Isn't denial of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem against the Quran?

Submitted by anonymous (United States), Jun 21, 2006 at 11:06

I am no Quranic scholar, but isn't the claim of Jersalem's importance to Muslims based on the Quran which claims that Mohammed traveled to the "distant mosque (temple)" from which he ascended on that mystical journey to the heavens?

In fact, Jerusalem is not mentioned but rather the "distant mosque" is mentioned and when Mohammed defended the claim of his journey to the distant temple (it was a temple then) and subsequently to the heavens, he bolstered his claim by describing the Temple of Solomon to one of the doubters who had actually been to the Temple.

So, the Quran claims that the Jewish Temple of Solomon is in Jerusalem and Muslim denial of this is blasphemy.

If, in fact, the Temple of Solomon were in Nablus or any other place, than Nablus or some other place would be the location from which Mohammed ascended into heaven and, therefore, Jerusalem would have no religious significance for Muslims. It appears to me that the Muslims have to decide on either being blasphemous or accepting that the Temple Mount is in fact the location of the Jewish Temple of Solomon.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".