Talk:Dome of the Rock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ownership

The evidence cited shows that it is maintained by the Jordanians, but it is clearly not "formally owned" by the Jordanians, so I have amended the appropriate section. 163.1.18.244 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed of "constrution..." topic

I fail to see why the article needs to start out with one academic's historical opinion, or what Mark Twain thought of how clean it was/is. I think the beginning needs to be made more neutral and less comparative. By that I mean the "Construction..." topic should focus on what is KNOWN and NECESSARY about the construction and design of the Dome of the Rock and not conjecture about what the motivations for it design were ('rival Christendom') or how it's been received. If you include these you may as well include what ANYONE has to say about why they may think the Dome of the Rock was constructed the way it was. Split off these historical queries and viewpoints to a new sub-chapter, because as now they are presented as NECESSARY FACT when indeed they have not been accepted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.184.141 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Destruction by Jewish extremists thwarted by IDF

Sometime in the early 2000's when violence between Israelis and Palestinians were heating up, there was a brief report on a small number of Jewish extremists plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock, who were arrested by the Israeli Defence Force. I've heard very little about this incident since then, but I always like to bring it up to contradict the lies of anti-Israei/anti-Jewish propagandists on the web. Can anybody find a link to that story? ----DanTD (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem vs. East Jerusalem

Asad112 has replaced "...located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem", with "in East Jerusalem". However, historic districts should not be named in the lead. Would we have "...located on the Temple Mount in Aelia Capitolina"? EJ is used today as term delinating land located over a policitcal boundary in use for 19 years, but this border line has no intrinsic meaning at present. There is no pysical barrier separating East & West Jerusalem today. Neither do municipal map name such a district. The only maps showing it as distinct are those which show areas to be negotited over for a final settlement with the PA. As the page on EJ explains: "EJ refers to the parts of Jerusalem captured by Jordan in the 1948." This historic fact should rather be mentioned in the body of the article, including the claims to this part of the city by Jordan, the PA and the IC viz. the CS plan. Chesdovi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You have essentially reinstated the exact same debate here that is going on in the Western Wall article. There does not need to be two going on simultaneously. Whatever matters are decided decided on on the Western Wall article will have de facto significance on this one. See. -asad (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not a historical district, its the part of Jerusalem that is internationally recognized as part of the Palestinian territories, it i therefor more descriptive to say "East" then just "Jerusalem". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think only Israel views West Jerusalem as part of Israel. I doubt the IC views EJ as part of the territory of another party. Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with edits like this, they are counterproductive and arbitrary. Not to mention the Dome of the Rock is not even in "south" East Jerusalem. -asad (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity of holiness

According to Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem), the holiness of the Temple Mount (thus this of the Dome aswell) is non-existing in Muslim holy scripture and argued by various commentaries (see Pipes's article), since the Dome itself has been built well after the Quran's period by a king that doesn't represent the Muslim people in general and acted for his interests. Also, Pipes's date of the Dome's construction contradicts this that was given in the article but the source is a broken link.

Can anybody check the date pof construction and if the holiness indeed applies to Islam in its entirety, as the page implies? User:ACogloc 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity of Daniel Pipes

You won't find any of that from him. His raison d'être is to promote Israel and islamophobia any way he can. He's far from scholarly. It's not hard to find, it's all over the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj 65.218.218.227 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Angels hovering over the dome

Or was it Muhmamed doing isra and miraj again? Can this be added? Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonfils

Some guy named Bonfils of Lebanon visited Jerusalem in the late 19th century and took pictures of the architecture. Some of his pictures show the Dome of the Rock in a state of disrepair. Does anyone know for how long it was neglected and when it was restored? Should there be some mention of this in the article?04:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.49.106 (talk)

It was in a very bad state of disrepair until the Jews laid claim to it politically. The dome itself was a shabby greyish colour a few decades ago. The Muslims had to prove it actually meant something to them. Chesdovi (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:1000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:1000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to Religious Significance section

Changed quoted text from the Quran to match surah's specified. Previous incarnation was poorly copied from source. See [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.64.150 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestine Pound 1939 front.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Palestine Pound 1939 front.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Islamic tradition

This portion needs further investigation:

According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

First of all, while I concur that the Foundation Stone is the generally taught traditional location of Muhammad's ascension into heaven, there are five reliable Hadith of al-Bukhari that indicate that Muhammad ascended from Mecca rather than Jerusalem (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:345, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:429, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:770, Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:227, Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:93:608). Due to a conflict of traditions, how should we approach this? And secondly, there is only a single surah in the Qur'an that mentions the Night Journey (17:1), and it makes no mention of Muhammad praying with other religious figures. There is no supporting information concerning the Isra portion of the Night Journey in the Hadith. I'm not sure how citing a translation and commentary of the Qur'an can somehow justify this second sentence. --Cybjorg (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

mosque or not?

If it is not a mosque, why there's link to "List of the oldest mosques in the world"? In which, by the way, the Dome of Rock is not. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Balance

This article has far too much about Jews and not nearly anough about Muslims. (I am neither, by the way). It is a Muslim shrine, after all, so why does the significance of the site for Jews appear in the first paragraph, while its significance for Muslims is relegated to a later paragraph? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because 1) the religious reason for Muslims to build a sacred site here is preceded by the site's use by Jews as a holy site, 2) Muslim religious reasons to build here are not coincident with the common religious origins of both faiths, and 3) it always was the holiest site in Judaism. Shpoffo (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the treatment of the various religions in the first paragraph needs work. In fact, I found it glaring (which is why I came here -- I'm a complete newbie at this), & am surprised it hasn't been remedied yet. But looking at it, I think it might just need a technical fix. The rock itself certainly needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, and needs to be linked to the Foundation Stone page -- but using a pipe instead of using the term "Foundation Stone" and then qualifying it by explaining that that's the Jewish term would avoid all the verbal gymnastics: "The site's significance stems from the religious beliefs regarding the rock at its heart."

Then the actual section below on religious significance in Judaism would just need a little rearrangement to introduce the term "Foundation Stone" at the beginning.

Also, am I right in thinking that, in the paragraph above that, the first sentence should actually read "Many Orthodox rabbis regard entry to the compound to be a violation of Jewish law", not "... regard the rules of entry to the compound"? Gould363 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the edits today. Rethink: looking at the Foundation Stone page, using the term "Foundation Stone" as the rock's name in English seems to be reasonably accepted. So I just left "known as the Foundation Stone" & deleted "in Judaism", which has the advantage of avoiding a pipe that could look like an inane link to the geol term "rock". Gould363 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By "balance" you mean all about Muslims. The site was the Jewish temple, which was the heart of the blood atonement system. Muslims desecrating it doesn't remove the true significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.69.186 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Architectural homages

"The Dome of the Rock has inspired the architecture of a number of buildings." And additionally, star of Lakshmi and Rub el Hizb [2] may have been a source of inspiration. --Sinallah (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

At the end of the sentences, under the heading, Location: "The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform known as the Temple Mount. It is believed, or assumed by tradition, to have been constructed on the site of the Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE." add "though there has been no archeological confirmation of this."

So the whole thing should read:

2001:558:6020:160:259D:9CA4:6BA7:C51A (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)"The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform known as the Temple Mount. It is believed, or assumed by tradition, to have been constructed on the site of the Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, though there has been no archeological confirmation of this, despite considerable efforts"

Signed: William James Martin Sources: Israel Finkelstein,"The Bible Unearthed" : Thomas Thompson, "The Mythic Past"

It's no longer edit protected so you can edit the page yourself now.85.230.140.118 (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Raja Ibn Haywah and Yazid Ibn Salam

Raja Ibn Haywah and Yazid Ibn Salam were Muslims. The so called source does not refer to Yazid as a "Christian" but incorrectly translates the word "mawla" to refer to a Christian slave. This is incorrect. "Mawla" refers to non-Arabs. Yazid Ibn Salam, as determined by his name an additional source I provided is a Muslim. Please do not refer to him as a Christian slave. Both Raja Ibn Haywah and Yazid Ibn Salam were Muslims and Yazid Ibn Salam was a non-Arab Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Israel-2013-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock-Detail 01.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Israel-2013-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock-Detail 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 6, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-03-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Detail of the tiled facade on the Dome of the Rock, a shrine located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Completed in 691 CE, at the order of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik, it is one of the oldest extant works of Islamic architecture. It contains the Foundation Stone, which is religiously significant for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The tile work on the facade of the shrine dates back to the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 to 1566) and took seven years to install. Many of the tiles were replaced during a restoration project which began in 1955, as the originals had been dislodged by rain.Photograph: Andrew Shiva

Add hyperlinks

Hyperlinks are missing in the first paragraph to Western Wall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall) and Church of the Holy Sepulchre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonesouth (talk • contribs) 15:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

THE DOME OF THE ROCK IS A MOSQUE NOT A SHRINE IN PALESTINE 68.100.17.33 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done this has previously been discussed at some length - see Talk:Dome_of_the_Rock/Archive_1#Shrine and #Mosque or not? above for some of the discussions - the description Shrine was preferred to Mosque for the reasons given, and reliable sources cited in those discussions - Arjayay (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Country

Is it really controversial the fact that the dome of the rock is not in Israel? Occupation of West Bank is not recognized by no one, not even Israel's best buddy; the United States. There is no "deception" in the edit summary because this edit is not supposed to be controversial. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is controversial. Look at the edit history of this article and those of the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque, and you'll see we regularly revert trolls well-intentioned vandals who insist that Jerusalem is located in Israel or Palestine. That's why we just say Jerusalem. Period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility information incorrect?

Now the article says that the Temple Mount was reopened for non-muslims in 2006 (with no original source cited for this information). I believe that this is inaccurate or incorrect. I visited the Temple Mount in March 10, 2005, and took a lot of tourist photos right outside the Dome of the Rock. So the Temple Mount must have been open to non-muslims already before 2006.

Dating the destruction of the temple and the clearance of the temple site

The existing article states:

"The Temple Mount had by then been left undeveloped for centuries after another Jewish revolt against Roman rule in the fourth century CE."

The clearance of the site is usually ascribed to the Romans in 70CE.

In the 4th century the last pagan Emperor of Rome, "Julian thought to rebuild at an extravagant expense the proud Temple once at Jerusalem, and committed this task to Alypius of Antioch. Alypius set vigorously to work, and was seconded by the governor of the province, when fearful balls of fire, breaking out near the foundations, continued their attacks, till the workmen, after repeated scorchings, could approach no more: and he gave up the attempt."

Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 23.1.2–3.

By contrast I'm not aware of any JEWISH revolt against the Romans in the 4th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, there is the Jewish revolt against Constantius Gallus, but this does not establish any claim regarding the Temple Mount being "left undeveloped". Grabbe (2010) says a "pagan Roman temple" was built on the site already after the Bar Kokhba revolt, so the question becomes, what happened to this 2nd-century Roman temple. Your Ammianus Marcellinus quote seems to establish that this temple was renovated by Julian, i.e. after the revolt against Constantius Gallus, so our unsourced claim regarding "undeveloped after 351" sees to fall flat. Rather, it seems that after the failed attempt at restoration in the 360s it was left undeveloped, which seems to make sense, as at least after 380 no more "pagan temples" would be tolerated. The upshot seems to be that the site was undeveloped after the 360s, but also that this fact had nothing to do with any Jewis rebellions. --dab (𒁳) 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Religious Significance

The "Religious Significance" section has a reference in the text to "Jewish Jewish scholars". Is this a typo or did the author actually intend to refer to scholars of Judaism who are themselves Jewish? Either way, the text needs to be edited to either remove the typo or make the reference clear. Ross Fraser (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on anything more subtle than a typo. I've removed the extra word. Thanks for catching it. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The "religious significance" section completely omits the religious significance of the spot as the temple. It was the central part of the blood atonement system that preceded grace through Jesus' death. It's significant in that regard in both Christianity and Judaism.

Someboy wrote in the article: "A.C. Cresswell in his book Origin of the plan of the Dome of the Rock notes that those who built the shrine made use of the measurements of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." First of all, it is K.A.C. Cresswell. He not only mentioned the Holy Sepulchre, but also proved, that measures/principles from construction of the Cathedral of Bosra and the Ascencion Church (also called Ascension Mosque) at the Olive Mountain was elements used for computing ofQubbat as-Sakhra. So to speak: 3 Christian buldings were measured to ensure, that Qubbat as-Sakhra became larger and more impressive. Jan Eskildsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.199.211 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide a source for us so we can possibly add this. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The following line needs to be reworked into more precise and readable english, I had to read it three times before I knew what the author meant. "In Christianity it is believed that during the time of the Byzantine Empire, nearby the spot where the Dome was later constructed was where Constantine's mother built a small church, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom."Metalheadgeek (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

This portion has some severe defects :

"An important distinction is that this is to Islam what the Transfiguration of Jesus is to Christians, a fulfillment of scripture. After Muhammad's return, he called all that would believe him to join with him and be Muslim.[14] It was at this juncture that Islam came into existence."

1) The "distinction" between the Transfiguration between Jesus and Muhammed is simplistic and incorrect, and the "fulfillment of scripture" is a reflexive religious belief. It's not necessary to explain Muhammed in contrast or comparison to Christian beliefs, and then fail to differentiate. Muhammed is not the Islamic Jesus, and Jesus is a recognized as prophet in Islam. It seems the intended audience is christians and written by a Christian. Jesus' transfiguration has nothing to do with with the rock or the dome of the rock so why is it included? The Muhammed story much richer. Isra_and_Mi'raj

2)The second sentence "After Muhammad's return, he called all that would believe him to join with him and be Muslim.[14] It was at this juncture that Islam came into existence." There was no such thing called Islam during Muhammed's life. Jews and Muhammed's followers were all people of the book. In arabic I'd like to note that there is a reference to Goitein under the Dome interior section, who, along with his contemporaries tell us this: "Muḥammad, what would come to be called “Islām,” was not an extra-Judaic “religion.” The actions of submission (aslama), is described in the Qur’ān just as any other verb. The earliest sources make no mention of the Arabs who followed Muḥammad calling themselves Muslims or being called such by others." http://hashlamah.org/islamic-origins.php

Third, the foundation stone may not be the same thing as the Rock of Moriah. It may be the cornerstone of the temple. the run-on sentence makes it ambiguous and confusing.

This should have a section for the Rock of Moriah alone, and foundation stone theory should have it's own section.

The Foundation Stone is the holiest site in Judaism. Just as Muslims pray towards the Kaaba at Mecca, the holiest site in Islam, Jews pray towards the Foundation Stone. Jews have traditionally regarded the location of the stone as the holiest spot on Earth, the site of the Holy of Holies during the Temple Period.

slanted. It's not necessary to include that muslims pray towards mecca, this is also an Islamic holy site.

"In former times, some Jewish scholars thought that the location of the Holy of Holies was not known for certain; today this is a minority opinion.[citation needed]"

Who's opinion? More people who hold an opinion doesn't make it more true; it's still an opinion, but archaeologists and secular historians opinions should be included as well. To have true balance with Jewish Talmud/Torah scholars, then you could include some palestinians opinions; Arafat said nothing was under the Rock.

"The most propitious site for Jewish prayer is the spot that is nearest the Foundation Stone. Because Muslim authorities refused to permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, the custom developed of praying near the Western Wall, since it was the site nearest to the Foundation Stone, or on the Mount of Olives facing the site of the Temple. Between 1948 and 1967, when Jordanian authorities refused permission to Jews to enter the Old City of Jerusalem, Jews made pilgrimages to rooftops on Mount Zion and prayed towards the site of the ancient Holy of Holies.[16]"

This is a very political issue, and is written to slant the readers opinion and excludes information which I'm not sure belongs on this page anyway. Much of this is covered in the Temple_Mount page and the Foundation_Stone page. In truth, the Israeli government controls site at this time, and Palestinian men between the ages of 16 and 40 are not allowed to access any part of the temple mound, and it's also Jewish Rabbis that have forbidden Jews to enter the site in order to avoid provocation, although they still do.

"According to Jewish tradition, the stone is the site where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac."

This could/should be included in the Rock of Moriah section, because it was a stone for sacrifice or Korban (heb). The blood would drain down through the hole in the rock. Much more about ritual sacrifice, including the Red heifer.

More Christian goo again, which in already included in the temple mound page under the Late Roman period subheading. It doesn't belong here:

"In Christianity it is believed that during the time of the Byzantine Empire, near by the spot where the Dome was later constructed was where Constantine's mother built a small church, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom.[17]"

'Merikan (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Why was the Dome of the Rock built?

I am a bit surprised that there is no information at all about why the Dome of the Rock was built. Just to give a small example of information that seems to be general knowledge in some places. Article by Ali Mamouri on www.al-monitor.com (on Sept 20 2016):

"Islamic holy places are clearly being exploited for the political agendas of both parties in the regional competition for political influence over the Islamic world, stretching from Iraq and Syria all the way to Yemen and Bahrain.

The same scenario had played out in previous Islamic eras. Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (671-741), an Islamic jurist who was close to the Umayyads, issued a fatwa calling for pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead of Mecca, which at the time was under the control of the Ibn al-Zubayr caliphate, the Umayyads’ main rival.

The situation prompted Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik to build the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem for the pilgrimage.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/mecca-iran-saudi-pilgrimage-karbala-iraq-shiite-sunni.html#ixzz4KsOHsLbT

I am no expert or specialist on this topic and was disappointed to find no information on this at all in this article. See also on Shihab al-Zuhri's role the following article: Michael Lecker: Biographical notes on Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, in: Journal of Semitic Studies, XLI/1, Spring 1996, pp 21ff

I'd appreciate if some knowledgeable person could at least summarize the topic. 93.195.202.118 (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Crescent

I came here looking for evidence of a crescent having been placed on the Dome of the Rock in the medieval period, as is claimed under "Ayyubids", without any reference cited. Now, suggestively, it appears that the Dome was mostly depicted with a cross during the Latin kingdom, but in the seal of John of Brienne it apparently has a crescent rather than a cross. John of Brienne ruled in Jerusalem after the city was re-captured from Saladin, so if Saladin replaced the cross by a crescent, John might have reflected this in his seal.[3] Otoh, if the addition of the crescent was a gesture of triumph by Saladin, it would stand to reason that, if not replacing it once again with a cross after the re-conquest, at the very least John would not have taken pains to accurately portray this in his seal.

I have no idea what is the case here, because nobody is citing their sources. I don't even know the source for the seal image (presumably Sigillographie de l'Orient latin 1943, there is also the more recent Die Siegel der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem 2014, non vidi). Perhaps the idea that Saladin might have added the crescent is entirely based in John's seal, but then this would be somebody's proposal, which needs to be cited. --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was mistaken in the above, there was no "re-conquest", and the capital of John of Brienne was no longer Jerusalem. So I guess it is entirely plausible that his depiction of the Temple in his seal makes allowance for the fact that he is "in exile". This still needs a reference of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

In Boas, Crusader Archaeology, p23 there is: "The Temple Mount had two principal buildings, the Templum Domini (Dome of the Rock) and the Templum Salomonis (al-Aqsa Mosque). In the second decade of the twelfth century the Templum Domini was, with minor adjustments, converted into a church. These included the construction of an altar and the replacement of the crescent on the dome with a cross." On page 137 he says it was a golden crescent and was replaced by a cross in 1142. Next, Burgoyne's article "1187-1260: The furthest mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa) under Ayyubid rule" in Grabar and Kedar (eds) Where Heaven and Earth meet, p152 says that when Saladin conquered the city in 1187, "The cross finial on the Dome of the Rock was speedily replaced by an Islamic crescent." On the other hand, this book of Grabar (p72) says "A crescent, like the one that tops the dome now, is unlikely in the early Umayyad period, but not impossible, since crescents are known to have existed in the sanctuary of Mecca and are represented a few times in the interior mosaic decoration of the Dome of the Rock." Zero^talk 10:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. I wonder what Boas' sources are for the crescent, apparently he seems to claim a crescent even before 1187, and very specifically, that it was replaced in 1142 (i.e. fully 42 years after the Dome had become a church -- if this is true, it automatically also establishes that there was no such thing as an "Islamic crescent" at the time). Grabar voices exactly my own concern, there certainly may or may not have been ornamental crescents at the time, it certainly existed as a general "eastern style" ornamental element, but there is no way it would have been considered particularly "Islamic". Otoh, the cross was certainly a Christian symbol, so it would have been plausible for Saladin to have taken that down, and replacing it with the crescent that had been there before 1142. This act might even have been misinterpreted by outside observers as suggestive of the crescent as an Islamic symbol. I am really curious now what the sources for the 1142 date are. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the entire thing is speculation based on the seals of the kings of Jerusalem, which became misrepresented as historiographical fact in tertiary literature. If we take this presentation of seals at face value (sadly, no sources cited), Baldwin III (1143-1163) showed the Dome with a cross. So the question becomes, what did the seal of his predecessor Melisende look like? If it shows a crescent, we may have the origin of the "1142" date. Amalric (r. 1163-1174) still has a cross, and John of Brienne (r. 1210-1212) has a crescent, so based on this it may have been speculated that the crescent was put there by Saladin in 1187. If somebody has access to Sigillographie de l'Orient latin, I would be intersted in what the seals of the other kings of Jerusalem look like. --dab (𒁳) 18:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

if this is the seal of Baldwin I, the 1142 theory is falsified, at least based on the royal seals, as the Dome is already shown with a cross. Actually, this is complicated because it seems that the Dome is shown sometimes on the left and other times on the right, we would really need secondary literature to clear this up. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Boas got "1142" from F. E. Peters, Jerusalem (1985; pp316–317): "Though the Muslims were immediately driven off the Haram, it must have taken some time before all the Christians' adaptations were made in the two main Muslim buildings atop Mount Moriah: the Dome of the Rock, which the Latins regarded as the site of Solomon's Temple and so called the Templum Domini; and the Aqsa Mosque, identified as the place of Solomon's palace. According to William of Tyre (VIII, 3), speaking of the rock under the Dome, 'before the Latins came, and in fact for fifteen years afterward, this place lay bare and exposed. Later it was covered with white marble by those who held it and an altar and a choir built above, and there a priest celebrates the sacred offices.' Thus the work of conversion did not begin until 1114 or 1115, and if the erection of the altar atop the Rock was completed within a year or so, the formal consecration of the Dome of the Rock as a Christian church did not take place until 1142." (I don't see those numbers adding up; do you?) Peters gives a reference "William of Tyre 1943: XV, 18; and de Vogue 1881: 563." Peters also quotes John of Wurzburg (1160 or 1170) that "on the summit of which the figure of the Holy Cross has been placed by the Christians, which is very offensive to the Saracens and many of them would be willing to expend much gold to have it taken away". I did not determine Boas' source for there being a crescent before the cross. Zero^talk 00:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll try to look into William of Tyre and see what he has to say about this. Also, it seems Adrian Boas is an active researcher at Haifa Univ. so I guess I'll drop him a line, and see if he is willing to comment on this. Thanks again. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

for future reference, I just saw what appears to be a 2012 monograph more or less about this exact issue [4]. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Christian Palestinians

Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, who hold Israeli residency cards, and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship are permitted unrestricted access.

and

Non-Muslims are prohibited from entering the mosques, entering the Dome of the Rock, and accessing the Temple Mount through the Cotton Market.

are uncertain about Christian Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Are they allowed like Israeli Muslims or restricted like non-Muslims? --Error (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Who uses it?

I can't tell from the article if this place is used, today, by Muslims or Jews? Do both use it? Are Muslims banned from it? Are Jews banned from it? Can Christians visit it? Use it? I think the article needs a section on how it is used. 81.48.74.141 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought your question funny, but on reading the article carefully I see your point. It is written as if this place is not connected to a religion, but in fact it was built as an Islamic shrine and has been one ever since except during the Crusader period. All religious practice except Islamic has been banned from it for centuries, even though there have been times when others were allowed to enter. (I was there in the 1990s and I'm not Muslim.) This needs to be emphasised in several places in the article. Zero^talk 22:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mosque or not?

Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/en/Jerusalem/Old_City) says: "Despite common conceptions, the Dome is not a mosque, but a shrine which protects beneath its high ceiling, a large piece of Rock sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians." Other places on the web mention the same issue. If this is true, then the first sentence of this article is not. Could someone please clarify and, if needed, fix? --Ondrej Marsalek (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(‏قبّة ‎ qubba would mean dome? 92.35.44.239 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The first word, (مسجد) means mosque. The whole word translates into English as "Mosque of the Dome of the Rock". Zero reference to being a "shrine" in Arabic. -asad (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You should check the other language versions then. 0nomato (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is an structure, built by Arabic speaking people, representing the Islamic religion which happens to use Arabic. And, for the most part, the structure is most frequented by Arabic speaking people. -asad (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You should correct the other language versions then. 0nomato (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only edit on English Wikipedia. -asad (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock is not a mosque for three main reasons. Firstly, the definition of a mosque is a place to hold salah. The Dome of the Rock is not primarily used for that purpose. Secondly, many references explicitly state that it is not a mosque, e.g. [5], [6]. Thridly, it is most often referred to as a shrine [7], [8], [9] Pass a Method talk 05:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned in your definition of a mosque that it "is a place to hold salah". Then you go on to say the "Dome of the Rock is not primarily used for that purpose." If you go to the Dome of the Rock and observe prayer you will find it is used daily for prayer and it is particularly used by Muslim Women in prayers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.150.103 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not a Shrine, does not fit with denfinition of a shrine [[10]] It is used as a Mosque Daily and if you are not happy with the term Mosque which is the Arabic word for it as Asad112 clearly points out, the term prayer space is appropriate. 188.66.70.68 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All other encyclopedias do not refer to it as a shrine. Seaferndale (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have heard(correct me if I am wrong) that the Rock that the dome was built around is where Muhammad basically went to Heaven(without dying, of course) and lead all the other prophets in prayer. This is also the origin of the cresent moon(a symbol of Islam), as that was the phase of the moon during that night,so I was told. Also, the Dome of the Rock does serve as a mosque, especially during holy days of obligation. It is one of Islam's most important places, right after Mecca. Nathan Damage (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Nathan Damage

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dome of the Rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309001858/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/architecture/architecture_features/alternating_currents/collections/domeoftherock/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/architecture/architecture_features/alternating_currents/collections/domeoftherock/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Country Palestine?!

Excuse me, but if there are controversy about what country the site is in, we better no use that field. Why the article mention that the country is Palestine? Sokuya (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The template pulls off the info from Wikidata. Sokuya (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Sokuya. We've been very careful to describe the location of the Dome of the Rock as simply Jerusalem, not as Israel or Palestine. I can't see anywhere on the page where its location is described as Palestine. Can you point me to the reference to Palestine you're referring to? Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, yes. Apparently the template "Infobox religious building" pulls off information from the Wikidata item of the article. As you can see in this edit someone added Palestine as the country of this site. Somehow this edit affected the article and made into the template area. As soon as I removed it from Wikidata it was removed from the template also. So now there is no 'Country' field in the template. Sokuya (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Sokuya Now I see. I probably would never have noticed that sort of change because it doesn't appear in my (en.wiki) watchlist. Thank you for noticing and tracking down the source of the information. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Palestine-2013(2)-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock (SE exposure).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Palestine-2013(2)-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Dome of the Rock (SE exposure).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 25, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Dome of the Rock is an Islamic shrine located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. One of the oldest extant works of Islamic architecture, the Dome of the Rock was initially completed in 691 CE at the order of Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik during the Second Fitna, built on the site of the Roman temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which had in turn been built on the site of Herod's Temple, destroyed during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. After the original dome collapsed in 1015, it was rebuilt in 1022–23, patterned after nearby Byzantine churches and palaces. The site has great significance for Muslims owing to traditions connecting it to the creation of the world and to the belief that the Prophet Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven started from the rock at the center of the structure. The rock also bears great significance for Jews as the site of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of his son.Photograph: Andrew Shiva

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dome of the Rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818090425/http://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-flock-jerusalem-israeli-restrictions-eased-152403694.html to https://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-flock-jerusalem-israeli-restrictions-eased-152403694.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A new interpretation of the Arabic Inscription in Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock

Christoph Luxenberg is a pseudonym for an academic who lives in Germany and is a Semitic scholar and researcher of the Qur'an. His thesis is that Abd al-Malik is an Arabic Christian who defends his faith in the one God, over against the Trinitarian teaching of the followers of Nicea. Luxenberg gives an alternate translation of the inscription inside the dome of the rock as putting forward an alternate non trinitarian conception of Jesus. In essence the Dome of the Rock was built as a Syrian-Arabian Christian monument.

Can we make room in this Wikipedia page for presentation of this alternate view point? Kenneth Cooke Kenneth Cooke (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kenneth Cooke: If it someone who uses a pseudonym how are their views notable? Do we have reliable third party experts ever mentioning Christoph Luxenberg? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No, this would fail WPL:WEIGHT rather badly. The only place I can imagine it sticking is at Christoph Luxenberg. Zero^talk 12:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, is your name a pseudonym? Mine is not. Kenneth Cooke (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Crusaders

The article on Templum Domini currently states: "After the capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade (1099), the Dome of the Rock was given into the care of Augustinian Canons Regular, who turned it into a Christian church." The Crusaders section of this article currently states: "The Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 and the Dome of the Rock was given to the Augustinians, who turned it into a church, ..." The two statements seem to have a common source, but they are not equivalent. Which is correct? And what is its published source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.80 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent pictures

Please add some recent images like the following

• 
  Interior
• 
  Dome
• 
  ornament and writing at the Dome
• 
  ornament and writing at the Dome (detail)
• 
  Foundation stone

regards, --Virtutepetens (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done--1233^Talk 12:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 250IQD2002back.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubious/unlikely & unsourced: Dome o.t. Chain as model, and late "addition of walls"

The first line (2 sentences) of the "Abbasids and Fatimids" paragraph is a) completely unsourced, and b) makes highly unlikely claims:

"The original construction was surrounded by open arcades, like the Dome of the Chain." This sems to be a mash-up of, and maybe a confusion between, the colonnades on the sides of the Dome of the Rock platform, and the open structure of the Dome of the Chain. If so, this is a grave mistake, among other reasons because the arcades (aka the "Scales") are from the Mamluk period.

"Under Abbasid caliph Al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833), an octagonal wall was added." No source I looked into ever mentioned this version. I guess it's totally wrong. It has basically always been a Byzantine martyrion, with octagonal outer walls, right from its 680s-90s inception.

If no convincing source is added soon (highly unlikely), this whole line should be erased.Arminden (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Following details should be added to the image caption "1920s photograph": 1920s Photograph: north-eastern exposure, with Dome of the Chain to the left. Moughera (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2019

In the History section under the Crusader's tab, the word "for" is misspelled as "gor" in the second sentence. 173.191.103.41 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. nableezy - 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

inside vector

please add recent pictures and vector:

Dome of the rock interior vector

Seyyedalith (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pshent:, @Hertz1888:, @Onceinawhile:

Object, it is in pdf format.--1233^Talk 12:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@1233: jpg format is here

thanks Seyyedalith (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)  Done--1233^Talk 00:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That vector graphic is clearly not an accurate depiction of the ceiling of the Dome of the Rock (when you compare it with the photographs). --SKopp (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@1233: would you remove it from the article, please? --SKopp (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection, will remove. @SKopp:--1233^Talk 06:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@SKopp: what's the difference? Seyyedalith (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Seyyedalith: for example, the vector image completely lacks all the writing in the circle above the red ornaments. Also, the centre looks completely different with a large inscription that is not there in reality. --SKopp (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The site of this shrine is also referred to as Haram al-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary)

Because everything in Jerusalem is political, this site should be referred to as it's called by people who revere this shrine and the mosques there: Haram al-Sharif (Arabic: الحرم الشريف‎) It's also referred to as the Temple Mount, but this could be parenthetical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumud4867 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

Please change Ottomsn to Ottoman: "Some of the interior decoration was added in the Ottomsn period." Highlander1535 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 17:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Church of St. Mary of Justinian

According to Church of St. Mary of Justinian "The Church of St. Mary was a Byzantine church that was built in Jerusalem during the reign of Justinian and dedicated to the Virgin Mary. The church was located on the Temple Mount.

Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that the church was built in 560 AD and burned down by the Persians in 614. Later after the Muslim conquest of the Holy Land, this church eventually was converted into what is the present day Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik (the name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false). Therefore, in or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd (who ruled from 705-715) reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aqsa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesicular (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that the church was built in 560 AD and burned down by the Persians in 614." Impossible. Procopius' works date to the 550s at the latest. By the 610s, he would probably be long dead. Dimadick (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a reference to New Church of the Theotokos, which is now believed to be in the Jewish Quarter, not in the haram. Zero^talk 12:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Crusaders

The Crusaders section suggests that the Crusades were provoked by Muslims who limited Christian pilgrims' rights to visit Jerusalem. This is at the very least controversial. Many other motivations are mentioned in the Crusades article. I suggest removing the entire sentence making this claim, which now appears at the beginning of the Crusaders section. Ikalmar (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

History - Pre-Islamic background

'The Dome of the Rock is situated in the center of the Temple Mount, the site of the Temple of Solomon and the Jewish Second Temple, which had been greatly expanded under Herod the Great in the 1st century BCE. Herod's Temple was destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, and after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, a Roman temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built at the site by Emperor Hadrian.[16]'

1. Link Error? The references to Jupiter Capitolinus links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#Connection_to_Jupiter_Capitolinus but when I click the link it does not take me to this section of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article, but to the top of the article.

2. Possible Factual Error in linked article. The separate Church of the Holy Sepulchre article states that this church was built in the area of the former Jupiter_Capitolinus temple, but it is clear from the article that the church and therefore the prior temple were built outside the ancient city walls, and not on the Temple Mount. So I am not clear how this linked article provides support for this article's claim 'a Roman temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built at the site [that is, the Temple Mount] by Emperor Hadrian.' Instead, the reference [16] to Encyclopedia Britannica etc. does provide support. [Also, I found an external link that says the ancient historian Cassius Dio supported the idea that a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was build on the Temple Mount, though the wiki article on him does not mention this. See https://followinghadrian.com/2014/11/05/exploring-aelia-capitolina-hadrians-jerusalem/ ]

3. Recommended Change It seems to me the wording in this section is fine but that the link to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article (in this sub-section on Pre-Islamic background) should be removed (as the church is not on the Temple Mount). Options:

A. Remove the link and leave no link in its place. B. Relink to the existing Wiki article on Aelia Capitolina. C. Relink to the existing article on Capitoline Triad.

Thanks. Jflores33 (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esraa Abdelwahab. Peer reviewers: Hyungrag.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

dime of the rock

The Dome of the Rock (Arabic: قبة الصخرة, romanized: Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhra) is an Islamic shrine located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, a site also known to Muslims as the al-Haram al-Sharif or the Al-Aqsa Compound. Its initial construction was undertaken by the Umayyad Caliphate on the orders of Abd al-Malik during the Second Fitna in 691–692 CE, and it has since been situated on top of the site of the Second Jewish Temple (built in c. 516 BCE to replace the destroyed Solomon's Temple), which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. The original dome collapsed in 1015 and was rebuilt in 1022–23. The Dome of the Rock is the world's oldest surviving work of Islami 185.115.4.19 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Hebrew from lead

This structure, Dome of the Rock, is an Arabic/Islamic structure; it has no relation to Hebrew or the Jews in general. Therefore, the Hebrew description of the name should not be there. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

generally agree. nableezy - 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the Dome in Israel? Or, at the very least, in territory occupied by and claimed by Israel? Whose sole official language is Hebrew? And isn't its ancient history largely based on its significance with the Jewish faith? Isn't a huge part of the conflict pertaining to that site based on its ancient history and heritage as a Jewish historical / religious landmark? Plus, I mean, from this article's own introduction:

The Foundation Stone (or Noble Rock) that the temple was built over bears great significance in the Abrahamic religions as the place where God created the world as well as the first human, Adam. It is also believed to be the site where Abraham attempted to sacrifice his son, and as the place where God's divine presence is manifested more than in any other place, towards which Jews turn during prayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.103.37 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock is indeed related to the Jews in general, as it occupies the holiest spot in Judaism. The site is contested between Israel and the Palestinians. Moreover, this article is considered part of WikiProject Israel, and I believe it is for a good reason. The Hebrew description should stay. Tom Bahar (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the Temple Mount has a relation to Hebrew and the Jews in general. This dome itself does not though. It is part of WP Israel because it is in territory Israel occupies. There Hebrew is just another translation here, as relevant as the Greek or Aramaic. nableezy - 18:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed this, there is clearly no consensus for its inclusion, and the argument for it (its in WikiProject Israel) makes no sense. nableezy - 18:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Tombah, the insertion is what requires consensus. This method of reverting to include material you like and then demanding consensus for material you dislike is tendentious. Kindly self-revert, the Hebrew has zero relevance here. And per WP:ONUS, consensus is required for the insertion or reinsertion of challenged material. nableezy - 20:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If the Hebrew name was distinct and ancient, I could be persuaded to include it. However, when it is just the straight Hebrew translation of "Dome of the Rock", the case is much weaker. Zero^talk 02:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Its as relevant as the Greek. Has nothing to do with the article, and the Waqf is who administers the site, not Israel. nableezy - 02:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy The Dome of the Rock is one of the most well-known landmarks in an area that Israel controls and has annexed, and where Hebrew is the official language. The Hebrew name was used here before it was abruptly removed. The Hebrew name is also shown in our articles for many other important sites and places in East Jerusalem and the Old City - including the Holy Sepulchre, the Muslim Quarter, the Christian Quarter, Muristan, the various Old City gates, the Tomb Garden the Chapel of the Ascension, and many many other landmarks. I don't see why the Dome of the Rock should be any different. Tombah (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

On Christian sites in Jerusalem that does not apply.Cenacle, Abbey of the Dormition, and Church of Zion, Jerusalem. We use the language exclusively of the community of worshippers using these buildings. Jews do not pray, as yet, inside the Dome of the Rock. Nishidani (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock is administered by the Jordanian Waqf, which only uses Arabic, and the Hebrew is just a translation of Dome of the Rock. Other crap exists remains an argument that merits no response. Beyond that, WP:ONUS requires consensus for the inclusion of material. Not periodically reverting to reinsert challenged material. Kindly self-revert or Ill do it for you in a bit. nableezy - 06:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Hebrew is appropriate, on the condition set above by Zero. Tombah states his belief that the site itself is 'annexed' and since Hebrew is the official language, annexed things must be named in Hebrew. I'm not familiar with any gov document stating that buildings like the Dome are under sovereign Israeli law and are Israeli real estate: to the contrary. Given that Israel has formally downgraded Arabic as an official language (the Knesset has many Arabic legislators representing 20% Israel's population but we don't give the Arab word for the institution in that article, just as we don't provide an Arabic gloss on the Hebrew for David's Tomb nearby), and the venomous politics of the site, Tombah's motivation is not reasoned in any other terms than those of conflict, giving the appearance specifically of the appropriative neologistic language of the Hebraization of Palestinian place names. Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Al-haram and Al-aqsa

"Al-" means "the" in Arabic. So you can't talk about "the al-Haram" or "the al-Aqsa compound". 2600:4040:5037:2500:A9F9:BBE3:1EC7:77C7 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The Holy of Holies

This statement According to Jewish tradition and to the consensus theory in modern scholarship, the Holy of Holies stood directly on the Foundation Stone. directly contradicts this one As a part of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies was situated somewhere on Temple Mount; its precise location in the Mount being a matter of dispute, with some classical Jewish sources identifying its location with the Foundation Stone, which sits under the Dome of the Rock. Other Jewish scholars argue that contemporary reports would place the Temple to the north or to the east of the current Dome of the Rock. in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_of_Holies I suggest they should be reconciled to the statement in the Holy of Holies article, which seems to have other sources to back up the reference to their being no agreement as to where this might be situated. However the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone has this According to the Talmud and to the consensus theory in modern scholarship, the Holy of Holies – that is, the holiest spot on Earth, where God's presence resided – stood directly on the Foundation Stone. I shall seek further sources for evidence that this is not the consensus theory in modern scholarship before making any change. Pngeditor (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

They key question is if there is a single source even saying that such a scholarly consensus even exists in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Yoma and Sanhedrin citations from sefaria.org are also primary religious text sources and wholly unreliable for this. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that. i suppose they can be used as sources for the 'According to Jewish tradition' statement but not the consensus statement. I am working to get a copy of the other source. Regards.Pngeditor (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)