Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Aqsa

Offline Reader Questions

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
    • View Profile
« on: November 11, 2011, 04:43:00 AM »
Dear Br Joe Salaam
Thanks for sending the links below and particularly the Aqsa article.
Parwez and a few other scholars attribute Masjid Aqsa (farthest mosque) to be in Medina and not Jerusalem. Before the Apostle immigrated to Medina there was a budding Muslim community and regular prayers were being held there at a designated place. We also find that then and later on that Masjid and it's environs were blessed by Allah.
Parwez's Exposition can be read here:


(1) (The atmosphere in Makkah had become unbearable for the Jama'at-ul-Momineen and there was a little hope that the message of Islam would be accepted by those who had not only rejected it but planned to kill the Rasool.) Limitless glory to Allah who moved his devotee one night from the sacred mosque (of Makkah) to the farthest mosque (in Madina - where atmosphere was much more conducive) and its environs We had blessed. The purpose of the migration was that the promises made by Allah with him in Makkah should be fulfilled. Most certainly Allah is all Hearing and All-Seeing (20/23). (Therefore every decision of His is based on Knowledge and Wisdom.)
(2) (Hijra is not a new phenomenon. It was part of the programme of almost all the Rusul. It played an especially prominent part in the case of Moses.) Moses was given the book for the guidance of the Bani-Isr'ael enjoining them not to take for guidance, any one but Allah.
Wonder if you ever thought in these terms as well? We all well know according to the Hadees story the Apostle went there and led Salaat of all the previous messengers and then went up to meet Allah. However this does not makes sense as in those days there was no masjid or temple there. The place was in ruins !!
On another note when we read this Sura (17) we find Allah promised to bring the children of Israel back to their promised land (which they had lost due to their misdeeds). If this is true and we did find them coming back over there in 1947 despite all odds and heavy opposition they were able to establish a foothold back in that land, then a question that arises is what are Palestinians supposed to do whose lands the Jews took over? Should they have accommodated them on basis of this Prophecy? Was/is it right for them to oppose them politically, religiously and militarily? Wonder what are your views on this point?
I am reading an Urdu article that seems to suggest that Qibla Awwal was always the Sacred House in Mecca and not the temple in Jerusalem. The verse that deals the "fools" commenting over why were the Muslims turning towards Mecca to pray actually refers to a question asked by the Jews, says the writer. He says it were the Jews and their sympathisers and others non believers  who wanted to know why the Muslims pray towards the Sacred House in Mecca when the established Qibla (according to their understanding) was in Jerusalem?. I have not read the entire article yet but the writer has given ample proofs from the Qur'an to claim that the First House that was established to represent One God by Abraham was in Mecca and never in Jerusalem. He wants to know why the Jews changed it from Mecca to Jerusalem? With respect to the verse in Qur'an where we read  Allah was letting the Apostle know that He noticed Muhammad (PBUH) turning his face to the sky and that soon He would fulfil his desire,  was, according to the rider, the Apostle's wish to have jurisdiction over Mecca and not (as alleded) that he wished to turn his direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca. He was already praying towards Mecca!

Offline Joseph Islam

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
    • View Profile
    • The Quran and its Message
Re: Aqsa
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2011, 04:44:21 AM »
Peace brother Mubashir.

I can only base my opinion on proof and research. Respectfully, many scholars have a tendency to make claims on what may have happened selecting parts of the historical sources. Some they reject, some they accept. This is not consistent methodology in my candid view nor thorough scholarship. I take the Quran as ultimate proof and don't attempt to marry it up with selective history. Whatever the Quran makes clear, I accept, where it is silent or intentionally vague, I leave aside.

As far as the Quran is concerned, the Quranic use of the term 'Blessed' to signify a land that is blessed has always been reserved for localities around the holy land;
For example, some terms used in the Quran.
(1)   Barakna hawlahu
017.001 - Masjid Aqsa
(2)   Barakna fiha
007.137 - Blessed lands for the Children of Israel
021.071 - Prophets Abraham and Lot (pbut) delivered to the blessed lands
021.081 - Wind flowed for Solomon on the blessed lands
034.018 - Saba and cities in-between
(3)   Mubarakan
003:096 - The first house that Prophet Abraham (pbuh) built
The Quran never makes use of the term 'barakna' to describe the sanctuary at Makkah, which is normally referred to as 'Masjid Haram' (Prohibited / Inviolable Mosque) or the Kaaba which is present within its bounds, or Madina.

With regards the Qibla change, my own research has led me to a particular conclusion, which in my humble opinion best marries up with the Quranic directives and my opinion on where the Bait-ul-ateeq originally was. I have advanced my thoughts humbly based on the Quran in my articles which I have already shared with you. If academically those points can be challenged with better evidence, I will be most happy to consider it as an alternative InshAllah. I really mean that. However, I cannot accept another's assertions based on personal interpretations that make use of selective history.

Please do read the articles and if you feel there is any weakness in academic thought or rigour, please do challenge it based on the Quran with a rebuttal.



Furthermore, you make a very good observation / theological argument in your email which I'd humbly like to respond to:

"However this does not makes sense as in those days there was no masjid or temple there. The place was in ruins !!"

The old temple in Jerusalem has been referred to as a 'Masjid' elsewhere in the Quran. Even though it was destroyed, or may lay in partial ruins, the site could still be referred to as a 'Masjid' Aqsa (Furthest mosque).

"If ye did well, ye did well for yourselves; if ye did evil, (ye did it) against yourselves. So when the second of the warnings came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to disfigure your faces, and to enter your Temple (Arabic: The Masjid) as they had entered it before, and to visit with destruction all that fell into their power.

What I feel is behind brother Pervez's interpretation is a belief that God cannot suspend physical laws if He so wishes. I have made this clear before that I do not concur with this line of thinking nor do I find any proof in the Quran or in any previous scripture that limits God's authority in such a way.

I have covered this here:


Your brother in faith,
'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' 
George Orwell