Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Israel or Palestine

"... part of the complex of religious buildings in Jerusalem, Israel ..."

East Jerusalem is a disputed territory. My last edit of the page, reverting Palestine to Israel, may have been in haste. Hopefully this explains it:

The al-Aqsa Mosque is in East Jerusalem which Israel occupied militarily in 1967 and annexed in 1980. Israel still controls the city and they claim it for their territory, so many feel it is currently Israeli, regardless of how they feel about the legitimacy.

Stating it is currently part of Israel, whether correct or not, is not very neutral as the territory is disputed. I will try to fix the POV.

--Kevin L'Huillier 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed Article, I didn't use either Israel or Palestine, but rather the Holy Land. That should appease all. (Anonymous comment added (14:16, July 7, 2006) by User:83.244.10.130)

I think calling East Jerusalem part of Israel is entirely neutral. It's annexed, not disputed territory. The fact that Palestinians want it as a future captial does not affect this. Hamas also wishes to eventtually reconquer parts of Spain. Should we call that disputed? Smaug 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it is not neutral to a large percentage of people and readers of wikipedia. To compare the claim of a declared terrorist group of an area hundreds of miles away with almost no Muslims or Palestinians that was last held by Muslims 600 years ago is very different than a claim to a city held by Muslims/Palestinians for most of the last 1400 years and still has a huge majority of its populations identifying as Palestinian. Many major nations recognize the state of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its capital/part of it's territory as falling on the eastern side of the green line. Annexation by one side does not in any way cancel the other sides claim and there are numerous contemporary examples if you want to go that rout. Cyprus, Falkland Islands, Georgia, North/South Korea, Tibet, Taiwan, etc, etc. Places that all have one side in clear control of the area while the other still maintains a claim, claims Im sure you would not challenge. You are obviously only challenging Palestinians claim to East Jerusalem because of your own political views. Views I probably share. I am a resident of Jerusalem and personally do not support the division of the city but I freely admit there is a claim by the Palestinians and that until the day a final peace is resolved and the Palestinian establishment no longer claims areas that they do not possess there claim must be acknowledged.

"Acces" is biased

Someone please look into this. Especially the part about the Jewish people being 'ceremonially unclean' implies that there is pro-muslim bias (in reality it's quite the opposite) The source leads to a right-wing Israeli nationalist website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HyraxOfWikia (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Change in Section named "Construction"

I forgot to put my rationale on the edit so I want to be sure I put it here. This section had no citations or references with four {citation needed} tags since Nov. 07. It seemed to me to point mainly to religious sources for background, so I did not change it but cut-and-pasted it below under the religious significance tag on the grounds that the first part of the article should point to verifiable historical sources outside of the Qu'ran or the Hadiths for their basis. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 24.60.190.157

In the first part of the comment you left me you said in Islam the entire Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa, and not just the mosque. The thing is this article isn't on "Al-Aqsa in Islam", but instead is what is commonly referred to as the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

As for the old version having more info, that isn't a valid reason to revert. My version may not be 100% sourced yet, but my revisions are well sourced. The version you reverted back to doesn't have nearly as many sources. The older versions may have more useful info, but my version has more verifiable info, and wikipedias policies say having verifiable information is more important than having more information in general, thus according to policy my version is better than the older ones.--SJP (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SJP-- You are making a similar argument as the one I am making above. There is a section on the Religious Significance of Islam further down on the page. It is fairly large actually. So maybe we can divide the article into a section with historically accurate and reliable sources at the top of the article, and those that are sourced by the Koran or the Hadiths or other religious material in the other section. Either that or develop two different articles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know of that section;-) I believe that section pretty much has to be re-written. I hope this article will reach GA status, and that section doesn't belong in a GA article. I would love it if you would re-write the section for me, because I have other tasks to do with the article as well:-) Have a nice day:-)--SJP (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Time does seem to be such a limiting factor.  ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's do some collaborative editing

Can you live with this?

("The Farthest Mosque") (Arabic: ?????? ??????, [IPA /æl'mæsd??d æl'?qs??/, Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (help·info)) also known as the Temple Mount Hebrew: ??? ?????????, Har haBáyit, is a mosque located in Jerusalem, which and was first built by Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, and finished by his son in 705 AD[1]. As part of the Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif, or "The Noble Sanctuary," it is believed to be the location where the first and second Jewish Temples were built[2] [3]. It is considered the third most holy spot in Islam. Many Muslims believe that Muhammad went from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the story of the "Night Journey". Also, some Islamic traditions say Muhammad led prayers there before his ascension[4].

I thought Al-Asqa and The Noble Sanctuary were the same thing (I think it says that in the Temple Mount article? If so it would not be a part of but the whole thing?? I don't know, do you? The other thing is, I bet the Muslims will want the 3rd most holy spot, to have a higher spot up on the ticket. Also looking over the whole article, I agree with your earlier concern about the religious aspect, and think that we definitely need to consider condensing the religious arguments for Al-Asqa being "The Farthest Mosque" into a smaller section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In western countries when people refer to the Al-Aqsa Mosque they are talking about the actual mosque, and they call the compound The Noble Sanctuary. Traditionally in Islam Al-Aqsa is all of the Noble Sanctuary, and not just the mosque. Since our target audience is from the west, our main focus should be on the actual mosque, but we should explain what it is in Islam. Please leave the "Significance in Islam" section alone for a little while. I'm in the process of finding what information can be verified, and what cannot. After I'm done I wouldn't mind if you edited some more;-) I just don't want to take out any valid facts.--SJP (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking if you wanted I would be willing to work in a Sandbox with you sometime if you want to work out this article, maybe setting up an acceptable backbone or outline. Sure, I'll be happy to leave it alone. Here are some thoughts that you probably already have considered. Jerusalem was recaptured by Moslems in 638 and Mohammed died in 632. Historically it is not feasible that he took a Night Journey to a mosque in Jerusalem because there was not one there at the time. Also the hadiths were written some years after the Quran. And of course in order to believe the concept of the Night Journey and the flying horse and all, one would have to be a Muslim. This explains the eagerness of our Muslim writers to try to "prove" (using their holy books) that Jerusalem was what the Prophet meant when he said "the farthest mosque." It is of course entirely true in Islamic tradition, just as it is entirely true for the Jews Noah's Ark might be found on Mt Ararat; or for Christians the miracle of the loaves and fishes. I was thinking perhaps we can simply make a list of the hadiths that refer to Jerusalem as the farthest mosque, rather than arguing each one here. I will be interested to know what you come up with in your studies, so keep me in the loop! :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the list idea very much. As you know, I would like to get this article up to GA status, and GA articles shouldn't be listy. That idea could keep this article from reaching GA status. Currently I'm doing research into its significance in Islam(using google books and google scholar), and I will write about its significance using those sources. Your free to do what you want, and I would love for you to edit the article, but I would prefer for you to improve the parts I've written or re-written. Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

on Gush Emunim

Not really "militant" in the way of "Palestinian militant" ie in arms carrying, shooting etc. More like a terrorist group but loosely affiliated with Gush Emunim, they were into underground actions such as blowing up the mosque to hurry along the Messiah. They were sometimes referred to as TNT, Terror Against Terror... So they were self-described terrorists, though it is a shame to paint all of Gush with that brush.  :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: The section named "Construction"

Except for the first sentence or two this section seems to be legend. The only thing sourced, is sourced from the Quran, so either should be moved to the "religious significance" section or summarized in a couple of sentences. IMO, there is far too much weight on this section, which is basically a religious rationale for turning the Temple into the Mosque, as noted in the first paragraph. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That section will be re-written. I've found some sources for it, but I'll have to re-find them:-P I think I'll just mention its construction in the Middle Ages section. I probably will only be able to write a few sentences.--SJP _Chat 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This section on the construction (again except for the first sentence or so) does not belong in the history part, but in the "religious significance" part. There is already so much in the religious significance part that I think it can safely be scrapped altogether. I tried to scrap it recently, but someone keeps putting it back in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything after the Qur'an ref is not from the Qu'ran first of all. Also it does present the process on how the mosque was started. Whether it is true or not, I'm not exactly sure. However, I will find a book source for it and until the text in the section could be proven as "myth" or religious legend than it should not be removed since it describes its original construction. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ameer, it describes original construction in the same way that the Old Testament or Torah may describe the original construction of the Jewish Temple. One cannot properly use religious references in an historical section. Until and unless some historically accepted document from a wiki-acceptable source is found, it is misleading and unacceptable to be in this section. It would be similar to saying that the 10 Commandments were given to Moses on Mt Sinai. Of course we know it is absolutely true, but it is not acceptable to be in an encyclopedia claiming to be history. Needs to be in the "religious" section. 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but until it is proven that Umar and Muslims followers did not build the mosque in this way, it should be kept. This isn't like God speaking to Moses, or Jesus curing lepers or Muhammad visiting the prophets on Buraq, this sounds very reasonable, so it deserves to be proven as myth or truth. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Ameer, the citations date from 2007 -- almost a year ago now. Furthermore, it is not up to us to prove myth or truth-- see WP:V. We cannot accept something because it "sounds very reasonable" without reliable sources to back it up. Fortunately or unfortunately, one man's reasonableness is another man's madness. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". With respect. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know. I agree with everything you said, but I request that you give me a chance to find a reliable source, preferably a book source to cite the info. Perhaps two or three days? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ameer. We have waited a year -- we can certainly wait a bit longer. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I got the facts written (accounts of Byzantine, Islamic and Western scholars). I kept the traditional story as well but countered it and explained what Umar did indeed do. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

al-Aqsa or Al-Aqsa

In mid-sentence, should we use al-Aqsa or Al-Aqsa ? MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosque

I'm not sure what standard to use for referring to the mosque. There are several references to the mosque in the article. Here is a list of possibilities:

1. al-Aqsa
2. al-Aqsa mosque
3. al-Aqsa Mosque
4. Al-Aqsa
5. Al-Aqsa mosque
6. Al-Aqsa Mosque

I prefer 1 and 2; web references seem to use a mixture of all 6 possibilities.

The article also refers to "the Mosque". I'm not sure if this is ok - should it be capitalised ? Assistance welcome ! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of claims

The long list of bullet points in this section is clearly inelegant for the article and I suggest that a separate section (or article?) be created to accomodate these. Also, given that the section is about the 'farthest mosque in Islamic tradition', the section seems overweighted with criticisms. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Minaret names

This site contains the names of the 4 minarets. This info. could be incorporated into the article. Perhaps there are better sources, though. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To-do list

Here's a to-do list for frequent editors of the article and myself.

• The construction section might need some copyeditting and maybe more expansion.
• The Twentieth century section needs to be referenced/verified and copyeddited.
• The architecture needs a mass expansion. Info on the dome, its arches, its interior, the mihrab, the minaret, etc.
• A new brief section on access to the mosque, explaining that Palestinians from the West Bank need to be a certain age and have a certain status to enter, the reasons why, permits, etc.
• The Islam portion of the Religious significance needs to be copyeditted, and its quotes need to be shortened, some perhaps should be removed.
• Judaism portion might need to be expanded or directed to another article.
• A new section on the mosque's ownership and administration.

Lot of work to do before a GA nomination, so let's get cracking. Hopefully everything could be done in a month or two. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Separation of religious belief from known historical fact

Let me say first off that the writing of the paragraph is infinitely better and sounds much more professional than it did. However... I am sorry to be such a pain, but we have labeled a section "history" and not "history and religious history." I could perhaps accept a distinction like that. Anyway, to be critical here:

• "According to the hadith, Umar asked Ka'ab al-Ahbar, a rabbi who had converted to Islam and accompanied him from Medina, to show him the site of Solomon's temple, or what was called the Masjid Dawud ("Mosque of David") and the Mihrab Dawud (David's sanctuary or prayer niche) in the Qur'an (38:21)."

• According to the hadith...which hadith?... the hadith is not quoted. The hadith is a religious book, not accepted history. Do we have a reliable non-primary source for this information?
• Who called Solomon's Temple "Masjid Dawud" or the "Mihrab Dawud?" Do we have a reliable source for this? Why are we using the Qur'an as a reference? Again, do we have a non-primary source for this information?

I do believe we cannot present this material as historically accurate and sourced if it cannot be shown to be so. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, that story is probably not true and is legend since notable scholars, historians and writers (Arab Muslim, Byzantine Christian and Western) have told a different story that the mosque was built by Abd al-Malik or al-Walid. However, they also say that there was a small prayer house already on the Temple Mount before the construction which was either built by Umar or Mu'awiyah (more say Umar). So I do agree that we should relocate the hadith portion, but some info should be kept, because the new info I added needs some of it for background. The story on how Umar asked Sophronius about where the mosque is should definitely be out. I don't think I could get hold of the hadith so we probably will have to rely on secondary sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, yeah, it was a moderate amount of work to edit it into shape. I think its useful to make a distinction between the religious and other history. At this point I think it's pretty clear that it is legend/hadith. I think that such legends are relevant in terms of what they say about popular and religious perceptions of historical events; so long as their status as stories beyond confirmation is clear, I think they should be included. Of course, a source is indeed needed. It may be findable, I'll try to find some time to look for one at some point. If in the meantime anyone would prefer that the section not be there without as citation, please just copy-paste it here before cutting. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I took care of it. I moved most of it to the Religious significance section with a reliable source and kept some for background. I also shortened and cut some of the quoteboxes in the "Farthest mosque" section and copyeditted it somewhat.

I'm currently working on the architecture section, started the "Dome", "Minarets" and "Interior" subsections. I'll start the "Porch" or "Iwan" section tomorrow and I need some sources I could use for info on the facade of the mosque so I could start a section on it. History still needs to be expanded and referenced, and we have to start an "Access" and "Administration" section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Back again being a pain in the derriere, however, this rather nice paragraph has everything to do with consecration/reconsecration (a religious idea) and nothing to do with "Construction" -- which is the section it is under:

• Islamic tradition holds that Umar, upon entering Jerusalem, began to clean the site — which was filled with debris and trash — with his cloak to remove the rubble and other Muslims imitated him in this. Umar then entered the building and started praying, reciting the Qur'anic sura Sad. Thus, according to this tradition, in 638 CE Umar prayed at the site, thereby reconsecrating it as a mosque.[9] However, these traditions have been dismissed as legend by several scholars, since no history records by the Arab Muslims nor the Byzantine Christians record these events.[10]

Any chance of moving it to the section on religion and religious traditions below? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. What I will do though is simply state that Although Islamic traditio holds that Umar built the mosque.... I nominated the article for GA review, so point out anything else you see could be improved. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Rivka Gonen [1] writes that the cleaning up of the site by Muslims and Jews as Umar watched on is recorded in contemporary Muslim and Jewish sources, in contrast to the other source you hae cited there. I have included this info in the history section. I've also made a number of changes to the pre-construction section which preiously asserted some claims out of line with present-day archaeological knowledge. We have to be careful not to treat Biblical tradition as though it were historical fact on that front as well. Tiamut^talk 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing info in history section

I know it sucks to hae to rehash this history eery time we write an article remotely related to Palestine-Israel, but there is currently nothing on the 1948 war or the 1967 war, which altered who controlled the area surrounding the mosque and the arrangements regarding its ownership. Can we add something about this to the history section? Tiamut^talk 11:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Administration section addresses the 1967 war issue where Israel decided it was best for the waqf to administer the Mosque and much of the Temple Mount for mostly political and religious reasons. If we move this to History, it will take away the most vital part of the Admins section. However, the 1948 War is not mentioned and I will find info on it now. Thanks so much for copyeditting the article especially the Pre-Construction section which I had barely looked into.

No problem. I enjoyed the reading and the little it of digging. I appreciate your point aout 1967, though maybe a sentence in the history section wouldn't hurt. Keep up the good work. Tiamut^talk 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Construction sub-section

Seems a little confused. I read some of Amikam Eldad's book and he writes of how Creswell dismisses the presence of contemporaneous accounts from Arabs and byzantines as legends. I'm not sure that's the same as what is currently written, which says that there are no contemporaneous accounts and cites this as the reason for alternate explanations. If anyone can help in sorting this out, it would e appreciated. I would, ut certain keys on my keoard are sticking and I'm finding writing ery frustrating right now. :) Tiamut^talk 18:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to clarify, tell me if its still confusing and where exactly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks better now. I'd like to look at what sources other than Eldad say, since he discusses Creswell a lot (and are we sure that most Muslim and Western scholars share Creswell's position? did I miss that in Eldad's work?). Anyway, the internal contradiction is resoled now. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

autonomous of

waqf trust who are autonomous of the Israeli government-'

This is not correct English. The correct English would be 'independent of'. However, 'autonomous' means 'self-regulating' (which looks like the case), 'independent of' means 'free of (interference)' which may or may not appropriate. So the line should be reformulated, according to the specific nature of waqf autonomy.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that "independent of" is correct English here. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Language check

I am a native English speaker and checked the article for wording and grammar. In the Farthest mosque section, there are a couple of external links that need to be made into citations. There is a "citation needed" tag, but perhaps those external links take care of that. It is a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check the Administration subsection to clarify the "autonomous" issue mentioned above. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, "independent of" is correct. While "autonomous" may be technically correct, the word is used for the "break away" or "autonomous" provinces of Russia and other, similar uses. Autonomous has a more complicated, political implication than does "independent". It implies the region was once under the control of the dominant state. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, great. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Suggestion - change the sentence "Many Western historians, such as Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson, believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54][clarify]" to this: Western historians Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54]

Reason: Per MoS, the use of vague words like "many" is discouraged because "many" is not specific and can be interpreted various ways by the reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am unclear about the sentence "This was because the significance of that particular spot on the Temple Mount was overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence after the change of the qibla to Mecca." What does "overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence" mean? Overtaken in the sense of surpassed or supplanted, or lost ground to? The dictionary says "overtaken" means 1) a: to catch up with b: to catch up with and pass by 2): to come upon suddenly. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplanted. It's an awkward sentence. The Temple Mount's importance as the direction of qibla was replaced with a new direction: facing the Ka'bah. In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), because the qibla changed there were other things affected by it. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1969 al-Aqsa arson and other conflicts and complaints

I suggest transferring most of the material from "1969 al-Aqsa arson and other conflicts and complaints" in the Temple Mount article to here. I think it is better placed here. Al Ameer son, what do you think? Chesdovi (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference:

On August 21, 1969, Michael Dennis Rohan, an Australian, set the al-Aqsa Mosque on fire. Rohan was a reader of The Plain Truth magazine published by the Worldwide Church of God headed by Herbert W. Armstrong, which was best known for its radio and television programs called The World Tomorrow featuring his son Garner Ted Armstrong. Rohan had read an editorial in the June 1967 edition by Herbert W. Armstrong, concerning rebuilding of the Temple on Temple Mount. The article implied that the present structures would have to be removed and then when a new Temple had been built a series of events would take place resulting in the return of Jesus as the Messiah. This interpretation of prophetic events is now common within Fundamentalist Christianity, but was almost exclusive to the Worldwide Church of God at that time. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that Rohan was not a member of the church, only a subscriber to the magazine. The incident made worldwide news and The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London pictured Rohan on its front page with a folded copy of The Plain Truth sticking out of his outside jacket pocket.

The Arab world and the USSR (see role of the Soviet Union) blamed Israel for the incident and Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel. Several Arab and Islamic media agencies, including the Jordanian News Agency, IslamOnline, and Palestine Chronicle, incorrectly reported that Rohan was Jewish. However, Herbert W. Armstrong was not a stranger to King Hussein and he had been working with Jordanian government to put his daily radio program called The World Tomorrow on their AM and shortwave stations that broadcast from the Jordanian West Bank. That contract had been negated due to the Six-Day War and the sudden capture of the Jordanian radio stations by Israel.

Israeli sources claim that Israeli firemen attempting to extinguish the blaze were hampered by Arabs who mistakenly believed that the fire hoses contained petrol rather than water;

On February 1, 1981, an article entitled "Islam Reborn" written by Don A. Schanche appeared in the opinion section of The Los Angeles Times. It related the following information:

The Islamic conference, for example, was born in a worldwide surge of Muslim outrage over the August, 1969, burning of Jerusalem's Al Aksa mosque, third holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina, by a deranged Australian Jew, who many Muslims believed was a pawn in a Zionist plot. The call to gather in Rabat, Morocco, to unify and do something to redress the outrage drew only 25 of the more than 40 nations in the world with Muslim majorities. With only one cause to unite them, the kings and presidents talked for only a day and issued a call for the restoration of Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Then they adjourned. The meeting and the newly founded organization were all but ignored by the rest of the world. ... Last week, with its membership now grown to 42, but attendance weakened by the suspension of Egypt and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and the pointed absence of Iran and Libya, the Islamic conference went a long way toward achieving its long-sought goal of power in unity.

On April 11, 1981, an American-born Israeli Jewish soldier, Alan Harry Goodman, entered the al-Aqsa Mosque and started firing randomly, killing two Palestinians.

I will try and merge the infomation as necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we already got the basics in the "Modern era" subsection of the main "History" section. If you would like to add, that's fine. You could add to the article and I'll work to copyedit it if necessary. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque

This article would fit nicely here. (It does have the smell of a POV FORK too.) Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the two articles should be merged? Imad marie (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This article would fit nicely here. (Please don't remove the merge tag before consensus is reached, thanks!) Chesdovi (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing called "would fit nicely here" you should provide a reason, could you please state why would this page be merged here? Is the original article short? No. does mergin it here provides more relevant and background information to the reader? No. Is the article a duplicate? No. Is the article an overlap? No. So as long as your nomination doesn't fit under any of the above criteria, then please provide a reason, or else, the nomination is wrong and should not even be voted to. Thanks Yamanam (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On 27 November 2008 User:McWomble added a merge tag. Yamanam removed it unilateraly reasoning: "I think the article is growing up, and will go on growing up, merging it with another article might taboo it from becoming a mature/stand-alone article. I suggest that we remove the merge template and give the article a couple of weeks.". Since then the article has not evovled enough in order to qualify for its own article. (488 words have been added). The article mainly records reactions to the excavations and does not discuss the excavations themselevs. I therefore replace the merge tag. Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First, look at the size of the article before adding the merge tag on 27 Nov 08 and now, it was so short, and that's why the tag was added, and after the article expanded the tag has no place there anymore. I am afraid I'll remove the merge tag until the reasonable reason for merging is added. Yamanam (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just oppose the merge here and stop forcing an outcome? You do not own wikipedia, or the article you create! Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't own them, but I work in accordance with wiki policies, on the contrary of you, and as long as you can't prove that you are working in accordance with the policies I am fully allowed to revert all of your edits - Again without proper justification for adding the merge tag it will be removed. Yamanam (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have provided adequate justification. You on the other hand are are using your own POV to remove it each time. Your comments here of why the merge should not take place are valuable. But why do you insist on others not beong able to air their view on the matter? You behaviour is out of order and I will consider reporting you. Chesdovi (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I think you are the one who should be reported, placing merging tags without ANY reason, except for "fit nicely here" which is extremely funny.... and when u found out that this argument is funny u decided to use another one, Yamanam has removed a merge tag that was added on Nov. and when I explained why was the tag added in the first place and why was it removed, u started threating to report me and started saying that u have did justify your reasons for adding the tag, well, could you please be kind enough to READD your reasons for merging the article? and concerning other people's opinion, well, wiki works according to policies, as long as there are policies to govern a certain issue the people's opinions has no place, and if you want people's opinion concerning a certain matter then u have to request that through proper channels, I mean you can't nominate an article for deletion without proper jusitfication, and if you do so without justification then your tag could be reomved by anyone until you provide your reasons, same applies here, you can't add a tag without a proper reason, add it and then add the tag. Once again, if you have already added your reason, assume good faith with me and add it again. Until then, your tag has no place here. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it took me a while to answer to the merge tag :( Firstly, no one has to be reported. On the merge tag, I agree with Yamanam's argument on why the articles should not be merged, but nonetheless the merge tag shouldn't be removed until a counter argument to Chesdovi's reasoning is posted here. Now the excavations article is large enough to have its own article and certainly could be expanded sometime. Right now this article is broad and informative, but quite concise. We already mention "Excavations" in a subsection under the main "Current situations" section, and have provided a "main article" link to Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque for those readers who would like to know more about the excavations in detail. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert

Removing this text: "Some Western scholars, such as Martin Gilbert, claim that the use of the term "third holiest" is driven by political motives and that the al-Aqsa mosque is not the third holiest site in Islam. According to Gilbert, Jerusalem is not one of Islam's holiest cities, and points to the politicized nature of construction on the Haram from the time of the building of the Dome of the Rock until present. He argues that this site is arguably the most contested religious site in the world and that the emphasis on al-Aqsa today is due to its construction on the Temple Mount precinct, considered the holiest site in Judaism.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gilbert |first=Martin |authorlink=Martin Gilbert |title=Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century |year=1996 |publisher=[[Chatto and Windus]] |id={{LCCN|97||224015}} |isbn=0701130709 }}</ref>"
Reason: Source actually says that Jerusalem is "an important religious center for Islam, figuring immediately after Mecca and Medina as a focal point of the Muslim faith" (page ix). Also the Dome of the Rock is "one of Islam's holiest places" (photo between p112 and p113). I don't find anywhere he says that the al-Aqsa mosque is not the third holiest site in Islam. Any return of bits of this text needs page numbers for checking. Zero^talk 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Never actually checked that source when I was editing the article (it was already there I think). Anyway, I have no objections to its removal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

How is linking riot police and tear gas overlinking? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are concepts that every reader will be familiar with already, and the linked-to articles will not significantly help understanding of this article. At WP:LINKING it says "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia". If this article made a serious point regarding the effect of tear gas on the protesters that would be better understood with the information at tear gas, then a link would be good. But it only mentioned tear gas in passing, so the main effect of linking would be to interrupt reading. I admit it's a judgement call and if you get any support from other editors then I won't object. Zero^talk 10:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What is al-Aqsa?

Is it a building or a site??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijerusalem (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

According to language added yesterday by User:Tiamut:

For centuries, al-Masjid al-Aqsa referred not only to the mosque, but to the entire sacred sanctuary. This changed during the period of Ottoman rule (c. early 16th century to 1918) when the sanctuary complex came to be known as al Haram ash-Sharif, and the mosque founded by Umar came to be known as al-Jami' al-Aqsa or al-Aqsa Mosque.[2]

Do you think that's incorrect? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would reword it as follows:

For centuries, al-Aqsa Mosque referred not only to a single building or structure, but to the entire sacred sanctuary. This included hundreds of structured erected under different Muslim dynasties, the largest being the Dome of the Rock (with golden dome) and al-Jami' al-Qibli (with silver dome). This name changed during the period of Ottoman rule (c. early 16th century to 1918) when the sanctuary complex came to be known as al Haram al-Sharif. This lead to al-Jami' al-Qibli to be confused with the name al-Aqsa; this particular structure over the centuries has been given many names such as Masjid al-Juma (Friday Mosque), al-Mughataa (covered part), al-Qibli (the southern/ in the Direction of Qibla) amongst other names.

Jerusalem2010 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that support your changes? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

holy site

The article said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either as there are different opinions on 'Al-Aqsa'.

I think i have demonstrated that Jerusalem being the third holiest site is not the view of 3 major denominations of Islam and is thus not a mainstream view. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose the statement to be changed to "Many Muslims consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as one of the holiest sites in Islam" or "Many adherents of Islam consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as one of their holiest sites." What do you think of them? XoXo (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The characterization needs to reflect that of a cited reference- not confabulated to reflect what is felt to be logical or 'true'. We need not seek to simplify the characterization by making generalizations- if you can find a noteworthy source that refers to the mosque as possessing a certain rank with a particular sect, then edit accordingly. Include an explainer of what that ranking means within the greater Muslim community -if you can do so without asserting an unsupported conclusion or synthesis.Mavigogun (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks Mavigogun. XoXo (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

year completed

http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html read the info in here. Most sources say Al Aqsa was completed in 705. Since i have provided a reference I will now undo your reverts until further notice.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If yo think the info i added was incorrect, please cite the references or sources or before making reverting any edits i have made. Thanks you and kind regards.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

If you want references for the other changes, i have them too. http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/al_aqsa_mosque.htm thats one, and http://www.stanford.edu/~jamila/Aqsa.htmlthats two.Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with your change regarding this. XoXo (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Al-Buraq al-Sharif

Contrary to what is written in the Etymology section, the creature is not mentioned in the Qur'an. Instead, it is described in the books of hadith from Bukhari and Muslim. To anyone who has access to the English version of the books, please correct the mistake. Rgds, XoXo (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic facts

i ran into this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3596681,00.html ... i guess it would not be liked by some people, but it explained few contradictions and mysteries to me....

Access

The Access section does not explain why the Israeli authoritirs forbid Jewish prayer. Chesdovi (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Chesdovi, it's been a long time old friend. I thought the official reason was because of the rabbinate ban, although I suspect it's a political matter. I'll get on it though. If you have any sources/info that deals with this, please bring them forward. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you may find it has to do with a request by the wakf. Chesdovi (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I got this from Jerusalem by Daniel Jacobs. It's not exactly the best source to use, but I wouldn't doubt its reliability: In October 1990, members of the militant settler group Ateret Cohanim attempted to place a Foundation Stone for a new Temple; in the riots that ensued nineteen people died and three hundred were wounded. In response, Israel enacted a law forbidding Jews and Christians to pray on the site, even individually and in silence. Then it says The closure of Al-Aqsa and the Dome dates from September 2000, when, with the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority on their last legs, Ariel Sharon, accompanied by hundreds of Israeli riot police, went for walkabout on the Mount ... There's also a couple passages on how Jews are forbidden to visit the Temple Mount area because of Askenazi and Sephardi rabbinical edicts in 1967 and 2005 regarding the sanctity of the site. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 Ikrema Sabri stated: “No Jew has the right to pray at the Temple Mount. No Jewish prayer. If Jews want real peace, they must not do anything to try and pray on Al-Aqsa.” The history of Jewish prayer on the mount does not start in 1990. It began straight after the Six Day War when Moshe Dayan decreed a status quo, apparently prohibiting Jewish prayer on the mount. Subsequent court rulings guaranteed the right to Jewish prayer there, it being under the Freedom of Worship law of 1967. A court decision of 1968 made it clear it was up to police discretion. [3]. Things have evolved since then, but this all stems no doubt from the wakfs intransigence on Jews being allowed to pray on the mount, an act denied to them for millennia. Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Actually, the Jacobs source also talks about how an idea developed in the 15th-century that Jews should not even enter the Mount's precincts for fears of stepping on sacred ground since nobody knows where the Holy of Holies (the inner sanctum) is currently located (due to the Temple's destruction in ancient times). However, he doesn't say this was an order by the Waqf or the Mamluk/Ottoman authorities, but implies it was a result of Jewish tradition or their religious leadership. Here's the source: [4] Please read pages 101-102. Could you then clarify that for me before you or I add the info to the article? I'm aware of Dayan's "decree" prohibiting Jewish visitation to the mosque and I'm certainly not doubting the objections of the modern-day Palestinian-led Waqf (to me that's obvious). I'm not sure if the traditional prohibition of Jewish visitation dating back hundreds of years was a result of the Waqf's decisions, however. Also, keep in mind the decisions of the top Askenazi and Sephardi religious leadership forbidding Jewish visitation to the site in 1967 and a reassurance of those decisions in 2005. To be honest, I'm a little confused. There seems to be layers of prohibition for Jewish or other non-Muslim prayer/visitation at the Temple Mount. I think if we want the most accurate information to be presented in this article we have to include all of these aspects: historical, religious, and political and the fact the Israeli Supreme Court does not prohibit any such visits or worship. If you have a better idea than me (and I think you might), then please add the info to the article and we could edit from there. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article, and in general it appears to be at or about GA-standard. However, I may make certain comments about "completeness" (see later). I'm now going to work my way through the article, but I'm leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I will only be commenting on "problems" (minor or otherwise), but I will provide an overall comment at the end of the review.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Etymology -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - The final part of this paragraph needs clarifying, if possible: i.e. "For centuries, al-Masjid al-Aqsa referred not only to the mosque, but to the entire sacred sanctuary. This changed during the period of Ottoman rule (c. early 16th-century to 1918) when the sanctuary complex came to be known as al-Haram ash-Sharif, and the mosque founded by Umar came to be known as al-Jami' al-Aqsa or al-Aqsa Mosque." It appears that the change ocurred sometime between the early 16th-century and 1918 - that's four centuries.

It doesn't give me the exact date but says "Al-Aqsa was the standard designation for the whole sanctuary until the Ottoman period." I clarified as much as I could. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• History -
  • Pre-construction -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - Possibly a minor point, but "Residing on an artificial platform, the mosque is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers ...." could be read as saying that the mosque is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers (it certainly contains many arches), but I assume it is the artificial platform that is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers?
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - The final paragraph states "Analysis of the wooden beams and panels removed from the building during renovations ....". I assume that "the building" means the Al-Aqsa Mosque and not the ruined "Church of Our Lady."? Changing "building" to mosque (or Mosque) would make that point clear (Note: the citation names the Al-Aqsa Mosque, so in that respect it is clear).

Clarified both points. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Architecture -

... stopping for now. To be continued. .... Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC) - I don't beleive that Citation 32 (this one [5]) is a WP:Reliable Source, it appears to be WP:SPAM.
• Citation 36 appears to be broken web link.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - Citations 40 and 41 are newspaper article with named authors: but the authors are not named in the citations, neither is the access date given - I suggest that the two citations are properly formated (if necessary using the {{cite news}} template).
• Citation 16 (International Herald Tribune) appears to have been moved to another web site.

I deleted Cite 32 and any questionable/controversial material attached to it that isn't already backed by a following ref. Cite 36 (which is cached) is broken and when I use the original link, it only takes me to the main website and not that particular article. Haven't had any luck finding the source so unfortunately (and frustratingly) I'm going to have to find alternative sources and/or delete some info. Hopefully I could do that within the next two days. I'll address the other two concerns later tonight or tomorrow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Current situations -
  • Administration -

• Parts of this paragraph: "The Waqf Ministry of Jordan held control of the al-Aqsa Mosque until the 1967 Six-Day War. After Israel's victory in that war, instead of the government taking control of the al-Aqsa Mosque, Israel transferred the control of the mosque and the northern Noble Sanctuary to the Islamic waqf trust, who are independent of the Israeli government. However, Israeli Security Forces are permitted to patrol and conduct searches within the perimeter of the mosque. After the 1969 arson attack, the waqf employed architects, technicians and craftsmen in a committee that carry out regular maintenance operations. In order to counteract Israeli policies and the escalating presence of Israeli security forces around the site since the al-Aqsa Intifada, the Islamic Movement, in cooperation with the waqf, have attempted to increase Muslim control inside the Haram Al-Sharif. Some activities included refurbishing abandoned structures and renovating.[61]" seems to be a straight copy from ref 61, with part of the middle text removed i.e.: "In order to counteract Israeli policies and escalating harassment in the area, the local Arab leadership, in cooperation with the Administration of Waqf and Islamic Affairs, has attempted to boost Moslem presence inside the Haram, and refurbished the majority of previously abandoned structures within the enclosure for office use, such as rooms on the northern side of the Dome platform repaired during the early eighties, which Waqf clergy and other personnel occupy at present. The beautiful domed structure of Al-qubba Al-nuhawiyya, on the southern edge the platform was also restored to serve as the general headquarters of the Mufti of Jerusalem and the Moslem Legislative Court staff, and hosts meetings of the Supreme Moslem Council." I don't know what the Copyright status, if any, of Citation 61.

• • Access -

•  10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - Citations 65 68 and 6669 do not quote the date of the two references (they are dated), nor the accessdate.
• This subsection is incomplete: it only covers Muslims and Jews. There is no discussion of tourists, some of which may be Christians (but they may not be Muslim, Jewish nor Christian) and what access they have.

• • Excavations -

•  10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - This section is strongly unbalanced, i.e. it has two paragraphs, the first lists some of Israel's excavations and the second paragraph lists some of Israel's excavations that caused protest.

• Somewhat Improved. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

•  10 Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - It is not representative of the {{Main}} article Excavations at the Temple Mount: there is no mention of excavations carried by the Waqf and there is no mention of anticipated future damage/collapse due to lack of trust between the two sides.

• Somewhat Improved. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Overall, quite a reasonable introduction and summary.
•  10 Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC) - It does not cover the events of the 20th and 21st centuries, other than the (bland) statement: "Today, the Old City is under Israeli control, but the mosque remains under the administration of the Palestinian-led Islamic waqf.".
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC) - The Lead contains the wikilink Holiest sites in Islam, this is a diambig page, since there are separate articles for Sunni, Shai and Sufi Holy sites. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A informative, well-reference and well illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mostly, but not entirely free of minor biases.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding GA on the basis that most, but not all of the corrective actions have been carried out. Those remaining uncompleted, I do not consider sufficient to merit a "fail" at /GA3. Pyrotec (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll work on the Excavations section some more and for some reason I haven't been able to find useful info on Christian access to the mosque particularly tourist visitation. A lot of the sources I did come across (which didn't give me much info in the first place) don't mention al-Aqsa but the Temple Mount in general. I encourage other interested editors to contribute what they can and I'll keep looking in the meantime. I've been very busy lately and so I want to thank you again for giving me more time to address your concerns. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

the site of al-Aqsa

historians and travellers of the early period confirm this such as al-Maqdisi and Nasir Khusru. Also great geographers such as al-Istakhri and Ibn Hawqal, clearly set this understanding and this is carried throughout different periods. In the Late Ottoman and modern period this understanding is still previlant with an new name al-Haram As-Sharif.

This is citing reliable sources and this is the case in all early, medival and modern historical/ geographical primary sources. Please review your undertanding from secondary sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.150.103 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide rerefences for all major changes. These references should also be verifiable so i could see them. You have not done that. This is why i will revert you. Pass a Method talk 18:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The picture in the infobox shows a picture of the Dome of the rock instead of Al Aqsa mosque. The old picture was better. Can someone find an al aqsa mosque picture? Pass a Method talk 08:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It shows both the Dome of the Rock and al-Jami' al-Aqsa, so both buildings. This is a much better picture than a single building as it shows the whole area. 188.66.70.68 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The current picture is awful. You can barely make out anything in it, and half the picture is sky. This is an article about al-Aqsa, not the Haram al-Sharif, so why isn't there a picture of al-Aqsa? For example, there's File:Alaksa1.jpg. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, you gave me a warning notice for changing this awful picture. Pass a Method talk 09:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The warning was for edit warring, not the content of those edits. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the lead

Hi all,

I'm new to this article but I've noticed the lead contains a number of poorly written/ambiguous sentences, and several poorly sourced statements. I've tried to fix some of these but have decided the three problems of ambiguity/poor writing/poor sourcing are too closely intertwined for me to easily fix. So I'm going to go through them here in hope that someone can sort through the information for me and we can come to an agreement on what to do. First off-

Sources

The first source in the second paragraph of the lead simply says "Bukhari" in the reflist, with no additional detail provided. I'm guessing this might refer to the hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, but I'm not sure, so I've tagged it as an incomplete reference.

The second source in the second paragraph of the lead is this website, which seems to be a hobbyists website, and does not provide any sources or academic credentials whatever. I would like to tag it as an unreliable source, but I am hesitant to start marking up the whole lead without consulting other editors. Opinions?

the source for Sahih al-Bukhari is Hadith No. 4.636/585 Narrated by Abu Dhaar I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was built first?" He replied, "Al-Masjid al-Haram" I asked, "Which (was built) next?" He replied, "Al-Masjid al-Aqsa." I asked, "What was the period in between them?" He replied, "Forty (years)." He then added, "Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you."94.116.188.223 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If you would like to fix the reference with that information, please do. If not, I'll try to get around to it myself.--Grapplequip (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written/ambiguous sentences

The first paragraph of the lead contains the following sentence, which is a prime example of a run on, and trying to cram too much information into one sentence. I made a couple of changes to it for clarity but remain unhappy with the result. However, sensibilities run high on this, so I'd like opinions before I do something more dramatic to it. Here's the sentence:

"The site on which the silver domed mosque sits, along with the Dome of the Rock, also referred to as al-Haram ash-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary,"[2] is the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the Temple is generally accepted to have stood."

The second paragraph of the lead contains this sentence, sourced to the above mentioned website:

"In the seventh century its walls were renovated by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik who also commissioned within Al-Aqsa compound the building of the basment, gates and other structures such as the Dome of the Rock, the work was only completed and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE.[4]"

This sentence leaves me very unsure as to who built the mosque, who renovated it, and so on. Further, as this info is better summarized later in the paragraph, this sentence seems unnecessary.

Thoughts on these points? If I receive no reply I'll go ahead and remove/replace the problematic sections.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it needs a bit of tiding up, if you would suggest the changes here and we can work on an agreed text. I would suggest

"The ancient site which includes two main structures al-Jami' al-Aqsa (with Silver Domed) along with the Dome of the Rock (with golden Dome), also referred to as al-Haram ash-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary,"[2] is the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the Temple is generally accepted to have stood."

"In the seventh century its ancient walls were renovated by the Rashidun caliph Umar, who also build a small building to the south (as mentioned by many historian and travelers such as Arculf). The major rebuiding of the Mosque Compound was commissioned by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik which also included the building of the basment, gates and other structures such as the Dome of the Rock, the work was only completed and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE.[4]"94.116.188.223 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. Nice work. I just have a couple of suggestions (copyedits, really). See below:

"The site which includes the silver domed al-Jami' al-Aqsa, and the golden domed Dome of the Rock, also referred to as al-Haram ash-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary,"[2] is the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the Temple is generally accepted to have stood."

"In the seventh century its walls were renovated by the Rashidun caliph Umar, who also built a small building to the south. A major rebuiding of the Mosque Compound was commissioned by the Ummayad caliph Abd al-Malik, and included the addition of the basement, gates and other structures such as the Dome of the Rock. The work was completed and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE."

I cleaned up a few things. I don't think any of the changes had any effect on the meaning of the sentences except for my removal of "ancient", which I removed only because it seems unnecessary to refer to an area of land as "ancient", and particularly redundant in the context of such an ancient city as Jerusalem. Do you agree?--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The one problem though is that the sentence that starts "The site which includes..." makes it sound like the Dome of of the Rock is the thing that's also called "al-Haram ash-Sharif or "Noble Sanctuary", instead of the plateau. This problem occurs in both your version and mine. I believe it's what's called a subject/object disagreement. I'll think about it and get back to you on how we might fix it. Let me know if you have any ideas in the meantime.--Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

94.116.188.223 I'm going to go ahead and insert a revision of your text about the renovations of the mosque into the lead. I'm going to remove any material not covered by the current sources, however.

Not sure how I go about doing this

The article says: "Jerusalem is recognized as a sacred site in Islam according to the Qur'an, tafsir, and hadith." Jweusalem is not mentioned in the quran at all, and thus, that sentance is incorrect. I'm not sure if this has been discussed, and I don't want to edit the article without talking about it. However, it is a blantent error that needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.244.228 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There are words in the Quran that have long been interpreted as references to Jerusalem. It is not our business to question religious beliefs but only to report them. Zero^talk 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But that's the thing, the only phrase that can even remotly be considered to be talking about Jerusalem is "furthest mosque". If you check any encyclopedia, a "mosque" is an islamic place of worship, and the first mosque wasn't built untill after Jerusalem was conquered. I will give it 5 days. if no one can show me where Jerusalem is spoken of in the quran, then I will edit it out. Lets stick to the facts. The fact is, it's not mentioned once in the quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.244.228 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ive fixed it for you. nableezy - 21:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Unhistorical propaganda

Like so much of Wikipedia these days, this article confuses history, with Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history, yet without reference to any actual history from before the 5th century AD. Every such reference needs to be moved to a segregated section labeled "Islamic Tradition". Is this supposed to be historical or not?

The historical record tells us that the temple mount during Muhammad's day, and until 639, was being used as a garbage dump. So any speculation about any temple or anything else to do with worship on the temple mount in the 7th century is unhistorical. Prior to that there was one pagan temple that stood very briefly on the temple mount. The only claim Islam has to Israel or Jerusalem whatsoever, is Muhammad's entirely unwitnessed story that he rode on a buraq (like the one the Zoroastrian's fabled prophet rode on) one night and flew to Jerusalem, tied his buraq to a ring on the temple the prophets had used, and then went into the temple and prayed two rak'ahs in it. The problem with his story is that the temple of the prophets had been torn down 500 years before Muhammad claimed he prayed in it. Then he claimed to have flown on his buraq from Jerusalem on up to "paradise" and back to Mecca - all in one night.

The article states: "The historical significance of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is further emphasized by the fact that Muslims turned towards al-Aqsa when they prayed for a period of sixteen or seventeen months after migration to Medina in 624, thus it became the qibla ("direction") that Muslims faced for prayer." There was no al-Aqsa in 624, so if they were praying specifically toward the temple mount, they were praying toward a garbage dump. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount#Sassanid_vassal_state_period The same section of the article even tacitly admits that Omar found a garbage dump which means that Muhammad would have been praying in a garbage dump on his "night journey" of fifteen years earlier. I would like to hope that their qibla was actually to Jerusalem - to Israel - to THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs rather than a garbage dump.

The article even tacitly admits that Muhammad couldn't have prayed in a temple, and that the mount was a garbage dump: "Immediately after this conversation, Umar began to clean up the site—which was filled with trash and debris—with his cloak, and other Muslim followers imitated him until the site was clean. Umar then prayed at the spot where it was believed that Muhammad had prayed before his night journey, reciting the Qur'anic sura Sad.[61] Thus, according to this tradition, Umar thereby reconsecrated the site as a mosque."

But Muhammad didn't claim he tied his buraq up to, or prayed in, a "spot": Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309: It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq Who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of vision. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. PeterWaldo (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any constructive suggestions abput how to improve the article? This page isn't a forum for discussing al-Aqsa Mosque. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I do and did. I moved Islamic tradition out of the factual part of the introductory paragraphs and into it's own category. As far as the traditions go, if they want to believe their qibla was to a garbage dump that's up to those that hold the tradition.PeterWaldo (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead section of the article is not the "factual part", it is a summary of the whole article. You created a new section on a topic which already has a section. However, this part: "The al-Aqsa Mosque is believed by Muslims to have been built in ancient times, 40 years after the construction of the Kaabah." is problematic for two reasons. One is that it is only given a hadith as a source, a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR. Another is that just because there is a tradition doesn't mean that Muslims in general believe it any more than Jews and Christians in general believe Jonah rode inside a whale. Some do believe it of course, but we need a reliable secondary source to tell us how to describe the belief. The lead section should have the scientific evidence followed by a briefer description of the tradition. Zero^talk 14:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)