Personally, I do not believe any religion should give any nation claim over any land, especially one populated by other people, but I have to correct some of the factual mistakes here:
the seventeenth Sura, entitled "The Night Journey." It relates that in a dream or a vision Mohammed was carried by night "from the sacred temple to the temple that is most remote, whose precinct we have blessed, that we might show him our signs. ..." In the seventh century, some Muslims identified the two temples mentioned in this verse as being in Mecca and Jerusalem
You could have known if you honestly researched the subject, of course, that "temple that is most remote" translates to Arabic as "Masjid Al-Aqsa", which is the name of the mosque in Jerusalem Muslims consider one of their holiest sites.
Apparently, at the time of Isra and Mi’raj, the only two originally built mosques on earth were the Ka’ba in Mecca, and Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. Hence, if Muhammad was at Mecca in the passage quoted from the Quran above, the place of the first mosque, then Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem must be the mosque refereed to in the Quran, as it is the only other mosque.
Unless, of course, you want to side with the "facts" in the article you posted, the likes of:
But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
Sooner or later, people in Jerusalem and all around it will have to agree to live together. Or they will kill each other until a handful remains. Arguments such as a la "Our religious book talks MORE about this land so its OURS" are not helping. |
