Is there any significant division in Islam that resulted from the followers that thought Mohammed was crazy when he described Jerusalem? It seems like it would have been a pretty big deal given the feelings towards apostates in Islam.

…some Muslims abandoned their faith and challenged Muhammad’s most faithful follower, Abu Bakr, to do the same. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Bakr was contemptuous: “If he says so then it is true. And what is so surprising in that? He tells me that communications from God from heaven to earth come to him in an hour of a day or night and I believe him, and that is more extraordinary than that at which you boggle!”

If they’re pay toilets, I suppose you cold haggle with allah to get the price down.

I think the idea of a bathroom in this legend is more like a luxerious sauna or steamhouse, not a toilet. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think that fits the context.

Moses said, ‘I weep…

Weeping in heaven? Wow.

Thank you God for sending your Son, Jesus Christ as our real and ONLY True Savior.
The King of Kings, Jesus Christ.

shooter on February 25, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Amen!!

There was no mosque in Jerusalem at this time, so the “farthest” mosque probably wasn’t really the one that now bears that name in Jerusalem, but Islamic tradition propaganda is firm that this mosque is in Jerusalem.

Something like “Chicken Run“, but with jackasses.

Is this passage meant to elevate Mohammed’s prophet status?

Yep.

Buraq is often portrayed with the face of a woman, but as far as I know it’s just the face.

I saw Isa (Jesus) who was of average height with red face as if he had just come out of a bathroom.

This seems to be a rather snarky way of describing a person the Muslims claim to revere as one of God’s holy “prophets.” Somehow I have trouble imagining the angel Gabriel describing Christ in such an insulting manner.

Incidentally, Mohammed must have had great negotiating skills. If only he were a GOP senator in place of John McCain ;-)

Exactly. It’s a convenient point for Islam to make an historical claim to a location held by their traditional enemies.
flipflop on February 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM

As I said, that’s what the term “Farthest Mosque” originally referred to: whichever one was at edge of the Islamic Empire; i.e., the most recently conquered territory.

Then, when their military conquests bogged down, Muslim propagandists theologians simply re-wrote the prophesies to reflect their later-adopted “tradition” of coveting whatever was most sacred to other peoples’ religions.

Remember, Islam calls itself “The Religion of Submission.” The Temple of Jerusalem; Jesus; Buddha; you name it… Muslims absolutely reject all the core tenets of every other religion. They have absolutely no tolerance- let alone respect – for anyone else’s beliefs. Yet Muslims actually profess to venerate all other religion’s icons. Why?

Because Muslims believe it is their sacred duty to make everything on earth – including all those other religious icons and prophets – subservient to Islam.

if you had taken the wine, your followers would have gone astray

One of the reasons for prohibiting alcohol, maybe?

half mule, half donkey

Since a mule is half donkey and half horse, that would make the Buraq 3/4 donkey and 1/4 horse (which is not possible naturally, since mules are sterile). Apparently, Mohammed and his followers were content to let Allah do his own genetic engineering.

There was no mosque in Jerusalem at this time, so the “farthest” mosque probably wasn’t really the one that now bears that name in Jerusalem, but Islamic tradition is firm that this mosque is in Jerusalem.

I think that the word “mosque” has also been translated as “temple”. I had the idea that Mohammed claimed to have visited the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, even though it had been destroyed 500 years before he was born. Or was the Temple Mount, where the temple had previously been, good enough to qualify as being the Al Aqsa Mosque of Mohammed’s time?

…seems like a claim on a Jewish/Christian holy city.

JetBoy on February 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Exactly. It’s a convenient point for Islam to make an historical claim to a location held by their traditional enemies.

The only thing the Qur’an has to say about it is this the first verse of sura 17, which says that Allah took Muhammad from “the Sacred Mosque” in Mecca “to the farthest [al-aqsa] Mosque.” There was no mosque in Jerusalem at this time, so the “farthest” mosque probably wasn’t really the one that now bears that name in Jerusalem, but Islamic tradition is firm that this mosque is in Jerusalem.

Honestly, I’d like to know more as to why Islamic tradition is so firm on this…seems like a claim on a Jewish/Christian holy city.