Given the way the Mideast is headed, things are so unpredictable that this present Jerusalem flare-up could run the gamut from burning itself out in a few days to inciting a war against Israel, eventually bringing in Iran, the Muslim world, and then the whole world.  The Arabs claim it is an Intifada, the Arabic word for resistance – but what is enormously troubling is the fallacy behind it. 

Fueling much of this Arab fury is a renewed Jewish presence on the al-Aqsa Mosque compound.  Over the past two years, Jews have started to gather outside al-Aqsa, and the Muslims see it as a land grab.  Jews see it as reasserting their rights to worship on their sacred Temple area.

Even secular Israeli Jews have questioned whether these Jews should be allowed on the formerly Jew-free area.  It only stirs up the Arabs.

Islam claims that, during his lifetime, Mohammed took a night journey on a flying steed, called al Buraq, to Jerusalem to the Farthest (al-Aqsa) Mosque.  The irony is that, according to Muslim sources, there was no mosque in Jerusalem for Mohammed to visit.  So why are they fighting over what never was?

Official Muslim history says Mohammed died in 632 AD – if one uses the Islamic calendar, the year 10.  Of this, there is no debate among imams, mullahs, Shi'a, Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufi, etc.  By every account, Western or Islamic, Arab armies did not reach Byzantine Roman Christian Jerusalem until 636 AD of our calendar, to immediately set a siege.  The Arabs did not enter in until 637 AD, when Christians finally surrendered the city. 

Almost five years after Mohammed's death.  Five years!

Even were one to accept Islam, there were no mosques in Jerusalem until after Mohammed's death.  Whenever and wherever Mohammed made his night journey, al-Aqsa could not have been in Jerusalem.

This is only if one accepts Islam.  If one does not accept Islam, the story unravels even further.

Western deconstructionists now question the very existence of Islam's Mohammed.  The British historian Tom Holland and America's Robert Spencer  have done masterful jobs pointing out that the Mohammed of the Koran is a collection of biographic myths, appended centuries later.  The Christian apologist Jay Smith has made a career of deflating Islamic claims.  All three trace the legends of Mohammed back to the fertile imagination of Abd al Malik, the fifth caliph of the new Arab Empire – an empire that did not even call itself Muslim originally.

Was there even a Mohammed?

Probably!  But the Koran exaggerates and inflates his life.  And his teachings?  In fact, much of Koranic doctrine can be traced to then centuries-old Gnostic texts that arose after the birth of Christianity.

That is it. Soon after Christianity started, counterfeit Gnostic gospels arose in the second century.  These were discredited early on by the Church, but the ridiculous legends remained floating around among the Arabs.  Mohammed plagiarized from counterfeits for his own political motives.  Hence, the Koran, rather than being revealed wisdom from God, was rather a bastardized recompilation of earlier counterfeits, which Mohammed jumbled for his own ends.  What astounds us is that Mohammed used such ridiculous sources to counterfeit from.

Further aggravating this are the Koranic references to Mecca that have been shown could apply only to the Nabateans in Petra.  The Koran mentions olives, which do not grow in Mecca.  The earliest mosques pointed to Petra, not Mecca.

Did Mohammed exist?  If he did, was Mohammed from Petra, or did he borrow Petra sources?  We know he borrowed from the Gnostics.  And why doesn't Mecca show up on any maps until 900 AD?

But now, for the absolute coup de grace:

The 'Birmingham Koran' fragment that could shake Islam after carbon-dating suggests it is OLDER than the Prophet Muhammad[.]

Islam, and its prophet, may be a total fraud.

Of course, a lot of this is arcane stuff.  The average Westerner is not going to learn Arabic, nor its myriad ancient dialects, to source this myth out.  Nor, for that matter, will the modern Muslim.

But a Muslim can be asked this one simple question.  If official Muslim history says Islam entered into Jerusalem during Mohammed's lifetime, how could al-Aqsa (The Farthest Mosque) possibly be in Jerusalem?  How could Mohammed visit a mosque that did not exist?

Concerning religion, one can argue whether Buddism's Mahabodhi Temple bears a real connection to the Budda or is primarily a British reconstruction, but Buddism does not rise or fall based on the Mahabodhi Temple.  Catholicism does not require Rome; during the 14th century, the pope was based in France.  Eastern Christianity does not require Constantinople.  Protestantism does not require Geneva.

But Islam's claim to al-Aqsa requires that a mosque existed in Jerusalem during Mohammed's lifetime.  Muslims even admit that the present al-Aqsa site was originally built in 705 AD, over seventy years after Mohammed's death.  Islam has a real problem.  Their own history contradicts their claim.

The mosque on the Temple Mount should therefore be referred to as "the Southern Mosque," given its location on the Temple Mount at the southern end.  No one should indulge this Islamic error.  Media commentators should be called out for even saying "al-Aqsa" at all.  Every Muslim must hear the truth – if not from their leaders, then from the West.

People are being killed over this, and I mourn no less for passionate but deceived Arab youth, being sent off to die for an outright lie by a leadership that has to know the truth, than for Jews being denied access to their Temple space, or being killed for asserting their rights.

This al-Aqsa lie has the potential of going very bad, very fast, to inflame the whole world.  We are seeing it flare up right now.  The myth has to be shut down immediately.  Fortunately, Islam's own history can be used as evidence.

Further notes: The lie of Islam goes much deeper than al-Aqsa.  There is evidence that the whole religion was concocted decades after the real Mohammed's death from sources that pre-existed Mohammed, who may have been a deluded tribal leader.

For further instruction, I recommend these videos which can be view in one evening:

Jay Smith: An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9lIuUjPs0

Robert Spencer:  Did Muhammed Exist? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac

Tom Holland: Islam: The Untold Story - https://vimeo.com/79051482

Jay Smith: Answers Questions on Islam - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Unz-SqS2pA

Robert Spencer: On Canada's Michael Coren Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRZtUHUifas

GeoBeats: Koran Fragments Found In UK May Predate Muhammad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gqZvTVpqA0

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is neither Jewish, Latin, nor Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.