the fable of the flight to the furthest mosque on a winged donkey does NOT give Muslms any claim to Jerusalem

Submitted by The Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Jun 24, 2008 at 06:02

Dear STS

I'll leave it to others to poke hoes in your history of the Jews in Judaea.

I'll take you to task on point "i. 621 AD – Prophet Mohammad ascension to Heavens through Jerusalem"

which you have had the audacity to present as historical fact, thereby insulting the intelligence of all non-Muslim readers.

On what historical evidence do you base that claim? The city of Jerusalem was peopled at that time with intelligent and devout Christians and Jews. There has been no report from any of the Jewish or Christian scribes of the landing in Jerusalem by Mohammed on the flying winged donkey with the 'face of a woman'. Don't you think this is strange?

No, I'm not talking about the supposed event itself - obviously that is absolutely absurd. I'm talking about the fact that it is strange that no one there reported this astonishing event - surely someone MUST have seen it. Remember - this is what Muslims base their claim to the Al Aqsa Mosque on - for in your fables it was there that Mohammed landed. Wasn't it?

Well wasn't it? Doesn't it say so in your scriptures? Isn't this why the Jews should be kicked out of Israel?In actual fact, it DOES NOT say that is where the winged donkey landing took place. It says 'the farthest Mosque'. It is only a rumour that it was Jerusalem.

THERE IS NO PROOF WHATEVER that it was Jerusalem. And what on earth would a mosque have been doing in Jerusalem 11 years after the emergence of the 'last prophet'?

Again, don't you think the Jews and Christians living there would have mentioned at least something in their annals about a 'mosque' being built in their midst? A strange new 'religion' whose head had at least 11 wives would certainly have raised eyebrows back then. It would even now. Despite the efforts of people like the illustrious local Muslim apologist - Keysar 'bring in Sharia Law' Trad of the 'Lebanese Muslim 'Friendshp Society' here in Australia - who would love to make having 11 wives the norm in the West as attested to by his latest outburst.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080624/21/17f45.html

(Off topic: Note his remark ".......If it was a business and the business had four partners we'd recognise that, but why don't we recognise it when it comes to consensual relationships amongst adults?"

Would he allow gays the same freedom?)

Yet we find no such record of the Jews or Chrstians about a mosque. You would have at least expected them to note and complain about the muezzin singing in Arabic - not having understood what all the singing was about. Again, we find no record of this.

The bottom line is there is no proof of this event ever having taken place. There are no records from eye-witnesses. And you must agree that , so far - archaelogists haven't uncovered skeletal remains of a Burak anywhere inthe middle east - or anywhere else around the globe. .

Despite my bitter disappointment with this realisation - I put it to you that, sadly, it is highly unlikely that they will find remains that will prove this event occurred any time soon. Would you agree with me?

In summing up, it is with great regret too that I have to admit that, try as I may - I can find no legitimate basis for your cult's claim to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Could you please provide us with reasons why we should accept Muslim claims to the Temple Mount - based on the rumour of a 1000km night flight on a winged donkey with 'the face of a woman' from Mecca to 'the farthest mosque' by the 'last prophet'.

(BTW, how old was Aisha at that stage when he left her behind? So much for a committed relationship!)

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".