Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

Merge with Al-Qibli Chapel

I suggest that Al-Qibli Chapel be merged into here (Al-Aqsa Mosque), probably mostly into Al-Aqsa Mosque#Dome. The current content is mostly about Al-Aqsa (2nd and 3rd paragraph). The first paragraph, and maybe the explaining are short enough to fit in here. Off course, there is also the option to expand the Al-Qibli article, but as it stands now it should be striped down to a short paragraph and I guess merging and redirecting is the best current option. - Nabla (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge On Arabic Wikipedia, there are 3 separate articles for each topic. There is one article for Al-Aqsa Mosque, one article for Dome of the Rock, and one article for Al-Qibli Chapel. I think that we should do the same here on the English Wikipedia.--Ciphers00 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa are easily distinguished. Not so the Al-Qibli Chapel. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Dome of the Rock is part of the complex of al-Aqsa Mosque just as al-Qibli Chapel is also a part of it.--Ciphers00 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You did notice that my point is something else completely? Debresser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge The article on Al-Qibli is in a very poor state, not properly sourced and filled with personal analysis, so most of it should be cut in any way. What factual information remains could probably fit into this article. Jeppiz (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The article was created just today, so it is not surprising to find that it is still a stub.--Ciphers00 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This is just part of the complex and should be kept as no more than a redirect. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The Dome of the Rock is also a part of the complex. Does this mean that it should be kept as no more than a redirect?--Ciphers00 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect claim. The Dome of the Rock is not part of the complex of the Al-Aqsa. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The Jami al-Qibli appears to be another name for the al-Aqsa Mosque building i.e. the subject of this article. I think the article should be deleted since there's nothing of use in it to merge. The basic argument of the Al-Qibli article is that the subject of this article is the Jami al-Qibli and the actual al-Aqsa Mosque is the entire compound including the Dome of the Rock. This is a separate discussion. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You say on your user page that you are a native speaker of English. Does this mean that you can't read in Arabic or what?! If you can read in Arabic, then read the article in the Arabic version ar:المسجد الأقصى which says quite the contrary of what you said. It says that al-Masjid Al-Aqsa refers to all the area of the Temple Mount, while Al-Musalla al-Qibli refers only to the chapel in the southern part of it. Then explain why there are 3 separate articles on the Arabic wikipedia for each term: one article for Al-Aqsa Mosque, one article for Dome of the Rock, and one article for Al-Qibli Chapel. Al-Qibli chapel is not itself al-Aqsa Mosque per the Arabic version of Wikipedia.--Ciphers00 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The subject material of this article is the same exact subject of the Qibli Chapel. There is a dispute, which is mentioned in the article, regarding the specific definition of the "al-Aqsa Mosque", with the two sides of the argument being that the Aqsa Mosque is the building with the silver dome or that the Aqsa Mosque is the entire compound including the Dome of the Rock. In this case, there should be a discussion about renaming this article the Qibli Chapel or Qibli Mosque. As far as merging the two, there's currently no significant amount of content to merge. I would support Al-Qibli Chapel being redirected to this article. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Ciphers00. What other language Wikis do has little bearing on what happens here. The reverse is of course also true. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong picture

I see a misconception, on Arabic we refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque as the whole area while the wall around it, as the description on this image (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel-2013(2)-Aerial-Jerusalem-Temple_Mount-Temple_Mount_(south_exposure).jpg) say. It's what Israel call The Temple Mount. 105.71.128.186 (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed on this talkpage before, see above. Debresser (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the issue has been adequately resolved though.
I came to the talk page after being confused by the "minarets" section in the article. The mosque structure of the "narrow" definition does not include any minarets. The minarets section in the article is describing the four minarets around the compound wall - a feature woefully covered in Temple_Mount#Minarets.
We need to explain this issue properly, both here and in the Temple Mount article.
Oncenawhile (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
In addition to the thread above, this has also been discussed, without conclusion, at:
It's time we fix this properly.
Oncenawhile (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you propose? This is the English Wikipedia, and Arabic definitions are not very relevant here. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The name of this article should remain "Al-Aqsa Mosque" since, at least in English-language sources, "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the specific subject of this article, while "Haram al-Sharif/Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount" is used for the entire compound. I also see that the single-source stub "Al-Qibli Chapel" (a name I have not seen used in English scholarly sources, along with "Al-Qibli Mosque" or "Masjid al-Qibli"), which describes the exact same subject, still exists for some reason. It should be redirected here. If "al-Qibli Mosque" or similar variants are indeed alternative names for the mosque, we could add it to the first sentence of the lead. As for the apparent dual definition of al-Aqsa, this should be clarified within this article. As of now, there's a clarification in the lead, but the Etymology section, which should discuss this issue in detail, remains largely unsourced. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
So basically, apart from redirecting Al-Qibli Chapel, and addding a few sources, nothing?
I agree that the clarification in the lead is sufficient, and no major changes are needed. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Facade and porch": more mistakes than decency allows

1- Define "facade" vs. "porch"
2- "The Crusaders damaged the facade"? Or they rebuilt it according to their needs? POV! Also contradicts further info: the small Crus. porch was preserved and extended.
3- "The second-hand material of the facade's arches includes..." - NO, the porch's??? See my point 1
4- "The facade consists of fourteen stone arches" - a) again, facade treated as distinct from porch OR NOT? // b) No, see picture: seven! Unless you count the inner ones PLUS the outer ones as separate, so 7+7=14, but that's WEIRD!
5- "The porch is located at the top of the facade." May Allah forbid such architectural stupidity, it's "in front of"!
6- "The central bays of the porch were built by the Knights Templar during the First Crusade" - Another miracle of the Holy Land! The Knights Templar didn't exist during the 1st Cr. - maybe "in the aftermath of..."? Which "bays" (one, three, five,...)?
7- "... but Saladin's nephew al-Mu'azzam Isa ordered the construction of the porch itself in 1217." - Meaning what, that he EXTENDED the Crusader porch to the entire width of the facade? Or were the Crusader bays detached from the facade, thus not a "porch"? Unlikely. Try to make sense. Maybe just a case of Muslim POV ("I hate those Crusaders, can't give them any credit for current Aqsa porch.") N.b.: the quoted page is not available today on Google Books.
ArmindenArminden (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible reference issue with Quran verses hadith

This page Etymology[edit source] Masjid al-Aqsa translates from Arabic into English as "the farthest mosque". The name refers to a chapter of the Quran called "The Night Journey" in which it is said that Muhammad traveled from Mecca to "the farthest mosque", and then up to Heaven on a heavenly creature called al-Buraq al-Sharif.[4][5]

Linked page to Baraq attributes to Hadith not Quran: Al-Burāq (Arabic: البُراق‎‎ al-Burāq "lightning") is a steed in Islamic mythology, a creature from the heavens that transported the prophets. Most notably Buraq carried the Islamic prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey",[1] as recounted in hadith literature.e Correction or clarification required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcdm (talk • contribs)

Hello, Jrcdm, and welcome to Wikipedia. See Isra and Mi'raj. The first verse of sura (chapter) al-Isra of the Quran ("The Night Journey") speaks of "a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque". Hadith elaborates on the meaning of this verse, about Buraq, about what is meant by "the farthest Mosque", about what Muhammad saw and did on his night journey—as far as I know (and I am not a Muslim or an Islamic scholar) the Quran doesn't include any of this information, but it all comes from the hadith. So there is no contradiction at all. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew

Added here without any discussion, I removed it as irrelavant. Its managed by a Jordanian waqf, its users primary language is Arabic, its name is Arabic. There isnt any reason to have the Hebrew translation of an Arabic name here. nableezy - 15:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't feel strongly about this, but it is located in Israel, access to the site is controlled by Israel, and there are frequent news items involving both the Al-Aqsa and Israel, so I'd argue to keep the Hebrew. It has been here for half a year, and for such a much-visited and much-redacted article, that means there is consensus for having the Hebrew. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Its actually not located in Israel, and our article does not say that it is. I dont understand what there being frequent news items involving al-Aqsa and Israel is supposed to mean, so what? It's an Arabic name, the only Hebrew use for it is in a Hebrew publication and this is the English Wikipedia. How is the Hebrew transliteration of the Arabic name at all relevant to the English Wikipedia? It would be like including the Turkish Mescid-i Aksa as an alternate name here. Israel specifically ceded control of this site to the Jordanian waqf, but that isnt even the point. There are things in which having a Hebrew name is relevant to a site such as this, eg Nablus, which has the Hebrew name for it because it is a relevant part of it history. Or for that matter Hebron. There isnt any relevance to the Hebrew here. And WP:ALTNAME says include relevant foreign language titles. nableezy - 19:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

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) 18:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

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) 06:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

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) 05:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Romanization does not look right

المسجد الاقصى should be romanized as Al-Masjid al-ʼAqṣā, with the ʼ letter rather than the ‘ letter, as the ‘ letter looks like ʻ which is used for ʻayn. Jkdgzhtejti (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

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) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Al-Qibli Chapel merge

There is a merge proposal, still open on the other page, but perhaps not properly reported here, to merge Al-Qibli Chapel into a section on Al-Aqsa Mosque. The old discussion is archived at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 4#Merge with Al-Qibli Chapel; my view of that discussion was that there was sufficient consensus to merge, but given that this may not have been properly advertised, I have now added the appropriate merge template to elicit further opinions. I support the merge, on that grounds that the other page is a stub and its scope overlaps with that of the Al-Aqsa Mosque page. Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

False statement

"Al-Aqsa and Bayt al-Muqaddas, is the third holiest site in Sunni Islam"

It is the third holiest site in Islam, not Sunni Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Tekst De Al-Aqsamoskee (Arabisch المسجد الأقصى al-masjid ul-aqsā, "De verste moskee") of El-Aksamoskee, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsamoskee Another false statement is that The Al Aqsah is 'the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque' Mohammed never was in Jerusalem, and when the Quran was finished Jerusalem was not yet conquered. 'the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque' was in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mittmann54 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 December 2017

Please, change "his fleeing from Mecca to Medina" to "his migration from Mecca to Medina"; because the word "flee" does not suit the status of prophet-hood. Also, the word "hegira" connotes migration, not fleeing or flight of any sort. 182.185.7.254 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done After reading your request and reviewing the first sentence of Hegira, I changed "fleeing" to "migration". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Isra and Mi'raj content removed

The Muslim scholar Sari Nusseibeh with centuries of family roots in Jerusalem said that at the time of the legendary night journey the Al-Aqsa Mosque did not exist. "What was the 'farthest mosque' that did not exist, if not the Temple, in Muhammad's mind: the Temple of the Jews?" he said.[1]

References

  1. ^ David K. Shipler (10 November 2015). Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land. Crown/Archetype. pp. 261–262. ISBN 978-0-553-44752-1.

The content above was removed from Isra and Mi'raj. Thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

So it should have been removed. It doesn't even make sense, since the Temple of the Jews didn't exist at that time either. This is a trivial and barely meaningful anecdote. Zerotalk 08:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
For starters, what do "centuries of family roots in Jerusalem" have to do with anything? Unless his ancestors accompanied Muhammad on the Night Journey, that's meaningless fluff. Second, when did Nusseibeh, a professor of philosophy best known for his political activities, become a "Muslim scholar"? Third, this article is about the mosque, not the Night Journey. Finally, we can't—and won't—include everything anybody has said about the Night Journey or about al-Aqsa, because we have to apply WP:NPOV, including WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Let me address your points and ask your opinion about possible improvements.

  1. To editor Zero0000:
    1. "It doesn't even make sense" is not a terribly strong argument. A viewpoint prevalence among Wikipedia editors is not required. The content is WP:V and properly attributed to Nusseibeh.
  2. To editor MShabazz:
    1. "centuries of family roots in Jerusalem" and "Muslim scholar" are directly from the source above, see page 261. According to Shipler those  "helped give him [Nusseibeh] standing" see on the same page. Would you feel more comfortable attributing those qualifications to their Shipler? 
    2. Regarding WP:UNDUE snd WP:PROPORTION Generally Wikipedia counts on secondary sources as a metric for sizing and measuring proportions. Paraphrasing from Jimbo Wales. There is a reference to commonly accepted reference text and there is a name of a prominent adherent. This is a clear indication we're not dealing with "a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority". Thus the content satisfies inclusion criteria.
    3. I'd add other significant viewpoints, if appropriate sources are provided. This is how  balancing works. Thoughts on that?

Finally, deletion of relevant properly sourced content is not inline with  the editing policy. Infinity Knight (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't find any sufficient response to either my objection or Malik's objection. And you must have something better to do than displaying your poor understanding of editing policy to two editors with vastly more experience than you. Zerotalk 01:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, To editor Zero0000: I'm still not convinced by your argument. Everybody, even "editors with vastly more experience than you", sometimes can make a mistake in a totally good faith. That's why there are talk pages. More thoughts on the content, the provided source or any of the points and suggestions above? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
With respect to your reply above:
  • The fact that somebody is quoted in a book doesn't mean that "we're not dealing with 'a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority'". The fact is, we are speaking of a fringe viewpoint. To establish that Nusseibeh's viewpoint isn't fringe, you would need to consult scholarship concerning the Night Journey or the roots of Islam, not a single mass-market book about the modern Arab-Israeli conflict by an author with no credibility on matters concerning Islamic mythology.
  • The fact that a newspaper reporter fluffed up his source doesn't mean we should, especially when (a) the fluff is irrelevant and (b) the fluff is incorrect.
  • This is an article about the mosque, not the Night Journey. Questions about where Muhammad visited on the Night Journey, whether the Night Journey took place, or whether Muhammad was a historic or fictional character are all irrelevant to this article. This article explains why the mosque is called al-Aqsa, and it isn't appropriate to include debate about the historicity or plausibility of the event that provided the source of the name. That debate belongs in the relevant articles (including what appears to be your true target, Temple denial).
— MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I might add that he's not a 'Muslim scholar'. I think his doctoral work was on the Muʿtazila school of logic founded by Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, to which he was attracted, as undoubtedly he was attracted to his future wife, Lucy, because both embodied a tradition of logical acuity diffident about fundamentalist credos (taking the Qur'an literally etc.) He does have a connection to Al-Aqsa: he was in the bucket-line of volunteers dowsing the flames in the mosque after Michael Rohen tried to burn it down. But this, like his remark, is just anecdotal stuff, hardly bearing on the essential story of the mosque.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all for chiming in. Any objection to the following source? Infinity Knight (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"From the earliest extant Muslim texts, it becomes clear that a group of Muslims from the beginning interpreted "the farthest place of prayer" ( al masjid al aqsa ) with the city of Jerusalem in general and its Herodian / Solomonic Temple in particular. It is equally clear that other early Muslims disputed this connection, identifying "the farthest place of prayer" instead as a reference to a site in the heavens." [1]

References

  1. ^ Frederick S. Colby (6 August 2008). Narrating Muhammad's Night Journey: Tracing the Development of the Ibn 'Abbas Ascension Discourse. SUNY Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-7914-7788-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Yes, the same objections as before. What does this have to do with al-Aqsa mosque? Both of these bits of trivia may be interesting or relevant at Isra and Mi'raj or Al-Isra, but they have nothing to do with the mosque standing in Jerusalem. And this is starting to seem like a case of WP:IDHT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To answer your question To editor Malik Shabazz: What does this have to do with al-Aqsa mosque? Al-Aqsa Mosque is Al-Masjid al-‘Aqṣā. Frederick S. Colby summarizes how Muslims from the beginning interpreted "the farthest place of prayer" ( al masjid al aqsa ). Infinity Knight (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for once again ignoring my objections. Let me make this as clear as I can: As you just wrote, you're trying to insert material about how Muslims interpreted/interpret the language of the Quran. It has nothing to do with the physical mosque that is the subject of this article.
Imagine if I kept trying to add to Empire State Building quotes from historians or economists or others that say that despite being called the Empire State, New York was never an empire. It would be silly, because the question of whether New York was an empire has nothing to do with the building on Fifth Avenue in New York City. That's what you seem to be doing here. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To editor MShabazz:, let me respectfully disagree on the point of relevancy. What the term"the farthest place of prayer" ( al masjid al aqsa ) refers to in Islam is within context of this page, and already discussed in Religious significance in Islam section, which says "In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the entire Noble Sanctuary. ". However right this sentence is unsourced. This could be improved. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Empire State Building says "The name came from the state nickname for New York." Still more WP:IDHT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
To editor MShabazz:, guess Al-Aqsa Mosque has more history than Empire State Building. It is hard to believe that '"the farthest place of prayer" ( al masjid al aqsa ) discourse is unrelated. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The first word in "Empire State Building" is empire, so the British Empire must be relevant to that article. WP:IDHT. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
To editor MShabazz: pardon, not a terribly convincing line of argument. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, but nevertheless, you've been sticking to it for almost a week now. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure so let's sum it up. According to sources above there is a religious heritage of site significance. Frederick S. Colby agrees with Sari Nusseibeh on the point that in early Islam the the story of Muhammad's ascention from Al-Aqsa Mosque - '"the farthest place of prayer" ( al masjid al aqsa ) was understood as relating to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Colby also adds that significan Muslims group disputed this connection, identifying "the farthest place of prayer" instead as a reference to a site in the heavens. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al-Aqsa Mosque. 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:

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) 10:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Region

Shaam (Arabic: الـشَّـام, Ash-Shâm) is a region that includes the modern countries of Syria and Lebanon, and the land of Palestine.[1][2] Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Article "AL-SHĀM" by C.E. Bosworth, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 9 (1997), page 261.
  2. ^ Salibi, K. S. (2003). A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered. I.B.Tauris. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-86064-912-7. To the Arabs, this same territory, which the Romans considered Arabian, formed part of what they called Bilad al-Sham, which was their own name for Syria. From the classical perspective however Syria, including Palestine, formed no more than the western fringes of what was reckoned to be Arabia between the first line of cities and the coast. Since there is no clear dividing line between what are called today the Syrian and Arabian deserts, which actually form one stretch of arid tableland, the classical concept of what actually constituted Syria had more to its credit geographically than the vaguer Arab concept of Syria as Bilad al-Sham. Under the Romans, there was actually a province of Syria, with its capital at Antioch, which carried the name of the territory. Otherwise, down the centuries, Syria like Arabia and Mesopotamia was no more than a geographic expression. In Islamic times, the Arab geographers used the name arabicized as Suriyah, to denote one special region of Bilad al-Sham, which was the middle section of the valley of the Orontes river, in the vicinity of the towns of Homs and Hama. They also noted that it was an old name for the whole of Bilad al-Sham which had gone out of use. As a geographic expression, however, the name Syria survived in its original classical sense in Byzantine and Western European usage, and also in the Syriac literature of some of the Eastern Christian churches, from which it occasionally found its way into Christian Arabic usage. It was only in the nineteenth century that the use of the name was revived in its modern Arabic form, frequently as Suriyya rather than the older Suriyah, to denote the whole of Bilad al-Sham: first of all in the Christian Arabic literature of the period, and under the influence of Western Europe. By the end of that century it had already replaced the name of Bilad al-Sham even in Muslim Arabic usage.

Logical error in my mind

" Muslims believe that Muhammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to al-Aqsa during the Night Journey."

Yes they do based on surah 17:1 "Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing."

He(God/Allah), his servant(Mohammed)

Logical problem: Mohammed died according to islamic sources in 632 AD, no Muslim ever entered Jeruslam before 638 and the al-aqsa mosque began to build decades after his death and finished in 705 AD.

How could Mohammed possibly have seen the al-Aqsa if the building was built and finished decades after his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.22.146.108 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The same way Jesus rose from the dead and Joshua held the sun in the sky. It's called faith. Some people have it, some people don't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Malik is correct. I'll also note that the surah does not mention a particular building. Recall that the entire platform of the Haram is called al-Masjid al-Haram by a common tradition. Zerotalk 02:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@malik Jesus rising from the dead and Joshua holding the sun in the sky are positions you can neither prove or disprove. It`s really faith. A logical fallacy like surah 17:1 remains a major error within a book according to islamic beliefs made by God and therefore it should be free of mistakes. You cannot have it both ways. Either surah 17:1 mentions the al aqsa mosque as located in Jerusalem like the article does or a different mosque/location is meant. But then the article includes false information and the islamic link to Jerusalem vanishes.91.22.150.62 (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

On the small chance that you're not a troll, Zero already explained to you that the Quran doesn't say Muhammad was taken to the al-Aqsa Mosque building in Jerusalem. It says that he was taken to "the farthest mosque" or "the most remote mosque", which is what "al-Aqsa" means. "The farthest mosque" is generally interpreted to be a reference to the site of the present-day mosque building in Jerusalem. See Isra and Mi'raj#Al-Masjid al-Aqsa. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, both holding the sun still contrary to all astronomical knowledge and coming back to life contrary to all medical knowledge are more spectacular miracles than visiting a building before it was built. To argue that just of them is impossible is pretty silly, imo. Zerotalk 05:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@zero Mohammed splitting the moon into two pieces and riding back to heaven on a never seen winged horse completly out of touch with physics and evolution is impossible. Jesus rising from the death is possible, also keep in mind metaphors. The chances of visiting a building before it was built are zero percent.

@malik The article says different. "" Muslims believe that Muhammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to al-Aqsa during the Night Journey." The article deals with the mosque in Jerusalem being built in 705 AD not some random "site". Also most muslims and clerics oppose your view, clearly believing that the building finished 70 years after the death of Mohammed is meant. Also the emotional reaction in arab countries to Trump`s decision to move the embassy supports that point of view.91.22.150.62 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Muslim reverence for Jerusalem came from the traditions of Jewish and Christian tribes in Arabia. All the Abrahamic faiths elaborate a huge panoply of myths over a hectare or so of Canaanite/Jebusite soil - and each entertains unhistorical tales that stretch the imagination. To challenge the third in the series, while tacitly endorsing the equally oneiric beliefs of the two religions of which Islam was the successor faith, is to insinuate that the premises of Judaism (and Christianity) in this regard are hunky-dory, but later constructions of the same mythopoetic nature are untenable, this is just infantile bigotry, no more sophisticated than the game I played at 5-6 with my elder brother, outside a toyshop, called 'I bar that'. I.e. whatever caught your eye was yours if you shouted 'I bar that' before your rival did. We started with a toy, then that bid was trumped by my brother 'barring' the shelf on which it was poised, and then I barred the window display, only to have my brother 'bar' the shop front. So I barred the shop premises, and he barred the township, I barred the country, he barred the earth, and I barred the universe. A Cain and Abel metaphorical spiral, which, like the I/P conflict, ended by him flattening me with a punch on the nose. In short, this petulantly sectarian bickering on who has prior rights is fatuously inane and unbefitting adults. There, another fucken Sunday sermon from yours truly.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The word Masjid (Arabic: مَـسْـجِـد) literally means "Place of Prostration", not necessarily a building that is used by Muslims for worship, so there is a difference between the building that came after Muhammad's lifetime, and the concept of Al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (Arabic: ٱلْـمَـسْـجِـد الْأَقْـصَى‎, "The Farthest Place-of-Prostration"), and in the section below, something similar to this was said. Leo1pard (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of article, and etymology & definitions sections

Per: Y. Reiter (26 May 2008). Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity. Springer. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-0-230-61271-6.

...Al Aqsa mosque is the common Arab name for the entire Temple Mount, not just this mosque.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Only in very modern sources - mainly in Arabic and with a certain POV.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. Both the minimal and maximal uses have ancient pedigrees. Generally there is a distinction between the masjid (usually translated into English as "mosque"), which is the entire compound, and the jami, which is the building at the southern end. The "farthest mosque" in the Quran is interpreted almost universally as the entire compound (perhaps in recognition of the fact that the date given for the prophet's night journey was before the jami was built). Muqaddasi and some other medieval writers such as al-Wasati (before 1019), used masjid for the entire compound and other words for the building. All this discussed with sources in Guy le Strange's book, around page 96, and in other places. Of course modern usage is suffused with modern politics but Arabs don't have a monopoly on that. Zerotalk 12:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Zero. This needs to be fixed. The local muslim population simply do not use the term "Haram ash-Sharif" to refer to the compound in Jerusalem; they call the whole thing Al Aqsa.
Per Reiter above, the "modern sources" Icewhiz is referring to are actually the attempt to use the term "Haram ash-Sharif" which never caught on.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The local population, Muslim or otherwise, is irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME states that we base our titles on independent, reliable English-language sources, not on what I presume is the usage of some Arabic speakers. If reliable sources mention something different then we can include that in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
In most Arabic writings, excluding very modern polemic sources and very early Islamic writings - AL-Aqsa is the silver domed mosque, and الحرم القدسي الشريف is the entire mount - and in English this was and is always the usage.Icewhiz (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
What we need to do here is to decide what the article is about and what the article name should be. The history of the name and its varied meanings can be explained inside the article with sources. Apparently similar terminological confusions exist in Mecca and Medina. Zerotalk 03:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It would seem to me that this article is about the silver domed mosque - Al-Aqsa. Dome of the Rock is about the golden dome, Islamic Museum, Jerusalem is about the museum on the mount, Fountain of Qayt Bay is on one of the fountains, and..., and Temple Mount is about the entire compound. This seems to be a rather logical division.Icewhiz (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think Al-Aqsa should redirect here or to Temple Mount? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously here. The alternative would be a disambig (to both) - which I don't think is better. Modern Arabic usage might merit a "for" note at the top.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is already al-Aqsa (disambiguation) and Aqsa Mosque. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at:
Organizations
Events
I can't find any organization or event using the name "Al Aqsa" that is referring to the subject of this article. Something is wrong here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't use symbology (and yes - the dome of the rock is a national/islamist symbol in Israel the PA - an interesting phenomena are mosques patterned after the dome of the rock (which is actually not a mosque itself) - appearing through Israel and the PA since circa the 90s (mostly built, I believe by the Islamic movement (Israel) /Hamas (PA))) for the common name. I don't think this page being a DAG would be an improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
What I would like to say here is that though the term Ḥaram (Arabic: حَـرَم) can refer to Al-Aqsa Mosque, it can also refer to Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca,[1] and we should bear in mind that the Temple Mount, which is referred to as al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf (Arabic: ٱلْـحَـرَم الـشَّـرِيـف), is not just significant for Muslims, but also for Christians and Jews, so to refer to the whole ḥaram (Arabic: حَـرَم, complex or sanctuary) as a 'mosque' might be controversial. Leo1pard (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mustafa Abu Sway, The Holy Land, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Qur’an, Sunnah and other Islamic Literary Source (PDF), Central Conference of American Rabbis, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-28 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Al Aqsa Compound

The phrase Al Aqsa Compound is used frequently by news and scholarly works. An easy solution would be to use that as an alternative name in the first sentence at Temple Mount, then have Al Aqsa as a disambiguation between the Compound and the Mosque. Some illustrative sources below:

Scholars

1) Yitzhak Reiter

  • "This article deals with the employment of religious symbols for national identities and national narratives by using the sacred compound in Jerusalem (The Temple Mount/al-Aqsa) as a case study. The narrative of The Holy Land involves three concentric circles, each encompassing the other, with each side having its own names for each circle. These are: Palestine/Eretz Israel (i.e., the Land of Israel); Jerusalem/al-Quds and finally The Temple Mount/al-Aqsa compound...Within the struggle over public awareness of Jerusalem’s importance, one particular site is at the eye of the storm—the Temple Mount and its Western Wall—the Jewish Kotel—or, in Muslim terminology, the al-Aqsa compound (alternatively: al-Haram al-Sharif) including the al-Buraq Wall... “Al-Aqsa” for the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side is not merely a mosque mentioned in the Qur’an within the context of the Prophet Muhammad’s miraculous Night Journey to al-Aqsa which, according to tradition, concluded with his ascension to heaven (and prayer with all of the prophets and the Jewish and Christian religious figures who preceded him); rather, it also constitutes a unique symbol of identity, one around which various political objectives may be formulated, plans of action drawn up and masses mobilized for their realization."
    Narratives of Jerusalem and its Sacred Compound, Israel Studies 18(2):115-132 · July 2013

2) Annika Björkdahl and Susanne Buckley-Zistel

3) Mahdi Abdul Hadi:

  • "Al-Aqsa Mosque, also referred to as Al-Haram Ash-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary), comprises the entire area within the compound walls (a total area of 144,000 m2) - including all the mosques, prayer rooms, buildings, platforms and open courtyards located above or under the grounds - and exceeds 200 historical monuments pertaining to various Islamic eras. According to Islamic creed and jurisprudence, all these buildings and courtyards enjoy the same degree of sacredness since they are built on Al-Aqsa’s holy grounds. This sacredness is not exclusive to the physical structures allocated for prayer, like the Dome of the Rock or Al-Qibly Mosque (the mosque with the large silver dome)"
    Mahdi Abdul Hadi Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs
  • "Many people believe that the mosque depicted is called the Al-Aqsa; however, a visit to one of Palestine's most eminent intellectuals, Mahdi F. Abdul Hadi, clarified the issue. Hadi is chairman of the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, based in East Jerusalem. His offices are a treasure trove of old photographs, documents, and symbols. He was kind enough to spend several hours with me. He spread out maps of Jerusalem's Old City on a huge desk and homed in on the Al-Aqsa compound, which sits above the Western Wall. “The mosque in the Al- Aqsa [Brigades] flag is the Dome of the Rock. Everyone takes it for granted that it is the Al-Aqsa mosque, but no, the whole compound is Al-Aqsa, and on it are two mosques, the Qibla mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and on the flags of both Al-Aqsa Brigades and the Qassam Brigades, it is the Dome of the Rock shown,” he said."
    Tim Marshall (4 July 2017). A Flag Worth Dying For: The Power and Politics of National Symbols. Simon and Schuster. pp. 151–. ISBN 978-1-5011-6833-8.

Media

1) The Daily Telegraph: "Clashes broke out inside the al-Aqsa compound" (with photo of Dome of the Rock) [1]

2) USA Today: "A view of the Al-Aqsa compound (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem's Old City" [2]

3) Al Jazeera: "Israeli Deputy Minister Tzipi Hotovely referred to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound as "the centre of Israeli sovereignty, the capital of Israel"... In response, Netanyahu's office later that night put out a statement saying that "non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount [Al-Aqsa compound]" but are not permitted to pray there."" [3]

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that Al-Aqsa Compound could be used as an alternative name for the Temple Mount, without necessarily renaming the article, partly considering that Al-Aqṣā (Arabic: ٱلْاَقْـصَى) is an Arabic phrase, that we do have a Hebrew name for the ḥaram, that is Har Ha-Báyiṫ (Hebrew: הַר הַבַּיִת, "Mount of the House [of God, i.e. the Temple]", which can translate in Arabic as Jabal Al-Bayṫ (Arabic: جَـبَـل الْـبَـيْـت)), and that the English phrase "Temple Mount" is therefore WP:neutral between the different definitions of the Arabic and Hebrew names. Leo1pard (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. I have also removed the term "also known as Al-Aqṣā (Arabic: اَلْاَقْـصَى) and Bayṫ al-Maqdis (Arabic: بَـيْـت الْـمَـقْـدِس)" from the lead for this reason. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I have made the edit proposed at Temple Mount, edited the disambiguation page, and fixed the redirects to they go to the disambiguation.
What now needs to be fixed is the "definitions" section.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I have tidied up the definitions section. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lonely Planet travel guide as a reliable source concerning the existence of the Second Temple? Seriously?

Is somebody seriously using the Lonely Planet travel guide[4] as a reliable source concerning the existence of the Second Temple? Can no better source be found? Isn't no source better than a crappy source? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Travel guides tend to be terrible sources for history, with a small number of exceptions written by historical experts (such as Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's "The Holy Land"). Although LPG is a better than average guide for tourists, it is far below the bar for history. I removed it. Zerotalk 11:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

Change the following lines:

The rectangular al-Aqsa Mosque and its precincts are 144,000 square meters (1,550,000 sq ft), although the mosque itself is about 35,000 square meters (380,000 sq ft) and could hold up to 5,000 worshipers.[1] It is 83 m (272 ft) long, 56 m (184 ft) wide.[1] Unlike the Dome of the Rock, which reflects classical Byzantine architecture, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is characteristic of early Islamic architecture.[2]

To:

The rectangular al-Aqsa Mosque and its precincts are 144,000 square meters (1,550,000 sq ft), although the mosque itself is about 4,650 square meters (50,100 sq ft) and could hold up to 5,000 worshipers.[1] It is 83 m (272 ft) long, 56 m (184 ft) wide.[1] Unlike the Dome of the Rock, which reflects classical Byzantine architecture, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is characteristic of early Islamic architecture.[3]

Justification:

As written the area is inconsistent with the dimensions. Other sources, such as from the Turkish government http://www.tika.gov.tr/upload/2016/INGILIZCE%20SITE%20ESERLER/TANITIM%20BRO%C5%9E%C3%9CRLER%C4%B0/PDF/Haram-Ash-sharief-Final-En_2013.pdf page 10) have similar dimensions (e.g. 80x55m). Alpheus100 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference LHL was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Gonen, 2003, p. 95.
  3. ^ Gonen, 2003, p. 95.
 Done. The cited source states 50,000 sqft, so I went with that measurement and converted back to sqm from there. For the record, it looks like this information has been incorrect in the article since it was added almost ten years ago. The original editor who added this information mistakenly read the source as 50,000 square meters, then shortly thereafter did some fractional conversion that left it at 0.035 square kilometers, and eventually changed to 35,000 square meters, where it stayed until today. Thanks for finding this and pointing it out! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is: Al-Aqsa equal to: 'Halakha'

Halakha and Al-Aqsa sound very similar. Any comment or info? Thanks. Gesund +

If you are referring to the Hebrew Halakha - no connection AFAICT (well - with the exception of Jewish influence on Islam, and the small portions of Halakha referring specifically to the temple). They also do not sound similar at all (there is perhaps a morphological similarity in English letters, but pronunciation is completely different). הלכה (Halakha) is derived from "walking" or "path". الْأَقْصَى (Al-Aqsa) is derived from edge or farthest. Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fire in 2019?

Did the Al-Aqsa Mosque burn in April 2019? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bender235, DePiep, Xezbeth, Dimadick, Onceinawhile, BronHiggs, and ElHef: Yes the Al-Aqsa Mosque did have a fire on April 15th. The article is currently protected from edits so I will ping possible editors and supply some sources.

[1] [2][3] Houdinipeter (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not precise. There was a small fire, quickly put out, in the guard room next to Solomon's stables - which is near the mosque.[5] Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ EDT, Tom O'Connor On 4/15/19 at 4:58 PM (2019-04-15). "Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque burns at the same time as fire engulfs Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris". Newsweek. Retrieved 2019-04-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Arab, The New. "Al-Aqsa mosque catches fire as Notre-Dame cathedral burns". alaraby. Retrieved 2019-04-16.
  3. ^ "Fire breaks out near mosque on Temple Mount - OMG - Jerusalem Post". www.jpost.com. Retrieved 2019-04-16.

Third holiest site in Islam

We say the mosque (narrow definition) is the "Third holiest site in Islam". We also say that the whole compound is the "Third holiest site in Islam" in the lede of Temple Mount.

So which is it - the compound or the specific mosque building?

I think it's very likely to be the compound as a whole, not just this specific mosque, given Dome_of_the_Rock#Religious_significance.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The "third holiest" is actually a bit dubious (for starters - Sunni Islam, but even within Sunni Islam - there are differing views, however going into this is complicated, though I think we should try to limit this to Sunni) - the body "tend to classify" is more accurate than the present lede "is the". Your thoughts, and questions of whether the entire compound is a mosque or not (a very modern, and very political notion) aside - texts tend to refer to the mosque - e.g. this hadith.Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you Jewish? what you wrote is absolutely wrong. we as Muslims Consider the whole place as the the holy place, so do not lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by الرشيد (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Golden-domed mosque

Al-Aqsa is not silver but golden-domed mosque.--BosnianWikiS (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa vs Al-Qibli Chapel

We should know that Muslims believe that Al-Aqsa consists of The Dome of the Rock and Al-Qibli Chapel, so they are two parts of the same thing, every thing inside the siege is considered as a part of Al-Aqsa; which is around 144,000 square meters. what I want to say is that If anyone try to write about this topic, s/he should keep in mind this difference between the two things; because I have observed that pictures of Al-Qibli Chapel are used to refer to the whole place and Al-Qibli Chapel is used as a redirect to Al-Aqsa, which made the topic to be confused.هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@هارون الرشيد العربي: the current arrangement follows the discussion above: #Name_of_article,_and_etymology_&_definitions_sections
If you have further sources which would help clear this up, please bring them here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
You can take a look on the Arabic link to this article (which should be the link, المسجد الأقصى), there is a lot of references like[1] , and you can surface the website Islam Story, it is useful. and this pic [File:Al-Aqsa Mosque distance.jpg] on Commons هارون الرشيد العربي (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ في رحاب المسجد الأقصى Archived 2017-08-22 at the Wayback Machine

I second that the naming is wrong and misinformed. The Aqsa mosque is all of the area which includes the Dome of the Rock, the Qibli Chapel, and other chapels and rooms. This misinformation must be corrected applying Wiki rules and guides. Ahmad Massalha (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Please write prophet mohammad instead of just mohammad. 2401:4900:46AA:8172:88DE:3FAD:E97:767E (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

we generally dont add honorifics in our articles. nableezy - 17:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque/Archive_4&oldid=1102545731"