Jerusalem not unique

Submitted by Srini Varadarajan (United States), Jun 21, 2006 at 12:10

It is notable that Jerusalem is not even once mentioned in the Koran (rather strange that a religion which HAS written documents would not mention a city it considers holy--Muslims are the only ones to do so).

The idea behind Jerusalem's being "third holiest" draws from the idea that all territory conquered by Muslims is sacred and can never again revert to non-Muslim posession (which obviously does not recognise historical realities).

This was especially noticeable at Ayodhya. A mosque, Babri masjid, was built by Babur (purportedly after demolishing a Hindu temple--Babur's own memoirs do indicate that he destroyed a structure on that site, but do not indicate its state at the time). When this mosque (which pictures prior to 1992 show was in disuse and disrepair) was destroyed by a Hindu mob, some Muslim leaders (such as the Bukharis--not even Indian by ancestry, as indicated by their name) both in and outside India (including Khaleda Zia) stridently have called for the mosque--ignoring the obvious facts of its disuse (as shown by records dating from Viceroy Curzon's time)!

(based on the fact that there was also no Hindu reclamation of the mosque till 1982, the conclusion can easily be drawn that the original structure Babur demolished was in disuse--which I won't dispute).

Another obvious parallel with Jerusalem is the destruction of any pre-Islamic architecture (example, Bamiyan, by the Taliban) by Muslims.

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".