I'm having a dilemma.
Did Muhammad visit Jerusalem during the night journey, or not?
Al-Aqsa mosque was not built until after Muhammad (pbuh) had already died. So......well...how did he visit it, AND know how many gates there were (according to hadith).
I read numerous numerous articles fighting for both sides. Muslims following the hadith tales that clearly state Jerusalem.
Non-Muslims using history to point out that the mosque was not built until after Muhammad's death AND that the House of God that stood there previously was destroyed in 70 A.D. which, means that he couldn't have even visited the "mosque" in that sense.
The only sight I've read that actually makes sense, is the following: http://www.mostmerciful.com/night-journey-of-prophet-muhammad.htm .
If you have the time, PLEASE read it and tell me what you personally think. It doesn't speak well for hadith, just a warning.
My husband, I know, believes Muhammad went, really went, (I think it was more of a vision type thing) to Jerusalem that night. I'm starting to doubt that. I haven't talked to him about it, but I know he probably won't be pleased with my unorthodox views. I actually read a quote that said you could not be Shia if you denied the Miraj. Can you be a Shia if you believe the Miraj happened, but in a spiritual, not physical sense? And if you believe the farthest Mosque was heaven, not Jerusalem?
Hmmmm.....
New problems continue to present themselves. I believe in God. I believe Muhammad was His prophet.
Why is it more complicated than that?
My husband encourages my searching, but he gets a bit put off when I take on views that seem a bit "Quran only." More and more that seems the road for me, though. He will not budge on hijab (the actual headcovering, not modesty in general) being fard, though. Honestly I really can't decide. If it is SO CLEARLY fard, why is there so much discrepancy in the way it's actually practiced (or not practiced).
11 comments:
I was not aware the mosque wasn't built yet. Fascinating. Well the thing is this trip is mentioned in the Qur'an so Muhammad went somewhere....question is where?
My teacher talked about this in one of the first days of class at the school. I attend a Shia school. She mentioned people taking it two ways :that he literally went, and that he mentally went. There is always a chance, because God can do miraculous things, that he visited this mosque in his mind and that is how he traveled from one, to the other, and back again. My understanding was that it is ok to believe in it either way because either way Muhammad did go from one mosque to another. Whether it is literal or not really isn't the point of the journey.
People tend to miss the big picture and focus too hard on the literal. What matters is the journey Muhammad took, not whether or not he physically took a journey. Many, of course, will disagree with me on that matter. Its like anything in scripture. Do we know for sure that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? No, we don't have any physical evidence to prove that. But does it matter if it actually happened or not? No, what matters is the message we gather. And that message makes it real....I guess thats how it works in my mind.
But that is my two cents. Not a scholar so who knows :)
And you are going over your head trying to figure out the scarf. Tariq Ramadan says in The Messenger that in the time of the prophet only his wives wore it for extra modesty because men were always going in and our of their home. It was to protect their privacy. Later on, women began to adopt the scarf as a way of emulating the prophet's wives. It was also already present in both Judaism and Christianity. But now its is its own brand of symbolism and identity. Its taken on a whole new importance.
Maybe that helps? Or maybe it confuses you I dunno :) If you want information on Shias you can try al-islam.org
I checked out the link and think that it sounds pretty good.
All of the verifiable historical evidence shows that Al Aqsa mosque was built after the death of Muhammad. Thus, you either have to believe that it was symbolic, or that he was just transported to the site of the Temple mount. I think that either interpretation is acceptable.
Salam
The page you advertized is a ismaili site, i wouldnt give too much credit to that as they are a bit more "spirituell" then ordinary shias. Here comes a bit from a shia site:
Meraj (Night Ascension) or Miraj-un-Nabi and Modern Science:
It has been an on going discussion and debate for hundreds of years concerning the method of travel of Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him and his progeny during the Meraj. Many things have been said regarding this journey and its being physical or only spiritual even though from the Glorious Qur'an and the Ahadith there is no doubt that it was a physical ascension.
However, one problem from the point of view of science prevented some people in believing the reality and thus, the Meraj of Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) was recorded as being simply spiritual. Another group went a step further and believed that this complete event was simply a dream and that Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) experienced the Meraj during his sleep!
The heavenly journey went against the scientific and natural laws of today such as: the law of gravity of the earth; its speed of travel of 25,000 miles per hour; the weightlessness of an object that is outside of the airspace of earth; the fact that it is not possible to breathe the air that is outside our atmosphere; the various cosmic rays; meteorites and air pressure; and the speed of light that goes at the speed of approximately 300,000 kilometers a second; and other such examples.
Fortunately however, it must be known that through scientific research and investigation, the space scientists of the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I. The world's first artificial satellite was about the size of a basketball, weighed only 183 pounds, and took about 98 minutes to orbit the Earth on its elliptical path, on October 4, 1957. They were able to demonstrate to mankind with ease, that they could overcome such problems as the gravitational pull, cosmic rays, problems with breathing in space, and others, through various technologically designed and built equipment and instruments.
Even today, the space science research is ever increasing and the scientists and researchers are confident that in a matter of time, they will be able to place life on one of the planets in our solar system; just as today, they have opened up the exploration to the moon and the planet Mars.
These scientific progresses and advancements in technology and industry are a clear proof that such a celestial travel (that of Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him and his progeny on the night of Meraj) is possible and can not be classified as something that was impossible. Meraj
http://www.ezsoftech.com/Islamic/meraj.asp
We speak of the All high All mighty Allah, anything is possible for him. Hadith from Imams:
One who denies (any of these) three things is not among our Shia (followers): the Meraj (Night Ascension), the questioning in the grave and ash Shafa'ah (intercession). Imam Jafar Sadiq and Imam Ali Rida (pbut
As for the veil, Tariq Ramadan is a thinker, not a muslim scientist or a scholar of islam, to think that he knows more then the majority of ulamaa amongst shias and sunnis, doesnt sound logical to me.
The veil has been a target for differend groups for ages now, shia hadiths state that the women of beni Hashim went to Syria and that people removed their veils, this was something that happend to many women amongst them wives of the marters of Kerbala, they were not married to the Prophet. Why would they get disgraced like that if veil wasnt important or part of muslim women?
I like what LK had to say ... and agree with her.
I think you shouldn't let scholars dictate what you need to believe in order to call yourself a Shia or whatever else.
Or your husband, for that matter. I think your husband needs to be less rigid. You already questioned and rejected your original beliefs, did he think you were just going to take on all his beliefs without questioning them too? You were not even a Muslim when you and him got together... if he was going to be this rigid, he should have made it clear. Expecting you to fall into line re his beliefs is asking A LOT.
I wrote a really long comment back to you all.
But my connection was interrupted and *poof.*
To make a long story short, I'm happy not knowing the specifics. I believe there was a journey, and I believe God/Allah is capable of ALL things.
I think a belief as simple as that is all God really wants from me, at least at this point.
To WWR specifically, THANK YOU, for that first part of your comment. I don't need anyone to tell me what I am. Faith is personal, and no Tom, Dick, or Harry's feelings about my level of "religiousity" is going to affect my actual relationship with God.
My husband's not really so bad. Just set in his ways. It'd be the same way for me if he had converted to Christianity and then questioned my view of baptism or communion or something.
Your wrong there Wrestling. Our religion is built on the concept of ask those who know better, not ask those who wish to know better. Shiaislam gets its roots and information and understanding from the Prophet, after him came the Imams and after them then we have the scholars. These are the custodians of the knowledge we have. When you have hadiths stating that you have to beleive in mirja, then you have to if you wish to call you a shiabeliever. If you do not wish to do that, then there is no trouble or problem in calling yourself soemthing else, but we are muslims cause we believe in a certain way of thinking and a certain "aqeedah". I cant call myself muslim if i dont believe in Allahs taweheed. I cant call myself muslim if i dont believe in the Quran or Prophet Muhammed.
The shia madhaab is built on following the scholars in furoo al deen and to say that we shouldnt let those scholars dictate our understanding of religion goes against all that we as shias stand for.
I think it's perfectly fine to believe in it, without needing to know the specific details of the journey Muhammad had. I agree with LK, it's about what you get from it.
Bahlool - OK, well, I guess you know better than me what Shia Islam entails. But the issue of whether Muhammad went on a literal night journey doesn't seem to me like a make or break issue. Surely stipulating the required beliefs down to that level, will just push people away if they can't accept them?
Wrestling to be honest, i dont find it a big issue, but according to shiaislam, anyting that the Ahlul Bayt have said, is considered obligation. So if two of 12 imams state that the belief in miraaj is obligation to believe in, then it is so and anyone who says otherwise would be considered outside of the shia madhaab.
We have to understand that some certain things in religion are obligation, and according to these imams, miraaj is part of it.
There are books about these issues that speak of our "aqeedah" our view, and i was reading in one of it and there were some issues that some scholars find are part of the shia belief system while others dont believe that they are part of our belief system, in such occasions its ok to have a differend view.
So there are certain issues in shiaislam, that soem people believe in and others dont, but it doesnt seem that miraj is one of those uncertain issues.
As for the mosque beeing built afterwards, thats nothign new. its said that Caliph Umar built the mosque around the stone where the Prophet flew to heaven. But as we know, Allah and the Prophet have knowledge we do not posess, he could have travled in time, he could have seen something that would happen soon and so forth.
I am nto a sister, but here seems the discussion to concern this issue
http://www.shiasisters.net/articles_submissions/meraj.html
"Did Muhammad visit Jerusalem during the night journey, or not?
Al-Aqsa mosque was not built until after Muhammad (pbuh) had already died."
Yes, the Prophet (saw) visited Jerusalem. This so-called contradiction is made-up by Christian missionaries who do not know Arabic and willfully distort in order to mislead those away from Islam.
The confusion arises with the Arabic word "masjid" in the Qur'an. Masjid refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction. It does not necessarily have to be a building, but any place fit for Muslims to pray. That's the Arabic meaning. So don't think of a masjid in the modern sense of a mosque because places of worship were different in the Prophet's time.
So in verse 17:1,
"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque,
whose precincts We did bless,
- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs:
for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
The farthest mosque is referring to the Temple of Solomon (see 17:7 which clarifies which masjid 17:1 is referring to... what was the destroyed mosque?), a place where Jewish priests prostrated in worship of God. Hence a masjid. So the Al-Aqsa mosque did not have to be built yet since the Qur'an is referring to the holy location (i.e. a masjid) in Jerusalem where the mosque was then built upon.
Post a Comment