Jerusalem's Importance in Early Islam
Ambiguous is a word that leaps to mind when thinking about Jerusalem in the Qur˒ān. In the Old Testament, Jerusalem (literally) appears 669 times; the Christian New Testament mentions Jerusalem (literally) 154 times; the Qur˒ān (literally) mentions Jerusalem at no time.
In reading Hadith, one can always find something to justify anything. These same six collections of Hadiths prohibit or glorify martyrdom in the form of a suicide bomber; and speak of heaven's physical reward of 70, or 71, or 72, black-haired and beautiful, or fat and gangly virgins.
The first Hadiths were not collected until some 200 years after Muḥammad's death. The process of isnad does not change the fact that many Hadiths that were inconsistent with others were simply dropped from tradition. Even after the purging of inconsistencies, Goldziher's research demonstrated that many Hadiths remained outright forgeries.[54]
Many Hadiths were created for the 'good' of the community. Of course when Arabian Muslims opposed to the Damascus-based Caliphate created their own Hadiths, the Umayyad rulers naturally created their own. When the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad succeeded the Damascus Umayyads, the process gathered even more steam—they had to demonstrate their legitimacy.
It is clear that Jerusalem was not too important in early Islam based on religion alone. If ﷲ had simply once said to Muḥammad on any of the occasions they spoke, "We took our Servant on a night journey and ascension on a winged-steed named al-Buraq, from the Holy Place of Worship in Mecca, to Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where Ibrāhīm was commanded to sacrifice Ismā˓īl..." there would be no textual debate. This would be the one way to classify a Qur˒ānic reference to Jerusalem as unambiguous.
The mere fact that El-Khatib had to write an essay to explain what he considered to be the most basic references to Jerusalem, implies ambiguity. And if the sacrifice of Ismā˓īl didn't occur in Jerusalem, one wonders why Hebron (where Ibrāhīm and Jacob are entombed) isn't more important than Al-Haram al-Sharif in the Islamic narrative? Perhaps it's because Ibrāhīm is entombed in Hebron with his wife Sarah, not Hajar, the assumed Mother of Arab genealogy.
Muḥammad's Night Journey took place in 620. The Hijra from Mecca to Medina occurred in 622. When considering that all Sura 17:1 says is that it was "a journey by night" to the furthest place of worship, one could conclude that the Night Journey was to Medina - the second holiest place in Islam. This would also make sense from a chronological point of view because the Qur˒ān was compiled under Abu Bakr's Caliphate (632-634); then Jerusalem was taken by Caliph Umar in 638; then under Uthman's Caliphate (644-656) the Qur˒ān was edited and canonized.
The only one of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs to escape assassination was the the first, Abu Bakr. His attempt at compiling the Qur˒ān during his two year-rein was viewed as righteous. The early Islamic schisms that plagued the next three Caliphs makes one conclude that strategic ambiguity would be the best way to survive and remain true to the original message. This would explain why Uthman, when editing and canonizing the Qur˒ān didn't want to exclude or include anything that would lead to his death like Umar before him.
One can approach chronology from a different perspective: Why is Jerusalem only the third holiest place in Islam and not the second? If the Night Journey occurred in 620—two years before the Hijra to Medina—why wouldn't Jerusalem be the second holiest site in Islam? The "three mosques" theory covers all bases and at the time of its creation, served the Umayyad Caliphate well.
The importance of Jerusalem in both early and modern Islam is a product of politics. The building of the Dome of the Rock in 691 was a political maneuver by Abd al-Malik to secure his power as Caliph. The fact that nothing relating to the Night Journey appeared in the Dome of the Rock testifies to the fact that the idea of Jerusalem as the site of the Night Journey was not yet established. It is equally odd that if Jerusalem was one of the three holy cities, it never was the capital of a Caliphate. In early Islam, Jerusalem was important in that the monument built on al-Haram al-Sharif was a sign of conquering Christianity.
The city slid into obscurity for many centuries - including three quarters of a century under the rule of the Christian Crusades. Saladin's counter-crusade had nothing to do with restoring one of the three Islamic holy cities; it had to do wiping away the Christian lords and princes who posed a threat to the two holy cities: Mecca and Medina. After Jerusalem was retaken in 1187, it was traded away by Islam to the Christians in 1229 as part of a general compromise agreement. Would political Islam ever consider trading away Mecca or Medina today? Clearly never. However, Jerusalem was politically expendable in the past and there are recognizable patterns to the city's importance.
Jerusalem becomes important due to pressing but temporary political concerns. When the concerns vanish, the focus fades and its importance wanes. In modern times, Jerusalem became a political focus only in the 19th century; but as it came under Jordan's rule from 1948-1967 it again lost its luster and not a single Arab foreign leader visited the city (the exception being Jordan’s King Abdullah II who was assassinated by Palestinian extremists on al-Haram al-Sharif). When the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded, their Palestinian National Covenant of 1964 didn't once mention or allude to Jerusalem. The neglect, of course, would come to an end when Israel captured Jerusalem in 1967. Yet, even the Palestinian National Charter of 1968 didn’t mention Jerusalem.
In the realm of political Islam, Jerusalem has gone from early religious unimportance to something so politically central that the denial of any other's religious claim has become commonplace. Accordingly, legends recorded as Hadith have been further elaborated on until simple truths have suffocated.
In reference to the Western Wall's religious importance in Judaism, Columbia University professor and historian, Rashid Khalidi writes: "Precisely the same section of this western wall is considered by Muslims to be the site where the Prophet Muhammad tethered his winged steed al-Buraq on the night journey 'from Masjid al-Haram (in Mecca) to Masjid al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem)'."[55] Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, Chairperson of the Palestinian Higher Islamic Commission and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem claims that the Temple Mount, including all of its structures and surrounding walls are sacred "only for the Muslims around the globe."[56] Fatwa, which is also put out by IslamOnline asserts, "Jews Have No Legitimate Claim to Al-Buraq Wall."[57]
These are not merely views espoused on radical websites. Ambassador Dennis Ross from the United States served as the lead Middle East Envoy to President George H. Bush and William J. Clinton. He was the lead negotiator throughout the Oslo process, meeting literally hundreds of times with Yasir Arafat and his delegations. Ambassador Ross recalls his meeting with Arafat at Camp David in 2000 during the closing days of the summit:
Again, he was nonresposive, and now raised his new mythology, saying: "Of course, the Temple did not exist in Jerusalem, but in Nablus."... ...Finally, after nearly ten minutes of increasing invective, I intervened and said, "Mr. Chairman, regardless of what you think, the President of the United States knows that the Temple existed in Jerusalem. If he hears you denying its existence there, he will never again take you seriously. My advise to you is never raise this view again in his presence." Arafat may not have been willing to engage on any of the four options on the Haram, but he stopped his argument with Gamal and never again raised this myth on the Temple in either the President's presence or mine. (Of course, that did not prevent him from raising it with countless others.)[58]
Echoing this absurdity is the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas): "[The Israelis] claim that 2000 years ago they had a Temple on Haram al-Sharif. I challenge the claim that this is so."[59]
The familiar mantra is true—Jerusalem is the center of the three monotheistic religions. In the end, Jerusalem is important to Islam because anything important to Jews and Christians is important to Islam. Likewise, in the end, politics is involved and if something is deemed to be politically important, regardless of history, it becomes important.
[54] See: Goldziher, Ignaz. (ed. S.M. Stern). Muslim Studies (Muhammedansche Studien), Vol. 2. Atherton: New York, 1971.
[55] Khalidi, Rashid. Palestinian Identity: The Construction of a Modern National Consciousness, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. p. 17.
[56] IslamOnline: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/07/article3.shtml
[57] IslamOnline: http://www.islam-online.net/Fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18233
[58] Ross, Dennis. The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004, p. 718.
[59] Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), August 25, 2000