former custodian of the Temple Mount admits Jewish Temple existed

There may well be some editorializing in there, but at the same time, you would have to refute the facts you claim are editorializing. News articles all the time for sake of brevity include "facts" as background or part of the story that are not substantiated in the article. The article is about the claim of the Muslim that was one of the former keepers of the Mosgue stating flat out that they are taught the truth and yet a lie is promoted to the world.

In your attempt to "prove" that the article supports it's assertsion you quote - unsupported assertions. That doesn't help your case.The quote from the "one individual" is the whole basis of the article. And it explicitly indicates that the point of contention is whether the Temple was at the location where the Al Aqsa Mosque currently stands. And none of the quotes produced has questioned the existence of the Temple.

quote:

---

Regardless, we have a major authority in Islam in the sense of an insider that says the insiders that keep the Mosque are taught the truth and yet continually promote a deliberate lie, asserting the Jewish Temple was never there, and moreover, that the Muslim world at least over in the Middle East believes these lies.

---

It seems to me that there are genuine disputes over the location of the First Temple on the Mount, and it is not certain that it was under the Al Aqsa Mosque, even if it is the most likely location. It also seems unsurprising that Muslims would want to deny it, given the current hostility between Jews and Palestinians, not to mention the desire to dig the site (which could damage the Mosque) not to mention the desire of some to rebuild the Temple.I don't find it any more - or less - significant than the many convenient falsehoods I've heard from fundamentalist Christians.On the other hand are you going to admit that Worldnet Daily got it wrong ? Or are you really going to try to support Worldnet Daily's assertions by sinmply repeating the same assertions ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I think Paul is questioning the assertion in the article. The assertion in the article is not supported within the article, it is just an assertion.

Regardless, we have a major authority in Islam in the sense of an insider that says the insiders that keep the Mosque are taught the truth and yet continually promote a deliberate lie, asserting the Jewish Temple was never there, and moreover, that the Muslim world at least over in the Middle East believes these lies.You find that significant or just want to quibble over which lie is the more predominant, that the Temple never existed, or that it never existed in Palestine, or that it existed but in Jerusalem or on the same spot?

Your post has no relevance to the points I was discussing. And I already answered the major issue there.Do you find it signficiant that you repeated something I'd already dealt with instead of answering me ?
”

I think the comment I repeated answers you sufficiently, which is why I repeated it. Are you going to answer the question? Edited by randman, : No reason given.

OK, your answer then is that a complete lack of supporting evidence and significant contrary evidence you will not admit that the Worldnet Daily made a mistake. You would rather repeat points that I have already answered again and again. 

I see absolutely no reason to think WND made a mistake, and moreover think you are dodging the larger issue posed by the article, which is that the Muslim guy claims the keepers of the Mosque are taught the truth as far as it being on the same site as the Jewish Temple, but spread a lie to the rest of the Muslim world.It appears there are 3 versions of the lie, and if you want to truly subtantiate which lie is most believed, you will have to do more than link to a couple of web-sites.But regardless of which version the lie is believed, it is still a deliberate lie. That's the point of the article and of the guy confessing his own error and those of his own religion.

quote:

---

I see absolutely no reason to think WND made a mistake,

---

The fact that nobody has found any Muslim reported as denying that Solomon's Temple existed - despite looking - and plenty of Muslims who say that it did exist is a very good reason to think that the WND made a mistake. Unless you want to say that they were intentionally lying.And how can I be dodging a point which I've already answered ? I'm not ignoring your point - you're ignoring my response.

Here is a page from the pamphlet A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That document confirms that the Muslims or at least those on the council admitted just 75 years ago that this is the exact spot as "where David built an altar", apparently suggesting the same spot as Solomon "according to the universal belief."

Let me add something that might help address the primary topic here. I, frankly, do not know where the Jewish Temple site was and am actually very sympathetic to the idea that the Wailing Wall was not part of the original Temple (due to my reading of scripture), but I just don't really know for myself. However, it's interesting that this Muslim that was an insider says they are all secretly taught the Mosque was built upon that site, and yet propogate a lie to the rest of the world including other Muslims.