Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mithridates]

[bucheon bum]

good post there mith.

[Summer Wine]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Was king George one of the great killers of his day?

Saddam Hussein was.

[Leslie Cheswyck]

[mithridates]

We're talking about the primitive desire to piss on someone when they're down, not whether Saddam deserved it or not. Saddam was brought up in relation to George III, not the relationship between synagogues and mosques.

[shakuhachi]

[rapier]

[rapier]

Muhammad's Night Journey wasn't to Jerusalem, so why all the fuss? 9/3/2003 7:37:22 PM
Special Dispatch - Egypt
September 3, 2003
No. 564

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML format, please visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD56403

Egyptian Ministry of Culture Publication: The Prophet Muhammad's 'Night Journey' was Not to Jerusalem but to Medina

Ahmad Muhammad 'Arafa, a columnist for the Egyptian weekly Al-Qahira, which is published by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, wrote an article rejecting the established Islamic belief that the Prophet Muhammad's celebrated "Night Journey" (Koran 17:1) took him from Mecca to Jerusalem. 'Arafa, presenting a new analysis of the Koranic text, asserts that the Night Journey in Surat Al-Isra' (that is, "the Sura of the Night Journey") in the Koran does not refer to a miraculous journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, but to the Prophet's emigration (Hijra) from Mecca to Medina.

It should be noted that the belief that Muhammad's Night Journey (Koran 17:1) was a miraculous journey to Jerusalem is one of the most important foundations of the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam. There is an extensive body of Islamic traditions related to this belief, and these are explicitly or implicitly rejected by the author. This article constitutes a dramatic departure from standard Islamic belief. The fact that this article was published in a government journal adds to its political significance. The following is a translation of the article, titled "Was the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey to Palestine or Medina?" which was published on August 5, 2003:(1)

Where Is Al-Aqsa Mosque?

"'Praise be to Him who took His servant by night (Isra') from the Al-Haram [Sacred] Mosque [in Mecca] to the Al-Aqsa [literally 'the most distant'] Mosque, whose environs We did bless, so that We might show him some of Our signs, for He is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing One' (Surat Al-Isra'[17]:1).

"This text tells us that Allah took His Prophet from the Al-Haram Mosque [in Mecca] to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Thus, two mosques are [referred to] here, the first of which is the Al-Haram Mosque, and the second of which is the Al-Aqsa Mosque. 'Al-Aqsa' is a form of superlative which means 'the most distant.' Therefore, the place to which the Prophet was taken must be a mosque, and not a place where a mosque was to be established later, nor a place where a mosque had once stood. This place must be very far from the Al-Haram Mosque. It need not be [actually] built, as the Al-Haram Mosque [itself] was at that time merely an open space around the Ka'ba [and not a building].

"But in Palestine during that time, there was no mosque at all that could have been the mosque 'most distant' from the Al-Haram Mosque. During that time, there were no people in [Palestine] who believed in Muhammad and would gather to pray in a specific place that served as a mosque.
http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/91-1103.asp

Jerusalem historically held little or no significance to Muslims: Looking at history it is clear: Muslims take religious interest in Jerusalem because it serves them politically and when the political climate changes, their interest flags.
Nor only in Jerusalem- but in many other places worldwide, muslims have characteristically marked their military triumphs over other lands by destroying their holy religious sites, building mosques on them and fabricating their significance to islam.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jerusalem.html

[Summer Wine]

[rapier]

[Summer Wine]

[rapier]

[Summer Wine]

Quote:

I think what you are saying is that the fact that muslims claim it is sacred is a reality in itself that the world must adjust to. the truth of the claim is insignificant when measured against its political ramifications.

No rapier I wasn't postulating that. Its just that if we view all religions in view of thier earliest developments, e.g. eastern orthodox vs catholicism. We ignore that there has been development in peoples views and religious beliefs. I don't hold the Vatican important, neither do I hold the temple/ Mosque in Constinople/Istanbul important. Thats not to say, that I believe that arguments that for christianity aren't important, its just that the christianity of today has evolved from the past. The muslim beliefs about Al Aqsa mosque have also evolved over the years.

For a devout man, who does not support violence in any form, or the subjegation of anothers religion or culture, but who happens to be a muslim and considers Al Aqsa to be sacred is a very valid thing. Does it negate all the other issues you raise, no it doesn't, but it is this form that I was viewing it from. I am supporter of turning the other cheek and doing to others what I would want them to do to me.

I am also a realist, and I realise that if America is conquered by extreme violence rather than by old age and lack of will. The nukes that they and others have would have been released and the World would not be much of a place to live in regardless. I believe the same about Israel, that push comes to shove, if its a them or us argument, nukes will fall like raindrops over the middle east. Therefore, I support a peaceful state of Israel, rather than nuke pot holed wasteland where the surviving muslims say, well at least we got the jews out of palestine.

[rapier]