar blunder like his book of porn then this somehow explains away the egregious blunder of his god and profit. The problem is that finding a similar in the Bible doesn’t explain away the error in the Quran. It simply means that both books are wrong.

        However, let’s expose the utterly wicked deceit and dishonest of this vile Muhammadan by quoting what he left out:

        “In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD roused the spirit of King Cyrus to issue a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom and to put it in writing: This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of the heavens, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me TO BUILD HIM A HOUSE AT JERUSALEM IN JUDAH. Any of his people among you, may his God be with him, and may he go to Jerusalem in Judah AND BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem. Let every survivor, wherever he resides, be assisted by the men of that region with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, along with a freewill offering for the house of God in Jerusalem.’ So the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, along with the priests and Levites—everyone whose spirit God had roused—prepared to go up and BUILD the LORD’s house in Jerusalem. All their neighbors supported them with silver articles, gold, goods, livestock, and valuables, in addition to all that was given as a freewill offering. King Cyrus also brought out the articles of the LORD’s house that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and had placed in the house of his gods.” Ezra 1:1-6

        The context makes it clear that Cyrus was sending the Jews to REBUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. Now let us repost Ezra 2:68, which this vile Muhammadan himself cited. I will even use his own quotation:

        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward THE REBUILDING of the house of God on ITS SITE.” (Ezra 2:68)

        Notice the reference to ITS SITE, which makes abundantly clear that this is speaking of the the rebuilding of the temple in the very place that the former temple once stood. Now let’s see what happens when we quote the next chapter:

        “When the seventh month arrived, and the Israelites were in their towns, the people gathered as one in Jerusalem. Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his brothers BEGAN TO BUILD THE ALTAR of Israel’s God in order to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God. THEY SET UP THE ALTAR ON ITS FOUNDATION and offered burnt offerings for the morning and evening on it to the LORD even though they feared the surrounding peoples. They celebrated the Festival of Shelters as prescribed, and offered burnt offerings each day, based on the number specified by ordinance for each festival day. After that, they offered the regular burnt offering and the offerings for the beginning of each month and for all the LORD’s appointed holy occasions, as well as the freewill offerings brought to the LORD. On the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDATION OF THE LORD’S TEMPLE HAD NOT YET BEEN. They gave money to the stonecutters and artisans, and gave food, drink, and oil to the people of Sidon and Tyre, so they would bring cedar wood from Lebanon to Joppa by sea, according to the authorization given them by King Cyrus of Persia.” Ezra 3:1-7

        Hence, the immediate and over all contexts make it clear that . This is unlike Q. 17:1 since there is nothing contextually to suggest it is referring to a place as opposed to a building. Only someone demonized like his profit could butcher sources the way this thug does. What makes it all the more shocking is that he even has the audacity to think he can get away with it.

        He then barks:

        “LOL!! Notice again the double standards! So now, it’s the “location” and not necessarily the temple itself! This is EXACTLY my point!”

        That is exactly not your point, because the example you gave refutes your entire “rebuttal” since, unlike Q. 17:1, the context of Ezra 2:68 makes it clear that it is referring to the site where the temple once stood. Only someone so wickedly dishonest could employ such deceitful tactics to defend the blunder of the Quran.
        Therefore, let me repeat my point once again. Unlike the context of Ezra 2:68, there is nothing in the context of Q. 17:1 that even remotely suggests that masjid al-aqsa refers to a place. As the evidence I have presented has proven, and which you have yet to refute, masjid al-aqsa can only refer to a physical building, one which did not exist at the time of your profit. Therefore, this is a blunder that exposes your profit for the fraud that he truly was. So Oy vei is right! And ROFL right back at you since you and your profit just got trounced!

        I have more for your burial in the next reply.

        Like

      • Here goes another round of humiliating this neophyte. I will be putting some of my responses in all caps with the hopes that this will help the neophyte overcome his illiteracy and dishonesty. The greenhorn again repeats his mantra that masjid can refer to a place of prostration, BUT DOESN’T BOTHER CITING A SINGLE QURANIC VERSE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM. This is why he tries to hide his ineptness by appealing to logical fallacies on my part, which only goes to show he doesn’t know what he is talking about. In fact, his assertion that masjid can mean a place of prostration is not only a red herring and a straw man, but a classic case of begging the question, SINCE HE MUST FIRST PROVE THAT THIS IS WHAT MASJID MEANS IN Q. 17:1. And this is the kid who thinks he has what it takes to defend his profit’s blunders and stupidity!
        As if he couldn’t further prove his ineptness and utter dishonesty, he goes ahead and quotes the following:
        BEGIN
        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.” (Ezra 2:68)
        Hmmm, now that’s interesting. In the book of Ezra, the yet-to-be-rebuilt temple is called “the house of the Lord in Jerusalem”. OUCH!!
        END

        OUCH indeed, but the ouch is on you and your profit. Let’s cite the verse to show how this ends up embarrassing him and his profit:
        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward THE REBUILDING OF THE HOUSE OF GOD on its site.” (Ezra 2:68)

        The only way the neophyte knew that the phrase “the house of the Lord” refers to the location where the temple once stood IS BECAUSE THE VERSE CLEARLY GOES ON TO MENTION ITS REBUILDING! In other words, had the verse not made it clear that this marks the time when the people had come to rebuild the temple on the very location where the first temple had once stood, THE NEOPHYTE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE PHRASE “THE HOUSE OF THE LORD” REFERS TO ITS LOCATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING ITSELF!
        This now proves the point I have been making. NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF Q. 17:1 SUGGESTS THAT MASJID AL-AQSA REFERS TO A PLACE INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL BUILDING. IN FACT, THE CONTEXT ACTUALLY PROVES THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE SINCE IT HAS ALREADY MENTIONED MASJID AL-HARAM WHICH REFERS TO AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDING, AND NOTE MERELY A LOCATION.

        Ouch is right, but the ouch is on the neophyte and his profit. Lord willing, more in my next posts.

        Like

      • I continue with my pwnage of his neophyte and his profit. After citing all the occurrences of masjid in the Quran and then challenging the neophyte to prove that his assertion that masjid can also mean a place, this how the greenhorn responds:

        “There he goes, making silly challenges based on his own ignorance. The fact is that we have a clear hadith which explains that the whole earth is a mosque, except for restrooms and graveyards. Isn’t it ironic that Shamoun was originally accusing me of being a “Quran only” Muslim? And now that he has been utterly refuted, he wants to ignore the evidence from the hadiths and only wants to look at the Quran?”

        To show the utter stupidity of this neophyte, using his logic this mean that Muslims can worship their god in the toilet, in the bathtub, in the bedroom, in a hindu temple, in a brothel, in a casino and the list goes on and on and on, just because the hadith says the the whole earth is a mosque. Only an illiterate greenhorn could pervert the hadith to make it say what it obviously wasn’t intended to say, that is, unless of course, he thinks his profit was just as silly as him. Besides, it is these same hadiths which prove that masjid al-aqsa CLEARLY REFERS TO A PHYSICAL BUILDING, and not simply a place or location. More on this later on.

        As if he couldn’t humiliate himself any further he then appeals to the following:

        “In any case, the Quran clearly states that all things in heaven and earth bow down to Allah (i.e. prostrate to him):
        ‘Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon, the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and many of the people? But upon many the punishment has been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates – for him there is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills.’ (22:18)

        And what word is used for “prostrates”? It is يَسْجُدُ which also has the same root as masjid (a place of prostration).”

        Only someone so inept and wickedly dishonest would think that by appealing to a verse that does not employ the word MASJID, but the verb yasjudu from sujud, which comes from the same root, he is therefore proving his point. I can’t believe that Williams even allows this thug to even post here.

        Just because the two words share the same root DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME EXACT MEANING. Sujud refers to the ACT of prostrating, whereas masjid refers to the PLACE where prostration takes place, which in the Quran ALWAYS REFERS TO A PHYSICAL BUILDING.

        So I am going to reissue my challenge once again. CITE A SINGLE QURANIC VERSE WHERE THE WORD MASJID, NOT SOME OTHER TERM WHICH COMES FROM THE SAME ROOT, MEANS SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDING.

        All I can say is, OUCH, OUCH, OUCH! Your profit must be crying in his grave right about now.

        Like

      • I proceed with my shellacking of this neophyte. After pwning him by citing the hadiths to prove that masjid al-aqsa IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, here is how this repulsively dishonest Muhammad responds:

        “STILL NOT GETTING IT?

        “First of all, the Arabic text does not say “Bayt al-Maqdis”. It simply says “Masjid al-Aqsa”. So that refutes Shamoun already. Second, let me say it for like the 10th time now: a masjid can be ANY place of prostration and does NOT have to be a building as it states in Tirmidhi:
        جُعِلَتْ لِيَ الأَرْضُ مَسْجِدًا وَطَهُورًا

        “You notice the word ‘masjid’ in there?

        “STILL NOT GETTING IT?

        Here is the Arabic again:
        نَّمَا يُسَافَرُ إِلَى ثَلاَثَةِ مَسَاجِدَ مَسْجِدِ الْكَعْبَةِ وَمَسْجِدِي وَمَسْجِدِ إِيلِيَاءَ

        “Do you see ‘Bayt al-Maqdis’ in there? It only says ‘masjid’ and ‘Ilya’ (Jerusalem).

        “And again, as I have already proven, ‘Bayt al-Maqdis’ was used by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in most cases to refer to Jerusalem. It was used interchangeably for the region, the city and the mosque.”

        I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he is simply being stupid here for the sake of making us laugh. But in light of his track record it is clear this child is incapable of being honest since lying and perverting sources have become second nature to him, all thanks to his god and profit. Let me quote the hadith again:

        “Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)”

        “Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle 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). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)

        Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)”

        In the first place, it is the Muslim translator WHO INSERTED THE WORDS BAIT AL-MAQDIS IN PARENTHESES, NOT ME. And the reason is obvious, since the only masjid built in Jerusalem is that which Muslims call Bait al-Maqdsi. Now let me cite the Muslims sources including Ibn Kathir, his darling, on whether masjid al-aqsa is another name for Bait al-Maqdis or not:

        Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; capital emphasis ours)

        Glory be to Him — an affirmation of God’s transcendence — Who carried His servant Muhammad by night laylan is in the accusative as an adverbial qualification; isrā’ means ‘to travel by night’; what is instructive about this mention of laylan ‘by night’ is that through its being indefinite there is an indication of the brevity of its duration from the Sacred Mosque that is Mecca to the Farthest Mosque THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM so called because of its distance from the former; the environs of which We have blessed with fruits and rivers that We might show him some of Our signs the marvels of Our power. Indeed He is the Hearing the Seeing that is to say the Knower of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds. Thus He God was gracious to him by way of carrying him on the night journey which comprised his encountering the other prophets his ascension to heaven and the sight of the marvels of the Divine Realm and His communion exalted be He with him. For he the Prophet said ‘I was brought al-Burāq a white animal larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule; it was able to place its hoof back towards its extremity and so I mounted it. It set off carrying me until I reached THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM. There I fastened the animal to the ring where the prophets fasten their animals. I then WENT IN and prayed two units INSIDE IT. As I CAME OUT Gabriel came to me with a jug of wine and a jug of milk and so I chose the milk. Gabriel said to me “You have made the right choice by choosing the primordial nature fitra”.’ He the Prophet continued the narration ‘We then ascended to the heaven of this world whereat Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. “Has he been sent for?”. “Yes he has been sent for”. Then it was opened for us and lo! Adam stood before me; he greeted me and prayed for well-being for me. We then ascended to the second heaven and Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 171; capital emphasis mine)

        means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1)

        Do you guys see the very sources, which the neophyte claimed that I never returned to, admit that masjid al-aqsa IS THE NAME FOR THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, THE SACRED HOUSE IN JERUSALEM (Arabic Bait al-Maqdis), A PHYSICAL BUILDING THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING MUHAMMAD’S DAY?

        OUCHY TO INFINITY! I am almost feel sorry for this clown… almost!

        Now that I obliterate his smokescreens, red herrings, lies, deceit and circular argumentation, I am going to again repeat my challenge to him.

        SINCE YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THESE HADITHS FROM SAHIH MUSLIM DO REFER TO MASJID AL-AQSA, AND SINCE THIS MASJID IS MENTIONED ALONG WITH TWO OTHER MASJIDS, ONE IN MECCA (I.E. THE KABAH), AND THE OTHER IN MEDINA, AND SINCE THESE TWO OTHER MASAJID REFER TO ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDINGS, AND NOT SIMPLY TO PLACE OR LOCATION, THIS PROVES THAT MASJID AL-AQSA IS ALSO A PHYSICAL BUILDING. THEREFORE, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE BUILDING THAT EXISTED IN JERUSALEM WHEN YOUR FALSE PROPHET COMMANDED HIS FOLLOWERS TO VISIT THESE THREE MOSQUES.

        I hope this clown doesn’t waste my time with more of his lies and nonsense, since he is becoming a bore and sickeningly disgusting to deal with.

        Like

      • Here we go again. Let us continue to refute loudmouth Shamoun!

        “The greenhorn again repeats his mantra that masjid can refer to a place of prostration, BUT DOESN’T BOTHER CITING A SINGLE QURANIC VERSE TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.”

        Poor Shamoun! I quoted Surah Al-Hajj to show that all things in the heavens and the earth BOW DOWN (i.e. PROSTRATES) to Allah (swt). And the whole earth is a masjid as the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said.

        Shamoun concocts an idiotic “challenge” and then convinces himself that it is the be all/end all. LOL!!

        “BEGIN
        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward the rebuilding of the house of God on its site.” (Ezra 2:68)
        Hmmm, now that’s interesting. In the book of Ezra, the yet-to-be-rebuilt temple is called “the house of the Lord in Jerusalem”. OUCH!!
        END

        OUCH indeed, but the ouch is on you and your profit. Let’s cite the verse to show how this ends up embarrassing him and his profit:
        “When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward THE REBUILDING OF THE HOUSE OF GOD on its site.” (Ezra 2:68)”

        Shamoun is setting himself up for an epic fall! It’s coming…closer…and closer…

        Let’s see where he goes with this.

        “The only way the neophyte knew that the phrase “the house of the Lord” refers to the location where the temple once stood IS BECAUSE THE VERSE CLEARLY GOES ON TO MENTION ITS REBUILDING!”

        ROTFL!! So just because the temple WILL EVENTUALLY be rebuilt (but is still just ruins), somehow that means that the “House of the Lord” is already present there? Notice Shamoun’s double standards. He knows he’s stuck.

        And here we go. Shamoun’s humiliation begins. We know the phrase “house of the Lord” means the temple and NOT the “location” because Ezra 1:5 says:

        “Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites—everyone whose heart God had moved—prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.

        DOUBLE OUCH!! The “house of the Lord” is in Jerusalem and has to be built. Therefore, it CANNOT be just the location, but rather the TEMPLE ITSELF! Poor Shamoun keeps getting trounced!

        “In other words, had the verse not made it clear that this marks the time when the people had come to rebuild the temple on the very location where the first temple had once stood, THE NEOPHYTE WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT THE PHRASE “THE HOUSE OF THE LORD” REFERS TO ITS LOCATION, AS OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING ITSELF!”

        LOL!! Notice again the double standards! So now, it’s the “location” and not necessarily the temple itself! This is EXACTLY my point!

        “This now proves the point I have been making. NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF Q. 17:1 SUGGESTS THAT MASJID AL-AQSA REFERS TO A PLACE INSTEAD OF AN ACTUAL BUILDING. IN FACT, THE CONTEXT ACTUALLY PROVES THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE SINCE IT HAS ALREADY MENTIONED MASJID AL-HARAM WHICH REFERS TO AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDING, AND NOTE MERELY A LOCATION.”

        Oy vei! Who says that since the Masjid Al-Haram is a building then the Masjid al-Aqsa must also be a building? Shamoun seems to be the only person in the world who thinks that!

        Again, a MASJID CAN BE ANY PLACE OF PROSTRATION. So the Masjid Al-Haram can be a literal building (or the surrounding area) and the Masjid Al-Aqsa can be the site in Jerusalem, because in both places, people would PROSTRATE TO GOD. Walls, doors and roofs are not needed to call something a “masjid”.

        “Ouch is right, but the ouch is on the neophyte and his profit. Lord willing, more in my next posts.”

        HAHAHAHA, yes Shamoun. God willing, more humiliation is coming your way!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Buahahahha fatty gets destroyed.
        What kinda MORONIC argumebts is this idiot spewing.
        Who the hell even entertains himself with the idea that it’s even close to being a valid?

        OMG!!!!!
        Thus idiot is hopeless.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. @ AIB

    Wow, the mental gymnastics is unbelievable.

    You got a comment removed because as agreed on earlier, articles marked “feature article” one is not allowed to go on tirades that only your uneducated fanbase enjoy. You were not on topic and on top of that because you didn’t read the article (which shows because of your poor copy and paste of the thing your opponent just refuted) now want to act as if you’re being persecuted. There is no forum or blog on planet earth that lets you just spam the comment section and fire off insults.

    @ Everyone else

    Given Sam’s reaction again this is a perfect example of what QB and I were talking about when certain people were complaining with the holier than thou attitude that led to these being created in the first place. Where are those “Concerned Readers” now? As I said before they just want to be able to have a free for all insulting Islam because we’re not going to insult Isa(as).

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’m done with that fat ugly blob. I want to call all members of this blog to remove this filth of the earth from this blog for good. Let him go pretend and lie somewhere else by saying his trash is refuting Muslims while we keep exposing his false religion here day after day.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        Where you and I differ is I don’t expect anything less from the kuffar. They’re future fuel for the Fire and are their entire existence is basically summed up as annoy and test the Muslims. The shocker is when they do the right thing, for example, Sam giving his condolences after the NZ shooting. THAT is what floored me and I had to go tell somebody.

        My issue is the MAIN people complaining “Oh the direction the blog has taken blah, blah, blah” are now replaced by a room full of crickets. Why? Because they support it. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy and self-righteousness because apparently nobody knew what I was talking about when the subject came up the first time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I think the moral of the story is that you cannot have a civilized conversation with Shamoun. The other Christians here may have been hypocritical in their complaints but I think they do want sincere and civilized conversations. But that is not possible with a loudmouth like Shamoun.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. So much for the “decent” concept “Feature Article”.

    Like

  12. “This one is a doozy!

    Jami` at-Tirmidhi

    Chapters on Tafsir

    Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:
    “I said to Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman: ‘Did the Messenger of Allah perform Salat IN BAIT AL-MAQDIS?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘But he did.’ He said: ‘You say that, O bald one! Based upon what do you say that?’ I said: ‘BASED UPON THE QUR’AN, (the Judge) between you and I is the Qur’an.’ So Hudhaifah said: ‘Whoever argues using the Qur’an, then he has indeed succeeded.’” (One of the narrators) Sufyan said: “He means: ‘He has indeed proven’” – and perhaps he (Sufyan) said: “He triumphed.” He (Zirr) said: “Glorified is He Who took His slave for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (17:1).’ He (Hudhaifah) said: ‘DO YOU SEE (this proves that) HE PERFORMED SALAT IN IT?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘If he had performed Salat in it, then it would have been required upon you that you perform Salat in it, just as it is required that you perform Salat in Al-Masjid Al-Haram.’ Hudhaifah said: ‘The Messenger of Allah was brought a beast with a long back – stretching out like this – one stride of it, is as far as his vision. So, the two of them remained upon the back of Al-Buraq until they saw Paradise and the Fire, and all of what has been prepared for the Hereafter, then they returned back to where they began.’ He said: ‘They say that he was fettered, but for what? Because he might flee? The Knower of the unseen and the witness subdued him.’”

    Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
    English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3147
    Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3440 (sunna.com)”

    LOL, this guy just doesn’t get it!

    Since you obviously will not read the article, let me enlighten you. Using the two criteria I mentioned, let’s examine the hadith above.

    1. Was it a statement of the Prophet or of his companions? Answer: One of the companions
    2. What is the context? Answer: Whether the Prophet prayed in al-Masjid al-Aqsa or not. Zirr bin Hubaish asked whether the Prophet prayed in Bayt al-Maqdis. To this Hudhaifah quoted the Quran, but the Quran does not say “Bayt al-Maqdis”. Rather, it says “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”. So what this hadith proves is that al-Masjid al-Aqsa is IN Bayt al-Maqdis! That’s all! This corresponds with the hadith which says that the Prophet came to Bayt al-Maqdis, tied up Al-Buraq and THEN ENTERED the mosque.

    Shamoun is going in circles. OUCH!!

    Liked by 2 people

  13. I am going to post my reply in my blog post since Williams is showing that he is a coward by allowing his Muhammadans to spew their venom, while making excuses to block mine for responding in like manner.

    Like

    • Hey moron, you have proven that you don’t know how to have a conversation. You have always behaved like a childish buffoon. This topic was supposed to be a feature article, which as Paul had made clear, was for civilized discussion. But you flaunted the rules from the beginning. Stew is right. You are a narcissist with a persecution complex. Pathetic trinitarian pagan.

      Oh and don’t worry. I will continue to refute your idiotic posts which only prove one thing: that you are a clueless loser who pretends to be a scholar. Your humiliation is just beginning. By the way, seen any rabbits lately? 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  14. @ Everybody

    Hey does Sam realize Bayt al Maqdis and Masjid Al Aqsa are two different things yet or is he still on planet Mercury with his argument of trying to prove Masjid Al Aqsa is a building?

    Liked by 1 person

    • IS stewie being dishonest here or is he simply stupid enough to repeat what his fellow vile jihadi quranisbabbleblog spews out? Let me repost that part of my rebuttal showing stewie what his own authorities say about Bayt al Mqadis and Masjid Al Aqsa. Enjoy!

      Now let me cite the Muslims sources including Ibn Kathir, his darling, on whether masjid al-aqsa is another name for Bait al-Maqdis or not:

      Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; capital emphasis ours)

      Glory be to Him — an affirmation of God’s transcendence — Who carried His servant Muhammad by night laylan is in the accusative as an adverbial qualification; isrā’ means ‘to travel by night’; what is instructive about this mention of laylan ‘by night’ is that through its being indefinite there is an indication of the brevity of its duration from the Sacred Mosque that is Mecca to the Farthest Mosque THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM so called because of its distance from the former; the environs of which We have blessed with fruits and rivers that We might show him some of Our signs the marvels of Our power. Indeed He is the Hearing the Seeing that is to say the Knower of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds. Thus He God was gracious to him by way of carrying him on the night journey which comprised his encountering the other prophets his ascension to heaven and the sight of the marvels of the Divine Realm and His communion exalted be He with him. For he the Prophet said ‘I was brought al-Burāq a white animal larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule; it was able to place its hoof back towards its extremity and so I mounted it. It set off carrying me until I reached THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM. There I fastened the animal to the ring where the prophets fasten their animals. I then WENT IN and prayed two units INSIDE IT. As I CAME OUT Gabriel came to me with a jug of wine and a jug of milk and so I chose the milk. Gabriel said to me “You have made the right choice by choosing the primordial nature fitra”.’ He the Prophet continued the narration ‘We then ascended to the heaven of this world whereat Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. “Has he been sent for?”. “Yes he has been sent for”. Then it was opened for us and lo! Adam stood before me; he greeted me and prayed for well-being for me. We then ascended to the second heaven and Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 171; capital emphasis mine)

      means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1)

      Do you guys see the very sources, which the neophyte claimed that I never returned to, admit that masjid al-aqsa IS THE NAME FOR THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, THE SACRED HOUSE IN JERUSALEM (Arabic Bait al-Maqdis), A PHYSICAL BUILDING THAT DID NOT EXIST DURING MUHAMMAD’S DAY?

      OUCHY TO INFINITY! I am almost feel sorry for this clown… almost!

      Now that I obliterate his smokescreens, red herrings, lies, deceit and circular argumentation, I am going to again repeat my challenge to him.

      SINCE YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT THESE HADITHS FROM SAHIH MUSLIM DO REFER TO MASJID AL-AQSA, AND SINCE THIS MASJID IS MENTIONED ALONG WITH TWO OTHER MASJIDS, ONE IN MECCA (I.E. THE KABAH), AND THE OTHER IN MEDINA, AND SINCE THESE TWO OTHER MASAJID REFER TO ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDINGS, AND NOT SIMPLY TO PLACE OR LOCATION, THIS PROVES THAT MASJID AL-AQSA IS ALSO A PHYSICAL BUILDING. THEREFORE, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE BUILDING THAT EXISTED IN JERUSALEM WHEN YOUR FALSE PROPHET COMMANDED HIS FOLLOWERS TO VISIT THESE THREE MOSQUES.

      I hope this clown doesn’t waste my time with more of his lies and nonsense, since he is becoming a bore and sickeningly disgusting to deal with.

      Like

      • @ AIB

        Ohh… I’m so glad you posted that as I was typing this. To respond to your irrelevant challenge, Masjid Al Haram does not just encompass the Kaaba. There originally was no large building in Mecca that was later added for the Pilgrim’s convenience and more space to make Tawaf. You just had flags that represented entering it. The perimeter of Masjid Al Haram is 79 miles and the surface area of the Haram is 212 miles. (Slide 12-15)

        On Slide 15 you can see the markers nowadays to let you know you’re entering it, notice no building even though it’s a Masjid.

        To further strengthen what is being said, parts that mark Masjid AL Haram even nowadays have other masajid in them. The boundaries of the Haram (and Mosque in them are as follows) are as follows:

        1. Taneem – Masjid Aisha, also known as Masjid Taneem, located about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) from the Kaaba and 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) away from Mecca, in the direction of Madinah.

        2. Adaat Laban – On the road to Yemen, 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) away from Mecca.

        3. Wadi Nakhla – On the road to Iraq, 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) away from Mecca.

        4. Arafat – On the road to Ta’if, close to Masjid al-Namirah in Arafat, 11 kilometres (6.8 mi) away from Makkah.

        5. Ji’ranah – Masjid al-Ji’ranah, located about 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) away from Mecca.

        6. Hudaibiyah – Masjid al-Hudaibiyah, on the road to Jeddah, about 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) away from Makkah.

        So to answer your challenge regarding a Masjid that does not have a building in the Qur’an, the Haram itself is not encompassed entirely in a building even now. So any ayat mentioning Masjid Al Haram answers your challenge.

        Furthermore, because you accused me of being stupid (even though this is the second time I’ve had to question your reading comprehension as you are not even on point regarding the article) what QB is saying is like how Masjid Al Haram encompasses the Kaaba, Bayt Al Maqdis encompass Masjid Al Aqsa. So your entire point about Masjid Al Aqsa being a building or not is irrelevant as Bayt al Maqdis i the entire city and is what is being translated as Jerusalem in the hadith you quoted.

        Finally please allow me to draw you a pretty pic so you can truly appreciate how incoherent your argument is:

        Here is Masjid Al Aqsa (to the left with the grey dome, note the entire thing can also mean the compound depending on context):
        https://www.visitmasjidalaqsa.com/what-is-masjid-al-aqsa/

        This is what you’re talking about with building blah,blah, blah.

        I will now give you a pic of Bayt Al Maqdis:
        http://poica.org/2007/02/the-israeli-destruction-of-the-moroccan-gate-of-al-haram-al-sharif-in-jerusalems-old-city-continues-unabated/

        That WHOLE thing (not just the box of the compound) is Bayt Al Maqdis which is what the hadith is talking about. And now with that being said now, God has shamed you again in this life and if you don’t stop the evil you’re doing a far worse one awaits in the Next. Become a Muslim.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Fantastic response! Things keep getting worse for Shamoun!

        Liked by 2 people

    • I can’t believe the level of sheer commitment of wanting to lie and deceive people just so he can satisfy his wetdream of bashing Islam. Stew I truly believe he is a psychopath and I do NOT mean that in a figurative way. The fact that he will NOT admit he is wrong while comitting twenty thousand fallacies and then STILL have the AUDACITY to accuse our brother of being deceptive and calling him names and as if that was not enough tell Br Paul why he doesn’t ban QnB.

      There is absolutly no doubt on my mind whatsoever that he is one sick psychopath. And not to mention how he treats his own group of misfits on his livestreams.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Atlas

        No, he’s not a psychopath its narcissism which inflates the arrogance (which is why he craves the attention) and his persecution complex. For example, he is now claiming his “post have been blocked by Paul” even though it probably says “Post awaiting moderation” which usually happens when you post something long like the one I just did had on it.

        Another proof is notice now his smaller post (which is still irrelevant lol) got in and in his mind, he’s just hacked the system and beat the evil Paul Williams.

        Like

      • Narcissism is a psychopathic trait.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Here’s my rebuttal that Williams refused to post.
    BEGIN
    Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat
    As shown above, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat states that the Prophet went to the “temple” in Jerusalem. But how could this be when the temple had been destroyed more than 500 years before?
    To answer this question, it should be noted that Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, states that the Prophet was taken from the “al-Masjid al-Haram” (in Mecca) to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (in Jerusalem). Ibn Ishaq’s narration from Ziyad bin Abdullah also states this:
    “…the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the temple of Aelia…”
    This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building. As we will see later (see the Addendum), even to the Jews living under Persian rule (during the brief period in the early 7th century when the Sassanid Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines), to whom rebuilding the temple was of paramount importance, the sacred status of the site itself was all that was needed for the temple sacrifices to restart.
    END
    I have rarely met a Muslim who could so disgracefully pervert what his own citations say, especially one who thinks he can get away with it. Even though Ibn Ishaq CLEARLY IDENTIFIES masjid al-haram AS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES masjid al-aqsa AS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM, the neophyte shamelessly claims that Ibn Ishaq’s statements do not prove that he was referring to an actual temple or masjid, but may have been speaking of the site where the temple once stood! This is why this greenhorn will never debate me in a live exchange, but chooses to hide behind comments sections or articles where he can get away with writing 50,000 word posts full of lies, distortions and nonsense like this.
    What makes this all the more laughable is that the neophyte argues that the word masjid has a complex range of meaning in order to argue that Q. 17:1 is referring to the site of the Temple, but not the actual building. And yet here he changes this tactic and argues for a more nuanced meaning, namely, mosque. Notice how he argues that, since masjid al-aqsa refers to the Kabah, the word masjid cannot mean mosque since there was no literal mosque in Mecca at the time! Talk about question begging and wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If we keep in mind that the word masjid refers to ANY BUILDING that is taken as a place of worship, this means that the Kabah can be called a masjid since Muhammadans took that building as their prayer direction and the place to visit in order to perform their pagan rituals. This again highlights the neophyte’s circular reasoning, as well as the post hoc nature of his rebuttal, since he erroneously assumes that the Kabah does not qualify as a masjid since it isn’t a mosque, even though a mosque is nothing more than a building erected for the worship of Allah, which is exactly what Muslims claim the Kabah was!

    Like

  16. Williams is starting to block my replies again.

    Like

  17. @ Atlas

    Ehh… their related but different. Only because I don’t want to derail the conversation (and give Sam a chance to launch a tangent) I’ll link to the blog post about David Wood being a sociopath. I post a video there where a psychiatrist discusses the nuances between a Psychopath, Sociopath and Narcissist (it’s pretty fascinating). Shamoun displays almost textbook narcissism (I can’t remember which branch he is but she does another lecture on narcissists and you can find it there.)

    https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/03/27/sam-shamoun-admits-that-david-wood-is-a-sociopath/

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Refuting a Muslim Greenhorn on Q. 17:1 – Answering Islam Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: