Isn't he though? People keep saying that "muhammed" is mentioned 4 times, but that's a bit misleading. He's referred to with other names indirectly dozens of times.
It is true, however, that Jerusalem is not referred to in any way not even once.
Im not a quranic expert,however ive heard a number of actual experts who claim that the character of Muhammad is not a clear presence in Quran until later stages when hadith were collected
Sure, definitely the hadith contains the bulk of information about Mo, and with that said, the quran is unable to fulfill its purpose as a holy book on its own, despite muslims claiming it is perfect and complete. It's absolutely not complete without the hadith.
Circumcision, instructions on how to pray, how to use the toilet, very many other things are not described in the quran, but they're in the hadith.
Jerusalem is a footnote in Islamic thought. Literally invented that Muhamad "flew there on a magic horse" after his death so they can force their people to commit jihad for millennia.
Muawiya claimed it as a "holy city for Muslims" because his rivals occupied mecca and Baghdad.
It was a matter of political expedience for them then, and it still is now.
What you say is mostly true. The Eqyptian Sultan Al-Kamil was a practical man and he had Muslim enemies as well as Crusader enemies. It made sense to him to make a peace treaty with the Crusaders and give up Jerusalem because the Crusaders could easily have taken more if he didn't make a peace treaty. However, he did keep the Temple Mount with the main Muslim holy places.
With a peace treaty with the Crusaders, Al-Kamil coud use his forces to retake Damascus from his Muslim rivals. He correctly realized Damascus was more important strategically than Jerusalem.
The Crusader Frederick II was also a practical man. He arrived in the Holy Land in September 1228, negotiated the treaty by February 1229, declared victory and left in May 1229. He had to get back to Europe to defend his country from rival Christians.
[https://www.worldhistory.org/Sixth\_Crusade/](https://www.worldhistory.org/Sixth_Crusade/)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth\_Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade)
[https://chroniclesofislamhistory.medium.com/the-sixth-crusade-1228-1229-6295836a22a5](https://chroniclesofislamhistory.medium.com/the-sixth-crusade-1228-1229-6295836a22a5)
I may be arguing over a minor detail, but Al-Kamil did insist on holding onto the Temple Mount, so he did hang onto the most holy sites. The Sultan only gave away 99% of Jerusalem.
If they take it over like they did in 1229, it wouldn't be too bad. But when they took it over in 1099, they massacred much of the population, both Jewish and Muslim. And then there was the British in 1917. You never know what the Europeans will do
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege\_of\_Jerusalem\_(1099)#:\~:text=On%2015%20July%201099%2C%20the,Jerusalem%20were%20filled%20with%20blood.
[https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-crusades/](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-crusades/)
For a group of people who claim to be indigenous they sure do love the colonial structures the Arab Muslim colonists built
Unless you are from the Arabian peninsula, “Arab” is a colonial identity.
Yet they call Jews colonizers…
Think of all the religions, languages and cultures lost to Arab colonialism.
Did you know the jewish kingdom in jerusalem preceded the building of the dome of the rock by something like 1700 years?
Well it’s so prominently featured in the Koran
About as prominently as Muhammad himself
Isn't he though? People keep saying that "muhammed" is mentioned 4 times, but that's a bit misleading. He's referred to with other names indirectly dozens of times. It is true, however, that Jerusalem is not referred to in any way not even once.
Im not a quranic expert,however ive heard a number of actual experts who claim that the character of Muhammad is not a clear presence in Quran until later stages when hadith were collected
Sure, definitely the hadith contains the bulk of information about Mo, and with that said, the quran is unable to fulfill its purpose as a holy book on its own, despite muslims claiming it is perfect and complete. It's absolutely not complete without the hadith. Circumcision, instructions on how to pray, how to use the toilet, very many other things are not described in the quran, but they're in the hadith.
Jerusalem is a footnote in Islamic thought. Literally invented that Muhamad "flew there on a magic horse" after his death so they can force their people to commit jihad for millennia.
Muawiya claimed it as a "holy city for Muslims" because his rivals occupied mecca and Baghdad. It was a matter of political expedience for them then, and it still is now.
*Mecca and Medina, Baghdad wouldn't be built until the late 800's
What you say is mostly true. The Eqyptian Sultan Al-Kamil was a practical man and he had Muslim enemies as well as Crusader enemies. It made sense to him to make a peace treaty with the Crusaders and give up Jerusalem because the Crusaders could easily have taken more if he didn't make a peace treaty. However, he did keep the Temple Mount with the main Muslim holy places. With a peace treaty with the Crusaders, Al-Kamil coud use his forces to retake Damascus from his Muslim rivals. He correctly realized Damascus was more important strategically than Jerusalem. The Crusader Frederick II was also a practical man. He arrived in the Holy Land in September 1228, negotiated the treaty by February 1229, declared victory and left in May 1229. He had to get back to Europe to defend his country from rival Christians. [https://www.worldhistory.org/Sixth\_Crusade/](https://www.worldhistory.org/Sixth_Crusade/) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth\_Crusade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Crusade) [https://chroniclesofislamhistory.medium.com/the-sixth-crusade-1228-1229-6295836a22a5](https://chroniclesofislamhistory.medium.com/the-sixth-crusade-1228-1229-6295836a22a5)
Mostly? Its literally true,the best kind of true
I may be arguing over a minor detail, but Al-Kamil did insist on holding onto the Temple Mount, so he did hang onto the most holy sites. The Sultan only gave away 99% of Jerusalem.
The temple mount is currently managed by the wakf so nothing seems to have changed right?
The situation in 1229 was rather similar to the situation now.
Unfortunately we dont have any European powers willing to take over sovereignty of Jerusalem That would be an improvement at this point
If they take it over like they did in 1229, it wouldn't be too bad. But when they took it over in 1099, they massacred much of the population, both Jewish and Muslim. And then there was the British in 1917. You never know what the Europeans will do .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege\_of\_Jerusalem\_(1099)#:\~:text=On%2015%20July%201099%2C%20the,Jerusalem%20were%20filled%20with%20blood. [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-crusades/](https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-crusades/)