Independent

CiF Watch prompts Indy correction to claim about Muslim prayer at the Mount


In addition to the bizarre suggestion by Ben Lynfield at The Independent that recent violence in Jerusalem can be attributed to Israeli restrictions on Muslim “access to al-Aqsa Mosque”, his Nov. 6th report included the following historical error concerning the history of Muslim prayer at the Temple Mount Compound.
orig

Lynfield omits the Crusader period (1099 to 1187) in which Christian prayer was of course permitted. (In the 13th century, there were several years of additional Crusader control, before Muslim rule was re-established in 1244.)

After contacting Indy editors, they revised the passage to note the period when Christians ruled the holy city.

new

We commend Indy editors on the prompt correction.

 

26 replies »

  1. In other news, Der BBC wastes tax-payers’ money on a ‘celebration’ of Dimbleby’s 50 years of bigotry as a standard issue beeboid.

  2. These papers should not need to correct their stories as they should know the FACTS before going to press

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  3. Listen guys, I think you are a great site and are continuing to do fantastic work refuting the distortions, lies and omissions that the Guardian uses in its relentless demonization of Israel. However, I think you are losing a sense of proportion here. This correction was trivial in the extreme, and has no bearing whatsoever on the current debate.

    • Le schisme – historical speculation without any evidence. Looks like pure imagination/invention as it supposes a common religion before.
      Most of the Arab tribes followed a polytheistic cult at that time, the caaba was dedicated to some deity and a fertile cult, so you write utter nonsense.

      • Dear Fritz,

        First excuse me, you and all other readers, for writing in French language but this is because I reblogged the article in my blog, “Horreur islamique, which is in French..I am absolutely not “French suprematist”..GOD BLESS THE QUEEN AND ALSO AMERICA (but not Obama)

        Second : do you know the works of Édouard Marie Gallez about Islam and it’s origins? What is the original source of Qur’an? It can’t be christian Trinitarism, since Qur’an hates christians…Théry and Joseph Bertuel believed it was a Jewish predicator rabbi but Gallez and other recent researchers had another idea : the source are the so called “judéo-nazaréens” or “ébionites” who are ethnically Jews but who are ALSO christians sine they admit Evangiles : real Jews refuse Evangiles.

        Ebionites are not real Jews, they are messianist believing in Messiah Jesus which is not god

        Another example are the Jews who followed Shabbatai Tsevi in 1666 : they all became muslims.

        I refuse to admit that the origin of Qur’an is Revelation by GOD , all Books wrotten in human language are of human origin, this is true of Torah also or Vedas.

        The origin of the Qur’an in ´Arabic, are the “lectionnaires” of judéo-nazareans (hymns, players, or other writings)

        The site of Gallez is “Le Messie et son Prophète” in French.

        See also “Le grand secret de l’Islam” in four parts on canadian site “Poste de veille”, the links are in an article on my blog

        • Once again, the philological reseach had already proved that the quran was in many aspects a rewritten version of the tannach and the new testament on the one hand, on the other a new foundation. No news at least since 1850, I assume.
          Secondly what has this all to do with a schism when most of the Arabs were pagans at that time?????
          If the quran derived from the Ebionites, it would have been common knowledge.

          Not all followers of Shabbatai became muslims, respectively Dönme.

            • First of all the quran was compiled over centuries, so when conquering the Byzantine and Sassanid provinces the Arabs had a lot of scholars at disposal, and a lot of time creating the quran.
              At the moment Mohammed is considered as the founder, as the leading warrior and as the origin of the oral tradition. It is supposed that the first scripts were written when the comtemporaries of him realised that their number as witnesses were shrinking in all taht wars. And the editing began.

              • Yes’ the Qur’an was compiled over centuries’ this is exactly what says Gallez, and this is proved mathematically in the recent thesis of Jean-Jacques Walter.

                But who were these scholars ? Arabs ? So at that time arabs were not all pagans..they had been “educated” (I don’t find the right English term) in a kind of “monothéisme”by people who were not arabs, not christian trinitarist, and not rabbinic jews : by messianist judeo-nazareans believing in the return of Messiah Jesus and the coming of messianist Times once Jerusalem would be reconquered by the army of the “real believers” : arabs no more pagans and judeo-nazareans …they were not called yet “muslims” at that time

                • I don`t get it. What is mathematically proved?
                  Scolars didn`t have to be Arabs or Muslims to write the quran. Anyway, in Medina and Mecca there were scolars, too.And you should read some parts of the quran, especially those concerning Jews at the time of Mohammed. Pagans, Jews and Christians lived together at that time, to develope a new, but syncretistic vision was and is absolutely common in the evolution of religions, the many sects should be proof enough, nobody needs to interpolate Ebionits, but if there are more proofs for that, than a vague speculation like at the moment, why not. Besides I didn`t say that all pagans or Arabs were analphabets.
                  Anyway schism? Very unlikely when most of the Arabs were pagans and were converted by the sword of Mohammed and his followers, at the beginning a small, but obviously fanatical group of men, a sect.

                  • It was proved by “analysis of textual data” in the thesis of Jean-Jacques Walter (from frequencies of groups of letters) that the Quran was written by more than 20 authors and over more than two centuries.
                    Arabs, christians, pagans, syncretism : why not ebionites?

                    I have another hypothesis than a schism : a will and a resolution by some leaders and or scholars to make the “judeo -nazarean” source disappear (why is the syncretism not in the Quran) to have only ONE umma…since this is the purpose of Islam : to conquer the world and “unify ” mankind under Shari’a

                • Well, one or two arguments speak for a connection to Jewish religion, besides the above mentioned adaption of tales of the Tannach, Jerusalem as the first place for reverence, before dropped for Mecca and the deadly revenge on Jews when they declined to follow the new sect, and other passages of the quran which harshly condemn Jews. Maybe an expression of deep disappointment, not uncommon as we know bearing in mind the Christian Judeophobia when Jews declined to accept Christ as as Messiah.

                  • Yes, and these connections are fully explained by the ebionite theory of Gallez…ebionites are not Jewish but a syncretism of some Jewish aspects and some christian aspects.

                    You are right real Jews always declined false Messiahs (that is : Messiahs)

                    But antisemitic hatred in Islam has another explanation : muslims have an “unconscious” remembering of the ebionite origin of Quran, and they do not make the différence between Jews and ebionites…and ebionites ALSO had hatred against Jews, who refused both Jesus as god and Jesus as Messiah

                • I prefer to call it a vague hypothesis, not a theory as the proofs are missing. Nothing against speculations, but let us call things by the right name.
                  Especially as Ebionits, as far we know about their interpretations, pretty much differ from Muslims concerning the deity and the prophesy.
                  The five pillars of Islam have no parallel in the Ebionit belief.

                  • On the contrary, this is for me the most convincing theory : it explains why Jerusalem, and not Mecca, was the most important : because for ebionites it was the Town to reconquer, after Years 70 and 130…the Quran has no historical value, no more than the Sira

                    Let’s face reality : we have very poor information about this period, we must study theories which explain the facts that we know and take the theory which explains more important facts.

                    And let me say to you that your theory is not convincing : how a vague syncreticism could create a religion like islam ?

                    As Gallez says, Mecca was invented later : what became Islam came from Syria, not from Mecca.

                    The first military expédition to reconquer Jerusalem came from Syria, in 272 A D, it was made by queen Zenobia of Palmyre, who was converted to the religion of judeo-nazareans by Paul of Samosate

                • Referring to Zenobia there is one source declaring her Jewish, but most researchers refute such claims. Paul was a Christian bishop. later declared heretic, but not an Ebionit, he was protected by Zenobia, but he didn`t convert her.

                  • Paul of Samosate was not trinitarist, he considered Jesus as a man , through which GOD spoke, a prophet :close to the conceptions of ebionits and later muslims.

                    I do not think that Zenobia was Jewish..

  4. If Peter Beaumont was a sports correspondent of a national newspaper anywhere, and working for any publication, and kept misreporting soccer games and giving completely unreliable match reports, even on occasion the reverse score, it is a reasonable assumption that he would rapidly get the sack and be unemployable.
    Reporting or commenting on Israel however seems to be immune from such professional norms. I for one am very thankful for CiFwatch and Adam’s dogged pursuit of the Guardian and its ilk.

  5. Actually, for much of Muslim rule in Jerusalem Jews were allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, and even had a synagogue up there for centuries. Omar, the first Muslim conqueror, in 638 guaranteed the Jews the right to live in Jerusalem (which the Byzantines had not allowed) and to worship on the Temple Mount “without interference”, in gratitude for their helping him take the city. Nonetheless, various Muslim rulers at different times banned Jews from the Temple Mount. At those times Jews still lived in Jerusalem, and prayed at the different gates of the Temple around the Mount.

    During the crusader occupation, Jews were once more banned from living in Jerusalem. In any case the crusaders had massacred all the inhabitants when they captured Jerusalem. Technically all non-Christians were forbidden to go onto the Temple Mount, but enforcement must have been lax at times, as there are various accounts of Jews visiting the Temple Mount, including Maimonides, in 1165.

    After Saladin captured Jerusalem and once more placed it under Muslim rule, the synagogue was rebuilt on the Temple Mount, and the Muslims returned to vacillating policies on Jewish access. It was not until Suleiman the Magnificent, an Ottoman Turk, took Jerusalem in 1516, that Jews were permanently banned from the Temple Mount. However in recompense Suleiman guaranteed them the right (for all time) to pray at the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount.

    In 1856 the British made the Temple Mount available for non-Muslims to visit daily, except Fridays. From 1948 to 1967 the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting any part of the old city of Jerusalem, thereby violating the terms of their armistice with Israel.