The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts (2): Jerusalem Between Iliya and Bayt al-Maqdis

The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts, Article Two

Jerusalem Between Iliya and Bayt al-Maqdis

Doubt about the status of al-Masjid al-Aqsa sometimes begins with a question about the name of the city: was it called al-Quds in the time of the Prophet ﷺ, or was its name Iliya? The question itself is legitimate, since the names of cities and the history of their use are a proper field of research. The flaw arises when the answer is made to carry more than it can bear, and a difference of name is turned into proof that the place’s religious standing was a late invention. The first article of the series established that the authenticity of a report and the validity of an argument drawn from it are two separate matters. Here that balance is applied: we acknowledge what is established about the history of the names, and then ask whether the conclusions built on it actually follow.

Stating the Doubt Precisely

The argument can be summarized as follows: the city was known as Iliya, a name that appears in the narrations of the Covenant of ‘Umar, while the name al-Quds became common later; moreover, “Bayt al-Maqdis” resembles the Hebrew expression “Beit ha-Miqdash.” From all this the conclusion is drawn that the veneration of the place in Islam arose from a borrowed name or from political exploitation, and was not established in the origins of the religion. The article stresses that this is a paraphrase of the argument, not a verbatim quotation from any particular person. It contains several questions that must be separated: the history of the name Iliya, when the name al-Quds became common, the origin of the expression Bayt al-Maqdis, and the evidence for the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Answering one of these does not dispense with the evidence for the others.

What We Acknowledge

There is no need to deny the name Iliya in order to defend Jerusalem. It appears in Sahih al-Bukhari itself, in the account of Abu Sufyan with Heraclius: “They came to him while they were in Iliya” (the opening Book of Revelation, hadith 7). This is evidence from Muslim sources that the name was in use in a report going back to the prophetic era, and its presence does not embarrass the Islamic argument; rather, it shows that Muslims preserved reports with the place names that occurred in them. The study “From Aelia to al-Quds: The Names of Islamicjerusalem in the Early Muslim Period” by Khalid El-Awaisi (Mukaddime, 2011) examines the use of these names in the early Islamic period and presents evidence from sources, coins and inscriptions that Iliya continued alongside Bayt al-Maqdis, with al-Quds spreading gradually. The best-known name today need not have been the dominant one in every age, and an old name need not disappear as soon as a new one appears.

As for the argument from the Covenant of ‘Umar, whoever uses it should first specify which narration he relies on before counting how often the name occurs. Even granting the count he cites, the most it shows is that this narration used the name Iliya. Counting the name, whether it occurs rarely or often, does not show that the place had no virtue in Islam; that is a different question requiring different evidence.

The Place’s Virtue Does Not Depend on the City’s Name

Allah says: “Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing” (al-Isra 17:1). The verse names al-Masjid al-Aqsa, describes its surroundings as blessed and makes the Night Journey to it one of Allah’s signs. This is a Qur’anic foundation for its status, and it is not made conditional on the city being called al-Quds, nor on state documents or people’s speech using that name. Here the flaw in moving from the history of a name to the denial of a virtue becomes clear. Even if it were established that the name al-Quds spread after the prophetic era, it would not follow that the virtue of al-Aqsa originated in that later period. The history of a word’s spread is not the history of the establishment of a meaning, and proving one does not automatically prove the other. In general reasoning, too, the appearance of a new name for a science, a country or an institution is not enough to conclude that everything the name denotes came into being on the day it appeared; one looks for evidence of the thing itself, and if an earlier text establishes the meaning, a change in the name people use for it does not cancel it.

”Bayt al-Maqdis” in Authentic Hadith

Jabir ibn ‘Abd Allah heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say: “When Quraysh disbelieved me, I stood in the Hijr, and Allah displayed Bayt al-Maqdis before me, and I began to tell them about its features while looking at it.” The article cites this as agreed upon, from al-Bukhari (Book of the Merits of the Ansar, 3886, whose wording this is) and Muslim (Book of Faith, 170). This is an authentic hadith in which the name Bayt al-Maqdis occurs in the words of the Prophet ﷺ, in the context of his account of the Night Journey. It is therefore incorrect to portray the name as one the Muslims invented after the conquest with no basis in prophetic narration. And since Iliya occurs in the report of Abu Sufyan, the presence of one name in the reports does not negate the presence of the other.

The article warns against confusing the time of an event, the time a report of it was narrated, and the time the book collecting it was compiled. Al-Bukhari came after the prophetic era, but he narrated this report through his chain back to Jabir; whoever wishes to dispute its authenticity must criticize the narration with evidence, not simply point to the later date of the compilation in which it appears.

It is also established that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Journeys are not to be undertaken except to three mosques: al-Masjid al-Haram, the Mosque of the Messenger ﷺ, and al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (agreed upon: al-Bukhari 1189, whose wording this is, and Muslim 1397). This is further evidence that al-Masjid al-Aqsa has a special virtue. The article insists on citing it precisely: the wording in this narration is “Masjid al-Aqsa,” while the evidence for the name Bayt al-Maqdis is the previous hadith. In this way each text is given its own meaning, and nothing is attributed to its wording that is not there.

What Does Linguistic Similarity Prove?

There remains the argument from the similarity between Bayt al-Maqdis and the Hebrew expression. Two opposite leaps should be avoided: similarity alone should not be treated as sufficient proof of late borrowing, nor as proof by itself of a detailed religious history. Determining the origin of a particular expression, the direction in which it travelled and when it was used requires linguistic and historical evidence beyond noticing that two words sound alike. Moreover, research into the origin of a name does not by itself settle the truth of reports about what the name refers to. Even if a name were shown to have been Arabized or to have passed from one language to another, that would be a judgment on the history of the word, and it would not follow that every meaning or report connected with the place is false. The claim that a virtue was invented therefore cannot rest on linguistic similarity alone; it must engage the evidence for the virtue itself.

Likewise, the possibility that a political authority benefited from a place’s standing does not prove that it created that standing in the first place. The claim of political exploitation and the claim that the origin of the virtue was invented are different claims. The first may be investigated through the reports of a particular era; the second can be established only by evidence that addresses the origin of the standing and its proofs, and mentioning a later political dispute is not enough.

How Should This Claim Be Weighed?

We begin by identifying what is intended: does the researcher want to date the city’s name, or to deny the mosque’s virtue? If the former, we ask for evidence of the use of each name and distinguish between the earliest evidence that has reached us and the first use that actually occurred, for not finding earlier evidence is not the same as knowing that none existed. If the latter, we ask for the evidence that links the premise to the conclusion. The use of the name Iliya does not contradict the occurrence of Bayt al-Maqdis in hadith; the later spread of al-Quds does not cancel the verse of the Night Journey; and linguistic similarity does not prove the invention of a virtue. An argument is not completed by the quantity of information mentioned along the way, but by the soundness of that information and of its connection to the conclusion.

Fairness also requires that we not meet exaggeration with exaggeration. We should not attribute to all researchers a view we have not surveyed, nor reject a correct piece of information because its author drew a wrong conclusion, nor substitute enthusiastic rhetoric for evidence. We affirm what the text indicates, suspend judgment on what needs investigation, and refuse to load a piece of evidence with more than it can bear.

A Summary for Young People

If you are told that the city used to be called Iliya, do not rush to deny it, for the name occurs in Sahih al-Bukhari. Then ask: what does this have to do with denying the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa? Bayt al-Maqdis occurs in authentic hadith, and the blessedness of al-Aqsa’s surroundings is established in the Qur’an. Changing names do not cancel these texts, and the similarity of two words is not enough to conclude that a religious standing was invented. The balance here is to establish the report, and then examine whether it truly proves the conclusion claimed.

All parts of The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts