Monday, 16 May 2011

You Do Know Prophet Muhammad (p) Did Not Conquer Jerusalem?

I have come across a bigoted Christian scholar who, amongst other things, gave me the impression that he thought Prophet Muhammad (p) conquered Jerusalem. Quite why all these “holy spirit inspired” Christian apologists struggle for accuracy is one for another day.

The reality is Jerusalem was taken over by the Muslims after the passing away of the Prophet (p). Second Caliph Umar (a companion of the Prophet, p) took control of Jerusalem in 638 CE – roughly 6 years after the passing away of the Prophet p:

The Surrender of Jerusalem

 Jerusalem was besieged and its Greek Patriarch, the ‘honey tongue’ Sophronius’, who had been appointed by Emperor Heraclius [r. 610-641], soon capitulated, so that Umar ibn al Khattab, who was on a visit to the military camp of Jabiya (some twenty miles north of the Sea of Galilee) after the battle of Yarmuk, came in person to accept the submission. The terms of surrender were drawn up and given protection and allowed to follow their religion in return for payment of a poll tax which was less heavy than that which the Byzantines had imposed upon them. Umar visited the site once occupied by the Temple of Solomon, and ordered that a mosque be built there which later came to bear his name.

Umar’s Humble Entrance

To emphasise the utterly simple life-style of Umar [modelled on the Prophet’s (saas) life] and the teaching of the concept of human equality in Islam, Muslim historians relate with pride how the barefoot Caliph entered Jerusalem clad in his usual rags and sharing a camel ride with his slave. This sight of Umar, one of the most powerful rulers of the world and new conqueror of the city, caused a great deal of astonishment among the local Greek Christian population, who were used to seeing the pompous ceremonies of Byzantine Emperors.

[Quotes taken from pages 67-68, A Chronology of Islamic History 570-1000 CE, 4th Edition, TaHa Publishers Ltd London]



Anonymous said...

The level of stupidity on display in this post is incredible. Calling someone a bigot and an Islamaphobe because you got the impression he believed Muhammad conquered Jerusalem, only to turn around and say that it was actually done by one of his companions and successors and someone who modeled his life after that of Muhammad is more than a little bit like shooting yourself in the foot. By your standards, you are an islamaphobe for suggesting that this man was following the example of Muhammad and acting like a good Muslim as he went on his conquering spree.

Yahya Snow said...



When did I call the chap a bigot for not knowing his history?

PS he is a bigot, some of the other crazed things he said confirm such. Don't worry, I plan to show video footage of him and you shall see what I mean.

PPS I agree with the taking of Jerusalem. I just wish "holy spirit guided" Christians would strive for accuracy. I mean, when you have a Christian who is basically claiming to have God dwelling within him/her whilst making basic mistakes/lies you do start to wonder...

Radical Moderate said...


Anonymous said...

"In his sermon on Christmas Day, 634, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, lamented over the impossibility of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem as was the custom, because the Christians were being forcibly kept in Jerusalem: 'not detained by tangible bonds, but chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens', whose 'savage, barbarous and bloody sword' kept them locked up in the town.
"Sophronius, in his sermon on the Day of Epiphany 636, bewailed the destruction of churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the nomads who were over-running the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs." (Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Teaneck: 1996) said...

LA TIMES--Federal authorities charged three members of a South Florida family, including one arrested in Los Angeles, in a conspiracy to raise money for weapons to "murder, maim and kidnap" people overseas and bolster the Pakistani Taliban.

Three other people in Pakistan, at least two of them related to the Florida family, were also charged.
Authorities say the ringleader of the group is Hafiz Khan, a 76-year-old imam, or religious leader, of a mosque in Miami. He was arrested Saturday by a group of nearly 30 FBI agents who waited until his early morning services were done before taking him into custody.

A 24-year-old son, Izhar Khan, who is also a religious leader at a mosque in nearby Margate, Fla., also was arrested.

Another son, Irfan Khan, 37, was arrested at 3 a.m. in a hotel room in El Segundo. A U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, he lives in Miami. The indictment says that he "is a Pakistani Taliban sympathizer who worked with [his father] and others to collect and deliver money for the Pakistani Taliban."

Officials said the suspects raised up to $45,000 and were linked to the Pakistani Taliban, the group that recruited the would-be Times Square bomber in New York last year.

The Pakistani Taliban also has been deeply involved in assaults against U.S. interests abroad, such as the December 2009 suicide attack on a U.S. military base in Khowst, Afghanistan, that killed seven CIA operatives near the Pakistani border.

The father and sons were being held without bail until court appearances Monday in Miami and Los Angeles, when they are expected to respond to the charges. Three other defendants remained at large, believed to be in Pakistan.

A third son who was not charged, Ikram Khan, sharply denied that his father and siblings were terrorists or tied to any terror organization, and said his father is too old and ill to engage in such activities. He said they had immigrated to the U.S. from Pakistan in 1994.

"None of my family supports the Taliban," he told the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale. "We support this country."

According to the indictment, the six solicited and collected money and transferred it from the U.S. to supporters of the Taliban in Pakistan. They are accused of using bank accounts and wire transfers to move the funds, with the money intended to purchase guns and other weapons to further the Taliban's militant efforts to overthrow the Pakistani government and attack Americans there.

The indictment specifically charges the six individuals with conspiracy to murder, maim and kidnap people overseas, and with providing material support to a foreign terror organization.

Also charged were three suspects in Pakistan: Amina Khan, a daughter of the alleged ringleader; her son, Alam Zeb; and Ali Rehman. U.S. officials said they are working with their Pakistani counterparts to find them.

Hafiz Khan also was charged with sending additional funds to support an Islamic school he founded and controlled in the Swat region of Pakistan. Federal authorities say he used the school to shelter militants and their families, and to teach the "children from his madrassa [school] to learn to kill Americans in Afghanistan." (Read more.)

Anonymous said...

A "scholar" of what? Did a chef give you this information?

Thank you Anon 1. You wrote down how I felt better then I ever could.


If this specific person did not know this general information, they are, by definition, NOT scholars of at LEAST history.

How can you call a person like this scholar? You are crazy.

Hur and Ghilman Inc. said...

Hello Muslims. Would it be insulting to you if I made this user ID to have my "interfaith" monologue with you all?

Anonymous said...

A Muslim cleric tells a wonderful story on how to convert someone to Islam.

A Wonderful Story

Anonymous said...

Nice content, I trust this is a nice blog. Wish to see fresh content next time. Thanks for sharing this post with us. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

hur and ghilam what are you talking abou?

college board said...

Having read this article, I have learned for myself a lot of the new. Thanks

free college essay editing said...

As I know, while conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far less so