"Flying?"
Now Now! Here you go!
A mule with the face of a woman and with wings!
Baraq!
Posted on 04/05/2020 7:01:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Right now, most of the pitched battles between Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem concerns Jews trying to pray in the vicinity of the spurious Al-Aqsa. I say spurious since any competent historian, with only the must rudimentary knowledge, could dismiss Muslim claims in five minutes or less.
The Muslims assert that Mohammed rode al-Buraq -- a mule with the face of a woman -- to Al Aqsa (the Furthest Mosque), in Jerusalem, where from thence, he ascended to heaven.
The ascent to heaven is called: al-Miraj, from where we get the word: mirage. A more ridiculous and fantabulous story could not be postulated.
The official histories of Islam note that, at that time, Mohammed was in the Hejaz -- the west coast of Saudi Arabia. The armies of Islam would not reach Jerusalem until five years after Mohammed’s death. Hence, there was no mosque in Jerusalem for Mohammed to visit in his lifetime. Offical Islamic histories undercut Islam’s ridiculous claims.
The whole story is an outright lie, and you probably read this in under five minutes. Al-Aqsa should be referred to as “The Southern Mosque,” in reference to its location on the Temple Mount. It does not merit the Islamic title.
There is an even more damaging theory, starting to bubble up in academic circles, that Islam actually came out of Petra, not Mecca, and that Mohammed is a quasi-historical figure, invented by the Caliph Abd al-Malik in order to create a mythology to legitimize his power base.
If so, Mohammed, of Petra, might conceivably have visited Jerusalem as a “tourist.” However, the rest of the whole history of Islam falls apart -- as Mecca would be shown to be a fraud; and hence, Islam itself would be demonstrably false at the core,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
But rebuild it in the proper place. The so-called “Temple Mount” is not the true location of where the Temple once stood, thus, it too is a fraud.
If the fragments of what I understand about southwest Saudi Arabia in the 5th and 6th centuries bear up, Himyar was ruled by Jewish kings, one of them made war against the growing Christian population. A massacre of Christians triggered an invasion by the Christian king of Ethiopia whose force eventually defeating the Jewish armies.
All that before Islam even existed.
That history makes it easy for me, after living through the second half of the 20th Century, to imagine the prophet as a very early 7th century Jewish strategy to regain control of the Saudi peninsula.
At the risk of insulting mules ...
And mules are much more intelligent.
No, I think it was on a bus.
LOL
Is that the dog-faced pony Biden was talking about?
I am past the point where the enirr area should be declared a “no-go zone” for anyone. Jews, Christians, and that goes triple for Muzloids. It should be turned into a crater in the earth down to the mantle.
The reason for this is that we are not going to choose sides, everyone loses.
I understand the arguments from the Jews are legitimate but I am past caring any longer. Because as long as the place exists, the acrimony will never go away. Thus the entire thing should be demolished. The soil, rocks, and every speck of everything on the site scattered into the oceans. The only thing left should be a pit of lava.
"Flying?"
Now Now! Here you go!
A mule with the face of a woman and with wings!
Baraq!
Good, rase the ground and build the new temple!
Dan Gibson keyword, sorted:
I have seen pictures of the surface of the Temple Mount covered with rubble around the time of WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire but could not find one today.
Here is a picture of Al Aqsa Mosque:
{above link} but this is after the 1927 earthquake; however it did take some years before the mosque was rebuilt.
Depiction Of al-burak
I thought real Muslims didn’t draw human images. This kind of looks like an Indian style of drawing, even though the topic is Islamic.
I do believe this picture was made by an Indian. However it is still an accurate depiction of the muzslime beliefs
Where did the Temple stand?
Check these out
The Hadith do not explicitly refer to the Buraq as having a human face, Near East and Persian art almost always portrays it so.
Note that Judeo-Christianity also has strange beasts especially in the old testament and then in the book of revelation.
The innermost area is largely preserved in its original state, especially the 240-meterlong inscription band that wraps twice around the Octagon. The script band in the Dome of the Rock with the Kufic inscription of Abd al-Malik. The mosaics are of typical Roman-Byzantine style, but they are arranged forming Persian motifs Transcript of the script-band (excerpt). The script is older than any know Qur’an. According to modern sciences the content is that of an Arab - Christian monotheistic faith
Traditionally, these inscriptions, attributed to Malik, the builder of the dome, are read in a way that echoes basic Islamic ideas, despite the fact that even just a quick-but-unbiased look at them would have to raise red flags about this approach. Apparently, for the longest time, nobody bothered to take an unbiased look—until linguist Christoph Luxenberg came along. He translated the inscriptions by reading them in the language that was used at that time—and triggered off a tsunami in the field of Islamic research. By applying the language of Syro-Aramaic that was used by the writer of the inscription, he brought to light interpretations of key messages that differed from the traditional Islamic translations.
The traditional translation of the inscriptions is:
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no god but God alone, He has no associate. Unto Him alone belongs the sovereignty and unto Him belongs the praise. He quickens and He gives death. He has power over all things. Muhamad the son of Abd Allah, is his messenger. God and his angels shower blessings on the Prophet. You believers, ask for blessings on him and salute him worthily. Blessings and peace may be upon him and may God have mercy with him. You people of the Book, do not exaggerate in your beliefs and speak only the truth about God. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was only a messenger of
God and his word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and His messenger, and say not “Three.” Cease it. It is better for you. God is only One God. His transcendent majesty needs no son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and God is sufficient as protector. The Messiah is not too proud to be a servant of God, nor are the devoted angels. The one who is in high spirits and too proud, He will rally round Him. God, bless Your messenger and Your servant Jesus, son of Mary. May peace be on him the day he was born, the day he dies, and the day of his resurrection. Such is Jesus, the son of Mary, that is the truth which you doubt. It befitted not the Majesty of God to spawn a son, Praise Him. When He decrees a thing He says to Him only: Be. And it is. God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the rightful path. God witnessed that there is no God but God. And the angels and the learned ones are witnesses to that, too. He provides justice. He is the only almighty and wise God. See, the religion of Allah is Islam. And the ones who have received the Book became disunited by disobedience after knowledge had come to them. And those who deny the signs of God, God is swift at reckoning
In great detail, Luxenberg provides evidence that muhamad is a gerund and could, under no circumstance, be understood as a name—it would be a grammatical impossibility. Historians of other fields have also supported the idea that the name “Muhamad” would be a semantic impracticality, as this name has been shown to have never existed at any time before the birth of Islam. Numerous findings on coins corroborate that this term represented a title but not a name. (Again, the same applies to the expression abd Allah—“God’s servant.” It was an attribute, but it was no name at that time.)
Luxenberg: “The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, is the messenger of God.” Here, according to Luxenberg, the traditional Islamic translation of the inscription contains something else—an intentional error. The reading of sentence, “The Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of God” cannot be explained merely as the result of the interpreter having read it incorrectly. It is an obvious and unjustifiable manipulation. And the following passage in the inscription is of particular interest: So believe in God and His messenger, and say not “Three”…God is only One God. His transcendent majesty needs no son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth… Here, the builder of the Dome of the Rock and the author of the inscription, Malik, states that he opposes the idea of the Holy Trinity (“Three”), which is why he considers Jesus as the messenger of God but not as God’s son. The second key passage in the Dome of the Rock’s inscription is represented by the following remark which, in its original form, says: “in(na) d-din(a) llah(i) l-islam…” Traditional translation: “See, the religion of Allah is Islam…”
Din is interpreted as the term “religion,” and “Islam” is referred to as the name of this religion. To Luxenberg and many others, this is a typical misinterpretation that was produced during later centuries. By both its form and meaning, the Arabic din is derived from the Persian den. The meaning of the term den/din at that time corresponded to “the truthful, the rightful” but does not relate to the Latin religio, the religion. While the term religio denotes a formal relationship with God, the term din refers to the spiritual component which enables one to do the right thing, including recognizing the rightful religion. Hence, the relationship of the words is not that the term din means the word religion but rather that religion represents the consequence of the din.
=====================
The dome of the rock was NOT built for what we today call "Islam" nor was it built for what we know as rabbinical Judaism. It was built for a particular religious group that was between Rabbinical Judaism and Jewish Judaism.
Namely that it considered Jesus a great prophet - or even an "adopted son" and that's noted in the text
"Muhammed" i.e. the one to be praised was a term like Chrestos/Christ - and meant for Jesus
In my opinion what happened was:
There is NO miracle of M mentioned in the Quran.
Rather, it is explicitly stated that he wouldn’t have any miracles.
This was supposedly in answer to questions about why he didn’t do any miracles (read my answer above, I hold that there was no real person called Muhammed as
1. there is zero archaeological, literature or other evidence for such a named person until 750 AD - even though the lands conquered were VERY literate and wrote about everything else during this time
2. Muhammad is a TITLE meaning “one who is to be praised” and not a name
3. The Hadiths were written 150 to 200 years after the character M supposedly died
4. The Sira (M’s biography) was written over 200 years AFTER he died. During the time intervening, there was nothing written about him, absolutely nothing - it would be like you writing a biography of George Washington today but where there were no books, no monuments, no carvings,no nothing written about him during the intervening time and your biography of Washington would be based purely on word of mouth stories handed down.
There was no Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in the 600s
There was an Arab conquest of Jerusalem - and the Arabs were practicing a heretic form of Christianity that denied the Trinity.
These Arabs were the former vassals states of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids who fought for the Roman and Sassanid empires. When those two superpowers exhausted themselves, their former vassals walked in and took over.
Jerusalem was manned by a Byzantine garrison and this was captured after a siege - but note that
1. The Jews of the surrounding area supported the Arab conquerors
2. The Christians were slaughtered by the Arabs and the Jews
3. Christian writers who were IN Jerusalem at the time wrote of the place being conquered by Hagarenes / Saracens - i.e. by Arabs. There is NO mention of Muhammad, Quran, Islam, Muslims by these writers. Zero, nada, zilch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
