Is 'Al Aqsa' mosque really located in Jerusalem?

[Roudy]

Or it might have survived as the Pantheon, which is 400 years older.

Yes, those damned Christians disrespected a pagan temple by converting it into a church! Wonder what happened to all the other pagan temples?

You must mean how the church stripped the coliseum of its stone and marble in order to build the Vatican? Good news is that Christians aren't doing that any more but Muslim as we can clearly see still are.

The Al Aqsa mosque did not have any significance to Muslims or the Islamic religion other than it is yet another mosque and flag of Islam that was plopped on top of the holiest site in Judaism. As I proved that's what Muslims did in every country they invaded and are still doing it.

I don't understand how you can determine what has and what does not have significance to Muslims? Are you some sort Imam or Ayatollah that determines what is significant to Muslims?

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

Easy, the mosque, or Jerusalem, or the land of Israel was never mentioned in the Koran and the Islamic religion or traditional thought. Except that it gives it to the Jews, and so does the Christian faith. As proven before when Muslims invaded lands they either destroyed their religious structures or simply converted them into mosques. And that's what the Al Aqsa was. It was never meant to be anything more. The myths created about it being where Mohamad's Ascension were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

 

[montelatici]

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the validity of the Al Aqsa Mosque's and Jerusalem's claim to being the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the koran, and the land of Israel is confirmed as belonging to the Jews in the koran, regardless of whether they actually lived there a few hundred years later.

Whether or not they actually lived in Jerusalem AT THE TIME does nothing to validate this thread.

Only the Muslims themselves can determine the validity of what is holy in Islam and the level of holiness. We certainly can't determine it for them.

 

[montelatici]

Yes, those damned Christians disrespected a pagan temple by converting it into a church! Wonder what happened to all the other pagan temples?

You must mean how the church stripped the coliseum of its stone and marble in order to build the Vatican? Good news is that Christians aren't doing that any more but Muslim as we can clearly see still are.

The Al Aqsa mosque did not have any significance to Muslims or the Islamic religion other than it is yet another mosque and flag of Islam that was plopped on top of the holiest site in Judaism. As I proved that's what Muslims did in every country they invaded and are still doing it.

I don't understand how you can determine what has and what does not have significance to Muslims? Are you some sort Imam or Ayatollah that determines what is significant to Muslims?

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

Easy, the mosque, or Jerusalem, or the land of Israel was never mentioned in the Koran and the Islamic religion or traditional thought. Except that it gives it to the Jews, and so does the Christian faith. As proven before when Muslims invaded lands they either destroyed their religious structures or simply converted them into mosques. And that's what the Al Aqsa was. It was never meant to be anything more. The myths created about it being where Mohamad's Ascension were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

 

[Roudy]

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the validity of the Al Aqsa Mosque's and Jerusalem's claim to being the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the koran, and the land of Israel is confirmed as belonging to the Jews in the koran, regardless of whether they actually lived there a few hundred years later.

Whether or not they actually lived in Jerusalem AT THE TIME does nothing to validate this thread.

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the validity of the Al Aqsa Mosque's and Jerusalem's claim to being the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the koran, and the land of Israel is confirmed as belonging to the Jews in the koran, regardless of whether they actually lived there a few hundred years later.

Whether or not they actually lived in Jerusalem AT THE TIME does nothing to validate this thread.

Only the Muslims themselves can determine the validity of what is holy in Islam and the level of holiness. We certainly can't determine it for them.

So there isn't any validity to Muslim claims re the Al Aqsa, nothing in the Koran, nothing in Islamic history. Just "Muslims can determine" any hoax they wish, and then go about carrying it out through terror and violence.

 

[Roudy]

You must mean how the church stripped the coliseum of its stone and marble in order to build the Vatican? Good news is that Christians aren't doing that any more but Muslim as we can clearly see still are.

The Al Aqsa mosque did not have any significance to Muslims or the Islamic religion other than it is yet another mosque and flag of Islam that was plopped on top of the holiest site in Judaism. As I proved that's what Muslims did in every country they invaded and are still doing it.

I don't understand how you can determine what has and what does not have significance to Muslims? Are you some sort Imam or Ayatollah that determines what is significant to Muslims?

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

Easy, the mosque, or Jerusalem, or the land of Israel was never mentioned in the Koran and the Islamic religion or traditional thought. Except that it gives it to the Jews, and so does the Christian faith. As proven before when Muslims invaded lands they either destroyed their religious structures or simply converted them into mosques. And that's what the Al Aqsa was. It was never meant to be anything more. The myths created about it being where Mohamad's Ascension were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

Christianty and Judaism have the same exact belief regarding the Temple Mount. Keep up.

 

[montelatici]

I don't understand how you can determine what has and what does not have significance to Muslims? Are you some sort Imam or Ayatollah that determines what is significant to Muslims?

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

Easy, the mosque, or Jerusalem, or the land of Israel was never mentioned in the Koran and the Islamic religion or traditional thought. Except that it gives it to the Jews, and so does the Christian faith. As proven before when Muslims invaded lands they either destroyed their religious structures or simply converted them into mosques. And that's what the Al Aqsa was. It was never meant to be anything more. The myths created about it being where Mohamad's Ascension were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

Christianty and Judaism have the same exact belief regarding the Temple Mount. Keep up.

Absolutely not. Catholics revere it because it is said to be the place where Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn. I did my Catechism son.

 

[Roudy]

Easy, the mosque, or Jerusalem, or the land of Israel was never mentioned in the Koran and the Islamic religion or traditional thought. Except that it gives it to the Jews, and so does the Christian faith. As proven before when Muslims invaded lands they either destroyed their religious structures or simply converted them into mosques. And that's what the Al Aqsa was. It was never meant to be anything more. The myths created about it being where Mohamad's Ascension were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

Christianty and Judaism have the same exact belief regarding the Temple Mount. Keep up.

Absolutely not. Catholics revere it because it is said to be the place where Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn. I did my Catechism son.

I don't care where you did what. Judaism and Christianity are on the same page when it comes to the Temple Mount.

 

[Roudy]

Since Muslims don't believe Issac was Abraham's sacrifice. Hence the difference.

Jewish and Christian tradition identifies the Temple Mount with Mount Moriah(Hebrew: הַר הַמוריה‎, Har HaMōriyā), the supposed location of the binding of Isaac. The Temple Mount was also formerly identified with Mount Zion.

 

[montelatici]

There was no Israel when the Koran was written, there hadn't been an Israel for more than a thousand years. Why would Israel be mentioned? Palaestina Prima or Aeila Capitolina, Palestine and Jerusalem respectively translated to Arabic would have made more sense.

Religions are all based on myth, it doesn't matter why and how the myths are created.

Most religions tend to replace/destroy religious structures of other religions. I am sure the Jews did not spare many Canaanite, Samaritan or Philistine places of worship when they invaded the land we now call Palestine.

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

Christianty and Judaism have the same exact belief regarding the Temple Mount. Keep up.

Absolutely not. Catholics revere it because it is said to be the place where Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn. I did my Catechism son.

I don't care where you did what. Judaism and Christianity are on the same page when it comes to the Temple Mount.

No, not at all. Stop trying to equate Judaism with Christianity. Christians revere the place because
Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn.

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ. Judaism specifically refutes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Judeo-Christian is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Roudy]

Is that why Mohammad called the Jews the people of Israel, and recited the story of exodus and the promised land of Israel, and told his people to face Mecca and not Jerusalem as it was for the Jews? You are severely misinformed.

Therefore the significance of the Al Aqsa mosque has no real validity historically or religiously to Muslims or Islam. It is yet another hoax and it never existed, just like the Palestinian nation.

Of course it has validity, as much validity as the Jewish claim on Jerusalem. As a Christian I recognize neither.

Christianty and Judaism have the same exact belief regarding the Temple Mount. Keep up.

Absolutely not. Catholics revere it because it is said to be the place where Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn. I did my Catechism son.

I don't care where you did what. Judaism and Christianity are on the same page when it comes to the Temple Mount.

No, not at all. Stop trying to equate Judaism with Christianity. Christians revere the place because
Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus for the ceremonial redemption of the firstborn.

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ. Judaism specifically refutes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Judeo-Christian is a contradiction in terms.

Not interested in your warped demented view of Judaism towards Christianity.

Just tell us how that relates to the relevance of the Temple Mount to Islam, which happens to be the topic of this thread. As I proved the Jews and Christians have the same legitimate view the significance of the Temple Mount, whereas Muslims made up this unproven fictional non existent myth of it being where Muhammad's spirit ascended to heaven. There is nothing in the Koran or Islam that points to it.

 

[Challenger]

You mean like Sunnis and Shia sects don't sometimes ransack each others' places of worship, like those half-barbarian Catholics did to that Orthodox church 800 years ago?

Or Protestants and Catholics in the Low Countries in the 16th century CE and again in the 17th century? Google "Dutch Revolt" and "30 Years War" for salacious stories of Christians butchering christians and desecrating places of worship.

Neither you nor I are in a position to say what would have happened to the Hagia Sophia or any other Byzantine architecture had the Muslims not overrun Constantinople.

True, but by 1453 the once great Byzantine Empire consisted of Constantinople and it's environs, there would not have been any resources available to maintain the place so the likelihod is it would have just fallen into ruin and decay, rather like the Colluseum in Rome. contemporary accounts decribe Constantinople in the 1400's as a shadow of its former glory, full of abandoned and ruined buildings, weeds growing though paving stones, etc.

And, even IF your speculation on that alternate universe would have proven to be accurate, at least it would have been a Christian ruin, and not a stolen Muslim place of worship, which was the whole point of the exercise - showcasing how Muslims disrespect the worship-places of others by staeling them and taking them over. Like the Temple Mount.

OK so it's better for Hagia Sophia (and any other non-Muslim place of worship) to be demolished rather than have Muslims restore and rebuild it? Got it.

Or it might have survived as the Pantheon, which is 400 years older.

Yes, those damned Christians disrespected a pagan temple by converting it into a church! Wonder what happened to all the other pagan temples?

You must mean how the church stripped the coliseum of its stone and marble in order to build the Vatican? Good news is that Christians aren't doing that any more but Muslim as we can clearly see still are.

The Al Aqsa mosque did not have any significance to Muslims or the Islamic religion other than it is yet another mosque and flag of Islam that was plopped on top of the holiest site in Judaism. As I proved that's what Muslims did in every country they invaded and are still doing it.

You've proved absolutely nothing other than a blind fixation on Wikipedia articles.

 

[Challenger]

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the validity of the Al Aqsa Mosque's and Jerusalem's claim to being the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the koran, and the land of Israel is confirmed as belonging to the Jews in the koran, regardless of whether they actually lived there a few hundred years later.

Whether or not they actually lived in Jerusalem AT THE TIME does nothing to validate this thread.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the true location of the Al-Aqsa mosque.

 

[Roudy]

I proved there is no religious or historical basis for the current Muslim claims regarding the location Al Aqsa and Jerusalem. Other than jealousy that is.

 

[montelatici]

I proved there is no religious or historical basis for the current Muslim claims regarding the location Al Aqsa and Jerusalem. Other than jealousy that is.

You proved absolutely nothing. As usual, you are just making things up.

 

[aris2chat]

My post on al-kahf outside amman seems to be lost. It is spoken of in the quran as a place of god's presence.
Mohammed turned away on allah's command from Jerusalem after the jews would not accept him as one of the prophets. The muslims were given their own site in mecca.

Jerusaem is not mentioned in the quran and links are only from a dream of a far mosque. The kahf is in the quran and revered for allah's presence. The mosque as described is in the quran.

Temple of hercules is not mentioned in the quran. Why would I be thinking it might be the far mosque? Why don't people know of al-kahf? Try reading sura 18 for those who don't know their quran. It is not speaking about temple of hercules.

There are a number of shrines to the ancient prophets in western jordan as well.

 

[Phoenall]

Mohammed invaded Jerusalem in 621 AD. Muslims claim the Al-Haram ash-Sharif as his point of ascendence into heaven. What right did Mohammed have to invade the Jewish holy city? And what right did Muslims have to build their Al Aqsa Mosque on the sight of Solomon's Temple?

Mohamed did not invade Jerusalem, and it was not a Jewish city, there were no Jews in Jerusalem, only Christians and it was a Christian Holy City that was invaded. Jerusalem fell in 637 or 638 AD, years after Mohamed's death.

How do you know this for a fact, did you live there or has the Vatican built a time machine. All you can go on is one groups interpretation of the ancient histories, and this proves you are a Jew hating Catholic Nazi.

The Jewish histories show that the Jews hid their religious acts and pretended to be Christians, which wasn't hard as many of the worships in those days were identical proving that Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism.

 

[Phoenall]

It was built on Christian land that had nothing to do with Jews, there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time. They were forbidden from entering Jerusalem until the Muslim conquest of the city.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the validity of the Al Aqsa Mosque's and Jerusalem's claim to being the third holiest site in Islam. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the koran, and the land of Israel is confirmed as belonging to the Jews in the koran, regardless of whether they actually lived there a few hundred years later.

Whether or not they actually lived in Jerusalem AT THE TIME does nothing to validate this thread.

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the true location of the Al-Aqsa mosque.

Simple just look at the Islamic histories from the 7C that show mo'mad could not have flown to Al Aqsa in Jerusalem as it would not be built until 35 years after his death. There is also mention of the Al Aqsa mosque on the road between Mecca and Medina and that was the one most muslims accepted as the one mentioned in the night journey. It was not until much later that muslims started to claim Jerusalem was the place of the Al Aqsa mosque as part of their take over of the world

 

[teddyearp]

I wish you would quit your deflections. The topic of this thread is about the true location of the Al-Aqsa mosque.

So prove to us beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact in Jerusalem.

 

[teddyearp]

My post on al-kahf outside amman seems to be lost. It is spoken of in the quran as a place of god's presence.
Mohammed turned away on allah's command from Jerusalem after the jews would not accept him as one of the prophets. The muslims were given their own site in mecca.

Jerusaem is not mentioned in the quran and links are only from a dream of a far mosque. The kahf is in the quran and revered for allah's presence. The mosque as described is in the quran.

Temple of hercules is not mentioned in the quran. Why would I be thinking it might be the far mosque? Why don't people know of al-kahf? Try reading sura 18 for those who don't know their quran. It is not speaking about temple of hercules.

There are a number of shrines to the ancient prophets in western jordan as well.

Quoted as the most informative and truthful reply in this whole thread.

 

[Phoenall]

Here is the reality of the situation



Contradictions in the Qur'an

Glory to (Allah)
Who did take His Servant for a journey by night,
From the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque.
-- Sura 17:1


Now the koran does not say where this mosque was, but the history books do and they say that it was on the road outside of Medina

At the time this verse was revealed [about 622] Jerusalem was not in the hand of the Muslims but in Christian hand and there was no Mosque at all in this place (not even a church). The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque (both on the site of Solomon's Temple which had been destroyed A.D. 70 by the Romans) were only began to be build 53 years after the death of Muhammad.

So Jerusalem has no religious significance in islam and the mosque on the temple mount was not significant to the muslims until many 100's of years after it was built. This shows the mind set of taking what is not theirs and twisting it until it is.