How many mosques were in the region called Palestine around 1900?

[rylah]

"Al-Aqsa Mosque, also known as Al-Aqsa and Bayt al-Muqaddas"

The modern Arabic name of Jerusalem is القدس al-Quds ("The Holy One"), and its first recorded use can be traced to the 9th century CE, two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of the city. Prior to the use of the name al-Quds, the names used for Jerusalem were إيلياء Iliya (from the Latin name Aelia) and بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas from which the name al-Quds is derived.[32] The name بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas originates from the Hebrew name for the Temple, בית המקדש Beit Ha-Miqdash, both literally meaning "The House of the Holy".[33]

Jerusalem, Jerusalem

Interesting reference; the same source states around 610CE, Mohammed commanded his followers to pray facing towards Jerusalem. The earliest recorded Arabic name for Jerusalem is "Madinat bayt a Maqdis" literally "City of the Temple"

So let's sum it up:
1. There's literally not one mention of 'Jerusalem' in the Quran
2. When regarding Jerusalem in Islamic commentary sources-
they transliterate it straight from Hebrew - בית מקדש 'Beit Mikdash'.
3. After the (short time) commandment to face Jerusalem in 610, there's still not 1 mosque in Palestine for another 100 years.

In comparison to the span of Jewish history in that land - Jerusalem became of any significance to Islam just 'a week ago'.

1. Why should there be? The Quran was written well after Mohammed's death and by then Muslims were praying towards Mecca. Doesn't make Jerusalem any less revered by Muslims.
2. That's apparently what the city was called by Jewish people, so again, why shouldn't they?
3. The early Arab conquerors didn't need them, they either prayed in their camps or used Christian churches converted into temporary "mosques" for Muslim prayer, as it suited them.

As for "spans" of Jewish history, not so much; Judaism only became the dominant religion inthe area in the 2nd century BCE and even then it wasn't universally accepted by the population. The temple cult was destroyed by the Romans by the 2nd century CE, which left "rabbinic Judaism" scattered amongst various die-hard goups of religious fanatics and their converts throughout the Roman and Persian Empires until recent times so we're looking at a span of about 400 years where Judaism was "significant" in the region. Islam has been "significant" in the region for about 1300 years, so it's silly to try and use terms like "a week ago".

Jerusalem became a place of pilgrimage as a substitute to Mecca, when the Muslims of Damascus were banned from the Hajj by the Caliph.
When Salah a-Din entered the Temple Mount with his Jew servant Yacub, the later took his shoes off. Yacub explained it was a sacred place, to which Salah a-Din ordered him to put them on back.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Jews throughout millenias, Muslims still show it their bottom in each of their services.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Muslims throughout millenias.

Yeah You, You just LIE.

Islam hasn't existed for 'millenias'. Muslims in Jerusalem turn their bottoms towards the Al-Aqsa mosque (facing Saudi Arabia).

While in America:

 

[Hollie]

"Al-Aqsa Mosque, also known as Al-Aqsa and Bayt al-Muqaddas"

The modern Arabic name of Jerusalem is القدس al-Quds ("The Holy One"), and its first recorded use can be traced to the 9th century CE, two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of the city. Prior to the use of the name al-Quds, the names used for Jerusalem were إيلياء Iliya (from the Latin name Aelia) and بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas from which the name al-Quds is derived.[32] The name بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas originates from the Hebrew name for the Temple, בית המקדש Beit Ha-Miqdash, both literally meaning "The House of the Holy".[33]

Jerusalem, Jerusalem

Interesting reference; the same source states around 610CE, Mohammed commanded his followers to pray facing towards Jerusalem. The earliest recorded Arabic name for Jerusalem is "Madinat bayt a Maqdis" literally "City of the Temple"

So let's sum it up:
1. There's literally not one mention of 'Jerusalem' in the Quran
2. When regarding Jerusalem in Islamic commentary sources-
they transliterate it straight from Hebrew - בית מקדש 'Beit Mikdash'.
3. After the (short time) commandment to face Jerusalem in 610, there's still not 1 mosque in Palestine for another 100 years.

In comparison to the span of Jewish history in that land - Jerusalem became of any significance to Islam just 'a week ago'.

1. Why should there be? The Quran was written well after Mohammed's death and by then Muslims were praying towards Mecca. Doesn't make Jerusalem any less revered by Muslims.
2. That's apparently what the city was called by Jewish people, so again, why shouldn't they?
3. The early Arab conquerors didn't need them, they either prayed in their camps or used Christian churches converted into temporary "mosques" for Muslim prayer, as it suited them.

As for "spans" of Jewish history, not so much; Judaism only became the dominant religion inthe area in the 2nd century BCE and even then it wasn't universally accepted by the population. The temple cult was destroyed by the Romans by the 2nd century CE, which left "rabbinic Judaism" scattered amongst various die-hard goups of religious fanatics and their converts throughout the Roman and Persian Empires until recent times so we're looking at a span of about 400 years where Judaism was "significant" in the region. Islam has been "significant" in the region for about 1300 years, so it's silly to try and use terms like "a week ago".

Jerusalem became a place of pilgrimage as a substitute to Mecca, when the Muslims of Damascus were banned from the Hajj by the Caliph.
When Salah a-Din entered the Temple Mount with his Jew servant Yacub, the later took his shoes off. Yacub explained it was a sacred place, to which Salah a-Din ordered him to put them on back.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Jews throughout millenias, Muslims still show it their bottom in each of their services.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Muslims throughout millenias.

That would make it what, Habib, Islam's 9,343rd most holy site?

 

[Hollie]

"Al-Aqsa Mosque, also known as Al-Aqsa and Bayt al-Muqaddas"

The modern Arabic name of Jerusalem is القدس al-Quds ("The Holy One"), and its first recorded use can be traced to the 9th century CE, two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of the city. Prior to the use of the name al-Quds, the names used for Jerusalem were إيلياء Iliya (from the Latin name Aelia) and بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas from which the name al-Quds is derived.[32] The name بيت المقدس Bayt al-Maqdis, Bayt al-Muqaddas originates from the Hebrew name for the Temple, בית המקדש Beit Ha-Miqdash, both literally meaning "The House of the Holy".[33]

Jerusalem, Jerusalem

Interesting reference; the same source states around 610CE, Mohammed commanded his followers to pray facing towards Jerusalem. The earliest recorded Arabic name for Jerusalem is "Madinat bayt a Maqdis" literally "City of the Temple"

So let's sum it up:
1. There's literally not one mention of 'Jerusalem' in the Quran
2. When regarding Jerusalem in Islamic commentary sources-
they transliterate it straight from Hebrew - בית מקדש 'Beit Mikdash'.
3. After the (short time) commandment to face Jerusalem in 610, there's still not 1 mosque in Palestine for another 100 years.

In comparison to the span of Jewish history in that land - Jerusalem became of any significance to Islam just 'a week ago'.

1. Why should there be? The Quran was written well after Mohammed's death and by then Muslims were praying towards Mecca. Doesn't make Jerusalem any less revered by Muslims.
2. That's apparently what the city was called by Jewish people, so again, why shouldn't they?
3. The early Arab conquerors didn't need them, they either prayed in their camps or used Christian churches converted into temporary "mosques" for Muslim prayer, as it suited them.

As for "spans" of Jewish history, not so much; Judaism only became the dominant religion inthe area in the 2nd century BCE and even then it wasn't universally accepted by the population. The temple cult was destroyed by the Romans by the 2nd century CE, which left "rabbinic Judaism" scattered amongst various die-hard goups of religious fanatics and their converts throughout the Roman and Persian Empires until recent times so we're looking at a span of about 400 years where Judaism was "significant" in the region. Islam has been "significant" in the region for about 1300 years, so it's silly to try and use terms like "a week ago".

Jerusalem became a place of pilgrimage as a substitute to Mecca, when the Muslims of Damascus were banned from the Hajj by the Caliph.
When Salah a-Din entered the Temple Mount with his Jew servant Yacub, the later took his shoes off. Yacub explained it was a sacred place, to which Salah a-Din ordered him to put them on back.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Jews throughout millenias, Muslims still show it their bottom in each of their services.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Muslims throughout millenias.

While Jerusalem have seen the faces of praying Muslims throughout millenias.™

Because Islam has existed even before it was invented... because Habib says so!

 

[montelatici]

And?

 

[Challenger]

Jerusalem became a place of pilgrimage as a substitute to Mecca, when the Muslims of Damascus were banned from the Hajj by the Caliph.

Erm, no. This was because of the transfer of the capital of the Caliphate to Damascus that caused a rebellion in Mecca. the Hajj was never banned, just a substitute found, especially one that would be significant to the Christian and Jewish converts that had become more and more numerous.

When Salah a-Din entered the Temple Mount with his Jew servant Yacub, the later took his shoes off. Yacub explained it was a sacred place, to which Salah a-Din ordered him to put them on back.

Yeah, not so much. It was Caliph Umar. According to al-Tabari "...When they reached Temple Mount Ka’b removed his shoes, apparently as commanded in Exodus 3,5 “remove your shoes from your feet” since for Jews, the place was holy. Caliph ‘Umar saw this and asked him the meaning of his actions, and Ka’b answered that it was because of the holiness of the place. Caliph ‘Umar became angry with him, scolded him and accused Ka’b for trying to insert Jewish concepts into Islam. He ordered Ka’b to put his shoes back on.”

While Jerusalem has seen the faces of praying Jews throughout millenias, Muslims still show it their bottom in each of their services.

Again, not so much. They are praying outside the al-Aqsa mosque, which is not the Dome of the Rock in the photograph. Here's an aerial view to give you some idea. The Mosque is the large Square building at the bottom of the picture, the Dome of the rock is so well known as to be obvious.

 

[rylah]

Jerusalem became a place of pilgrimage as a substitute to Mecca, when the Muslims of Damascus were banned from the Hajj by the Caliph.

Erm, no. This was because of the transfer of the capital of the Caliphate to Damascus that caused a rebellion in Mecca. the Hajj was never banned, just a substitute found, especially one that would be significant to the Christian and Jewish converts that had become more and more numerous.

When Salah a-Din entered the Temple Mount with his Jew servant Yacub, the later took his shoes off. Yacub explained it was a sacred place, to which Salah a-Din ordered him to put them on back.

Yeah, not so much. It was Caliph Umar. According to al-Tabari "...When they reached Temple Mount Ka’b removed his shoes, apparently as commanded in Exodus 3,5 “remove your shoes from your feet” since for Jews, the place was holy. Caliph ‘Umar saw this and asked him the meaning of his actions, and Ka’b answered that it was because of the holiness of the place. Caliph ‘Umar became angry with him, scolded him and accused Ka’b for trying to insert Jewish concepts into Islam. He ordered Ka’b to put his shoes back on.”

While Jerusalem has seen the faces of praying Jews throughout millenias, Muslims still show it their bottom in each of their services.

Again, not so much. They are praying outside the al-Aqsa mosque, which is not the Dome of the Rock in the photograph. Here's an aerial view to give you some idea. The Mosque is the large Square building at the bottom of the picture, the Dome of the rock is so well known as to be obvious.

As usual Your sole argument is semantics, funny You think it refutes what I wrote

Let's sum it up again:

1. Jerusalem became of importance because of a regional political struggle among the Muslims.

2. You confirmed the Kaab story - Jerusalem wasn't sacred to Muslims and there was no mosque - therefore when Kaab took his shoes of on the Temple Mount the Caliph accused hi of "Juadzing Islam"

3. The sole purpose of building the Al-aqsa mosque in front of the Rock (upon which the Dome is built) was to downgrade the Rock, so that Muslims faced Mecca and their backs (rear) towards the Rock.

The majority of ulamaa (respected scholars) DID NOT consider Jerusalem to be sacred:

وليس ببيت المقدس مكان يسمى ” حرما ” ولا بتربة الخليل ولا بغير ذلك من البقاع إلا ثلاثة أماكن : أحدها هو حرم باتفاق المسلمين وهو حرم مكة شرفها الله تعالى . والثاني حرم عند جمهور العلماء وهو حرم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من عير إلى ثور بريد في بريد ; فإن هذا حرم عند جمهور العلماء كمالك والشافعي وأحمد وفيه أحاديث صحيحة مستفيضة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم . والثالث ” وج ” وهو واد بالطائف . فإن هذا روي فيه حديث رواه أحمد في المسند وليس في الصحاح وهذا حرم عند الشافعي لاعتقاده صحة الحديث وليس حرما عند أكثر العلماء وأحمد ضعف الحديث المروي فيه فلم يأخذ به . وأما ما سوى هذه الأماكن الثلاثة فليس حرما عند أحد من علماء المسلمين فإن الحرم ما حرم الله صيده ونباته ولم يحرم الله صيد مكان ونباته خارجا عن هذه الأماكن الثلاثة .

Bait al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] is not a place which is called a sacred [haram, i.e. inviolable], nor is the land of al-Khaleel (i.e. Ibrahim, ‘alaihis salaam), nor any other place except for three sites. The first of them is a sacred and inviolable by the consensus of the Muslims and it is the haram of Mecca, may Allah the Exalted honor it. And the second is sacred and inviolable according to the majority to the ‘ulamaa’, and that is the haram of the Prophet (ﷺ) (i.e. al-Madinah), inviolable to both outside and inside threats and from season to season. For verily this is sacred and inviolable according to the majority of the ‘ulamaa’ such as Maalik, al-Shaafi’i, and Ahamd, and for which there are authentic and extensive ahaadeeth from the Prophet (ﷺ). And the third is Wajj, and it is a valley in the city of al-Taa’if. For it is narrated in a hadeethrelated by Ahmad in al-Musnad and it is not authentic, and it is sacred and inviolable according to al-Shaafi’i since he believed in the veracity of the hadeeth, but it is not sacred and inviolable with most of the ‘ulamaa’, and Ahmad declared the hadeethweak, containing folk tales, so he did not accept it. And as for other than these three sites, then they are not sacred and inviolable according to any of the Muslim ‘ulamaa’.

Ibn Tymiyeh

 

[rylah]

Islamic politics aside , the al-Aqsa mosque holds no special status,
it's not more significant than any other mosque in the area.

This is not meant to downgrade the importance of this mosque to local muslims. But they cannot accuse Jews of "Judaization of Jerusalem" when even their Grand Mufti officially connects the Temple Mount area to Jews and their Temple.

Everything else is politics.

 

[Challenger]

As usual Your sole argument is semantics, funny You think it refutes what I wrote

Wrong again, my post was merely to point out that facts are irrelevant to Hasbarists like you, you just make things up to suit your "argument".

 

[rylah]

As usual Your sole argument is semantics, funny You think it refutes what I wrote

Wrong again, my post was merely to point out that facts are irrelevant to Hasbarists like you, you just make things up to suit your "argument".

It seems Your automatic argument is "Zionistiche Hasbara".
Still You haven't refuted anything substantial of what I've posted here.

Ibn Taymiyyeh is not Hasbara, he's an important Islamic scholar and had a whole book dedicated to Jerusalem, read it.

Edit: my only mistake was calling the Dome of the Rock as al-Aqsa. which it's of course not.
And mistaking the name of the Caliph. So what? Still semantics.

My point stands: the Temple Mound has no special significance in Islam. The al-Aqsa mosque is no more significant than any other mosque in the area. The fabricated significance came from political manipulation and struggles.

 

[rylah]

In fact there're enough reasons to say that the mosque on the Temple Mount is NOT the Al-Aqsa mosque mentioned in the Quran.
It's not even in Palestine.

 

[Challenger]

Still You haven't refuted anything substantial of what I've posted here.

I'm not trying to refute what you've posted, just pointing out your "flexible" relationship with facts.

Ibn Taymiyyeh is not Hasbara, he's an important Islamic scholar and had a whole book dedicated to Jerusalem, read it.

Ibn Taymiyyeh was an extremist "whack-job" largely rejected by mainstram Islam and said to be a major influence on Muslim extremist fundamentalist groups like Wahabis, Salafists, etc.

Edit: my only mistake was calling the Dome of the Rock as al-Aqsa. which it's of course not.
And mistaking the name of the Caliph. So what? Still semantics.

Prime example of your "flexible" relationship with facts; you make things up to fit your narrative, like the Zionist re-write of history that created a "Jewish People" from a religious group. Oh, BTW Salah ad Din was never a Caliph, just a mere Sultan; in fact he abolished the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, just saying.

 

[rylah]

Still You haven't refuted anything substantial of what I've posted here.

I'm not trying to refute what you've posted, just pointing out your "flexible" relationship with facts.

Ibn Taymiyyeh is not Hasbara, he's an important Islamic scholar and had a whole book dedicated to Jerusalem, read it.

Ibn Taymiyyeh was an extremist "whack-job" largely rejected by mainstram Islam and said to be a major influence on Muslim extremist fundamentalist groups like Wahabis, Salafists, etc.

Edit: my only mistake was calling the Dome of the Rock as al-Aqsa. which it's of course not.
And mistaking the name of the Caliph. So what? Still semantics.

Prime example of your "flexible" relationship with facts; you make things up to fit your narrative, like the Zionist re-write of history that created a "Jewish People" from a religious group. Oh, BTW Salah ad Din was never a Caliph, just a mere Sultan; in fact he abolished the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, just saying.

Challenger when I'm being pointed at my mistakes, I admit them and correct myself.
You Yourself can testify to it, this happened a couple of times in our communication.
Feel free to further correct me.

But the fact Ibn Taymiyyeh was persecuted didn't downgrade his authority or quality of knowledge. In fact he rejected new alterations in Islam, and relied solely on 2 main classic texts - the Quran and the Hadith/Sunnah.
His works are important if we want to understand Islam in its' original tradition and form.

"Muḥammad ibn Taymiyyah (born 1263, Harran, Mesopotamia—died September 26, 1328, Damascus, Syria), one of Islam’s most forceful theologians, who, as a member of the Pietist school founded by Ibn Ḥanbal, sought the return of the Islamic religion to its sources: the Qurʾān and the sunnah, revealed writing and the prophetic tradition. He is also the source of the Wahhābiyyah, a mid-18th-century traditionalist movement of Islam.

Ibn Taymiyyah left a considerable body of work—often republished in Syria, Egypt, Arabia, and India—that extended and justified his religious and political involvements and was characterized by its rich documentation, sober style, and brilliant polemic."

Ibn Taymiyyah | Muslim theologian

 

[rylah]

And no, Zionism is a product of the Jews , not the other way around.
Claiming otherwise is actually repeating the revisionist (anti)Zionist history.

We have enough active threads on this topic, like "before 1948", but You seem to neglect Monte's numerous genetic studies that contradict what he and You claim about Jews as a distinct people.

 

[theliq]

And no, Zionism is a product of the Jews , not the other way around.
Claiming otherwise is actually repeating the revisionist (anti)Zionist history.

We have enough active threads on this topic, like "before 1948", but You seem to neglect Monte's numerous genetic studies that contradict what he and You claim about Jews as a distinct people.

It is arbitrary saying and using the word "Jews"because the majority of "Jews" were converts to Judiaism by Central Asians....Not Real Jews at all.

So delineate factually who the Jews you are mentioning in your prose.....most Jews today are not,repeat NOT Semitic Jews at all and have NO linage to Abraham at all......the only population of Semitic people in the Middle East are the Palestinians.

You leave Grey areas regarding the Jews as it is part of the Zionist Doctrine,....and as we know that is a lie.....Now Rylah you are showing Great Deceit in your posts...Why?steve

 

[rylah]

And no, Zionism is a product of the Jews , not the other way around.
Claiming otherwise is actually repeating the revisionist (anti)Zionist history.

We have enough active threads on this topic, like "before 1948", but You seem to neglect Monte's numerous genetic studies that contradict what he and You claim about Jews as a distinct people.

It is arbitrary saying and using the word "Jews"because the majority of "Jews" were converts to Judiaism by Central Asians....Not Real Jews at all.

So delineate factually who the Jews you are mentioning in your prose.....most Jews today are not,repeat NOT Semitic Jews at all and have NO linage to Abraham at all......the only population of Semitic people in the Middle East are the Palestinians.

You leave Grey areas regarding the Jews as it is part of the Zionist Doctrine,....and as we know that is a lie.....Now Rylah you are showing Great Deceit in your posts...Why?steve

Wrong.
You should keep up with the findings on this forum.
Montelatici presented us with 2 genetic studies contradicting this bogus claim team Palestine likes to repeat.
I'm open to discussion in the appropriate threads (before 1948 for example).

 

[rylah]

Would the Temple Mount become of significance for local Muslims if it wasn't for the Jewish culture?
Because there're enough reasons to conclude that the original al-Aqsa mosque mentioned in the Quran, was not even in Palestine...until politics demanded it.

 

[montelatici]

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East.................His trees show that the four major Ashkenazi lineages in fact form clusters within descent lines that were established in Europe some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. The same is true of most of the minor lineages."

Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

 

[rylah]

"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East.................His trees show that the four major Ashkenazi lineages in fact form clusters within descent lines that were established in Europe some 10,000 to 20,000 years ago. The same is true of most of the minor lineages."

Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree

Wrong thread.

Edit. And by the way You've already included the study that shows it's about 10% of the Askenazi gene pool...another 10% Arabian...rest Jewish.

National Geographic population genetic study by country, remember?

 

[theliq]

And no, Zionism is a product of the Jews , not the other way around.
Claiming otherwise is actually repeating the revisionist (anti)Zionist history.

We have enough active threads on this topic, like "before 1948", but You seem to neglect Monte's numerous genetic studies that contradict what he and You claim about Jews as a distinct people.

It is arbitrary saying and using the word "Jews"because the majority of "Jews" were converts to Judiaism by Central Asians....Not Real Jews at all.

So delineate factually who the Jews you are mentioning in your prose.....most Jews today are not,repeat NOT Semitic Jews at all and have NO linage to Abraham at all......the only population of Semitic people in the Middle East are the Palestinians.

You leave Grey areas regarding the Jews as it is part of the Zionist Doctrine,....and as we know that is a lie.....Now Rylah you are showing Great Deceit in your posts...Why?steve

Wrong.
You should keep up with the findings on this forum.
Montelatici presented us with 2 genetic studies contradicting this bogus claim team Palestine likes to repeat.
I'm open to discussion in the appropriate threads (before 1948 for example).

No I'm right as usual...if you are claiming that Nicolas Wade (see Monti's post) is some authority on DNA think again,most of his writings are flawed and completely debunked,as for the inane suggestion that "Tribes" who converted to Judaism somehow are Semitic or have any reality to original Jews is just a puff of smoke...as I said you deceive yourself but it is a lie.

 

[rylah]

Sorry, it's 3% Arabian and 2% Eastern European...95% Jewish Diaspora..

The same Jewish diaspora that comprises 14% of Lebanese people.

Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation