Is 'Al Aqsa' mosque really located in Jerusalem?

[aris2chat]

far mosque should have amman.
Mohmmed left Jerusalem to the christians and jews. He gave the muslims mecca and medina. At the time of Mohammed, the temple at amman would have been the most significant to those in mecca.

 

[Roudy]

What makes me smile about this is Muslims built the Al Aqsa mosque over what THEY considered to be Solomon's temple. That's what Muslims did after they invaded. They tore down churches and synagogues and built mosques as a sign that the land belongs to Islam now.

 

[Roudy]

far mosque should have amman.
Mohmmed left Jerusalem to the christians and jews. He gave the muslims mecca and medina. At the time of Mohammed, the temple at amman would have been the most significant to those in mecca.

Correct, the "significance" of the mosque is a made up myth. It does not exist in Islam or in history.

 

[Challenger]

What makes me smile about this is Muslims built the Al Aqsa mosque over what THEY considered to be Solomon's temple. That's what Muslims did after they invaded. They tore down churches and synagogues and built mosques as a sign that the land belongs to Islam now.

No they didn't, that's mainly myth. One aspect of Islam that never gets any publicity is the concept of "barakah" which loosly translates as a "continuity of spiritual presence" Basically Muslims believed that a stone from one holy site could be taken to another place and that would imbue the new site with the same degree of "holiness" as the old site. Omar probably used stones found in the ruins of former Jewish attempts to rebuild the Temple on Modern mount Zion in the time of Constantine and later Julian (4th century CE) to help build his Mosque. Omar may have got it wrong, but he acted in good faith based on the traditions of the time.

 

[Challenger]

far mosque should have amman.
Mohmmed left Jerusalem to the christians and jews. He gave the muslims mecca and medina. At the time of Mohammed, the temple at amman would have been the most significant to those in mecca.

The only temple in Amman was the temple of Hercules, care to elaborate?

 

[Roudy]

What makes me smile about this is Muslims built the Al Aqsa mosque over what THEY considered to be Solomon's temple. That's what Muslims did after they invaded. They tore down churches and synagogues and built mosques as a sign that the land belongs to Islam now.

No they didn't, that's mainly myth. One aspect of Islam that never gets any publicity is the concept of "barakah" which loosly translates as a "continuity of spiritual presence" Basically Muslims believed that a stone from one holy site could be taken to another place and that would imbue the new site with the same degree of "holiness" as the old site. Omar probably used stones found in the ruins of former Jewish attempts to rebuild the Temple on Modern mount Zion in the time of Constantine and later Julian (4th century CE) to help build his Mosque. Omar may have got it wrong, but he acted in good faith based on the traditions of the time.

Muslim propoganda. Islam at its core is basically Arab imperialism. Once a country got invaded, their entire alphabet, religion, culture, and patriotism would be replaced with what the Arabs brought. Islam wasn't big on preserving the history or achievements of a conquered people. And the sign of that a land is now under the rule of Islam, is to put a mosque on the ho,y sites, and tear down or replace churches. That's what they did with the Al Aqsa mosque, it was a symbol of Islamic conquest.

Biblical holy sites
Mosques were regularly established on the places of Jewish or Christiansanctuaries associated with Biblical personalities who were also recognized by Islam. The Caliph Umar initially built a small prayer house, which laid the foundation for the later construction of the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, the most sacred site in Judaism, possibly by the Umayyads. The Dome of the Rock was also built on the Temple Mount.

The mosque of Job in Ash Shaykh Sa'd, Syria, was previously a church of Job.[4]The Herodian shrine of Cave of the Patriarchs, the second most holy site in Judaism, was converted into a church during the Crusades before being turned into a mosque in 1266 and henceforth banned to Jews and Christians. Part of it was restored as a synagogue after 1967 by Israel.

Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples

The destruction of Hindu temples in India during the Islamic conquest of India occurred from the beginning of Muslim conquest until the end the Mughal Empire throughout the Indian subcontinent. In his book "Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them", Sita Ram Goel produced a politically contentious list of 2000 mosques that it is claimed were built on Hindu temples.[7] The second volume of the book excerpts from medieval histories and chronicles and from inscriptions concerning the destruction of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples.

In Indonesia, where popular conversion from Hinduism to Islam was slower, it is believed that the minaret of the Menara Kudus Mosque, in Java, was originally part of a Hindu temple.[7]

Menara Kudus Mosque
Main article: Menara Kudus Mosque

Masjid Menara Kudus in Indonesia, with its original tower.
One of Indonesia's most famous mosques, Menara Kudus has retained much of its former Hindu character. Although the main building has been reconstructed, its iconic minaret and front gates are believed to be relics of a Hindu site.

Ram Janmabhoomi
Main article: Ram Janmabhoomi
Ram Janmabhoomi refers to a tract of land in the North Indian city of Ayodhya which is claimed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), after conducting excavations at the site, filed a report which stated that a temple stood at the site before the arrival of the Mughals, who constructed the Babri Masjid at the site.[8] Critics of the report state that the "presence of animal bones throughout as well as of the use of 'surkhi' and lime mortar" that was found by ASI are all characteristic of Muslim presence, which they claim "rule out the possibility of a Hindu temple having been there beneath the mosque".[9] From 1528 to 1992 this was the site of the Babri Mosque.The mosque was constructed in 1527 on the orders of Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India, and was named after him.[10][better source needed] Before the 1940s, the mosque was also called Masjid-i-Janmasthan, translation: ("mosque of the birthplace").The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims.Numerous petitions by Hindus to the courts resulted in Hindu worshippers of Rama gaining access to the site. The mosque was razed in 6 December 1992 by a mob of some 150,000 nationalist Hindus supported by the nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP),[11][12] after a political rally developed into a riot[13] despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed.[14] The Sangh Parivaar, along with VHP and the main Indian opposition party, sought to erect a temple dedicated to Rama at this site. The 1986 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica stated that "Rama's birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babar in 1528 on the site claimed of an earlier temple".[15] Archaeological excavations at the site by the Archaeological Survey of India reported the existence of a 10th-century temple.[8] The report stated that scientific dating indicated human activity at the site as far back to the 17th century BC.[16]

On 30 September 2010, Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.7 acres disputed land in Ayodhya, on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on 6 December 1992, will be divided into three parts: the site of the Ramlala idol to Lord Ram, Nirmohi Akhara gets Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, Sunni Wakf Board gets a third.[17]

The Somnath Jyotirling Tirthdham[18]
Main article: Somnath

A century later the third temple was constructed in red sandstone by the Pratihara king, Nagabhata II. Soon the temple regained its old glory and wealth, the descriptions of which were carried to the Middle East. In particular, the accounts of the Arab Al Biruni impressed Mahmud of Ghazni. In AD 1025, Mahmud destroyed and looted the temple, killing over 50,000 people who tried to defend it.[19] The defenders included the 90-year-old clan leader Ghogha Rana. Mahmud personally broke the gilded lingam to pieces and took them back to his homeland and placed them in the steps leading to the newly built Jamiah Masjid, so that they would be stepped upon by those going to the mosque to pray.[19][20] Work on the fourth temple was started immediately by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Patan and the temple was ready by AD 1042. This temple was destroyed in AD 1300. At that time Allaudin Khilji occupied the throne of Delhi and he sent his general, Alaf Khan, to pillage Somnath. The fifth temple was built by King Mahipala of the Chudasama dynasty.[20]

Somnath was repeatedly attacked in the succeeding centuries. The last of these attacks was by the Mughal emperor Aurangazeb in AD 1701. A mosque was built at the site of the temple.[20] In AD 1783 queen Ahilyabhai Holkar built the sixth temple at an adjacent site. The temple still stands and worship is carried out there. After independence, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel pledged on 13 November 1947, that the seventh temple would be reconstructed. According to prescribed Hindu rituals, pledges are made by taking holy water in one's fist. Leaders like Morarji Desai, Dr. Rajendra Prasad (the first president) and Kanhaiyalal Munshi joined in and the work was entrusted to the Sompura Shilpakars, whose ancestors rebuilt each new temple through the ages. The mosque built by Aurangazeb was not destroyed but carefully relocated. In 1951 Dr. Rajendra Prasad performed the consecration ceremony with the words "The Somnath Temple signifies that the power of creation is always greater than the power of destruction." The temple construction was completed on 1 December 1995, long after the demise of Sardar Patel. The then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, dedicated it to the nation. Recently, the Shree Somnath Trust has declared that non-Hindus will not be allowed to enter the temple premises. Chairman of Shree Somnath trust is former chief minister of Gujarat Keshubhai Patel and its trustees include Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, former chief secretary of Gujarat P K Laheri and former deputy prime minister of India Mr. L K Advani[18]

Other references

An inscription at the Quwwat Al-Islam Mosqueadjacent to Qutb Minar in Delhi states:

"This Jamii Masjid built in the months of the year 587 (hijri) by the Amir, the great, the glorious commander of the Army, Qutb-ud-daula wad-din, the amir-ul-umara Aibeg, the slave of the Sultan, may God strengthen his helpers! The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Deliwal coins had been spent were used in the (construction of) this mosque."[21]

However, as the inscription depicts, the mosque was built from the material remnants of Hindu temples which was destroyed by Muslims.

Alberuni in his India[22] writes about the famous temple of Multan:

 

[Coyote]

Lets get back on topic guys - Challenger perhaps you'd like to start a topic on "barakah" in Religion.

 

[Kondor3]

is treated with more respect than the Hagia Sophia

I've been there, it's a beautiful building, rather enhanced by the later aditions of minaret towers. The place had fallen into disrepair by 1453 until the Ottomans restored it to it's former glory and only the fact that the Turks treat it with great respect, has kept it standing. Only recently the Turkish authorities restored the great dome and as it's now a museum, all the iconography is being restored too. You should go and take a look sometime.

The disrespect comes from taking it over for themselves in the first place.

I cannot imagine that the Turks would have given a fart in the wind for the place, if it had remained a Christian basilica.

 

[Kondor3]

...Islam at its core is basically Arab imperialism...

 

[Challenger]

Lets get back on topic guys - Challenger perhaps you'd like to start a topic on "barakah" in Religion.

I only mentioned "barakah" to explain why the Al-Aqsa/Dome of the Rock is considered sacred to Muslims regardless of the supposed "true location" and consequently given no-one is really sure of the exact location of all these "holy sites", followers of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have an equal right to consider these places "sacred" to their respective religions.

 

[Challenger]

is treated with more respect than the Hagia Sophia

I've been there, it's a beautiful building, rather enhanced by the later aditions of minaret towers. The place had fallen into disrepair by 1453 until the Ottomans restored it to it's former glory and only the fact that the Turks treat it with great respect, has kept it standing. Only recently the Turkish authorities restored the great dome and as it's now a museum, all the iconography is being restored too. You should go and take a look sometime.

The disrespect comes from taking it over for themselves in the first place.

I cannot imagine that the Turks would have given a fart in the wind for the place, if it had remained a Christian basilica.

Had it remained a Christian Basilica it would have collapsed into ruins as by 14th century it was in a state of advanced disrepair after it was sacked by Western Crusaders in 1204; that's Christians showing a distinct lack of respect, don't you think?

 

[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.

 

[montelatici]

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.

 

[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?

 

[montelatici]

Good point.

 

[Roudy]

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.

 

[montelatici]

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.

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.

 

[Roudy]

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.

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 (in this case it was Solomon's temple). 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 took place were created by fanatic Islamic clerics because they knew how holy the land was to both Jews and Christians.

 

[montelatici]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[teddyearp]

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.