Can the New York Times Discuss Whether Mohammed's Flying Horse Really Visited the Temple Mount?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260460/can-new-york-times-discuss-whether-mohammeds-daniel-greenfield

Buraq was a flying horse with a woman's head.

October 15, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

34

2194458

So the New York Times lapsed into what has been called Temple Trutherism by trying to deny the existence of the Jewish temples on the Temple Mount. Their work was taken down by Liel Leibowitz at The Tablet and others. The Times offered a limited correction.

But let's have some equal time here.

The Temple Mount is holy to Jews because of the Temples. So the New York Times chose to discuss whether the Temples really existed. It's holy to Muslims because Mohammed supposedly flew there on a flying horse (with a woman's head).

Can we get a discussion of whether that really happened? Or does the New York Times only find it acceptable to mock Judaism, not Islam?

Let's interview some of the same scholars and archeologists as to whether the entire Muslim basis for laying claim to the area has any basis in reality. The New York Times discusses the need for "independent scientific verification" of the Temples. How about "independent scientific verification" of this?

Here are some things for the New York Times to verify...

1. Buraq was a flying horse with a woman's head. Can we get any verification that such a creature ever existed.
2. Buraq flew from Mecca to Jerusalem and back in one night. "The distance between Mecca and Jerusalem is 755.1 miles. To complete this feat in one night would have meant that Buraq must have been jet propelled in the 7th Century." Please provide independent scientific verification of the existence of a flying horse with a woman's head that can travel faster than the speed of sound.
Oddly the New York Times doesn't appear to be interested in independent scientific verification of Islamic Supremacist myths.