The Legendary Al-Aqsa Was Merely A Legend Afterall - Jerusalem Nightmare

We had previously shown evidence that Mecca did not exist before the 4th century C.E. Yet we have even more bad news for Muslims. Catholic Apologist and Student of Advanced Hadith Sebedee Nineyfour has provided excellent insight into how some of the fictitious embellishments were eventually integrated into so-called authentic Islamic Tradition. Turns out, neither Mohammed nor the Quran knew anything about a mosque in Jerusalem, and this fabrication likely stems from the second Islamic Caliphate Umar. But lets us let special guest writer CBD explain this for us in more detail:

Example of a corrupted “Sahih” Hadith

Consider the following “Sahih” hadith -“You shall shall only set out for three mosques: The sacred Mosque in Mecca, my Mosque in Medinah, and the al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem”[1]. Although this is a well known hadith, there is significant evidence of tampering. It is found in Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Musnad. The hadith is obviously important for political and religious reasons. It gives a special status to Jerusalem which Israeli Jews often claim is not Holy to Islam. Furthermore it posits a religious problem to the Islamic religion because it suggests that there was an evolution to their religion and tampering in Islamic tradition. If we examine the evidence we can clearly see that the earliest of muslims did not assign any special status to Jerusalem, did not believe in any mosque existing in Jerusalem, and added these beliefs at a later time.

            The early scholars who supported the authenticity of the aforementioned Hadith gave other examples of the Hadith being transmitted by other scholars. One such example is the following Hadith: “The saddles of the riding beats shall not be fastened (for their journey) to a mosque in which God is invoked except to the three mosques”[2]. It is completely uncontroversial to assume that two of the “three mosques” the Hadith is referring to are those found in Mecca and Medinah, the Masjid Al Haram and Masjid Al-Nabawi respectively. The controversy arises over the third mosque. But the third mosque has to be the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, because no other Mosque is revered in Islamic Jurisprudence or theology other than the Al Aqsa mosque outside Mecca and Medinah.

            M.J. Kister notes that a consensus emerged among Islamic scholars by the second century after Muhammad's death (100-200 A.H.). However prior to this consensus the status of the hadith and the status of the Al Aqsa mosque was far from agreed upon.  

            The evidence suggests the Hadith giving special status to Jerusalem were either altered or fabricated after the Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem, possibly with the help of a Jewish convert to Islam named Kaab, a theory which M.J. Kister himself supports. The hadith was most likely altered or fabricated for political/propaganda purposes by the first Umayyad Caliph “Muawiyah”.

  This is based on some early Hadith’s which are almost identical to the aforementioned hadith yet exclude Jerusalem. Examine the following almost identical hadith: “You shall set out only for two Mosques: The mosque of Mecca and the mosque of Medinah.”[3] This was narrated on the authority of Tawus in an early hadith compilation by Abd al-Razzaq. Another Hadith is recorded on the authority of Mohammad’s favorite wife Aisha (according to Sunni tradition): “I am the seal of the prophets and my mosque is the seal of the mosques of the prophets. The mosques which deserve mostly to be visited and towards which the riding beasts should be driven are the mosque of Mecca and my Mosque (in Medinah).”[4] Both of these hadith’s contain Isnad’s which are considered Sahih by Islamic scholars, yet they both exclude Jerusalem and Al Aqsa. Not surprisingly, these hadith appear in collections compiled before the “Three Mosques” hadith.

            A similar hadith is also recorded by Al-Mudhiri : “The best mosque towards which riding beats should be driven is the mosque of Ibrahim (Masjid al-Haram) and my Mosque (Medinah)”[5]. Again, no mention of Jerusalem, yet almost identical to the “Three Mosques” hadith.

            M.J. Kister believes the consensus about Jerusalem’s special status came two centuries after Muhammad's death. He cites a story recorded about a prominent scholar of the second century A.H. (after Hijrah) named Ibn ‘Ata. A man named Ibn Jurayj records “‘Ata used to exclude (the mention of) the Aqsa, but he reverted later to counting it with them (the other two Mosques)”[6]. This indicates that there was definitely not scholarly consensus prior to the second century AH. The reason Ibn ‘Ata changed his mind and began sanctifying Jerusalem is unclear. It may have been due to newly uncovered Hadiths or due to politically or social pressure.

            Furthermore a companion of Mohammad Abdallah b, Mas’ud said : “If the whole distance between me and Jerusalem were two parasangs I would not go there”[7].

            The changing of hadiths to serve a political purpose was not rare, the Shiites did the exact same thing. Many early Shiite hadiths and scholars identified Al-Kufa mosque in Iraq as the the “Third Mosque”. Some of their most prominent scholars, such as Hudhayfa bin Al-Yaman, said that Al-Kufa mosque was the location of Muhammad’s “night journey” [8](which the Sunnis claimed took place in Jerusalem, at Al Aqsa). Shiites also added a “fourth mosque” to include Al-Kufa in certain hadiths such as the following hadith narrated by Ali - “Four are the palaces of paradise in this world: The Mosque of Mecca, the Mosque of Medina, the Mosque of Jerusalem, and the Mosque of Kufa.”[9]

            There also exists a plethora of accounts of governors, mayors, and religious leaders of the early Islamic caliphate forbidding people from traveling to Jerusalem on the basis of the two aforementioned hadith which gives credence to their credibility over the “three mosques” hadith.. Combining scepticism of accepted scholarly consensus and of accepted Hadith with analysis of earlier recorded traditions, saying of companions, accounts of Governors, Scholars, and poets can give us very good reason to believe that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was not a recommended place of pilgrimage or a mosque worth of sanctification after the turning of the Qiblah (direction of prayer) to the Kaaba in Mecca. It can also give as good reason not to take “Sahih” hadiths at face value.

Citations:

¹ Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal Volume XII, 177, no.7191. Ahmad Muh. Shakir, Cairo 1953 Edition.

²Al-Samnudi Al-Mansuri: Sadat al-darayn p.121 sup.

³Abd Al-Razzaq, f.39b

⁴Al-Mundhiri III, 50, no.1732 (Muhyi Al-Din Abd Al-Hamid edition, Cairo 1961)

⁵ Al-Mundhiri III, 63, no.1775, Same edition as cited.

⁶Abd Al-Razzaq, f.39b

⁷Abd Al-Qazzaq, f.39b

⁸ Ibn Zahira p.334

⁹Abu Ja’far Muh. b. Al-Hasan Al-Tusi: Al-Amali, Najaf 1964, I, 379


End Note:

Much of what is in this article can be found in the following scholarly article:

You Shall Only Set out for Three Mosques'. A Study of an Early Tradition by M. J. Kister. Le Muséon 82 (1969): 173-96.

You read M.J. Kisters article here:

http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/content/you-shall-only-set-out-three-mosques-study-early-tradition