This is really, really disturbing. Temple-denial and general archaeological conspiracism is the bedrock of the extermination of the Jews in Israel.

While it may be a firmly established fact, I think Time's approach isn't to be a Holocaust denier, but rather to have a "balanced" article. If Muhammad is only believed to have ascended there, but the temple definately was there, it seems more balanced to make both points articles of religion, rather than history.

That said, its definately a misguided attempt at unbiased journalism. However, bringing up Holocaust denial and th extermination of Jews in Israel is the kind of speech that escalates the tension in the region.

Gosh -- better to deny secular Roman imperial history of the destruction of the Jewish capital and cult center than say that Muhammad's ascension is ONLY believed by Muslims! The Temple's location is not only a matter of religion.

Yes, only Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven. However, there is considerable problem with believing that the Aqsa Mosque is the site of the Miraj.

After all, the "farthest mosque" (aqsa Mosque) of the Miraj had to physically exist during the lifetime of the Prophet -- so it wasn't the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, built in the middle of the 7th century (the date is disputed, but the Muslims took Jerusalem in 638.

The problem with your statements on the al-Aqsa Mosque is that many Muslims do believe that he ascended at that location, regardless of evidence, thus stating it as a matter of faith is correct. But thats beside the point

My point wasn't to excuse Time magazine for this blunder, but rather to explain it in terms of how most articles about any subject are written - they try to show both sides of an issue. As I said, in this case, Time magazine was misguided in their attempt at balance. Let me take it further: they were wrong to do so.

However, the larger problem, that caused me to respond, was the characterization of the journalistic blunder as no worse than Holocaust deniers or people who want Israel to be destroyed.

The magazine was nowhere close to advocating genocide or denying the Holocaust, both of which would both be terrible crimes. Suggesting that the article is on par with those revolting ideas is reprehensible, because it is this kind of escalated language that fuels the fires that burn in the region.

It is far more dangerous to promote ideas, that are proven to have NO factual basis, in an attempt to maintain political correctness than it is to state an opinion that equates that attempt with other ideas that have no factual basis.

Such a misstatement in an article is not in itself equivalent to Holocaust denial. It may be worse: the impression that such articles strive to make part of the background is the sort of thing that makes Holocausts possible. Once it becomes a part of the background that "everyone knows" that there was no Jewish temple in Jerusalem and that Jews are not indigenous to the region, massacre and expulsion will become that much easier for everyone to excuse. Every little bit, including this article, helps make that possible.

The larger point, of course, is that it's an outrage against truthfulness to make such a remark - let alone to make it offhand, as though the implications were unchallengeable. The fact that it's part of a political effort of this kind and with this goal is merely the icing on the cake.

"...a photograph of the moon, where scientists believe a spacecraft landed in 1969..."
"...the Declaration of Independence, which Americans believe was written by Thomas Jefferson..."
"...Africa, where black Americans believe their ancestors were enslaved..."

...where do you stop once you start this sort of thing, in the name of "balance" or otherwise?

Jaed,

First to the heart of the issue: Your position is that because the article said that Jews believe the temple was there, it can (1)lead to the impression that it wasn't there, therefore (2) "massacre and expulsion" will become easier to excuse. Obviously, there are some terrorists who don't even need a Time magazine article in order to justify their desire to see Israel destroyed, so its defense is a serious concern.

I can agree that the tone of the article (and its wording) could influence an uninformed reader to believe that the temple was not there. Because this is an error, it should be corrected. I would hope Time follows up with a correction, or at least prints a letter to the editor pointing out the mistake.

I can also agree that anything that could lead to another Holocaust needs to be confronted, because Holocausts (be they of Jews or Tutsis) are based on, at their core, lies, half-truths, and mis-information. Therefore, Jim Davila and this blog were both correct in pointing out this error.

However, the article was not attempting to deny that the temple was there, as the title of this post suggested. Instead, the author's intent was to show competing claims to the site by two different religions, in a balanced way. Because religion is so closely tied to beliefs, and the author said that both religions believed something. The author chose the easiest way to do this; by using the same verb for both groups. It is clear, based on the parallel language, that the author did not wish to pass judgment on either side.

I also don't disagree that, in the attempt to achieve "balance," members of the media often gloss over key points, repeat old assertions, and fail to do any research of their own, on a frequent basis. One infamous joke says that if government officials held a press conference to announce that the world is actually flat, headlines the next day would read “Shape of the Earth: Opinions Differ.” However, that is a side topic. My original intent was not to justify this media trend, but to discredit the suggestion that the author is in league (knowingly or unknowingly) with Holocaust deniers. I did this by suggesting that the author was instead attempting to balance the article, and made an error in the attempt.

This was sloppy journalism. It was not hate speech.

the article was not attempting to deny that the temple was there

I disagree with this; I think that the formulation the writer used clearly implies that the existence of the temple is not a matter of established historical fact, but of myth. (The careful parallel to the "Night Journey" reinforces the implication, since few non-Muslims believe Muhammed actually flew to Jerusalem.)

At a certain point, I don't believe such a statement can be excused as simple sloppiness. But here we're getting into a question of what was in the reporter's mind when writing this statement, and of course when estimating someone else's motives, there is always room to disagree.

OK, interesting discussion, but…. In the English language words mean things. If I were to say “ Pres George W. Bush, who many Americans believe won the 2000 presidential elections…” I would be establishing a technically correct statement but establishing a doubt to its veracity. Lets parse the Times statement.

…a group of devout Jewish men strolled slowly along the site's ancient stone walls, escorted by armed Israeli police, toward the base of the gleaming Dome of the Rock,…

This is a pure fact based statement. A group of Jewish men (fact) …strolled slowly along the site's ancient stone walls, escorted by armed Israeli police (descriptive facts)… toward the base of the gleaming Dome of the Rock (fact, the described structure exists)

…where Jews believe Solomon and Herod built the First and Second Temples

This is not established as a fact. The sentence clearly says that Jews believe Solomon and Herod built the First and Second Temples. It is a presented as a statement of faith not fact. Lets forget for a second that this is not a known, archeologically proven fact. Lets also assume that the reader does not know that it is an archeologically provable fact. The sentence conveys the message that this is a matter of belief not fact.

To Muslims, the Temple Mount is known as Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary), home to al-Aqsa Mosque and the place where Muhammad is said to have been carried to heaven by the angel Gabriel.

The paragraph states as facts three things:
1)To muslims the temple mount is known as Haram al-Sharif…
2)The home of the al-Aqsa Mosque
3)And the place where Muhammad is said to have been carried to heaven by the angel Gabriel.

The only portion given to belief is the trip to heaven, but the rest is established as facts known to muslims!

To the uninformed the story conveys that both the existence of the temples and the trip to heaven are only the religious beliefs of two conflicting religious groups.