Q. As a Muslim, I've never understood what claims Islam had on
'Arafa points out that verse 22:40 makes a
distinction between synagogues, churches, and mosques. Can it still be assumed
that the Prophet Muhammad visited the temple in
A. There are certain presuppositions that are assumed when one reads any scripture. The problem is that often, the presuppositions that exist in the scripture are LOST on those of subsequent generations who read that text in terms of language only, or through the lenses of creedal perception. When this happens, all types of inferences arise, and the overwhelming majority are not based on a true understanding of the situation.
In the case of the opening verses of Sura 17, later Muslim opinion came to understand it as reference to a physical, actual body event. This, while not impossible in the realm of conjecture about the divine workings, is against the evidence of what we KNOW. The temple had been burned since 70 C.E., and there was NOTHING there. The reference then is to an abstract thing.
As far as the term "masjid"
only being used to describe Muslim places of worship,
this is wrong. A place of prostration is the more general term for any worship
locus of the three Abrahamic religions. To structure
a claim against the jumhoor
of the mufasireen
then, based on the idea that there was no Masjid-al-Aqsa in
The change of the Qibla
rather supports the argument of the Masjid-al-Aqsa being
Posted August 21, 2009