“Musjid Al-Asqā is in Madīna??? Well so insists the Qur’ānists!”
“From one “Shaykh” to another “Shaikh” – The following is a Refutation to the Qur’ānist assertion that Musjid Al-Aqsā is NOT in Jerusalem
By Shaykh Faheem
of the Islāmic Lifestyle Solutions
Indeed, absurdity knows not its limit, but I must admit that when I was directed by my erudite colleague Muftī Omar Dawood to this ludicrous view, I was flabbergasted at what I found. The proponents of this view are known as “Qur’ānists”, meaning that they accept only the Qur’ān as an authentic Islāmic source, thus rejecting all other traditional Islāmic source material as evidence.
Of course, this kind of tunnel-visioned approach was not really considered at conception and, naturally, it raised numerous questions, to which the Qur’ānist doctrines have utterly failed to address. One such “issue” was the mention of “Musjid Al-Aqsā” as it is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’ān, yet Qur’ānist scholar, Mohammad Shaikh has insisted that the reference in the opening verse of Sūrah Al-Isrā to ‘Musjid Al-Aqsā’ is about Musjid An-Nabawī in the City of the Madīnah, and not about the famous mosque in Jerusalem.
As a corollary of this bogus view, we must therefore ask, “What of the current Musjid Al-Aqsā?” Is it to be ‘binned’ as merely an insignificant edifice and to therefore be forgotten altogether? I am certain that the Zionists would love to ‘promote’ this ideology in order to achieve its goal of re-establishing the temple in its stead.
Before presenting a refutation of this bizarre claim, it is only fair to present their main argument for which their position that Musjid Al-Aqsā is not in Jerusalem, but is in the city of Madīnah.
The Qur’ānist Claim Regarding Al-Aqsā
The arguments raised by the Qur’ānist on this matter are two-fold;
a) An assumptive interpretation of the Aqsā verse coupled with
b) Logical deductions
Thus, we will summarily exhibit the fallacy of these claims and have provided a link for the video from the Qur’ānist scholar, in which these claims are expressed.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvRAIEfzbmg )
Assumptive Interpretation of Aqsā verse by Qur’ānists
For the benefit of the reader, the verse in discussion is as follows,
سُبۡحٰنَ الَّذِىۡۤ اَسۡرٰى بِعَبۡدِهٖ لَيۡلًا مِّنَ الۡمَسۡجِدِ الۡحَـرَامِ اِلَى الۡمَسۡجِدِ الۡاَقۡصَا الَّذِىۡ بٰرَكۡنَا حَوۡلَهٗ لِنُرِيَهٗ مِنۡ اٰيٰتِنَا ؕ اِنَّهٗ هُوَ السَّمِيۡعُ الۡبَصِيۡرُ
“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”
(Sūrah Al-Isrā, 17:1)
From this, Mohammad Shaik deduces that,
Musjid Al-Aqsā is described as a “blessed” land. He notes that the prevalence of violence in the region of Al-Aqsā and the absence of violence in the region of Musjid An-Nabawī proves that Al-Aqsā cannot be in Jerusalem but in Madīnah.
He corroborates his first point by stating that the prevalence of the well-known statement “Haramayn Sharīfayn” (The Two Sacred Sanctuaries of Mecca and Madīnah) exhibits that there are only two sacred mosques and Al-Aqsā is therefore not one of them.
He insinuates, without any textual backing, that 9:107-108 which discusses a mosque that was established by the hypocrites known as Musjid Dhirār, is referring to the current Al-Aqsā. His evidence will be explained in the rebuttal –God Willing.
The above form the basis of the Qur’ānist standpoint from the direct text of the Qur’ān. Now, we shall present the logical deductions exhibited by Mohammad Shaik in his effort to renounce Musjid Al-Aqsā in Jerusalem from being a recipient to any recognition within the Islāmic tradition.
Logical Deductions by Qur’ānists
Firstly, Muhammad Shaik claims that since the word “Bayt Al-Muqaddas” means a ‘Holy House’ in the Arabic language, thus, if anyone visits an Arab in Jerusalem and asks in Arabic “Where is the Holy House (Bayt Al-Muqaddas)?” then even in Jerusalem, the Arab will respond, “In Saudi Arabia” because all Muslims agree that the Holy Houses are in Mecca and Madīnah.
Secondly, the Golden-Domed mosque known as the Dome of the Rock is frequently presented as Musjid Al-Aqsā when in fact the other mosque behind it is known as the Al-Aqsā Mosque. So the people themselves don’t know which one is Musjid Al-Aqsā, and this is evident from the common error.
Thirdly, Mohammad Shaik espouses that since the word ‘Jerusalem’ in Hebrew means a ‘Circle of Peace’, and Muslims accept the word, the fact that there is no peace in the region, yet there is peace in the city of Madīnah further proves that Musjid Al-Aqsā in the Qur’ān is not in Jerusalem. he therefore concludes that Al-Aqsā is in Madīna.
Fourthly, that a verse of the Bible (Daniel 6:10) proves that it is a Christian practice to face towards Jerusalem. Thus, according to the Qur’ānist scholar, Muslims have therefore adopted a Christian view.
Fifthly, the fact that the current Musjid Al-Aqsā is facing the city of Mecca is proof that it could not be the first Qiblah, or else all other mosques would be facing it since all other mosques face Musjid Al-Harām (The Sacred Mosque in Mecca)
Rebuttal to the Qur’ānist Claim
For any educated Muslim, the premise of the Qur’ānist is fallacious on several accounts. Since their view is divided into two, the first of which is the (mis)interpretation of the Qur’ān followed by the (il)logical consequences of adopting a fallacious methodology, it follows that our response must be presented in the same sequence of rebuttal stemming from,
The Qur’ān
Logical deduction
Musjid Al-Aqsā is NOT in Madīna, but in Palestine!
The verse presented as evidence to disprove Al-Aqsā as being the current location in Jerusalem is the very verse utilized to prove that Al-Aqsā is not in Madīnah as claimed by the Qur’ānist scholar. The verse revisited,
سُبۡحٰنَ الَّذِىۡۤ اَسۡرٰى بِعَبۡدِهٖ لَيۡلًا مِّنَ الۡمَسۡجِدِ الۡحَـرَامِ اِلَى الۡمَسۡجِدِ الۡاَقۡصَا الَّذِىۡ بٰرَكۡنَا حَوۡلَهٗ لِنُرِيَهٗ مِنۡ اٰيٰتِنَا ؕ اِنَّهٗ هُوَ السَّمِيۡعُ الۡبَصِيۡرُ
“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”
(Sūrah Al-Isrā, 17:1)
Mohammad Shaik states that since Musjid Al-Aqsā is described as a “blessed” land, the prevalence of violence in the region of Al-Aqsā today, and the absence of violence in the region of Musjid An-Nabawī in Madīna today, proves that Al-Aqsā is not in Jerusalem but Madīnah.
When I state that their views are “assumptive interpretations” or rather misinterpretations, that should be clear to the reader.
It is unbecoming of any scholar to take a verse dating back 1400 years, and to then juxtapose the description located within that verse to the current times without understanding the context. Of course, contextomy is a huge problem for a sect that rejects the hadīth tradition because it is within those very traditions from which the mechanics and dynamics of revelation can be further understood.
Mohammad Shaik “straw mans” the argument by implying that the prevalence of violence ‘currently’ negates the virtue of Musjid Al-Aqsā in Jerusalem as being ‘blessed’. Where on earth did he acquire this maxim stipulating that peace is the condition for ‘blessing’? If that is the case, then does his ideology further imply that the Prophets of God Almighty who underwent oppression (which by the way is not a peaceful process) and were therefore, devoid of the accolade of being the “blessed” servants of God? Of course not, as that would be a preposterous postulation. Yet the Qur’ānist has no qualms in seizing from the minds of his followers, the Divinely ordained blessings gifted to Al-Aqsā? Strange indeed! Additional corroboratory evidence for this will be discussed in logical fallacies.
The Qur’ānic response to such a fallacy may be understood from the following verse,
وَنَجَّيۡنٰهُ وَلُوۡطًا اِلَى الۡاَرۡضِ الَّتِىۡ بٰرَكۡنَا فِيۡهَا لِلۡعٰلَمِيۡنَ
“And We saved him and Lot [and sent them] to the land We blessed for all the worlds.”
(Sūrah Al-Ambiyā, 71:21)
Contextually, the above verse refers to God Almighty saving Prophet Abraham and Lūt (Lot) u after the famous incident at Babylon wherein the former was cast into the blazing fire. Thereafter, Prophet Abraham, who was still young at the time, accompanied by his nephew Lūt (Lot), were both guided to a land which the Qur’ān describes as “blessed for all the worlds”. It is historically agreed upon by all Muslims that Prophet Abraham u only reached Mecca when he was commanded to leave his family at the then desolate valley of Mecca. At that time he was an adult, and not a child, obviously because he had a child of his own. Therefore, the “blessed land” referred to in this verse was not in current day Arabia, but in the area of “Ash-Shām”, of which Palestine is historically made up of. Thus, we must ask the “Qur’ānist” why was this verse of the Qur’ān not presented in his chain of evidence under the subject of “barakah” or blessings in the Qur’ān? Could it perhaps be that its exhibition would nullify his own argument?
Now, the slippery opposition may try to wiggle its way out of this by further insinuating that since the name “Ibrāhīm” (Abraham) is not mentioned in the verse, how can we ‘assume’ that it is in reference to him? Well, for traditional Sunnī Muslims who accept the authentic hadīth traditions, the narrative is familiar. However, our stance for insisting that the verse is about Prophet Abraham is not an assumption, but an assertion based on the Qur’ān itself. The cited verse from 21:71 does not mention his name, but two verses prior, the Qur’ān states in 21:69,
قُلۡنَا يٰنَارُ كُوۡنِىۡ بَرۡدًا وَّسَلٰمًا عَلٰٓى اِبۡرٰهِيۡمَۙ
“We said, `O fire, be you a means of coolness and safety for Abraham”
Thereafter, in the verse immediately following 21:71, the Qur’ān states,
ؕ وَكُلًّا جَعَلۡنَا صٰلِحِيۡنَ وَوَهَبۡنَا لَهٗۤ اِسۡحٰقَ ؕ وَيَعۡقُوۡبَ نَافِلَةً
“And We gave him Isaac and Jacob in addition, and all [of them] We made righteous.”
Prophets Isaac (Is’hāq) was the second son of Prophet Abraham and Jacob (Ya’qūb) was his grandson.
Why would the Qur’ān discuss Prophet Abraham directly as well indirectly via his offspring in the verses BEFORE AND AFTER the verse of discussion, yet discuss someone else altogether in this verse? That would be incoherent with the Qur’ānic methodology of discourse as well as the intellect. Thus, the verse clearly indicates, in additional to the view of the historical record, that the land of Palestine (where Prophet Abraham u resided in) was indeed blessed by God Almighty and the above verse is in no means referenced to Mecca.
The Qur’ānist attempts to corroborate his first point by stating that the prevalence of the known statement “Haramayn Sharīfayn” (The Two Sacred Sanctuaries of Mecca and Madīnah) exhibits that there are only two sacred mosques and Al-Aqsā is not one of them.
Once again, the assumptive nature of the Qur’ānist’s argument is clear for the erudite to evaluate. The simplest response is to exhibit to the readers the double standards of these pseudo-scholars. Astoundingly, for a sect which preaches that the hadīth tradition is unreliable, and therefore unworthy of acceptance as a source of ‘evidence’, they have no qualms in accepting logical fallacies as ‘evidence’ to support their bogus claims.
They argue that the Qur’ān does not stipulate that Musjid Al-Aqsā is in Jerusalem, and since they only accept the Qur’ān as evidence, it therefore follows that Al-Aqsā could be anywhere. Instead of utilizing ‘history’ as a source material, the Qur’ānist has adopted to create an imaginative theory, which contextually alters various other verses of the Qur’ān, and accepts a non-Qur’ānic term as ‘evidence’. “How so?” One may ask, and the answer is simple. I challenge any Qur’ānist who holds such flimsy views to produce a verse of the Qur’ān in which the words ‘Haramayn Sharīfayn’ exists. If there is no such evidence, -and we know of no such words in the Qur’ān- then the Qur’ānist must justify why this line of evidence is more acceptable than an authentically transmitted hadīth. After all, was the Qur’ān in its current compilation not compiled by a similar process?
The Qur’ānists insinuate, albeit without any textual backing, that 9:107-108 (which discusses a mosque that was established by the hypocrites known as Musjid Dhirār in the Madīnan period), is referring to the current Al-Aqsā in Jerusalem.
It is important to note that the Qur’ānist rejects any contextualization of a verse that is presented from outside of the Qur’ānic corpus. Hence, the general evidence utilized by the majority of Muslims is rendered invalid in their view and therefore redundant as an elucidation. This allows them to develop numerous ‘assumptive’ theories to justify their position on numerous matters. This can be noted in the following stance of the Qur’ānists regarding Musjid Al-Aqsā.
وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مَسْجِدًا ضِرَارًا وَكُفْرًا وَتَفْرِيقًا بَيْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَإِرْصَادًا لِّمَنْ حَارَبَ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَلَيَحْلِفُنَّ إِنْ أَرَدْنَا إِلَّا الْحُسْنَىٰ ۖ وَاللَّـهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ
“And those (hypocrites) who built a mosque to cause harm, and due to disbelief, and in order to cause divisions among the Muslims, and to await the one who is at the outset an opponent of Allah and His Noble Messenger; and they will surely swear that “We wished only good”; and Allah is witness that they are indeed liars.”
(Sūrah At-Taubah, 9:107)
The scholars of exegesis agree that the above was in relation to a group of hypocrites (pretending to be Muslim) with the ill-intent to cause harm to the Messenger and the Muslims. However, Mohammad Shaik assumes that the verse is about Musjidul Aqsā (we seek refuge in Allāh from such utterances) because the inference here is that Musjid Al-Aqsā was established by those who wish to cause harm to the believers and are disbelievers. So is Mohammad Shaik implying that those Prophets of God the likes of Abraham, David, Solomon u are referred to in this verse? Or is he referring to the second Caliph of Islām, Sayyidunā Umar bin Al-Khatāb E, who, according to even the chronicles of Christian historians, established the Musjid at Jerusalem after its desecration by the Byzantines? The illogical applications of his views are clear for any ‘contemplative’ mind to acknowledge.
He then alludes that the supposed Qur’ānic advice is to never pray Salāh at the current Musjid Al-Asqā because according to the Qur’ānist it is a mosque established by hypocrites, and the next verse commences with a stern command by saying, “Never stand (for worship) in that mosque…” (9:108). Thus, according to the Qur’ānist, it is forbidden to pray at the current Musjid Al-Aqsā.
The illogical premise of this argument is so mesmerizing, that it defeats all knowledge of history. Hypothetically, it the current Aqsā was Musjid Dhirār that was established by the hypocrites, then we know that it was destroyed. So the Qur’ānist says, “Yes, that is why Umar the second Caliph had to re-establish it”. Now if that is true, we must ask, “Why would Umar bin Al-Khattāb accompany the Prophet Muhammad k to destroy the mosque (because he was alive and a Muslim at that time), and then re-establish the same mosque, on the same ground upon which it met its destruction? Was he known to have acted like this anywhere in history? Or was he known to act in opposition to this view? Is there any evidence in the Qur’ān for this? Or it merely cherry-picking of the historical narrative to suit a hypothesis? The latter is most certainly the case for an objective thinker.
To say that the Musjid Ad-Dhirār of the Qur’ān is the current Musjid Al-Aqsā of Jerusalem is to echo the very sentiments of the Zionists who would wish for nothing more than Muslims to leave that Holy Land so that they can claim it for themselves and establish their temple for their Promised Messiah. This is the inevitable end for those who adopt the fallacious philosophy of the Qur’ānist.
Illogical Deductions
I have exhibited the weakness of the Qur’ānist claim from the Qur’ān, coupled with the requisite rationale that supports historical evidence. Insofar as the logical deductions utilized as a source of evidence by the Qur’ānist scholar Mohammad Shaik is concerned, it will become evident that it is lacking all logic and is in fact illogical on several spheres of analysis.
First Response – The logical deducation raised by Muhammad Shaik was that since the word “Bayt Al-Muqaddas” means a ‘Holy House’ in the Arabic language, and if anyone visits an Arab in Jerusalem and asks in Arabic “Where is the Holy House (Bayt Al-Muqaddas)?” then even in Jerusalem, the Arab will respond, “In Saudi Arabia” because all Muslims agree that the Holy Houses are in Mecca and Madīnah. Thus, “Bayt Al-Muqaddas” should not be considered in reference to Jerusalem, but to the current Saudi Arabian region in which the city of Mecca is located.
This is another depiction of the ‘straw man fallacy’ because the Qur’ānist follows to explain the ‘general’ linguistic meaning of the words ‘Bayt Al-Muqaddas’ and then suggests that it is ‘specific’ to the Ka’bah as the ‘bayt’ (house). Where did he get this evidence from? He definitely did not consult the Qur’ān, which is surprising for a ‘Qur’ānist’ because we know, -according to the Qur’ān- that Prophet Moses was an ‘Israelite’ prophet who was born in Egypt at a time when the Jews were slaves to the Pharaoh. God Almighty guided him across the Red Sea and he led the Israelites to their ‘homeland’ (which is not Mecca by the way).
Here, the Qur’ān paints a mental portrait for the reader,
يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنْقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ
“O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah wrote for you (assigned to you), and turn not back in flight, for then you will be losers.”
(Sūrah Al-Mā’idah, 5:21)
The Qur’ān clearly utilizes the words, الْأَرْضَ الْمُقَدَّسَةَ (Holy Land) in which ‘Al-Muqaddasah’ (referring to Holy) is in evidence. Now, is Mohammad Shaik going to insist that the word ‘Al-Muqaddasah’ here which was used ‘specifically’ for Jerusalem is to be rendered obsolete by ignoring the specificity and then to automatically apply the general meaning of ‘Holy’ to the city of Mecca? Absurd is merelt an understatement when juxtaposed to the kind of intellectual dishonesty delivered by the Qur’ānist.
Why did the Qur’ānist conveniently leave out this important piece of information when explaining the ‘Qur’ānic’ stance on the words ‘Bayt Al-Muqaddas’? Of course, it should be clear to the reader now that the reason for this acute forgettery was because it would render his argument null by the very Qur’ān that the Qur’ānist claims to follow strictly. The deception is clear!
Second Response – the Qur’ānist’s deduction technique seems to be employed on a system of deception, and ironically, this is the same methodology that the False Messiah Dajjāl will utilize, and no, I make no accusation linking the Dajjāl to the proponent, but merely an observational link between the two methodological approaches.
Mohammad Shaik responds on his Youtube channel to questions about the Golden-Domed mosque known as the Dome of the Rock by stating that it is frequently presented in the media as ‘Musjid Al-Aqsā’ when in fact the other mosque behind it is known as Al-Aqsā Mosque, and that the Dome of the Rock is not a ‘House’ but a place which covers this rock, so it is not a sacred house of God. Furthermore, the people themselves don’t know which one is Musjid Al-Aqsā, and this is evident from the common error of confusing the two. Hence it supports his view.
Contrarily, the Qur’ānist has once again utterly deceived his audience. The media is not a source of Islāmic information, yet he easily accepts their presentation, but rejects hadīth literature as authentic? Astonishing indeed! The media propaganda against Musjid Al-Aqsā has been exposed by thousands of journalists and scholars over the decades since the illegal occupation. In my book, “The Forgotten Haram – 40 Narrations Concernng Jerusalem”, I have exhibited this. Nonetheless, none of the two mosques are to be considered individually as “Musjid Al-Aqsā” because both these mosques are located within the Haram area, just as how if one recites prayer outside any of the two sacred mosques in Mecca and Madīnah, it will still constitute as being recited within the Haram. Whatever the media decides to present cannot be regarded as Islāmic information and the fatal mistake made by Mr. Mohammad Shaik is evident in that he has fallen victim to its deception as well.
Third Response – In probably the most laughable of all his deductions, Mohammad Shaik espouses that since the word ‘Jerusalem’ in Hebrew means a ‘Circle of Peace’, and Muslims accept the word. The fact that there is no peace in the region, yet there is peace in the city of Madīnah, further proves that Musjid Al-Aqsā in the Qur’ān is not in Jerusalem. Astounding!
This analogy is flawed in so many ways that responding each aspect in detail would require an elucidation of the different kinds of fallacies prior to a proper fulmination.
If we are to adopt this shallow mindset, then the Christian argument over the city of Mecca would have grounds to flourish. They believe that the word ‘Bakkah’ in the Qur’ān, which is the ancient name for Mecca, is in fact about a passage in the Bible regarding the city of ‘Baka’. (I have refuted this in my new book which will be launching soon “The Meccan Dawn” –Inshā Allāh). This is because ‘Bakkah’ also means ‘to wail’ or ‘to cry’ etc. So are we to now say that since people in Palestine cry more because of the oppression they undergo, that the word ‘Bakkah’ in the Qur’ān which describes the first house on earth, is in Jerusalem? of course thats the illogical premise of the argument. That if you take the name of a place, and if you do not find that ‘meaning’ in that region, but find it elsewhere, then it is incocrrect!? This can be done with almost any city in the world and then juxtaposed with another. It is fallacious and reeks with deception, and is enveloped in a layer of profound ignorance.
Fourth Response – The Qur’ānist opines that a verse of the Bible (Daniel 6:10) proves that it is a Christian practice to face towards Jerusalem in prayer. Thus, according to the Qur’ānist scholar, Muslims have therefore adopted a Christian view into the Islāmic tradition.
The verse of the Bible alluded to is as follows,
“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before.”
(Daniel 6:10)
He insinuates that due to the above verse, the implication is that the majority of Muslims have been either ‘duped’ or have been promoting misinformation about Musjid Al-Aqsā sourced from Christian narratives. Astonishingly, the Qur’ānist rejects the hadīth as a ‘reliable’ source, yet can quote the Bible as a source in his determination to disprove the virtue of the current location of Musjid Al-Asqā.
To clarify and alleviate this accusation, no Muslim utilizes the above verse as evidence to prove the sanctity of Jerusalem. Instead, there are numerous traditions in the hadīth corpus advising its virtue. We shall not exhibit those narrations seeing as though they have no standing in the view of the Qur’ānist. However, we do advise the Qur’ānist to not adopt the attitude of the non-Muslim apologists who tend to ignore the contextual grounds upon which the majority of Muslims frame their understanding of the religion.
Fifth Response – Mohammad Shaik states that since the current Musjid Al-Aqsā is facing the city of Mecca, that is evidence that it could not be the first Qiblah, or else all other mosques would be facing it. Since all mosques face Musjid Al-Harām (The Sacred Mosque in Mecca).
The idiocy of this claim is such that the proponent suggests the existence of some kind of condition in Islām which stipulates that for a location to be recognized as ‘sanctified’ in Islām, then the direction of other mosques ‘must’ be toward it. If that is the case, then the Qur’ānist has ended his debate on the notion that Musjid An-Nabawī is referred to as Musjid Al-Aqsā in the Qur’ān, because right now, the mosque of the Prophet Muhammad k is currently facing Mecca as well and no mosques face Madīnah. Hence the argument can easily be returned to the sender
Additionally, the Qur’ānist scholar has conveniently ignored this verse,
سَيَقُولُ السُّفَهَاءُ مِنَ النَّاسِ مَا وَلَّاهُمْ عَن قِبْلَتِهِمُ الَّتِي كَانُوا عَلَيْهَا ۚ قُل لِّلَّـهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ ۚ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ
“The foolish of the people will say: What hath turned them from the qiblah which they formerly observed? Say: Unto Allah belong the East and the West. He guideth whom He will unto a straight path.”
(Sūrah Al-Baqarah, 2:142)
The Qur’ān clearly mentions that the Muslims were indeed praying in the ‘former’ direction, which of course, according to the hadīth literature, was Musjid Al-Aqsā. If Mohammad Shaik insists that the current location in Jerusalem for Musjid Al-Aqsā is wrong, then he must provide evidence from the Qur’ān where the Muslims were praying facing Madīnah? Furthermore, if Madīnah was indeed the original Qiblah, it is the most illogical notion for it to be the first Qiblah, because Madīnah had no historical recognition as a place of worship prior to the Prophet’s k migration there. He must also explain why the famous “Musjid Al-Qiblatayn” has two qiblah walls, and why one faces Jerusalem and not Madīnah.
Conclusion – The evidence presented by the Qur’ānist scholar, Mohammad Shaik has been proved fulminated in its foundation as it is lacking any explicit text from the Qur’ān. Furthermore, the application of the rational process to the presented evidence further adds insult to injury as the illogical deductions prove to be in contradistinction of other Qur’ānic verses. Mohammad Shaik has utterly failed to present his argument and has done a great disservice to the Muslim community, and as a corollary, has played into the hands of the Zionist rhetoric to remove all traces of Islāmic heritage in Jerusalem. We therefore appeal to him, and all others who harbour such bizarre belilefs, to rather contemplate the points we have raised, and to remember that the Qur’ān clarifies that God Almighty is Oft-Forgiving, and that repentance is always an option instead of creating fictitiously imaginative philosophies to go agains the ebb and flow of traditional Islāmic information without requisite evidence.
Leave A Comment