Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Thursday, 22 October 2015

Rick Gladstone Unfairly Attacked Over NYTimes Article

Seriously, this is the paragraph in which Gladstone supposedly "veers off the mark" according to Thomas McDonald?
The question, which many books and scholarly treatises have never definitively answered, is whether the 37-acre site, home to Islam’s sacred Dome of the Rock shrine and Al Aqsa Mosque, was also the precise location of two ancient Jewish temples, one built on the remains of the other, and both long since gone.
It is unimpeachable!
Many books and scholarly treatises HAVE failed to answer it definitively.
For instance -
The Book of God, by Walter Wangerin
Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
The Fortunes of Casanova, by Rafael Sabatini
The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, by... well you get the picture.

Those are just the ones I can see on my husband's shelf from where I'm sitting.

He has one of those kindling gadgets, so-called, I gather, because they allow you to burn your old books? (so the ones I mentioned may not be long for this world.)

He has dozens, if not hundreds of books on it, and I daresay none of them definitively answer the question of where the Temples were definitely.

So there.

The Times triumphs again!

As to the notion that the Muslim claim to the location pre-dates the Jewish one?

If Buraq could fly, I see no reason that he, (Buraq is a male horsey humany birdy creature, I believe,) couldn't time travel as well, so even though Muhammad was not born until around 570 A.D., that's not to say that on the Night Journey, even though said journey began and ended on an evening in 621 A.D., he couldn't have found his way to a point in time prior to 832 B.C., before Solomon's Temple was even a glint in its architect's eye.

(There, Mrs. Premise, I've run rings around you logically....)
Have I ever mentioned that I live with a man who is addicted to time travel stories?

No comments: