This is my response to the following post: https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/04/14/feature-article-al-isra-and-the-temple-in-the-islamic-sources-a-response-to-sam-shamoun/. I will leave this reply here unless and until Paul Williams’ allows my rebuttal to be posted in the comments section.
Time for me to expose quranbibleblog’s utter dishonesty and shameless perversion of his own sources. Let’s start with the following:
Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat
As shown above, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat states that the Prophet went to the “temple” in Jerusalem. But how could this be when the temple had been destroyed more than 500 years before?
To answer this question, it should be noted that Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, states that the Prophet was taken from the “al-Masjid al-Haram” (in Mecca) to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (in Jerusalem). Ibn Ishaq’s narration from Ziyad bin Abdullah also states this:
“…the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the temple of Aelia…”
This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building. As we will see later (see the Addendum), even to the Jews living under Persian rule (during the brief period in the early 7th century when the Sassanid Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines), to whom rebuilding the temple was of paramount importance, the sacred status of the site itself was all that was needed for the temple sacrifices to restart.
I have rarely met a Muslim who could so disgracefully pervert what his own citations say, especially one who thinks he can get away with it. Even though Ibn Ishaq CLEARLY IDENTIFIES masjid al-haram AS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES masjid al-aqsa AS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM, the neophyte shamelessly claims that Ibn Ishaq’s statements do not prove that he was referring to an actual temple or masjid, but may have been speaking of the site where the temple once stood! This is why this greenhorn will never debate me in a live exchange, but chooses to hide behind comments sections or articles where he can get away with writing 50,000 word posts full of lies, distortions and nonsense like this.
What makes this all the more laughable is that the neophyte argues that the word masjid has a complex range of meaning in order to argue that Q. 17:1 is referring to the site of the Temple, but not the actual building. And yet here he changes this tactic and argues for a more nuanced meaning, namely, mosque. Notice how he argues that, since masjid al-aqsa refers to the Kabah, the word masjid cannot mean mosque since there was no literal mosque in Mecca at the time! Talk about question begging and wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If we keep in mind that the word masjid refers to ANY BUILDING that is taken as a place of worship, this means that the Kabah can be called a masjid since Muhammadans took that building as their prayer direction and the place to visit in order to perform their pagan rituals. This again highlights the neophyte’s circular reasoning, as well as the post hoc nature of his rebuttal, since he erroneously assumes that the Kabah does not qualify as a masjid since it isn’t a mosque, even though a mosque is nothing more than a building erected for the worship of Allah, which is exactly what Muslims claim the Kabah was!
The greenhorn’s woes are far from over. Notice his next butchering job:
Finally, Shamoun quoted Ibn Kathir to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “entered the Sanctuary” to pray and later “came out of” Bayt-Maqdis:
“The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached the door of the sanctuary, he tied up his animal by the door and entered, where he prayed two Rak`ahs to `greet the Masjid’. […]
Some people claim that he led them [the prophets] in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first entered (i.e., before ascending into the heavens)…” […]
Then he came out of Bayt Al-Maqdis and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. And Allah knows best. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in both places…”
But as we have already seen, “Bayt al-Maqdis” could refer to the land of Palestine or Jerusalem or the Temple Mount (depending on the context). Later on, it was also used interchangeably with “Ilia” to refer to Jerusalem itself. In addition, once again, Shamoun shoots himself in the foot with his own so-called “proof”. Notice that Ibn Kathir specifically referred to the Prophet “entering” the “sanctuary”, and not Bayt al-Maqdis. He then says that the Prophet “came out of” the latter. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon) “entered” the Temple Mount sanctuary (Haram Al-Shareef), not the temple, and then exited the holy land afterward. This proves that Bayt al-Maqdis was the city of Jerusalem itself.
I am starting to get embarrassed for the greenhorn. Notice the blatant dishonesty, “… Notice that Ibn Kathir specifically referred to the Prophet “entering” the “sanctuary”, and not Bayt al-Maqdis…”
All I can say here is, WOW! The dishonesty is appalling to say the least since it is clear that Ibn Kathir WAS IDENTIFYING THE SANCTUARY AS BAYT AL-MAQDIS!
In other words, it is evident to any honest person that the sanctuary that Muhammad entered IS THE SAME BAYT AL-MAQDIS THAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE COME OUT FROM, a fact that even the greenhorn sees since he writes, “Finally, Shamoun quoted Ibn Kathir to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “entered the Sanctuary” to pray and later “came out of” Bayt-Maqdis:” Only someone robbed of any honesty would try to distinguish the two, and we know why he has to do this. The plain reading of the Islamic sources expose Muhammad as a fraud who lied about visiting a non-existent temple, which has now come back to expose him for the fraud that he truly was.
This also refutes his desperate and pathetic attempt of identifying the door of the sanctuary with the gates of the city, since it is clear from Ibn Kathir’s citation that the door Muhammad entered into was the one leading inside the building itself.
Now for the final example of this man’s blatant dishonest:
entered the sanctuary.
Yusuf Ali’s Commentary
To finish off his “victory”, Shamoun quoted the Muslim exegete Yusuf Ali:
“The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history.”
Yet Shamoun once again shot himself in the foot. Notice that Ali clearly stated that the “Farthest Mosque” (emphasis ours):
“…must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon…”
So, it is referring to the “site”, not the temple itself. Moreover, Shamoun ignored what Ali stated just before mentioning the “Farthest Mosque”, in reference to the definition of the word masjid. Referring to the “Sacred Mosque” (al-Masjid al-Haram) in Mecca, Ali explained that:
“[m]asjid is a place of prayer: here it refers to the Ka’bah at Makkah. It had not yet been cleared of its idols and rededicated exclusively to the One True God.”
Just as the Kaaba was referred to as a “masjid”, so to was “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, since both are sacred places for worshipping Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). So once again, there is nothing here to prove any so-called “gross historical blunder”, as Shamoun claims.
Does this guy really think he can get away with such a shameless misrepresentation of why I quoted Ali? The reason why I quoted Ali WAS TO PROVE THAT EVEN THIS SCHOLAR ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO TEMPLE DURING MUHAMMAD’S SUPPOSED JOURNEY THERE, AND THAT THE BUILDING WHICH WAS LATER CALLED MASJID AL-AQSA DIDN’T EXIST AT THAT TIME EITHER! Here’s what I actually wrote for all to see:
The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,
The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693)
In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!
This explains why Ali had to argue that masjid here refers to the site, and not a building, since he knew that no such building existed during Muhammad’s time. Note his circular reasoning when he claims that masjid al-aqsa, “… MUST refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon…” MUST mean the site? Why must this be the case? Because of his circular reasoning that Muhammad was a true prophet who could not make such a foolish blunder!
Unfortunately for this greenhorn and Ali, Muhammad didn’t know that no temple or mosque existed in Jerusalem, which is why he made the mistake of claiming to have visited a temple that did not exist, resulting in the embarrassment of Muslims having to explain away his huge blunder, but to no avail.
Moreover, Ali’s citation actually refutes the neophyte and confirms my point since he candidly admits that masjid al-haram does refer to AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, and not merely to a site or place. Therefore, since the word masjid in its first occurrence clearly refers to A PHYSICAL BUILDING, then this means that its second occurrence in the same passage must also refer to a physical building, and not merely a site or place. It is only the circular reasoning of this neophyte that leads him to assume otherwise.
And this is the guy who keeps shooting blanks while claiming that I’m shooting myself in the foot!
Lord Jesus willing, I shall have a lot more to share here exposing this charlatan for all to see. For now I will see how the greenhorn attempts to get around all his egregious errors and blatant lies.
In an act of cowardice, Paul Williams has refused to publish my replies. This leaves me no choice but to add any further refutations to specific comments made by the greenhorn here in this post. Here’s my recent reply.
The greenhorn’s reply here shows why he needs to return to selling cars for a living. Note what he says to my assertion to hos confused and contradictory position where he tries to prove that masjid doesn’t have to refer to building, but merely a place of prostration, while then arguing that Q. 17:1 may in fact be referencing an actual building, albeit a partially built one:
“It has been sufficiently proven that the word “masjid” refers to ANY ‘place of prostration’, whether a building or not. You seem to be very confused about. It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue. A masjid can be a building or it can refer to the land. Discussing the attempted rebuilding of the temple by the Jews after the Persian conquest is simply to add another possibility. But as I said, the Islamic sources are sufficient to prove that a literal building was not necessary.”
If anyone is confused it’s the neophyte due to the incoherent babble he produced. In the first place, either masjid in Q. 17:1 refers to a building or it doesn’t. The greenhorn still wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t going to happen.
Second, here are all the Quranic references to masjid: 2:114, 2:144, 2:149-150, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:217; 5:2; 7:29, 7:31, 8:34, 9:7, 9:17-19, 9:28, 9:107-108; 17:1, 17:7; 18:21, 22:25; 22:40; 48:25; 48:27; 72:18.
I challenge the greenhorn to quote a single verse where the Quran employs the term masjid to reference something other than an actual building where people gather to worship his god. The problem is that he can’t show that and the fact that he candidly admitted that masjid al-haram in Q. 17:1 (despite all of his incoherent about the Kabah and the masjid which was built later) means that is merely question begging on his part to argue that the second occurrence of the word masjid in the very same verse doesn’t refer to a building but to a place.
And I hope he isn’t stupid enough to go to the hadiths, since the ahadith prove that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, not merely a place or site!
Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)
Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle that he said: Do not undertake journey but to THREE MOSQUES: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram AND THE MOSQUE OF AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)
Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this greenhorn will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.
As if he couldn’t further illustrate his utter ineptness, the greenhorn proceeds to repeat his incoherent babble regarding the Kabah being different from the elaborately designed masjid of later times:
LOL! Read again what I said: “This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building.” The al-Masjid al-Haram refers to the Kaaba, even though the Kaaba was under the control of the pagans and there was no actual “mosque” there. It was just the Kaaba. Did Muslims pray inside the Kaaba? Does anyone actually go inside to pray? No, they pray in the compound facing the Kaaba. So, it is a “masjid” in that regard.
Either the Muhammadan didn’t get my point, or is doing all he can to hide his inability to actually refute my argument. Let me repeat it again. Since he admits that masjid al-haram is a reference to the Kabah, and since the Kabah is an actual physical budiling, this means that the word masjid does not refer to a place, BUT TO A PHYSICAL BUILDING WHICH MUSLIMS TOOK AS A HOUSE OF WORSHIP!
Moreover, since the word “mosque” is nothing more than the English rendering of masjid, and since masjid refers to a physical building which Muslims congregate at in order to worship their god, then this shows the utter futility of this Muhammadan from trying to disassociate the Kabah from being a mosque since the Kabah is indeed a mosque!
He again ends up shooting himself in the foot by candidly admitting that the term al-aqsa is the name for THE BUILDING!
WOW!! Are you really paying attention? The source clearly states that the ENTIRE COMPOUND is the mosque! “‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY THE WALL…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel…” He specifically said that the two mosques known as “Al-Aqsa” and “Dome of the Rock” are “novel”. In other words, those names refer to specific parts of the compound, but before they were even built, the ENTIRE COMPOUND was called “al-Masjid al-Aqsa
Let me quote the relevant part of his admission for all to see:
Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY THE WALL…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque and the other ones SUCH AS THE DOME OF THE ROCK and the corridors and OTHER [BUILDINGS] are novel…”
So his own source admits that the BUILDINGS, not simply its surrounding area, are the mosque, which again proves that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 doesn’t reference a place, BUT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDING. It is evident why the Muslim authority he cited including the entire area within the definition of masjid al-aqsa. Since they were all connected and/or attached to the physical buildings themselves, the Muslims therefore decided to extend the meaning to encompass the whole area surrounding these buildings.
And this gentleman actually thinks he is refuting me and defending the errors and foolishness of his false prophet!
Sadly, this is the incoherent babble that his fellow Muhammadans lauded! This only shows that you Muslims could care less about truth, since what matters to you is defending the nonsense and fables of your profit. Lord willing, I have more in response to this neophyte’s fluff which I will post shortly.
Time to make the clown and his profit cry again. I am going to omit all his fluff since all the neophyte did was repeat himself without refuting my actual points.
This is the jihadi’s response to my schooling him on his misuse of Ezra 2:68 and how it backfired against him.
“ROTFL!! So just because the temple WILL EVENTUALLY be rebuilt (but is still just ruins), somehow that means that the “House of the Lord” is already present there? Notice Shamoun’s double standards. He knows he’s stuck.
“And here we go. Shamoun’s humiliation begins. We know the phrase ‘house of the Lord’ means the temple and NOT the “location” because Ezra 1:5 says:
‘Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites—everyone whose heart God had moved—prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.’
DOUBLE OUCH!! The “house of the Lord” is in Jerusalem and has to be built.
Therefore, it CANNOT be just the location, but rather the TEMPLE ITSELF! Poor Shamoun keeps getting trounced!”
Being so stupid he doesn’t realize that he just buried his profit further down the hole. If the phrase “the house of the Lord” does mean the actual temple itself, THEN HE JUST PROVED MY POINT THAT MASJID AL-AQSA CANNOT REFER TO A PLACE, BUT TO AN IMAGINARY BUILDING THAT HIS PROFIT FOOLISHLY THOUGHT WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE! The illiterate jihadi is simply committing the tu quoque fallacy, i.e. the “you too” fallacy. He assumes that if the Bible contains a similar blunder like his book of porn then this somehow explains away the egregious blunder of his god and profit. The problem is that finding a similar in the Bible doesn’t explain away the error in the Quran. It simply means that both books are wrong.
However, let’s expose the utterly wicked deceit and dishonest of this vile Muhammadan by quoting what he left out:
“In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD roused the spirit of King Cyrus to issue a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom and to put it in writing: This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of the heavens, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me TO BUILD HIM A HOUSE AT JERUSALEM IN JUDAH. Any of his people among you, may his God be with him, and may he go to Jerusalem in Judah AND BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem. Let every survivor, wherever he resides, be assisted by the men of that region with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, along with a freewill offering for the house of God in Jerusalem.’ So the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, along with the priests and Levites—everyone whose spirit God had roused—prepared to go up and BUILD the LORD’s house in Jerusalem. All their neighbors supported them with silver articles, gold, goods, livestock, and valuables, in addition to all that was given as a freewill offering. King Cyrus also brought out the articles of the LORD’s house that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and had placed in the house of his gods.” Ezra 1:1-6
The context makes it clear that Cyrus was sending the Jews to REBUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. Now let us repost Ezra 2:68, which this vile Muhammadan himself cited. I will even use his own quotation:
“When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward THE REBUILDING of the house of God on ITS SITE.” (Ezra 2:68)
Notice the reference to ITS SITE, which makes abundantly clear that this is speaking of the the rebuilding of the temple in the very place that the former temple once stood. Now let’s see what happens when we quote the next chapter:
“When the seventh month arrived, and the Israelites were in their towns, the people gathered as one in Jerusalem. Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his brothers BEGAN TO BUILD THE ALTAR of Israel’s God in order to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God. THEY SET UP THE ALTAR ON ITS FOUNDATION and offered burnt offerings for the morning and evening on it to the LORD even though they feared the surrounding peoples. They celebrated the Festival of Shelters as prescribed, and offered burnt offerings each day, based on the number specified by ordinance for each festival day. After that, they offered the regular burnt offering and the offerings for the beginning of each month and for all the LORD’s appointed holy occasions, as well as the freewill offerings brought to the LORD. On the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDATION OF THE LORD’S TEMPLE HAD NOT YET BEEN. They gave money to the stonecutters and artisans, and gave food, drink, and oil to the people of Sidon and Tyre, so they would bring cedar wood from Lebanon to Joppa by sea, according to the authorization given them by King Cyrus of Persia.” Ezra 3:1-7
Hence, the immediate and over all contexts make it clear that . This is unlike Q. 17:1 since there is nothing contextually to suggest it is referring to a place as opposed to a building. Only someone demonized like his profit could butcher sources the way this thug does. What makes it all the more shocking is that he even has the audacity to think he can get away with it.
He then barks:
“LOL!! Notice again the double standards! So now, it’s the “location” and not necessarily the temple itself! This is EXACTLY my point!”
That is exactly not your point, because the example you gave refutes your entire “rebuttal” since, unlike Q. 17:1, the context of Ezra 2:68 makes it clear that it is referring to the site where the temple once stood. Only someone so wickedly dishonest could employ such deceitful tactics to defend the blunder of the Quran.
Therefore, let me repeat my point once again. Unlike the context of Ezra 2:68, there is nothing in the context of Q. 17:1 that even remotely suggests that masjid al-aqsa refers to a place. As the evidence I have presented has proven, and which you have yet to refute, masjid al-aqsa can only refer to a physical building, one which did not exist at the time of your profit. Therefore, this is a blunder that exposes your profit for the fraud that he truly was. So Oy vei is right! And ROFL right back at you since you and your profit just got trounced!
I have more for your burial in the next reply.