Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    I cannot help but wonder about the veracity of "islamic" claims to the "Holy" sites near Jerusalem.

    Muslims acknowledge that Jerusalem was the capital of Solomon, a jewish king.

    They acknowledge that the site is a jewish holy site - with the Temple being built at the place.

    Jews have been remarkably patient considering in the past a conquering nation would simply raze the existing structure.

    Yet jews tolerate the vanquished, and in their opinion the pagan presence on the Hill.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by Algebra View Post
    I cannot help but wonder about the veracity of "islamic" claims to the "Holy" sites near Jerusalem.

    Muslims acknowledge that Jerusalem was the capital of Solomon, a jewish king.

    They acknowledge that the site is a jewish holy site - with the Temple being built at the place.

    Jews have been remarkably patient considering in the past a conquering nation would simply raze the existing structure.

    Yet jews tolerate the vanquished, and in their opinion the pagan presence on the Hill.
    1.

    In collective affairs, toleration is often dictated by political contingencies, meaning if those political contigencies were lifted, then toleration would be non-existent.

    2.

    As an aside, the promise was granted to Abraham (AS), and when Muslims acknowledge the blessings given to the Israelite people, they are acknowledging it in the context of the promise granted to all the offspring of Abraham (AS), meaning it also included the Ishmaelites. With the rejection of Muhammad (S), who is part of the ABrahamic legacy, the Israelites have essentially lost the the religious right to the Holy Land. This religious right meant custodianship, not authoritarian rule, meaning that the land is for everybody that ascribes to the belief in One God.

    3.

    The establishment of Israel, as recognized by many Orthodox Jews, is a political reality, which has nothing to do with religion. The real return of Zion, per this view, happens when the Messiah comes after Israel has collectively repented for all of it's sins.
    Last edited by ihsan; 15th March 2010 at 15:53.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    In collective affairs, toleration is often dictated by political contingencies, meaning if those political contigencies were lifted, then toleration would be non-existent.
    I grant you this.

    As an aside, the promise was granted to Abraham (AS), and when Muslims acknowledge the blessings given to the Israelite people, they are acknowledging it in the context of the promise granted to all the offspring of Abraham (AS), meaning it also included the Ishmaelites. With the rejection of Muhammad (S), who is part of the ABrahamic legacy, the Israelites have essentially lost the the religious right to the Holy Land. This religious right meant custodianship, not authoritarian rule, meaning that the land is for everybody that ascribes to the belief in One God.
    The argument is not about the right to the land, but the right to control the Holy sites.

    The Holy sites are unarguably jewish historically.

    Would muslims be willing to allow jews to build the Temple on the site of the Historic Temple.

    Remember that in the tradition of the judaism the "prophet" and the "king" and the "rabbi" are different people with different roles.

    They balanced each others power for the benefit of the jewish nation.

    Mohammed, claimed to be all three to the islamic nation.

    Even Moses was not a "king" and not a "priest", but a prophet and teacher.

    On those simple grounds we can claim that Mohammed was definitely not in the same tradition as jewish prophets - and therefore was rightfully rejected by jews.

    The establishment of Israel, as recognized by many Orthodox Jews, is a political reality, which has nothing to do with religion. The real return of Zion, per this view, happens when the Messiah comes after Israel has collectively repented for all of it's sins.
    The establishment of israel has nothing to do with the Temple per se.

    The establishment of the messiah and the temple are connected, not the establishment of the nation.

    But again we are not discussing the nation of israel, which already exists, but the holy sites within israel.

    The Messiah will rebuild the temple according to jewish prophecy.

    http://www.jewishmag.com/16MAG/TEMPLE/temple.htm

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    The argument is not about the right to the land, but the right to control the Holy sites.

    The Holy sites are unarguably jewish historically.

    Would muslims be willing to allow jews to build the Temple on the site of the Historic Temple.
    Once again, per the OT and Islam, the Temple was built by a Prophet, under divine instruction. Thus, the same applies.

    Remember that in the tradition of the judaism the "prophet" and the "king" and the "rabbi" are different people with different roles.

    They balanced each others power for the benefit of the jewish nation.

    Mohammed, claimed to be all three to the islamic nation.

    Even Moses was not a "king" and not a "priest", but a prophet and teacher.
    Moses led a nation and ghis prophethood gave birth to a collective law, meaning he was not just a Prophet, but ruler. It was under Moses rule that the various tribes were divided and given accorded certain rights in a legal sense. Moses (AS) was not a King in the traditional sense, and Israel was granted a King upon their own request, with Samuel. The same is the case with Muhammad (S) who was never a king, though a ruler. There was no separate ruler during the time of Moses and when it was borken after his death, prophethood returned with rule only with the coming of David (AS).

    On those simple grounds we can claim that Mohammed was definitely not in the same tradition as jewish prophets - and therefore was rightfully rejected by jews.
    Wrong...


    The establishment of israel has nothing to do with the Temple per se.

    The establishment of the messiah and the temple are connected, not the establishment of the nation.
    That is absolutely wrong. The true establishment of the Temple represents the establishment of the Jewish nation, for it forms the center of the collective life. The destruction of the Temple in Judaic tradition always represented the destruction of Israel. In Isaiah, the restoration of the Temple is the symbol for the restoration of the nation of Israel. When Jesus foretold the destruction of Israel and the scatterment of their nation, it was done using the destruction of the Temple.

    But again we are not discussing the nation of israel, which already exists, but the holy sites within israel.

    The Messiah will rebuild the temple according to jewish prophecy.

    http://www.jewishmag.com/16MAG/TEMPLE/temple.htm

    Which means the establishment of the real nation of Israel, per Judaic thought...
    Last edited by ihsan; 15th March 2010 at 17:20.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    Once again, per the OT and Islam, the Temple was built by a Prophet, under divine instruction. Thus, the same applies.
    It was not built by a prophet, and I don't know what the "OT" is, the books you refer to are part of the collection of the Tanakh, you can either call it the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. OT is an offensive term.

    Moses led a nation and ghis prophethood gave birth to a collective law, meaning he was not just a Prophet, but ruler.
    Moses was not at all a ruler, but a leader. He did not have a kingdom. He was not a ruler in the sense that he maintained the law. That responsibility was given to God.
    Moses unlike Mohammed, did not consolidate all power into his own hands, the tribes very much had their own leaders.

    It was under Moses rule that the various tribes were divided and given accorded certain rights in a legal sense.
    The tribes always existed long before moses.
    The same is the case with Muhammad (S) who was never a king, though a ruler.
    That is where you are wrong, Mohammed was definitely a king, he controlled land, collected taxes, fought wars, made treaties - in short did everything a king does, with all the power that comes with regency, and even claimed divine guidance to justify his regency.

    There were no checks and balances to Mohammed, except himself.

    This is enough proof that he was not a prophet.

    There was no separate ruler during the time of Moses and when it was borken after his death, prophethood returned with rule only with the coming of David (AS).
    Every tribe had its own leader. The leaders listened to Moses who was their prophet and teacher.


    That is absolutely wrong. The true establishment of the Temple represents the establishment of the Jewish nation, for it forms the center of the collective life.
    The jewish nation does not cease to exist because the Temple does not exist, even when the jews were in exile in Babylon, they did not cease to exist as a nation. So you are talking out of your hat now.

    The destruction of the Temple in Judaic tradition always represented the destruction of Israel. In Isaiah, the restoration of the Temple is the symbol for the restoration of the nation of Israel. When Jesus foretold the destruction of Israel and the scatterment of their nation, it was done using the destruction of the Temple.
    Israel is a political entity, Judah is a political entity.

    The modern secular jewish state of israel is a political entity.

    The jewish nation is not tied to the land - as I stated, I believe the arabs that live in the area are legitimate heirs of Abraham too.

    However the Temple is jewish, there is no debate there, and it is that land that we are talking about.

    The question remains, on what basis do muslims claim the Temple mount as a Holy site?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    It was not built by a prophet, and I don't know what the "OT" is, the books you refer to are part of the collection of the Tanakh, you can either call it the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. OT is an offensive term.
    Yes, it was built by a Prophet, per the Muslim world-view. Even if you don't accept this 'technical' point, it still does nothin to the argumetn regarding the Temple being the symbol of divine pleasure for Israel. In Isaiah, the return of the Messiah and the restoration of Israel id defined in the context of the New Zion and the sacrifices at the Temple.

    Moses was not at all a ruler, but a leader. He did not have a kingdom. He was not a ruler in the sense that he maintained the law. That responsibility was given to God.
    Moses unlike Mohammed, did not consolidate all power into his own hands, the tribes very much had their own leaders.
    Your just engaging in semantic gibberish. Neither Moses nor Muhammad possessed a kingdom, but they ruled their nations. The functions of various tribes were divided by Moses and he even waged war. He commanded how the spoils were to be distributed as well. Prior to Moses, the Israelites were slaves under Egypt and there was no independent authority. Everything they did in Egypt, including their organization was by the hands of Moses (AS).

    The tribes always existed long before moses.
    The Quraysh existed before Moses, as well as the Ansar and multiple other tribes of Arabia, like the Banu Tamim. And your point is? You are correct that the tribes existed prior to when Moses was born and prior to the Exodus, they were under Egyptian rule. With the leadership of Moses they obtained their own independent collective existence and were given a communal code and then fought wars to establish themselves in Canaan. What Moses (AS) did is the exaact definition of being a ruler and only a person intent on being argumentative would deny such a simple fact.

    That is where you are wrong, Mohammed was definitely a king, he controlled land, collected taxes, fought wars, made treaties - in short did everything a king does, with all the power that comes with regency, and even claimed divine guidance to justify his regency.
    That is called being a leader, just like Moses, who fought wars trying to obtain land as well as collect taxes and ordain specific functions towards particular tribes. A king can be a ruler and a Prophet can be a ruler. Muhammad was a ruler, not a king.

    There were no checks and balances to Mohammed, except himself.
    Do you think Moses was being checked by his own people when the Levites slaughtered the 'tribes' after the event of the calf? As an aside, Muhammad was ordered per the Quran to consult the believers, and in fact, the hypocrites during specific phases of his mission.

    This is enough proof that he was not a prophet.
    Huh? If a Prophet decrees a divine injunction, then it obviously entails there would be no checks and balances, because the decree comes from the ALmighty God. What planet are you on?

    Every tribe had its own leader. The leaders listened to Moses who was their prophet and teacher.
    Again, sematic gibberish. Every tribe was bound to the ordainments of Moses and when they disobeyed his command, like they did when he went to Sinai, God ordered per the OT that they all be massacred at the hands of the Levites. Do you think that tribes didn't exist during the reign of Muhammad (S) and these leaders, like Sa'd ibn Ubaydah from the Ansar weren't providing counsel to the Prophet (S) in the leadership sense? Just because tribes existed doesn't negate the presence of a unified leader. You even acknowledged that Israel and Judah existed, which entails they were independent collective entities at points in time, meaning that at other points in time, they were under one leader and ruler. The Messiah per the Judaic thought is suppose to unite all these various tribes once again, just like Moses did.

    The jewish nation does not cease to exist because the Temple does not exist, even when the jews were in exile in Babylon, they did not cease to exist as a nation. So you are talking out of your hat now.
    Who said they ceazed to exist as a people? Every Jew recognizes that the expulsion of Israel from Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple was symbolic of God's wrath and that the restoration of the Temple is a symbol for the restoration of them as a State.

    However the Temple is jewish, there is no debate there, and it is that land that we are talking about.

    The question remains, on what basis do muslims claim the Temple mount as a Holy site?
    If the question remains, than it seems you have a reading problem.
    Last edited by ihsan; 15th March 2010 at 21:31.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    If the question remains, than it seems you have a reading problem.
    The question remains because you have been unable to produce 1 single reference to the Temple Mount from the Quran.

    All the islamic propoganda about the site comes from ahadith, a collection the veracity of which even muslims question.

    If you ask me the "islamic" brouhaha about the site has nothing to do with religion, and if islamic scholars were to really examine the veracity of the claims, they would probably find an easy justification to allow jews to take over the site.

    It is only a matter of time before jews (and I certainly do not agree with this) are the leading demographic in east and west jerusalem, and then they will raze the masjid, as is their right as a conquering nation.

    Islamic leaders would be right to look for reasons to allow this to come to pass with as little blood shed as possible.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member faithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Paris_France
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    The question that comes in mind Algebra, where the palestinians should go?

    Religion apart, Israel is invading Palestine.. that's the truth!

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful View Post
    The question that comes in mind Algebra, where the palestinians should go?

    Religion apart, Israel is invading Palestine.. that's the truth!
    Again we are not discussing the land - that has already been demarcated. Israel is not going anywhere.

    What we are discussing is specifically the Temple mount, which you might know is of huge value to judaism.

    Islamic scholars like to claim that the site is of importance to islam, all I am asking is if they have reference to that in the Quran, since the ahadith are not a collection the veracity of which even they accept.

    In short, sometime in the near future, israel will "mistakenly bomb" the masjid and the dome out of existence, at that point muslims have a choice to either have massive bloodshed (most of it muslim blood) or to come to an islamic understanding that the site is of historic but not religious significance for islam as they have always maintained.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    1. The majority of Muslims do accept hadith, so your argument about Muslims questioning hadith in the context of the Mount are rather absurd. The rejectors of hadith make up a small minority, and those that do question hadith, do it from the perspective of the blind zeal of almost absolute acceptance of them. They do not question them absolutely as invalid historical evidence.

    2. The Quran does mention the Mount, for your information and the generality of Muslims accept this. It even mentions the destruction of the Temple twice in that very same context. If you read the very first portion of Bani Israel, it would be well understood.

    It is only a matter of time before jews (and I certainly do not agree with this) are the leading demographic in east and west jerusalem, and then they will raze the masjid, as is their right as a conquering nation.
    So it is their right as a 'conquering nation' or is it their 'religious right'? You need to make up your mind, because your deep-seated hatred of Islam, most likely because of your relatives, is blurring your mind to the point you can't even keep a consistent thought.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  11. #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    1. The majority of Muslims do accept hadith, so your argument about Muslims questioning hadith in the context of the Mount are rather absurd. The rejectors of hadith make up a small minority, and those that do question hadith, do it from the perspective of the blind zeal of almost absolute acceptance of them. They do not question them absolutely as invalid historical evidence.
    Alright if you insist.

    2. The Quran does mention the Mount, for your information and the generality of Muslims accept this. It even mentions the destruction of the Temple twice in that very same context. If you read the very first portion of Bani Israel, it would be well understood.
    Which verses?

    So it is their right as a 'conquering nation' or is it their 'religious right'? You need to make up your mind, because your deep-seated hatred of Islam, most likely because of your relatives, is blurring your mind to the point you can't even keep a consistent thought.
    I dont hold with the rights of either the conqueror or the religious.

    However the reality is that might is right, and jews in this case are the conquerors and the vanquished are the arab muslims primarily.
    Therefore jews have the "right" to reclaim the Temple mount for judaism.

    Bear in mind that I do not hate islam or judaism, I dont even believe your God exists.

    However, I do live in this duniya, and as such I am concerned with the fall out when zealots (jews and muslims) decide to act according to "divine" plans.

    The fact of the matter is that in my lifetime, israel will try to occupy jerusalem and destroy the structures on the Temple mount (as much as I disagree with these acts)

    The question for muslims (as the vanquished ones) how do you deal with this?

    Remember, this is a question that jews have already had to face twice in their history.

    How will muslims deal with it?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
    And We gave Musa the Book and made it a guidance to the children of Israel, saying: Do not take a protector besides Me;
    The offspring of those whom We bore with Nuh; surely he was a grateful servant.
    And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence.
    So when the promise for the first of the two came, We sent over you Our servants, of mighty prowess, so they went to and fro among the houses, and it was a promise to be accomplished.
    Then We gave you back the turn to prevail against them, and aided you with wealth and children and made you a numerous band.
    If you do good, you will do good for your own souls, and if you do evil, it shall be for them. So when the second promise came (We raised another people) that they may bring you to grief and that they may enter the mosque as they entered it the first time, and that they might destroy whatever they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction.
    It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you again return (to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
    Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.
    As all commentators acknowledge, this is the very Temple this discussion is about. In fact, it is in this surah that the Ten Commandments of the Muslims is given, starting with verse 22 and ending with verse 39. Further, the whole surah starts off with the Prophetic journey from Masjid al Haram to this very Masjid of the Israelites, whcih is what this discussion is abour. It is the surah that initiated the hijrah, which is the beginning of the Muslim state and the creation of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth that would restore the Abrahamic religion to it's original purity. The hijrah was the prelude to this momentous event. The last verse high-lighted shows how the Israelites can once again become part of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth, and that is by accepting Muhammad and the Quran, which guides to that which is most right. The idea of returning to that Temple with the coming of the 'Messiah' already happened and any claim to some other event is just myth-making. Muhammad (S) is the final sign of the Hour.
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  13. #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    The idea of returning to that Temple with the coming of the 'Messiah' already happened and any claim to some other event is just myth-making. Muhammad (S) is the final sign of the Hour.
    Mohammed is the messiah?

    This Hour has been a long time coming hasn't it? Since Mohammed has been dead for, ohhhh...about 1400 years.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Milky Way
    Posts
    7,698

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Did you notice the quotes around the word 'Messiah'? In Christian terminlogy, he would be considered the 'Son of Man' and in the words of Moses, a Prophet like unto himself. And in certain prophecies of the OT, his work is considered the 'Lord descending' from Paran. Muslims shouldn't be to blame the scribes playing 'tahreef' with their scriptures?

    As far as the Hour, in prophetic terminology it is quite short. Civilizations are sent Messengers and their work manifests itself in ages, giving birth to new orders and ending old ones. Between Abraham and Noah, there were many hundreds or even thousands of years and between Moses and Abraham, many ages. When Jesus was referring to the Son of Man, there was a period of 600 years, unless of course one ascribes to Christianity, where that Son of Man has yet to descend. The last Israelite Prophet dies over 2000 years ago and they are still waiting for the Messiah. Prior to this, the Prophets were coming one after another, the last one being Jesus, though they denied him.

    As one can see, the ages of Prophets are tied in with civilizations. The last age of the Prophet, that of Muhammad (S) is the period in which all of humanity has essentially become one and nations can communicate with each in a blink of an eye. Man can traverse the earth in a day. It is no coincidence that Muhammad (S), the Last Prophet ushered in this age, where humanity is no longer distinct pockets of civilization. The time is ripe.... Whether it happens in our lifetime or not, is a separate matter. From the inidividual perspective, the Hour begins when one returns to the dust.

    But this is all bedsides the point. The point of the last post was to show you in the Quran, the actual significance of the Temple of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas. The Muslims consider it blessed, just as the Jews and their Prophets are our Prophets. It was in this land that miracles were performed and many Saints lived and died for the sake of God, and many probably still alive today. Only God knows...
    "Those who deny the strength of truth,
    God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

  15. #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,903

    Default Re: Is jerusalem mentioned in the Quran

    Quote Originally Posted by ihsan View Post
    Did you notice the quotes around the word 'Messiah'? In Christian terminlogy, he would be considered the 'Son of Man' and in the words of Moses, a Prophet like unto himself. And in certain prophecies of the OT, his work is considered the 'Lord descending' from Paran. Muslims shouldn't be to blame the scribes playing 'tahreef' with their scriptures?
    So you are claiming that Mohammed is the messiah, and the dome of the rock is the final Temple? All I can do is shake my head incredulously.



    just as the Jews and their Prophets are our Prophets.
    In our mind Mohammed is not a prophet because he did not fulfill any of the conditions necessary to be a prophet, and a great many men just like mohammed claimed prophethood to the jews.

    Mohammed did not bring anything new to the jews. His coming had no purpose and he sought to lead jews away from the teachings of Moses.

    In short, not a prophet.
    Last edited by Algebra; 17th March 2010 at 15:15.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2009, 22:46
  2. Facing Jerusalem or Mecca?
    By Arnold in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 26th July 2007, 18:02
  3. Jerusalem in the Quran (download the E-book)
    By akhi_islam in forum Book Reviews
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 31st May 2006, 13:14
  4. Replies: 163
    Last Post: 9th January 2006, 22:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •